Flavell Te Ururoa: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2800] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 A kia ora koe kia ora tatou katoa i tenei ahiahi. Exactly 1 month ago my colleague Rahui Katene stood during the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and spoke of the concepts of accountability transparency and credibility as being at the core of this legislation. I thought that a good place to start in the third and final reading would be to remind ourselves of these core values. 
I am told that perhaps the most explicit proof of these core values is the way in which New Zealand’s ranking in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index is maintained or improved. In 2006 New Zealand’s score was 9.6 on a 10-point scale meaning that it ranked first-equal with Finland and Iceland as apparently the least corrupt country in the world. Mind you I do not know whether I would say that too loudly this week in Christchurch where close to 470 workers were purged into limbo-land and are now waiting to see how they will fare from the collapse of clothing maker Lane Walker Rudkin. Maxine Gay the secretary of the union’s clothing and textile section did not muck around or mince words. She stated: “Hundreds of jobs are at stake and we are sure that poor management is at the heart of the problem.” I am not about to move into the dangerous territory of perhaps suggesting that the operations of Lane Walker Rudkin were corrupt but there is little doubt that the company has been unprofitable and it has been forced into taking on greater amounts of bank debt. 
As I understand it Lane Walker Rudkin would not have been affected by this bill; Business New Zealand took care of that. I believe this to be the case because the Employers Federation and the Manufacturers Federation—now amalgamated to form Business New Zealand—recommended in their public submission on the bill that any references to the public sector should be omitted from the bill. That advice which was taken up in the bill was that the role of the Ombudsman was primarily to investigate complaints against public sector organisations not private sector organisations. As I consider the fate of the people who were working in the textile industry I wonder how their interests would have been protected if serious wrongdoing was evident. How would these employees have been looked after while they watched yet another company collapse from poor management? 
It is a most appropriate time to be reviewing our international status as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Is it true that we are a pure and green haven of peace in which corruption has no place or is our corruption-free status more a reflection of what we measure? Perhaps a stronger barometer of public opinion might be gauged from the casualties of the finance company collapses that Mr Boscawen often refers to. 
Many people have looked on with amazement at the directors of companies who have carried on with their exclusive lifestyles having ripped off ordinary New Zealanders. I wonder how for instance the 17000 investors in Hanover Finance can reconcile the extravagant international birthday party of co-owner Eric Watson with the small matter of a debt of $553 million owed by the company. According to estimates research shows that the amount of white-collar crime is approximately four times that of benefit fraud. 
One can only wonder why we do not have the same enforcement mechanisms and policy focus in relation to these offenders as we do when the debt is owed to the Crown in the shape of Work and Income. We spend very little time discussing organised white-collar crime and I have to wonder why. How can we accept that some offenders through the resources they have at their disposal are able to drag out cases ad infinitum in order to continue to enjoy luxurious lifestyles financed by the proceeds of their greed? 
In the course of researching this bill I came across a letter from a former detective by the name of Tata Parata of Stokes Valley here in Wellington. He stated no doubt tongue in cheek: “Maori offenders should wise up and seek a better return for their criminal pursuits. Why are white-collar individuals with dollar sign profiles able to whisk easy money from gullible folks for returns that fail to materialise?”. I find that pretty fascinating. Corporate corruption and wrongdoing is of interest in this bill only if it occurred in the public sector. This bill is focused purely and squarely on how to ensure the better protection of whistleblowers who have laid complaints of wrongdoing against public sector organisations. 
I want to make it clear that despite my concerns about the exclusion of private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request for information about their internal procedures the bill is still a very good bill. It is a good bill in terms of clarifying issues of interpretation and inconsistency which have got in the way of the proper use of the legislative procedures. 
We in the Maori Party believe it is right and just that those who blow the whistle should be entitled to receive the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. If we are to engage and encourage people to come forward to provide information of serious wrongdoing then they need to know that they are safe to do so. Once the whistle has been blown it is too late for an organisation to suddenly realise that its internal procedures are lacking. Individuals need to know that their identity will remain confidential and that transparent procedures and consistent practices are in place before they put pen to paper. Individuals need to know there will be an appropriate authority to respond to their disclosures and that if their complaints go to the Ombudsman they will be managed in a professional and sensitive manner. 
The Maori Party is pleased with the amendment that affects section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act making it an offence to refuse to provide to the Ombudsman the information specified in that provision. We support the extension of human protections to those making disclosures of serious wrongdoing. They must be protected and they must be able to provide free and frank advice. The Maori Party supports this bill and we support it in the name of human rights.