Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12571] 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 18 October. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill going to a select committee. In doing so we are saying that in this country not only is it important for justice to be seen to be done but also it is important that everybody in society knows where to go to seek justice and redress in any matter of wrongdoing. People need to understand that where they do that to a degree they will have some sort of protection under the law. 
We in New Zealand First also believe—and we have spoken about it many times—that the law does not confine itself just to the letter of the law. We believe that people should understand the protocols that in many instances guide people in jobs of responsibility in our country. We believe it is important that people live up to their moral obligations as well as living up to the letter of the law. We cannot always rely just on the letter of the law. If we were to do so our courts would be jammed full of people seeking redress over petty matters. So we think it is most important if our society is to work properly that when there is wrongdoing and someone within an organisation sees that something is seriously amiss—and often it is an employee—that person knows not only what to do but also where to go in order to redress the situation. 
New Zealand First would like to see this bill go to a select committee. We would like the people of New Zealand to have their right and proper chance to submit on this issue and we would like to hear what they say. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill going to the select committee. The Green Party supported the original legislation that this bill is amending and improving on. The whole area of whistleblowers is fraught with difficulty. We need to protect whistleblowers particularly when they expose very serious wrongdoing be it of a management type or of a financial type. Often the people doing the wrongdoing if they are in positions of authority in the public organisation have a vested interest in persecuting any potential whistleblower or any person who might support that whistleblower. 
In respect of the original legislation I remember we said at the time that there were some problems—in a certain sense there is an inevitability of problems—of the whistleblower having to go through the official management structure of the organisation in making a complaint in that sometimes the person he or she was complaining to was directly or indirectly involved in the wrongdoing. This bill helps to rectify that problem by providing a certain ability for the Ombudsman to say that he or she can see the whistleblower’s point and will direct that person’s complaint to a more appropriate authority or person who is clearly not accused of the wrongdoing being brought into the picture in the whistle-blowing. I think that helps as well. 
One of the issues involved in that of course is protecting the confidentiality of the whistleblower and that is sometimes difficult. In organisations people will ask who blew the whistle and word gets around and people start talking. The situation is somewhat difficult. Having more protections with the Ombudsman being involved in those protections is very important because if people think that both their jobs and their reputations will be threatened if they whistle-blow then we will not get very far. It is important not only to protect the whistleblower but also to protect those who as the bill states come forward on a voluntary basis and say: “Yes I would like to give information. I support what the whistleblower has said. There is corruption here that should be investigated and I saw an instance of it in looking through the books the other day.” or whatever the situation might be. 
Having the institution of the Ombudsman take more of a managing role in how the whistle-blowing complaint proceeds is I think quite useful too because the Ombudsman is a neutral party. The Ombudsman is experienced in these matters and can understand and build up the expertise of where organisations can go wrong in dealing with whistle-blowing. For most organisations it would be quite a novel event. Under the Protected Disclosures Act to date there have not been very many uses of the whistle-blowing legislation which indicates some problems with it. The management of most organisations would not be too experienced in how to deal with complaints because of that and the Ombudsman can help in that respect. The Ombudsman has a more technical role too in defining the information and other technical requirements in terms of applying the Act correctly. 
The bill’s explanatory note indicates that under the original Act if somebody did something a bit technically wrong and did not refer to the Act when making a complaint—and just said: “I want to expose some wrongdoing.”—or if he or she missed some step in the technical procedures then that person could get into problems. This bill is saying that as long as the whistleblower is acting in good faith in making the complaint even if he or she makes a few technical mistakes along the way the complaint should proceed and should not be undermined or ruled out because of that. The Ombudsman will play a role in determining that as well. 
The Green Party thinks that this is a very good bill. Whistle-blowing is so essential in keeping us as a robust democracy and keeping public institutions accountable. The more we can correct a situation where an organisation is secretive can hide its wrongdoing behind walls of secrecy and perhaps punish in one way or another people who object the more our democracy will prosper. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 When employees former employees or members of an organisation are able to report misconduct such as a violation of health and safety regulations corruption fraud or any other activities that might provide a direct threat to public interest we politician types have coined a phrase making it all sound nice and legal. We call it protected disclosure. 
