Mapp Wayne: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces  
Mapp Wayne: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces  
[Volume:609;Page:6707] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is a rare occasion when the entire House—certainly it must be the first time in my experience—supports a deployment. Not a single party has said that this deployment should not take place. However serious questions have been asked across the House by National New Zealand First the Greens ACT and United Future. Through the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Government has chosen not to answer those serious questions—not to address them properly. I hope that the Minister of Defence will deal with them seriously and not in a partisan fashion as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade did. 
The National Party and I have been saying for many months—in fact years—that we needed to take a closer look at the serious problems emerging in the Solomon Islands which have many of the characteristics of the inter-tribal disputes that occurred in Bougainville. In Bougainville there was a dual-track process: bringing the parties together to deal with the very deep issues between them and providing a surety around law and order and the building of stability in civil society. The question raised by National in this particular case is whether we have taken a too one-sided approach. Certainly we recognise the need to restore stability in the Solomon Islands and obviously that is the reason for both the defence forces and the police being deployed. But it would be wrong for us to pretend that that is the totality of the situation. I believe the Government has too often minimised the broader issue and has focused largely on the law and order issue. 
 Certainly it is easy to refer to corruption in the police. The fact is that the Solomon Islands police are part of the problem rather than the solution; they have raided the Treasury and helped to be part of the destructive force. People who are now referred to as ex-militants are the very same people—or at least their representatives are—who were part of the political dialogue that occurred in Townsville in the year 2000. The reality is that people do not fundamentally change their character. People who admittedly commit serious criminal acts need to be brought under control but nevertheless in their own fashion—in much the same way that perhaps the IRA did—they represent political interests within the Solomon Islands. The same thing happened in Bougainville. We have to deal with people almost simultaneously both in a law and order situation—hence the need for the troops and the police—and also on the political level notwithstanding that there is a democratically elected Government in the Solomons. 
The Solomon Islands are a very good illustration of the tensions in the South Pacific between the processes of representative government which we all support overlaid on a tribal society. Although the Solomons perhaps from afar look like a somewhat homogeneous Melanesian society beneath that surface there is a whole series of competing tribal interests. We know they have had a difficult outcome in the past and they have a continuing outcome today. The reality is that we do not get a total collapse in a society on a law and order or on an economic front unless there are also quite deep ethnic issues involved as well. 
We on the Opposition side of the House have asked—I believe United Future also did ask—the Government to look at those issues seriously. There will have to be more than one track involved in this intervention: the law and order track—the defence track—and also the building of civil society. Mr English posed that serious question to the Minister but the Minister chose to simply dismiss it. That was a mistake. Unless the Government addresses that additional dimension as well then there will be serious problems ahead. We know that is the case because we have tried to intervene in the past unsuccessfully over several years. A new way forward is needed. We cannot look at this issue purely on the basis of the defence and police forces alone. 
I now turn to two particular issues: first the question of sustainability which relates to the previous issue and second the role of multilateralism in regional security and that of the United Nations. The Government’s desire to be a good citizen in the South Pacific is obviously to be applauded. We know that it is a region of instability these days. It is not a benign strategic environment and it does require our defence forces. At the same time we have deployments right through the Middle East. It has been noted in the  
New Zealand Herald  
inaccurately that there could be up to 579 defence personnel currently deployed. That is largely the Army component. On top of that we also have the Orion deployed to the Gulf. It is not just a matter of eight or 10 crew members; there is a whole airfield team as well. Also there is the Hercules deployed north of Afghanistan and the Anzac frigate in the Gulf which also has a shore component in the Gulf of Oman. We say there is a serious risk in terms of sustainability. The reason I raise that question is that in East Timor the six battalion-sized rotations caused serious problems for our defence forces. I am sure the Minister of Defence recognises that reality—the Army has done so. 
The whole issue of the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 was to narrow the focus of and to build depth in our defence forces. I am sure the Minister of Defence would accept that. The abolition of the air combat force was intended to be part of meeting that goal. But that has not yet happened. Certainly some new equipment has been ordered—no question about that. But what has not happened is the beefing-up of the components of the defence forces that we use the most so that they are made more sustainable. The question that has come out of East Timor and the deployments in Iraq Afghanistan and now in the Solomons is whether we should not have a three-battalion Army so that it would have that continuity and sustainability. I understand that the Army has looked at that question. It will take money but that money was saved when the air combat force was ended. Similarly that issue arises with regard to the two Anzac frigates. We had the two Anzac frigates simultaneously in the Gulf of Oman. That is our entire Navy. Surely the change in circumstances asks us to look at the issue of frigate numbers afresh. 
The final issue I wish to talk on is the matter of regional security. In our region Australia and New Zealand take the lead; there is no question about that. This deployment is largely an Australian – New Zealand deployment. The Government has said that it is all multilateral and that the UN supports it through its political committee. What if the UN did not? Would we say we were therefore disempowered? I think not. That is why Alexander Downer on 27 June said that in our region we have to take responsibility along with the South Pacific nations. At best the United Nations is informed. We expect its acceptance that we have responsibilities in terms of regional security. Members should contrast that to the situation with regard to Iraq. There the Government says that the UN should make the decisions exclusively. The problem with that is that a veto or a threatened veto by France would have had the result of Saddam Hussein still being in power. Surely that could not be a good thing. So the Government needs to be honest on this issue. It is not about UN approval but about the countries of the region taking the leadership roles and being responsible for the security of their region. We say the Government should at least recognise that fact be honest with the people of New Zealand and not pretend that UN approval is actually a prerequisite for a deployment.