GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
I want to refer to an aspect of Part 1 that I have not spoken about yet in this debate.
I know that my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber will be surprised that there is an aspect of Part 1 that I have not yet talked about, but I want to talk about clause 4, “Interpretation”, in which the definition of “employee” is changed. This is a very important change, because it extends the protections provided under the Protected Disclosures Act to a couple of other classes of people. I will look at some examples of the kinds of people who might now have the protections of this legislation extended to them.
Firstly, the definition of “public official” has been changed in clause 4(4) to read: “public official means a person who is an employee of a public sector organisation”. It is a wide definition and covers many, many people. I had cause to reflect, over the dinner break, on whether that definition would cover somebody who is employed in one of the independent commissions that help to support our processes of government. Those commissions are, indeed, public sector organisations by most definitions. In particular, I was thinking of the Human Rights Commission or, indeed, the Race Relations Commissioner.
That brings us back to the concern raised by a number of members on this side of the Chamber about how people will feel in the climate of fear that the National Government is beginning to create in the Public Service. It is a climate of fear borne of people being worried that their jobs are on the line. How many jobs in the public sector are on the line under the National Government? That climate of fear means that people will not want to speak out. They will not want to blow the whistle on something, in case their job is gone and they are chopped off.
We have recently seen the interesting example of an independent public sector official, Joris de Bres, who was in Geneva at the UN conference on racism. Mr de Bres is an independent commissioner who, along with race relations commissioners from all over the world, went to that important conference. He is a public official and, obviously, has a lot of important things to say about an important issue like racism.
Independently, as my colleague says. Mr de Bres made some comments about what he felt were the reasons why New Zealand was not represented there. He made those comments in his independent position and suggested that perhaps New Zealand was simply slavishly following behind other countries, rather than taking an independent stance. He was immediately subjected to a tirade of abuse from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, who accused him of all manner of things—including, I might say, of being a Labour Party hack. Mr McCully made all kinds of suggestions about Mr de Bres’ independence. It was an outrageous attack of bullying by the Minister, and we have to wonder, when Mr de Bres and others are faced with this kind of bullying simply for expressing themselves, how much confidence we can have that the people who now have the protections of this legislation extended to them will continue to be looked after.
This emphasises once again the important role of the Office of the Ombudsmen, which is another independent office in our system that can now take over investigations. It may well be that Mr de Bres and other officials who feel they have something to talk about will now, under this law, have to make use of the Ombudsmen. Clearly, they can have no confidence that the National Government sees them in an independent light. It is shameful that Mr McCully took it upon himself to attack Joris de Bres in that way. Mr de Bres is an independent official who had every right to be at that conference.
The other class of employees that is being brought under the Act is employees who work for organisations as volunteers without reward or the expectation of reward for that work. That definition extends things out quite a long way. My colleague Chris Hipkins talked earlier on about the example of somebody who works as an intern. Clause 4(1) will also extend the provision to people who are board members of some organisations, as well. Clearly, board membership is an important role, because once again we have seen the National Government politicise the board appointments process. We have seen the National Government take people off boards and appoint some of its own people. That can be an issue of significant concern. If people feel that their job on a board is under threat, are they likely to be able to disclose a problem they see? They will not—they will be intimidated. The extension of this provision is important, because those people now have additional protections. But can we have confidence that they will be protected? Under this Government we cannot have confidence that they will be protected. The only thing I can say is that this bill, which was drafted by the Labour Government—
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
I speak in support of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I will revert to the bill and not drift off on to unrelated and irrelevant matters such as those the Opposition raised. The bill is designed to build on the current purpose of the principal Act, which is in place to promote public interest in different ways. There are two primary ways: the first is by facilitating the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing, and the second is by protecting employees who, in accordance with the Act, make such disclosures.
Many in the Chamber have already referred to the report that was tabled in this Chamber in 2003 by Mary Scholtens. Quite why it has taken 6 years to get the issue through Parliament is questionable, indeed. Miss Scholtens is a Queen’s Counsel. Her report concluded that the Act had not been used a great deal, or used very well. Without a central coordinator, the range of appropriate authorities to which employees could disclose such information was quite confusing. Miss Scholtens also referred to a strong perception amongst those who were consulted on the Act that the identity of a whistleblowing employee would not be protected. This bill gives the Office of the Ombudsmen that enhanced role. It also picks up a number of other recommendations designed to improve the Act’s protections and processes.
As many in this Chamber have already said, the bill was considered by the Government Administration Committee, which was very well led by Mr Shane Ardern. The first change is the insertion under clause 6 of new section 6C(2). That provision states: “An organisation is not required to comply with a request made under subsection (1) if it is not a public sector organisation.” The amendment makes it clear that a private sector organisation is not obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsman for information about that organisation’s internal procedures. The second change is the insertion under clause 8 of new section 15E(3). This amendment includes a reference to section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act and makes it an offence to refuse to provide to an Ombudsman the information specified in new section 15E. The Ombudsman will also be authorised to provide information and guidance to public or private sector employees on using the Act at any time, not just on request.
Public sector organisations are required to have internal procedures on how disclosures are to be made to them and how such disclosures will be investigated. This legislation requires that whistleblowers disclose in accordance with their employing organisation’s internal procedures, but complying with internal procedures can be difficult if there are none. New section 6C, inserted by clause 6, empowers the Ombudsman to request internal procedures and related information from an organisation. As a result, organisations may be encouraged to have a good, effective protected disclosures policy in place. Employees’ confidence should also increase if they know what the employing organisation’s internal procedures are. Under new section 15B, inserted by clause 8, the Ombudsman also has new powers to review and guide public sector organisations’ investigations of whistle-blowing. The power to guide investigations is facilitated rather than directed, and the power will be activated either on the organisation’s request or at the Ombudsman’s discretion. This should help to prevent disclosures of serious wrongdoing from circulating around various agencies without proper and appropriate resolution.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I would like to talk a little bit now about how some of these enhanced provisions of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill may apply in practice. In particular, I will talk a little about the health sector, and how these enhanced amendments may apply to it. I draw the attention of the Committee to clause 4(1) in Part 1, which amends the definition of an employee by “adding ‘(including a person who is a member of the board or governing body of the organisation)’.” I refer back to the comments I made earlier, on an item raised by Jacqui Dean, which was to do with the Otago District Health Board. The situation was that the chairperson who was the person responsible for correcting the problem, for correcting the mistakes that had been made, and for dealing with a very serious issue, ended up being sacked by the new National Government. So he had no protection, at all.
