Goff Phil: Annual Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Annual Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 13 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): We have just heard an appallingly ignorant speech from the Minister of Defence. I heard him a moment ago justify laws that allow New Zealand to be exploited as a tax haven as being OK because it advantages New Zealand. That is what the Minister said; that is what his Hansard will show. I want to tell that Minister that $10 billion was made by multinational companies in New Zealand last year and they paid $1.8 million in tax on it. They pay tax at a lower rate—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to take the point of order but I think it is worth pointing out that in this debate about external relations it is inappropriate to confuse revenue with profit.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member Phil Goff will resume his seat. The Minister in the chair knows that that is not a point of order. He will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon Phil Goff—your time is starting again.Hon PHIL GOFF: Thank you Mr Chair. I think the point is that if New Zealanders are deeply disturbed that we are being ripped off by multinational companies making $10 billion a year out of New Zealand and paying just $1.8 million a year in tax we want to see an international system that stops that sort of tax dodging and evasion. And if we are not prepared to crack down on entities that are using New Zealand as a tax haven how are we going to get the cooperation of international countries to stop people ripping us off? That is the point that the Minister totally missed.First of all speaking to the Ministry of Defence annual review I want to acknowledge the work done overseas by our men and women in uniform. I had the privilege for 9 years of serving as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defence and of seeing the sheer professionalism and commitment of the New Zealand Defence Force. I have got to say that the Kiwi emblem worn on the shoulders of those men and women is something that makes us proud because that Kiwi emblem stands for decency and professionalism in the work they do and are continuing to do today in Fiji. But the annual review is about the accountability of the Minister and I want to hold the Minister to account.I want to put four questions to him—four because I think he can count that far and will be able to remember the questions. The first question is about the training of Iraqi soldiers in Camp Taji. He was up there; the Prime Minister was up there. Last month he did a review of the effectiveness of the $30 million that we invest in that. We are not privy to that review yet but we do have the American Department of Defense review on Taji and the effectiveness of the training.These are the questions I have got for the Minister. This report says that the conditions under which those Iraqi trainees are living—without power without water—are appalling. They detract from the effectiveness of the defence training that we can do and they cause a very high level of desertion—absence without leave. I want to know whether the Minister when he was over there was aware of that fact—high levels of absence without leave appalling conditions and conditions so bad they detracted from our ability to do the training that would be worthwhile. Did he ask questions about that? Did he challenge the conditions that they were living under? Or was it just a public relations exercise to be over there wearing his flak jacket?The report also says that the real problem with the Iraqi army is the ineffective and corrupt leadership. Did the Minister ever raise that and ask why our guys are doing the best they can in training while their efforts are being undermined by a corrupt and ineffective Iraqi leadership? This report says another thing. It talks about the inadequacy of the equipment. We are trying to teach these guys how to do basic things like firing a gun.Ron Mark: A rifle.Hon PHIL GOFF: A rifle to use the correct term. The Iraqi trainees were issued with 300 M16s and seven cleaning kits for the rifles. How can we do the job when the equipment being provided to the people we are meant to be training is so thoroughly inadequate? The report says that much of the equipment that is meant to be used by those men who are being trained is syphoned off to go to the militias whose cause we do not even support. So that is the first question.The second question is about the poor relationship this Minister has with the Defence Force. I read the annual report. It said that the Minister of Defence had a 50 percent level of satisfaction with the advice he was getting from the Defence Force. Well that is better than the zero percent confidence that the Defence Force has in that Minister who is absolutely arrogant and out of touch. But I want to know why his relationship is so poor when that of his predecessors was actually quite good.I want to know how that Minister could come out and say things like the purchase of NH90s was a dreadful purchase when Wing Commander Scott McKenzie who runs No. 3 Squadron RNZAF said that these aircraft are the best thing that ever happened. Mark Mitchell heard him say that—that these aircraft ran rings around any alternative like the Black Hawk and they were really capable. Even his predecessor said that the NH90s were a quantum leap forward. So is it a problem with the advice given by the Defence Force—