Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12762] 
8.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Has he received any recent reports about New Zealand Defence Force deployments? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yes. I have received a number of reports relating to our various deployments around the world. They show that our servicemen and women continue to enjoy international respect for their skills and training and for their ability to work effectively with their counterparts as well as of course with the local people of the countries they are working in. We should all be very proud of them. 
Jill Pettis 
: How are decisions about such deployments made? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This Government’s defence policy framework clearly states that our defence and security decisions will be based on New Zealand’s own assessment of what action is considered to be in our best interests. What a contrast to the appalling policy of blindly deploying New Zealand servicemen and women without reservation and when and wheresoever another country dictates advocated by the National Party spokesperson. 
Keith Locke 
: Does Government policy allow for prisoners taken by our SAS troops in Afghanistan to be handed over to American jurisdiction when reports demonstrate that the treatment of detainees by American forces in Afghanistan Iraq and Guantanamo Bay does not meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: New Zealand is a signatory to the Geneva Convention and New Zealand forces are required to observe all its provisions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that Mrs te Heuheu has something that looks like an off-white flag and I wonder whether she was bringing it down to Mr Power. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I am getting very tired of the member. This is his final warning for the day. That was not a point of order and the member will stand withdraw and apologise for wasting the time of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question. My question was not about New Zealand troops’ treatment of prisoners; it was about New Zealand troops handing over prisoners to American jurisdiction and how they would be treated by Americans. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That may have been the question in the point of order but I thought that the Minister did address that question in his answer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I really have to defend Mr Locke. He asked a very clear question which was not about whether New Zealand observes the Geneva Convention—I guess that we would all think that was so. The clear question the Minister was asked was whether New Zealand SAS troops in Afghanistan have handed over prisoners to the United States. I would have thought that if the Minister knows the answer to that question he should be able to give it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. I think on reflection that the member is right and I think the original point of order was valid. Perhaps the safest way to do this is for the member to re-ask the question. 
Keith Locke 
: Does Government policy allow for prisoners taken by our SAS troops in Afghanistan to be handed over to American jurisdiction when reports demonstrate that the treatment of detainees by American forces in Afghanistan and also in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay does not meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In the hypothetical situation raised by the member if detainees qualify for prisoner-of-war status and not all of them do then the Geneva Convention would apply and the expectation would be that appropriate action was taken. If they do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status then they are still entitled to certain other provisions. On the other hand if prisoners were taken by a PRT patrol in Afghanistan they would be handed over to the Afghan Transitional Authority. There are a multitude of possibilities all of which are hypothetical in the circumstances. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that other members probably know but I wonder whether the Minister could tell us what a PRT is. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That is the provincial reconstruction team based in Bamiyan Afghanistan. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister given any consideration to the failing credibility of the coalition forces in Iraq as a result of revelations of the abuse rape and torture of Iraqi prisoners and if he has at what point does he see himself making recommendations to the Prime Minister that New Zealand should withdraw its troops? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have looked with dismay—like every member of the House I am sure—at the revelations of the treatment of some Iraqi prisoners of recent times. However I point out to the House again that New Zealand is not there as part of the coalition force. New Zealand is in Iraq as part of the humanitarian aid reconstruction team. We are there under a UN mandate. We will be there as long as the engineers sent are able to undertake the duties they have been sent to perform. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect very carefully on that answer which in no way addressed my question to the Minister. My question specifically asked him: at what point would he see himself making recommendations to the Prime Minister to withdraw our troops? He never touched on that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not the whole question. It was part of the question. I thought that the Minister did address the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How relevant is it to the security and safety of New Zealand defence personnel deployed in Iraq that they are not part of the coalition given that a New Zealand civilian working in a recovery capacity presumably with no association to either the New Zealand forces or the coalition forces has just been killed in a drive-by shooting? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I shall answer the last part first. The Government has repeatedly warned civilians of the extreme danger of going into what is a war zone equivalent. For civilians it is more dangerous not less dangerous. There is no guarantee of secure support for them. In the case of New Zealand’s personnel we deployed them as part of a humanitarian aid reconstruction team. They will be there as long as they are able to perform those duties. If the point arose—to go back to Mr Mark’s earlier question—that they were not able to perform those duties for a sustained period obviously at that point we would have to review whether it was worth being there. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister saying that the terrorists and others who are causing havoc in Iraq at the moment make the distinction between coalition forces and New Zealand forces who are not part of the coalition and that therefore our people are at lesser risk as a consequence? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: At no point has the Government suggested that this is other than a dangerous environment. Our personnel are there for the purpose of aid and reconstruction under a UN mandate. That is the purpose for which they are there. Of course it is a dangerous environment. We have always said so.