Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20581] 
8.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement in relation to alleged bullying of students by the Hon David Benson-Pope that the allegations are utterly reprehensible and that “this I think says rather condemnatory things about both Rodney Hide and TV3.”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: I stand by the statement I made on Friday that it was utterly reprehensible for Mr Hide to make those allegations in Parliament and then withdraw them as Mr Hide was reported as having done on Friday morning. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement: “I accept the Minister’s word. The Minister has given his word in Parliament.” and that therefore the five former pupils who have spoken out are lying; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister is receiving advice from the Solicitor-General on the most appropriate form of inquiry into those allegations. She notes that the Minister continues to refute those allegations and it is appropriate I think to remind members that simply raising allegations by way of question is a reprehensible practice. Any number of members in this House are open to that not least the member himself. 
Judith Collins 
: If the statements made by the Hon David Benson-Pope to the House last Thursday are found by any inquiry to be incorrect will the Prime Minister confirm that she would expect the Minister to resign from Cabinet and from Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said my Prime Minister is seeking advice from the Solicitor-General on the most appropriate form of any inquiry. There are plenty of consequences that flow from some possible outcomes of that inquiry but equally I would hope that that member would have the grace to apologise to Mr Benson-Pope should the inquiry find that the allegations are not demonstrably true. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Prime Minister find it acceptable that even in the 1980s a teacher would tie a student’s hands and force a tennis ball into a 14-year-old boy’s mouth; and what would it take for her to accept the word of the victim and his classmate over her stood-down Minister? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There will be an inquiry into those matters and the Government has no reluctance to ensure that the truth emerges. The member may regard an allegation as sufficient proof but I would warn that member against doing so—as I have warned any number of members in the House. I get allegations about a number of members in this House in relation to a range of issues of which I take no notice at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is worse or less acceptable: an over-strict teacher under section 59 of a previous era or someone who facilitated the entry into this country of a paedophile who advocated sex with young children? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly the latter would be a very serious matter indeed but so is the former matter—if it were demonstrated to be true. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it not a well-recognised tactic that bullies lash out at their victims to frighten them into silence; and why did Miss Clark use her position as Prime Minister to attack me and TV3 in an attempt to frighten David Benson-Pope’s victims into silence? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that that member is aware that bullies lash out at their victims. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it the Prime Minister’s position that asking tough questions of George Hawkins Parekura Horomia David Benson-Pope and the other failed Ministers of this Government is somehow bullying them and is somehow on a par with attacking a 14-year-old boy in a classroom—or can those Ministers just not take it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yet again the member rushes to judgment before any proper inquiry is undertaken. I have not done that in relation to allegations that have been raised with me about him. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table a transcript of Radio New Zealand’s  
Nine to Noon  
programme from today an interview between Linda Clark and Phil Weaver one of the former Bayfield High School students. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that transcript. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just ask whether the Minister who was answering for the Prime Minister was speaking for himself when he talked about “I” or was speaking for the Prime Minister who has not rushed to judgment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is not a point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have an interesting situation here. When a Minister answers on behalf of another Minister the views are supposed to be those of the other Minister. Mr Cullen has sort of indicated by sign language that he was actually giving his own opinions. I think he is not entitled to do that and if he was giving his own opinions he had better rethink and perhaps he should answer those questions again realising that he is supposed to be giving us the Prime Minister’s views not his views. If the Prime Minister does not have any information or allegations against Mr Hide perhaps we should have a completely different answer from the person standing in her stead. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When a member is answering on behalf of another he is entitled to answer as he sees fit on behalf of the Prime Minister in this instance or in any other instance on behalf of the Minister. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I cannot see how it cannot be a legitimate point of order. When the Prime Minister answered the question through her Deputy Prime Minister she stated or we were entitled to assume she was stating some facts that she knew her judgment of those facts and her response to them. I could not believe what the Minister was saying because the Prime Minister did in fact attack without evidence Rodney Hide and I needed to find out whether in fact it was the Prime Minister speaking or the Deputy Prime Minister choosing to switch persona and speak for himself. Because if we were looking at matters of privilege we would need to know whether there was a breach. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I make it clear that in those latter answers I was referring to my knowledge as Deputy Prime Minister and merely making the point that the fact that allegations are made about members of this House is not a sufficient reason to go out and repeat them in the public arena even under privilege. I doubt there is any member of this House who has not had some allegation raised against himself or herself at some time by some other person in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hope that clarifies the matter for the members. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to be clear about this and I ask for your assistance because what happened then was that the Deputy Prime Minister made a sort of snide comment across the House that I should not be asking the tough questions because either the Prime Minister or he himself had a bottom drawer of allegations against me. I was quite interested to learn who it would be because I thought Michael Cullen himself had emptied his bottom drawer of the rubbish he had on me when he was trying to defend John Tamihere—before he gave up. I do not think it is acceptable for a Prime Minister or an acting Prime Minister to stand in the House and suggest that a member should not ask questions because of something that he or she might have and might release some day. That is an intimidatory tactic in the House and their job as a Government is to answer the questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did answer the question.