Points of Order — Urgent Debate, 19 October—Allegations by Acting Prime Minister

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!

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 $60,000. I also want to say this—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Would the member indicate what the point of order is.

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.

Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want a point of order this time, please. The last was not a point of order.

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?

Mr Speaker, if you look at Standing Order 160, which concerns something we recently allowed to happen in this Parliament, and if you have regard to the previous speaker’s comments, you will see that there is no requirement for a member of Parliament to accept a response to the House in the way that that member says. I will give my reason for saying that, and the reason why it is wise not to accept it. You will recall that Fay Richwhite had a long explanation submitted to this Parliament—with the support of many of my colleagues, I might add—and it was not worth the paper it was written on, as was proven by the wine-box inquiry.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that in this House there is the right of free speech during proceedings. It is one of the things that I, as a newly elected Speaker, go to the Governor-General to ask for. Members have that right. A member’s word must be accepted, but not a response from outside the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We have not yet had one today.

Through you, Mr Speaker, I invite the Acting Prime Minister to say outside the House what he said here. I know that he will not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is now trifling with the Chair. If he raises another frivolous point of order, he will be leaving the Chamber.