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:7180] 
3. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How— 
Sandra Goudie 
: You should know better. Read your Standing Orders. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I thank Ms Goudie for that procedural advice. How many submitters requested to appear before the committee to speak to their submissions on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 One hundred and eighty-four. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did the chairperson receive any requests that only 27 submissions be heard on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill as was his position at the outset of the opening of hearings; if so who did he receive this request from? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I imagine that if I call Craig Foss to answer that question we will get the same answer. I will leave it with the chair of the committee. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: The hearing of submissions is a matter for the committee. Whether submissions are heard and how they are heard is determined by decision of the committee. Hearings of evidence on the bill are being booked in accordance with decisions of the committee. I thank the member for his assistance as a member of that committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That supplementary question may be unlike the other supplementary questions in that it was very specific. It went to a comment that the chair made at the opening of the hearing of submissions. The chair made that comment when the committee was open and the question refers to the very matter on which my colleague asked the primary question. Therefore I submit to you that that takes it into another category one where there is a requirement to make a genuine attempt to answer. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think the rules around questions to members are quite tight. The chairperson of the select committee quite rightly pointed out that the number of people who were heard by way of submission was a matter for the committee to determine. We can assume only that the committee made a determination. If we were to have questions in the House that just went around the table asking what each member of the committee thought was a satisfactory number or otherwise that would be of no relevance to the House. What is of relevance is that the bill is reported back to the House with a report and an understanding that the committee was satisfied at least in majority that enough people were heard on the bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think the important point is that the member had said in open committee that there was a request to hear only 27 submitters. The question was a pretty simple one around who made that request of him. It was not something private. The fact that 27 was the number suggested is now out there. It has been out there in a public session. Therefore my submission is that it is not protected as the previous ones have been. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this matter it seems pretty clear to me that the answer provided by the chair of the committee is exactly right. The matters in respect of those who will be heard by the committee are decisions for the committee; they are not matters that the chair can be questioned on. The chair can answer in this House only as authorised by the committee or in respect of the kinds of details that the chair has already given in response to the questions. I really think the House should move on to member’s question No. 4.