JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this
I resume my speech in this second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This bill gives effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. The review found that there were delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedures of the Act, as well as confusion about some of the definitions in the Act. There was also a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity.
The bill provides additional powers for Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations, and to coordinate cross-agency activity. This bill widens the definitions of who is a “public official” and who is an “employee” for the purposes of this Act. It extends access to the Act and also extends access to its protections. This bill also allows whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoings, even if that belief is found to be mistaken. Two further amendments were made to the bill on the basis of the Government Administration Committee’s recommendations. The first amendment was the insertion of section 6C(2), inserted by clause 6, to specifically exclude private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for further information about that organisation’s internal procedures. The second recommended amendment to the bill was the insertion of section 15E(3), inserted by clause 8, to include section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act, which is the section relating to offences under that Act. This makes it an offence to refuse to provide the information specified in that section to an Ombudsman.
The 2003 review of the Act found that there were no fundamental problems with the Act’s substance, but that roles and processes within the Act could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available for people proposing to make disclosures. The amendment bill improves aspects of the Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations. The Act will also make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. The Government supports the broad approach of the Act and any efforts to improve its operation and administration. It should be noted—and I believe it is clearly understood—that Ombudsmen are held in high regard across Parliament and in public, and that they are a good fit for an increased facilitation and coordination role under the amendments to this Act.
National expects that with the better tools provided under this amendment bill, Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner and to hold the Government to account. Finally, protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative changes; ongoing operational improvements are also very important. With those few points, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr SPEAKER
METIRIA TUREI (Deputy Musterer—Green) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, there is a guide for the order of speakers, and I understand that we are now at the usual position for a Green Party member to take the call.
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is one further Labour member before we go to ACT and the Green Party.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
I thank my colleague Darien Fenton for allowing me to speak at this time. I have another appointment. The Green Party supports the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. It will help to protect the genuine whistleblowers who expose serious wrongdoing in the public sector.
Under the Act at the moment, whistleblowers can meet a brick wall if they make a procedural mistake regarding the organisation, whom to complain to, or how to complain. If they make a procedural mistake then their complaint can be ruled out. One technicality is that whistleblowers have to refer specifically to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Now, with this amendment bill, such a technical mistake will not rule out their complaints.
Whistleblowers will also be able—as the other speakers have indicated—to get help from the Ombudsman in a number of ways, in terms of the procedures and how to carry the matter further if they reach some obstacle. The Ombudsman will be able to give whistleblowers help even before they make the disclosure if they want help prior to beginning the whole process. The Ombudsman can help further by investigating the issue on his or her own initiative or in coordination with the whistleblower or can refer the complaint to the relevant Minister.
The complainant does not need to be absolutely sure of the situation before making the complaint. There has to be room for error, because, in many cases, the whistleblower will get an inkling something is wrong or might have certain evidence that something is wrong but will not be absolutely sure of all the wrongdoing that has taken place. There might be a set of mirrors in the organisation and the wrongdoer is obfuscated, and I think it is important that this does not hold up the investigation of the complaint by the proper people.
The more assurance the whistleblower has that he or she is protected, the better it will be for getting complaints into the system. We have found so far under the present Act that in the year 2006 there were only eight such whistleblower complaints. The reason for this low number is partly the potential whistleblowers’ lack of knowledge about procedures and what is possible, and partly because the whistleblowers are not entirely confident that they will be protected—that is, that their anonymity will be protected—which is important if they are to continue operating in the workplace, or even in terms of their reputation outside the workplace.
There is also the question of persecution. Any worker can be persecuted by the organisation’s management if it thinks the whistleblower is exposing something it does not want exposed. The whistleblower’s workmates may think that the reputation of a fine organisation is being sullied by the complaint, and the whistleblower can be persecuted as a result. So protection is important if we are to encourage whistleblowing.
In the original bill the problem was not helped by the channel of complaints having to go up through the hierarchy of the organisation to managers who could be, at least in part, responsible for the wrongdoing either directly through incompetence, through not managing their affairs properly, or even through looking the other way and not doing anything about wrongdoing by a subordinate. This bill will mean that complaints will not just be channelled up through the existing structure but that there will be a role for the Ombudsman. People can go to the Ombudsman and ask how to work through the process.