The bureaucrats like to call it whistle-blowing because it makes them feel that what they have done is righteous and good for the country. There is another name for it of course and that is the one that the hoodlums use: they call it narking. If one gets caught doing it one does not get any medals or write-ups in the paper; one gets the bash. 
The original Protected Disclosures Act whichever way one wants to look at it was koretake anyway. A recent review highlighted evidence of delays inconsistencies confusion difficulties in using the procedures a lack of communication a lack of confidentiality and a lack of protection of identity. That is hardly the promise a person would want to lay out in front of those potential narks and whistleblowers who he or she hopes will sabotage their careers to serve his or her interests. In fact given the current flaws in this legislation it is no wonder narking has such a bad name. 
Then there is the question about exactly what kind of crime we are talking about because the real crime ain’t the stuff plastered across the front pages of one’s local paper; it is the stuff hidden away in the pages of the business section. Criminologist Dr Greg Newbold reckons that for every dollar stolen by blue-collar criminals in this country around $40 slides into middle-class pockets. Get this folks: your poncy-ass professional pilfering pals are taking this country for millions while my whanaunga are filling up the jails and you wonder why us Maori have this strange notion that the criminal justice system works only for rich white folks. Insider trading price fixing illegal offshore accounts tax avoidance employee theft insurance fraud stolen or counterfeit product sales—mate when it comes to crime the white-collar bandits have got it sussed. 
To confirm that strange Maori notion about rich white criminals always getting the breaks even David Bradshaw of the Serious Fraud Office reckons that the approach taken towards white-collar offending tends toward the softly softly method of crime control. In his 2004 annual report Bradshaw noted several cases that suggested white-collar criminals were being treated more leniently than other criminals. Jonathan Krebs of the Law Society’s criminal committee was not so subtle. Just last month he said that the police had a poor record of tackling white-collar fraud and instead prioritised resources towards physical crime. 
This stuff about how the white-collar crims get away while poor Polynesian crims get jailed for some rather petty bloody offences makes me want to go out and preach in prisons to all of the whanaunga I have in there: “Mend your ways all ye brownies who have fallen by the wayside. Come unto the path of righteousness whiteness light fingers and fraudulence; and if thou must sin then sin with aplomb sin with style and sin with a white collar for greatest effect. Make lots and lots of money slip a smidgeon to the Lord and sin against only the poor and the Maori for theirs is already the kingdom of heaven when they die so they will not mind you robbing them blind while they live.” 
But to bring a sense of perspective to all this let me also say that while white corporate raiders continue on their merry way untroubled by the pathetically weak laws of this land Maori people are being hunted down and arrested as we speak. That is not because of any life-threatening actions but because of this Government’s kihi-kotore sycophantic yassum-massa attitude to America’s demand that we accept unreservedly its definition of terrorism which is justified no doubt by some protected disclosures. 
Is this whole terrorism thing over-blown? Hell yes! Television One flies in an expert on terrorism and protected disclosures. He looks over the facts and he tells us that the police action is over the top unnecessary and overkill and that what has been identified is not terrorism at all but just good old-fashioned Kiwi activism. Even Ross Meurant—who was in the Auckland task force and the Red Squad and was the MP who used protected disclosure to try to get me lynched for terrorism during his maiden speech in this very House—reckons that officers were victims of their own propaganda. He said “the actions of the police are totally excessive in the extreme” and added: “This is always the case where subjective assessment of information is peer-reviewed by one’s immediate supervisor and all persons on the police unit concerned have a self-interest to justify their existence”. Meurant compared the police actions to those of the Bush administration invading Iraq with supposed evidence of weapons of mass destruction. 
Is there a threat to the stability of this nation? Hell yes! Here is a protected disclosure for example from the Justice and Electoral Committee where we are trying to turn back this Labour Government’s nasty little attempt to stack the next election to suit itself in the face of massive criticism from the Law Society the Human Rights Commission and thousands of others. 
