By EUGENE BINGHAM political reporter
A secrecy clause inserted into a deal brokered to avoid setting a legal precedent for parental leave was requested by the Office of the Ombudsmen and not the other parties in the dispute.
And the Weekend Herald can reveal that the total cost of dealing with the case is more than $80,000.
The Herald reported exclusively this week that the Chief Ombudsman - the arbiter of accountable government - and the Solicitor-General agreed to a confidential settlement with a former employee of the Office of the Ombudsmen. She complained to the Human Rights Commission about her treatment after returning from parental leave.
Documents showed the "pre-eminent" concern of the Chief Ombudsman, Sir Brian Elwood, was the risk of creating an "unfavourable precedent for the public sector."
Sir Brian said this week that he had agreed to confidentiality because "it was one of those tough situations where, in order to get a settlement, the confidentiality was required."
Those comments prompted the Human Rights Commission proceedings commissioner involved in the case to speak out yesterday.
"The request for confidentiality did not emanate from the commissioner or the complainant," said the commissioner, Chris Lawrence.
"It was agreed to as part of the process of securing a settlement."
Mr Lawrence said the commission "preferred not" to have confidentiality agreements.
"Sometimes, however, one or other party wishes to have a confidentiality clause in the settlement and it's not unusual for what are essentially civil legal disputes to be settled on confidential terms.
"In this particular case it was a matter of balancing the rights and interests of everybody, including the complainant, and coming up with an agreement that everybody could live with."
Upon the advice of the Solicitor-General, John McGrath, QC, Sir Brian agreed to pay the woman $50,000.
Papers obtained by the Herald show the Office of the Ombudsmen also paid $33,000 in legal costs to the Crown Law Office as a result of the case.
As Chief Ombudsman, Sir Brian oversees the Official Information Act which aims to promote accountability of ministers of the Crown and officials.
This week, however, he defended the fact he had settled confidentially, saying he was acting as a chief executive, rather than as an Ombudsman.
Sir Brian also denied there had been a cover-up of any kind.
"All that is confidential is the agreement. It is not unusual between the employer and employee that there are confidentiality agreements ..."
The woman at the centre of the case was a senior investigating officer before she went on parental leave. When she came back, there was no senior position for her. She took part-time work as an investigating officer instead but eventually left and complained of indirect discrimination.
A letter from Mr McGrath to Sir Brian showed they decided to pay out the woman rather than have the Complaints Review Tribunal rule on the woman's case.
Ombudsman sought secrecy
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.