Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:658;Page:7181] 
4. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: When did the committee begin hearing oral submissions on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The Finance and Expenditure Committee began hearing evidence on the bill on Thursday 15 October 2009 at 4 p.m. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How much advance notice of the invitation to appear before the committee was given to submitters who appeared before the committee on Thursday 15 October? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Submitters were arranged in accordance with the committee’s decisions that week about hearing evidence. Submitters were advised in the letters acknowledging their submissions in the advertisements calling for submissions and in the guidance on making submissions that they may be asked to appear at short notice if they wished to be heard. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thank the chairperson for the information he has provided but I asked “How much advance notice of the invitation to appear before the committee was given to submitters who appeared before the committee …”. I would certainly be obliged if you would ask him to address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The chair of the committee may not have answered in the words that the member was looking to have the chair answer in but the Speaker cannot guarantee the wording of answer. The chair made it very clear that at a certain point as the member will be aware a decision was made as to which people would be heard and they were advised. Apparently that is the way the committee operated. It is pretty obvious therefore how much notice people received. Just because the chair did not say “x number of days” I cannot force him to give the specific answer that the member wanted to hear. He certainly heard from the chair an answer that will enable him to determine the length of the warning people received. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a member of that committee I wish to first verify the point that two of my colleagues have made that the matters referred to were discussed in a public session as well as in a closed session of the select committee. That is the first point. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s not a point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The second point is that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member who is interjecting should not be interjecting but it is my fault perhaps that he is. This is not a matter to do with the order of the House right now at all and therefore it should not be raised in that way. I blame myself for that disruption. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a new point of order. This point of order simply reflects the fact that I was not allowed to finish the previous point of order and a request to you— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. He has established exactly why I am not hearing any more on the matter. Points of order should be made very clear from the outset. The member’s preamble was nothing to do with the order of the House and therefore it caused interjection. As far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter because I have dealt with the previous issue in any case. There is no further matter to be dealt with.