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:2295] 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Who told him that John Judge was not going to attend the meeting of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on 12 March 2009 for the financial review of the ACC for the 2007-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 I did not ask Mr Judge to attend the meeting on 12 March so it is not about whether he was going to attend. It was agreed however that the Minister would attend the meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How could he tell the committee that Dr Smith was replacing Mr Judge if he was not aware that Mr Judge was not coming? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This is a similar question to the one we had yesterday. I checked the transcript of the meeting. I did not tell the committee that Dr Smith was there replacing Mr Judge. That was my recollection of what happened. I checked the transcript and that confirmed my recollection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will have silence for this point of order; I thank members. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is a very serious matter. That member is absolutely aware that that transcript covers the evidence given at the committee and the period of that evidence. It does not cover his comments to the committee. They could not be in there because that part was not recorded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a very interesting issue. The dilemma the House has is that if it was not recorded because the committee was in committee at the time then what was said cannot be part of a question in this House because it is not available to this House to be questioned on until such time as the report is made to the House. That is the way I see it. I am happy to hear the member further because I understand the seriousness of what he is trying to raise but my understanding of the situation is that because it was in committee this House cannot question a chair on what was said there. This House can question only on proceedings not on what was said by someone in that committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think that is generally the case. The exception is an area to do with the process of the committee for which the chairperson is responsible and this is something that the member is responsible for. He has taken responsibility in this House. Dr Nick Smith has made some very clear statements in this House which I referred to yesterday. This member has made comments in this House relating to that process. We are allowed to ask about the process for which that chairman is responsible. That is an exception and it is a longstanding one. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: With regard to the process of the select committee and the questions that have been asked David Bennett has answered those questions. If Mr Mallard is trying to suggest that there is something strange in Mr Bennett’s observing at the start of the committee meeting that someone Mr Mallard expected to have turned up was not there then surely it would be no great problem. Mr Bennett did not invite this gentleman— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well this is not a matter of order. The member has exceeded— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: With respect the questioning of a member in the House in this context is refined to the procedures of the committee. I think we almost stepped outside that on a number of occasions yesterday but I think that Mr Bennett has answered procedural questions very very satisfactorily today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The issue that the member raises is a perfectly proper issue in that members can question chairs of committees on procedure. There is no question about that; it is absolutely correct. Where we get into difficulty here is that to question the chair on what was said in a committee is I think starting to stretch that a little bit far. The member has told the House that he did not ask Mr Judge to attend and the House has to accept his word on that. I really think that the honourable member should now come to his third question because I cannot support further questioning on what he said in committee because this House is not entitled to question him on what he said. Questions as to how he took the committee into committee we can certainly have but I cannot permit questioning on what he said in that committee.