Hipkins Chris: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2760] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will take a reasonably brief call on the title clause of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. When we talk about the title clause it is worth coming back as my colleague Darien Fenton did to what the bill is fundamentally about. This bill is about the abuse of power and protection for the people who blow the whistle on it. I think as I listen to the debate that there is general consensus on both sides of the Chamber that those people should be protected and the provisions in the bill introduced by the previous Labour Government are worthy in that regard. 
One possible alternative title for this bill would be “The National Government Has No Legislation of Its Own Bill”. Once again here we are discussing yet another bill that was introduced by the hardworking and conscientious previous Labour Government. There is very little evidence that the National Government has any ideas of its own although I have to say that it is refreshing to be debating a bill that is not in the name of Simon Power. Just about every other bill we have debated so far in this parliamentary session has been in the name of Simon Power. I am not sure whose name this bill is in. It is difficult to know how many of them are actually doing any work. Anyway I come back to the point about the bill being called “The National Government Has No Legislation of Its Own Bill.” Clearly we are still waiting. 
The bill could also be called the “Public Service Really Needs Protecting Bill” and actually that is probably the most pressing issue—the public service really needs protecting. Despite the National Party’s promise not to cut the public service we have seen 70 jobs go from the Tertiary Education Commission. Five hundred jobs have gone from the Ministry of Social Development. That department deals with the most vulnerable people and its staffing has been cut. Thirty jobs have been cut at the National Library; 70 jobs have been cut in the Ministry for the Environment; and 250 jobs have been cut from the Inland Revenue Department. These are the reasons why this bill could be called the “Public Service Really Needs Protecting Bill”. Thirty-seven jobs are going from the Ministry of Justice despite National’s pre-election rhetoric about capping and not cutting the public service. National members did not mean a single word of it. They went out and promised tax cuts that they knew they could not afford. But it gave them a justification once they got into Government to cut public spending which was their agenda all along. 
This bill could be called the “Extending Protection to Chairpersons Bill”. They need it. As we have seen from the Otago District Health Board the chairs of boards under this National Government need more protection. Under this National Government it is clear that if the Government does not like a person no matter how competent that person is and no matter how good he or she has been at dealing with serious issues within whatever entity he or she is chair of that person will be sacked by this National Government. People will be sacked without any justification simply because the Government does not like them or even worse because the Government thinks that their politics are wrong. It is only interested in having National Party cronies on boards. A valid point was raised—by Paul Hutchison I think; I cannot quite remember—about the lack of awareness of the Protected Disclosures Act. 
Grant Robertson 
: That was Paul Hutchison. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I think it was Paul Hutchison who raised that point. It certainly would not have been Paul Quinn; there are no valid points there. It is heartening to see in this bill the ability to promote the Act and particularly the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen in promoting the Act and advising people on it has been enhanced. That was a very long-sighted move by the previous Labour Government. It was among the many initiatives the previous Labour Government had that were sound and well researched—something this Government does not know anything about. Its members certainly do not do any research and they do not listen to any advice. In fact they are sacking all the people who could potentially provide them with advice so that Government members might sound intelligent. Perhaps they might be able to come up with some legislation of their own were they not in the process of sacking everybody who might be able to help them come up with legislation. 
To finish because I said I was going to be brief the Labour Party supports this bill. It is a bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government and we will continue to vote for it.