Prosser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 23 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:209. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.RON MARK (NZ First) on behalf of RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by all her statements regarding 1080 poison?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation):Indeed I do. The Department of Conservation is halfway through dropping 1080 in an aerial spray over 700000 hectares. Early monitoring has shown that the numbers of rats which had been up to 25 million have now been knocked down to zero in places where 1080 has been used so the birds will be able to breed this season in their absence. I and many others believe that in order to save our birds from extinction doing nothing is not an option and well-managed biodegradable 1080 is the very best tool for the job.Ron Mark: Why is the Department of Conservation advising anglers—Hon Todd McClay: You didn’t come back to ask about rats Ron.Ron Mark: I am enjoying this Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will now start again and ask his question.Ron Mark: Why is the Department of Conservation advising anglers not to eat their catch if as the department itself is saying trout caught from 1080-dropped areas “do not pose a food safety risk to humans”?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member is entirely mistaken. The department has never given that advice. In fact we sought independent advice from a Ministry for Primary Industries toxicologist who assessed the risk as negligible from ingesting trout that had eaten mice that might have eaten 1080 pellets. The science shows—and we stick to the science on this side of the House—that the health of the trout themselves is not affected by 1080. An average adult would have to eat many times their body weight in one sitting—in trout that is; not their body weight and other things but in trout that had ingested mice that had eaten 1080—to experience any health ill-effects whatsoever.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been a while since I have been in the House and it is wonderful to be so welcomed back but—Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?Ron Mark: The point of order is that I just want advice from you. When I was last here points of order had to be heard in silence—Mr SPEAKER: Yes points of order will be—[Interruption] Order! I am the Speaker not Mr Mark. Points of order will be heard in silence. Now would Mr Mark quickly raise his point of order.Ron Mark: That was it. When I was here last points of order were heard in silence—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will give the member one more chance to raise his point of order otherwise I will not hesitate to ask the member to leave the Chamber.Ron Mark: My point of order and question to you was this: is it still the rule that questions might be asked in silence?Mr SPEAKER: I do not recall that ever being the case when the member was previously here. It is helpful if there are not a lot of interjections but frequently during questions being asked and answers being given there is a level of interjection across the House. If it gets to a stage where it is difficult to hear I will call for order but inevitably there will be interjections and chips from both sides of the House and for the 20 years that I have been here Mr Mark that has always been the case.Ron Mark: Is the Minister aware that it was indeed not Cawthron Institute researchers who provided that scientific advice that instead it was Department of Conservation officials who calculated the amount of trout needed to be consumed to receive a lethal dose of 1080 and that this determination amounted to nothing more than a flippant back-of-an-envelope calculation done for spin purposes; and will she order that that work be redone this time by Cawthron Institute researchers in order that we may all be satisfied that there is no risk to the consuming public?Mr SPEAKER: Before I ask the Minister to respond supplementary questions should be short they should contain one supplementary question and they are certainly not an opportunity to give a very lengthy question as that one was. I will allow the Minister to answer.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The member is incorrect yet again. The Cawthron Institute researchers did assess the risk. They did it in a controlled scientific laboratory not on some back-of-an-envelope assessment as you attest. The trout in laboratory tanks were orally dosed with a high level of 1080 to assess the uptake and the breakdown of 1080 in their flesh. The trout remained in good health and showed no ill effects. Preliminary results indicated that the force-fed laboratory trout took up low levels of 1080 which break down over a period of days. The member is mistaken. When it comes to residual amounts of 1080 in water which is also something that we have done some science around no trace of 1080 has ever been found in any of the samples taken from drinking water catchments. Only 2 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It was a long question so I gave a long answer.Mr SPEAKER: It was a long question and I took issue with that. I now cannot allow an extremely long answer either.Ron Mark: Can the Minister then enlighten the House as to how she as the Minister of Conservation would have directly intervened to force a 1080 drop on a territorial authority in the event that that authority on behalf of its community decided against such a drop—such as she stated on Television New Zealand’s Q+A?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I am happy to answer that question. As the Minister of Conservation it is my responsibility and that of my department to ensure that education information and science-based evidence are widely disseminated and understood to clarify the science because there are a lot of mistaken people—as evidenced by the questions that you have asked; you are in that camp—who need to have this information clarified. So there have been particularly when it comes to the Hunua example which is one that you are talking about no traces of 1080 found. In fact there is more 1080—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.Hon MAGGIE BARRY:—in a cup of tea—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] The Minister will resume her seat.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a point of order based on the issue of relevance. My colleague is asking about the Minister forcing her will upon a local authority and she is talking about some education programme. She is not answering the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to go back and look at the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did.Mr SPEAKER: No the member has not had a chance to go back and look at it because it has not been printed yet. But when he does the—Rt Hon Winston Peters: No I got it the first time.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question when it was first asked was “Can the Minister enlighten the House …”. The Minister took the opportunity to enlighten the House but in a very lengthy fashion.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are absolutely correct. But my question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member wants to raise a point of order he stands to his feet and does it. I will give him another chance.Ron Mark: I asked that the Minister describe how she would directly intervene to force a drop.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question; that is not the question that was asked. It was included in the question; I certainly accept that but it was not the question that was asked. I invite the member to go back and look afterwards. He started the question with “Can the Minister enlighten the House … ” and the Minister took that opportunity. If the member wants a specific question answered then ask a specific question.