Cullen's not a double-crosser

Hide's question was the only one with an interesting result. Speaker Margaret Wilson refused to allow Cullen be described as a 'double-crosser':

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Madam SPEAKER: If a member objects, on a strict interpretation of the rules, the reference must be withdrawn.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.