Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Smith Lockwood: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:647;Page:15936] 
1.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submissions has the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard in the last week on the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The Finance and Expenditure Committee has sat on four occasions in the last week: once in Auckland and three times in Wellington including this morning’s meeting. We have heard 93 submissions during that week. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What consultation was there with the select committee over the Government’s decision to defer liquid fuels for 2 years and to change the phase-out of timing for allocations because of competitiveness issues; if none what steps did the member take as chair to ensure the work of the select committee was not being reduced to a farce? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The member knows that questions to members should relate to procedure not to matters of substance or policy. I am quite happy for the member to rephrase the question but the chair is not responsible for the work of the committee; he is responsible for the process. That is very clear in Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. Please rephrase the question. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Part of the process of the committee was actually a discussion and decisions around how that process would be conducted given that the Government was still involved in policy considerations around emissions trading. The committee decided that in fact the process would mean that the committee would be kept absolutely informed of Government decisions that affected the committee’s process. That is what I am asking the chair about—was the committee informed because our process was very much affected—and that is what I was interested in having an answer to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on the matter. I am happy to take it under consideration and to look at it further. And I invite the member if he has another supplementary question to ask it. If not we have come to the end of the time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: OK Madam Speaker. With your indulgence I will try my luck with a further supplementary question then. How can the Government noting that Dr Cullen said yesterday that this was a massively complicated piece of legislation expect Parliament to get it right when major submitters with over a hundred pages of written evidence to the select committee and evidence involving tens of thousands of jobs for New Zealanders were scheduled only 15 minutes in which to make detailed submissions and receive the questions of the committee? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The overwhelming view reported to me as chair from submitters is that they feel they have had good hearings in front of the committee. By way of example I tell the House that of the 93 submitters I mentioned in the answer to the primary question only 15 received a hearing time of 10 minutes or less.