Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Collins Judith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:626;Page:21053] 
11.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by the statement on his behalf in the House in relation to the golden handshake paid to the former Families Commission chief executive that he “was first advised on 13 April that Claire Austin was leaving and that her departure involved a payout and that this payout was confidential. By then the commission and Claire Austin had reached a legally binding agreement.”; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes because it is an accurate account of events. I would add as Ruth Dyson did on my behalf at the time of the statement the member cites that I had been aware that there had been a serious breakdown in the relationship between the chief executive and the commissioners since 22 February. 
Judith Collins 
: Why did he tell the House that he did not know that Claire Austen was to get a golden handshake until after the payment became legally binding when in fact he knew that it was likely at least 4 days beforehand when he met the Ministry of Social Development’s chief executive on 7 April; and why did he not make it plain to the Families Commission that a secret golden handshake must not be given? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The sequence of events is that the agreement was not concluded until after working hours on Monday 11 April. There was no contact with myself or the Ministry of Social Development on 12 April as the commission was executing a formal agreement and agreeing with the outgoing chief executive on messages for the commission’s staff etc. That was not completed by the mediator and the commission’s lawyers until the morning of 13 April. The chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development alerted me as soon as he became aware of the settlement which was when the chief commissioner advised me at approximately 1 p.m. and 35 seconds and 3 milliseconds on Wednesday 13 April. If the member would like anything else she is most welcome to it because everything is on the Table. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Why is there a need for the Families Commission to provide an independent voice for families? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: United Future put forward that policy as a valuable function because there is always a possibility that a Government may short-change the interests of families for short-term political advantage. That has been illustrated at times by previous Governments cutting benefits selling people’s homes to reduce the State housing stock and starving family support services of funding. Similarly perhaps cancelling half of the Working for Families package would have the same kind of impact on families and I think that United Future was hopeful that that kind of attack on the New Zealand family would never happen again. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister expect this House to believe that knowing as he did of the serious employment situation at the Families Commission he did not raise or discuss that matter with the chair of the commission when the commission met on 7 April 2005; if he does whom does he blame for that glaring omission of responsibility? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the first question yes and expectations were set out clearly by the Ministry of Social Development throughout that process. That is the answer to the question. 
Judith Collins 
: What possible reason would the Minister have had to meet the chair of the commission without the chief executive being present unless the meeting was at least in part to discuss the chief executive’s employment and the ramifications of that for the commission and the Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There were a number of reasons to meet the Families Commissioner—to talk about the business of the commission being one of them.