Prosser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:698. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.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 600000 hectares of aerial spray of 1080 have been dropped. In the areas where rats had been measured to be at 77 percent they are now at levels that we would consider very acceptable at around 2 percent. 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 percent 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.