Little Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Did he approve of Minister McCully’s dealings with the Saudi Arabian businessman Hamood Al Ali Al Khalaf?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes. The full Cabinet agreed to the proposals put forward by Minister McCully in a paper that was tabled in the House last week.Andrew Little: When his Cabinet made its decision to pay $4 million of taxpayer money to private Saudi interests how much of the payment was for intellectual property?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those exact details but I am aware that it fitted within the $4 million that went to the business hub part.Andrew Little: When his Cabinet made its decision to pay $4 million of taxpayer money to private Saudi interests how much of the payment was for settlement of the then threatened legal proceedings?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think it would be right to claim that you could actually compartmentalise it in that particular way. There was a range of different issues and they included the potential exposure of a legal claim wanting to resolve the issues that were holding back the Gulf States free-trade agreement the fact that we thought we could promote New Zealand in an international environment and we thought it was the right thing to do.Andrew Little: Did he know that the $4 million payment which Minister McCully told Cabinet was for intellectual property and settling the legal claim was really a facilitation payment and could he please enlighten the House on the difference between a facilitation payment and a bribe?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is really making some pretty silly statements. The $4 million was paid to Al Khalaf’s company under a contract for services between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and that company. It related to costs associated with shifting the operations that were previously based in New Zealand to a new hub in Saudi Arabia.Andrew Little: Given that answer why does Minister McCully’s Cabinet paper state that in return for the $4 million the private Saudi interests would “use their best offices to connect New Zealand Government and trade interests with key Government and commercial decision-makers in Saudi Arabia” and what is that but a bribe by any other name?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said the advice I have had is that the $4 million was paid on the basis of a contract for services. It related to costs associated with shifting. They included the intellectual property and access to a physical location in Saudi Arabia and other items listed in the Cabinet paper that was released last week.Andrew Little: Can he give a categorical assurance that Murray McCully was fully transparent with and did not mislead Cabinet?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am quite confident that Mr McCully fully advised Cabinet.Andrew Little: When he said that he wanted higher standards in Government did they include tolerating senior Ministers misleading Cabinet and using taxpayer funds to buy off foreign sheep farmers; and is it not time for Murray McCully to go?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Someone polling 9 percent might want to reflect on whether it is time to go.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Prime Minister make available to this Parliament and the public all the legal advice and opinion that Cabinet received behind this deal; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No as is consistent with the way legal advice is always treated and was treated when the member was the Minister of Foreign Affairs—if he bothered opening the legal advice I suppose.