Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Urgent Debate 19 October—Allegations by Acting Prime Minister 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Urgent Debate 19 October—Allegations by Acting Prime Minister 
[Volume:621;Page:16301] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It refers to Standing Orders 160 to 163 which set up a procedure by which a person outside the House who is attacked or adversely affected by statements made in the House can write to the Speaker and get a response put into the record of this Parliament. They are designed to provide for some response by private citizens after they are attacked in this House. I should make plain that what I am about to raise has nothing whatsoever to do with the breach of privilege matter I have raised against the Hon Dr Michael Cullen which was with you Mr Speaker by 2 o’clock; it is entirely a separate matter. It is this. Yesterday in the House in the urgent debate the Acting Prime Minister who is indeed the Minister of Revenue had this to say about my friend David Henderson. He called him one of the biggest and nastiest tax evaders in this country and went on to say that he ran the sex industry in Christchurch and therefore had avoided paying tax on that. Well here is the problem: Mr Henderson is none of those things and Dr Michael Cullen knows it—and we know that he knows it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Ha! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well he can laugh. We know that Dr Michael Cullen knows it because back in 1999 he likewise attacked Mr David Henderson for being a criminal a multi-bankrupt and a tax evader. The Minister shakes his head. He should be very careful. We know that he did that. Mr Henderson wrote to the then Speaker the Hon Doug Kidd on 27 August 1999. The Hon Doug Kidd took that procedure through to Dr Michael Cullen who did not bother to provide any response or any authentication of what he had been saying. Indeed the Hon Doug Kidd allowed Mr Henderson’s response denying it to be put into the parliamentary record. I can tell you Mr Speaker that Mr David Henderson has had nothing to do with the sex industry at all. I can also tell you that he has been audited only once in 15 years and the upshot of that was that the Inland Revenue Department owed him $60000. I also want to say this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member indicate what the point of order is. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The point of order is this: how is it possible for a Minister who is indeed the Acting Prime Minister to so flout Standing Orders 160 to 163 when it has been put about by the citizen concerned that what the member is saying is untrue? The member opposite the Acting Prime Minister provided no authentication back in 1999 and he cannot do so now. 
 I make one further point. Michael Cullen is the Minister of Revenue. If he starts going around attacking people just because they happen to be the friends of an MP—trying in some sort of bizarre way to protect John Tamihere—then stands up in this House as the Minister of Revenue and says that a person is the biggest and nastiest tax evader in the country what chance has a private citizen got of having a fair hearing from the tax department? I can tell Dr Michael Cullen that that department does not have anything on David Henderson. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no real point of order raised at all. That is just a political point being made by the member. The fact that a person has tabled a response does not mean that members have to accept the response and agree to it. It is up to members whether they in turn comment on the response. When a response is accepted for tabling no judgment is made on the truth of the response—see Standing Order 161(3). We have the right of free speech in this Chamber while proceedings are in operation. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want a point of order this time please. The last was not a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that Standing Orders 160 to 163 which were formerly Nos 161 to 164 set out to provide a procedure parallel to what happens when a member is attacked in such a way. A member has an opportunity to stand up and make a personal explanation and that member’s word is to be accepted when that personal explanation is made. Are you saying Mr Speaker that when a private citizen is attacked likewise and goes to the trouble of responding—the member making the claim who happens to be the Minister of Revenue and the Acting Prime Minister has no facts to back it up—that private person’s word is not accepted and instead we have to allow Dr Michael Cullen to attack someone simply because that person is an MP’s friend?