Dean Jacqui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2793] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. The Act was reviewed in 2003 yet here we are in 2009 only just addressing the third reading of the bill. I say thank goodness for a National Government because it had the guts and the drive to pick up this bill which under the previous Labour Government had languished on the Order Paper. That Government did not have any particular drive to address the issue of protected disclosures and what a shame that was. While that massive fraud was happening at the Otago District Health Board for all those years since that 2003 review what a shame it was that the Labour Government of the day did not have the fortitude to bring forward the amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act. That may well have made it easier for somebody—somebody—to speak out and make a disclosure about the fraud that was happening right in front of his or her very eyes. Somebody must have walked through the car-park of Dunedin Hospital and the Otago District Health Board and seen the Lamborghini and somebody must have wondered: “How can a chief financial officer employed by a district health board under a Labour Minister of Health possibly afford the Lamborghini in the car-park? How can he possibly afford the large boat that is seen steaming out of Otago Harbour on its way to Moeraki and beyond?” Had there been these amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act then maybe—just maybe—somebody might have gone to the chief executive and said: “I think we have got a problem.” 
That did not happen so I am pleased to see that under a National Government we have brought forward the third reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. And to address the issue brought up by the previous speaker Grant Robertson who seems to have intimated that the chair of the Otago District Health Board was sacked just because the excellent Minister of Health Tony Ryall needed a scalp I tell members that the National Government demands accountability. Somebody had to be responsible. Somebody had to be held accountable for the greatest fraud in New Zealand in a district health board. What are the implications? Here is what matters in this debate: what are the implications of that fraud? The implications of it are that a number of my constituents failed to get their operations—they failed to get those hip operations they needed so badly; they failed to get their cataract operations they needed so badly. These are the people who live in Oamaru. These are the people who live in Ranfurly. These are the people who must travel to Dunedin Hospital and to the Otago District Health Board to get their operations. They could not get them. A number of operations were not performed because of this large massive fraud. What did the previous Labour Government do about it? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Nothing. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: So here we have finally the third reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. 
As I have said this bill gives effect to that review of the Protected Disclosures Act which was done in 2003—almost beyond living memory as far as I am concerned because it was such a long time ago. This amendment bill provides additional powers to the Ombudsmen. It provides additional powers for the Office of the Ombudsmen to request information because what we must have in a protected disclosure situation is good clear important information. One of the amendments makes it clear that this information can be requested from both public organisations and private organisations and it gives powers to the Ombudsmen to coordinate cross-agency activity. That is of the utmost importance if a whistleblower—and I will address that term in a moment—is brave enough to step up to disclose some information. It is vital that disclosure is backed up by the powers of the Ombudsmen to get some good clear cooperation and some good clear information. 
The bill widens the definition of who is a public official and who is considered an employee. Under this bill a volunteer or a member of a local authority will be regarded as an employee. It is important in this debate to think about the person who is making the disclosure. Under this bill that person is termed a whistleblower but the whistleblower is a person who has seen something within his or her voluntary organisation has seen something within the board on which he or she sits or has seen something within a district health board or private organisation. Whistleblowers do not like what they see and they do not like what is going on around them—something being done either by someone further up the organisation like a manager or by a co-worker—which is even more difficult—or even by somebody subordinate to them. Amongst all the discussion and all the political point-scoring we must remember those people because we call them whistleblowers but they are people who have a hard decision to make: “Do I turn a blind eye to this and pretend it is not happening because if I do say something I might get into trouble?”. Imagine what it must be like to hold on to that information knowing there is something very wrong fraudulent or bad going on. Imagine what it must be like making the decision to say something. 
That is why this amendment bill is so very important. It simplifies it gives comfort to people who feel strongly enough to do the right thing and in effect to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. This bill allows whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe on reasonable grounds that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing even if this belief is found to be mistaken. I think that is a very critical part of this amendment bill because somebody may have gone home having seen a document or read an email and may not be sure about revealing the contents. It is in the public interest that that person has the comfort and confidence to say something; this provision in the bill makes that possible. 
The other provision in the bill is that a process need not be faithfully followed for a whistleblower to enjoy protection under this bill. For example getting back to the Otago District Health Board had somebody said something about the fraud being perpetrated on the district health board and gone to the wrong person one not prescribed in the company policy if materially the complaint had been appropriate then that minor detail would not have mattered. I commend this bill to the House. I believe it provides streamlining. I believe it provides encouragement to people who feel they have information to impart that is in the public interest. I commend this bill to the House.