Parker David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 16 February 2016. Volume:711;Page:8985. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Who will own the abattoir at the Al Khalaf Agri-hub in the Saudi Arabian desert and how much taxpayer money has been spent on it since further spending was suspended in August 2015?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of theMinister of Foreign Affairs: Under the funding agreement when equipment is sent to Saudi Arabia it becomes the property of the Al-Khalaf Group. However the ultimate ownership arrangements for the abattoir have not yet been finalised. That is a matter between the Al-Khalaf Group and the Saudi Government. Regardless of the outcome of those discussions the agri-hub and the abattoir will provide a platform for New Zealand businesses to demonstrate their expertise and explore commercial opportunities in Saudi Arabia where there is a network of 2000 such abattoirs. In answer to the last part of the question there was no active suspension of funding by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise in August 2015.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would suggest that on the basis that it was the Minister responsible for New ZealandTrade and Enterprise who actually answered the question on behalf of the Government that question should have been to the Minister responsible—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I make a contribution simply because the point of the question has been lost and I may be able to help with that. The point is the Government makes the decision about which Minister can best answer a question. You gave the history of the Minister of Foreign Affairs dealing with this matter alongside the Prime Minister over a period of time. You then referred to the fact that should the transferred question go to a Minister who patently could not answer it that would be an abuse. Quite clearly the Minister for Economic Development is in a position to answer succinctly and appropriately for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is all that has happened here.Mr SPEAKER: Are there any further supplementary questions? [Interruption] Is this a point of order?Hon David Parker: Mr Speaker are you going to rule on my point of order?Mr SPEAKER: I am going to hear from James Shaw.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In reference to the Minister’s answer to that question given that it was a question on notice he did not actually say how much taxpayer money was spent since August 2015. He said that it was not suspended. And I think that given that it was a substantive question he would have been able to answer how much taxpayer money has been spent since that date.Mr SPEAKER: Can I address the first point. If the Minister then answers that it has not been suspended then the question has been addressed. It may not be satisfactory to the member and I suggest maybe a supplementary question may be useful. With regard to the issue of transfer we have covered the fact that the Government has the right to transfer the question; it did so. I am then not privy to whether a Minister is in the country out of the country etc. and who ultimately might answer it. I do not think that makes a blind bit of difference to the rulings that you have contested or to the rulings that I have given.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the 20 August 2015 New Zealand Trade and Enterprise memo that said further funding is currently suspended.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise memo. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: Was the Prime Minister correct when he said at the post-Cabinet press conference on 26 January 2016 that the multi-million dollar abattoir being built with New Zealand taxpayer funds will be owned by the Al-Khalaf Group and not the Saudi Arabia Government?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Prime Minister is correct in terms of the equipment becoming the property of the Al-Khalaf Group. However as I said in the answer to the primary question the ultimate ownership arrangements of the abattoir have yet to be finalised. That is a matter between the Al-Khalaf Group and the Saudi Government.David Shearer: This is a joke.Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. I need to hear it in silence.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a briefing that was prepared for the Ministry for Primary Industries it looks like just prior to 1 March 2014 when it said that the Saudi Government owns all 2000 slaughterhouses in Saudi and that the abattoir was going to be gifted to the Saudi—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular briefing. Is there any objection? There is none; it can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: Can he confirm that that briefing which I just tabled stated that the abattoir will be gifted to the Saudi Government which has been condemned internationally for human rights abuses including recent mass public executions of its political opponents?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: To the issue at hand the Al-Khalaf Group will receive the equipment. It is very keen I understand to own the abattoir privately. The member points out that most abattoirs if not all in Saudi Arabia currently are owned by the Government. That is a matter of ongoing discussion between the two.Hon David Parker: Which of the four official versions that we have had recently is correct: the one who said in the memo that funding for the abattoir was suspended; the one yesterday who said that funding was suspended pending clarity about who will own the abattoir; the one who yesterday afternoon said that funding was not suspended because there is no need to release further funding; or the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise chief executive who said the “suspension” was not helpful only going on to describe the suspension of funding?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is deliberately trying to confuse. The New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Chief Executive Peter Chrisp said yesterday—this is the comment that may be of interest to the member given that he is confused—that in hindsight the use of the word “suspended” in the board paper was not helpful and was open to be misinterpreted: “The board papers should have said that further payments were [simply] delayed until matters in relation to the abattoir development were resolved in Saudi Arabia. There was no active suspension by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise at any stage.” That was publicly reported yesterday.Hon David Parker: Is not the truth that these officials are just being forced to cover for National’s disreputable deal that even his own colleagues are now ducking for cover—Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that where the member was heading in that question was disrespectful to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I will hear the member when I get a bit of silence.Hon David Parker: I think it is pretty disreputable to pay bribes to overseas—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That certainly did not help the order of this House and on that basis I will rule the question out of order.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why was my question out of order?Mr SPEAKER: Because of the tone of the question and then—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The tone of the question was going to lead to disorder as was clearly displayed and then the point of order raised subsequently was definitely going to lead to further disorder. I have made a decision. The member does not have to like it but he certainly has to accept it.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon David Parker: It is.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon David Parker.Hon David Parker: Are politicians in the Opposition not allowed to allege corrupt or improper practices on the part of the Government? Is that the ruling because—Mr SPEAKER: No that is not my ruling.Hon David Parker: —it is a very unusual ruling in any Westminster parliament.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No that is not my ruling and I have ruled and if the member wants to have a look at Speaker’s ruling 23/5—[Interruption] Order! If the member wishes to stay for any longer in the House—Hon David Parker: There’s not much point.Mr SPEAKER: OK then the member can stand withdraw and apologise for that comment or leave the Chamber. The choice is his.Hon David Parker: I withdraw.Mr SPEAKER: I said stand withdraw and apologise for that remark or leave the Chamber. The choice is the member’s.Hon David Parker: I withdraw and apologise.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During his answers the Minister made a number of disreputable references to the member asking the question. If it is therefore going to be out of order to include disreputable references to a Minister in a question is it therefore going to be out of order to include disreputable references to those asking them?Mr SPEAKER: I did not detect any disreputable references to the member. I will look closely at the Hansard. I did not hear any at the time. There may not have been any. The member’s interpretation of some of the comments of the Minister might be slightly different from mine. I will certainly have a look at it.