9. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of State Services
What specific concerns, if any, does she have regarding terms and conditions of employment for chief executives in the State sector?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this
In general, I have few concerns. However, I am concerned at the early resignation of Paula Tyler, the Chief Executive of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. It has highlighted the lack of any clause in respect of her relocation expenses, in the event of her earlier than expected resignation. This is not satisfactory. Future agreements with chief executives appointed from overseas will have a clause to recover appropriate expenses in the event of a chief executive finishing his or her term early. I have given instructions to the State Services Commissioner to implement this clause before any new appointments are made.
What is her response to media reports in which Ms Tyler blames the State Services Commission for her early departure, as it did not uphold a commitment, or understanding, to find her partner a senior State Service position, and can she advise the House whether promising to find partners a job is typical of the recruitment mechanism used by the State Services Commissioner?
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
Has there been a huge increase in the number of new public service chief executives recruited from overseas?
No. Our records show that since 1 July 1991 only eight out of 81—10 percent—new chief executive appointments have been made from overseas. Two of these were New Zealanders returning home, four were Australians, and two were Canadians. Three of these were appointed for a further term.
Has she enquired as to what specific household furnishings were purchased by Ms Tyler as part of her $40,000 relocation package, and why does her contract enable furnishings purchased by the taxpayer to be retained by her when she returns to Canada less than halfway through her contract?
Judith CollinsDoes she think the attempt by the Families Commission to keep secret the details of a $50,000 golden handshake paid to former chief executive Claire Austin was in keeping with the Government’s promise that it would set new standards and be open and accountable; if not, why did her Government keep the golden handshake details secret for more than 6 months, until, conveniently, after the election?
Whilst I do not have information with me on that particular issue, I think I recall that the payment was noted in the annual report.
If the details of the $50,000 golden handshake paid to Claire Austin were always going to be revealed in the annual report of the Families Commission, why would these have been kept secret for 6 months, if not to ensure that they remained hidden from voters until after this last election?