Is there a threat to the Prime Minister? Hell yes! If the polls are to be believed John Key is hoping to put her out of business permanently at the next election. 
Is there a threat to life? Hell yes! Pissing off a policeman like Steven Wallace did can be a very serious threat to one’s life. 
Are these threats from Maori serious? Hell yes! There is mounting frustration and anger right across the country by Maori genuinely aggrieved by the continued loss of lands the denial of the Treaty and now these raids smashing into Maori homes and terrorising Maori communities. Of course Maori are bloody angry. Why would they not be? 
But guess what folks: none of this is news really. Maori have been protesting land theft for 150 years and the State forces have always opposed them. How many times have we heard Maori says that they are prepared to fight and die for their land. For heaven’s sake! Shane Jones used to talk like that before Helen Clark got him by the tongue. Tariana Turia came to this House as a dedicated Maori activist and she has not changed one iota. I got in here only because of a tidal wave of unrest and an absolute rejection by Maoridom of the thieving ways of this Government. 
So is this terrorism threat serious? Yes; hell yes! The actions of the New Zealand Police—who contrary to what the Minister says are not separate from the Government but are in fact an arm of the Government—highlight an ongoing ignorance of the Maori community by the New Zealand Police; a reluctance to engage Maori and a willingness to arrest Maori; a refusal to allow their own Maori officers to negotiate on day one in order to save the country a million-dollar surveillance operation over the next 18 months; and a readiness to brutalise Tuhoe in exactly the same way the they did 100 years ago even using 70 armed constabulary like they did back then. 
The recent actions of the New Zealand Police with the support of this Labour Government signal clearly not just to Tuhoe but also to the rest of Maoridom that hell yes the terrorism of the Maori community has in fact never ever ended— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I have given the member a fair bit of latitude but he really needs to come back to debating this bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: This bill plans to deal with all the inefficiencies and errors in the Act by allowing the Ombudsman to provide information on the procedures that must be followed when making a disclosure information on protection for those who make the disclosure and guidance for those considering blowing the whistle on their mates. That is great of course but in terms of protected disclosure what protection would there be for those of us in the Maori Party who are required to advise our electorates that the Labour Maori MPs including Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones voted to delete “the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles” from all legislation? In terms of protected disclosure what protection is there for those of us who have to blow the whistle on those same Labour Maori MPs for going along with this Government’s decision to cancel manaaki tauira? 
Mind you when we think about it maybe it is Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui Dover Samuels Dave Hereora and Shane Jones who will need the protection when their people find out that they also sat by and said nothing when their own Government decided to take the Treaty out of the curriculum. Indeed that protection for protected disclosure may be an absolute necessity come election time when our people find out that those very same MPs—yes members know the ones—are also opposed to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which was signed up to by 143 countries right across the world. 
The Maori Party takes this opportunity to raise again the injustice of poor people being penalised for crimes of need while the white-collar boys continue to get away with their crimes of greed. We condemn the system of injustice that continues to brutalise and traumatise Maori communities while those who commit crime against the whole of society do not just get more lenient treatment but some even get knighthoods for their acts of financial piracy and destruction of whole communities. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to point out that the Maori members in the Labour Party have supported this bill going to the select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debating point. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 That inflammatory speech would be one of the most disgusting embittered divisive and downright irrelevant speeches I have heard in this House in a long time and it ill becomes the dignity of the member Hone Harawira and this House to behave in that manner on a matter of this type. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you ask the speaker to stick to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just rule on that. The member is trifling with the Chair. The member was speaking to the bill and that is not a point of order. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I intend to waste no more time on the member because frankly he does not deserve it. 
Hone Harawira 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member about raising points of order that are not points of order. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you just clarify why that was not a point of order please. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: As the member knows the member speaking is entitled to respond to the previous speech. He is just going to continue with his speech. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker— 
Hone Harawira 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on that point of order. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take personal offence at the comments made by the speaker and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Speaking to the point of order I like the rest of New Zealand take personal offence at many of the comments made in the speech preceding mine so I think we are about even. 
