8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
to the Minister of Housing
Does he have confidence in the Housing New Zealand chairman, given that he broke the “no surprises” agreement by failing to tell him for 6 months about the allegations of accounting irregularities made by a former contractor; if so, why?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) Link to this
Yes. The chair acted appropriately and promptly, once all the circumstances of the allegations were drawn to his attention.
Why does he have confidence in the chairman when the Prime Minister herself said that the chairman should have advised him earlier, and when all parties agreed that the gagging clause was “an error of judgment” and “not remotely appropriate”?
The chairperson of Housing New Zealand and myself both condemned the gagging clause as soon as we found out about it. We did not find out about it until the news media broke the story.
Steve ChadwickWhat steps did the Minister take when he was made aware of the full circumstances of the allegations?
I called in the board chairman for a full explanation and made it clear that the allegations needed to be investigated in a transparent and comprehensive way. I am pleased to see that the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is now engaged in that investigation.
Why did the chairman not agree to an inquiry until now, given that he knew of the contractor’s allegations 6 months ago and knew of the gagging clause as early as March; why did the chairman not take this issue seriously before the public and media outcry?
As I indicated in my initial answer, as soon as the chairman was aware of the full scope, or potential scope, of the allegations he acted promptly, as I did.
Why did the chairman have Gerald Coles stood down on the basis of the gagging-clause letter that directly implicated him, but did not stand down the chief executive when that very same letter directly implicates her?
These are matters being investigated by the Auditor-General. I do not consider it appropriate to comment until after that investigation is completed and made public.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was about the standing down of Gerald Coles, which occurred well before the Auditor-General’s inquiry was agreed on, and even before the Auditor-General was asked to have an inquiry. I find it intriguing that the Labour member Steve Chadwick can ask about events before the inquiry was announced and get a full answer—and you will find that in the reply to supplementary question No. 3—but an Opposition member like myself cannot get a full answer from the Minister on events before the inquiry was called, and that he hides behind the fact that the inquiry was called. I would like an answer to my question, just like the Labour member got an answer to her question.
Madam SPEAKERAs the Minister has condemned the gagging clause in the House today, can he confirm that as a matter of principle, if inquiries show that the chief executive knew of this gagging-clause arrangement, he will expect the directors of Housing New Zealand to require her resignation?
In all my public comments on this issue, and as I have said again in the House today, I find such a gagging order totally unacceptable.
As he has condemned the gagging order, can he confirm, as a matter of principle, that if the chairman of the board knew of this gagging-clause arrangement he would expect his resignation?
I repeat my last answer that such a gagging clause is totally unacceptable. We will see what the investigation turns up.