Hague Kevin: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 29 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5418. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: What advice if any has he sought or received on threats to public health in New Zealand?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I have received a wide range of advice on threats to public health in New Zealand. This includes the Greens’ suggestion that health officials should consider homeopathy to treat the deadly Ebola virus.Kevin Hague: Who will pay the extra cost of medicines arising out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement as the Prime Minister conceded yesterday; will it be patients other health services or taxpayers?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think that the Prime Minister covered this very extensively in the previous question. The fact is that the public will not pay any more for their medicines. The prescription charge remains the same and the key to all this is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is going to mean that we have got a wealthier stronger economy which means actually that we can afford a better health system all of the time. There might be a slight increase in patent extensions but as the Prime Minister has said the Government will pay for that. In the end the benefits of this deal vastly outweigh any details like that.Kevin Hague: What advice has he given the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance about the probable extra cost of medicines if the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement were signed as currently drafted?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The point is that you do not know what is in the agreement at the moment and the fact is that we do not know exactly what might happen in terms of patent extensions because it has not been signed. That is the key point.Rt Hon John Key: Has the Minister seen any reports on the amount of funding going into health in Budget 2015 and does he think that we as a country would have more money or less money to put into health if we were no longer in a free-trade agreement with Australia China and many other countries?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have seen—well it is more than a report; it is a fact—that we have got a record amount going into health: $15.9 billion. At the Budget $400 million went in and actually if we did not have free-trade agreements with all of those countries that the Prime Minister mentioned we would be far weaker as an economy and we would not be able to afford the first-class health—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Minister.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it now in order to ask the Minister of Health questions about the implications of trade agreements?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest that the member have a good look at the question. The question also asked whether the Minister had seen any reports about more investment into health. That was the start of the question and it is certainly in order to ask that of the Minister of Health.Kevin Hague: Given the Minister’s confidence will he now guarantee that he will not raid the rest of the health budget to pay for the extra costs that Pharmac would incur as a result of signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is not a case of raiding the health budget. We have put an average of $500 million of new money into the health budget every year. It is at record levels. But more important than ever we are delivering better services than ever. So the member has nothing to worry about.Kevin Hague: What does he say to New Zealanders who will not have access to the latest cutting-edge medicines because their cost has risen beyond Pharmac’s reach—“Let them eat milk powder.”?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would observe that the Minister answered the questions giving the other side a bit of a whipping but a question like that cannot be a question about something—a Minister cannot be responsible for something that has not happened.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the Speakers’ rulings are quite clear on this. A hypothetical question can be asked. It gives the Minister a very wide range in answering the question as he will have on this occasion. The question was: what will he say to New Zealanders etc. when drugs potentially cost more? It is a very hypothetical question but I am certainly not ruling it out of order.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I would say is that we have spent $800 million through Pharmac each year. We are providing more medicines than ever before. If the Greens were in power—do not forget that their co-leader Metiria Turei did not even realise that we had a free-trade agreement with Australia. So I mean on trade they have zero credibility.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Chris Hipkins: Thank you Mr Speaker. Is it now in order for members raising points of order to give a commentary on how they think question time is going before raising their point of order as the Leader of the House did in his point of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now getting to the stage where he is starting to trifle with the Speaker with his points of order. Any member can raise a point of order. That was a hypothetical question and Mr Brownlee took the opportunity to question whether it was in order. I ruled that it was in order. It has since been answered.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue that I have with Mr Brownlee’s point of order is that it was introduced with a statement that was designed to create disorder in the House. When members on the Opposition benches have done similar things you have threatened to throw them out. Why did you not do that for Mr Brownlee?Mr SPEAKER: Because I did not perceive for one minute that it was raised in an effort to make disorder. Further supplementary questions? [Interruption] Order! I just want to give the member a very fair warning after yesterday. He is able to freely raise a point of order but if it is in any way attempting to litigate what we have already ruled on then I pre-warn the member that I will be dealing with it very very severely.Kevin Hague: Can the Minister guarantee that if New Zealand legislates or adopts policy to improve public health we will not be subject to costly investor-State dispute settlement procedures?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If you look at every trade agreement we have ever had investor-State dispute settlement has been a part of that and so have safeguards. It has never caused us a problem in the past and that is exactly central to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.Kevin Hague: Well if the Government is not concerned about the chilling effect of investor-State dispute settlement on regulation to protect public health will he now immediately proceed to pass the plain packaging bill through its remaining stages—a bill that his Government placed on ice because it was afraid of precisely such action—Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is becoming a very long question. The essence of it can be answered. The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman in so far as there is ministerial responsibility.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I am really concerned about is the chilling effect of the Green Party’s nonsense on New Zealand’s long-term economic prospects.Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question about a piece of legislation for which this Minister has responsibility. There was no political sting in it.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need any assistance.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Can I just—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Minister on this occasion.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not actually have responsibility for that legislation. Sorry the member has his facts wrong. It is actually the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And that could have been the way—[Interruption] Order! Mr Faafoi I am on my feet and ruling on a point of order. The Minister could well have chosen to answer the question in that way. That might well have been more helpful. But the problem with the question is that it was a very long question and that it was also loaded with use of the word “chilling”. If the member could ask only short sharp supplementary questions then I can assist the member to get an answer addressing that question.