Bridges Simon: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:653;Page:2808] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is very good that I rise to speak on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill; I am very excited about it. It is a great bill. I was not going to be allowed to speak but I persuaded the National whips to let me because there is so much to say about this bill. It really is an important part of the democratic jigsaw puzzle that makes up this country. The bill is all about being an open and transparent country not a country that hides behind things and lives in the shadow of fear. I strongly disagree with David Parker’s earlier comment that the previous Government had so many more important bills than this one to speak on and to push through this House. The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is important. It deals with significant improvements to the protected disclosures regime that this country has had since 2000. The bill is all about improving that regime. 
In this contribution to the third reading I want to firstly talk about the background to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 and this amendment bill and secondly deal with a few miscellaneous comments made by members earlier particularly by Labour members. It seems to me that they are talking of conspiracy and secret agendas on National’s part. That is absolute rubbish. Thirdly I want to speak to the broader context of this bill and what has been happening internationally on the issue of protected disclosures or whistle-blowing as it is known in this country and in many others in the Western World. Finally if there is time I would like to speak on the substance of the bill and its various clauses. 
Chris Hipkins 
: That’d make a nice change. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Do not worry; I will get to Mr Hipkins. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Master Hipkins! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Master Hipkins! The background to the Act as I understand it arose out of the Neil Pugmire saga in Wanganui. He was a little like his name—a pugnacious man. He stood up and was counted and eventually as a result of that case we got a good law in 2000. 
The Act was a good start and it was a good step down the road. I accept that the previous Labour Government reviewed the Act in 2003. It asked Mary Scholtens a prominent Wellington QC to do the review. That review established quite clearly the need for improvements in relation to the legislation we already had. It was interesting that her report made it quite clear that the Act was a relatively underutilised and little-known law. This bill before the House is an improvement. I hope it will see protected disclosures made more often in a safer and more open environment. Nevertheless even if we do not see a greater pick up in the number of people coming forward with complaints of serious wrongdoing this kind of law performs an important symbolic role in our nation. At the very least it gives people the ability to stand up and be counted in their workplaces when they see serious wrongdoing. 
As I said there was a review and then we went through a slow select committee process. 
Todd McClay 
: It was a very good select committee. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: The member sitting beside me makes a good point. The Government Administration Committee was chaired by Shane Ardern— 
Todd McClay 
: All powerful. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —a great MP a great farmer and a Kiwi battler. The deputy chair was Darien Fenton. I do not know Ms Fenton well but I understand she is a good member. The other members were Brian Connell Harry Duynhoven Sandra Goudie and the Hon Dover Samuels. So it was a high-powered first-class select committee. I give credit where it is due: Labour introduced this bill and started the process but now it is National that is closing the deal and is bringing this good law to its rightful place. 
As I said before I note some of the contributions made to the debate particularly by Labour members. We have heard from Grant Robertson who has again as he did in the Committee stage gone on about job cuts. I admire the way that in every single speech that member makes in this House no matter what it is on he links the issue back to job cuts in the Public Service. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Because there are so many of them! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Then we heard from Chris Hipkins who continued the Labour Party fetish with the bureaucracy and the Public Service. [ 
Interruption 
] You know it is a fetish. I do not deny in any way that the public sector in this country is significant and makes a valuable contribution to this nation but I say to Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson that they ignore a lot of other people in this country. Maybe that explains why Phil—“Phil-in”—Goff is at 3.7 percent or whatever it is as preferred Prime Minister because he and the Labour members forget the other people. 
They forget the hairdressers; they forget the teachers; they forget the mechanics; and they forget the plumbers in the provinces. The National Government will not do that. This bill applies to many others other than just the public sector that Grant Robertson represents. 
We have had some valuable contributions. Keith Locke presented a thoughtful set of arguments. Te Ururoa Flavell a colleague of mine from the beautiful Bay of Plenty made a valuable contribution. John Hayes made some important points in a quite hard-hitting speech. But I am disappointed that all the Labour members can do is continue their fetish with the bureaucracy and the public sector to the absolute neglect of anyone else in this country from Cape Reinga to the Bluff. 
As I turn to the context of this bill I say that we are not the first and we will not be the last nation to bring in a protected disclosures regime. This House—the thoughtful members like Te Ururoa Flavell and Maurice Williamson who is sitting next to me—will I am sure be interested to know that many other Western nations have brought in very similar legislation. It started in America in California with the interesting case of Jeffrey Wigand who was the inspiration for the character in the movie  
The Insider 
 with that great Kiwi actor Russell Crowe who I hear Chris Hipkins styles himself upon. It was about some classic whistle-blowing where companies knew the addictive nature of and the carcinogenic ingredients in cigarettes and Jeffrey Wigand had the courage to stand up and be counted. Subsequent to that event California and then a host of other states in the United States introduced protected disclosure laws. We have seen that in many other nations around the world and there is similar law throughout Europe. I brought that to the attention of this House as it is an interesting trend that the Western World has embarked upon. 
Finally this bill does two very important things. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen. In essence that is a very important thing. It allows those Ombudsmen— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. 
Bill read a third time.