Hipkins Chris: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2749] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I would like to talk a little bit now about how some of these enhanced provisions of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill may apply in practice. In particular I will talk a little about the health sector and how these enhanced amendments may apply to it. I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 4(1) in Part 1 which amends the definition of an employee by “adding ‘(including a person who is a member of the board or governing body of the organisation)’.” I refer back to the comments I made earlier on an item raised by Jacqui Dean which was to do with the Otago District Health Board. The situation was that the chairperson who was the person responsible for correcting the problem for correcting the mistakes that had been made and for dealing with a very serious issue ended up being sacked by the new National Government. So he had no protection at all. 
I think that it highlights that even though the Protected Disclosures Act brings board members within its ambit the problem is that it does not preclude political interference by the Government of the day. People are still liable to lose their jobs if they are not seen to be onside with the Government of the day no matter how good the work is that they have been doing to deal with any issues arising under the Protected Disclosures Act. I think that that is a really important point. 
The protected disclosures legislation has potentially never been more important than it is now at a time when public service numbers are being cut. Again I refer to the health service here. I want to talk about senior doctors and nurses and so on who may want to raise concerns about medical services being dangerously cut to the bone under this current Government. This Government has gone back on its promise made prior to the election to only cap the Public Service. This Government said it would cap the Public Service but it is cutting it. As a result people’s lives in the health sector could be put at risk and people may want to use the protected disclosures legislation to dob in this Government and to reveal its shortcomings. But under this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Muzzled! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —well they will be muzzled in a number of ways—at least because of the good work of the previous Labour Government there will be some enhanced protections. I also want to talk about the fact that this bill gives the Ombudsmen some more powers and to consider what that might mean. I believe that this is the second piece of legislation we have debated in this term of Parliament that gives the Ombudsmen more powers. Yet we have not really seen any evidence that the new National Government is willing to front up with the resources that the Ombudsmen will need. 
Grant Robertson 
: Quite the opposite. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: In fact it is quite the opposite; it will probably cut them. That is really important because the Ombudsmen probably struggle to deal with the phenomenal volume of work they have already and of course the work has gone up under the present National Government. This is a Government that does not respond to any of its Official Information Act requests so the Ombudsmen are continually being asked to investigate breaches of the Official Information Act. 
In fact I had a very good example just the other day of a Minister in this House refusing to release information under an Official Information Act request and I had to complain about that to the Ombudsmen. I was asking a particular Minister who is under a little bit of pressure in this House at the moment about which stakeholder and lobby groups he had met with and he refused the request on the grounds that it lacked “due particularity”. So he wasted the Ombudsmen’s time when they had to look into that because he did not want to reveal whom he had met with. It was the Hon Dr Richard Worth who had refused to reveal whom he had met with. 
As a result the Office of the Ombudsmen must be under a lot of pressure because that is not a lone case; that is common under this Government. It is refusing to comply with the law and that results in more and more complaints to the Ombudsmen. This bill we are discussing puts even more responsibility on to the Ombudsmen. It increases the amount of pressure on the Office of the Ombudsmen and therefore could potentially lead to greater pressure on the office without any additional resources from the Government. 
I will talk about some of the other areas where people may wish to raise concerns and particularly about the Ministry of Social Development. Its staff deals with some pretty tricky issues there but 500 staff will be cut from that ministry under this Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: 500? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Five hundred staff are going to be cut. I can see the member for Maungakiekie scratching his head—he is clearly confused by that. He believed John Key when John Key said he was not going to cut the Public Service. Actually that member was hoodwinked because that is exactly what National wanted to do all along. So the Ministry of Social Development which deals with some of the most vulnerable people in this country is having 500 staff cut. It may well be that some of those 500 people will want to blow the whistle and say that the department has now been cut dangerously to the bone.