Parker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 25 August 2015. Volume:708;Page:6082. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did he approve officials’ recommendation on 19 April 2012 to commence work on “finding an appropriate mechanism to meet Al Khalaf’s concern for ‘compensation’ (possibly through the joint venture)”; and was the $4 million payment to Al Khalaf the adopted mechanism given Cabinet noted part of that payment was for “the settlement of the long-running dispute”?Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): No none of the six recommendations in the paper contained the quotation the member refers to.Hon David Parker: Why was no tender process run in respect of the first $4 million payment to Mr Khalaf?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that the tender processes followed in relation to this matter followed all of the public sector guidelines. As the member will be aware the Auditor-General is conducting an inquiry that will include the matters that he has referred to. The Government welcomes the inquiry as a means of resolving the questions that the member refers to.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the tender documents which were in respect of the $6 million agri-hub not the $4 million payment.Mr SPEAKER: Have those documents not been tabled before?Hon David Parker: I have not tabled that one. I believe—Mr SPEAKER: OK I will put the leave to table those particular tender documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Cabinet’s view was “there was a case the investor had put up that we may have to fight that in court and there was probably a faster way of trying to resolve that”; if so why does he now say it is not about compensation when the Prime Minister admitted it was?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: All wise Ministers agree with the Prime Minister.Hon David Parker: Why did he repeatedly refer to avoiding litigation in this House in early answers to questions saying the deal was needed to resolve that prospect given that his new view is that the payment was not compensation?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Despite the member’s attempts to distort the responses I have given on that question that question is very fully answered by both the Cabinet paper I have tabled in this House and other responses to exactly that question.Hon David Parker: If the chief executive officer of a company paid off a businessman getting in the way of a deal that would be a bribe—what is different in this case?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am well aware that the member chooses to adopt an uncharitable view of this matter but I want to refer to the fact that the Auditor-General is now inquiring into the very matters that he has raised in his question. The Government welcomes that inquiry as a basis for resolving this matter. Officials advise me that the decisions that have been made within the appropriation were lawful and in New Zealand’s foreign policy interests and that remains my position.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister saying that a tender process was run in respect of the first $4 million payment to Mr Khalaf?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am saying that the appropriate processes were followed both in respect of the $6 million payment and the $4 million payment.