Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20158] 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How much money was paid to Claire Austin on her departure from the position of chief executive at the Families Commission? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The agreement between the Families Commission and the former chief executive includes a provision that the details of the settlement are confidential. I have conveyed to the Chief Families Commissioner that this settlement and the process that preceded it do not appear to be consistent with the clear expectations of the Government or with the guidelines that the State Services Commission and the Audit Office have developed in relation to the departure of a State sector staff member. A process is in place to work through with the chief commissioner the consequences of his decision. 
Judith Collins 
: Does he agree with John Tamihere’s response to a question over whether New Zealand taxpayers have a right to know what Claire Austin was paid and why she left when he said: “Oh I think so. I think any payment out of the public purse should be made available.”; if not why has the Minister changed his mind in terms of the responsibility for golden handshakes since he got into Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have not changed my mind. I agree in general that “any payment out of the public purse should be made available.” In the case of the Families Commission the fact of the matter is that whatever our view the confidential agreement exists now. However as I have said there is a process in place to work through with the Chief Families Commissioner the consequences of that decision. I point out that under section 152(1)(d) of the Crown Entities Act put in place by this Government confidential payments are something we are disapproving of. 
Heather Roy 
: Has the Minister asked for an explanation from the commissioner given that the current Prime Minister when in Opposition promised that Labour would stop golden handshakes saying: “I’ve had a gutsful. I don’t intend if I’m Prime Minister to have to sit there and suffer one humiliation after another because of a culture of extravagance which has been allowed to grow in the public sector. Whatever is in there and hidden we want out.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Prime Minister was absolutely right. Yes I have discussed this with the Chief Families Commissioner and yes he understands exactly the Government’s position. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Crown Entities Act which he referred to previously when the annual report is tabled it will be clear what the amount is? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is the case. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Was the Minister in receipt of any reports or advice before this incident or has he been in receipt of any since of other parties in this House with strong views against the Families Commission that are simply using this incident as a further opportunity to bag that necessary body? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen reports that the National Party has an aversion to any independent advocacy on behalf of New Zealand families. After what it did to them in the 1990s it is no wonder it does not want that kind of advocacy. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What initiatives has this Government put in place that are in keeping with the mission of the Families Commission which is to further the interests of New Zealand families? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is heaps. I will give just a few examples: Working for Families which put $1.1 billion into the pockets of 61 percent of New Zealand families; Family Start which has been expanded each Budget; paid parental leave which was introduced under this Government; the Families Commission itself which has been established to advocate for the interests of families; the Well Child programme within the Ministry of Health; Child Youth and Family Services’ funding increase of over 50 percent since Labour became the Government; and we have committed ourselves to 20 hours per week of free early childhood education. I could go on but I know that members want me to stop. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister stand by Helen Clark’s statements when in Opposition that a Labour Government would “abandon the culture of golden handshakes” and that: “we are making commitments on which we will deliver. We are accountable to you.”; if he does will Dr Prasad lose his job over this issue? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes we do stand by the statements made by the former leader of the Labour Opposition now Prime Minister—absolutely. That is why there has been a change in legislation; that is why the Auditor-General has issued his statements; that is why the State Services Commissioner has made clear to State servants what they must do; and that is why we are working through this issue with the Chief Families Commissioner. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister give this House an assurance that the departure of the chief executive of the Families Commission will not disrupt the work programme of the commission? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have received an assurance from the commission that this will not disturb its work. The commission is well advanced on its key research programme the first aspect of which will be delivered by the end of June. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In light of the point of order I made earlier—and this one is relevant to this question which is why I am raising it now—I think this is a very serious matter. I lodged a written question to the Minister for Social Development and Employment and the answer was due yesterday but I have received none. In fact it was the very same question that the National member Judith Collins asked in her primary question. As I said the answer to the written question is overdue. I just refer to Speaker’s ruling 145/3. The second sentence in that ruling is I think pertinent: “If the Speaker feels that a Minister is trifling with the House the Chair can permit a further question or questions to be asked.” I believe that the Minister was trifling with the member who asked the primary question. I believe that he is trifling with me in not answering the four questions that I asked on this matter of the chief executive of the Families Commission. I ask the Chair to consider now granting me an extra supplementary question—one of which I have already asked the Minister but he has not responded to it—above and beyond the number of supplementary questions that ACT is entitled to today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: So the member is seeking leave to ask an extra supplementary question? 
Heather Roy 
: No I am not seeking leave. I am asking you as Speaker to make a ruling to give me an extra question as  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 make provision for. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My understanding is that the answer was due yesterday. Is that right? 
Heather Roy 
: Yes that is correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister should take note to respond to that question immediately. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member will have her answer by the end of the day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. The assurance is given so there is no supplementary question. The member will get the answer to her question today.