It will always be a mystery to many as to why Council appears to believe that a confidentiality clause would stop both councillors and ratepayers from realising that an out of court settlement (reached on the first day of the court case) indicates by default that Council had been in the wrong with regard to the dismissal.
Further Updates
The Daily Examiner on 5 December 2013 at Page 7:
WHAT is the point of a non-disclosure agreement that withholds
information that anyone can find out by keeping their eyes and ears open?
This isn't a rhetorical question.
I'd really would like to know.
On Tuesday there was a NSW Industrial Relations Commission hearing into
whether the dismissal of Clarence Valley Council head ranger Wayne
Smith was unfair.
It concluded on Murwillum-bah Court House steps with both parties
agreeing to a conclusion and signing a deed of non-disclosure of information.
This included not revealing whether the ranger got his job back or not.
It was not because Mr Smith and his legal team did not want the story to
get out, they arrived at court with every expectation the case would go ahead
and all would be revealed.
However there is a bigger question to be asked about non-disclosure
agreements.
Is it fair for an individual or an organisation to call for a
non-disclosure agreement when behaviour may need scrutiny?
Non-disclosure is valid, for example, to protect intellectual property,
such as when an employee leaves a company.
But how much ratepayers' money was spent on investigations and legal
fees without the public being able to judge its validity and effectiveness?
The short answer is that ratepayers and reporters can't tell because
none of the information was tested in a hearing and it is unfair to publish
information that we can't take reasonable steps to clarify.
But stopping the poor bloke from being able to tell the world whether he
had his job back or not was definitely one step too far.