Hone Harawira 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I am going to rule on this point of order. The member is really trifling with the Chair. I do not accept his point of order. I ask the Hon Peter Dunne to please continue. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I want to indicate that United Future supports the introduction of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. The bill amends the original legislation which was passed in 2000. If one goes back a few years one notes that it is a little ironic that we now legitimate the practice of protected disclosure because many years ago—in fact up until the time of the incidents that led to the 2000 legislation—this was an activity that not only was frowned upon by officialdom but was actively sanctioned against. 
I can recall when as a young public servant in the Department of Trade and Industry in the late 1970s it was clear that significant abuses were occurring with the then import licensing scheme and a source within the department was drawing those abuses to the attention of a national newspaper. All of us who were involved in working in that section were lined up not once but several times by the permanent head and challenged as to who was the source of this outlandish behaviour—behaviour that ultimately led to the individuals concerned being tried in court for fraud. The official attitude at that time was that anyone who sought to draw attention to the fact that wrongdoing was occurring was not to be protected let alone applauded but was to be hunted down closed down and shut up. So it is somewhat ironic that 30 years later we now pass legislation that protects the person who makes information available in that circumstance. As the Minister said it is progress; it is a recognition of the fact that there are times when one has to draw a line and ensure that information that would otherwise be withheld is made public in the wider public interest. 
This bill refines and changes some of the provisions contained in the original Act—which if my memory serves me correctly arose out of the disclosure of certain information relating to the practice of Lake Alice Hospital just west of Palmerston North—and therefore brings the practice that has emerged since the year 2000 and the passage of the original bill more into line with contemporary arrangements. That is a good step. I do not want to see us go to the point where the rule of law—for want of a better term—is totally subverted in the interests of all disclosure that occurs; but where there is a legitimate case for what has become known as whistle-blowing to have occurred then the whistleblower or those who assist the whistleblower are entitled to some protection and that is what this bill seeks to provide. 
When the bill gets to the select committee a number of people will want to make submissions upon the more technical nature of its provisions to ensure that the protections being advanced are in fact adequate for the purpose for which the legislation has been drafted and that is entirely as it should be. But in this day and age one can hardly object to the practice of disclosure that occurs in such circumstances. There is a proud history. This really developed I guess in the international environment right since the time of Watergate and Deep Throat of disclosure being made where a person in a position of some trust deems it to be in the public interest to make that disclosure. We have come to accept throughout Western society that in such circumstances those whistleblowers deserve protection rather than harassment. They deserve encouragement in the quietest sense rather than a penalty for their activity. This legislation with its parent Act is the way in which we regulate that environment in New Zealand. 
So with those few words I am happy to support the bill and I await the outcome of its consideration by the select committee. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The National Party is pleased to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and looks forward to discussion in the select committee. The bill is designed to give the Ombudsman an enhanced guiding reviewing and investigative role in disclosures of wrongdoing. A review of the 2000 Act in 2003 revealed some evidence of delays inconsistencies and other difficulties including a lack of clarity for whistleblowers as to how to go about disclosing their concerns. 
It is good to see that one of the prime points of this legislation is that the bill will broaden the scope of who is to be considered a protected person treating board members and volunteers in organisations as employees for the purpose of the protection of the Act. In recent times we have seen for instance whistle-blowing by a board member of the Whanganui District Health Board Clive Solomon who made his disclosures to the public about deep concerns he had as far as health delivery in Wanganui was concerned. In many ways he was strongly castigated by those looking on by other members of the board and by employees of the board as well. We saw for instance moves to sanction him—quite unfairly—for bringing to the notice of the public a number of concerns that later on were found by a review by the Ministry of Health to be completely justified. Although the reviewing officers may not have been particularly keen on the way in which Mr Solomon made these matters public nevertheless they agreed that they were worthy of being brought into the public arena. 
