Turei Metiria: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 08 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8599. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Metiria Turei: When the Prime Minister said that New Zealanders detained in Australia are “free to come home and process their individual case from New Zealand.” did he know that the Australian request for removal from Australia form removed the right of those deportees to continue their visa appeals?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I believe the member to be wrong. The member is relying on her interpretation of the form. Actually the form predates the assurances given to both me by Prime Minister Turnbull and by the immigration Minister Peter Dutton to Amy Adams. The immigration Minister has confirmed as early as this afternoon that the form does not apply to New Zealanders who have been deported back to New Zealand applying to go back to Australia under appeal. The Minister has confirmed—and we accept his advice—that there have already been successful appeals here in New Zealand of New Zealanders going back and the Minister has confirmed again to Amy Adams that there will be no cost for deportation. Unfortunately the member is working off incorrect information. Had she gone to the Minister not Radio New Zealand I could have cleared that up for her straightaway.Metiria Turei: So is the Prime Minister standing by his statement that he is 100 percent confident that New Zealanders being deported from Australia will get a fair hearing on their appeals when the form they are required to sign in order to return to New Zealand expressly says that Australian agencies may discontinue their appeals once they leave Australia?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not looked at the form but I am advised that the form says they may face that issue and as I said the assurances we have had from the Minister of immigration in Australia is in fact that that is not the way it is going to be interpreted. There is a special position afforded to New Zealanders on the back of the assurances given by the Australian Prime Minister.Metiria Turei: Has he then asked the Australian authorities to provide written confirmation to every New Zealand deportee who has been required to sign this form before they can leave Australia that the provisions relating both to them paying their own airfares and to the discontinuation of their appeals by the Australian authorities do not apply to them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I am making it clear to the House today that that is the advice I have received from the New Zealand Minister of Justice on the back of the assurances she has received from Peter Dutton the Australian immigration Minister. Secondly my understanding is that Mr Dutton is actually going to put out a statement this afternoon to make sure that that position is understood by New Zealanders but the position is very clear: although the form says they may be precluded from an appeal in fact the way it will be interpreted in Australia for New Zealanders is that that does not apply.Metiria Turei: Will he ensure that every New Zealander who is required to sign this form is provided written confirmation to them that these provisions will not apply?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You would have to really put that question down to the relevant and responsible Minister.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister or his Government representatives requested of the Australian authorities that these provisions are removed from the form that New Zealand deportees are being required to sign in order to return to New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot be sure of that because I have not had a full debrief of the conversation that Amy Adams had with the Australian Minister but my understanding is that it is a generic form used for everyone so I doubt that would be the case but the position is not about what is on the form which says “may”. The issue is how the form is processed by the Australians and the Australians have been very clear that the assurance that the Australian Prime Minister gave me and that Peter Dutton gave to Amy Adams is that New Zealanders are free to come back to New Zealand and have their appeals processed from New Zealand. They already are doing so and some on the advice of Mr Dutton have successfully returned to Australia.Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister saying that he is prepared to take their word for it on the basis that despite their assurances New Zealanders are still being required to sign a legal document which is required to be signed before they can come home that removes those rights from them; and what guarantees can he possibly give to New Zealanders that he has not misled them over this issue?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member is incorrect. It does not remove their right. It says it “may”. Secondly the assurances I can give them are the assurances I have had from the Australian Prime Minister when he came over to New Zealand and now from the Minister of immigration. If the best the member can come up with is that the Minister of immigration in Australia is going to make those assurances to the New Zealand Minister of Justice that the Minister of immigration in Australia is going to say to the Minister of Justice in New Zealand that already some successful appeals have taken place and thirdly that the Minister of immigration in Australia is going to put out a statement confirming all this but that he is lying—well that is not a very strong argument she has got.Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the lack of Pharmac funding for Keytruda that “we’ve got to give health more money” given that his Government has cut health funding in real terms by $1.7 billion?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is incorrect about health funding but he has never been terribly good with numbers.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The health funding has gone up from $11.8 billion in 2008 to $15.9 billion so that is a $4.1 billion increase. We have also increased the Pharmac funding by $150 million from about $650 million to about $800 million. But yes if Pharmac was to fund Keytruda by definition it would need more money. And if that was not the case then by definition it would have to cut funding to some other drugs.Andrew Little: Is it not true that Pharmac could buy Keytruda and other lifesaving medicines if it had the money but he has tied Pharmac’s hands by starving it of funding?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No that is not true. Not unless you think increasing its budget by $150 million or putting $4.1 billion extra into health is cutting its funding. In the end one of the great things about modern science is that there are more and more of these great drugs coming along and as a country actually we will be buying more and more of them. I have no doubt that a National-led Government will continue to increase Pharmac’s budget and that will allow Pharmac to buy more drugs.Andrew Little: Why has his Government increased Pharmac’s budget by only 2 percent since 2012 when it needed 10 percent just to keep up with population pressure and inflation? Is that what he calls investing in health?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We have increased Pharmac’s funding from $650 million to $800 million. We have increased health expenditure from $11.8 billion to $15.9 billion. There are clearly new and modern drugs coming on to the market. But actually the way for Pharmac and New Zealand to be able to afford those is to have a strong and vibrant economy and that is what a National Government is delivering.Andrew Little: Is it OK that Australians right now are getting lifesaving treatment with Keytruda for free while Kiwis like Tessa Taylor are selling their homes and begging for money to buy it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is always a range of drugs that are not funded by the Government or that take some period of time to be funded by the Government. We rely on the efficacy advice from Pharmac and if you look at the current advice that Pharmac has had it has examined 8 months’ worth of data when it comes to Keytruda. One interesting thing about that is that one in three patients in the trial has had a clear benefit. The other two-thirds have not. That is not to say that it would not work for the particular individual in question; it may. The Government over time will be increasing Pharmac’s budget and we will see where that goes in terms of which drugs it funds.Marama Fox: How would the Prime Minister respond to the detainees who report that food is being withheld in order to pressure them to sign the papers that will have them removed to New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would need that to be actually clarified as being correct. It sounds extremely unlikely but as I said earlier the form in question that the member is talking about predates this particular issue. We have had these assurances and successful appeals have already been processed according to Mr Dutton.Marama Fox: Is the Prime Minister aware of whether or not the detainees who are being deported back to New Zealand know whether or not they can have legal aid in New Zealand to appeal their decisions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have had from the Minister of Justice is that they are not eligible for legal aid in New Zealand.