Dean Jacqui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dean Jacqui: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2728] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in this Committee stage I first preface my speech with a couple of comments perhaps as a reminder that the bill before us gives effect to the recommendations of a review held in 2003 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. The review found there were delays and also inconsistencies around the legislative procedure of the Act. As well as that there was confusion—there still is until we remedy it—about some of the definitions and a general lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. 
If we think about the circumstances under which an individual might need the protection of the Act we realise that it is not going to be a happy time for that individual. Let us take the example of somebody who works in a Government department or perhaps a district health board. If that person identifies a degree of wrongdoing on the part of somebody else with that employer he or she has to go through a considerable degree of soul-searching before being prepared to blow the whistle as it were. That is not an easy thing for an individual to do and we know that because history has shown us that sometimes whistleblowers can themselves become victims. So any steps that this Committee takes to improve this legislation can only be good for all of us but also most particularly for those people who are prepared to stand up and speak out against fraud or wrongdoing when they see it in front of them. I can only reflect—with regret probably—on the circumstances surrounding the huge fraud that occurred in our Otago District Health Board. If somebody had had the confidence or knowledge to speak out about that fraud then perhaps the people of Otago might have had more hip operations or cataract operations. 
In speaking to Part 1 of the bill I will refer now to new section 6A “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act” which is inserted by clause 6. When someone is a whistleblower or wishes to speak out about something that person is not always in a great position to comply fully with the Act. So I am pleased to see in new section 6A(1) that “A disclosure of information is not prevented from being a protected disclosure of information for the purposes of this Act merely because—” the person does not follow the process correctly. 
I will give an example. A person whom we will call Person A—this is the example given within the bill—is an employee of a certain organisation. The internal procedure for that organisation if Person A wishes to make a complaint or impart some information is to go to the organisation’s human resources manager using a particular form. But in reality a person who has some information to convey may not have a great relationship with the human resources manager and may not be particularly familiar with competent in or happy about filling in forms so may instead provide the information to the organisation’s chief executive. That does not strictly comply with the procedures under that organisation’s policy but that person may be otherwise substantially complying with the legislation. So the failure to comply in those circumstances is to be regarded as merely technical and under new section 6A the disclosure will still be “a protected disclosure … for the purposes of this Act”. 
If we think back to the situation of somebody who was working in an organisation particularly a large organisation we can ask whom that person could turn to. Perhaps he or she had discovered that something was very wrong within that organisation had done a degree of soul-searching I am quite sure and felt that the person to go to—the person with whom he or she felt most comfortable—was the chief executive. Well so be it—for the purposes of this legislation the failure to comply will be regarded as being merely technical and the disclosure as I have mentioned before will still be treated as a protected disclosure.