Hutchison Paul: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2730] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Indeed Part 1 which we are talking about is the substantial part. As stated in the commentary “The bill will give the Ombudsmen a larger guiding reviewing and investigating role in relation to disclosures of serious wrongdoing with the Office of the Ombudsmen facilitating a collaborative cross-agency approach.” 
It is very important to realise the genesis of this bill of how it came about. It amends the 2007 amendment Act which amended the original Protected Disclosures Act of 2000. I acknowledge here the work of Mary Scholtens QC in reviewing the original Act in 2003; she pointed out that there was limited information available about how the Act was working at the time. I might say that by 2006 only eight cases had been brought under the Act into the public arena and this is probably part of the reason why it needs modifying now. Mary Scholtens said it appeared that the Act had had only limited use that some of that use had been inappropriate and that no significant issues were raised by the major employer or employee groups. She went on to say however that a number of important themes had emerged and that it was unlikely the identity of a person making a protected disclosure would remain confidential. That of course is of extreme concern. She also said: “It appears to me that where the provisions of the Act have been incorporated into an organisation’s culture of risk management and at institutions relating to appropriate ethical conduct the procedures worked well.” 
It seems rather rich that the previous speaker Grant Robertson from the Labour Party suggested that— 
Simon Bridges 
: He’s not rich. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No maybe not—he is a humble man indeed. The part about it that is rich is the fact that the Labour Government spent so long in getting on to doing something about this issue. Here they were with the Public Disclosures Act in 2000 and the review in 2003 yet it was not until 2007 that this amendment bill was actually brought into the House under the Labour Government. 
Hon David Parker 
: It was a serious bill—a bill that needed serious thought. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well we hear the Hon David Parker opposite but this is a classic example of the languid lazy Labour Government taking months—years—before it finally gets around to bringing important legislation into the House. This is a classic example. There the bill languished from 2007 and right through 2008. Fortunately the new National Government which is absolutely out to make a difference has taken the bill up with alacrity. Here it is today and it is a great pleasure to be speaking on it. 
The National Government does indeed support this very important amendment bill. We expect that with the better tools provided by this amendment bill Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner and will be able to hold the Government to account. 
It was during the time of the previous Labour Government of course that there was the shocking situation in Hawke’s Bay where Mrs Deborah Houston was unable to successfully raise her case of whistleblowing without being identified. She was acutely aware of the importance of getting this disclosure legislation right and I guess that this is one of the reasons why it has come before us this evening. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; it requires the ongoing operational improvements that are absolutely at the essence of the functioning of this bill. There is no doubt that silence is not in the public interest. The very fact that there were only eight cases until 2006 is a stark reminder of how the previous legislation was just not working.