English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16525] 
11.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Who is responsible for the remuneration packages of chief executives in the education service and does this responsibility include approving entitlements to golden handshakes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 In the education service the governing body of each agency is the employer of the chief executive. Councils of tertiary education institutions are required under the State Sector Act to obtain the concurrence of the State Services Commissioner to the proposed terms and conditions of employment for the chief executive. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Come on speak up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can hear perfectly well. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is the member who gets bounced all over the place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please continue with the answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: For schools and kindergartens the commissioner is responsible for negotiating the terms and conditions of employment but has delegated those to the Secretary for Education. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fully accept that as close as you are to the Minister you can no doubt hear. I have my speaker set on high—I can hear mumbling but I cannot discern or understand what it is he is saying at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a fair point. I ask the Minister to speak into the microphone and to repeat his answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Once an individual agreement is signed by the employing council it is responsible for managing the employment relationship. That includes for example exercising the termination provisions in case of sickness redundancy or misconduct. I am advised that non-contractual ex gratia payments are the prerogative of the institution concerned and do not under the current legislation require concurrence. That is why in my opinion an unfortunate payment was made to the former vice-chancellor of Lincoln University. 
Hon Bill English 
: What kind of Government policy is it that says the Government is opposed to golden handshakes being paid that it approves contracts to make sure golden handshakes are not being paid but that it is OK if the governing body of Lincoln University then decides to pay one—as long as they do not ask? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think they were kind enough to inform that they had and received my displeasure at that time and publicly since. I think the effect for Government representatives on councils that defy Government policy will be clear when they come up for renewal. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister taken action to ensure that when contracts are drawn up for vice-chancellors of universities there is no possibility that golden handshakes can be paid; and where it has occurred in contravention of Government policy has he done any more than just look a little bit displeased about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that if one discusses the matter with people like the chancellor of the university one will know that looking a little displeased is not my reaction. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Minister know when he approved the contract that universities were legally able to make ex gratia payments; and did he allow for that possibility because he realised that his own policy was probably impractical? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have never approved a vice-chancellor’s contract. That would be an absolute breach of the State Sector Act. I should say that for a former Minister to allege that shows his ignorance. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister intend to change the legislation in order that it expresses Government policy that no golden handshakes be paid or is he just going to allow this practice to continue? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One of the problems of having institutions with some autonomy is that they are left with autonomy to do things outside contractual arrangements. This is exactly what happened at Lincoln and this case has drawn to the attention of the Government the problem around the width of the contracts. I do want to consider whether it is appropriate to remove their autonomy in these matters but I should say that it would be a finely balanced decision and there would be many people in the House who would not think that that was a good idea.