Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9839] 
2.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Crown Research Institutes 
: Does he accept that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited report titled “Air Quality inside the Bream Bay Club Ruakaka” was “flawed” as claimed by MP Steve Chadwick in her 30 October 2003 letter to Clubs NZ; if so what were the report’s flaws? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes) 
: 
 The problem that report has run into is that it has been represented as a health risk assessment which it never pretended to be. To quote the report’s author: “It is not a health risk assessment and does not make any claims on the effects of any indoor contaminants (including tobacco smoke) on people.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will the Minister deny that the scientists who wrote that report were leaned on to write a letter to the health authorities highlighting aspects of the report that do not focus on the science but instead on the political spin? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They certainly have not been leaned on by me. In fact I have a letter from the senior air quality scientist responsible for the report who states: “I have the impression that some aspects are being misinterpreted”—continuously it would seem. 
Jill Pettis 
: What advice does the Minister have on whether the claims that have been made about the report are scientifically justified? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: To quote the report’s author again its air quality measurements “do not support any particular conclusion about the health effects or exposures due to tobacco smoke within the club.” That is an interesting contrast to the claim of United Future leader Peter Dunne that the report found that extra ventilation resulted in an acceptable level of air quality. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that the workers and patrons of the Bream Bay Club have the right to breathe air free of carcinogens that kill thousands of New Zealanders and is he satisfied that the research into the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke is sufficiently robust to justify the smoke-free legislation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In answer to the second question I am not sufficiently well-briefed to be honest to give the member a point of view. In answer to the first question most certainly. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How does the Minister reconcile his last answer but one relating to comments I had made about the report with the final statement in the report’s conclusion which reads: “During a trial period of extra ventilation concentrations of both contaminants fell to very low values even when smoking was allowed in a part of the club. This level of indoor air treatment appeared to result in a very acceptable level of air quality within the club.”; was the Minister aware of those comments when he dismissed my comments earlier on; if so how does he reconcile the inconsistency? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I was aware of them and I reconcile it thus: there is a difference between comfort—whether smoke gets in one’s eyes—and health—whether cancer gets in one’s body. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How does the Minister explain the file note by the scientist responsible for this report which states that he was sort of leaned on and forced to write to Mr Gillespie from the Ministry of Health and does the Minister think it is appropriate that politics should determine scientific results rather than letting them stand and be judged on their own merits? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The allegation that a scientist in New Zealand has been leaned on is new to me and it would be a matter of some concern if ever a scientist in New Zealand responded to such leaning. However the chief executive of the National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Research points out that the institute stands absolutely and entirely behind its research but went on to say that the report was not intended to provide comment on or research into the impacts of ventilation on passive smoking. The institute points out that even with extremely effective ventilation systems someone sitting next to a smoker would still be affected by passive smoking. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister agree that scientific papers are optimally assessed by international peer review and that it is unfortunate that a member of his own party has commented on this paper for political purposes before it has been thoroughly scientifically assessed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry to advise the member of the most basic piece of information: this was not a peer-reviewed piece of science. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I ask the Minister to address his claim that this report was not about smoke-free environments within the Bream Bay Club at Ruakaka when the report in the section headed “Issues” on page 1 states: “The particular issue addressed here posed by the owners of the Bream Bay Club is basically: can we achieve acceptably clean air in our club by using air filtration and ventilation especially for protection against the effects of cigarette smoke?” How does he reconcile that statement in the report with his denial that the report was about that? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is what the chief executive of the Bream Bay Club said it was about. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research gave a report on air quality on the issues of comfort on the issues of particulates and on the issue of carbon monoxide—not on the various toxins that arise from tobacco smoke. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end so as not to interrupt the flow of questions but I draw your attention to a difficulty we have time and time again in this House. Mr Shirley’s question to the Minister asked whether he accepted that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited report was flawed. What the Minister went on in his answer to say was that it did not cover that and it did not cover that. The report was never intended to cover those things. The precise question was: was this scientific report in its own terms flawed? The Minister refuses to answer or address it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is arguing the quality of the answer and I am not expected to judge on that. The answer stands as the Minister gave it. It addressed the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I seek leave to table the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report which backs up the claims I have made. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table the letter to the manager of public health programmes by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research scientists with the file note copy outlining how they were leaned on and forced to write this letter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.