Lawsuit damaging for job prospects says Crown

By FRANCESCA MOLD political reporter

Former Winz boss Christine Rankin's chances of getting another job have been damaged by her pursuit of an $818,000 lawsuit, rather than by a conspiracy of Government ministers, say crown lawyers.

Lawyers for both sides were expected to wrap up their arguments today in the Employment Court at Wellington.

Yesterday, crown counsel Alan Galbraith, QC, warned that Mrs Rankin could not hold her employer, State Services Commissioner Michael Wintringham, responsible for any damage to her employment prospects.

Mrs Rankin's own assertion that the Government would not let Mr Wintringham reappoint her chief executive of Work and Income was "fatal" to her claim.

She had personalised all aspects of her position and performance and blamed others for her non-reappointment, including a conspiracy of senior cabinet ministers, said Mr Galbraith.

The court also heard from Associate Social Services Minister Ruth Dyson, who was questioned about any concerns she might have that the head of the Prime Minister's office, Mark Prebble, allegedly made inappropriate comments to female chief executives.

Last week, it was revealed that Dr Prebble had described a dress Mrs Rankin was wearing as "indecent."

He had also advised her to shop at Katies and to change her earrings.

"I have stronger concerns that this is being turned into a clothing and gender issue, which I have never regarded it as being," said Ms Dyson.

"For me as a woman member of Parliament this is about quality of work, not fashion."

Mrs Rankin's lawyer, Michael Quigg, also asked questions about former Treasury official Karen Erenstrom, who allegedly had concerns about the way women were treated in that department.

Mr Quigg last week questioned Dr Prebble, also a former senior Treasury official, about whether he had been admonished for any comments or treatment of female staff.

Dr Prebble vehemently denied this, saying it was a shady and dark allegation.

Mr Quigg said yesterday in his closing argument that Dr Prebble's quality of judgment was "highly questionable."

A judgmental attitude had pervaded Dr Prebble's evidence and this attitude could have influenced Mr Wintringham and his opinion of Mrs Rankin, said Mr Quigg.

Ruth Dyson was also asked about a meeting with Mrs Rankin during which comments were made about the need for her to change her glasses, hair, earrings and skirts.

"It was about style and substance. It wasn't about the fashion of the day," said Ms Dyson.

"If Mrs Rankin saw this meeting as an attack on her personal dress then she misunderstood the point. This was not the message. It was about the public perception of the department and Mrs Rankin."

Ms Dyson admitted discussing the Prime Minister's appearance and style during the meeting.

She said Helen Clark had become a "much more engaging person from the public point of view" now that she was relaxed and less defensive.

Ms Dyson agreed that Mr Maharey had sworn during the heated meeting out of frustration and to emphasise points. But she had always found Mr Maharey to be politically correct.