I think that it highlights that even though the Protected Disclosures Act brings board members within its ambit, the problem is that it does not preclude political interference by the Government of the day. People are still liable to lose their jobs if they are not seen to be onside with the Government of the day, no matter how good the work is that they have been doing to deal with any issues arising under the Protected Disclosures Act. I think that that is a really important point.
The protected disclosures legislation has potentially never been more important than it is now, at a time when public service numbers are being cut. Again, I refer to the health service here. I want to talk about senior doctors and nurses, and so on, who may want to raise concerns about medical services being dangerously cut to the bone under this current Government. This Government has gone back on its promise, made prior to the election, to only cap the Public Service. This Government said it would cap the Public Service, but it is cutting it. As a result, people’s lives in the health sector could be put at risk, and people may want to use the protected disclosures legislation to dob in this Government and to reveal its shortcomings. But under this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—
—well, they will be muzzled in a number of ways—at least, because of the good work of the previous Labour Government, there will be some enhanced protections. I also want to talk about the fact that this bill gives the Ombudsmen some more powers, and to consider what that might mean. I believe that this is the second piece of legislation we have debated in this term of Parliament that gives the Ombudsmen more powers. Yet we have not really seen any evidence that the new National Government is willing to front up with the resources that the Ombudsmen will need.
In fact, it is quite the opposite; it will probably cut them. That is really important, because the Ombudsmen probably struggle to deal with the phenomenal volume of work they have already, and, of course, the work has gone up under the present National Government. This is a Government that does not respond to any of its Official Information Act requests, so the Ombudsmen are continually being asked to investigate breaches of the Official Information Act.
In fact, I had a very good example just the other day of a Minister in this House refusing to release information under an Official Information Act request, and I had to complain about that to the Ombudsmen. I was asking a particular Minister, who is under a little bit of pressure in this House at the moment, about which stakeholder and lobby groups he had met with, and he refused the request on the grounds that it lacked “due particularity”. So he wasted the Ombudsmen’s time when they had to look into that, because he did not want to reveal whom he had met with. It was the Hon Dr Richard Worth who had refused to reveal whom he had met with.
As a result, the Office of the Ombudsmen must be under a lot of pressure, because that is not a lone case; that is common under this Government. It is refusing to comply with the law, and that results in more and more complaints to the Ombudsmen. This bill we are discussing puts even more responsibility on to the Ombudsmen. It increases the amount of pressure on the Office of the Ombudsmen, and, therefore, could potentially lead to greater pressure on the office, without any additional resources from the Government.
I will talk about some of the other areas where people may wish to raise concerns, and, particularly, about the Ministry of Social Development. Its staff deals with some pretty tricky issues there, but 500 staff will be cut from that ministry under this Government.
Five hundred staff are going to be cut. I can see the member for Maungakiekie scratching his head—he is clearly confused by that. He believed John Key when John Key said he was not going to cut the Public Service. Actually, that member was hoodwinked, because that is exactly what National wanted to do all along. So the Ministry of Social Development, which deals with some of the most vulnerable people in this country, is having 500 staff cut. It may well be that some of those 500 people will want to blow the whistle and say that the department has now been cut dangerously to the bone.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of this Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill.
It is very relevant to talk about the health sector in relation to this bill. I reiterate what my colleague Craig Foss brought up about the situation at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, where Deborah Houston contacted the board chairman under the Protected Disclosures Act, and was dismissed in a shocking manner. As Mr Foss pointed out, she said in a public speech that there is no doubt that the public administration must be transparent and it must be honest. The Labour Opposition members talk about a climate of fear; they have to look at themselves in a mirror. When they were in Government a very unjust dismissal occurred fairly and squarely under their watch. But I will go further than that. In 2007 the New Zealand State Services Commission Integrity and Conduct Survey found that of the respondents working in our district health boards, only 23 percent knew about the Protected Disclosures Act—only 23 percent. The rhetoric of the members of that great Labour Government is all about the district health boards and openness, but only 23 percent of respondents said they knew anything about the Act or how to apply it. It is quite ridiculous for those Labour members to now get up on their high horse and talk about a climate of fear, when undoubtedly they were heavily involved in the creation of one.
The whole purpose of this bill is to make it much easier for whistleblowers to comfortably complain when that is appropriate. I think that is exactly what comes up in the bill’s new section 6A, “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act”, inserted by clause 6.The situation at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was one where Mrs Houston unfortunately talked to the board chairman when she should have talked to the human resources personnel, and a calamity—an injustice—happened to her. Of course, section 6A, “Technical failure to comply with or refer to Act”, states: “(1) A disclosure of information is not prevented from being a protected disclosure of information for the purposes of this Act merely because—(a) of a technical failure to comply with sections 7 to 10 if the employee has substantially complied with the requirement in section 6 to disclose the information in accordance with this Act; or (b) the employee does not expressly refer to the name of this Act when the disclosure is made.” A clear example can be made of how Mrs Houston could have applied this new provision. Clearly, this bill is a constructive attempt to ensure that people like her will not be treated in the same way that she was treated under the Labour Government.
