Robertson Grant: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2791] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is an honour to follow on from Mr Williamson who has been known to make the odd disclosure from time to time. I am sure he appreciates the spirit behind the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This legislation was brought in by the previous Labour Government and we are very pleased that the National Government has picked it up in the absence of any new ideas from that side of the House. 
We remind ourselves too that the original Protected Disclosures Act was brought in by Labour in 2000. It followed a period of time in the 1990s when there were concerns about the ability of people in the public sector—and also in the wider private sector—to be able to blow the whistle when they saw serious wrongdoing. We think of the case of Neil Pugmire and Lake Alice Hospital which was obviously a very difficult time. The original Act was brought in to make sure that people could make those kinds of disclosures without fear of anything untoward happening to them. But as with much new legislation the Act needed to be reviewed and Labour reviewed it after it had been operating for a couple of years. As Mr Williamson said the Act did not lead to the number of disclosures that people thought it would. It became clear after the investigation that was undertaken by Mary Scholtens that this was an Act that people were unaware of. They did not know the processes for how they could make a complaint under the Act. In fact generally it was not operating as well as people would have liked. So these amendments in the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill are the result of that review. 
The bill essentially addresses three issues. The first issue is the lack of good or accurate information about the Protected Disclosures Act. New section 6B inserted by clause 6 deals with this issue so the Ombudsmen are now empowered to provide information and guidance to employees about their rights. That is very important. Not everybody knows what they are allowed to do in terms of blowing the whistle particularly when there are people working at different levels of an organisation who may never get to see the internal procedures that are around in that organisation. In hospitals or district health boards there are a lot of different people in those organisations at different levels. This bill will enable the Ombudsmen to provide guidance and that will do two things: it will weed out some complaints that perhaps should not be taken under the Protected Disclosures Act but it may also shed light on those complaints that would not have had light shed on them were it not for a guiding hand. So that is an important role for the Office of the Ombudsmen and I am glad that better information will now be provided to those who wish to complain. 
The Ombudsmen now have an obligation to report on disclosures under this Act in its annual report each year from now on. That is important too because it means that the public at large will have some idea of how many disclosures are being made and the extent to which any further changes might be required to the Act. So the office has an enhanced role there. It also has an enhanced role in terms of making sure that the public sector itself is working through this Act appropriately. For instance the Office of the Ombudsmen can request the internal procedures of an agency or department and make sure it is meeting those procedures. The Ombudsmen can support the development of procedures if that is necessary to make sure that whistleblowers have good procedures that they can work under. 
But perhaps the two most significant things that the Ombudsmen can do are review and guide specific investigations and ensure that investigations can be taken over if that is necessary. That is quite a large extension of the role of the Ombudsmen but it is known that from time to time departments will shuffle around complaints—complaints that perhaps cut to the heart of some of the business of those agencies—and there will be delays that are unacceptable for members of the public at large and also for those who are complaining. So sections 15A and 15B inserted by clause 8 enable the Ombudsmen to take over an investigation in certain circumstances. 
I think it is important to go back to the original Act to see what those circumstances might be. Those circumstances are firstly where an organisation has simply decided not to investigate a matter and the Ombudsmen believe that it should be investigated; secondly where the investigation has not taken place within a reasonable time after the disclosure was made; or thirdly if the investigation has simply not taken up a specific matter within the complaint that the Ombudsmen believe should to taken up. That is a very necessary protection because from time to time organisations will perhaps try to sweep things under the carpet and we need to make sure that the Ombudsmen have those powers. 
All of that represents a considerable extension in the powers of the Ombudsmen and in the Committee stage of the debate I raised the issue with Government members of whether the Office of the Ombudsmen would be sufficiently resourced in order to take on those additional roles. It would be fair to say that what we have seen from the National Government over the past few months is a series of cuts into the Public Service and into agencies that we would normally think the National Government would not be interested in cutting into. The Inland Revenue Department is a good example. It is similar to the Office of the Ombudsmen playing a very critical role in our Government system yet the National Government has decided to cut 250 jobs out of that department. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I thought it wasn’t cutting any jobs? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No that is the situation. National said it was just a cap on numbers but in fact it is a cut in that case. On this side of the House we are looking for an assurance that the Office of the Ombudsmen will be sufficiently resourced to undertake those additional roles. Both sides of the House acknowledge that those are important roles and we need to ensure that the Ombudsmen have those resources. I have little confidence that the National Government will provide those resources and some fear that in fact there will be cuts in offices like the Office of the Ombudsmen over time. I would hate to see that happen and the Act would not be able to operate in the way it is envisaged if those resources were not there. 
The other critical aspect of the bill is the extension of the definitions of who comes under the Act. Essentially the definition adds in those people who are volunteers in an organisation. The bill captures people who for instance are members of boards such as district health boards. In the Committee stage last night there was a long debate which was introduced by Jacqui Dean about the Otago District Health Board and the situation where clearly there was some serious wrongdoing and unfortunately the person was able to get away with it for a long time. Then the person who was informed and who was able to deal with the problem and ensure that things got back on track—the chair of the board Richard Thomson—was sacked. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What for? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well that is a very good question. What was he sacked for? Tony Ryall who is the Minister in charge of this bill—although we have not heard him speak on it throughout this debate—sacked the chair for essentially political reasons. That is what it was; it was for political reasons. That is not exactly an analogous situation but in time there will be a need for people who are members of boards to be able to disclose—particularly given a Minister who seems intent on stamping his political agenda all over the important policy area of health. There will be people involved in the health sector who want to make sure that they have the ability to have their voice heard if they see wrongdoing and that they will not be removed—sacked from a board—as Tony Ryall has done. They want to have the confidence that they are protected to make those kinds of disclosures. I do not have confidence that without this Act the National Government would protect people in that situation. 
The other extension in this bill in the definition of who is covered is a widening of the definition of “public official”. So “public official” now means anybody working in a public sector organisation. Once again we can see why an extension like this is needed. We have already seen Murray McCully Minister of Foreign Affairs attack the actions of an independent official—Joris de Bres Race Relations Commissioner—because Mr de Bres went of his own accord to Geneva to the United Nations racism conference and spoke out there as he should as an independent person only to be bullied by Mr McCully and to be accused of all manner of things. Unfortunately the public of New Zealand were left believing that perhaps Mr McCully did not realise or appreciate the independence of that position. So it is a good thing that this bill extends the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act to people who work in the wider public sector organisations because I have no doubt that with the agenda of the National Government to slash and burn its way through the Public Service many people will seek to blow the whistle. This bill and this Act will protect them in doing that and that is a good thing. Labour supports this bill.