Another provision of this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is that it will allow to be protected those disclosures that may not formally fit into the criteria of what has previously been protected. The importance of that was asserted by the former Chief Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood who said in reference to protection of disclosures: “It should become part of the psyche of New Zealand society. It is easier to achieve that psyche if legislation applies generally with few if any exceptions.” We should all be taking an interest in what is going on around us. Those of us who are involved in Government departments specifically—but also those in any other organisation that is dealing with members of the public—have by our own power and ability the means to inflict circumstances on to members of the public who unknowingly or unwittingly have to accept a level of service and may have to accept a set of circumstances that are actually working against them in a negative way. Anyone in an organisation should be able to bring that to the attention of the public. 
We heard previously—and it is a matter of history now—that the initial legislation came out of the Pugmire disclosures in respect of Lake Alice Hospital. Since then we have seen some other interesting disclosures that were dealt with in other ways. I wonder if this legislation was actually in vogue at the time whether for instance Mr Kit Richards would have been dealt with in the way that he was. Members may remember that he was the man who worked for Timberlands on the West Coast who sent some email correspondence to other people both within and outside the organisation. He did not formally fit the criterion for protection under the whistleblowers’ legislation. The Prime Minister said she wanted his head on a plate by lunchtime and she got it. Is that the society we want to live in within this country? No I do not think it is the society that we want to live in. We want to know that people who have the courage to bring forth these issues to the public and to hold a point of view will not lose their job because they happen to invoke the ire of the Prime Minister or anybody else. 
The legislation also allows protection for those who substantially comply with the Act but with some minor technical failure fall outside it. It protects witnesses in support of the whistleblower. So the friends of Mr Richards Mr Pugmire or Mr Solomon who may have decided—because of evidence that they had or knowledge or experience that they had—to support those disclosures are also protected by this legislation. That is a good thing too. 
The Ombudsman can take a managing and coordinating role but is not given the role to advocate for the whistleblower or issue directions. The Ombudsmen have consecutively had the confidence of Parliament; the Ombudsmen are seen as holding a very important role within New Zealand society and are held in high regard across Parliament and the public. They are a good fit for the increased facilitation and coordination role. We look forward to further discussion around those matters when this bill goes before the select committee. 
It was interesting to see in recent times disclosures made by Senior Sergeant Iain Saunders within the police. He was working on a project in relation to police recruiting in the shadow of other comments that had been made by the manager of human resources within the police. The work that he was doing was throwing up some inconsistencies with the line that was being trotted out nationally on the effects of recruiting policy as it was seeing recruits enter the Police College. A newspaper got hold of this work and wanted release of it. It sought this from the police through the official information channels and it was denied and denied. Time frames expired and the information still was not released. Eventually the newspaper reporter went to the Ombudsman and the police had to release it. 
On release and publication of that information the human resources manager went to Senior Sergeant Iain Saunders and made threats to him—as they were perceived by Mr Saunders in any event—to destroy his career. What happened then? A review was held by someone contracted by the police a Mr Churchman who was an expert in labour relations and industrial law. But we know that after his inquiry which lasted for several weeks there were absolutely no written statements taken from a number of key players in that investigation. In the end it was found that Mr Annan had apparently not made a serious threat to destroy Mr Saunders’ career although the words were used. I find it quite ironic that we had a situation then where we would expect that as a whistleblower Mr Saunders would have been protected by the legislation that existed at the present time but he still did not have the satisfaction of being able to have the points he was making fully investigated by someone who at least took written statements from those people who were the main players. 
Of course we also saw that on the completion of that investigation the deputy commissioner came out and said that Mr Annan had been cleared of any wrong doing. This was at a time when other members of the police were under a strict threat—some would say suggestion or advice—not to go to the media but what do you know within the media there was a release that basically said that everything that Mr Saunders said was wrong and everything that Mr Annan said was right. I fail to see how that follows along with the good faith of the employment legislation introduced by this Government which should have been followed by its servants. 
In any event National is looking forward to seeing this matter arrive at the select committee. We will be supporting it and as I said earlier in the words of the former Chief Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood to take responsibility for blowing the whistle or drawing to the attention of the New Zealand public those inconsistencies that exist within public organisations and negatively impact on New Zealanders is something we should be encouraging within this society. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. I stand to take a call on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which will be referred to the appropriate select committee. I do not plan to continue on in the incendiary way that my fellow Northland Tai Tokerau member Mr Harawira did but rather to focus on the content of the bill. 