I was quite appalled when I heard Grant Robertson talk about a climate of fear. If anyone is generating a climate of fear, it is Mr Robertson and the members of the previous Labour Government. After all, their Government’s poor-quality public spending, over a period of 9 years, has put New Zealand in a very difficult position. It spent $10 billion in the last Budget, which left the cupboard bare at a time when the previous Government knew that an economic crisis was looming around the world. Furthermore, I heard Chris Hipkins talk about Richard Thomson, the previous chairman of the Otago District Health Board. But he was not a whistleblower. The chairman’s job is to ensure, and to be accountable for, the efficient and effective running of that district health board. Yet, under his watch, New Zealand’s biggest-ever case of fraud occurred. Under his watch, that fraud went on for 7 years.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this
I shall carry on from the previous speaker in speaking about an open environment in the health sector. Tonight we have heard examples of staff losing their jobs, for example in the Otago District Health Board. I tell Dr Hutchison, who was an obstetrician and a gynaecologist, that in the public sector and district health boards, senior medical officers, as that member once was, are terribly nervous now about the Minister of Health’s new—it is like a shining light he has just seen—“clinical leadership”. He says let us bring in clinical leadership, as if it were a new idea. It had been there for 9 years. However, we cannot lead without the troops, and the troops behind the clinical leaders and senior medical staff are the ward clerks and booking clerks. I ask how the Government is ever going to get waiting lists down for things like cancer therapy treatment and emergency triage, without that team behind it. Senior medical staff members are saying they cannot do their jobs, in the environment of fear that is now in the district health boards, where the health teams will be cut to meet terms of efficiency for this Minister.
There is an environment of fear. It is out there right now. We heard before about other senior people who are losing their jobs. That is why, in 2003, following a report to Parliament about the Protected Disclosures Act, the Labour Government at the time came up with the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill that we are debating in this Chamber tonight. The bill will protect staff. Those staff who support senior doctors can speak out and say “enough”, and that they cannot go on in the health sector without the safety of patients being at risk in the name of clinical efficiency and fast tracking of patients in the hospital sector. Those people in that health team are beginning to ring us now in Opposition to tell us about that climate of fear, I say to Dr Hutchison. I am sure that that is something the Government never intended to bring about in the name of efficiency.
I am very pleased that with this bill the ward clerk, the clinical booking clerk, the librarian, and the cleaner can speak out and say they can no longer do their jobs in the name of efficiency and that bottom line in health. I heard Government members, when they were in Opposition, railing against the extra expenditure that went into health. Now it will cut that very fine public health service so that we can bring in privatisation by stealth and not look after the best interests of the public of New Zealand. I am pleased that we took action following that report in 2003 and said we would do something about it, and that we would protect people who speak out. Those are the very people whom Dr Hutchison talks about.
Of course, he would talk about chairmen and chairwomen, and people who are on higher levels. Let us talk about those who are on the ward floor, and who actually see the impact of what will happen with those cuts. Those cuts will go to the very heart of the public health system in this country that we on this side of the Chamber, when we were in Government, were so proud to build up into a health service that was second to none. Yes, we will make it easier for whistleblowers, and they will be protected; and, yes, only 23 percent knew about the previous protected disclosures legislation. The strengthening of the legislation will put in place systems of accountability in every sector—health, education, public service, and private sector—so that people know how they can safely disclose information. I think that is a very good aspect of this bill. After this bill goes through all stages, members will see that the awareness among employees of their rights to speak out about what they see that is wrong and unjust will increase inordinately. I am pleased we are debating this bill in the Chamber tonight.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this
I take this opportunity to move the conversation on a little during this Committee stage. I will focus on the amendments the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill makes to section 15 of the Protected Disclosures Act. The bill adds quite a considerable amount of value to that section. When we look at the bill, we see clause 8 inserts a new section 15A. Under the original Act, there is only section 15 and nothing else. In the bill we get new sections 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D, and 15E. I must admit that these new sections are very much about the body of this bill. They add transparency and confidence. They have everything to do with what the Ombudsmen’s responsibilities are.
New section 15A takes us through how the Ombudsmen may take over some investigations or investigate in conjunction with a public sector organisation. That is a very good move, in the sense that along with the trust that the public must have in the public sector organisations, we also have the credibility, integrity, and respect of the Office of the Ombudsmen. When we take our view down to new subsection (1), we see that it states “An Ombudsman may take over an investigation of a disclosure of information by a public sector organisation, or investigate a disclosure of information in conjunction with a public sector organisation.” It goes on through new paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), and it talks about the very cases where that applies. When we go down to new subsection (2), however, it says that new subsection (1) “does not authorise an Ombudsman to act if the protected disclosure of information is in respect of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.” That is quite interesting. At first, we might ask, why not? When we stop to think about it, we realise it is probably quite appropriate, because the Ombudsman is an Officer of Parliament. It would not be appropriate to have an Officer of Parliament investigating another Officer of Parliament.
That does bring to mind an incident that happened during the last term of Parliament, between 2005 and 2008, when we had a serious issue. It was not with regard to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment; it was actually with regard to the Ministry for the Environment. If people cast their minds back to the occasion of the lying of a lazy Labour Government Minister by the name of David Benson-Pope, and the incident around the dismissal of a media employee because of her relationship with a person who had political affiliations, it just draws us back to the points that were made before on the other side of the Chamber around the politicisation that can occur.
It is worth mentioning in this Committee stage that the politicisation from within this Chamber is something that needs to be given consideration to in the future around this particular bill. Under the previous Labour Government we saw the politicisation of the Public Service. That particular case, which meant a media employee was dismissed because of her relationship with a National Party employee, was treated quite unscrupulously. I say that members opposite will now realise that that was a terrible situation to fall into. Effectively, that was the death knell of the previous Government and the final nail in its coffin, because it had allowed that politicisation to occur and did not protect the individual. I would moot with some confidence that in the future what will happen around this legislation is that we will have to do our utmost to protect the individual over and beyond what this bill represents. When we look at how the Ombudsmen behave and conduct themselves, we see that we are thinking quite seriously about the individual.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
I have had enough of this. I have heard the Government speakers talk a little bit about the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, I have heard the Government speakers talk a little bit about the Otago District Health Board, and I have heard the Government speakers talk a little bit about the Ministry for the Environment. I am going to pick one of those three points and tell my story. I will not talk about the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, even though I was the Minister of Health at the time when the chair of the district health board rang me on the whistleblowing issue, one January. I will not talk about that, because I have information regarding folk who are unable to defend themselves. The information involves employees of the district health board, which is why it is not proper.
For the same reason, I will not talk about the Ministry for the Environment, even though I know David Benson-Pope rather well, of course, and even though I know the Secretary for the Environment at the time, and even though I was the witness to the investigation that was carried out by the Solicitor-General. I was a witness to those hearings that he carried out with David Benson-Pope. The reason I will not comment is that that information also involves private individuals—not Mr Benson-Pope or the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment—and it would not be proper. But I can talk about the Otago District Health Board.
