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:2596] 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: On what day did he first learn that John Judge would not be available to attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year held on 12 March 2009? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 I did not invite Mr Judge to attend so it is not a matter of whether he was available to attend. Mr Judge made it quite clear at the select committee on 2 April as to his availability. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending the committee before Dr Nick Smith told him this on Tuesday 10 March? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Judge was not invited by me or I had no knowledge of his being invited on behalf of the select committee to attend that meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending before Dr Smith told him that on Tuesday 10 March? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I did not ask or invite Mr Judge to attend that meeting and I did not understand that anyone on behalf of the select committee had asked him so the matter of his attendance is not something I should know. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending before Dr Smith told him that on Tuesday 10 March? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are running through quite a large number of supplementary questions questioning a chairman of a select committee. I refer you to several Speakers’ rulings on page 149 of  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. While answers to questions are steadily being rewritten as we progress it appears now that the standard for chairpersons’ answering of questions is also changing. Speakers’ rulings 149/2 149/3 149/4 149/5 and 149/6 relate to what can be asked of a select committee chair. I do not believe that the opportunity exists for Parliament to interrogate a chair about matters that are ancillary to the actual proceedings of a select committee and that is where we are at. We have put up with it for some days because there was no problem and we have wanted people to let off a bit of steam. But when it becomes the same question over and over and answers are given that relate to the responsibility of the chair relating to procedures of the committee itself then I think we start to move into new territory which I think is pretty dangerous— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear any more on this matter. The dilemma is this. The chair of the committee must know the answer to that first question; there is no way that the chair cannot know the answer. It is a matter of the proceedings of the committee. It is totally within the Standing Orders that the chair of the committee can be questioned on that matter. The question has been on notice as to what day did he first learn that John Judge would not be attending. It may have been the day of the meeting. It may have been when Dr Smith arrived at the meeting. 
I do not know the answer but what I do know is that if a question is put down on notice it is not good enough for this House to not be told the truth. I do not know what the truth is but I allowed further supplementary questions because there was a very clear question the answer to which must be known but it was not answered. It relates to the proceedings of a select committee—an important matter a financial review. All that is needed to save further questions is for the question to be answered and the answer must be known. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If someone were to ask you for example—if a forum existed for that—“Did you know that the Prime Minister of Great Britain will not be sitting on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association benches during its session in the House next week?”—your response obviously would be: “I never invited the Prime Minister so I did not know that.” Quite clearly that is where we are at with this question. How does a chair of a select committee answer within the ambit of what may be asked of a select committee chair without in fact opening up Parliament to quite a degree of scrutiny and harassment? For someone to suggest that the chair is not being truthful—particularly if the Speaker were to suggest that the chair was not being truthful—is a pretty serious allegation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that impression was given I apologise for that. I apologise to the honourable member because I did not mean to do that. My problem is that chairs of select committees are accountable to this House. They occupy an important role in this Parliament. A question has been laid down that is very clear. It is not a matter of whether the chair invited someone to attend the committee; the question is on what date did the chair learn that a person would not be coming. A perfectly fair answer would be on the day of the meeting if the person did not turn up. That would be a perfectly acceptable answer. But the question has been fairly laid because the chair is responsible for who attends meetings. It is a perfectly fair question and I believe that the House does deserve an answer to it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The very first time that this question was put to the chair of select committee he made it quite plain to the House that Mr Judge had not been invited. At that point his responsibilities as the chair of the select committee ceased. 
Mr Speaker the great difficulty you pose is this: are you going to allow the chairs of select committees to start to be scrutinised on what may or may not have been said in the caucus room for instance? On the Tuesday following the change in the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation I briefed the caucus on the change. If you are going to allow the House to start querying the chairs of select committees on what may or may not have been said in the caucus room—not in their roles as heads of select committees but simply as members of the National caucus—I think you are substantially stretching the Standing Orders on the accountability of the chairs of select committees. Surely the answer rests at the point when the chair of the select committee said that Mr Judge was not invited—something that is not at all surprising given the fact that Mr Judge had been appointed only that week. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I certainly do not intend to go into asking about caucus discussions. I have throughout this matter been relying on the word of Dr Nick Smith who indicated publicly that this arrangement had been made in a phone call that the chairman made to him. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I might also ask you Mr Speaker to reflect on your own statement—I am not sure that you would call it a ruling—to the House the week before last where you said to the Hon Trevor Mallard that if the invitation had never been issued then clearly there was never an issue about when the chair knew that Mr Judge was not coming to the meeting. We get into the absurd situation where a chairman is supposed to be able to say when he found out that someone who had never been invited to the committee was not going turn up. That is not a position that a select committee chair should be put in. It goes back to the question I asked before; people could ask that of you Mr Speaker every day. No one could possibly know whether someone who has not been invited to attend somewhere is not going to turn up. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think we are getting very close to the nub of the whole matter and the reason for this questioning. What happened was something very unusual for a financial review in that a Minister came to the committee and when he arrived he indicated that he was there because the newly appointed chair—although not quite properly appointed chair—of the board was not available to be there. There is common ground in that he conveyed the apologies of Mr Judge for not being there. It was clear to all of us that there is a general expectation that chairs of boards come to committees and that Dr Smith came because Mr Judge was not available. All we are trying to do is to get to the bottom of those circumstances. I think there is a relatively simple explanation. The problem is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not something that is explored under a point of order. Because we have taken a fair bit of time on question No. 1 and I want to reflect on the points that have been made by members I think it is reasonable to go on to question No. 2 now. But I still struggle with this. It is such a plain question that has been asked because it does not really relate to anyone being invited; it relates to when someone became aware of something and I am not sure what the mischief is in answering that.