Parker David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5708. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement today that Hon Murray McCully was saying “he didn’t want the lawyers brought in to be talking about compensation because the deal was never about compensation and he didn’t want lawyers going in there saying that” given that Cabinet noted the “settlement for the long running dispute” was part of the purpose of the $4 million payment to a Saudi investor; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. I note that the reference to the settlement of the dispute was one of several things noted in the Cabinet paper with regard to the $4 million. The paper also noted that the $4 million recognises the intellectual property that the Saudi investor brings to the platform and the services and in-market networks he will contribute.Hon David Parker: Is he aware that a month after Mr McCully’s statement that he did not want any financial contributions to be treated as compensation Mr McCully further directed officials to find “the appropriate mechanism to meet Al-Khalaf’s concern for compensation possibly through a joint venture”; if so why does he still say the $4 million cash payment has nothing to do with compensation?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of that particular statement but I am sure it is contained in the 900 pages of the documents released. But the reason I say that is that it is correct. That is because there was a long-running dispute started by the previous Labour Government which this Government took responsibility for fixing up. There were many reasons why we addressed it. Some of them were the free-trade agreement some of them were our relationship with Saudi Arabia and some of them were to showcase New Zealand products.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the document that shows that Minister McCully directed officials to find “an appropriate mechanism”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The date of the document?Hon David Parker: It is 19 April 2012 and it is a briefing note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular note. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: If the payment was in no way compensation why did he tell the media in May that “The view of the Cabinet was that there was a case the investor had put up that we may have to fight that in the court but there was probably a faster way of trying to resolve that.”? Did he mislead the public in May or did he mislead the public this morning?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No they are one and the same thing.Hon David Parker: Why did he not answer the repeated questions on Morning Report this morning about what value New Zealand received for the money paid to the Al-Khalaf Group—in particular the $4 million cash payment upfront?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs either to re-listen to the tape or to go and read the full transcript. I absolutely answered the question. But what I did very accurately was start by saying: “This was a mess created by Labour.” Unfortunately Susie Ferguson did not want to hear it any more than the Labour Party did. But the problem is it is true.Hon David Parker: How can he say that the transaction was so routine that Treasury did not need to be consulted when the arrangement was so unusual that the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had to go and try to explain its unique nature to the Auditor-General?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will have to show us where I said it was so routine.Hon David Parker: Is it not now clear that the $4 million cash payment to Al-Khalaf was dressed up as a joint venture in order to get around the Public Finance Act and does that not mean that Minister McCully broke the law?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. The official advice was quite clear that it was quite lawful and within the delegated authority that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has.