Prosser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1905. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of theMinister for Primary Industries: Yes. In particular he stands by his statement that the Ministry for Primary Industries is doing a fantastic job on the ground in responding to the localised incursion of Queensland fruit fly. This morning there were around 180 field staff working on location in Auckland with more staff coordinating aspects of the response from the Wellington head office. I also want to take this opportunity to thank members of the public for their patience and cooperation.Richard Prosser: Does he stand by his statement that “We have stepped up a very quick response to this detection of one Queensland fruit fly in Auckland at the moment.”; if so was he expecting that more fruit flies would be detected?Hon JO GOODHEW: Yes it is expected that there will often be in the localised area—and that is why I referred to this as a localised incursion—further fruit flies detected. That is why we are looking to determine that they are within that area otherwise the area that has been covered with this incursion response will be changed should there be any elsewhere. But this is entirely what we would expect.Richard Prosser: Does the Minister believe that the continued use of the green lane direct fast exit pathway is wise given his own department’s assessment that “Fruit fly is most likely to arrive with plane passengers bringing in infested fruit in luggage.”?Hon JO GOODHEW: Analysis shows us that the direct exit lane or the green lane as it is known by passengers coming through in fact has a much higher level of compliance—sticking to the rules in other words—than the other tracks through the airport. We know that having Ministry of Primary Industries officers who are in touch with every passenger coming through the use of dogs and the use of high-risk application of X-rays are all part of the way in which we put the taxpayers’ money to good effect to detect and have the highest possibility of detecting any incursions. No biosecurity system is ever 100 percent but we are focused very much on where the highest risk is.Richard Prosser: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Primary Industries’ pest and diseases hotline is operational during business hours only so that if someone finds a Queensland fruit fly they are encouraged to leave a message or call back on the next business day; if so given that the number of fruit flies detected is now five and increasing does he agree that the hotline should be operated 24/7; if not why not?Hon JO GOODHEW: I have heard some claims to that effect. I can assure the member that the hotline the pest line that we have at the Ministry of Primary Industries operates 24/7 and then we have a further triage off to the Queensland fruit fly line which is operated from early in the morning right into the evening. But what we are doing again in a thoughtful and measured response is that every single call that comes in is triaged and the calls that represent the highest risk of new information are treated first. I am sure the member might not be surprised to hear that if somebody rings us from the West Coast of the South Island a place too cold for fruit flies thinking they may have seen a fruit fly their call will be a little lower priority than one from someone in the next street over to where we have found other flies.Richard Prosser: Does the Minister believe that biosecurity risks are active only during business hours; and further to that what can he tell the House regarding the potential activity of biosecurity risks on public holidays?Hon JO GOODHEW: This—from the member who thinks we should fumigate everything and everyone at the airport—in fact is a ridiculous question. I have already answered the member had he but listened. The pest line is 24/7 there is careful triage of every call that comes in and prioritisation for those who represent the information we need to deal with swiftly.Richard Prosser: Can the Minister tell the House which would be the greater amount: the cost of instituting 100 percent biosecurity inspection of all incoming passengers luggage mail and freight or the cost of losing the three-quarters of New Zealand’s economy that depends on primary production through not instituting such essential biosecurity measures?Hon JO GOODHEW: The member seems to have missed the point. There are a number of ways in which we can have the biosecurity system that this country depends upon. X-rays are but one of those measures. X-raying high-risk entry through the border is the way we are operating at the moment. In addition there is 100 percent screening of international arrivals using dogs currently. But the member must also remember that there are signs everywhere that there is education that we have a Ministry of Primary Industries officer speak to every passenger. He must realise that 100 percent X-ray screening is a not a silver bullet.Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. The question was very straightforward. It was whether the Minister could tell the House which would be the greater amount. That matter was not addressed.Mr SPEAKER: Could the Minister just address that part of the question.Hon JO GOODHEW: Any biosecurity incursion represents a very great and many millions of dollars’worth or more threat to this country. I believe that the money that is spent on biosecurity is well spent. I would add for the member that we had 100 percent X-ray screening from 2000 to 2008. We also had varroa painted apple moth didymo and Asian gypsy moth so maybe the member is mixing up what he is comparing.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to consider something that has come up a number of times today during question time and in a number of previous question times and that is that increasingly we are seeing Ministers at the beginning of their answer or during their answer attacking personally the person asking the question. I accept that there is going to be an element of political exchange in question time and a very political question will draw a very political answer but where a member is asking relatively straight questions that do not attack the Minister and do not actually have that political element in them it is not inappropriate for the Speaker to perhaps rule out of order an answer that begins with an attack on the questioner. Otherwise it is going to be become a very one-sided question time if this practice is allowed to continue.Mr SPEAKER: Allow me to have a look at the point the member is making. If it is a blatant attack I normally do rise to my feet and tell the Minister answering the question that it is not appropriate. Today there has been as the member refers to in his point of order the normal political exchange. I will go back and review Hansard. I do not think there is anything that has been out of order warranting my early intervention but it is something that I appreciate the member raising because the political barb at the start tends to then create more disorder to this House.