8. Defence Force—Afghan Civilian Deaths AllegationsDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime MinisterDefence Force—Afghan Civilian Deaths Allegations8. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes in the context in which they were made.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that he said yesterday in the context of question time that If there was substantial evidence of civilian deaths we are interested in that." and given former defence Minister Wayne Mapp's comments that "it was also possible there were other casualties. In particular the death of a 3-year-old girl." how can he possibly conclude that an inquiry into the actions by all New Zealand and other coalition troops is not required?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do stand by the statement and as I have stated the reason why we have not initiated an inquiry is that the Chief of Defence Force following his statutory obligations has investigated the claims of war crimes and misconduct made in a recently published book and has found that those claims have not been substantiated including the fact that the locations talked about in the book are locations where New Zealand troops did not go.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the basis of evidence that the Prime Minister just cites comes from the party that would actually be itself investigated and given that the Prime Minister of 2017 disagrees with the Minister of Defence of 2010 who has recently said "As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out" is that not a sufficient case for an inquiry?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I understand that the former Minister of Defence who made these comments as a private citizen based them on a documentary aired a number of years after the incidents—a documentary put together by one of the authors of the book. So he watched a documentary and then made commentary based on that which was then republished in a book and published in the media. So it does not amount to any new analysis or any new information but I can assure the member that all the evidence I have seen demonstrates that New Zealand troops at all times acted consistent with their rules of engagement and with the level of professionalism and care that we would expect them to operate to even in circumstances where there is real pressure and real danger.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the basis of evidence that the Prime Minister continues to cite in the last answer represents the same party that would itself be under investigation how is this not a case where an inquiry is justified under the Inquiries Act 2013 on a matter of public importance where the members of the inquiry must act "independently impartially and fairly"?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Really for two reasons—first is that these inquiries were made within days of the event by the coalition forces and the Afghan Government and police at the time who were independent and acting on assertions that there were civilian casualties. The facts as adduced then have been consistent right through. Nothing has actually altered. The Chief of Defence Force has legal obligations to investigate these things. It is not a matter of whether we think he should; he has to under our law. I am persuaded by the professionalism of the Chief of Defence Force and made it clear that if there was any sense that the defence forces were misleading the civilian government that controls them that would be a very serious matter. I do not believe there are any grounds to believe that the Defence Force has acted in a misleading way."