Borrows Chester: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12576] 
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.