However I would like to point out that this bill is designed to give the Ombudsman an enhanced reviewing and investigating role and we have in our midst Mr McGee who is soon to depart to assume that role. In the context of this speech—and I took the liberty of checking whether such an insertion into a speech about the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill would be permitted—I join with other MPs who no doubt will have made and will be making congratulatory references to Mr McGee. As a young MP it has been very impressive to watch him dispense advice and knowledge in the House. 
 This bill strikes at the question of how potential wrongdoing potential fraud or acts of a corrupt nature see the light of day when those who suspect they witnessed the potential crime or witnessed potential larceny feel unwilling or unable to give evidence or highlight the existence of such an act. These potential whistleblowers suffer doubts as to whether they should fulfil either an ethical or a moral duty because historically there have not been comprehensive levels of protection. I would point out however that an earlier Labour Government did seek to offer levels of protection to whistleblowers. This is an essential ingredient for any system any institution and in particular the public sector to work effectively. 
We can all think of instances that have hit the media and indeed have been the substance of debates in this House. There is hardly a member in this House who would not have had referred to him or her from time to time anxieties doubts and even suspicions of wrongdoing. Under this bill whistleblowers will enjoy elevated protection. Those who are board members volunteers etc. will now be regarded as having the ability to enjoy protection under this proposal. Such a level of protection will not only afford a greater level of security to them when they make the harsh and difficult step to isolate a person or a group of people who may have committed a crime but also obliges the authorities to protect the identity of the whistleblower and to treat with a great deal of judiciousness the information that may be referred to them. 
When my colleague Annette King introduced the bill to the House she accentuated the importance of maintaining integrity and standards in the public sector. There are already a host of valves and avenues—processes—to enable decision makers to be made accountable. Earlier we heard from Mr Hone Harawira who told us in a very heated fashion about his view in terms of the decision makers in relation to recent police actions. I just say to all members and in particular our Maori members let us have a clear head and not a fiery mouth and let us just suspend judgment and embrace Sir James Carroll’s dictum of taihoa until we are in possession of the information. Flinging around wild accusations and making an already fraught situation more difficult with torrid outbursts does not advance our situation in any way whatsoever. 
I was in Australia recently and had occasion to read in one of the local papers over there about a recent cartel case that had been successfully prosecuted. A sum of $30-odd million had been paid over by the owner of a packaging company called Visy. In that article was an interesting reference to the fact that when Australia sought to extend and develop greater levels of protection in terms of whistle-blowing it was able to borrow on the American model. I raise this because the problems that we are dealing with here are not isolated to New Zealand. If there are practices behaviours and systemic failures that ought to see the light of day and enjoy the disinfectant quality of media scrutiny or public approval or disapproval then it does go to the heart of our nation’s reputation in the eyes of our trading partners and other nation States that look to us as to the way we are observing the rule of law and contract law and the manner in which our institutions are governed and managed. 
So just as the Aussies managed to borrow and no doubt amend and adapt an American model leading to whistleblowers coming to the fore to a substantial settlement to break up a cartel in the packaging area—the name of the company I have earlier referred to—I have no doubt that there will come a time when people who work in our institutions will feel emboldened to bring wrongdoing to the attention of their superiors public officials or members of the media who no doubt will treat it with a level of sophistication and seriousness which we all too often do not see. The bill accentuates the duty on all of us in this House to ensure that where people make the difficult step to highlight probable wrongdoing they will not be personally hounded into penury and their professional standards that have developed in terms of a reputation will not be swept out down some sort of a bung. 
Of course there will be a fear that vexatious mischievous and half-baked claims—one or three of those come forward in the House from time to time—might actually blight this area of the law or the people who hold responsible positions whether they are senior figures in the education field leaders in the public sector commercial field or those handling sensitive areas such as the Department of Corrections. There may be a fear that very negative embittered minds might use this legislation or this option for a mischievous trivial purpose. When we think of the calibre of the man who is soon to become our newest Ombudsman I have no doubt in my mind that such claims that are not substantial but could be designed for trivial purposes will be winnowed out and that this area of the law will not be trivialised but rather will offer a particularly good level of protection. 
From time to time we hear and learn about abusive practices and abusive types of behaviour that have been visited upon women and young workers. Indeed I remember being a young worker in the Westfield freezing works in the fellmongery. While I worked there I knew that whatever I did I was going to suffer the boredom of university and get a degree because suffering green paint down my finely honed legs and going home hairless was not a career. Such things do occur in the fellmongery when one’s mind is not on the job. Abusive work practices also are an example where people will be able to complain and not suffer a greater level of either abuse or intimidation. All of these abusive practices will be swept up and a larger number of people will be able to ensure that workplaces are safe but superiors and bosses who have an obligation to abide by standards of integrity and to ensure that the institutions are governed and managed in a compliant and law-like manner have to tow the line. 
So along with my colleagues from this side of the House and in contrast to my whanaunga’s incendiary speech I look forward to learning more about this bill when it eventually returns from the select committee. Kia ora tatou. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I stand to support the motion moved by the Minister of State Services the Hon Annette King that the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill amends legislation that we in the Labour Party have taken seriously for a long time: the need for there to be on our law books a legal protection for people who do want to be a whistleblower as it is often called. This legislation had its start in the 1990s when the Labour spokesperson on justice the Hon Phil Goff attempted to introduce a member’s bill to make sure there was a law in this area. That bill was not successful because Labour was in Opposition at that time and the then National Government voted it down. On Labour becoming the Government at the end of 1999 Trevor Mallard as Minister of State Services picked up the idea of having protected disclosures legislation and it was passed into law. Now we are coming back after the law has been in effect for some time to have a look at it. 
I know that students from Kirkwood Intermediate School from Christchurch are visiting Parliament today and I know that they are trying to learn as much as they can about Parliament. One of the great things about our House and our system of democracy is that we put a lot of trust into our elected officials. Through our elected officials we hire the public servants—all the people who work in the different Government departments and ministries across the country and in different areas of importance to New Zealanders. With that has to go a lot of trust because those people obviously have a lot of responsibility over all our lives and the lives of people in this country and all its communities. But we know that sometimes people do the wrong thing; when they are given responsibility sometimes that can be misused. If a person is working alongside somebody in an organisation sees a wrongdoing and thinks that the right thing should be done that person wants to have a way of speaking up about that and making sure that it can be put right. 
This Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is all about making sure there is a system where people can safely raise the concerns they have but not get into trouble for doing that. The term “whistleblower” is used to describe a member of staff or a member of the public who sees something going wrong in an organisation he or she is connected with and wants to try to make sure that the right thing can happen. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Like a rotten Government. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I am glad the Opposition member said that because one of the things this bill actually points out is how transparent and free of corruption our Public Service in New Zealand is. I think that one of the saddest things in politics in recent times has been the way in which some National members have thrown the word “corrupt” around this Chamber as though we lived in a country where we cannot trust our Government departments and political parties. I think that that reflected very badly on those members actually. Whenever international studies have come out that benchmark our institutions of State of Parliament and of Government departments against others around the world we are lucky in New Zealand that we always come out at the top of those surveys. I know that just recently the Ethics Research Center in Washington DC ranked New Zealand’s Public Service as the least corrupt in the world. 
That is a good thing but we have always to make sure that we have mechanisms in place to keep it that way—to keep our systems as good as they possibly can be. That is why we have bills like this to make sure that can happen. Also a big global organisation called Transparency International has always rated New Zealand as being one of the countries most free from corruption. I guess that whenever people travel have dealings in other countries and with different systems and try to negotiate their way through different regimes where there is not such an emphasis as the one we place on honesty transparency making sure that the truth is told and due process—the right thing being done by people—then we can see that because of those other countries where that does not happen to the same extent it makes us grateful that we live in this country. We have a small very robust democracy whereby people when they see things happening want to speak up about them. 
