9. Saudi Arabia—Legal Advice and Auditor-General's InquiryHon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign AffairsSaudi Arabia—Legal Advice and Auditor-General's InquiryHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I seek leave please to hold this question over until a day when the Minister is present?Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave and then the House will decide. Leave is sought to hold question No. 9 over to another day. Is there any objection? There is objection.9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by his statements in this House regarding a $4 million payment to a Saudi Arabian businessman that the New Zealand Government was also exposed to a legal claim for up to $30 million" and when asked for an example of a similar payment "I cannot point to any such example"?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes when the quotes in the member's question are considered as part of a full response that was provided.Hon David Parker: When he said the Government was exposed to a legal claim had he been provided any legal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to that effect or to the effect that a legitimate cause of action existed?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister would have had access to an analysis of legal risk—because that is what we are talking about: a legal risk not a claim that had been formulated. And when one is dealing with legal risk one has to take into account a number of factors.Hon David Parker: Why has the Minister resisted for over a year disclosing whether any relevant legal advice did in fact exist?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Ultimately I would have thought that the fact of legal advice and its contents were matters for the Attorney-General to determine.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I took that to be a claim that legal professional privilege questions are for the Attorney-General. That is not what is at issue here. It is not what the advice was; it is whether any advice existed. I think the Minister should be asked to answer that question.Mr SPEAKER: No no. I think that on this occasion the Minister has answered it—clearly not to the member's satisfaction. But the essence of the question as to why the Minister resisted disclosure the Minister certainly answered that.Hon David Parker: Did any such legal advice exist?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have not actually seen any legal advice because I am holding the fort as it were. But the point is that there was an assessment by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade dealing with a range of matters and ultimately it was a risk assessment that needed to be determined.Hon David Parker: Has anyone in MFAT including the Minister been provided with any part of the Auditor-General's draft report on her inquiry over a year long into the Saudi sheep deal?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The member in his question seems to be suggesting that the Auditor-General is taking an unduly lengthy period of time to determine this matter. The member should know because he is an experienced member in this House that the Auditor-General is an independent officer. She will conduct an inquiry and then a draft report will be given to those who are affected to enable them to comment so that natural justice questions are determined.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The essence of that question—and there were not two parts to it—was whether anyone in the ministry had been provided with a draft of the Auditor-General's report. I do not see why the Minister cannot address that.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty is that the question then included a comment from the questioner that the Auditor-General had commenced this inquiry "over a year ago"—I think were the words the member used. [Interruption] Order! The Minister took the opportunity to respond to that part of the question. If I can have more concise questions I think it helps the House deliver the answer. On this occasion I will allow the member an additional question.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has not answered the question I asked or even addressed it. The point as to the length of the report was not a question about whether it was a year long; it is an undisputed fact that it is. The question was—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member would only refer to Standing Order 380 it states that supplementary questions need to be concise. The member himself put in a qualification about the length of time taken for the report. That gave the Minister the opportunity to then latch on to that part of the question. If it was not there it would not have been able to be mentioned. To advance the cause I have given the member an extra question. I would advise him to use it otherwise we will move on.Hon David Parker: Thank you Mr Speaker. I had not heard that when I took that point of order I am sorry. Has anyone in MFAT including the Minister been provided with any part of the Auditor-General's draft report on her inquiry into the Saudi sheep deal?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not know. However in order to try to be helpful to the member I did outline the standard procedure that would be undertaken by the Auditor-General making an inquiry along these lines.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to consider whether that is an acceptable answer given that when Ministers are answering on behalf of other Ministers they are expected to be able to answer reasonable questions from the Opposition. I think that in the context of this controversy that is the sort of question I would expect the Minister should have prepared for.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that when you do consider this as I am sure you will you will reflect on the comment made previously by the Minister answering the question that did outline the process which makes it abundantly clear that the Minister answering the question today could not know that answer.Mr SPEAKER: I think the important thing is that the Minister is acting on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was asked whether the draft report had been presented to MFAT and/or to the Minister. The Minister acting on behalf took the position that was clearly his honest view: he does not know. That is an answer given. I would certainly prefer that answer to one that then led to a discussion later about whether we had had somebody misleading the House.Question No. 7 to MinisterRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without wanting to question your previous ruling on the matter of ministerial responsibility—and you reference Speaker's rulings 191/3 and 191/4 which relate to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just have this a bit more clearly—speak into the microphone. Perhaps if we have the Speaker's rulings the member wants to refer to.RICHARD PROSSER: They are Speaker's rulings 191/3 and 191/4 which you referenced in response to the Rt Hon Winston Peters' point of order regarding ministerial responsibility and the questioning between Ron Mark and the Minister of Police. Those points do relate to a Minister not necessarily having knowledge of what went on prior to their taking up that office which is fair enough. But I believe that the Rt Hon Winston Peters' point of order was to do with responsibility itself and Speaker's ruling 170/5 by Speaker Smith says "Just because a Minister may not have been present at the time does not relieve a Minister of being answerable for what took place." referencing that a Minister was asked about a decision that occurred in his portfolio before he became a Minister. I am curious—even given the circumstances the fact that the Minister may not have had knowledge does not relieve her of that responsibility.Mr SPEAKER: I will have a look at the points the member has raised and if necessary I will come back to him if I decide to.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been reluctant to raise it because I always worry that someone is going to say that it is just me who cannot hear things but it does appear that the sound system in here is rather quiet today. Certainly it was earlier when members were asking questions over there and when you spoke just a few seconds ago it was also very very quiet.Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly make sure that we have a look at the sound system immediately and I thank the member."