Woodhouse Michael: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2739] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise and take a call in the Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I want to focus in particular on Part 1 but before I do that I will just take a broader perspective on the reasons for the amendments as contained in Part 1. The amendments in Part 1 to the principal Act the Protected Disclosures Act are intended to provide some improvements to the original legislation. 
As we know the original Act was passed by the previous Labour Government in 2000. At that time the person who precipitated that legislation was a fellow by the name of Neil Pugmire as the previous speaker Sue Moroney has said. Mr Pugmire was a nurse at Lake Alice Hospital. He expressed concern to management over the release of dangerous psychiatric patients into the community. He was suspended and later dismissed for his actions. It is very interesting to think that the person who precipitated the legislation Mr Neil Pugmire stated in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 in December 2000 that even the new law passed then would not be enough to protect employee whistleblowers from having their careers tainted. So it was pretty clear right from the outset that there were some flaws in the legislation that the Labour Government passed and a review was commenced by that same Government in 2003. 
The very eminent Queen’s Counsel Mary Scholtens conducted a considered and thoughtful review that highlighted the need for improvements. That review was 6 years ago. It has taken 6 years to take the very good ideas that Ms Scholtens’ review highlighted draft them into the bill introduce it to the House send it to the Government Administration Committee have the committee report back to the House and come to the position that we are in now—6 long years. Such is the importance that the languishing lazy languid long out-of-touch Labour Government placed on that amendment. 
Frankly I am amazed that the Labour Opposition should raise the issues surrounding the $17.8 million fraud at the Otago District Health Board in the context of this debate. The fraud was described in the House as the single largest employee fraud in State sector history. I am advised that not only was it the single largest fraud in State sector history but also it was the single largest employee fraud in any organisation at any time in this country. So the Labour Opposition is using to make a point a case where during the 5 long years of the single biggest employee fraud in this country no one blew the whistle. Not only that but also it appears that many people were asleep with the whistles in their mouths. 
As we know the genesis of this legislation came out of the health care setting. In that context many health employees are required to raise issues of considerable patient concern and quite rightly they need to be able to do that in an environment where they can be protected from the consequences of doing so. I think we have seen in society a move towards that framework. We have a number of pieces of legislation that do that not the least of which is the Health and Disability Commissioner Act. 
I will also touch on a couple of other examples where in a health care setting people have been required to blow the whistle at their peril. A general practitioner in Southland was contacted by the police in 1995 and asked whether he believed his patient should hold a firearms licence. The reply from the doctor was a brief note saying that he did not think so. Three things happened subsequently. The person did not get his firearms licence but the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee formally censured the doctor for breaching privacy. The fellow who was the subject of the application went on to be jailed for 2 years on a charge that was scaled down from attempted murder to one of causing grievous bodily harm. There are a number of other examples where people have in the best interests of the people they advocate for raised issues and been punished for them. 
I think the intent of the Act as it was passed is a very good one. These amendments need to be made to improve that legislation. I look forward to that happening.