Graham Kennedy: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:701. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “Should New Zealand military personnel be deployed in Iraq they would be behind the wire and limited to training local forces in order to counter ISIL and legitimately protect innocent people”; if so why?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes; because that is the Government’s position.Dr Kennedy Graham: Will he rule out any possibility that military training by New Zealand forces in Iraq will escalate into active combat there?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Consideration of what that sort of capacity-building deployment may look like is clearly being done at the moment. We will need to get all of that information consider how it comes together as a mission and then make decisions about whether or not we are there.Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not pertain to the considerations relating to a decision to deploy—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to ask that question again.Dr Kennedy Graham: Thank you Mr Speaker. Will he rule out any possibility that military training by New Zealand forces in Iraq in the event that it occurs will escalate into active combat there?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Given that the Government has not make its decision yet about what type of capacity building if any we may engage in the question put by the member is entirely hypothetical.Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the likely deployment of military trainers on what evidence did the Prime Minister base his claim that the risk of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) becoming stronger is greater than the increased risk New Zealand will face by becoming part of the coalition in that event?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would have thought that it would be evident even to the peaceable Green Party that if the world is going to be confronted by a terrorist State that respects no boundaries and no other position than its own then that is a threat to every country that values freedom.Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 which was basically supported by this National Government at the time does he consider that there is a political case for avoiding military action against ISIL now?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I note that it was the Green Party propping up the Labour Party in 2003 that saw New Zealand’s involvement ratified by the Government at that time.Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand the difference between points of order and debating points but that reply stretched I think the Standing Orders—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can assist the member. In actual fact the question asked and the connotations of the question asked in itself stretched the Standing Orders.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that New Zealand supports coalition air strikes because “we believe that is a legitimate way of seeing a containment and hopefully the long-term destruction of a threat from ISIL.” will he ask the Attorney-General to table a written opinion affirming that there is a sound basis in international law for that action?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly I think it is disappointing that having gone out yesterday and laid out very clearly the sort of threat that New Zealand could face we get questions in the House today attempting to deny that circumstance. This is a terrorist organisation—Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am answering his question but he is fairly upset by the answer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to raise a point of order but I will be disappointed if it is another attempt by the member to say he is not happy with the answer.Dr Kennedy Graham: My question did not pertain to the degree of threat; it pertained to whether the response to it was consistent with international law. He is misdescribing my question.Mr SPEAKER: The question was not as clear as that at all. There was a lead-in to the question. [Interruption] Order! The question then asked whether the Prime Minister will be asking the Attorney-General to table a legal opinion from memory. The question was not a clear question in my mind; it may have been in the member’s mind. The Minister is attempting to address it and I would be grateful if the House would allow the Minister to complete his answer.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Post the clarification by way of point of order can I suggest that the member looks at article 51 of the United Nations Charter to come to his own understanding that the airstrikes are in fact legal.Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table a Security Council document recording the statement of one of the permanent members that Resolution 2170 cannot be seen as approval of the use of military action.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a United Nations document—I think it is Resolution 2170. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the Minister’s comments on the question of risks to New Zealand how many of the 30 to 40 people of concern in the foreign fighter context that the Prime Minister referred to in his ministerial statement yesterday fit a certain profile and what are the main features of that profile?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not giving that information this afternoon.