King Annette: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Deployment of Military PersonnelText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Ministerial Statements — Iraq—Deployment of Military Personnel[Sitting date: 24 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1828. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): This is probably one of the most important debates that this House could have. Sending New Zealanders to war is a decision that should not be taken lightly and it should be seen to be made with broad political support. On 18 March 2003 the then Prime Minister Helen Clark initiated a debate on Iraq. President Bush had just issued his final ultimatum. Diplomatic negotiations had failed and to correct Mr Brownlee Labour had supported the UN resolutions of 2003 including Resolution 1441. Helen Clark said at that time: “[Our] position on this crisis has at all times been based on our strong support for multilateralism and the rule of law and for upholding the authority of the Security Council.” We refused to join the coalition of the willing and we took a principled decision. It had integrity and it was understood by our international friends. We were independent and we did not hide behind the club.On that same date in that same debate Bill English the then Leader of the Opposition stood and his opening words were: “The National Party will be supporting a coalition of the willing.” National was wrong with that decision then and it is wrong now. The intervention in Iraq the National Party said at that time was in the interests of global peace. That did not come to pass Mr English. It said that the threat posed to the world would be removed if we went to Iraq. That did not come to pass. What we saw was over 10 years of fighting training Iraqi soldiers the spending of $25 billion of US money and we did not remove the threat to the world.On 18 March 2003 the Labour Government allowed a vote in support for the position we had taken. National and ACT voted against the Labour Government. They voted against it and they voted in support of the coalition of the willing. John Key was part of that vote and he has never resiled from that position. In fact he said that we were missing in action in Iraq. Labour New Zealand First the Greens United Future and Progressive voted against sending troops to Iraq.So I say to the Prime Minister today: put the vote to Parliament. Let Parliament decide. Show fortitude and ask the people’s representatives. All the parties are represented here—allow us to tell you what we think about the decision to send 143 personnel to Iraq. Show leadership show courage show statesmanship and show moral leadership here in this Parliament. I would say that once again the vote would be from National and the one little lonely vote from ACT who props ups this Government.Then I ask this: did the Prime Minister and his Cabinet allow his own caucus to vote on whether they should send troops to Iraq? The answer is no. Do you know when their caucus found out about this decision? After the Australians and after Baghdad—they found out at their caucus this morning. They were told this morning. Like cannon fodder they just go along with the decision.The Labour Party is in favour of being a good international citizen. We have a track record. We have a highly regarded reputation on the international scene built up over many years. In fact it was that track record internationally and our reputation that got us on to the Security Council. We were seen to have independent thinking—it won us the support because our pitch was peace and security and we pitched it to the small nations.I say to the Government and to Nick Smith who constantly interjects: what are we going to do differently now? What are we going to do differently under this Government with what it is proposing? We are not doing anything different from what we promised the people who voted for us on the Security Council. In fact we are going down the same old line the National Party has always gone down.John Key said that this is paying the price of being part of the club. Is that a good enough reason to commit our troops to Iraq dressed up as trainers to train Iraqi soldiers whom we have been trying to train for 10 years with no results? Is it good enough to follow the lead of others and not have our own response? No it is not. To set out other alternatives—where are the other alternatives? Do you know that the total contribution in humanitarian aid to Iraq is $13.5 million? That is less than we were going to spend on Skycity or hosting the America’s Cup—less than that and that is what our humanitarian aid has been to Iraq.John Key gave New Zealanders a personal assurance during the election campaign that we would not be involved in sending troops to Iraq. That was 8 months ago and I have to say 8 months ago we knew of the evil of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. We knew what it was doing how it was spreading its tentacles around the world. John Key made that promise to New Zealanders back then 8 months ago. Over those months we have had the dance of the seven veils by the Prime Minister as he slowly exposed what his real thinking is softening us up priming New Zealanders to send troops to Iraq. He said that he has been open with New Zealanders. If that is open with New Zealanders I do not know what openness is.I believe we have been taken as fools by the Prime Minister. I believe Andrew Little when he said that this decision was made a long time ago. It would have been made at the little side-meetings the Prime Minister has with his club in the so-called coalition. It would have been made as they had little chats after the golf. It would have been made in different places where we did not know what was going on but the nods and the winks were taking place.I think the announcement today has raised more questions than answers. The Prime Minister said that we are sending force protection for our troops. Who is the force protection? Where do they come from? How are they going to protect our troops? How many of them are there going to be? He said that the SAS are going to be going for only a short time. What is a short time for the SAS to go? They are going to go when there are high-profile visits I suppose of people parading around Iraq and Baghdad. He said that they are going to be behind the wire. Where is the wire? Where does the wire sit? How do we know whether they are behind the wire?He then said it is going to be a 9-month deployment then a review and then a 2-year commitment. And then he went on to say in the other breath that New Zealand has got to be there for a long time. What are we going to be doing? Are we there for 9 months with a review 2 years 10 years? We did not get that answer.We believe that we ought to be part of rebuilding Iraq. We ought to be part of ensuring the things that we can do best. What does New Zealand do best? It is not sending 143 personnel to Iraq. It is the things that we have strengths in. We do have strengths in rebuilding. We do have strengths in humanitarian aid. Why are we not sending humanitarian aid to Jordan where all the refugees are flooding in and they are having to feed and house them? Why are we not providing that sort of support? Why are we not providing support in terms of medical personnel for those who are wounded and hurt and need hospital assistance? Why are we not involved in rebuilding that country in the way that we have done in many other countries?But what do we get from this Government? We get that it is making a major contribution to its friends by sending 143 personnel to Iraq. We do not believe it is justified. We do not believe the case has been put. We do not believe that we will make an impact but we could if we looked at other alternatives. The Government has been blind to other alternatives. It has not put the case.