Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I also have some pleasure rising to discuss the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill. Other colleagues have noted that it's an important area of work. Important for the protection not only of the individuals who would make such disclosure but our confidence in the systems in which they are working and holding to account and being made robust. So I feel it's absolutely important and right that speakers on both sides of the House from the Minister onwards have emphasized the protection that will extend personally to the discloser but also the overall effect of allowing us to have confidence in the systems that they are operating to protect in that way.The legislative statement talks about the public interest being promoted and that's a little bit of a sense of what I was trying to express there. I think it's really important to acknowledge the importance of that phrase public interest" things that are important or of interest to the public but not in a sense of merely being interesting or the subject of scandal or gossip for the sake of it. These are very specifically matters that are in the interests of the public to protect the institutions the organisations the application of public funds and the welfare of those affected by the systems and processes in the first place. So I think it's probably just worth also adding on that quite high level if I may before proceeding that hopefully the existence of such legislation also provides a bit of a deterrent effect. It's to be hoped that the fact that a person can make such a disclosure would give someone who was engaging in serious wrongdoing pause in relation to whether that would be a good idea or the matter might come to light under this legislation and therefore they might do the right thing even if for the wrong reasons.In that spirit I note that public sector organisations remain included but they are not the only entities that are included within the ambit of the bill. I say "remain" because of course there is already legislation on our books at the moment. We have the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 which is operating in a pretty similar space. But I think it's timely that the Government is updating that law effectively. Technically this is not an amendment bill. There have been enough changes to warrant it being called its own piece of legislation. But in the semantic space so to speak the meaning the content the thrust is very much along the lines of what we already have. So it's in the nature of an evolution for our public service and indeed other entities in New Zealand that we continue to think about how we can protect those who would blow the whistle on serious wrongdoing.I've been using that phrase "serious wrongdoing" and I hope it's the correct one in accordance to the legislation because that was certainly my intent. Indeed it is thankfully. So clause 10 it's the meaning of "serious wrongdoing" and that's as Mr Mitchell has pointed out a list of different ways in which activity could be classed as being worthy of the protection of a whistleblower. I won't go through all those but suffice to say they're pretty broad and I think that's appropriate. So risk for example to public health public safety or the environment and the maintenance of law and serious risks to that along with various other ones do indicate that the legislature is wanting to be very broad in the way that this will provide protection going forward. So for the sake of the record in the way that the Hansard is occasionally used by the courts or by those working in the law to understand the meaning or the intent of the legislation I would say you know for what it's worth from me an Opposition member of the House who didn't sit on the select committee that the intent none the less is pretty clear in what they've provided to us in the House on reporting back that a very broad sense of serious wrongdoing is intended. We do expect and hope that the benefit of the doubt will go to someone who feels compelled to speak up compelled in the good sense not the ugly sense feels compelled to speak up about something that is going wrong that is in their view serious wrongdoing because we do intend for them to have that protection again both for themselves and for the organisation as a whole and our confidence in these systems and processes.I think it's worthwhile that the internal procedures for public sector organisations do receive a bit of attention. There is a specific requirement in this legislation that the principles of natural justice must be upheld or complied with in fact. I think that's really appropriate. In a way it's perhaps a matter that should go without saying. But of course that's risking an assumption that would be leading to confusion potentially. Just to be clear we should have a system and a process followed where someone speaks up they blow the whistle they are taken seriously and all of those who are involved or potentially affected have the right and the ability to speak to that matter because of course by doing that we have the best possible chance for the benefit of all involved and again the system as a whole to understand the truth of the matter and where that lies. So the principle of natural justice including the right to be heard is a major aspect of that. I congratulate the Minister and also the select committee who have tuned their mind very specifically to that matter of course.One item I did want to highlight more along the lines of something that I was less certain about and I don't mean that as a criticism it's genuinely something that I'm just trying to work through and understand but I feel I might as well place on the record. Clause 12 has been renamed presumably by the select committee in their proposal and report back from the phrase "What receiver should do" to the following "Guidance: what receiver should do". While the title of a clause doesn't necessarily change its meaning it merely gives a guide I think it's interesting that it's within 20 working days of receiving a protected disclosure that the receiver of the disclosure should do a number of different things. The language is almost mandatory. The thing is that they should do is to acknowledge receipt for example consider check deal with and so on. But it doesn't say that they must. I presume it's that slight walking back from being completely prescriptive that the select committee intends by saying that those things should happen as opposed to that they must happen and hence the title of that section is specifically and explicitly "guidance" as opposed to something mandatory as a process. So I found that interesting. No doubt others might have a view on that. I note that of course we have committee of the whole House stage of the bill. So if I have the pleasure of being able to participate in that that will be a question that I ask genuinely of the Minister to understand what she or whoever colleague is in the chair can provide by way of guidance in that regard.I think the other point that I would make before I resume my seat is just something that looks I guess like a bit of a technical point but actually I think pretty important. Again I give kudos to the select committee for working through this detail. It's clause 13. It's talking about the "Discloser's entitlement to disclose further". Originally in the bill the disclosure might be to the Minister or ombudsman. But actually what the select committee has suggested I think sensibly is that if the disclosure is in relation to serious wrongdoing by an Officer of Parliament or the office of the Officer of Parliament then it wouldn't be appropriate for that to be reported to the Minister. The Minister is of course part of executive Government and there could be—well it would be more appropriate for the Speaker who of course represents the House of Parliament the legislative branch as opposed to the Government of the day. So just a little bit of separation there. But that doesn't mean of course that disclosures to the ombudsman wouldn't be protected in some way because they do add a subsection which talks about disclosure to the ombudsman not being limited elsewhere in the bill.Final one I would just add having said that previously but still having a minute left on the clock and I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of the opportunity for every second of 10 minutes. I've come down here after 85 days you will allow me the extra minute Mr Speaker is in relation to intelligence and security information. This is really important because not only in the very obvious sense that sensitive information perhaps of a national security nature invariably classified or having some sort of marker of needing to be kept tight and secret but also in the sense that there's very much a culture in the defence force appropriately mostly that there is a hierarchy and lawful commands must be obeyed and so forth. But this bill is really trying to wrestle with the tension that exists between that sort of hierarchical nature of such an organisation but on the other hand not wanting individuals or the organisation to be disadvantaged by hesitation for calling out genuine bad behaviour or wrongdoing. So that's something obviously that we should continue to consider and grapple with as it continues through the House. But in the meantime I support this bill. We commend it to the House."