Upston Louise: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Upston Louise: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2212] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Today I want to focus on the issue at hand and not waste time unlike some of the members opposite. Last week we heard Mr Grant Robertson talk about a whole range of irrelevant areas rather than focus on the topic being discussed. National has delivered this quickly after all the other results it has achieved in the first 100 days so I am pleased to stand to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in the second reading. 
National recognises the need to protect those who wish to speak out in the best interests of New Zealand. We need to recognise that whistle-blowing comes with some risk to employees. We also know that silence is not in the public interest. I want to address a comment that Ms Fenton raised around the possibility that the current Government might want to stifle freedom of speech. I remind the House of legislation passed by the then Labour Government called the Electoral Finance Act. That Act did everything it could to avoid members of the New Zealand public having their say. The National Government is proud to support freedom of speech. I want to talk about the original intention or objective of the initial Protected Disclosures Act 2000. 
Darien Fenton 
: Passed by the Labour Government. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Absolutely it was passed by that Government and National is proud to make sure that the Act works as it was intended to. That is why we are bringing this amendment to the House. 
The Act was intended to operate by facilitating the disclosure of serious wrongdoing facilitating the investigation of that serious wrongdoing and protecting employees who make disclosures under the Act. The Act also provided for a review to be made of its operation no sooner than 2 years after the commencement. That 2003 review appears to be comprehensive comprising of around 90 pages. That review was in 2003 so I am not quite sure what happened in the intervening years; it has taken 4 years for that bill to come to the House and the results—or at least some of them—were introduced last year by the then Labour Government. It took 4 years. In contrast to the previous Government—and I am not quite sure what it focused on—National has not wasted any time in picking up this bill and taking it forward to this second reading. 
As my colleagues Jacqui Dean and John Hayes have stated earlier today this bill gives effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Act. The review found delays and inconsistencies around the legislative processes of the Act some confusion about definitions and a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. Of course it is incredibly important that those who have information to disclose are adequately protected. The bill provides additional powers for the Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations and to coordinate cross-agency activity. The bill widens definitions of “public official” and “employee” for the purposes of the Act and extends access to the Act and—more importantly—its protections to include board members and volunteers. National recognises the important work that volunteers undertake and we recognise that those in unpaid work need to be equally protected in terms of disclosures. It allows whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe on reasonable grounds that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing even if this belief is found to be mistaken. It recognises that mistakes can occasionally occur but we would much rather that people feel confident in their ability to be protected while disclosing important information even if on the odd occasion they are mistaken. 
Two further amendments were made to the bill on the basis of the Government Administration Committee’s recommendations. One is the insertion of section 6C(2). It specifically excludes private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about an organisation’s internal procedures. The other amendment is to section 15E. It includes section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act which is the section relating to offences under the Act. It makes it an offence to refuse to provide an Ombudsman with the specified information. 
When looking at the 2003 review the committee found that there were no fundamental problems with the Act’s substance but that the roles and processes could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available to people proposing to make disclosure. One important thing is that if there are steps that can be taken to make it easier for people to disclose then it might encourage more people to take that opportunity. That is why it is really important that these processes are simplified and rather than sit on our hands for 4 years this Government is taking action in the second reading of this bill. The bill improves aspects of the Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations and it will make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. We want to make sure that organisations that investigate whistleblowers’ information find the process easier than it currently is. 
National supports the broad approach of the Protected Disclosures Act and supports any efforts to improve its operation and administration. National expects that with the better tools available through this amendment bill Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner in holding the Government to account. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; ongoing operational improvements are also important. We recognise that any time a law is changed there are important changes to processes that then make that legal change relevant. We recognise that silence is not in the public interest. We want the public to have confidence in the process of making a protected disclosure. 
I stand before members thrilled to support both the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and the Minister of State Services the Hon Tony Ryall. This bill improves aspects of the Protected Disclosures Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations and it will make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. I commend this bill to the House.