Little Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 25 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “We recognise ISIL is not a short-term threat and there is a lot of work to be done in the long-term”; if so does he accept this means New Zealand’s deployment may last longer than 2 years and involve more than training?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; and no.Andrew Little: Is sending 16 trainers and support troops for a maximum of 2 years the absolute limit of New Zealand’s involvement in Iraq even if the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is undefeated or does he agree with Gerry Brownlee that mission creep is like a force of nature that cannot ever be ruled out and UK Foreign Secretary Hammond who says that this is a generational war?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yesterday the Government laid out clearly its contribution of military capability in Iraq. That is the extent of what I see us doing and it is a shame that the Opposition did not have the courage to support it.Andrew Little: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister in the heat of his presentation yesterday got away with alleging or implying that members of the Opposition did not have guts or did not have courage. To say it explicitly is against the Standing Orders and I would like for you Mr Speaker to call him to account.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The comments made yesterday were certainly robust. I do not think they were out of order. I do not think that on this occasion the answer is out of order but I do not actually think it has addressed the question that the member asked. So I am going to ask Andrew Little to—[Interruption] Order! It is not helpful when I am on my feet for a whip to continue to interject. I am—[Interruption] Order! I am going to ask Andrew Little to re-ask that question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Well no I have ruled. I am asking Andrew Little to ask that question again.Andrew Little: Is sending 16 trainers and support troops for a maximum of 2 years the absolute limit of New Zealand’s involvement in Iraq even if ISIL is undefeated or does he agree with Gerry Brownlee that mission creep is like a force of nature that cannot ever be ruled out and UK Foreign Secretary Hammond who says that this is a generational war?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is the expectation of our military contribution.Andrew Little: Now that US and Canadian troops have already moved from training operations to combat operations will he give New Zealanders a 100 percent cast-iron guarantee that the same will not happen with our troops?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I think the member is incorrect. In fact actually the Canadians and I think the Australians started with the premise that they would be there to advise assist and accompany. The New Zealand Government has made it quite clear that we will not be sending in combat troops unlike Labour who sent the SAS combat troops to Afghanistan.Ron Mark: If the Prime Minister feels so strongly about “showing some guts” and “not standing by whilst atrocities are committed” why did he not just deploy the SAS in a combat role to help take out high-value ISIL targets without having to expose our infantry trainers to the unnecessary and inherent risks that lie in training Iraqi soldiers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that is quite interesting because I think the member Mr Mark a former military man is actually showing that he disagrees with his leader and the position that he took yesterday.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer should be to the point and address the question that was asked. The Prime Minister began with a very contentious statement demonstrably false as everybody knows and you should stop him.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The trouble with the question is that it was not a clear concise question. It was a very—[Interruption] Order! It was an elaborate question that gives the ability for the Prime Minister to respond that way. If the member had simply asked why the Government did not decide to send SAS troops in combat that would have been a clear question and we could have got an answer. But when members embellish the question like that they give the answerer the opportunity to give an answer that addresses the question not to the member’s satisfaction. If members could only learn to ask concise supplementary questions they would get a better answer.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Might I ask you in later times to read my Hansard and reconsider the consequences of that decision that you have just given?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I can assure the member that I will reread the Hansard as I assure the House I do after every question time.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify—is this a fresh point of order?Ron Mark: Yes most certainly.Could I ask you to allow the Prime Minister to finish his answer because he was only part-way through when he was cut short?Mr SPEAKER: If the Prime Minister wishes to continue his answer he is welcome to do so.Andrew Little: Can the Prime Minister give New Zealanders—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I will hear the point of order but it is getting to the ridiculous stage when we are getting points of order now that are leading to disorder in this House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: My colleague asked a question and I contend that the Prime Minister was not answering it. It is not sufficient that he does not bother to answer it at all and that is what I am asking you to rule on.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have if the member would only concentrate on what is going on—I have already—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I have already ruled that the Prime Minister addressed the question that was asked.Andrew Little: Can the Prime Minister give New Zealanders a 100 percent—[Interruption]—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If these interjections are going to continue I will be asking the right honourable gentleman to leave the House. Now I am going to ask Andrew Little to restart his question.Andrew Little: Can the Prime Minister give New Zealanders a 100 percent cast-iron guarantee that the Iraqi soldiers New Zealanders train will not use that training to help the Hezbollah terrorist group and the al-Assad dictatorship as they are currently doing?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think realistically one can say that some person could not go off and do something else or their own thing. In reality that is an impossible thing for any person to do. But what I can do is say that the Iraqi Foreign Minister made it clear in my meeting—and I suspect he made it clear in the meeting that the member had as well—that security is their No. 1 priority. They need help. Andactually we should provide them that help as I pointed out yesterday not just to help them stand up against the people ofISIL—who would attack Iraqi nationals and others—but actually because they are standing up to protect New Zealanders. And that member is better positioned than any other New Zealander as Leader of the Opposition to understand the threats and the risks to New Zealanders. And that member knows like I know that the risk to New Zealanders increases the stronger ISIL is. I stand by my statement yesterday—he should back the right thing.Andrew Little: Given that Australian special forces are already working with Iraqi units accused of war crimes can he give New Zealanders a 100 percent cast-iron guarantee that the Iraqi troops we train will not be using that training to commit war crimes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking me to give guarantees that no leader could but what I can be sure of is that we are following something that will in my view in a small way make a contribution to ensuring that ISIL is weaker and that protects New Zealanders more.Andrew Little: Does he seriously think that there is any chance that his objective of “Sunni Shi’a and Kurds harmoniously sharing power and working together in Iraq” will be achieved in 2 years; if not does that not mean a longer larger commitment will be needed or is he just going to give up?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know whether it can be achieved in 2 years but what I do know and what I have been saying for a very long period of time is in fact the strongest thing that can happen to stand up against ISIL is actually a Government in Iraq that is inclusive. Secondly as I have been saying it actually is a long-run process but that is why we are applying so many different parts to this and that includes humanitarian support it includes diplomatic support it includes the work we are doing on the United Nations Security Council and it includes some military capability.Andrew Little: Has he not seen the plaques around this Chamber—Malaya where New Zealand’s involvement began with cargo planes and ended 17 years later and Viet Nam for which the National Government said sending troops was the price of being in the club and the cost was 8 years of a quagmire? Has he not learnt the lessons of history—poor planning lack of strategy and lack of judgment lead to mission creep and disaster?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly there will not be poor planning when it comes to our troops going to Taji air base. I am quite confident that if you look at the work that the Chief of Defence Force is doing and the work that will go in there it will be a well-planned mission. Secondly I genuinely believe that the member with a weak argument does a disservice to all of those who fought in these battles for the values and principles that underpin New Zealand. As I said yesterday and I stand by this the member is taking politics over people.