Dunne Peter: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12575] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 That inflammatory speech would be one of the most disgusting embittered divisive and downright irrelevant speeches I have heard in this House in a long time and it ill becomes the dignity of the member Hone Harawira and this House to behave in that manner on a matter of this type. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you ask the speaker to stick to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just rule on that. The member is trifling with the Chair. The member was speaking to the bill and that is not a point of order. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I intend to waste no more time on the member because frankly he does not deserve it. 
Hone Harawira 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member about raising points of order that are not points of order. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you just clarify why that was not a point of order please. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As the member knows the member speaking is entitled to respond to the previous speech. He is just going to continue with his speech. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker— 
Hone Harawira 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on that point of order. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take personal offence at the comments made by the speaker and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Speaking to the point of order I like the rest of New Zealand take personal offence at many of the comments made in the speech preceding mine so I think we are about even. 
Hone Harawira 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I am going to rule on this point of order. The member is really trifling with the Chair. I do not accept his point of order. I ask the Hon Peter Dunne to please continue. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I want to indicate that United Future supports the introduction of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. The bill amends the original legislation which was passed in 2000. If one goes back a few years one notes that it is a little ironic that we now legitimate the practice of protected disclosure because many years ago—in fact up until the time of the incidents that led to the 2000 legislation—this was an activity that not only was frowned upon by officialdom but was actively sanctioned against. 
I can recall when as a young public servant in the Department of Trade and Industry in the late 1970s it was clear that significant abuses were occurring with the then import licensing scheme and a source within the department was drawing those abuses to the attention of a national newspaper. All of us who were involved in working in that section were lined up not once but several times by the permanent head and challenged as to who was the source of this outlandish behaviour—behaviour that ultimately led to the individuals concerned being tried in court for fraud. The official attitude at that time was that anyone who sought to draw attention to the fact that wrongdoing was occurring was not to be protected let alone applauded but was to be hunted down closed down and shut up. So it is somewhat ironic that 30 years later we now pass legislation that protects the person who makes information available in that circumstance. As the Minister said it is progress; it is a recognition of the fact that there are times when one has to draw a line and ensure that information that would otherwise be withheld is made public in the wider public interest. 
This bill refines and changes some of the provisions contained in the original Act—which if my memory serves me correctly arose out of the disclosure of certain information relating to the practice of Lake Alice Hospital just west of Palmerston North—and therefore brings the practice that has emerged since the year 2000 and the passage of the original bill more into line with contemporary arrangements. That is a good step. I do not want to see us go to the point where the rule of law—for want of a better term—is totally subverted in the interests of all disclosure that occurs; but where there is a legitimate case for what has become known as whistle-blowing to have occurred then the whistleblower or those who assist the whistleblower are entitled to some protection and that is what this bill seeks to provide. 
When the bill gets to the select committee a number of people will want to make submissions upon the more technical nature of its provisions to ensure that the protections being advanced are in fact adequate for the purpose for which the legislation has been drafted and that is entirely as it should be. But in this day and age one can hardly object to the practice of disclosure that occurs in such circumstances. There is a proud history. This really developed I guess in the international environment right since the time of Watergate and Deep Throat of disclosure being made where a person in a position of some trust deems it to be in the public interest to make that disclosure. We have come to accept throughout Western society that in such circumstances those whistleblowers deserve protection rather than harassment. They deserve encouragement in the quietest sense rather than a penalty for their activity. This legislation with its parent Act is the way in which we regulate that environment in New Zealand. 
So with those few words I am happy to support the bill and I await the outcome of its consideration by the select committee.