Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): National supports this bill the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill to select committee. The provisions in the bill to make changes to the way whistleblowers are and can be treated make changes to and clarification of some of the processes around whistleblowing to provide protection to the person making a complaint. Some of the provisions in the bill have been well explained even in this early stage of the first reading so I'm not going to go through them all. There are just a couple of points and questions I would like to raise as the bill goes into its select committee process.The first is that the bill adds a new schedule containing examples of the most likely appropriate authorities to whom whistleblowers can turn to make a complaint and examples of the nature of concerns they deal with. If this can be codified in legislation then it will provide a very useful pathway for whistleblowers to know where to go when they wish to make a complaint. We must always remember that people who seek to undertake a whistleblowing function are in a highly charged emotional environment because anything any circumstance could have promoted this desire to tell: tell the truth tell their side of the story. So the clarity that is signalled to be provided in this bill is a very important part of this amendment bill. This brings me to the way that this matter is being treated in the bill by way of a schedule. A schedule is a time-limited thing. It exists on the day unless there is a mechanism to add more or less agencies—or in this case I should say appropriate authorities—whom the whistleblower can approach. And that underlines the need for a good thorough select committee process because there will be a number of views both within Parliament and also by submitters as to how best not only to achieve that schedule—if it is to be at a schedule and a schedule is often used to list agencies and list other matter—but decide who those appropriate authorities are. They may exist in the Protected Disclosures Act. They may well already—I apologise; I haven't had a chance to go back and have a look at that Act. There may well be that mechanism in the Act or this could be a new form of drafting a more modern form of drafting which places these matters into the schedule. So I signal that while I potentially won't be sitting on the select committee this will be one of those instances where a lot of care needs to be taken that the spirit and the intent and the provision in this Act is carried through into the final result and we'll be keeping an eye on that one and making a contribution. The other area I just wanted to highlight at this first reading—we're all so fresh to this bill so we haven't had an opportunity as we do in the select committee process to speak with any certainty or authority on it particularly if we're not lawyers. However I also raise a question around the provision set out in clause 11(4) which provides for a discloser who is entitled to protection even if (a) they are mistaken and there is no … wrongdoing; or (b) they do not refer to the name of this Act when making the disclosure;"—so that's more technical and then "(c) they technically fail to comply with this section or section 13 (as long as they have substantially complied)" with the provisions that are being put into this bill. It has been raised by my colleague and I think it was right to raise it—that query around vexatious or mischievous disclosures and I think very strong provisions need to be put in and a mechanism should be in the bill. Again it may well be but we have not had the opportunity to really have a good scrutiny of the bill. But this is the other part of this bill where I think that vexatious mischievous or another motive for disclosing behaviour an activity—whatever it is—needs to be very carefully crafted within this bill.Having said those two matters National does support this bill to select committee."