Prosser RichardRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): Well I am glad we have had this opportunity to debate this matter today. It has been a long time coming. In the short time that they have had it available to them the media have had a chance to look at this report from the Auditor-General and I think the headline that I have got in front of me pretty much sums it up. It says  'Shortcomings' but no corruption in sheep deal—Auditor-General". That behoves us to ask the question: what is corruption? We have heard—the Minister has said and members have made comment—that corruption is something that in this case if it went to court legally the people who have had the finger pointed at them would probably get off. But it goes beyond that because if they are significant shortcomings and if an issue like this does not pass the public-interest test—if it does not pass the "Will this make the front page of the Dominion Post?" test—if it is corruption of thought if it is corruption of behaviour if it is corruption of morals and if it is corruption of the established ethical ways of doing business is that still corruption and is that something that we want to countenance? Is it something that we want to allow this nation and this Government to simply get away with because that is a way of effectively covering something up? There is an awful lot that has been said in a very short hurry about this and I think many of us probably have not had a great deal of time to digest it in detail but when there are statements that are made by someone of such unimpeachable integrity as the Auditor-General—when that person says "I was surprised that it was decided to use a contract with a private individual's business interests to resolve a diplomatic issue between governments." that is something that we have to take on board and we have to take very seriously because in the grand scheme of things resolving diplomatic issues between Governments is not something that is done on the face of it by the payment of money between Governments and private business individuals. When we boil all this down to brass tacks essentially that is what that comes down to. What this Government wanted was a free-trade deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council and what was standing in the way of it was a Saudi businessman who was annoyed—understandably perhaps from his point of view—at losing lots and lots of money from the ending of the live animal trade from New Zealand which we as a sovereign nation put a stop to on ethical grounds because of the conditions faced by livestock as they were transported from this side of the world to the other. That all came about when something like 5000 sheep died on a ship on the way from Australia to the Middle East and fingers can be pointed in all sorts of directions as to who or what was ultimately to blame for that. But it threw a spotlight on a trade where tens of thousands of animals were being transported from what we like to think of as being civilised places for slaughter to places that are quite frequently accused of being uncivilised places for slaughter and the conditions in which they were transported gave measure to that lack of civilisation never mind what happened at the other end when they arrived. We had put a stop to it. Money was lost. People obviously at the other end of that deal were experiencing much chagrin at losing money and they brought political and financial influence to bear on the political system at their end of the matter and there we came to an impasse. So in order to break this impasse a deal was reached and it was a deal that many of us would regard as being ethically and in terms of business morals corrupt. That involved as it says on one of these many pieces of paper I have in front of me—Hon Members: Take your time.RICHARD PROSSER: —thank you very much—the payment of something like $11 million worth of cash livestock and agricultural equipment to a Saudi livestock importer and that we are told supposedly broke the impasse. But I have to call that into question too because are we in fact any closer to resolving this deal which was brought to a halt by the end of our live sheep exports or at the end of the day are we still going to have to turn around and effectively bend over and lift our prohibition—because it is not a prohibition in law. It is not a ban in law. When the Animal Welfare Act was re-examined a couple of years ago by this House we did not enshrine the ban on live animal exports other than for the likes of bloodstock. We relied on the convention that had been established since the prohibition was put in place. It is still legally possible for us to export livestock to that part of the world. Do we rely on that or are we going to see the resumption of shipments of live animals from this country to parts of the world that do not have the same ethical standards that we do in terms of their treatment of animals in terms of the operation of their abattoirs in terms of the way animals are slaughtered and in terms of the way animals are treated? Have we essentially sold our soul for the paltry sum of $11 million to placate one individual—David Seymour: It's not poultry.RICHARD PROSSER: —$11 million Mr Seymour—in the scheme of New Zealand's sheep exports and our meat exports overall which ground this economy in total? Yes $11 million is a paltry sum. It is a paltry sum Mr Seymour and I think you really should take that on board because Mr Seymour some things are actually more important than bottom lines and some things are more important than paying lip service to concepts such as ethical behaviour. Sometimes corruption is corruption even if it is something that would not lead to a conviction in a court of law. If it is immoral if it is unethical and if it is business practice that we as a nation do not want to be associated with then it is a very paltry sum for selling our soul Mr Seymour. The report goes on to say that "It is not clear on what basis the amounts paid to the Saudi Arabian investor's company under the contract were arrived at." so there is a complete lack of transparency throughout this entire matter. There has been from the beginning and New Zealand First was saying so a long time ago. Back in May 2015 we said that the deal was "a new low in New Zealand diplomacy". "A disgrace" and "borders on bribery" said our leader the member for Northland the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He then said: "New Zealand has been successfully blackmailed by two highly connected Saudi businessmen who have said 'pay up or else your free trade deal is sunk'. We are paying for their business decisions. That opens up a Pandora's Box of potential claims bearing in mind agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) now being negotiated." If this is something that the Auditor-General can discover in looking into one single deal like this what on earth are we going to find when we eventually get to the behind-the-scenes negotiations that went on for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which depending on the outcome of the US election may or may not happen. And that may be a very good thing. Going back to before the 2008 general election which is slightly after this matter came to a head we still have not been told what promises were made by senior National Party figures to George Assaf of Awassi Ltd and especially to the Saudi Minister of Agriculture who visited Mr Assaf's Hawke's Bay farm on 16 July of that year. There is so much that is left unanswered by this report and by the questions that have arisen as a result of this report that we are almost at a point where although we have to accept the findings of the Auditor-General because we do not call the integrity of the Auditor-General into question—I think that office has demonstrated over the years that it is above impeachment in that regard—it is quite likely that we are probably going to have to have a full commission of inquiry into this entire matter because it is rotten to the core. That is obvious to everyone. It is obvious to the average person it should be obvious to every member in this House and it is going to be obvious to the public. They are going to be asking those questions and they deserve to have those questions answered. Thank you."