I can talk about the Otago District Health Board for several reasons. First of all, the board is in the area that I happen to represent—Dunedin North. I was Minister of Health at the time, I know Richard Thomson, and I know the chief executive, Brian Rousseau. I know most of the board members; they are either friends or acquaintances. Some of them I do not know well, but most of them I do. I have never met Michael Swann, by contrast. The story is that Michael Swann set up what was to become the biggest fraud in public history, before Mr Thomson became chair of the board. Mr Swann did so in a series of techniques that were revealed in court and are on the public record. They are no great secret. But those techniques were regarded by the Serious Fraud Office and others who were involved in the investigation as clever—sufficiently clever that Audit New Zealand, when it looked at the Otago District Health Board on six separate occasions in the intervening years, did not see anything.
The fraud was not seen when the district health board, as a matter of ordinary managerial behaviour, decided to do a quick run on its information technology expenditure and found it to be a little below normal—not above normal. It was not found when the major contracts of the Otago District Health Board, in another ordinary managerial activity, were taken aside and one by one they were sent out and inspected by independent folk to make sure that they were all on track. The reason that the information technology contracts were not covered in the 10 biggest contracts is that they had been atomised by the fraudster so that they could not be seen as one contract.
It is a matter of fact that the fraudster had big flash cars in the car-park. One very clever Minister of Health was heard to ask only a few months ago: “How come nobody noticed the Lamborghini alongside the Toyota Corollas?”. People did notice; the previous chairman noticed. He said to Mr Swann: “What are you doing with that sort of car on the salary we give you?”. Mr Swann’s reply was: “I’ve developed some software, which I have licensed to Microsoft. I am independently wealthy. I come to work because I love my job, not because I need it.” So the idea was born that this guy was clever. It was later discovered that Microsoft was not very keen on licensing software and that that was a manufacture as well. But those are the sorts of techniques that the gentleman used.
There was, therefore, no way of knowing that the fraud had taken place—until one day, the chairman of the Otago District Health Board received a tip-off. It was not firm, but it was sufficiently concerning so that the chair of the district health board took a number of actions. He advised the police, who did nothing. He then ran, using some very clever techniques involving the chief financial officer of the time, a series of—
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
We are getting away from the bill. I know there has been a kind of political debate on either side of the Chamber but I think we have concluded that. I would like to draw the debate back to relevancy to protected disclosures—
Let me speed up. At the point that the chairman became aware, a series of activities took place that led to the fronting of Mr Swann. He was subsequently released from his duties that day, and the information technology system in the Otago District Health Board was then secured, There was an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, a series of court cases, and Mr Swann was found guilty on all charges, and, now, is in a jail in Dunedin, where I hope he spends some time. After that, the incoming Minister of Health decided—years later—that he wanted someone to be held accountable. So what he did in response—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe that the speaker on the other side of the Chamber is now departing from the tolerance that we were affording him on this side and he is starting to attribute blame. I would call the member back to the bill or to be seated.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I am in some difficulty here. The member is giving an explanation and I gave him another 2 minutes for that. I do not want to have a political situation arise where I have to give someone on the other side of the Chamber the same. I really want to get back to the bill. I ask the member to contain himself to detail—and this is a bit of an unusual step for me.
I understand this very well. I make one simple point: that if one has protected disclosure legislation in front of the House, then one needs to be very careful about the whole idea of sacking the person who did the disclosing.
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this
We have just had 7½ minutes from an apologist on behalf of the Otago District Health Board—the member for Dunedin North, the Hon Pete Hodgson, former Minister of Health. But for a number of years at the Otago District Health Board the largest fraud was being undertaken by Mr Michael Swann and his colleague, and it went unnoticed by everybody, including the Minister of Health of the day who was the man whose responsibility it was to take charge—
Hon Steve Chadwick Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We understood your ruling before, and again, I think, we are now going wide of the mark, on the bill.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
Here is the difficulty I did not want to get into. If the member wishes to make an analogy that can be drawn back to Part 1 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill, I will tolerate it. But if we are going to get into a debate just about an issue that is very, very obliquely related or not even related to the bill, then we are not going to have that.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I was referring to the apologist for the Otago District Health Board, the Hon Pete Hodgson who, whilst Minister of Health at the time he was in Government, oversaw unknowingly—apparently—the largest fraud ever undertaken in a district health board in New Zealand. The direct consequence of that was that a number of my constituents failed to get hip operations, cataract operations, and any manner of the medical treatments they needed, were funded for, and deserved, because at the time various Ministers of Health were apparently turning a blind eye, and are now, shamefully in this Chamber, apologising for doing so. I have already outlined—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not do this very often, but I take offence at the idea that I might have turned a blind eye. That suggests that I might have knowingly allowed a fraud of this nature to continue. That is an offensive proposition; I ask for the member to withdraw and apologise.
I withdraw and apologise.
Opposition speakers have spent a large part of their contributions this evening in taking credit for the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill, but we need to remember that the bill is the result of an inquiry held in 2003. Some 5 or 6 years later the country finally has a National Government—to the great relief of most people—and finally we have this bill back in the Chamber for its Committee stage. Of course, had this legislation been enacted in 2003, it may well have made things easier for those people who knew something about what was happening in Dunedin Hospital and at the Otago District Health Board. It may have given them comfort to go to the chief executive, or to whoever was designated under the legislation to hear a complaint or be told of some sense of disquiet, because maybe those people had noticed the Lamborghini in the car-park, as a lot of other people had. Maybe, if the previous Labour Government had got off its chuff in 2003 and brought this legislation to the House, we would not have had that fraud visited on the Otago District Health Board, and the people of Otago would not have missed out on a great many services as a consequence. How many millions were defrauded? Can anyone remember? Was it $13 million?
So $16 million was defrauded from the people of Otago. Had this legislation been enacted at that time, maybe—just maybe—the person who walked around the car-park of the Otago District Health Board, saw the Lamborghini, and saw the big boat parked up in the harbour, might have thought: “There’s something funny going on here. I think I’ll go and see the chief executive.” So it is a little bit galling to hear members of the Opposition apologising and explaining away the events that happened to the Otago District Health Board. I find that a little hard to believe.
