Prosser Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 12 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:15835. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to theMinister of Conservation: Does he stand by all his statements on the use of 1080 poison by the Department of Conservation?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of theMinister of Conservation: Yes. The Minister gave a comprehensive speech on 29 January announcing the Battle for our Birds which clearly sets out why 1080 use is essential for dealing with this year’s beech mast. It is a very good speech and I would encourage the member to read it.Richard Prosser: Is he aware that bird repellents being trialled for use with 1080 poison have been shown to be ineffective and that researchers are unlikely to have an effective bird repellent available in time for his department’s planned increase in the use of aerial 1080 this year?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well what I can tell the member is that the Minister is absolutely aware that this is all about the need to protect New Zealand’s native birds. What we do know is that without the use of 1080 99 percent of kea chicks die; with the use of 1080 100 percent of them survive to 1 year. Without this our native birds are seriously at risk of eradication and there is no question in the mind of any sensible person that this is absolutely necessary.Richard Prosser: Can he assure the House that there will be no increase in the planned use of aerial 1080 until a suitable bird repellent is available to protect our endangered native species such as kea given his department’s own findings that 20 percent of kea in the areas to be poisoned will be killed by 1080?Hon AMY ADAMS: No I absolutely will not give that assurance because what we do know is that if we were to delay the use of 1080 through this year’s beech mast we would face the eradication and loss of more species as happened last time. What we do know is that if we do not use 1080 to protect our native wildlife there is a serious of loss of species or serious degradation of the populations. I do not think that is acceptable to New Zealanders.Richard Prosser: Can the Minister describe to the House the process by which stoats are killed by 1080 given that stoats do not directly eat the cereal-based 1080 baits that are used in aerial poisoning applications?Hon AMY ADAMS: No I cannot give him a detailed biological indication of the impact of 1080 on stoats but what I will repeat for the member’s benefit is that we know that if we do not use 1080 particularly during this significant beech mast event we risk serious loss of our native bird population. The facts are these once more for the member. It does not kill kiwis. Yes there is some damage to some species but without the use of 1080 99 percent of kea chicks risk being lost. I do not think that is acceptable.Richard Prosser: I seek leave to table seven documents. They are—Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to list all seven documents at once if he could do so briefly.Richard Prosser: They are pathology reports prepared for the Department of Conservation about seven radio-tagged kea found dead in north Ōkārito.Mr SPEAKER: All right. Second document?Richard Prosser: They are all the same—seven separate pathology reports.Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to table seven separate pathology reports. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.