Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22035] 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for Building Issues 
: Did the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service have a function for staff on Friday 17 June at the Stamford Plaza Hotel; if so what did the event involve? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Building Issues 
: Yes the claimed purpose was to improve staff communication with Pacific Island staff members and with Pacific Island people they interact with during their working-day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What was the cost for having the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service office in Auckland closed for 4 hours; for having staff from Wellington fly to Auckland; paying for the dancing Pacific Island girls who were contracted to provide services; for the kava drinking; for food and for the hotel venue; and how would that expenditure help those who have leaky rotting homes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think I have the right one here. The 17 June function cost $6679. Looking at the programme it is not clear how it would have contributed to the resolution of leaky homes. The Minister has already written to the chief executive seeking an explanation for this event. 
Moana Mackey 
: Were staff from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service flown at the taxpayer’s expense specifically to attend themed social functions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Claims made in the House yesterday that the staff were flown and accommodated to attend themed functions are simply not true. Staff travel and accommodation were so they could participate in normal management meetings and at the end of the working-day be able to attend social functions. Perhaps the member who made the claim might care to apologise as he had to grovel in front of Basil Morrison and Gwen Bull for his behaviour at the local government conference. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The last comment was gratuitous and did not address the question. Please withdraw it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister deny that staff air fares were not part of the cost of the function when at the time the function was organised staff from Auckland were told that the meeting was just a front so they could all have a party; and why has the excuse changed now the matter is in the public arena? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that those functions followed on from other seminars and exercises that were engaged in by staff. Incidentally in terms of the theme elements of I think it was “Cowboys and Indians” and various other strange activities staff hired their own costumes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What does it say about the culture of extravagance within the public service that $6679 can be spent on a daytime party for staff of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service and that a spokesperson for the service has said that that was completely within Government guidelines; does the Minister now accept that those guidelines which have been set by this Government simply involve gross extravagance at taxpayers’ expense? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not accept the latter any more than that when National Party members go off to a party conference in some resort area a party caucus meeting is necessarily a culture of extravagance. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it roughly correct that the complained-of expenditure is $12000 over four separate events which compares rather favourably with the $52000 of expenditure on a TVNZ night-time shindig on one occasion; and that that begs the question of why the media in this country are engaged in a protection racket are not referring to their fellows and are just hammering the bureaucracy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister for Building Issues bears no responsibility for TVNZ but I think it is well established that TVNZ sometimes engages in more expenditure than the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service does. In terms of the $12000 although I personally think that the seminar that was carried out on Pacific Island affairs did not meet the needs outlined to translate that into some kind of tax cut would involve a very tiny fraction of 1c in 1 year for each taxpayer.