Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It's a pleasure to take a call in support of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill and its referral to select committee. One of the most precious parts of this country we share is that we are a country that is largely—not totally; largely—free of corruption. And what we need to continuously do as a Parliament is ensure that we are adopting best practice in continuing to protect our country in that regard. If you look at the things that make New Zealand have a competitive advantage for investment being an attractive country for people to both travel to and to employ and be an entrepreneur—to live all those things—that culture of being a country in which there is a low tolerance for corruption misuse of public money and those things is really critical.We also should reflect on the history in which the original 2000 Act was brought into law. There was significant concern in the 1990s that staff members that worked in institutions in the mental health sector—where patients that posed a very real risk to the public were inappropriately being released into the public—felt that they could not disclose such information without being in breach of both their employment obligations and others. There was great hope if you reflect on the parliamentary debate in 2000 when the original Act was passed. When I read the State Services Commission review of that legislation I was surprised by how infrequently the mechanisms of that 2000 law have been used. I think the issues that are addressed in that review and subsequently in this bill are part of it but I also think one of the issues is that very few people are actually aware that such a law exists and that there are legal protections for people who make such disclosures.Now the first thing we've got to try and get right is where that threshold is for a wrongdoing to be of sufficient moment to justify breaking the normal legal conventions of people's responsibilities and lives. It's important that we frame that correctly because what we don't want to do is create a legal framework where someone that's got a snitcher or a beef or something else within the organisation where they work can misuse these sorts of legal mechanisms and so that definition is important. I think it's equally appropriate that we have a debate about the extent to which this legislation applies to those in the private sector as well as the public sector. Because the public sector is funded by taxes there is an extra obligation to make sure that those public moneys are appropriately expended but equally we can all think of examples in large corporate organisations where there can be wrongdoing of which there needs to be a mechanism to resolve.The other part that we need to focus on within this law is how far the protections go. How far do we protect people that may act in bad faith with a disclosure people that may have ill motivation? How do you try and get that balance right between a regime that will genuinely help New Zealand flush out wrongdoing fraud or corrupt activities while at the same time not creating a mechanism that can be misused or that adds a level of uncertainty for those people in those organisations that it covers?So National supports the bill's introduction. We support its referral to the select committee. We really do ask for New Zealanders who have a passion about New Zealand retaining—and I'm very proud that when the John Key - Bill English Government left New Zealand was ranked No. 1 in the world as the least corrupt country in the world. That is something we must jealously guard. Improvements in this law can help us do that but it is one of those issues where the detail matters. And that's where National will be deeply engaged in the select committee process to ensure that we get the detail and the balance of this law right.