National utterly supports the broad approach to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. We believe in accountability, just as we insisted on accountability at the Otago District Health Board. We welcome accountability, which is why we fully support the broad approach of this protected disclosures legislation arising out of the review in 2003. I think it is worth noting that the Ombudsmen are held in high regard across Parliament and across the community as a whole. I go back to the Otago District Health Board issue, which I do not think we can turn away from in this instance because the events there are very relevant to the discussion on this bill. I do think that the Office of the Ombudsmen, with the increased powers that are given to it under this bill, could have been a viable alternative for the person who walked around that car-park.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I want to bring us back to the bill, after that interesting, fairly predictable speech from the National Government member. The original Protected Disclosures Act required a review within 2 years, and that was carried out by the previous Labour Government. That is what we did and we asked Mary Scholtens to do the review. A review cannot be carried out in 5 minutes; it took a long time. It is a very interesting and comprehensive report, and I suggest the National Party members actually read it. They might find some information there that has an awful lot more to do with this bill than have some of the speeches we have heard from them.
As I said in my contribution before, I was on the Government Administration Committee, and, interestingly, there was not a huge wave of submissions. The committee asked to hear from the Public Service Association, at my instigation, and it confirmed Mary Scholtens’ observation that the procedures were not necessarily widely understood or widely used in the public sector. I have some questions that I would like to ask the Minister about that. If this amendment bill is going to do better, I would like to know what resources the Minister proposes to provide to the Office of the Ombudsmen—a question that was asked earlier by my colleague Grant Robertson. If this amendment bill is going to do better, and given that we are placing a lot more obligations on the Office of the Ombudsmen, the office needs to be properly resourced.
The next question I would like the Minister to address is about the low level of take-up of the procedures. The National Government has criticised that fact, but one could take the view that the reason the procedures were not taken up was that not a lot of protected disclosures needed to happen because we had such a good Public Service and such a good Government in power—unlike the previous period, the 1990s. I note again that the reason the Protected Disclosures Act came about in the first place was the problems and the culture of fear that had developed in the 1990s around the issues with Neil Pugmire and Good Health Wanganui—a ridiculous name! Given the low level of take-up of those procedures, as identified in the report, I ask what the Minister plans to do to ensure that the new procedures and rights under this bill are properly promulgated to all workers in all parts of the Public Service. We must bear in mind that we are talking about not just the core public sector but also the health sector, the education sector, the community sector, and the non-governmental sector—all sectors that actually receive Government funding—and this bill now extends the protected disclosure procedures to volunteers by widening the definition of “employee”.
I want to make a couple of other points in response to some of the contributions from National Government members. I was interested in the contribution from the member for Maungakiekie, Sam Peseta Lotu-Iiga, because I understand that some New Zealand Educational Institute workers and school support staff went to see him the other day, and they were talking about their wages and how shocking they are. Apparently, he got on the phone to the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, and assured those people that he had her ear and she would address the issue of school support staff. These workers are on $12.94 an hour! I ask the Minister whether, given the threats the public sector is facing, those people will use these protected disclosure measures. I would like to hear from the member for Maungakiekie what the response from the Minister was, and whether there were any assurances that those people will get decent pay increases in the current wage round. By all means, he should take another call on that question.
I go back to the issue of Mrs Houston, which members have gone on and on about. As I said, I was on the select committee, so I heard from Mrs Houston, and, indeed, she went through a difficult time, but what I would say about her situation is that she took a personal grievance action against the district health board. If people read her submission to the committee, they will see that that happened, and that she ended up settling with the district health board. I do not have the amount of money in front of me, but she did receive a settlement, as often happens in these situations. May I say that that was able to happen because the Labour Government brought in the Employment Relations Act, which brought in personal grievance protections for workers in that situation. In fact, the Protected Disclosures Act 2000, which this bill amends, refers directly back to the Employment Relations Act and the right of workers to be protected under that Act.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
Thank you for the opportunity to have another call on this very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I absolutely agree with the previous speaker that Mary Scholtens’ review was a substantial and a significant one. I was not lucky enough to be on the Government Administration Committee that deliberated on the bill but I have taken the report out and I note that it is, indeed, very substantial. One of the points she made was that the Office of the Ombudsmen would also be able to help to conduct initial screenings to determine whether the nature of the complaint was such as to warrant a referral. She made the comment that after noting the jurisdictions of a number of appropriate authorities, the ministerial also noted that no single agency currently has a clear, perceived role of providing advice and counselling to individuals considering making disclosures outside their employing organisations.
So that was the situation in 2003. It was noted there were gaps in the jurisdiction between these authorities, and there was a need to maintain and develop the coordination and transfer of referrals between authorities to ensure those existing resources are used effectively, and that continued coordination between agencies and the provisions made for counselling and facilitating disclosure were important. It is quite significant that 4 years later, when the New Zealand State Services Commission Integrity and Conduct Survey was carried out, we learn that only 23 percent of our district health boards knew about the provisions of the Act.
But I go on further than that. The other revealing finding was there was less belief at the district health board level that senior and middle management would exhibit and practise elements of ethical behaviour. I think that is extremely concerning for all of us here. Undoubtedly this was the ethos of the Labour Government of the time, and it must fall squarely and fairly on it. When Darien Fenton talked about the reparation that Deborah Houston finally received, it was in a climate that was quite unsatisfactory.
The third disturbing conclusion from the survey was that although district health board employees report breaches of standards at about the same rate as the State Services Commission average, their reasons for not reporting are typically more fear-based. That is, again, a very strong reason why this bill is so important, and why the various provisions that we have here are set to give the whistleblower extra help, both through the Ombudsmen facilitating and through the various other amendments to the principal Act. These include the technical failures to comply or refer to the Act, as set out in new section 6A, inserted by clause 6, and in clause 4 where a person who works for the organisation as a volunteer without reward or expectation of reward for that work is also included in the definition of an employee. Public official, of course, means a person who is an employee of a public sector organisation.