It is important that volunteers are now included in the process, because a lot of organisations use volunteers. Volunteers can recognise wrongdoing within an organisation and they should be able to whistle-blow too. Obviously, non-governmental organisations use a lot of volunteers, but so do State organisations such as the Department of Conservation. Volunteers should be able to be part of the whistleblowing process.
All this is very important, as the Bazley report on historic police wrongdoing indicated. If one reads that report one sees that a lot of what went on—the wrongdoing within the police at Rotorua, etc.—happened because good police did not blow the whistle, for reasons such as they did not feel they could, they thought their careers would be affected, because of mateship, or whatever it was. A combination of things meant that the whistle was not blown and the situation got worse.
Even in some of the discussions we are having now on whether things are going wrong in prisons, it is important that we allow the maximum opportunity for whistleblowing rather than perhaps having some horrendous thing happen and then we debate it in Parliament. That situation could be short-circuited by people whistle-blowing at an earlier stage.
This bill will help organisations to act more morally, will hold them—particularly public organisations—to account, and will make them more in accord with recognised codes of conduct. Thank you.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I am really pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This is an important bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government. In fact, it is so important that I see it still has the Hon David Parker’s name on it. It builds on the Protected Disclosures Act, which was also introduced by the previous Labour Government, in 2001. The bill was considered in the last Parliament by the Government Administration Committee, of which I was deputy chair, and I think the committee did an excellent job.
It is pleasing to see that this bill has not been discharged by the National Government, unlike some other important legislation. One such bill that was particularly close to my heart was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 3), which would have given temporary and casual workers, both in the State and in the private sector, much more certainty and security in these very difficult times. I am relieved that the bill has survived the appalling denigration of public sector workers that we are seeing from this National Government. In its lexicon, front-line workers means good workers, and workers behind the front line are bureaucrats who, in other words, have jobs that are useless, pointless, and wasteful. The worker is often described as lazy, bloated, and dispensable.
It must be awful to work in the State sector at the moment. There is nothing worse than having one’s job devalued, having one’s work constantly criticised, and living under the threat of the knife day after day after day. I feel for State sector workers and, indeed, I meet many of them as I go about my parliamentary duties and family responsibilities. I cannot imagine life without the clerical workers in hospitals, for example, who help us through the maze of public hospitals when a family member is in hospital. I cannot imagine life without the workers who help each of us here in Parliament, like those who work as our executive assistants, and those who work in our offices outside of Parliament. Are they bureaucrats or are they front-line staff? Who knows? It does not really matter to me, because they do important work and we rely on them. I would love to see National Party MPs telling their executive assistants that they are bureaucrats and therefore valueless and useless, and to see how far they get in their day’s work. The National Government, unfortunately, is currently responsible for the demoralisation of State sector workers—the very workers it will need help and cooperation from as the economic crisis grows and New Zealanders expect more assistance from this Government.
As previous speakers have said, this bill amends the Protected Disclosures Act, which facilitates the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing within both public and private sector organisations, and protects those who bring that information forward, in accordance with procedures under the Act.
Moana MackeyThat is a good idea; the member is right.
The need for the Act arose after 10 years of a National Government, in a climate of fear in the public sector during the 1990s. There was the well-known story of Neil Pugmire, a nurse at Lake Alice Hospital who expressed concern to his employer—which was then known by the ridiculous name of Good Health Wanganui; members will remember that name and how crazy that was—over the release of dangerous psychiatric patients into the community. When he got no satisfactory response he went public about his concerns. He was suspended and then fired. This led to much public debate about the importance of public servants being able to speak out about abuses or corruption that they see in their workplaces.
Unfortunately, I think that the climate of fear is reasserting itself in the Public Service. We have signs that this National Government will not tolerate dissenting views from public servants. [Interruption] That is right. The National Government is seeking to control even the very words that public servants use. There are bizarre examples. I have heard that NZAID staff have been told that any reports or papers written for Minister Murray McCully cannot include the words “poverty alleviation”, “human rights”, or “gender”, in case they upset the Minister. There are other stories about stupid instructions from Ministers in relation to State sector staff about words that will not find favour—for example, “social justice”.
“Public health”! These kinds of directions are quite scary, and when a Government seeks to direct or limit the very language of public sector workers, we are heading down a very dangerous path.
