Goff Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 24 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1847. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Defence: What is the level of risk assessed by the New Zealand Defence Force if its personnel are deployed to Iraq and what force protection would be provided for them?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence): Force protection has been determined on the advice from the Chief of Defence Force and I trust his professional judgment. I am not going to undermine his responsibilities or the security of our forces by providing the detail asked for by the member.Hon Phil Goff: When the Australian Government is prepared to say that it believes the risk of deploying trainers is high why is the Minister of Defence and the National Government denying that important information to New Zealanders?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not think it is in the interests of the public or the personnel we are deploying for these matters to be discussed. If the member wants to persist in saying that this is something we should be discussing he needs to look back over the record of a previous Government that did not even tell New Zealanders they were deploying into combat zones.Hon Phil Goff: Given the importance of a Government’s decision to put its soldiers in harm’s way should not a deployment be put to the vote in this House in the same way as it was in 2001 when Labour deployed the SAS into Afghanistan and this House passed by 105 votes to seven a resolution supporting the New Zealand deployment to Afghanistan contrary to the inaccurate and misleading assertions of John Key a moment ago?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The date that the member refers to of course relates to a time when we had a responsible Opposition in this House not the riff-raff we have got there at the moment.Hon Phil Goff: Why are we sending New Zealand troops into a high-risk environment when the training outcomes are expected to be low because New Zealand trainers cannot make a difference to the deeply entrenched corruption the incompetent leadership the sectarianism and the low morale of the Iraqi army?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I notice that the member as he is asking that question is referring to his own notes. I suggest that he stops talking to himself in the mirror because he is getting just far too much misinformation from himself.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can sense what the point of order is. I am going to invite the member to re-ask that question.Hon Phil Goff: Why are we putting Kiwis into a high-risk conflict environment when the training outcomes are expected to be low because of the incompetent leadership the deeply entrenched corruption the sectarianism and the very poor morale of the Iraqi army which our trainers cannot have any influence over at all?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I reject totally the points that are made by the member and suggest that they are made simply to try to give some credence to the very very sad commentary that he is delivering the nation on this matter.Hon Phil Goff: Why have we agreed to send New Zealand soldiers into Iraq without a status of forces agreement which is the normal part of the protection that Kiwis serving in another country would have?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It would be good if the member kept up with what is actually happening. What was announced today is that the Government is giving the New Zealand Defence Force the go-ahead to prepare for deployment with the expectation that all going well it would be deployed at some time in May. One of the conditions around that is ensuring that we do have appropriate legal protections for our defence forces. I do not think that the fixation the member has on a particular type of protection is reasonable given that there is only one country out of 22 currently in Iraq that uses that particular protection. I just think that it is wrong for the left to come in here and insist that unless there is this specific type of protection available then everything is wrong. It works for 22 other countries. We will negotiate something that will give our men and women in the mission the protection they need.Hon Phil Goff: Is Lieutenant-General Tim Keating Chief of Defence Force correct in asserting that of the 143 New Zealand Defence Force personnel we are putting in harm’s way only 16 of those are specialist trainers—only 16 of 143 being put in harm’s way?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Let me just reject the concept that we are deliberately putting troops in harm’s way. Every precaution is being taken to ensure that they are as safe as possible in difficult circumstances. The Chief of Defence Force has advised us that if we were to send a group of as many as 16 who are specialist trainers then they would need other support and we have not been stinting in allowing him to put together a mission that has all those supports in it. It is ridiculous for the member to start making a big deal of force protection at the start of his question and then start getting outraged because we have got force protection that he thinks is too much. What is it Mr Goff? Are we protecting them or not?Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. From that very long answer was the answer actually yes?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can go back and look at his question—[Interruption] Order! The member can go back and look at his question and he will see that the question was certainly addressed. It may not have been to the member’s satisfaction but it was addressed.