Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16391] 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Will he follow the recently published advice of the scientist who was the lead author of the Wellington school of medicine report into the health effects of the painted apple moth spray programme that it would be prudent to avoid aerial spraying of biological insecticides such as Foray 48B over populated areas until the results of detailed follow-up of exposed populations are available; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I have not seen that advice so I cannot comment on the specifics of it. However I note that the spray  
Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki 
 that the member refers to has been used in populated areas for more than 50 years without verified serious health effects. I note also that the school of medicine reported not on verified health impacts but on perceptions which may well have been influenced by the relentless scaremongering of certain parties. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Surely if a leading expert in this field is so concerned about the health effects of aerial spraying that he is calling in a peer-reviewed international journal for a halt to spraying until— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot start a question with “surely”. I want to hear a question please. The member is quite entitled to ask the question. Please ask it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that the Government has an obligation to heed the advice of a leading expert in the field who is so concerned about the health effects of aerial spraying that he is calling in an international peer-reviewed journal for a halt to spraying until detailed follow-up work has taken place and that the Government should guarantee that it will heed the advice and not carry out further spraying until these studies have taken place? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I certainly do not accept that the person concerned is a leading expert. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why are sprays such as Foray 48B used in New Zealand? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: These sprays are used for significant economic and public health reasons. The potential damage that the white spotted tussock moth the painted apple moth and the Asian gypsy moth would cause if they got into our forests would run into hundreds of millions of dollars and there are also potential health risks from the caterpillars of these moths. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister clarify whether the contingency plan for further aerial spraying if the existence of a residual moth population is discovered as referred to in the answer to question for written answer No. 15097 includes the tactic of spraying over populated areas and if this plan is called into action tomorrow can he give those affected by the spray the assurance that adjustments will be made to comply with the findings of the Wellington school of medicine report? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: There certainly are contingency plans to resume spraying should there be a further outbreak of the pest concerned. The advice is as I understand it that the concerns of the Wellington school of medicine report relate not to people occasionally exposed to the spray but to people exposed to the spray for many hours a day over many years. I am referring to occupational exposure such as that experienced by organic market gardeners. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Are there any detailed follow-up studies of exposed populations under way to assess whether there are any long-term health effects of the spraying as the expert is calling for; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: As I mentioned before this spray has been used over populated areas for at least 50 years and there have been many studies. Indeed there is ongoing monitoring and evaluation in New Zealand of any impacts. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Now that the lead author of the Wellington school of medicine study is calling for a halt to spraying— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Please start the question with a question word. I have to apply the rule fairly to everybody and that means questions must be questions otherwise they will not be allowed. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Thank you Mr Speaker but I would— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no—just start the question or there will be none. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I request that this rule that you are applying to me applies to every single member of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does and in fact it was raised originally by Mr Brownlee and the first person I picked up today was Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Congratulations! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Five other people helped him! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now we will have the question. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Minister instruct the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to stop pursuing the $8000 court costs against the Hamilton community group WATCH—Waikato Against Toxic and Chemical Hazards—and bankrupting them in the process when the group was simply seeking an injunction to halt the spraying of Hamilton with Foray 48B on the grounds that it would expose them to health risks which the recent reports seem to suggest it may have; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I certainly will not be instructing the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in that way. The ministry will take professional advice from appropriate quarters. However I would comment that when people rush to court they must take responsibility for their actions. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Was the ministry aware when it went to court last year over the spraying of Hamilton with Foray 48B that the affidavit it presented claiming there were no new concerns about the health effects of the spray was in fact incorrect and that 7 days earlier the Ministry of Health had received a report raising serious concerns about health effects? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Certain parties raise concerns about spraying over populated areas every time it happens. That could not in itself be grounds for us not to spray. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Government and I take very seriously our obligations to public health and safety and we obtain the best possible professional advice on these matters before we act. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a quite explicit question as to whether the ministry was aware that the affidavit it presented claiming there were no new health concerns was incorrect when 7 days earlier the ministry has received a report outlining new health concerns. The Minister did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might like to comment on that. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Of course I do not accept that the affidavit was incorrect but how could I know who was aware of what. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that as there is now clear evidence that the affidavit the ministry presented to court was misleading and that there was new evidence of health risks in the possession certainly of the Ministry of Heath it would be unfair and indeed immoral for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to pursue court costs and bankrupt the community group WATCH which was merely seeking to protect the health interests of Hamilton residents? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am certainly not aware of any new evidence of health risks. I certainly am aware of plenty of new allegations—and the member should learn the difference.