Mr SPEAKER: Question No 4, Richard Prosser.
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation:
Does she stand by all her statements?
Mr SPEAKER: [Interruption] Order! Order! There is just too much interjection
going across the floor of the House. I'm going to invite the member
to ask his question again.
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation:
Does she stand by all her statements?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Richard Prosser: Will she provide the House with the credible evidence
that she has seen supporting her statement in answer to question No. 8 on 23 October
that “Early monitoring has shown that numbers of rats,
which had been up to 25 million, have now been knocked down
to zero in places where 1080 has been used,”; if not, why not?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: If the member is asking whether the update
that we gave on the 1080 aerial drop in the Battle for Our Birds
has proved effective in bringing rat rates down to zero proportions, the answer is yes.
Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No, I was not asking that.
The question was: will she provide the House with the evidence?
Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to ask the question again.
Richard Prosser: Again? Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will she provide the House with the credible
evidence that she has seen supporting her statement in answer to question No. 8
on 23 October that “Early monitoring has shown that numbers of rats,
which had been up to 25 million, have now been knocked down to zero
in places where 1080 has been used,”; if not, why not?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The answer to that question
and the proof that it is true lies in the results
that the Department of Conservation has now come up with as of yesterday.
Over 600,000 hectares of aerial spray of 1080 have been dropped.
In the areas where rats had been measured to be at 77%,
they are now at levels that we would consider very acceptable, at around 2%.
So that evidence has been in the evaluation of monitoring traps
where rats have been found and the numbers have dropped significantly,
and those are the figures that the Department of Conservation has used.
Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Not to labour the point, but the question is still:
will she provide the House with evidence?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point is now being laboured.
The member has asked the question twice. He may not be satisfied with the answer,
and I can understand why that may be the case.
The way forward is that I will allow the member an additional
supplementary question if he continues with his line of questioning.
Richard Prosser: Why was her assurance about the safety of eating trout
based on a misleading assessment of the pathway to 1080 toxicity?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I refute the implication behind that question.
It was not misleading at all, and the Cawthron Institute
has provided evidence, which is contained within a report,
that backs that up.
Richard Prosser: Why did she give the House an assurance
about the safety of eating trout that had eaten mice
that had eaten 1080 based on a test that at the time had not been done?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: In fact, the data and the evidence
had been gathered at that time. It has not changed.
The Ministry for Primary Industries has analysed the data
that was put together by the Cawthron Institute
and has found that the findings are accurate.
The use of 1080 has not harmed the trout—they survived—
and the amounts of 1080 within the trout are not harmful to human beings.
That was the conclusion of the Ministry for Primary Industries
when it analysed the data of the Cawthron Institute.
Richard Prosser: Given that the test on trout that have eaten mice
that have eaten 1080 has still not been done,
is she still prepared to stand by her statement that an average adult
would have to eat in one sitting many times their body weight in trout
that had ingested mice that had ingested 1080
in order to experience any health ill-effects whatsoever?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I go back to the Ministry for Primary Industries’ assessment
that was released last month, which indicated
that at the peak levels of 1080 that were temporarily recorded
in the force-fed laboratory trout— it was not some kind of bush experiment;
this was a scientifically conducted experiment in a laboratory situation
where trout were force-fed extreme amounts of 1080—
there were no ill-effects on the trout and there were no residues.
This evidence was examined and interpreted
by the Ministry for Primary Industries, which is the expert toxicologist,
as meaning that it has no harm or risk to human life.
I am happy to provide the member with the Cawthron Institute’s uptake,
and if the member would choose to go on the website, you can certainly see
the Ministry for Primary Industries’ conclusions contained there.
Richard Prosser: Is the Minister maintaining the position that
the tests were done on trout that had eaten mice
that had eaten 1080 rather than on trout that had eaten 1080 directly?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The trout in a laboratory situation
were force-fed extreme amounts of 1080— far more than they would ever
have been likely to find in a field situation. The amounts of 1080 that they were fed—
vastly more than they would find in the field—did not affect
the health of the trout and nor were the amounts of 1080 in the trout,
which dispersed over time, deemed to be at any level that was a risk to human life.
Richard Prosser: Given her statement that “there is more 1080 in a cup of tea”,
will the Minister give the House an assurance that she is just as happy
and willing to eat a 1080 poison bait as she is to drink a cup of tea;
if not, why not?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The claim that 1080 poisons our waterways is not true,
and I used the cup of tea example to really try to make that apparent
to the member of your party who asked me this question a few weeks ago.
Let us be very clear on this. The fact is that 1080 breaks down
very quickly when exposed to water. Five hundred water samples
have been taken from 1080 aerial operations over the past 5 years.
No trace of 1080 has been found in the samples taken
from drinking water catchments. Only 2% of other samples
had any detectable level, and all were less than one-tenth
of the tolerable exposure limit of 3.5 parts per billion.
To put this in perspective, which is what I was trying to do for the member,
1080 naturally occurs in your everyday cup of tea at levels above 10 parts per billion.
So if the member wants to call for a moratorium on 1080,
perhaps the member might also like to call for a moratorium on cups of tea.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No 5, Todd Barclay.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community