If we continue, we find that Part 1 answers many of the problems that were identified by Mary Scholtens and addresses many of the problems that were identified in the Public Service survey that was carried out. I want to emphasise just how important are the various aspects of this bill. I refer to new section 15, inserted by clause 8, whereby the Ombudsmen may escalate disclosures to an appropriate authority or Minister, or investigate disclosure, and here, of course, the Ombudsmen may refer the disclosure to a Minister of the Crown.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
I will take just a brief call on Part 2 because, obviously, it is a very brief part in itself, being just the one clause. It is a transitional provision that states in clause 13: “The amendments made by this Act apply to disclosures of information made after the commencement of this Act.” That is quite a normal clause in many ways, but it does give me cause to refer back to Dr Hutchison’s speech—not the one we just heard, but the one before that—where he accused me and my Labour colleagues of creating a climate of fear in the Public Service. I have to say that nothing is further from the truth. In fact, this transitional provision, although it is quite conventional, gives rise to concern about those public servants at the moment in that climate of fear, who may feel that they need to make some kind of disclosure under this Act, but who will be feeling that they cannot. At the moment, because they are not able to make disclosures under the bill until it comes into force, they do not have the extensions that have been granted under this Act. I say to Dr Hutchison that the climate of fear is not being created by the Labour Party; the climate of fear has been created by the National Party’s strategy. Admittedly, National was to do it all under the radar—to make these cuts in public services under the radar. John Armstrong wrote about this in the New Zealand Herald. He said that National had learnt from the past. It was not going to do a big public slash-and-burn exercise in the Public Service; it was going to do it under the radar. Chief executives would be making the announcements, not Ministers. They did not want to be associated with it.
But I tell Mr Hutchison that I am proud of the fact that I am standing up for public servants. I am proud of the fact that I am going out there and saying to people that this is what is happening, these are the jobs being cut—250 jobs at the Inland Revenue Department, 80 jobs at the Ministry for the Environment, 70 jobs at the Tertiary Education Commission—because it is the National Government that is making these cuts and it is ordinary New Zealanders who will suffer. A climate of fear has been—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are on Part 2, the transitional provision. This is a very tight part of this bill. The amendment is made, and this is forward-looking. That member is extremely wide of this very tight Part 2.
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this
I have cautioned the Committee. We want to talk about the bill; I ask the member to come back to Part 2, clause 13.
I do not have a lot to say here. I am just making the point that the clauses and the powers in this bill come into force only when the Act comes into force. At the moment we have public servants, in the interim period before commencement, who are in a vulnerable position. They are in a vulnerable position because the National Government has cut jobs in the Public Service, and has cut back on services, and those people are operating in a climate of fear where they will not be able to disclose the wrongdoing they see because of their fear. I think that is wrong.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this
I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the title of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I was quite interested to read the second reading speech of the Māori Party regarding this bill, where the speaker, Rahui Katene, suggested that the title be the “Workplace Whistleblowing Bill”. I thought she was absolutely right-on; so often we do shroud our titles with terminology that the public find quite hard to understand. Undoubtedly, Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill is quite correct technically, because it is the amendment bill to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000, which was brought in at that time and reviewed by Mary Scholtens QC in 2003, and to the amendment Act of 2007. I thought Rahui Katene made an interesting point at that time, because one of the problems with whistleblowing is that the public themselves are not aware of the facilities that are available. But one would hope very much that given this current reading there will be some publicity, and that people in organisations up and down the country who have genuine grievances will have the opportunity to utilise the extra facilities and protections afforded by this bill. Maybe when the media are talking about it, they might talk about it as the “Workplace Whistleblowing Bill”, and I hope that it will be practical and applicable to all ranges of people through both public and private institutions.
Once again, I think it is important to reiterate the fact that the review by Mary Scholtens QC in 2003 was comprehensive and did lead to the amendments in 2007. When the amendment Act was brought in, in about November 2007, the Government Administration Committee set about gathering submissions, but for a whole year absolutely nothing happened under the previous Labour Government. That is how little Labour thought of the importance of a bill it is now trying very hard to politicise. Basically, Labour did very little. It had plenty of opportunity to bring in the second and third reading, but it failed to do so. So it is very satisfactory, indeed, that a new National Government—which is forward-looking and determined to put things right—has in the first 6 months managed to get this bill through, and, hopefully, will have it passed into legislation within the next few weeks.
There is no doubt that, in genesis, the whistleblowing legislation has gone through several decades of iterations. There is no doubt that several Governments have tried to wrestle with it; we can see that if we think of the fact that the Neil Pugmire incident occurred back in the 1990s. Then, of course, there were the more recent occurrences at Hawke’s Bay, and even more recently at Otago—but I would not regard the latter as a whistleblowing incident, at all. That was a situation where the chairman of the Otago District Health Board was required to ensure the efficient, effective running of that board, so that was quite different from the normally considered matter in which this legislation can be applied, where someone in an organisation sees a wrong, feels helpless to do anything about it, and then may or may not go to the right person. This bill certainly affords a far greater certainty that anyone in an organisation will be assisted practically if he or she wishes to whistle-blow.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I want to take a fairly brief call on Part 2 of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in relation to the title and commencement clauses.
Hon Dr Wayne MappThat is Mr Mapp’s opinion, and anyone who has to listen to that member speak would probably echo exactly what the member just said.
In relation to the title, l want to talk about the Protected Disclosures Act. Let us talk about what protected disclosure actually means. It is disclosure in the public interest of serious wrongdoing. The member who just resumed his seat, Paul Hutchison, talked about different titles, whistleblowing, and so on, but let us talk about the serious nature of the title, and, when we unpack it, what protected disclosures are. A “serious wrongdoing” includes unlawful, corrupt, or irregular use of money or resources. These are serious issues. The members opposite may not think so, but I think it is worth putting on the record what protected disclosure means, particularly under this National Government, and particularly for those 6,000 workers in Auckland who are employed by local government and may be thinking about this issue as they go through very uncertain times over the next couple of months. “Serious wrongdoing” also means conduct that poses a serious risk to public health, public safety, the environment, or the maintenance of law; any criminal offence; and gross negligence or mismanagement by public officials. So protected disclosure is a serious matter. It is more than whistleblowing, which is one example. I want to put on the record exactly what we are talking about when we talk about protected disclosure.
My other comment is in relation to the commencement date. The commencement date is the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. I have a serious question about that, and it relates to the 90-day trial period bill. What will happen to somebody who seeks to make a disclosure under this legislation—when it is passed—who has been employed under the 90-day bill? How the heck will that person have the courage to step up and make a disclosure about serious wrongdoing, when he or she is under the threat of the sack in 90 days, and has no personal grievance protection—no protection? In that 90-day period, awful things can happen in public sector organisations.
Right now the country is going through a period of pandemic preparedness. We have a serious situation. I am thinking about the workers in hospitals whom I know very well. I am thinking of the contract cleaners, the ones who clean the wards, the workers who prepare the food, and so on. They are all probably the most vulnerable workers when it comes to the 90-day bill. How on earth will those workers be able to step up and, under the Protected Disclosures Act, say that they think their hospital, rest home, or disability service is taking shortcuts? How will they be able to say that they are worried about their employer opening up the rest of the population to infection? Those workers will want to use this legislation, but where will they find any protection, and how will they have the courage to do that? This is a very serious situation that we face right now—we all know that. Luckily, it seems that we have a swine flu that is not particularly virulent. It is virulent, but it is certainly not affecting our people in the way it is affecting people in Mexico. But if we put ourselves in the situation where we have a bird flu pandemic, which we contemplated when we did the pandemic preparedness legislation—
Let us think about what this might mean under the commencement date and the title of this bill. [ Interruption] I am just making an appeal to those members over there, who think this is very, very funny. They do not think about these important things when they bring in their mad ideas, such as sacking workers after 90 days.
The commencement date is very, very important. Let us be aware that the bill we are passing is important. There will be consequences for workers in vulnerable workplaces who provide health services, education services, and other services, and who have been employed under the 90-day bill. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
I will take a reasonably brief call on the title clause of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. When we talk about the title clause, it is worth coming back, as my colleague Darien Fenton did, to what the bill is fundamentally about. This bill is about the abuse of power, and protection for the people who blow the whistle on it. I think, as I listen to the debate, that there is general consensus on both sides of the Chamber that those people should be protected, and the provisions in the bill, introduced by the previous Labour Government, are worthy in that regard.
One possible alternative title for this bill would be “The National Government Has No Legislation of Its Own Bill”. Once again, here we are discussing yet another bill that was introduced by the hardworking and conscientious previous Labour Government. There is very little evidence that the National Government has any ideas of its own, although I have to say that it is refreshing to be debating a bill that is not in the name of Simon Power. Just about every other bill we have debated so far in this parliamentary session has been in the name of Simon Power. I am not sure whose name this bill is in. It is difficult to know how many of them are actually doing any work. Anyway, I come back to the point about the bill being called “The National Government Has No Legislation of Its Own Bill.” Clearly, we are still waiting.
The bill could also be called the “Public Service Really Needs Protecting Bill”, and, actually, that is probably the most pressing issue—the public service really needs protecting. Despite the National Party’s promise not to cut the public service, we have seen 70 jobs go from the Tertiary Education Commission. Five hundred jobs have gone from the Ministry of Social Development. That department deals with the most vulnerable people, and its staffing has been cut. Thirty jobs have been cut at the National Library; 70 jobs have been cut in the Ministry for the Environment; and 250 jobs have been cut from the Inland Revenue Department. These are the reasons why this bill could be called the “Public Service Really Needs Protecting Bill”. Thirty-seven jobs are going from the Ministry of Justice, despite National’s pre-election rhetoric about capping and not cutting the public service. National members did not mean a single word of it. They went out and promised tax cuts that they knew they could not afford. But it gave them a justification, once they got into Government, to cut public spending, which was their agenda all along.
This bill could be called the “Extending Protection to Chairpersons Bill”. They need it. As we have seen from the Otago District Health Board, the chairs of boards, under this National Government, need more protection. Under this National Government it is clear that if the Government does not like a person, no matter how competent that person is and no matter how good he or she has been at dealing with serious issues within whatever entity he or she is chair of, that person will be sacked by this National Government. People will be sacked without any justification simply because the Government does not like them, or, even worse, because the Government thinks that their politics are wrong. It is only interested in having National Party cronies on boards. A valid point was raised—by Paul Hutchison, I think; I cannot quite remember—about the lack of awareness of the Protected Disclosures Act.
I think it was Paul Hutchison who raised that point. It certainly would not have been Paul Quinn; there are no valid points there. It is heartening to see in this bill the ability to promote the Act and, particularly, the role of the Office of the Ombudsmen in promoting the Act and advising people on it has been enhanced. That was a very long-sighted move by the previous Labour Government. It was among the many initiatives the previous Labour Government had that were sound and well researched—something this Government does not know anything about. Its members certainly do not do any research, and they do not listen to any advice. In fact, they are sacking all the people who could potentially provide them with advice so that Government members might sound intelligent. Perhaps they might be able to come up with some legislation of their own, were they not in the process of sacking everybody who might be able to help them come up with legislation.
To finish, because I said I was going to be brief, the Labour Party supports this bill. It is a bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government, and we will continue to vote for it.
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this
I will speak to the title of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill; I am not going to ramble on like some of the previous speakers. This bill is about the protection of disclosures and the protection of those who choose to take the risk to point out injustices within public organisations. As I stated in my earlier representation to the Committee, the bill is designed to improve aspects of an Act that currently exists. It gives the Ombudsmen an enhanced coordinating and helping role. It should allow whistleblowers to bring serious wrongdoings to light, while protecting their interests and making it easier for organisations to investigate people effectively.
This is a good bill. It is not about the current Government persecuting and chasing after bureaucrats; it is about the protection of those who are willing to raise up their voices against injustice and willing to raise up their voices against fraud and crimes, which we heard about earlier today. It is not about the political machinations of mistakes that have been made in the health sector, which certain members have alluded to. It is not about apologising for mistakes that were made under 9 years of quite incompetent oversight of the country and of Government departments. It is not about that; it is about protecting those who have said “I see something wrong within my organisation or my place of work, and I am prepared to take a risk and speak out against some of the injustices.”