Then we have the strange circumstances of Dr Nick Smith seeking to muzzle the chief executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in the recent select committee debacle. That was after he muzzled the chair and the entire ACC board. Tony Ryall is pretending that if he dumps pay equity investigations then the problem does not exist. Soon we will not be able to use the words “pay equity”, and women will just have to put up with being paid less than men for doing work of equal value.
This Government is muzzling the State sector. It is shutting down dissenting views and it is shutting down debate. The National Government’s old prejudices are emerging.
In speaking about disclosures, let me ask about the interesting disclosure in the New Zealand Herald yesterday that New Zealanders are being asked whether the Government should allow nuclear-powered ships back into our waters. Workers for a market research company have disclosed that they have been polling voters about nuclear power. They claim that the survey was being carried out for the National Party. The original Act did require a review, as other speakers have referred to, and this was carried out by Mary Scholtens QC. It was an excellent report, and she concluded that the Act had not been used a great deal and that it had not always been used well. That was of concern to the select committee and of concern to me. She identified that there were problems in the uptake of the rights of this bill, and that many workers did not know about protected disclosures. She also said there were delays, inconsistencies, and other difficulties in using the legislative procedures properly.
The report also highlighted that there was a strong perception among workers consulted on the Act that the identity of a whistle-blowing employee would not be protected. That perception goes to the heart of the effective operation of this Act and this bill. Without protection for those who set out to disclose wrongdoing in their organisation, the confidence of workers is diminished. Ms Scholtens’ review concluded that the Ombudsman could assist whistleblowers, coordinate referrals between appropriate authorities, and guide and review the Act’s operation. The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill gives the Ombudsman that enhanced role. It also picks up on a number of other recommendations designed to improve the Act’s protection and processes.
The right of public sector workers to speak freely about their concerns will be severely limited by the current approach of this National Government. Which public servants in their right minds would be courageous enough to challenge their bosses in this kind of environment?
Absolutely. So many jobs are on the line, there is so much uncertainty, and the very work that workers do has been denigrated and maligned for month upon month, both before and after the election campaign. The Government’s approach is highly dangerous not only to State sector workers but to the reputation of our Public Service. It also endangers our consistently good rating on the annual survey of Transparency International as a corruption-free country.
In the current environment, with National’s razor-gang approach—it is a razor gang on the march—this legislation is more important that ever. Unfortunately, the National-led Government is destroying the goodwill of public sector workers, let alone other workers. National members think they can get away with attacking young workers and vulnerable workers with the 90-day bill. They think they can risk alienating temporary and casual workers by dumping the bill that would have given them protection. They think they can denigrate the accident compensation scheme and fool the public into believing that privatisation and reductions in services are acceptable. They think they can ignore the State by refusing to provide alternatives such as the 9-day working fortnight for struggling departments and workers losing their jobs. Well, I am here to tell National that its Government may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but it cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Thank you.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
If I had one concern about the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill, it would be in the title. How much easier would it be if we knew we were standing to talk to the issue of workplace whistle-blowing—or even to talk to the bill to report serious wrongdoing in the workplace?
The concept of disclosure has, of course, many and varied meanings. As a former lawyer, the context I am most familiar with is disclosure as interpreted across various statutes. In company law, disclosure relates to giving out information about public or limited companies. Disclosure, in a property context, refers to information being disclosed about aspects to do with real estate that might influence the property values or appraisal. Or, in a criminal law action, it might be understood within the context of the victim protection scheme. In a health context, disclosure might relate to the nature of one’s disability or specific health condition. Whereas “workplace whistle-blowing” would clearly convey the types of disclosures that might promote investigation of serious wrongdoing in the workplace and provide protection for employees. Of course, we would expect that “serious wrongdoing” could benefit from a full definition, as well.
This issue—of knowing exactly what we mean when we refer to protected disclosure—was a key concern brought forward by Mary Scholtens QC in her 2003 review of how well the protected disclosure legislation was working. In her assessment, there were many difficulties associated with using the legislation procedures properly, not the least being confusion over some definitions.
