8. Saudi Agri-hub—Legal Advice for Cabinet Paper and NegotiationsDAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Foreign AffairsSaudi Agri-hub—Legal Advice for Cabinet Paper and Negotiations8. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Was the Auditor-General mistaken when she said in her report on the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership that We were told that Ministry legal advisers were not asked for input or made aware of this Cabinet paper or earlier related Cabinet papers"; if not why did he claim on 27 June 2015 that Ministry legal advisers did provide legal advice for the Cabinet paper?Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): No. The member is misrepresenting my comments of 27 June.David Shearer: If there is legal advice will he now make that advice available to the Auditor-General and to the general public? Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Auditor-General has had access to all of the information that her office has sought. In relation to a public release of the legal advice as the member as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is aware I think that committee requested the advice. Certainly there have been requests under the Official Information Act. I have made it clear that the legal advice on these matters is the property of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It has chosen not to waive legal privilege. It would therefore not be consistent with the public interest for me to undermine the ministry's position.David Shearer: Why was the Auditor-General so incompetent that she did not ask for seek or see the legal advice that Mr McCully says exists?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have made it clear that I for one respect the work that has been done by the Auditor-General and I would not associate myself with the remarks made by the member in that question.David Shearer: Why have he and the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson both repeatedly claimed including in the House yesterday that the Government was exposed to a legal claim by Al-Khalaf Group—or a risk—when the Auditor-General found no evidence of such a claim?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: In relation to a question earlier today I referred both to the words used in the Cabinet paper and to the words used by the Auditor-General and that provides I believe absolute clarity that the claims made in the Cabinet paper were absolutely accurate in the eyes of the Auditor-General. David Shearer: Does he still maintain that the Cabinet paper "wasn't drafted by me. It was drafted by officials across a number of agencies" given that the Auditor-General stated contrary to that that "Officials emphasised to us that the February 2013 Cabinet paper was … drafted and revised in Mr McCully's office with involvement from Mr Groser."?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have answered this question to members in writing on a number of occasions and I stand by the response provided previously which states that the drafting process includes consultations amongst the offices of the Minister of Foreign Affairs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Minister of Trade the Ministry for Primary Industries and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was aware of the Cabinet paper and provided advice on it. That response is completely consistent with the information provided by the Auditor-General.David Shearer: Given that he still believes that paying millions of dollars to a Saudi millionaire is legitimate will this form of payment of prominent individuals by himself or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade now become accepted practice in negotiations?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The primary finding of the Auditor-General in the report released yesterday was that some of the outrageous claims made by the member and his colleagues were simply untrue and that the contract for services entered into was a lawful contract for services and that the arrangements were fully compliant with the appropriation.David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not an answer to my question. My question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept that there is confusion in the answer given to the question. I invite the member to ask the question again.David Shearer: Given that he still believes that paying millions of dollars to a Saudi millionaire is legitimate will this form of payment to prominent individuals by himself or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade now become accepted practice in negotiations?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am simply going to repeat that some quite outrageous claims some quite defamatory claims were made by the member and others in relation to this matter. The Auditor-General completed a report which was delivered to the Parliament yesterday after talking to all of the relevant parties and has made it clear that the very strong accusations made by the member and others are simply ill-founded.David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was further from my question than my first attempt. I am not disputing what the Auditor-General said. I am asking whether the Minister considers this to be an accepted practice in future negotiations by his ministry.Mr SPEAKER: I have listened very carefully to the question on two occasions and I have listened very carefully to the answer on two occasions. The member may not be satisfied with the answer but certainly in the elaboration of the second answer given by the Minister he has addressed the question. You can interpret it yourself whichever way you want. But on this occasion that question has been addressed—I accept that it was clearly not to the satisfaction of Mr Shearer.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to tell the House in what way the Minister addressed Mr Shearer's question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is a direct attempt to criticise the ruling I have given. That is a serious matter. The members might not be happy with my ruling. I am asked to make an instant decision as to whether the question has been addressed or it has not. I have done that. I would be grateful if the member would accept that and we can move on.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Before I take the point of order I just want to be absolutely clear. I have made a decision. I have stated it very clearly to the member. If he wishes to relitigate it I will take a very serious course of action. If he wants to raise a fresh point of order I am only too delighted to hear it.Grant Robertson: The Opposition parties are granted a number of supplementary questions on the basis of the proportionality of Parliament. We do not have an unlimited set of questions. It is very difficult for members on this side of the House to undertake the job of the Opposition in question time if Ministers are answering questions in a way that simply does not even attempt to address what we are doing here. Mr McCully has done that consistently throughout question time today.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. I have given a decision as to the manner in which the Minister addressed the question. The member in asking his question may be expecting a yes or no answer. Speakers' Rulings are quite clear—I think it is on page 187—that you cannot expect that. I have interpreted that answer as addressing the question and if the member wants to go back and relook at the answer given particularly on the second occasion I think he has got the ability himself to decipher that it is not going to become accepted practice.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will take the point of order from the Hon Peter Dunne first but again this matter has been—Hon Peter Dunne: This is a completely different issue.Mr SPEAKER: Then I am only too happy to hear it.Hon Peter Dunne: I just want to draw your attention to Speakers' rulings 190/1 and 190/2 regarding the form of supplementary questions. Speaker's ruling 190/1 says: "Supplementary questions must not be prefaced with a statement." Speaker's ruling 190/2 is more specific in terms of the reference to phrases such as "given" or "in the light". In both the last two oral questions the supplementary questions have been prefaced on more than one occasion with "given". I am just seeking clarification as to whether those two Speakers' rulings still hold or whether they have been supplanted by other rulings that permit that type of conduct.Mr SPEAKER: They certainly have not been surpassed at this stage. They were clearly written. But if I consider the number of questions and particularly there were two supplementary questions—in fact I think three supplementary questions—earlier by the Greens member Mr Coates and on every occasion he started his question with "Given that". I have been relatively lenient. If members want me to get far tougher and get down to more specific supplementary questions as I have said on many occasions I will do so if that be the wish of this House. But I can assure you that I think it would affect the ability of the Opposition and the tone of the Opposition questions more substantially than it would affect the supplementary questions that come from the Government side. Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order I hope. [Interruption] Is it—no I just need clarification.Dr David Clark: Yes it is. Mr SPEAKER: Great. Dr David Clark: It is related—Mr SPEAKER: No no. I just need to clear because I am going to take a very severe course of action. So I just want the member to understand. We have discussed the issue about whether Mr Shearer's question was addressed. I have dealt with the matter. If the member raises a completely fresh point of order I am only too happy to hear it but if we are going to continue to relitigate that leads to disorder and my only alternative then is to be asking a member to leave the Chamber. Does the member wish to raise a point of order?"