SpeechPROTECTED DISCLOSURES (PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS) BILLFirst ReadingHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I move That the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House.This bill repeals the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 replacing it with a new Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act. New Zealand is a world leader in integrity transparency and openness and is consistently at the top of Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. New Zealand was also one of the first countries in the world to introduce a dedicated law to protect whistleblowers the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. This law exists to support people in the public and private sectors to expose criminal fraudulent or other serious misconduct in their workplace by protecting them from unfair dismissal or treatment. An effective regime for disclosing serious wrongdoing in the workplace is critical to maintaining New Zealand's high standard of integrity openness and transparency. Employees who uncover serious misconduct fraud and corruption in public and private workplaces need and deserve effective organisational processes and legal protections. Whistleblowers are critical to maintaining public confidence in the integrity of Government and business in New Zealand.International research has found that reporting by employees is the single most important method by which wrongdoing in or by an organisation is brought to light. Serious wrongdoing when it does occur can cause significant damage to business our State services and New Zealand's reputation. It can undermine both the confidence of the public in the organisation and the trust of employees in their colleagues. It is the people who work within an organisation who are often in the best position to detect wrongdoing. In some cases wrongdoing can't be detected unless it is reported by an employee who witnessed it. One of the biggest hurdles to uncovering serious wrongdoing is the reluctance of employees to make a report. They either don't know the organisation's policy for reporting or they fear retaliation or are not confident the report will go to someone in the organisation who can do something about it. An if in doubt speak up" culture can also act as a deterrent to wrongdoers so that wrongdoing is less likely to occur in the first place. Recent academic evaluations anecdotal evidence and several misconduct cases suggest that New Zealand's legislation is not working effectively and lags behind international practice in a number of key areas. A 2017 investigation into the treatment of whistleblowers at the Ministry of Transport identified a number of areas where the current regime is unclear confusing and creates barriers to making disclosures that require changes to the underlying legislation. The law is now 20 years old and it's not working as well as it should. People don't always know how to use the Act or feel safe using it. This needs to change. If we want to maintain our high integrity standards we must continue to work hard to tackle serious misconduct in New Zealand. It is vital we get this right when something is wrong. People need to be able to raise issues safely without fear of punishment or reprisal. In August 2018 the Government decided to review the Act and engage with the public on options for change. The State Services Commission undertook targeted consultation with stakeholders across the public and private sectors in February and March 2018 to gather perspectives on the strengths issues and challenges with the Act and the benefits and risks of different reform choices. This included the State Services Commission engaging with individuals with experience of making a protected disclosure; professional bodies; unions; business community and voluntary sector representatives and organisations; oversight and regulatory agencies; Public Service agencies; academics; and experts. The commission also reached out to media organisations. This targeted engagement highlighted a number of weaknesses with the current regime. In particular there is general confusion around what the Act does and how to use it and the processes for disclosing wrongdoing are frequently non-existent or overly complex. Those insights informed public engagement on how the Act could be improved over October to December 2018. These reviews showed the aims of the Act remain sound but the legislation is currently weak or silent in certain areas.People don't feel safe raising concerns. Griffith University research found that nearly 30 percent of employees across Australian and New Zealand workplaces did not know what support their organisation provides to those who report wrongdoing. People are unclear about how to make a disclosure and what it means. The Griffith University research in 2016 found also that the New Zealand Government ranks below most Australian jurisdictions in relation to the strength of organisational processes for dealing with disclosures internally. People don't have confidence that their organisations will act on their concerns. Transparency International's National Integrity System report on New Zealand concluded that a significant number of whistleblowers encounter inaction which perpetuates the belief amongst employees that there is no point in flagging or raising concerns. Most of the available evidence relates to the public sector and little is known about how disclosures are handled in the private sector. The bill continues the purpose of the existing Act. It is presented as a new Act not an amendment to make the bill clearer and more accessible. The bill is simpler and will be easier to follow. The key changes in the bill are: allowing people to report serious wrongdoing direct to an external authority if they wish; strengthening protection for disclosers by outlining what those receiving disclosures should do; requiring public sector organisations to provide support for disclosers; extending the coverage of serious wrongdoing to include misuse of public funds or resources whether in a public or private organisation and to include non-Government persons performing a statutory function or exercising a statutory power or acting on behalf of a public sector organisation; requiring public sector organisations to state in their published internal procedures how support for disclosers will be provided; and making it clear what behaviour is not acceptable by listing the ways in which retaliation against the discloser may occur. The bill creates a new schedule to the Act that names the most likely appropriate authorities for a particular subject matter. This is because the number of appropriate authorities to whom a disclosure can be made is confusing to navigate and can leave would-be disclosers unsure about who to report to. These changes should provide more assurance to people wanting to make disclosures. In addition the State Services Commission is continuing to provide the standards and guidance for speaking up in the State services. The Government is taking a two-phased approach to strengthening our protected disclosures regime. The first is this bill addressing the key deficiencies in the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. The State Services Commission will investigate further possible amendments to the Act in a second tranche of work including the potential for a one-stop shop for disclosures. The bill strikes a balance between encouraging and protecting whistleblowers while putting in place appropriate safeguards to minimise vexatious allegations and an onerous compliance burden for organisations. In conclusion the Government is committed to protecting New Zealanders who speak up about serious wrongdoing in the workplace. I look forward to the select committee process. As with any piece of legislation change that is as large as this there are bound to be further refinements that can be made during the select committee process. I look forward to engaging constructively with members on both sides of the House stakeholders and members of the public to ensure that that happens. I commend this bill to the House."