Finlayson ChristopherHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): That was a fascinating contribution from Mr Prosser. It was more pitiful than his usual contributions because in the space of less than 10 minutes we heard that this involved selling our souls corruption a new low bribery blackmail and rotten to the core. It seems that rather than reading the report of the Auditor-General he has opened Roget's Thesaurus to find the most colourful words that he could before he gave us that rather sad and pitiful effort. Frankly Mr Shaw was just as bad because in the space of a few minutes—we did not get the full speech time from him—we heard it was intolerable a litany of incompetence rogue behaviour dodgy behaviour not transparent. Well let me say to honourable members that if there is an urgent debate in this House then I suggest it is important to read the document and have an understanding of the transaction and have an understanding of the findings—not dive for a dictionary or a Roget's Thesaurus come up with the most colourful phrases you can—and cut to the chase and have a cold hard analytical analysis of what exactly went on. Throughout this process we have had exactly the kind of florid rubbish that typified Mr Prosser's speech and also Mr Shaw's speech rather than focusing on the facts. I know that focusing on the facts is something New Zealand First is particularly bad at given its extraordinary performance in question time yesterday but that is precisely what I want to do. I want to say something first about the process because there have been a number of complaints from Mr Parker and others that this report has taken too long to get out that people have not been cooperating and that lawyers have got involved. The process that was followed by the Auditor-General in this matter was perfectly standard. It has been adopted whenever there is an inquiry that those who could be the subject of criticism have the draft report given to them and they have an opportunity to make a comment for natural justice reasons. All that sort of work has taken a considerable amount of time and now the report has come out. The critical thing about the report—and please Mr Prosser; I suggest to him that he listen—there is no evidence of bribery corruption or facilitation payments. The report finds that all public money was spent within necessary financial approvals. That is the issue that the Auditor-General was asked to reflect on and report on.Clayton Mitchell: That you can even stand there and try to defend it shows how out of touch your moral compass is Mr Finlayson. It's a disgrace.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: For the benefit of the big mouth from west Auckland that is exactly what the Auditor-General—I am sorry it was not him; it was the fellow from Tauranga. That is the point that has been established beyond doubt by the Auditor-General: there is no evidence of bribery corruption or facilitation payments. What is also clear is that the National Government in 2008 inherited a problem that carried with it major diplomatic economic and legal risk and in his contribution this afternoon Mr McCully has spent some time addressing the diplomatic and the economic risk. What I would like to do is briefly touch on the legal risk because the legal risk is pretty clear for anyone to see. What if for example a proceeding was commenced in the Saudi Arabian courts against the New Zealand Government? Would we have the benefit of sovereign immunity? What would the cause of action be? Would it be determined by Saudi Arabian law or New Zealand law? These are all the sorts of questions that a reasonable person when analysing legal risk would take into account in determining whether or not a matter should be settled. I can recall many years ago as a litigator being involved in a case where a New Zealand company was sued in Texas in Harris County District Court. No one paid too much attention to it until they realised that the law that would govern the particular cause of action which was breach of confidence would be Texas law and that it would be heard before a jury presided over by a judge who had been elected in the Republican landslide and was a probate lawyer. So all those factors were brought to mind when determining what exactly the legal risk was and even though the cause of action was flaky a decision was made that because of the legal risk of litigating in Texas in a difficult situation there needed to be a settlement. Clayton Mitchell: What about the price of avocados in China?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That kind of thing happens all the time when one is dealing with litigation in foreign parts. The member interrupts: Well would that apply in China?". Well of course it would. You would need to assess what would happen if you were litigating in China. These sorts of things happen all the time. There needs to be a mature assessment of legal risk and that is exactly what has happened. When one looks at the legal risk—which I as a litigator thought was blindingly obvious—and one also looks at the issues of diplomatic and economic risk then one is led to the need to sort this matter out as quickly as possible. Linked with legal risk for example is that if the case was held up in the Saudi Arabian courts for a number of years that would of itself have infected our relationship with Saudi Arabia and caused immense economic harm of its own. I know that Mr Prosser does not like the facts. He prefers to stand up and give a B-grade theatrical address relying on words like "corruption" and "bribery" but at the end of the day they are serious allegations. He is protected by absolute privilege in this place but one has got to come up for one's own credibility with a few facts and facts and Mr Prosser do not necessarily go hand in hand. Vague immature waffle and Mr Prosser go hand in hand. So that is the analysis of the legal risk. That is why there needed to be a solution to this matter one that incorporated addressing the threefold problems of a diplomatic risk a legal risk and an economic risk as a result of which Mr McCully—I believe quite properly—said this matter needed to be sorted out and reached a conclusion. Mr McCully has stood up in this House this afternoon and acknowledged that maybe the process was not A-grade and he took that on the chin as one would expect him to do. There are matters that are raised in the Auditor-General's report that all Ministers need to reflect on: to dot the i's and cross the t's—fair enough. But I come back to the core issue here. After all the months in this House and outside of this place and in press releases of allegations of bribery and a litany of corruption—all those sorts of things—what do we find from the Auditor-General? There was no evidence of bribery corruption or facilitation payments. At the end of the day after all the purple prose after all the hyperbole the facts do not support what the Opposition has been saying for a year. Quite frankly at the end of the day this Government in 2008 inherited a mess. It needed to address the various risks; it addressed the various risks. Maybe in terms of process things could have been done better but there was no finding of bribery or corruption. So my suggestion to Mr Prosser is that it is very important to look at the facts when determining this matter. It would help when we are debating a report in future if he has actually skimmed over it read the summary or had the summary read to him because these are important issues and one is dealing with the integrity—Hon Member: He's insulting someone. He's on fire again.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am sorry to pick on Mr Prosser but it was a pretty lousy contribution. At the end of the day what Mr McCully did in terms of process could have been better but in terms of substance he needed to address a very tricky issue and he did so. Quite frankly I think members who blandly and eagerly toss around phrases like "bribery and corruption" owe Mr McCully an apology."