O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh very good Mr Speaker. Look delighted to take a call and thank you to the whip as well. The hubbub is one thing a mask is another which makes communicating important. And I think that is even more important as we just talk about protecting whistleblowers. Not that I have anything particularly controversial or insightful to share here today but I do have a voice. I do have a voice and I'm very very pleased that that was not protected excluded removed or otherwise.Look this is a bill that National is happy to support. Many of my colleagues have traversed well and truly the reasons why we support it. Look fundamentally the law is out of date. It's not completely out of purpose it still remains—the older legislation that is—somewhat fit for purpose. But as we know particularly as we get older one needs to work a little bit harder at things. And so this Government tidying up the bill making it fitter stronger more relevant more modern is a very very positive move.Look what it's going to enable is—across various sectors in society including the public sector but not exclusively—a much simpler way of engaging around what we term whistleblowing. Now let's be really clear the law is not going to allow I think fortunately vexatious ongoing—I suppose that's a tautology. It's not going to enable continuous campaigning for the sake of it. I know there's been various debates in the House as the law has progressed to whether or not it should be much much broader in scope and the flexibility of who can speak and what they can say but I think again on this side of the House we're relatively happy where the law has landed. Fundamentally that's to allow someone who has serious concerns about the conduct within their workplace or a piece of policy or otherwise to raise that safely. So that's the first I suppose critical element here that someone who is a whistleblower will be protected. I think that's probably a message that will be repeated if there are more speeches one hopes optimistically. That actually those who choose to whistle blow will know that this Parliament or the law rather has their back.Secondly amongst other factors of the bill it ensures there's a process to be put in place to ensure what is said is taken seriously. And those who have responsibility to take those accusations from a whistleblower seriously know clearly what they have to do including of course protecting the person who is the whistleblower. I think that's fundamentally and critically important because ultimately at the heart of any democracy is a confidence in its systems. It doesn't matter if it's the Parliament the judiciary any arm of Government—particularly in the civil service. I know different people have raised some examples and it's not my intention to run through any of those in particular but it'll be no surprise as I suppose a more modern society when we approach more controversial topics—it doesn't matter if that's domestic; one might even think about how COVID was managed huge Government powers exerted over the last two years. It'd be good to know that there's a law in place to allow people to whistle-blow to highlight issues they think are problematic.We need think of only overseas jurisdictions what's happened there and even in the New Zealand context—our geopolitical interest overseas and wanting to make sure that what we do here information that's being processed here keeps New Zealand in the best of light. So again a protected whistle-blower scheme enables civil servants amongst others to speak up and again to be protected—which I suppose is at the heart of the bill because that's sort of in the title.Look I think a very good carve-out and a really important one in my thinking particularly with my interest in foreign affairs and defence and intelligence and so forth is that actually those involved in the intelligence sector those who are involved with the national security of the Realm are much more restricted in what they can and cannot release. There is always going to be a tension in that space. Just because someone is working in the intelligence or national security space doesn't mean that you know mischievous things may happen but it does need to be a much much tighter process.So from my point of view looking through the legislation the carve-out to basically say—there's a few nuances in this but the carve-out to say that those working in defence of the Realm those involved with intelligence and national security matters are not as protected in this space. It is not really their job to be releasing information that is sensitive. And we have seen from overseas jurisdictions there are some individuals who believe that the information they've got deserves to be in the public. I suppose at one level that's I don't know for their agency to decide but fundamentally it's not the moral thing to do when it comes to elements of national security and it could apply here in New Zealand sometime in the future. But again I'm not going to name particular examples from overseas.But what has always struck me with these whistleblowers is they are people if you could use the analogy down in the trenches which is well and good but they are not the people who have the overall view of what is happening. And that's very very easy particularly in that space to think that the information you have and the view you have of it—sorry not you Mr Speaker in the context of the people I'm referencing that they feel it's the right and bounding thing to do to release that information to the public when in fact it doesn't remain in the national interest. And then perhaps that's the interplay here—the individual working in the intelligence space probably does not have the overview of what is in the good of the Realm of the nation and hence why that carve-out has been used.So an excellent move there but I think as I said right at the start incredibly—well actually that's probably going to overcook it a little bit; let's just draw that back. I think it's a good piece of legislation. Let's not get too exuberant or superlative. It's a good piece of legislation. This side of the House supports it. And finally I think the encouragement for people is twofold—ultimately once this law is passed—first and foremost to use it but to use it wisely; it is something to be used to protect society but not to be abused. So for those people who do have information which is important for New Zealanders to know or to provide a rightful challenge to the system please do step forward have confidence that this new piece of legislation is going to enable that to happen much more safely. And I do want to put that little caveat there: this is never going to be completely and utterly safe. There is always going to be a risk for whoever chooses to be a whistleblower thus Parliament is just trying to make that a little bit better and easier. But do have the confidence to speak up. But in terms of that confidence it's probably also I hope the intention of this entire Parliament to stress that we don't want to see a piece of law like this abused or misused regardless of differences of opinion politically across this House that's still mine that New Zealand is a great little democracy that we are a relatively corrupt-free society that our systems work.Then probably the final final thought is that ultimately while we have a whistleblower piece of legislation which will soon hopefully become law there remain a number of other avenues where people are able to raise their concerns in fact even through this House through various parliamentarians.But anyway in order not to protect the last 1 minute 47 seconds of my speech I'm just going to hand that over. I'm not sure if I've blown the whistle on that or otherwise but I'm more than happy to commend this bill to the House.