Another key group of concerns was around a perceived lack of confidentiality and protection of identity. The review went so far as to say that the perception was so strong as to be possibly a reality—that it was unlikely the identity of a person making the protected disclosure would remain confidential. This is, of course, at the heart of the legislation, so is a significant concern that this House must address. David Woodnorth, a barrister writing in Employment Today, observed that “employees may only be prepared to blow the whistle on wrongdoing when they can be reassured that a high degree of confidentiality applies to their identity as the informant.” If confidentiality cannot be assured, then employee confidence in the process will be unlikely, and as a consequence the Act will only ever have limited effectiveness.
In response to these not insignificant concerns, the 2003 review recommended that the functions of the Ombudsman could be extended under the Act to give more explicit powers related to information-giving and advising. The bill highlights the role of the Ombudsman, giving him or her an enhanced role in guiding, reviewing, and investigating disclosures of serious wrongdoing. In particular, the Office of the Ombudsmen is charged with facilitating a collaborative, cross-agency approach. We support the role of the Ombudsman in taking up a more substantial responsibility in managing and coordinating the various investigative functions of organisations and we were pleased to see the amendment from the Government Administration Committee making it an offence to refuse to provide the Ombudsman with information about internal procedures.
Accountability, transparency, credibility—these are all concepts that the Māori Party has always placed a great deal of weight around. In our policy manifesto He Aha Te Mea Nui we were keen to investigate a more substantial role for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. We had envisaged that an important new function they could take on would be reporting annually on the effectiveness of interventions targeted at Māori, Pasifika, refugees, migrants, and youth. This same reporting procedure might encompass an annual report on the capability of the State sector to achieve outcomes for Māori. So opening up one’s books—throwing light on to the affairs of any entity—is something that we believe is fundamental to the operations of a healthy democracy. We welcome, therefore, the recommendation to ensure both public and private sector organisations and employees will be required to provide information about their internal procedures around disclosure, in the public interest.
I have to admit—and I am sure the Minister would be of the same view—that it made serious reading to learn of the concerns raised by John Crowther. Mr Crowther was acting for Deborah Houston, who was the whistleblower in matters of conflict of interest with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Ms Houston was acutely aware of the importance of getting it right in improving the protection of whistleblowers. In her experience, the risk of retaliation was high. More evidence around this is provided in the New Zealand State Services Commission integrity and conduct survey of 2007. It was extremely disappointing to learn that district health boards have the lowest awareness of the provisions in the Protected Disclosures Act. Less than a quarter—some 23 percent—of our district health boards knew about the provisions of the Act. The other revealing finding was that there was less belief at the district health board level that senior and middle-management would exhibit and practise elements of ethical behaviour. 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 average, their reasons for not reporting are typically more fear-based. In the report of the survey, it notes that of the district health board employees who report misconduct, some 30 percent claim to have experienced retaliation as a result. The leaders and decision makers of the institutions focused on the health and well-being of New Zealanders are at fault. I believe this is also a specific issue for all who are charged with responsibility in the health sector to face.
On the basis of the 2003 review by Mary Scholtens and the submissions received for this bill, there clearly has been an inconsistent application of the Act, including questions about what agencies are included as “appropriate authorities”. And yet, at the same time, when the provisions of the Act had been incorporated into an organisational culture—when the risk management policies of an agency and the procedures relating to appropriate ethical conduct are sufficiently robust—then it has appeared to work well.
We in the Māori Party have an interest in all organisations working well, which will ultimately be in the best interests of the workforce, of families, and of the wider community. We believe the implementation of the Act would be successful with a greater involvement from the Office of the Ombudsmen, and we support the overall thrust of extending human rights protections to those making disclosures of serious wrongdoing. The Māori Party supports this bill. Kia ora.
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) Link to this
I rise to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill, and I kick off by saying that New Zealand has a tradition of strong leadership. It perhaps began with “King Dick” Seddon in the 1890s and the first Labour Government around the Second World War, conscription, and the post-war era. I think of Sir Robert Muldoon’s administration during the economic crisis of the 1970s, the fourth Labour Government from 1984 to 1990, and the National Government from 1900 until MMP arrived in 1996. The unbridled power of executive Government has been described as perhaps the most streamlined form of democracy in the world. I also think of my constituents, and I see New Zealanders valuing pragmatism, flexibility, and innovation. When we want to change things, we generally adopt an incremental approach to deal with problems. By and large, the New Zealand community is happy to make changes in the way that we run our legislation. I see in my community a strong sense of egalitarianism and a sense of fair play, and I think that honesty is a strong New Zealand value. In my community, there is a widespread view that everybody should have a fair go and there is a belief that when injustices occur, they need to be remedied. If someone has made a mistake or caused a problem, even unwittingly, he or she needs to front up and admit it.
