Penk Chris; Hipkins ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. On this part as in the first part I don't have very much to contribute—some members might ungenerously say that's always the case but I don't even intend to take very long doing it. For what it's worth I just hesitate to interrupt a difference of opinion between Labour and Greens; a bit like State of Origin rugby league you sort of almost hope that they both lose! But actually I do have some sympathy with where the Minister's landed on that as compared with the more ambitious approach. And I do understand the point that our Green colleague Jan Logie has made but I think it would be an error to make a perfect enemy of the good and the legislation is worthwhile as far as it goes. So it would be helpful I think for us to pass this piece of law and then it may be that there are lessons to be learnt out of its operation that could be applied to the second of two such bills applying maybe more broadly and certainly into that private sector realm.My questions in relation to Part 2 are just to ensure that I understand—for my own sake truth be told but also for the sake of the record I think it might be helpful in future for those wanting to understand the scope of the bill as the Minister and therefore the Government intends in relation to the idea of serious wrongdoing. So we've got a number of different kinds of behaviour that are characterised as serious wrongdoing and that's in clause 10. One is a serious risk to public health or public safety. I just want to test with the Minister the idea that that shouldn't preclude individual health or safety as being effectively protected and I understand that that's covered elsewhere in the bill.And also just to sort of get into the notion of a right to a fair trial. So the context is that—[Clears throat] 'scuse me; probably COVID!—serious wrongdoing includes any act or omission that is one or more of the following and one of those is a serious risk to the maintenance of law including … the right to a fair trial". I just want to put on record that I think it would be helpful for us to understand that the right to a fair hearing at a tribunal would be considered as falling under that definition of a right to a fair trial. Often at times we will talk about "trial" in the context of courts as opposed to tribunals and specifically in the criminal realm but I think for a person to have the opportunity to seek justice more generally it would be helpful and perhaps the idea that—my proposal at least is that the right to a fair trial not be construed in too narrow a fashion as to preclude those other ways that a person can come in front of a decision maker to seek justice.The other aspect to my question—I'll just see if I can fit them in effectively in the same contribution—is about the acknowledgment that is made with the discloser's entitlement to protection. This is clause 11. This really goes to the heart of the purpose of the legislation. Of course we're talking about protecting disclosures and protecting disclosers—those who blow the whistle and also the whole idea of protecting for the sake of the system or the community more generally—the pointing out of wrongdoing or bad behaviour and so forth. So in subclause (4) of clause 11 we've got the note there that the "discloser is entitled to protection even if … they are mistaken and there is no serious wrongdoing". I just want to highlight that I think it's important for everyone to understand that a person can blow the whistle thinking that they are doing the right thing and that they're pointing out some great flaw that might cost life or limb and I think I'm right in saying that if they do that with a reasonable or an honest belief that there is serious wrongdoing notwithstanding that they're mistaken then that would protect them from the consequence of otherwise mistakenly blowing the whistle be that in relation to defamation or a breach of contractual obligation to maintain confidence and so on.So those were my questions/comments and any response that the Minister may have as always will be gratefully received.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for the Public Service): Very briefly: I think in terms of the right to a fair trial I'd expect that that's interpreted in a broad sense rather than a narrow sense of just the courts.In terms of the member's comment about—clause 11(4)(a)—"they are mistaken and there is no serious wrongdoing" I think this really cuts to the heart of one of the reasons why we're here which is that under the current law the threshold is set too high and people believe that if they've got good grounds to believe something but they don't necessarily have complete proof then they won't make a protected disclosure because the threshold for that is too high. So let's be really clear about this: this definition does lower that threshold which means that if you think you know it better to disclose it and then if it subsequently turns out that you were wrong then you'd still be protected if you went into that in good faith."