Shaw James: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: General Debate[Sitting date: 19 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5942. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Prime Minister’s standards for ministerial conduct are slipping. During his time as Leader of the Opposition John Key accused Helen Clark repeatedly of failing to hold her Ministers to account for perceived misconduct. When National came into office John Key promised a new era of accountability in which his Ministers would be held to high standards of integrity and fairness. Seven years on it is clear that that was just empty rhetoric. Murray McCully is under investigation by the Auditor-General for making illegal payments and yet—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I have a point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a general debate and there may be debating points raised but it is simply incorrect to say that Minister McCully is under investigation. He is not.Metiria Turei: Point of order Sir—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the comments so I will hear from Metiria Turei.Metiria Turei: That is a debating point. As the member well knows this is a debating chamber in which it is perfectly fine to put these issues to the fore.Mr SPEAKER: No I suspect that it is not actually a debating point. There is no investigation into the Minister himself but it is a debating chamber and it is the general debate so there is some latitude in the way that things are stated. I invite James Shaw to continue with his contribution.JAMES SHAW: Murray McCully is under investigation by the Auditor-General—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just ruled that that is going to cause only disruption. The member is not under investigation. I invite James Shaw to continue his contribution without such reference. It is causing disorder.JAMES SHAW: Murray McCully’s ministry is under investigation by the Auditor-General for making illegal payments and yet the Prime Minister thinks that it is acceptable for him to be New Zealand’s representative on the world stage. Clearly the Prime Minister is not concerned with ethical conduct when he believes that somebody else can take the blame—typically the last Labour Government.Although National kept blaming the Labour Government for instituting the ban on live sheep exports it should be pointed out that the National Government extended the ban. The situation that it found itself in was of its own making not the Labour Government’s. In order to smooth over the relationship between New Zealand and Saudi Arabia Murray McCully decided to make a $4 million payment to Saudi businessman Hamood Al Ali Khalaf with a further $6 million payment to construct an agri-hub farm in the middle of the Saudi desert and $1.5 million for the air freighting of 900 ewes to this farm.Allegedly this deal was due to the risk of a $30 million lawsuit against the Government as a result of the ban. Yet apparently the Crown never sought advice as to whether the Government was actually liable. At the same time during the course of 2012 and 2013 Treasury officials repeatedly stated that the deal should be abandoned arguing that it was unclear exactly what the money was to be used for and what was to be received in return. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade paper dated 27 April 2012 stated that the deal was about meeting Mr Al Khalaf’s desire for compensation. However John Key claimed last week that the deal was never about compensation. This confusion and contradiction highlight the need for the Auditor-General’s investigation.This was at best an ill-advised payment unlikely to achieve anything and at worst an illegal bribe. Yet as we heard in question time the Prime Minister refuses to ask for Murray McCully’s resignation or to stand him down during the course of the investigation. When a Minister’s actions are under investigation it is normal practice for them to be stood down while they are cleared of wrongdoing. However John Key thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to let Murray McCully chair the United Nations Security Council at the same time that Transparency International is pointing out that his deal could undermine New Zealand’s reputation for fairness and integrity.This lax approach is at odds with the way that John Key has dealt with the behaviour of other Ministers. In 2010 Phil Heatley resigned as a Minister following revelations that he had signed a $70 expense claim for wine at a National Party function. Although this was obviously an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money it was also obviously a mistake and did not amount to a serious case of misconduct but the Prime Minister accepted his resignation. How is it then that a $70 expense claim merits a Minister’s dismissal but making a $4 million payment to a Saudi businessman is acceptable conduct?Similarly Judith Collins resigned last year on the basis of one email that suggested misconduct. Even though multiple officials have raised concerns about the legality of Mr McCully’s deal he remains a member of Cabinet. If the Prime Minister truly believes in holding his Ministers to a high standard of conduct then it is time for Murray McCully to go.