Goff Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 26 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1990. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Defence: What rules of engagement if any has the Government set for the New Zealand Defence Force personnel operating in Iraq if they come under attack?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theMinister of Defence: Rules of engagement are currently being finalised. It is a longstanding practice that we do not release rules of engagement as that would provide a level of operational detail that could endanger the safety of personnel.Hon Phil Goff: Was the Minister’s statement on Radio Live yesterday that if there were assailants outside the camp wire “We are not going to say: ‘Whoops! Can’t go after them because the wire’s there.” consistent with the Government’s position and the rules of engagement?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It was a general statement. As I have said however rules of engagement for specific missions are classified as they detail the extent of force including lethal force that may be used. For that reason they are not disclosed.Hon Phil Goff: Why did that so-called general statement totally contradict the Prime Minister’s assurance at his post-Cabinet press conference on Monday that there is no way New Zealand troops would go outside the wire at Camp Taji stating that even “If there’s some fight down the road they couldn’t go out and assist.”; how are those two statements lining up with each other? They totally contradict each other.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I actually did not hear the specific answer. I am sure the Minister of Defence in his customary way was trying to be helpful. I have said however what the rules of engagement are and what release of the details means. I have repeated that and repeat it.Hon Phil Goff: How on earth will the Kiwi soldiers deployed into Iraq know what they are not or are allowed to do if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence utterly contradict each other in that way when they are already concerned that they will not have a status of forces agreement to give them legal protection?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They will know very clearly what they have to do. As that member knows as a former Minister of Defence the New Zealand Defence Force’s rules of engagement are orders of the Chief of Defence Force for the purpose of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971.Hon Phil Goff: In the absence of a status of forces agreement if there is a green on blue attack where the trainees turn their guns on those training them what legal protection will there be for a Kiwi soldier who shoots a rogue Iraqi soldier in self-defence or will the response be as has been suggested that you will simply whip him out on a diplomatic passport as if he had committed a criminal offence?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Actually the first part of the question before it degenerated was a good question and it is a very fair one. The Government will not be deploying the Defence Force overseas without appropriate legal protections. I say to that member that one does not have to get hung up on the title “status of forces agreement” it is the substance that matters. That is what is being worked on at the moment. I can give that member and the House the assurance that they will not be going until that is sorted.