Shaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4613. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.James Shaw: Does he have confidence that all of his Ministers in particular Murray McCully disclosed all details about the threat of legal action against the Government by Mr Al Khalaf and his associates?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I will refer the member to the Cabinet paper on this matter.James Shaw: Did any of his Ministers suggest to Mr Al Khalaf and his associates that they sue the Government of New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I cannot speak for the other Ministers—I have never asked that question—but I know I certainly did not and I would be surprised if they did.James Shaw: Why then did Brownrigg Agriculture in a letter dated November 2011 to Murray McCully say that Mr Al Kalaf will be looking “to seek commercial redress as indeed suggested by your Government as a last resort option for him.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot answer that question because I was not privy to those conversations but what we do know by the paper trail that was released last week is that this problem was the making of Labour which misled that investor and misled Saudi Ministers. [Interruption] It is very inconvenient for those members but it is actually factually correct.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not relate to the last Labour Government.Mr SPEAKER: No no. The question was about was there any—it referred to a letter quoting Mr Al Khalaf and was he advised to seek legal advice and the Prime Minister right at the start said that he was not aware of that and not privy to that conversation. The question was definitely addressed.James Shaw: Did the Government encourage Mr Al Khalaf to seek commercial redress so that his Government could justify buying Mr Al Khalaf’s cooperation for the Gulf States free-trade deal?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of all the conversations that other Ministers would have had but the reality of the situation was that Labour inherited a mess by deliberately misleading the Saudis over this issue.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last two questions were answered by the Prime Minister in his first opening words and then it became straight away on both occasions an attack on the Labour Party. Now frankly that cannot be in order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: You will be able to note that the member asking the question referred to “the Government”. Mr Key was simply making it clear that it was a previous Government—and Mr Peters as a member of that previous Government would know it was led by Labour.Mr SPEAKER: I thank both members for their assistance. On this occasion because the issue is one that has taken quite a lot of time in this House and certainly it is an issue that has spanned over two administrations I do not think on that occasion I would agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the reference back to a previous administration was a direct attack on that administration.James Shaw: Why did the Prime Minister say to the media last week that he was not aware of any—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to start his question again.James Shaw: Why did the Prime Minister say to the media last week that he was not aware of any cause of action when Murray McCully claimed in the House that the reason for the farm in the desert was that New Zealand was exposed to “legal claims estimated to be up to $30 million”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the way I interpreted the question was had I actually seen the action of the $20 million to $30 million and I said I was aware of it. My point was that I was aware of it in the Cabinet paper but I was also aware that that was a potential threat and it was parked up when negotiations began.James Shaw: Given that he has said “I expect high standards from my Ministers” and “If they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action …” what actions can we expect from the Prime Minister to get the full story from Murray McCully?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think Mr McCully has provided the full story. It is fairly simple: the previous Labour Government misled the Saudis. This Government wanted to do a few things. One there was always the chance of some legal action. Two it wanted to complete a free-trade agreement. And thirdly it wanted to promote New Zealand’s expertise in that Middle East environment. In my opinion although the Minister found a creative way through he did everything above board.Hon David Parker: Does he believe that in 2013 the Al Khalaf group had a legal right of action against the New Zealand Government for $20 million to $30 million?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not for me to offer legal opinions in this House and the member knows that.Hon David Parker: I again seek leave to table the un-redacted version of the Cabinet papers that the Prime Minister says backs his claims but do not.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is unnecessary. Leave is sought to table now the un-redacted Cabinet papers dated back to 2007-08. Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon David Parker: Would a Minister who authorised a multimillion-dollar facilitation payment to be made to a disaffected businessman to unlock a free-trade agreement retain his confidence?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely and for the reasons I pointed out earlier. The previous Labour Government can run but it cannot hide. On two occasions it deliberately misled the Saudis. They know it. Phil Goff actually went to Riyadh—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Both sides of the House will now settle down.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it within the Standing Orders for the Prime Minister to accuse the Hon Phil Goff of having lied? That is what he said when he got to his feet.Mr SPEAKER: I do apologise. I certainly did not hear that. It was a heated exchange and there was a lot of noise. I did not hear that that was said. The way forward because the Hon Phil Goff is not here in the Chamber on the basis that the Prime Minister did make that statement is that I ask him to stand and withdraw that part of that statement. [Interruption] Order! If the Prime Minister said that the Hon Phil Goff lied that is unparliamentary and I am asking him now to withdraw—[Interruption] Order! I do not need the assistance from the honourable member. On this occasion I am asking the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Documents make it quite clear that he—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister is now trifling with the Chair and there is the risk that he may well be having to leave the Chamber early.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is—[Interruption] Order! Mr Brownlee this is a point of order. I do not expect to have to point out to the Leader of the House that this point of order will be heard—[Interruption] I will accept that explanation on this occasion.Hon David Parker: What remedy does the Opposition have in this situation? We cannot table the documents because the Government refuses—[Interruption] Well—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister is to remain silent—[Interruption] Order! I just want to make this absolutely clear. I am going to listen to a point of order from the Hon David Parker and if any member interjects or speaks out loudly that member regardless of who he or she is will be leaving the Chamber immediately.Hon David Parker: What recourse does the Opposition have when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs refer to redacted parts of the document as justifying their assertions and yet we cannot present the documents to the House because the Government continually refuses to allow them to be tabled?Mr SPEAKER: A reasonable point and this is a matter of contest. At the end of the day the member has the ability to seek leave to table the document. If that is refused by any member of the House then those documents do not get tabled in this House. The way forward and I suspect we will see more questions on this raised in the future is further questions and supplementary questions in this House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is only reasonable in the circumstances to point out that the comments referred to by the Prime Minister are in the redacted version that is publicly available.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! My patience will expire fairly quickly with one member in this House I can assure him.