Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:613;Page:9937] 
2.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to  
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Is she satisfied that all available scientific evidence has been considered during the passage of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: 
 I am satisfied that all positions on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill were fully canvassed and supported where appropriate by scientific evidence. The Health Committee heard carefully and considered 397 submissions. No organisation that wished to put its views forward was denied this opportunity. All the scientific evidence placed before the committee was considered before the committee made any recommendations. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the member wrote to Mr Jonathan Olsen of the Cuba Cigar Emporium Cocktail Lounge and Bar—with regard to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report—that “While Gavin Fisher’s methodology for an exhaust emissions report was accepted the reason that his other report into air quality at Bream Bay was not was because he never set out for the report to be used to support an air quality standard with relation to the current legislation before Parliament.” on whose advice was that conclusion reached given that the select committee did not consider the original National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: That is quite correct. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report came in after the closure of submissions on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you are not responsible for the content of the member’s answer but I put it to you that the primary thrust of that question did not relate to the timing of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report as much as it related to the advice that she as the sponsor of the bill received about it. The member did not answer that point at all so I seek your indulgence to have her answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member would like to add a sentence or two she can if she wishes. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Could the member repeat the particular portion of the question that concerns him? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I will do it very briefly if I may. I am sure the member is familiar with— 
Rodney Hide 
: No we need a bit longer. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I am a reasonable person. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be reasonable and do what you said you were going to do. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I am assuming that the member does not want me to read the quote again. The essence of the question was that given that the committee did not consider the report and her quote rejects it on whose advice did she make that rejection? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to the principal question. The question was whether the member was satisfied that all available evidence had been considered—not whether she had considered it or whether particular evidence had been considered at a particular time but whether all evidence had been considered during the passage of the bill. That includes during the debates on the second reading and in the Committee stage. To get into this kind of detail is to go well beyond the range of that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes but the question was about advice given to her so I will allow it. 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: I was happy with my original answer to the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: In hearing all the available scientific evidence was the select committee ever advised by the— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I was just about to rise and say that the question was out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I will rephrase it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member has had his chance. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that oftentimes when a question has been put wrongly the Speaker allows it to be rephrased. You have specifically said that the ACT party can ask a question and now you are denying us one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there was another member calling and I will call that member because he has not had a go yet. The member will get a go on question No. 3. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the member clarify her position: is she saying that the select committee— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No she is answering not as the chair of the select committee but as the member in charge of the bill. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the member clarify her position: is she saying that she is aware of all the scientific evidence that people chose to put there or is she saying that she has heard all the scientific evidence per se? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: As I said originally I am satisfied with my original answer relating to the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I took that question because the member’s original answer was not clear to members on this side of the House. It was a very simple question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot judge the quality of the answer. The member has given an answer. It addressed the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your indulgence. You promised the ACT party a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You will get one on question No. 3. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about question No. 2? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; all right the question will be on the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill. 
Rodney Hide 
: As the member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill was she aware that the Ministry of Health was funding lobby groups to lobby MPs—yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant to this particular question.