Mr Horan followed up by asking whether the anti-bullying guidelines "mean that an employee who made a complaint to her employee who made a complaint to her employer about abusive emails and text messages from her boss should be able to respond to that person's public denials without fear of legal action? If not why not?".
Mr Prosser again unsuccessfully tried to have the question ruled out of order but Mr Bridges' response was largely the same.
Speaking to reporters outside the House, Mr Horan would not identify the figures his questions referred to but said: "It's anti-bully day tomorrow, Pink Shirt Day. I had people come to me who were in a hopeless, helpless position, I stood up for them last year and I'lll stand up for them now for as long as it takes until they get some kind of justice. I would like to see the perpetrators outed."
Asked about Mr Carter's decision to investigate his claims of misuse of Parliamentary funding by NZ First, he said: "It's very good that the Leader of New Zealand First will be investigated for the use of his Leader's Budget. I'm very pleased for the people that brought that to me and I'm also happy to let due process and natural justice take place."
Mr Prosser refused to comment on Mr Horan's questions this afternoon.
Asked whether the ongoing jousting between Mr Horan and his former party was a waste of Parliament's time, Prime Minister John Key said "it feels like it to me".
"It really just shows you how broken down that relationship is between Winston Peters and one of his former caucus members."
That relationship plumbed new depths earlier this week when Mr Peters likened Mr Horan to late British television presenter and alleged child sex fiend Jimmy Savile.
Mr Key said the ongoing stoush "also does reflect there's been a bit of a nasty streak running through Parliament".
"I think political parties actually need to think about that a little bit. We're seeing tweets that I think have been wholly inappropriate we've seen all sorts of allegations that have been made that are unfounded. It's one thing to have Parliamentary Privilege, it's quite another to actually say those things. They do have repercussions and they do send ripples through the community."
Mr Horan yesterday claimed NZ First had spent as much as $20,000 in parliamentary funding from Mr Peters' Leader's Budget to develop and operate "taxpayer-funded software for party political purposes such as campaigning and fundraising".
He also said NZ First parliamentary staff were working on running the software during the election year which was "a clear breach of Parliamentary Service guidelines".
Mr Peters yesterday said Mr Horan's claims were lies. While he confirmed NZ First had used parliamentary funding to develop the software, he denied the software was used for party political purposes.
"It's used to enable our expansion into sector groups, all sorts of commercial and social interest groups where we're able to spell out what our policies are and interact with them."
"It is run by someone who knows precisely what the law is as to the appropriateness of use and what you can and cannot do."
However he also said the software had not been launched yet.
He also dismissed internal documents obtained by Mr Horan which show discussion of the use of Vanguard for fundraising purposes.
Mr Key this afternoon confirmed the National Party had similar constituent management software and while that system did have capacity to perform party related work, National had been careful to ensure those particular activities were not paid for out of Parliamentary funding.