Some of the changes to the principal Act are commendable. Some of those changes have been alluded to by a number of members in this Committee, without getting into the political debates around some of the examples that have been used. This amendment bill has been based on a report, a comprehensive report that was submitted to the Government Administration Committee some time ago. I am glad that all members and all parties within this Chamber have come together to promote this bill. The National Government is closing this bill. We are closers; we do not just talk it up. We are not going to ratchet it up. We are closing this because we believe in it—whether or not the Opposition also believes in it. We are a Government of action, unlike the previous one that sat around with a bare Order Paper for the last 3 years of its term in Government. We are a Government that has a full Order Paper, whether or not some bills were initiated under the previous Labour Government, and we are proceeding with some of the actions in this bill.
We support the broad approach of the principal Act, and we support the efforts to improve its operation as well as its administration. Some members here tonight have talked about the resources to be applied to implementing some of the changes within this legislation. That is not something for me to look at. Our debate tonight is really about changing the principal effects of the Act in order for it to run in a smooth and efficient manner. As some have already said tonight, the Ombudsmen are held in high regard across this whole Parliament, and it is a good fit to increase the facilitation and coordination role of that particular office and those particular persons, within their place in Government. We expect that this bill will provide better tools to enable Government agencies to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner. It is not just about the legislative changes that are going on; some changes do need to be made both within organisations that will use this bill and also among the leadership of those organisations. And some speakers here tonight have pointed the finger at some of those leaders.
Finally, all parties here agree that silence is sometimes not an option, and that it is in the public interest that sometimes confidence is broken in order to go after some of the wrongs that have been committed within the public domain. Thank you.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this
There has been a very interesting and fulsome debate on considering the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Seen in the context of the Committee here, and the bill’s significance, the title is appropriate. I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Government Administration Committee, but I see that it was well chaired by Shane Arden under the previous Parliament. The bill has come back to the Chamber and it will progress through this Committee stage. No doubt it will progress further to receive its third reading and pass into law.
But we must not forget about the procession of events that have led to where we are today. I heard members on the other side of the Chamber talking about those early days in relation to Lake Alice Hospital. I think we have to reflect on that and be aware of the consequences of a person there who was moved from the heart to report the occurrence of things that were not right, and who suffered the ultimate embarrassment of being dismissed—and dismissed, probably, under some form of fabricated excuse—rather than being treated as a person who was actually trying to make sure that a Government department behaved at a very, very high level of integrity.
We have moved on down through the situations. We heard about the case before the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and that, too, cannot be dismissed. It showed us that it was very important that a review of the Protected Disclosures Act was entered into. That was done in 2003, and done with a great deal of integrity, and we are now applying ourselves here to the bill that emanated from that review.
The Committee, effectively, agrees on the bill’s appropriateness, and I believe that two areas epitomise it all: no longer do whistleblowers have to stick to the very letter of the law; as long as they stick roughly to the processes that have been adopted by a public organisation, they should then be taken seriously. And they can go to the Ombudsmen, who should get alongside them and walk them through the process, where necessary. That will do a lot for the general public.
We heard from Dr Paul Hutchison that only 23 percent of people working in Government departments—I believe that may have been in the health sector—knew about the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. That is really shameful. If anything is achieved with this bill and with the introduction of these amendments into the Act, and if that raises the public profile of the procedures required to improve the process around the protection of people who genuinely believe that wrong things are being carried out within a Government department—and they can have that level of protection—then this bill should be commended. I think we have to keep challenging ourselves, because, really, if we leave it just there, there may be no improvement whatsoever, and we want to see that people can have confidence and can speak out freely. We notice also that the bill talks about the immunity that people can experience if they are wrong, and I think that that is also appropriate. However, if a person blatantly abused that situation, it would not stand the test of natural justice.
So the title of the bill—the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—is appropriate. It is appropriate for a number of reasons, but more particularly because the Act it amends is called the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Thank you.
NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) Link to this
This is a very important bill, judging by the support it has received across the whole of Parliament this evening. That just shows how important it is. I wish to make a contribution on the title and the commencement date of this bill. The bill will repeal and replace the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974.
There are some very important parts of this bill. I do not care to politicise it as the Labour Opposition has tried to do this evening. Even though those members are supporting the bill, they are out there trying to scaremonger. It just shows that the departure of Dr Cullen, who delivered his valedictory this evening, has really put pressure on the interesting people who are busy doing the numbers down the corridors now. Maybe they will be working very hard now that they have lost two of the very key components of the Labour Party—but I digress. This is an important bill. It is important because the following people will have to hold a licence: private investigators, security technicians, security consultants, property guards, and personal guards. These people will be required to hold a licence, which is extremely important.
The other important thing—
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I am sorry to interrupt, but I was very confused there. The Government member was talking about security guards. This debate is on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. Earlier today we were debating issues around security guards and private investigators, but that is not what this bill is about, so I cannot see what Mr Guy was talking about.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
That is not a point of order. The bill is clearly the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill.
It just shows that the new member from Wellington Central, who has been in here a short time, does not actually understand—
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
It is out of order to comment on a Chairperson’s decision. The member is invited to continue with his speech.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I will talk now specifically to the title, which is the important part of this bill—
—the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—and also to the commencement date, which will occur after the third reading. The important part of this bill is to do with the Ombudsmen. We have had some very good discussion across the whole of Parliament this evening. I wanted to make a particular comment on new section 15D, which is to be inserted into the Protected Disclosures Act under clause 8. The provision relates to the Ombudsmen and it is very important; I will make some comments about it. The Ombudsmen are particularly busy, as we all know. Section 15D states: “The Chief Ombudsman may, by written notice, appoint a person to perform an Ombudsman’s functions under this Act.” That is vitally important, because the Chief Ombudsman is under a huge amount of pressure. This provision will mean that the Chief Ombudsman can delegate part of his or her role to get on top of the functions of that role.
This bill has received a huge amount of support across the whole of Parliament this evening. The transitional provision has been talked about, and that is enabled with this bill. The bill is not retrospective; it is looking forward. It was drafted under the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines, which is very important, and that is why I believe this bill will be passed. It is very important that this Government carries on with the good work, and that is why National, the main Government party, is supporting this bill.