It takes gall to claim that Jami-Lee Ross was a one-off.

takes gall to claim that Jami-Lee Ross was a one-off, that there are no other bullies that the party is aware of,” he said.

But the staffer said the final straw for going public was when he saw his former job advertised and feeling “awful” that the next person would go through the same experiences he had.

“I just couldn’t take it. Parliamentary Service as an employer has an obligation to ensure its staff are safe. They can’t guarantee that if they recruit someone to work for Maggie,” he claimed.

He said Parliamentary Service clearly knew about Barry’s behaviour — his manager from the service had even warned him during his induction Barry could be a difficult boss.

When he later complained to the manager that he was having trouble, he says he was told to document any inappropriate behaviour — which is why he had the recordings.

He believed the National Party must also know about Barry, because the whip’s office had told him she could be “tough” with staff; the party lawyer was involved in the grievance case; he had emailed party chief of staff Jamie Gray with concerns after leaving; and had spoken to Barbara Kuriger, the whip, as part of the culture inquiry.

“I was pretty dissatisfied with her response. She said something like ‘we just need to be nicer to each other’,” he said.

A spokesman for National said it was not appropriate to comment on individual employment matters, and noted the party’s cultural review to ensure a safe workplace.

“The National Party works hard to ensure a positive workplace,” the spokesman said.

The former staffer never went back to work after giving evidence in the first investigation — because he believed Barry would see his evidence and no longer trust him — instead invoking a relationship “breakdown” clause which prompted the second investigation, and his exit. He said he was contacted after the bullying inquiry was announced this week, and will give evidence.

The former staffer supportive of Barry, who did not want her name published, said that Barry could be “firm”, but had never seen anything resembling bullying from Barry — though she added that everyone had different definitions.

“On different days, people have different sensitivities, and people have different lines of what they can and can’t tolerate.”

She was surprised when the personal grievance case surfaced and the other former staffer stopped coming to work.

“It came as a huge shock to me that that particular person didn’t step into the office again.

“I was blindsided. I was told not to contact him by Parliamentary Service. I had no idea.”

She also said that new staff members sometimes mistook parliamentary work for party work, and it often took time to realise what material, for example, should and should not carry a National Party logo.

She said she sometimes did party work when she worked for Barry, but did so on a volunteer basis from home and using her own email address.

The Weekend Herald has been unable to confirm the result of the first investigation into the personal grievance case.

Barry said she could not respond to individual employment matters because of the Privacy Act and employment law.

Parliamentary Service, which is not subject to the Official Information Act, also said it could not comment on individual cases.

A spokesperson said Parliamentary Service may investigate claims that parliamentary staff were doing party work.

“Employees who take part in any political activity, other than activities that are a function of their role, are required to ensure that Parliamentary Service resources are not used and that the political activities do not bring them into conflict with their primary duties as an employee of Parliamentary Service.”

Barry said she welcomed the review into bullying at Parliament, which will be led by Debbie Francis.

Francis has said that she may advise bringing Parliamentary Service under the Official Information Act, which could improve behaviour.

Speaking about the Francis review earlier this week, Act leader David Seymour said MPs, and not Parliamentary Service, should be the boss of their staff, and the current arrangement means that MPs can treat their staff with impunity.