Over recent years there has also been a shift in the way that New Zealand officials, local government politicians, and others engage with business. There was a time when businesses took the view that central government would create broad business conditions through taxes, trade policies, subsidies—way back when there were things like subsidies—and monetary policy. They thought that there was not too much that local bodies could do to influence business conditions, and their activities were minor. Over recent years we have seen the role of central and local government change quite significantly. If I think of my own electorate, I have seen the Universal College of Learning, a State-owned enterprise, involving itself in Martinborough by going along and saying that it was going to set up a cuisine school. More recently, I have seen activities under the aegis of the Canterbury Regional Council and its wholly owned subsidiary Target Pest Enterprises Ltd. That company went into receivership and cost people in my community serious amounts of money. I see that as indicative of an environment where our local authorities are much more engaged in commercial activity. I think of the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the consistent loss-making entity called BioWorks, which is also competing with private sector companies. I support the broad approach of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act for those reasons, as does the Government. There is a need to improve the workings of the legislation both in its day-to-day operations and in its administration.
I recall about 2 years ago saying to John Belgrave, a friend and a man I highly respected as an Ombudsman, that the Office of the Ombudsmen was vital because it was the one guarantor that the right thing could be done, and when the right thing was not done then politicians and people in the community relied on the integrity of the Office of the Ombudsmen to get good disclosure. I know that across our communities the Office of the Ombudsmen is held in high regard, as it is in this Parliament. With this legislation, we are trying to facilitate the Office of the Ombudsmen and the coordination role that it has.
If we provide better tools through this amendment bill, we can expect that Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner, and will be better able to hold Government—both central government and local government—to account. I stress local government because that is where I keep seeing some entities owned by local government stepping out of line in provincial communities. For example, the Universal College of Learning, a tertiary provider, is stepping out of line in some of the things it is doing. It is ultimately the people inside an organisation, at all levels, who are watching what is going on and very often are best placed to get engaged in the business of saying: “Excuse me, I’m not sure that this is right. Could we please have another look at it?”. If they cannot get their colleagues in the organisation to do that, then they need a vehicle for blowing the whistle. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; we also need ongoing operational improvements, which are very important. We must learn from our mistakes. Silence is not in the public interest. We want the public to have confidence in the process of making a protected disclosure, and in my 3½ years in Parliament I can point to a number of instances where that level of confidence has not existed or has not protected people.
This bill will give effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act, and I commend my colleague Tony Ryall for bringing this legislation back to the House and progressing it within the first 100 days of this administration. That review found there had been delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedures of the Act, as well as confusion about some of the definitions and a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. That is something that can be very hard to do in an environment where a relatively small group of people know what is going on.
This bill provides additional powers for Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations, and to coordinate cross-agency activity. The bill widens the definition of “public official” and of “employee” for the purposes of the Act. It extends access to the Act and to its protections. The bill will also allow whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing, even if this belief is found to be mistaken. There are two further amendments to the bill that I will remain silent on at this point, but I hope to address them in the third reading of the bill. Again, I wholeheartedly support this legislation. Thank you.
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this
Today I want to focus on the issue at hand and not waste time, unlike some of the members opposite. Last week we heard Mr Grant Robertson talk about a whole range of irrelevant areas rather than focus on the topic being discussed. National has delivered this quickly after all the other results it has achieved in the first 100 days, so I am pleased to stand to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in the second reading.
National recognises the need to protect those who wish to speak out in the best interests of New Zealand. We need to recognise that whistle-blowing comes with some risk to employees. We also know that silence is not in the public interest. I want to address a comment that Ms Fenton raised around the possibility that the current Government might want to stifle freedom of speech. I remind the House of legislation passed by the then Labour Government called the Electoral Finance Act. That Act did everything it could to avoid members of the New Zealand public having their say. The National Government is proud to support freedom of speech. I want to talk about the original intention or objective of the initial Protected Disclosures Act 2000.