I think that this legislation is a good example of Labour’s quite long record of trying to bring legislation like this to Parliament over the last two decades. It has become very important under MMP as well that this bill can take— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Spare us the political science lecture and focus on this bill. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I hear Mr Finlayson interjecting. Well he is not allowed to take a call on this; he is allowed to take calls only on dry-as-dust bills that none of his colleagues want to speak about. So he has come down to the House for the next bill. But he is so self-obsessed that he cannot wait 5 minutes for someone else to speak in Parliament because the “Chris Finlayson Show” is about to start and he wants everybody to focus on that— 
Hon Annette King 
: On TV. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: —now that it is on television. But he will be so disappointed because he will have to wait a little bit longer while I speak about the virtues and the merits of this first reading of the bill. I am sorry to put the member through so much misery. 
Clearly the bill has two key parts. The first is to extend the number of people who are defined under the legislation—those who will be covered by it. I think that that makes it much clearer. Probably a fair criticism in the review that Mary Scholtens undertook was that people were not always sure how to use the legislation. So although it sat there on the statute book as a good idea and as something people would probably consider worthy it was not always apparent to people how they could access and use it or how the internal procedures for all the various forms of Government agencies were using it. Extending the legislation in the way the Minister is proposing will bring in a broader range of organisations and Crown entities and that should—hopefully—make it clearer for people. 
The other thing that is very important too is the expanded role of our Ombudsman. That is particularly important given the great role of trust Ombudsmen play from a parliamentary point of view appointed as they are as Officers of Parliament. My colleague Mr Jones made reference to the fact that we have just appointed a third Ombudsman in Dave McGee who will be taking up that position after he leaves his role as Clerk of the House next Thursday. A number of members of course will miss him in his current role but in moving to the new role of Ombudsman and in being an official Officer of Parliament he is taking on very important responsibilities on our behalf just as Ombudsmen do with regard to the complaints of prisoners. Ombudsmen receive a lot of complaints from prisoners who feel that some of their treatment while they are incarcerated is not within the spirit or intent of the law— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: No P and stuff like that. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Sorry Mr Woolerton? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: No P. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Ha ha!—and so Ombudsmen play that role now. We are expanding that role further along with their longstanding role under the Protected Disclosures Act and we are making the role much clearer in terms of what they can do. I think that is something that people would have to say is a worthy thing for our Ombudsman to do. I suppose the Government Administration Committee will look over some of the technical amendments in the bill and go through those roles the Ombudsman will be taking. 
The definition of “serious wrongdoing” is also an area the Minister outlined during her first reading speech. We could get into a situation I guess where an allegation of serious wrongdoing is made but when it is investigated it may not stand the ground for that test. So where does that leave people who are trying to invoke the Act? That is something that needs to be considered as well as also does the role of the New Zealand Defence Force which is coming into the bill for the first time. 
I think overall that the legislation will continue to develop and be of use to people. It had its origins as I said earlier with the situation at Lake Alice Hospital when Neil Pugmire as an employee saw things happening in the 1990s in the health system that he did not think were right. He attempted to bring those to the public’s attention and suffered as a result. That is what brought the issue to prominence when Mr Goff was interested in this issue which led Labour on becoming the Government to bring through legislation. 
Finally I guess that the other thing for us to reflect on as members of Parliament is that we are often in our constituency clinics in a similar role to that of the topic under discussion this afternoon. People bring to us examples of things they see happening in their communities their organisations or their workplaces—somewhere where they see taking place something they are concerned about. Of course we have the protection as members of Parliament in our elected capacity to be able to make inquiries which means that we can often act in this way. But in a complex system like the State sector there are obviously lots of things taking place that would not be reasonable for an elected member of Parliament always to know about. There are people who work far more closely and intimately in the State sector who may see situations where they feel they have to speak out—to “blow the whistle” so to speak. The amendment bill we have put forward to the House this afternoon on the principal Act will now just take that a step further and make sure we have protections for those people to ensure we have good government in New Zealand. I wish the Government Administration Committee well under the fine chairmanship of Shane Ardern and the deputy chairpersonship of Darien Fenton. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.