Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2201] 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Was John Judge invited by him or a staff member to attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007-08 ACC financial review? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I did not invite Mr Judge to the meeting on 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was whether John Judge was invited by him or a staff member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is correct. That question has been on notice. The question was “Was John Judge invited by him or a staff member …?”. I presume that the member as chair of the committee would know that. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I did not invite him and I have no knowledge of any staff member inviting him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on whether given that Mr Bennett is a new chair of a select committee and clearly has not been briefed it is appropriate to have this question set down for answer tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The question is set down for answer today and an answer has been given. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he indicate to the committee that Dr Nick Smith was standing in for Mr Judge when he has indicated that he was not aware whether Mr Judge had been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The Labour members of that committee should be very thankful that Mr Smith did come and present to the committee. They would have got a lot of value out of his presentation at that meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point is very clearly that that answer did not even address the question. The question started “Why did he indicate to the committee …?”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat his question formally. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he indicate to the committee that Dr Smith was standing in for Mr Judge when to the best of his knowledge Mr Judge had not even been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: To have the Minister there is something the members should be very thankful for. It was at a time when the ACC board was going through a reconfiguration of its membership so to have the Minister there was very helpful. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he indicate to the committee that Dr Smith was standing in for Mr Judge when to the best of his knowledge Mr Judge had not been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The members of that committee will be very thankful they had the Minister there. The fact that the Minister was there is something the members of the Labour Party should be very appreciative of. There was a reconfiguration of the ACC board at that time which meant there were changes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he indicate to the committee that Dr Smith was standing in for Mr Judge when to the best of his knowledge Mr Judge had not even been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: A reconfiguration of the board was going on at that time and to have Mr Smith there as the Minister was very helpful for the committee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No one in this House other than those there on that day can know the nuances that might have been around any discussion that took place at the committee. We are getting into very odd territory if we are going to allow endless supplementaries on such a fine and imprecise point that has very little to do with the actual procedure of the committee. Mr Bennett answered his first question perfectly adequately. We are being asked to try to fill in a massive gap that enables the next question somehow to get some validity. I think that is most unreasonable. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I do not think the point made by the Minister is correct. The massive gap that Mr Mallard is attempting to fill in is what is known as a credibility gap. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable members for their contribution to this matter. I find the House in a difficult situation because the question seems on the face of it to be a clear question. But I do not think we can go on pursuing this matter indefinitely although the member can come back with further questions. The bit that cannot be substantiated to the House is what the chair might have told the committee. Maybe primary questions are a better way to pursue that issue.