Ombudsman supports whistleblowing hospital staff

Senior hospital management used the whistleblowers act to protect themselves when making the allegations which led to the suspension of Taranaki District Health Board chief executive John O'Neill more than a year ago.

The Ombudsman, Mel Smith, in a provisional decision, has now supported their case for anonymity under the three-year-old Protected Disclosures Act 2000.

The law was designed to protect whistleblowers reporting such things as irregularities and serious wrong-doing in their workplace.

An early review of the act has suggested accusers hold little confidence that their confidentiality will be maintained.

The report, tabled in Parliament last week, recommends that either a new body be set up to help accusers or that the role of the Ombudsman be beefed up.

There has been a cloak of silence around the reasons for Mr O'Neill's suspension in October 2002.

It now appears the public will remain in the dark as to why he was suspended and whether the board's investigation of complaints had cleared him.

Because of extensive public interest, the Daily News has filed a series of requests to the Ombudsman to release the information through the Official Information Act.

In a letter to the newspaper, the Ombudsman said that the board advised him that the employees who approached the board with the allegations about Mr O'Neill had done so under the Protected Disclosures Act.

Section 19 of the act, which he must take into consideration, prevented disclosure of any information that might identify those people, Mr Smith said.

"After careful consideration of the content of the notes, I am of the opinion that the release of any of this information would be likely to identify the persons concerned," Mr Smith said.

The Ombudsman also provisionally decided against releasing the terms of settlement which followed Mr O'Neill's employment grievance action against his dismissal.

Mr Smith said he agreed with the board that disclosure would be likely to otherwise damage the public interest under a section of the Privacy Act.

In October 2002, the board refused to confirm or deny Mr O'Neill had been suspended.

The board eventually made public that it was investigating serious allegations by several senior managers of inappropriate conduct by Mr O'Neill.

Mr O'Neill then went on extended sick leave and seven months later the board dismissed him on the grounds of ill health.

The board admitted in September last year that it paid out more than $130,000 in employment-related legal fees in the previous 12 months, mostly for the O'Neill saga.

During the time of his suspension and extended sick leave, Mr O'Neill was paid $5300 a week, as was his replacement Mary Bonner.

- NZPA