Parker David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5568. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Did he chair the Cabinet on 18 February 2013 when Cabinet noted the initial $4m payment to a “Saudi investor” and did he ask why Cabinet approval was not being sought?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes I did chair Cabinet. In answer to the second part of the question no. Cabinet was asked to note the payment. It was within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s appropriation and did not require Cabinet approval.Hon David Parker: When he was chairing that Cabinet meeting was he aware that Minister McCully had told the Saudi investor and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials that he would “not want any financial contributions to be treated as compensation as this would involve a plethora of lawyers and bureaucrats.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have been aware the whole way through that Mr McCully has never viewed this as compensation because it is not.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not my question.Mr SPEAKER: Yes it was your question and it has been answered.Hon David Parker: No—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a further supplementary question?Hon David Parker: Why did the contract for the $4 million payment make no reference to the settlement of the long-running dispute when Cabinet noted this as part of the payment’s purpose?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You really have to refer that to the Minister of Foreign Affairs because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade put the contract together. But everyone is aware in reading the papers just where the responsibility started. It was with the Labour Government and yes National cleaned it up.Hon David Parker: Did Minister McCully tell him and his Cabinet that the Auditor-General had made a written complaint to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about the ministry misrepresenting its advice about the Saudi sheep deal?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot recall discussions about the Auditor-General but I think it has been quite clear that there was some early dialogue. Ultimately actually the officials are very happy with the way the process went.Hon David Parker: What can his Government show for this dodgy deal other than a sullied international reputation; a failed farm in the desert where the lambs died in a sandstorm according to his own Minister; and the waste of over 11 million of taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars—and still no free-trade agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know that the truth is inconvenient but it is worth actually having a look at the papers because it was Labour that imposed the ban. It was the Labour Government that said it would reverse the ban and it was Labour that dispatched the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the time Phil Goff who told the Saudi Minister that they would restart and it was the Labour Government that actually did not tell the Saudis until it had publicly made the decision. It is very inconvenient but this all started with Labour. That is what I call dodgy dealings—it is the Labour Party’s actions.Andrew Little: In light of the dump of 900 pages of documents last week that failed to prove a single word of the claims made by the Prime Minister about the Labour Government and the fact that it is the National Government that twice continued the ban on live sheep exports is it not time that he finally cut through all that crap and was straight with New Zealand? What is the real reason he paid off Al-Khalaf?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Being “Angry Andrew” worked the first time he was in Parliament. Now it just looks like bad language and the inability to actually front up and be honest. Phil Goff went to Saudi Arabia and misled them. The rest is history.