King Colin: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
King Colin: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:653;Page:2737] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In this Committee stage of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill it is appropriate that we give due consideration to the extended powers and authority of the Office of the Ombudsmen because it underpins the credibility and integrity of the amendment bill. The Office of the Ombudsmen is an Office of Parliament that is highly regarded and it has an independence that will help the procedures of the amendment bill as it is put into the body of the Act to work more effectively. 
We have talked a lot about the amendments. I think it is appropriate that we go back a little bit and look at what the Act currently says in section 7—the point that Jacqui Dean made when she spoke of the accuracy that a person had to follow in making a disclosure. I direct members’ attention to section 7 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 which states: “Disclosure must be made in accordance with internal procedures”. Just by the nature of that it challenges us as to how accurate we have to be in making disclosures. Section 7(1) states: “An employee must disclose information in the manner provided by internal procedures established by and published in the organisation or the relevant part of the organisation for receiving and dealing with information about serious wrongdoing.” I draw the attention of the Chamber to that as that in itself makes it very difficult to cross every “t” and dot every “i” and to clear the hurdles and hoops that are placed in the way of a person who could be a whistleblower. In technical situations section 6A of the bill inserted by clause 6 is appropriate. A person has to proceed with a reasonable degree of accuracy—roughly in accord with the process. We do not want to get bogged down in absolute detail. If the procedures say that we should report to the human resources manager but we actually choose to go to the chief executive officer then that should suffice. In their role the Ombudsmen are there to oversee the process and I think we can take great comfort from that. 
National supported the review that highlighted such points because in effect it is about the smooth running of that process. The eight cases where the Act had been previously used underlined the officious approach that the existing Act has. The role of the Ombudsmen to walk alongside and support a person—who would be for all good intents and purposes a whistleblower—is highly appropriate. Not rushing on too far with the intricacies of how it would work in the workplace but looking just at the very mechanics of it I believe the amendments are appropriate. It will help the public to have greater confidence in the Public Service and this is what it is all about. Our democracy is very often underpinned by the independence of the Office of the Ombudsmen and that is reassuring. Silence is not in the public interest when it comes to the functioning of our Public Service. 
When we look at this Act we see that the early parts of it are very succinct and clear. But this bill adds to the smooth running of the process around declaring information ensuring that New Zealand’s democracy is upheld and ensuring that there is clarity and transparency in the various organisations that we so depend on. We congratulate the Government Administration Committee on the hard work it has put in in bringing this bill forward. It will sit comfortably inside the Act and it will enhance the Act to progress matters around transparency. We have heartfelt sympathy for the person who had the courage to blow the whistle on the situation that occurred in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.