Absolutely, it was passed by that Government and National is proud to make sure that the Act works as it was intended to. That is why we are bringing this amendment to the House.
The Act was intended to operate by facilitating the disclosure of serious wrongdoing, facilitating the investigation of that serious wrongdoing, and protecting employees who make disclosures under the Act. The Act also provided for a review to be made of its operation no sooner than 2 years after the commencement. That 2003 review appears to be comprehensive, comprising of around 90 pages. That review was in 2003, so I am not quite sure what happened in the intervening years; it has taken 4 years for that bill to come to the House and the results—or at least some of them—were introduced last year by the then Labour Government. It took 4 years. In contrast to the previous Government—and I am not quite sure what it focused on—National has not wasted any time in picking up this bill and taking it forward to this second reading.
As my colleagues Jacqui Dean and John Hayes have stated earlier today, this bill gives effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Act. The review found delays and inconsistencies around the legislative processes of the Act, some confusion about definitions, and a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. Of course, it is incredibly important that those who have information to disclose are adequately protected. The bill provides additional powers for the Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations, and to coordinate cross-agency activity. The bill widens definitions of “public official” and “employee” for the purposes of the Act, and extends access to the Act and—more importantly—its protections to include board members and volunteers. National recognises the important work that volunteers undertake and we recognise that those in unpaid work need to be equally protected in terms of disclosures. It allows whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing, even if this belief is found to be mistaken. It recognises that mistakes can occasionally occur, but we would much rather that people feel confident in their ability to be protected while disclosing important information even if, on the odd occasion, they are mistaken.
Two further amendments were made to the bill on the basis of the Government Administration Committee’s recommendations. One is the insertion of section 6C(2). It specifically excludes private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about an organisation’s internal procedures. The other amendment is to section 15E. It includes section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act, which is the section relating to offences under the Act. It makes it an offence to refuse to provide an Ombudsman with the specified information.
When looking at the 2003 review, the committee found that there were no fundamental problems with the Act’s substance, but that the roles and processes could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available to people proposing to make disclosure. One important thing is that if there are steps that can be taken to make it easier for people to disclose, then it might encourage more people to take that opportunity. That is why it is really important that these processes are simplified, and, rather than sit on our hands for 4 years, this Government is taking action in the second reading of this bill. The bill improves aspects of the Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations, and it will make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. We want to make sure that organisations that investigate whistleblowers’ information find the process easier than it currently is.
National supports the broad approach of the Protected Disclosures Act and supports any efforts to improve its operation and administration. National expects that with the better tools available through this amendment bill, Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner in holding the Government to account. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; ongoing operational improvements are also important. We recognise that any time a law is changed there are important changes to processes that then make that legal change relevant. We recognise that silence is not in the public interest. We want the public to have confidence in the process of making a protected disclosure.
I stand before members thrilled to support both the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and the Minister of State Services, the Hon Tony Ryall. This bill improves aspects of the Protected Disclosures Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations, and it will make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. I commend this bill to the House.
NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) Link to this
I wish to take a call on the second reading of the very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the wonderful work of the then members of the Government Administration Committee that was chaired by Shane Ardern: Darien Fenton, Brian Connell, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, Sandra Goudie, and the Hon Dover Samuels. The select committee heard four written submissions and one verbal submission.
This is very, very important legislation, and I will give the House some of the reasons why I believe it is extremely important. I acknowledge that this bill still allows for people out there to blow the whistle, and that is extremely important. They will continue to receive the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 on the grounds that they believe it is reasonable for information of serious wrongdoing to be provided. That is a very important part of this bill. It widens the definitions of who is a “public official” and who is considered an “employee” for the purposes of this Act. This extends access to the Act and to its protections.
Two further amendments were made to the bill through the work of that very important select committee. I will spend a little time, if I can, on those two recommendations, which have already been alluded to by some of the earlier speakers this afternoon. The first is the insertion of subsection (2) in section 6C, inserted by clause 6, which specifically excludes private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about an organisation’s internal procedures. The second amends section 15E(3), inserted by clause 8, to include a reference to section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act, which makes it an offence to refuse to provide the Ombudsmen with the information specified in that provision. This is a very important bill, which this Government is progressing. For that reason, the Government supports the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill.