Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19631] 
5.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that John Tamihere defamed the Hon Dr Michael Cullen when he said: “You’ve got Cullen—we wouldn’t survive without Cullen—he can cut a deal on a piece of legislation he can change a single word in a piece of legislation without those other … [parties] knowing about it and it melts down everything they wanted but they still think they got their clause in.”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because I believe that it does. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm then that Michael Cullen told the Maori Labour MPs that the foreshore and seabed legislation confirmed kaitiakitanga over the foreshore and seabed and provided proper process when in fact the legislation provides only for waka launching and collecting shellfish and buckets of sand; if that is not duplicitous what is? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the Deputy Prime Minister that that reference was to the ancestral connection orders which of course at a later point were taken out of the bill at the request of the Maori members. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Dr Don Brash. [ 
Interruption 
] Dr Don Brash’s question will be heard in silence. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that Dr Cullen has never amended a piece of legislation to water down or change the effect of provisions that support parties thought they had agreed to; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I know that Dr Cullen deals with support parties openly honestly fairly and respectfully and I have no better support than to quote the leader of United Future who dismissed allegations of duplicitous dealings as absurd and also the co-leader of the Green Party who said that the passage being quoted certainly did not match that party’s experience. 
Heather Roy 
: Was it Michael Cullen double-crossing United Future that saw it voting for the definition of “family”— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We are in trouble in terms of the Standing Orders. Standing Order 364 states that one should not make any “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament”. To accuse a member of Parliament of double-crossing is certainly discreditable. This is where we run into trouble when we demand strict interpretations of questions and answers. 
Rodney Hide 
: We have an interesting situation now because that is precisely what the primary question says; John Tamihere says precisely that Michael Cullen double-crosses the other parties and we will get ourselves into a great deal of trouble if we cannot actually refer to that article as I did in the primary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If a member objects to a personal reference then it is the practice that it must be withdrawn. There has been an objection. The member will please withdraw the reference and rephrase the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that. Is this a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: No I am asking for your guidance. As we cannot say “double-crossing” could we say “cheating” or “duplicitous”? What word would you prefer? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If a member objects on a strict interpretation of the rules the reference must be withdrawn. The member will please withdraw it and rephrase the question. 
Heather Roy 
: I withdraw and I ask the Prime Minister whether it was Michael Cullen tricking the United Future party that saw it voting for the definition of “family” in the Families Commission Bill; if not why else would a Christian party vote for that definition? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer to the first part of the question is “obviously not”. The answer to the second part is that United Future is responsible for how it votes and on what. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister recall with regard to the last question that what in fact happened was that negotiation took place between the Government and United Future on those phrases in the bill as originally presented that the bill was amended when it came back to the House to get a mutually agreeable position on that clause and that most of the phrases that were suggested came from this side rather than from her side? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can absolutely confirm what the leader of United Future has said. Further his party’s willingness—as in so many cases the Green Party’s willingness—to work with this Government has made it a successful long-lived stable Government for New Zealand. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the interests of protecting Dr Cullen’s reputation— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: Yes it is. It is to do with people who might impugn the reputation of a right honourable member in this House which you are responsible for ensuring does not happen. Now that we have heard a direct admission from the leader of United Future that indeed it was he who tricked his own caucus surely the member should be required to withdraw that remark and apologise to Dr Cullen. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Prime Minister sympathise with the Progressive Coalition members feeling short-changed when Dr Cullen fought tooth and nail in Cabinet to block 4 weeks’ annual leave but now claims all the credit? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can say that Dr Cullen never took any such stance. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that my behaviour in terms of the undertakings I give not merely to coalition parties but Opposition parties in the House contrasts very substantially with promising not to sell any State assets before an election and then leading the sale of them afterwards as Mr Prebble did in 1987? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. All questions require to be authenticated and that assurance was not given by me— 
Hon Member 
: Wasn’t it? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No it most certainly was not. The person who is doing the double-crossing is the person who is asking the question. But the second point is that I realise that Helen Clark from your ruling is not responsible for Mr Tamihere but how come she is now responsible for me? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can confirm that I want no responsibility whatsoever for the member. 
Stephen Franks 
: How can Mr Dail Jones have been persuaded that the Maori Land Court has no jurisdiction to hear the Whakatohea claim to control 50 kilometres of Whakatane beach when John Tamihere who sold the deal to Maori thinks that Judge Joe Williams is dead right to take the claim unless this law too is another of Dr Cullen’s clever dupings of a gullible temporary ally? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would say that there are two people in this House who know the foreshore and seabed legislation inside out; one is Dr Michael Cullen and other is Dail Jones who is very conversant with it. 
Kenneth Wang 
: Were not changes made to the amendments to the Resource Management Act after Jeanette Fitzsimons had chaired the committee and made recommendations exactly the sort of duplicitous behaviour John Tamihere has bragged about; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member has not been here very long but chairs of select committees report bills back to the House. It is quite common after that for Supplementary Order Papers to come in and for the Government to look for support to pass them. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If New Zealand First was not duped over the foreshore and seabed legislation why has the Government not been more vigorous in challenging Judge Joe Williams’ decision to hear the Whakatohea claim? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the Attorney-General that the Government certainly is contesting issues in the court. 
Dail Jones 
: Is it not the usual practice for any court whether it is a District Court a High Court a disputes tribunal or the Maori Land Court to accept any documents that are filed by it and for that court subsequently to make a decision as to whether the application is right or wrong because that is the basic principle of English justice the rule of law and matters that New Zealand First stands for but which neither the National Party nor ACT seem to understand? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Point of order Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No I have been called. [ 
Interruption 
] No there are new rules around here. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the members sit down. The member’s question seemed very wide of the original question. Could he please rephrase it very succinctly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before you get the member Dail Jones to withdraw the inappropriate remarks he made at the end of his question I think you should take issue with Dr Cullen. The fact is that you called me and he stood on his feet and absolutely barracked in the most uncontrolled manner bringing disorder to the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member sat in his chair and tried to raise a point of order without rising and seeking the call. Whether you called him is irrelevant Madam Speaker. He cannot raise a point of order that way. Of course we have no trouble if question time takes a long time today. 
Rodney Hide 
: It may well have been that Mr Brownlee called inappropriately. The fact of the matter remains that you called Gerry Brownlee. He had started his point of order. I can understand Michael Cullen losing his temper these days. However he stood up on a point of order and barracked howled screamed and yelled at Mr Brownlee through the point of order and indeed at you Madam Speaker. The reality is that Michael Cullen should be the one you are censuring. Because certainly you cannot have two members on their feet speaking during a called point of order. The intent of Michael Cullen was not just to intimidate Gerry Brownlee which will never work it was actually to intimidate the Speaker; I take very very grave offence at Dr Michael Cullen’s behaviour during that point of order and you should hold him to account. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen was right. I should not have called the member because he was seated. I did call the member however so would the member please give the House the benefit of his point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it a new one? 
Rodney Hide 
: It is absolutely new. Are you now saying Madam Speaker that if a member disagrees with a point of order it is OK to take to his or her feet and shout and scream like a schoolboy throwing a tantrum and not getting his way and you stand up after that and say that Michael Cullen was quite right. That cannot be in order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I certainly apologise to you. I have no intention of intimidating you but I would be very happy to raise further points of order when attempts are made to intimidate you and that particular member is by far the worst offender in that respect. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not think that we need any more. We have lost track of what the original point of order was. I have ruled on that. I have invited Mr Brownlee— 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. There is another point of order ahead of the member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker as it happens you have probably sorted out the matter. As I understand it you did ask Mr Jones to withdraw the remarks he made at the end of his question. We thank you for that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Precisely and I asked him whether he would please— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that it is actually an important matter. All Speakers have said that if a member is raising a point of order the one thing that is completely out of order—and for which the censure is normally being sent out of the House—is to rise from one’s seat and to barrack the person making the point of order. It may well be that perhaps Dr Cullen is right that perhaps you should not have called Mr Brownlee but that is not the point. You did call him. Dr Cullen was absolutely out of order and he cannot get out of it by saying that he apologises to you. In fact he has to apologise to the House and at a minimum I think that you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw and apologise. You might consider whether some other further sanction should be required but for you to decide to pass on well I just say to you that if that situation arises later and it is an Opposition member we will have complete disorder. I really think you should think hard about your deciding that Dr Cullen has the right and the sole right to rise in his place and object to what is actually a ruling of yours. You called Gerry Brownlee so his abuse that he hurtled at Mr Brownlee was abuse at you. Of course apologies are not made just to the Speaker; they are made to the whole House and the proper way to do it is to say: “I withdraw and apologise.”—not to add further abuse against an ACT member who was in no way involved in this incident. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During that point of order Mr Prebble did exactly what Mr Hide has done on a number of occasions: he said that if you did not do certain things and if you did other things there would be disorder. That in itself is out of order. Members cannot rise on a point of order and threaten to create disorder if they do not get the ruling they like. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Hon Michael Cullen did apologise. I heard him withdraw and apologise even if others did not. I accepted that apology and we were moving forward. I suggest that is what we do now. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A new point of order? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Absolutely. I am raising a point of order against the statements made by Dr Cullen under a point of order. He suggested that I was threatening the Chair and I most certainly refute that. In fact I was rising to support the Chair and to give you the advice that if we were to create an unfortunate precedent in the future it would be used. That is not threatening the Chair; that is just my giving the advice that I have. If Dr Cullen had been here for a little longer he would have known that that was excellent advice. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Apart from the obvious point that I actually outrank the member in terms of continuous service in this House could I point out to him that as so often with Mr Prebble he has quietly forgotten half of what he said. He actually said that if members did certain things then disorder would follow. There was a clear intention to indicate that disorder would follow from certain members of which he was one. That is a threat we have heard rather too often in this House over recent weeks—that unless certain rulings are obtained then certain action will flow—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would Judith Collins—sorry Sandra Goudie—please leave the House for talking during a point of order. 
Sandra Goudie withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is a matter I do feel quite strongly about because we have seen on a number of occasions recently members effectively state that unless you give the ruling they want trouble will follow in some form or another. Mr Prebble actually said that. He might have forgotten he said it but that is actually what he implied in his original point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will rule on it— 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Franks I am on my feet. I have heard enough discussion on this particular point of order. Once the Speaker has decided she has heard enough argument on a point of order that is the end of the matter. I will now rule on the point of order. I want to assure the House that the Speaker does not feel intimidated by the comments that have been made but I also wish to assure the House that in future the rules will be applied much more rigidly. I ask all members who have an objection to anything to please raise it by standing in their seats and calling for a point of order. Could we now please move on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am obliged to you for your ruling and if you are now going to rule more strictly it is absolutely out of order for Dr Cullen to get up on a point of order and suggest that I was intimidating the Chair. I take very grave exception to that and I believe he should be asked to withdraw those remarks and apologise for having made them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Prebble if you did not intend to threaten the Chair then your word is accepted and I have accepted it. Let us now move on. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The rules—many many pages of these rules—turn on conduct that tends to disorder. It is perfectly appropriate without raising the slightest imputation of threat—or even appearing to give credence to it by suggesting that you are willing because of the rules to accept Mr Prebble’s denial—for any member of this House to urge you to a certain course of action because doing otherwise might tend to disorder. We watched disorder in the House from this end. We took no part in it. In the course of one member’s further point of order reference was made to us as though we were responsible. You have now just made a comment to Mr Prebble that in the conventions of speech in this House implies that you are making some concession by allowing him to refute an imputation that he did not make. I wanted to take a point of order to urge that no ruling be made that even intimated that one could not raise the prospect of disorder in a point to the Speaker. It is disorder that most of those rules around inferences and imputations or criticisms of others are oriented round and we must not be constrained by someone taking a point to say we cannot even raise it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but he is relitigating the point that has been decided.  
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to draw to your attention the issue of the apology from Dr Cullen. Yesterday the Prime Minister was required to withdraw and apologise. She used the wrong words you made her go back and do it again—quite appropriately—and that was accepted by the House. I think if you look at  
Hansard 
 you will find that Dr Cullen has not stood and withdrawn and apologised to the House. What he did do was to get up and apologise to you and he made that quite specific. Whether he wants to apologise to you is his business; it is nothing to do with the order of the House. The requirement for an apology is that a member stand withdraw and apologise without qualification. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am afraid the member is wrong. I said: “I withdraw and apologise.” and then I raised a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on two points. The first is that Mr Prebble quite rightly took grave offence at the comments that Dr Michael Cullen made and I believe that you actually sided with Richard Prebble in that. But the remedy is simple: Michael Cullen has to withdraw and apologise for what he said in his point of order. He has failed to do that. I shall make a second observation which I ask you to reflect on. Gerry Brownlee was giving a point of order; Michael Cullen stood up and barracked him from his seat. Michael Cullen was asked to withdraw and apologise to the House which I believe he did. Sandra Goudie during a point of order just made a comment. She did not get an opportunity to withdraw and apologise; you sent her out. I think you made the right choice in respect of Sandra Goudie but how come Michael Cullen is not out of here? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is just relitigating the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: It is my first point of order. Why is Michael Cullen not being required to withdraw and apologise to Mr Prebble? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that matter. The Minister did withdraw and apologise. I accepted that there was no intimidation intended. We will now move on to Dail Jones’ supplementary question. 
Dail Jones 
: Is it not normal practice for any court to accept any application that is lodged before it and to deal with it accordingly? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I accept the member’s word and defer to his knowledge of legal matters which is considerable. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can she deny that the Hon Phil Goff arranged for a $900000 project for safer community councils to be knocked back by a Cabinet committee only to resurrect it at the full Cabinet where the funding was taken out of the $2 million closing the gaps project Tu Rangatira with Te Runanga o Raukawa and what is that if it is not duplicitous? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think we are still on question No. 5. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are on question No. 5 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed question No. 5 is about Mr Tamihere’s comments about me and nobody else. To try to expand this question out to deal with other members of Cabinet is I suggest beyond the scope of the original question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We are aware that Dr Cullen in addition to his serious duties as Leader of the House is also the Minister of Finance. If there was a switching of financial matters from one vote to another it would have required the attention of the Minister of Finance and that is implicit within the question. This is definitely a reference to Mr Cullen and whether he is too clever. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order I say that that was ingenious but let me say at the margins. Would the Prime Minister please address the question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no knowledge whatsoever of the matters the member has raised. If she wishes to explore them she should put down questions on notice to the relevant Ministers. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Reflecting on that answer and other answers that she has given does she accept the dilemma that the House is in? A former Cabinet Minister and an honourable member of this House has given a 4-page interview making many many allegations that I understand Mr Tamihere stands by and she just gets up in the House and says that they are not true and will not go through each allegation but yesterday she actually told us that one allegation in the article is true—that Dr Cullen is clever. Given the fact that she is not prepared to deal with each allegation how is the House to decide what is true and what is not and why does she not do what would be done in the British House of Commons in this situation: simply rise and make as she can a ministerial statement under Standing Order 341 and go through each allegation and tell us which one is true and which one is not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be very surprised if the member could draw the House’s attention to any ministerial statement in the House of Commons responding to some comments made by a back-bencher to a journalist over lunch with half a glass of wine. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has John Tamihere advised her that National’s Richard Worth has been in active discussion with him about joining the National Party as a Maori MP or is that something else that John Tamihere has not told her about? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That question does not relate to a ministerial responsibility. It deals with the role as party leader. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Having said that it might be handy to know because Mr Worth himself would like to know where that story came from. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We all know that that was not a point of order but the point has been made. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is quite easy: Richard Worth can get up and make a personal explanation— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is also not a point of order. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Hon Trevor Mallard has made all sorts of cheap shots across the House today using my name and in fact you used my name when you meant another member of Parliament. I would like that Minister to be asked to withdraw and apologise for the imputation that I would have made such a comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I did not hear what that comment was and I am sitting quite close to him. 
Judith Collins 
: Well he is right beside you Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that is right and I genuinely did not hear it. 
Judith Collins 
: He said that the comment that John Tamihere had been asked by Richard Worth to join the National Party had come from Judith Collins and I would like him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister say that? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I did say “Judith Collins” and I am prepared to withdraw and apologise for— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you that is all we need. [ 
Interruption 
] You have withdrawn and apologised unequivocally for what you said. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A member cannot qualify a withdrawal and apology. The member should just stand up and apologise. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This is actually quite important because what Ms Collins claims the Minister said—and it is hard sometimes to hear across the House—he says he did not say. He said he simply said “Judith Collins”. One cannot be required to withdraw and apologise for something one did not say and that is why the Minister indicated what he did say before withdrawing and apologising for it. 
Judith Collins 
: I do not think the House should be fooled into thinking that Trevor Mallard just spontaneously says “Judith Collins” every time he looks over this side. Maybe he says it in his dreams but I do not think he says it in the House! [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Right settle down; I know it is members’ day and members have little else to do. Does the member want the Minister to withdraw and apologise? 
Judith Collins 
: Yes I do. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He has done that I did not hear any equivocation of that but would the Minister do it again without further comment so we can please move on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise.