Prasad Rajen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrasad Rajen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 27 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18310. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) to theAssociate Minister of Immigration: Is she satisfied with all aspects of her decision onSanil Kumar?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Associate Minister of Immigration): Yes I am.Dr Rajen Prasad: What weight did she give to the advice she received from Cathy O’Malley of the New Zealand Ministry of Health that “The Government of Fiji funds 3 months’ free treatment for local patients needing to start dialysis. During this time they need to either find a live donor and be prepared to pay for their treatment thereafter or get their affairs in order in preparation for their death a week or two after dialysis is withdrawn.”?Hon NIKKI KAYE: The member has asked a question that goes to the heart of the case. I asked Mr Kumar for a privacy waiver in this case before he died. He declined to give me that privacy waiver. I have said to the member previously that I would appreciate his not making incorrect statements. In terms of generally though I am happy to make general statements around the advice that I receive. In this particular case I did seek advice in terms of the care that is available in Fiji and I can confirm that both dialysis is available and also access to transplants.Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question arises from a quote that the Minister provided herself—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is leading to saying he does not think the question has been adequately addressed then I am ruling that it has been particularly in the light of the information that the Minister gave at the start where the Minister did not want to get into any personal details.Dr Rajen Prasad: What weight did the Minister give to the information provided to Immigration New Zealand on 7 March and confirmed on 23 April that the family waswell on its way to raising the funds to pay for the kidney transplant and that his cousin was undergoing tissue-matching procedures to be a donor?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Again the member asks a specific question that cuts to the heart of the case. I have been very clear with the member on a number of occasions that I requested a privacy waiver from Mr Kumar. He declined that privacy waiver. If the family did provide the ability for me to talk about the case via their providing a privacy waiver I would be happy to give further information. But there is a difference. Sometimes in this House members get privacy waivers but the Minister does not. That sometimes happens and that is what has happened in this case. It does not mean that I can speak to those bits of paper. The other thing I would say to the member specifically though is that I did take a very unusual step in this case of writing to Dr Prasad and saying two things: that he was making inaccurate statements specifically regarding the cost of treatment and that I would ask that Dr Prasad stop making inaccurate statements particularly given the circumstances in this case.Dr Rajen Prasad: I seek leave of the House to table the report to the Minister from Cathy O’Malley a deputy director-general of the New Zealand Ministry of Health in which the quote I came up with—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has sought leave to table a document that was supplied to the Minister—[Interruption] I am ruling on a point of order. When I have finished the member can raise his point of order. The member has sought leave to table a document written by Cathy O’Malley that was presented to the Minister. Leave is sought to table—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave and then I will—Hon Trevor Mallard: No before you put it—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: It is the normal practice of this House to seek an assurance from the member that he has a privacy waiver or has the permission of the family to table a document that goes to an individual case. I would like to know whether he has that permission.Mr SPEAKER: I was just assuming maybe incorrectly that that waiver had been obtained by Dr Rajen Prasad. But to clarify the matter we will clarify that with Dr Prasad.Dr Rajen Prasad: Yes. I have the approval.Mr SPEAKER: Then leave is sought to table this particular document. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Rajen Prasad: To the Minister—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just move to the supplementary question?Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order from David Cunliffe and it will be heard.Hon David Cunliffe: Can I seek your guidance? Firstly the Minister has declared that she cannot answer the member’s question because she does not have a privacy waiver yet the Minister has been referring to a document that she has released and the Minister has then called into question the member’s integrity. That is the first point. The second is that the Leader of the House no less is now barracking across the Chamber and calling into question the member’s integrity again. I ask you what protection there is for members of this House who are following due process and obeying the Standing Orders because that is abuse.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the point is that the member over the other side clearly has some information that the Minister does not have or cannot use in answer to the question—[Interruption]Hon David Cunliffe: Oh rubbish!Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am sorry are we hearing a point of order or not?Mr SPEAKER: Yes we are hearing a point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Or she cannot use it because she does not have the permission of the family to use it. For a Minister to be put on the hotplate when the member over there knows full well that there is a whole lot more to this story than the Minister is able to tell is completely unreasonable and frankly it does question his integrity.Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the Hon David Cunliffe to refer to Speaker’s ruling 173/1. It is a relatively lengthy ruling but a recent one by Speaker Wilson whereby it is certainly acceptable for any Minister in this House to rise in answering a question and effectively to invoke a privacy reason as to why she does not want to give personal details.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification of firstly whether that Speaker’s ruling still applies when the Minister concerned has already released the very same information to the member of Parliament who is asking the question. Secondly that member of Parliament has given an assurance to this House that he has received a privacy waiver from the family concerned so that no question of privacy could possible arise.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not agree with the last part of the member’s point of order. That Speaker’s ruling is still applicable today. The Minister has seen fit to answer the question in the way that she has. The honourable Dr Rajen Prasad has then sought leave to table a particular document which he said he had permission of the family to table. It has now been tabled. That is the end of the matter.Dr Rajen Prasad: When the Minister received assurances from Cathy O’Malley of the Ministry of Health that treatment was available toSanil Kumar in Fiji did she factor in thatSanil Kumar’s family lived inBa dialysis was available only in Suva and Nadi and that other local hospitals could not treatSanil for any complications and also provide dialysis?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Again I want to make a couple of points here. Although I requested a privacy waiver Mr Kumar declined it. I am aware that he gave Opposition members a privacy waiver and I actually wrote to Opposition members telling them information about the case after I was assured that they had a privacy waiver. That is not the same thing as my being able to release that information even if they have it in their hands. That is a very different scenario for me as the Associate Minister. The second point I would like to make is that there are a range of factors that are considered in a particular case and I will take into account the cost of medical services criminal convictions and family members as have previous Ministers in this House. The final point that I would like to make is that I did seek certain advice regarding access to treatment. What I would say is that there is no requirement for immigration officers under immigration instructions to look at the availability of services overseas but I personally—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just bring the answer to an end.Hon NIKKI KAYE: —took the step of taking a further step in this case.Dr Rajen Prasad: What would have been the harm to New Zealand had she enabledSanil Kumar through issuing an appropriate visa to undergo treatment for which funds had been raised a donor was undergoing tissue-matching and a payment plan was in place for the arrears owed to theWaitematā District Health Board?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Again I do not have a privacy waiver on this case. The thing that I would say to the member is that there were a number of statements the member made that are incorrect.Dr Rajen Prasad: Would it not have been wise and compassionate to enableSanil Kumar to undergo treatment in New Zealand before returning to Fiji given these facts:Sanil Kumar was admitted to a hospital inBa after contracting an infection; he had to be discharged from hospital to take a 3-hour round trip to Nadi each time he needed dialysis treatment and then be readmitted on his return; when he was transferred toLautoka Hospital as a critical patient he was not able to be given treatment consistent with his limited kidney function; and he died yesterday morning?Hon NIKKI KAYE: Can I first express condolences to the family—Mr SPEAKER: Would the Minister just answer the question in so far as there is ministerial responsibility.Hon NIKKI KAYE: Yes but can I first express condolences to the family. Secondly can I say that overall I think we have a very compassionate health and immigration policy in New Zealand. I can confirm that the New Zealand Government under our Government invests over $25 million into providing access to health care in the Pacific. We also have the ability of the ministerial discretion. As Associate Minister I do know that there are many cases—I will not go into the detail—where I have enabled people who have conditions that have high costs to stay in New Zealand but I take into account a range of factors that often are not in the public domain. What I really appreciate in this House are those members of Parliament who talk to me about particular cases and get their facts right. The facts are that I can talk about specific details regarding Mr Kumar that are in the public domain. Those are that he was here unlawfully he was unwell I sought advice regarding the fact that there are treatment facilities available but overall I declined his case.Dr Rajen Prasad: I seek leave to make a personal statement.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought—can you explain?Dr Rajen Prasad: Yes I am happy to. It is concerning the allegations the Minister has just made about the information that I have and that she does not have. I want to make a personal statement about that. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is easily decided by the House. Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in regard to some statements that have been made today in question time by the Minister. I will put that leave. Is it accepted? OK it is not. [Interruption] Order! The matter has been determined. That is the end of the matter.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I expect this point of order to be heard in silence.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek your general advice as to whether there are any other avenues available to my colleague Dr Prasad who has sought to use the Standing Orders in an appropriate way. The leave has been denied; that is accepted. The Minister has impugned Dr Prasad’s integrity and has hidden behind a punitive privacy waiver in respect of a document that has already—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am listening to a point of order. I have asked for it to be heard in silence and I do not want any interjections from members on my right-hand side.Hon David Cunliffe: A document has already been released to members opposite. That leaves Dr Prasad in an impossible position. The Minister has used her reply to the question to impugn his integrity and he has been—I must say almost without precedent—denied an opportunity to make a personal statement in reply. Does he have any other remedy?Mr SPEAKER: Yes he does. I refer the member to Standing Order 355 which sets out exactly the process now by which the member if he feels he is being misrepresented in this House can take the matter further.