Fenton Darien: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2206] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am really pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This is an important bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government. In fact it is so important that I see it still has the Hon David Parker’s name on it. It builds on the Protected Disclosures Act which was also introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2001. The bill was considered in the last Parliament by the Government Administration Committee of which I was deputy chair and I think the committee did an excellent job. 
It is pleasing to see that this bill has not been discharged by the National Government unlike some other important legislation. One such bill that was particularly close to my heart was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 3) which would have given temporary and casual workers both in the State and in the private sector much more certainty and security in these very difficult times. I am relieved that the bill has survived the appalling denigration of public sector workers that we are seeing from this National Government. In its lexicon front-line workers means good workers and workers behind the front line are bureaucrats who in other words have jobs that are useless pointless and wasteful. The worker is often described as lazy bloated and dispensable. 
It must be awful to work in the State sector at the moment. There is nothing worse than having one’s job devalued having one’s work constantly criticised and living under the threat of the knife day after day after day. I feel for State sector workers and indeed I meet many of them as I go about my parliamentary duties and family responsibilities. I cannot imagine life without the clerical workers in hospitals for example who help us through the maze of public hospitals when a family member is in hospital. I cannot imagine life without the workers who help each of us here in Parliament like those who work as our executive assistants and those who work in our offices outside of Parliament. Are they bureaucrats or are they front-line staff? Who knows? It does not really matter to me because they do important work and we rely on them. I would love to see National Party MPs telling their executive assistants that they are bureaucrats and therefore valueless and useless and to see how far they get in their day’s work. The National Government unfortunately is currently responsible for the demoralisation of State sector workers—the very workers it will need help and cooperation from as the economic crisis grows and New Zealanders expect more assistance from this Government. 
 As previous speakers have said this bill amends the Protected Disclosures Act which facilitates the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing within both public and private sector organisations and protects those who bring that information forward in accordance with procedures under the Act. 
John Hayes 
: Just table your speech Darien. We can read it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I beg your pardon? 
Moana Mackey 
: Maybe the Prime Minister could have tabled the answers to his questions today. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is a good idea; the member is right. 
The need for the Act arose after 10 years of a National Government in a climate of fear in the public sector during the 1990s. There was the well-known story of Neil Pugmire a nurse at Lake Alice Hospital who expressed concern to his employer—which was then known by the ridiculous name of Good Health Wanganui; members will remember that name and how crazy that was—over the release of dangerous psychiatric patients into the community. When he got no satisfactory response he went public about his concerns. He was suspended and then fired. This led to much public debate about the importance of public servants being able to speak out about abuses or corruption that they see in their workplaces. 
Unfortunately I think that the climate of fear is reasserting itself in the Public Service. We have signs that this National Government will not tolerate dissenting views from public servants. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. The National Government is seeking to control even the very words that public servants use. There are bizarre examples. I have heard that NZAID staff have been told that any reports or papers written for Minister Murray McCully cannot include the words “poverty alleviation” “human rights” or “gender” in case they upset the Minister. There are other stories about stupid instructions from Ministers in relation to State sector staff about words that will not find favour—for example “social justice”. 
Moana Mackey 
: Public health! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: “Public health”! These kinds of directions are quite scary and when a Government seeks to direct or limit the very language of public sector workers we are heading down a very dangerous path. 
Then we have the strange circumstances of Dr Nick Smith seeking to muzzle the chief executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in the recent select committee debacle. That was after he muzzled the chair and the entire ACC board. Tony Ryall is pretending that if he dumps pay equity investigations then the problem does not exist. Soon we will not be able to use the words “pay equity” and women will just have to put up with being paid less than men for doing work of equal value. 
This Government is muzzling the State sector. It is shutting down dissenting views and it is shutting down debate. The National Government’s old prejudices are emerging. 
In speaking about disclosures let me ask about the interesting disclosure in the  
New Zealand Herald  
yesterday that New Zealanders are being asked whether the Government should allow nuclear-powered ships back into our waters. Workers for a market research company have disclosed that they have been polling voters about nuclear power. They claim that the survey was being carried out for the National Party. The original Act did require a review as other speakers have referred to and this was carried out by Mary Scholtens QC. It was an excellent report and she concluded that the Act had not been used a great deal and that it had not always been used well. That was of concern to the select committee and of concern to me. She identified that there were problems in the uptake of the rights of this bill and that many workers did not know about protected disclosures. She also said there were delays inconsistencies and other difficulties in using the legislative procedures properly. 
The report also highlighted that there was a strong perception among workers consulted on the Act that the identity of a whistle-blowing employee would not be protected. That perception goes to the heart of the effective operation of this Act and this bill. Without protection for those who set out to disclose wrongdoing in their organisation the confidence of workers is diminished. Ms Scholtens’ review concluded that the Ombudsman could assist whistleblowers coordinate referrals between appropriate authorities and guide and review the Act’s operation. The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill gives the Ombudsman that enhanced role. It also picks up on a number of other recommendations designed to improve the Act’s protection and processes. 
The right of public sector workers to speak freely about their concerns will be severely limited by the current approach of this National Government. Which public servants in their right minds would be courageous enough to challenge their bosses in this kind of environment? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Down the road. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Absolutely. So many jobs are on the line there is so much uncertainty and the very work that workers do has been denigrated and maligned for month upon month both before and after the election campaign. The Government’s approach is highly dangerous not only to State sector workers but to the reputation of our Public Service. It also endangers our consistently good rating on the annual survey of Transparency International as a corruption-free country. 
In the current environment with National’s razor-gang approach—it is a razor gang on the march—this legislation is more important that ever. Unfortunately the National-led Government is destroying the goodwill of public sector workers let alone other workers. National members think they can get away with attacking young workers and vulnerable workers with the 90-day bill. They think they can risk alienating temporary and casual workers by dumping the bill that would have given them protection. They think they can denigrate the accident compensation scheme and fool the public into believing that privatisation and reductions in services are acceptable. They think they can ignore the State by refusing to provide alternatives such as the 9-day working fortnight for struggling departments and workers losing their jobs. Well I am here to tell National that its Government may be able to fool some of the people some of the time but it cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Thank you.