Parker David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 13 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5794. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: When the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade stated on 19 April 2012 that they were “finding an appropriate mechanism to meet Al Khalaf’s concern for ‘compensation’ (possibly through the joint venture)” did ‘compensation’ mean compensation or have some other meaning like “not compensation”?Hon TIM GROSER (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): I am very glad that the member asked the question in very precise terms because he is in fact quoting the words used by Mr Al Khalaf not Mr McCully. Mr McCully hasmade it clear right throughout this whole negotiation that the New Zealand Government was not prepared to enter into a compensation agreement but was seeking a broader partnership agreement and that is the net effect.Hon Damien O’Connor: Then does he agree with the Prime Minister who told New Zealanders yesterday on Radio New Zealand National: “the deal was never about compensation.”?Hon TIM GROSER: Yes.Hon David Parker: Was the Auditor-General provided with prior to the payments to Al Khalaf being made copies of the document referred to in the substantive question and the 5 March 2012 briefing note of what the Minister said when the Minister noted that he would not want any financial contribution to be treated as compensation as this would involve a plethora of lawyers and bureaucrats?Hon TIM GROSER: My understanding is that the Auditor-General when she became involved asked a series of questions that were entirely correct and legitimate. They were provided with answers and at the end of the process the Auditor-General said that she was satisfied with the legality of the export with the fact that it was within appropriations and that the business case was improved.Hon David Parker: Can he assure the House and the public that Treasury was provided with all relevant documents relating to the $4 million cash payment prior to it being paid?Hon TIM GROSER: All the information that I am sure Treasury was asked for was provided. I would just like to quote to you from the final communication from the New Zealand Treasury to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Tradewhich is in the papers: “We are now generally comfortable with the business case.” It is dated 3 December 2013.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the Treasury document which is on the day of the noting of the $4 million payment to Mr Khalaf where Treasury says that it has not been supplied with the business case from Deloitte.Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking to table a page of the Treasury report. I am just unsure it is—Hon David Parker: It is the pre-Cabinet briefing from Treasury dated 18 February.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the pre-Cabinet briefing from Treasury dated as the member just said. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: Does he believe that the control agencies of Government including Treasury and the Auditor-General were properly informed about the true nature of these payments?Hon TIM GROSER: I am sure that the Minister and his officials went through all the necessary channels.Fletcher Tabuteau: Was the Minister informed of the meeting between Mr George Assaf and the former Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter on 21 January 2009; if not why not?Hon TIM GROSER: I am not privy to precisely when the Minister was informed of which conversations but most certainly the Minister was informed of the general position of the Ministers in the new incoming Government and worked his way through the issues as matters progressed.Hon David Parker: When the Minister of Foreign Affairs approved the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade providing compensation possibly through the joint venture does that not prove that the joint venture documents are a sham designed to cover the true nature of those payments?Hon TIM GROSER: I would have to listen very carefully to the way the phrase was used but I think from the way that the member put the question that the answer would have to be that I reject theassertion. The Minister has been completely consistent throughout: that we were seeking a partnership. We were not prepared to enter into a compensation agreement. Mr Al-Khalaf who is the most important meat trader in the Middle East is very important to this country and I am confident that this partnership will in the long run prove to be of considerable benefit to our country.