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:2372] 
3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he discuss who would be invited to the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year with the Minister for ACC before the meeting on 12 March 2009; if so what was the date of that discussion? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 As I am aware there were no invitations given to that meeting but it was agreed upon that the Minister would attend the meeting due to the reconfiguration of the board at the time. The Minister’s input was very valuable at the meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a question of whether the date of the discussion which was a specific part of the question was addressed. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We are getting into very interesting territory when it has been long established that members answering questions as chairpersons of select committees or members in charge of bills are to be questioned about procedural matters. Something that happens outside the committee—a discussion that happens away from it—is hardly a procedural matter. If in fact all of the discussions that might take place in any caucus or between caucus members—I am not suggesting anything in saying that—somehow become subject to questioning in the House where on earth do we have the opportunity to discuss matters that are relevant to the politics of the day? All I am saying is that to ask Mr Bennett to recall the date when clearly everything about this was in the newspapers and clearly there was agreement between him and the Minister that the Minister would attend—and oddly Labour members think it was a bad thing for the Minister to attend a select committee—is just pushing well past what is a procedural matter for the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Were the question a supplementary question and the member had to think about when an important discussion about who might be giving evidence took place—and giving evidence for a financial review is an important procedural matter—the point the member made would be perfectly valid. This question is on notice. The member has had a couple of hours to check the record about when if a discussion took place that discussion did take place. If it is not in the public interest for the member to answer it if there is some reason why the question cannot be answered I will accept that but on the face of it I invite the member to answer the question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect I think you miss my point. I am actually questioning why on earth this question was allowed in the first place. It hardly goes to the heart of a procedural matter for the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was accepted and I think it was accepted on good grounds: that the chair is responsible for the conduct of the committee. Financial reviews are a very important business of select committees. Who should give evidence at those financial reviews is a very important part of the business and procedure of the committee. I think the question was validly accepted. It was on notice. As I say if it was a supplementary question I would accept the point made that we cannot expect the member to remember the date. But it is on notice and I invite the member to answer. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: There were no invitations given to my knowledge to the meeting. On the Tuesday to the best of my recollections the Minister confirmed that he would be attending the meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of his answer how can he reconcile that answer—that no invitations were issued—with the statement in this House by the Minister that he was invited by himself David Bennett? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The chairman of the select committee has no responsibility for any comments made anywhere by the Minister for ACC. That is a most unreasonable question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was very clear in both the beginning and the end of that question that I referred to discussions that he had as chairman with Dr Smith and the primary answer that Mr Bennett gave in the House now. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Firstly noting that we are in the absurd position of Labour members getting upset that a Minister turned up to a select committee— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Might I make the point? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will let the member make the point but that is not the way to start a point of order which is an important point of order. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: If Labour members want to know that answer they should set it down as a question to the Minister for ACC. They should not be chasing the chairman of the select committee around expecting him to somehow know or reconcile—or whatever members want—a statement made by a Minister. It is not his responsibility. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is a very important point because what the Minister is now trying to argue is that it is perfectly legitimate for us to ask a question of the Minister as to how he reconciles his statement in the House with another statement by a non-executive member but somehow it is not appropriate for us to ask the member in his capacity as the chair as to how he reconciles his statement with the contradictory statement by the Minister in the House. It seems to me that those two are exactly the reverse of each other. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a very interesting point that members have raised and a serious point. It is a difficult point to rule on because the point the Hon Gerry Brownlee has made is absolutely correct in that the member cannot be responsible for what the Minister might have said in the House. The further element of difficulty is that we must accept the member’s word in this House. What the member has said in this House we have to accept as well. So the only way I can see the matter being pursued is to allow the member a further supplementary question to dig in to exactly what that member has said in the House. But he cannot in any way be held accountable for what the Minister might have said in the House. I invite the member to— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee first. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That may seem like a fair solution to you but I think it is unreasonable given that the Standing Orders make it very clear that the chairman of any select committee or a member responsible for a bill can be questioned only about procedural matters that relate to that. This does not relate to a procedural matter; it relates to a matter that took place in this House. Saying “Well you got that question wrong so I’ll give you anther one.” to a member who has been here for a very very long time and who does know the rules and the Standing Orders seems to me unreasonable. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The issue actually embedded in the question is the issue around who was invited to the select committee. Mr Bennett has said that Dr Smith was not invited by him to the select committee— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did not! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please do not interject. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: —and Dr Smith has said that he was invited to the select committee. One of the problems in arguing that we have to accept the word of a member is that if one member says “a” and another members says “not a” it is difficult for anybody—at least in the general world outside—to accept that both can be simultaneously true. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The public record is very clear. Both I and David Bennett agreed that I would attend the select committee because I was in the middle of reconfiguring the ACC board. I do not see the point that is being raised in all these claims of contradictions. It is a matter of public record that both I and Mr Bennett have said that we agreed that I would attend. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I appreciate your indulgence on this because it is an important issue. The House is dealing with an issue that is serious and that has been pursued for some days because the member asking the questions is asking perfectly proper questions and they must be treated in accordance with the Standing Orders. The chairperson is being asked to account for the procedures of the committee that he is responsible for as chairperson and to question him on what he has said in this House in relation to those procedures is perfectly proper. If the member is to chair a committee he must be accountable for those issues. Because of the point that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen made about the extraordinary difficulty around reconciling statements and the difficulty which I acknowledged a moment ago that the chair of the committee is not responsible for another member’s statements—on the face of it we must take the member’s word—I am inviting the member to ask one further supplementary question that does not seek to hold the chair accountable for what anyone else might have said but only for what he has told this House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In answering in this House did he— 
Hon Members 
: That’s not a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the members make. If the member could ask “Did he in answering in this House …”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that in this particular area not only you but some of your predecessors have gone too far. I think the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt brought in the question word ruling. Before that as long as there was a question people were not at all pedantic about starting with a question word. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I am sorry Mr Speaker but I cannot let that go. If anyone in this House pushed the envelope on the need to start with a question word it was Trevor Mallard. The irony of him standing up now and appearing to be somewhat aggrieved by the fact that he has been caught by his own lack of knowledge in these things is just a complete irony. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to waste the time of the House on this issue. The reason that procedure is established is that Speakers’ rulings make it very clear that members should not start questions “Given that …” and make a whole statement prior to asking a question. On this occasion the member was actually reflecting on an answer that the member had given and the question was coming very quickly on the heels of the first few words. I think a little reasonableness and sense in these matters is not unreasonable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he take into account Dr Smith’s assurance that he had been invited when he told the House recently that no one had been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: To my recollection nobody had not been invited to the select committee and I stand behind that answer.