English Bill: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces 
English Bill: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces 
[Volume:609;Page:6692] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. We are debating this matter today because it is another significant contribution New Zealand is making another significant call on our defence forces and in this case our police forces. The lesson that we can draw from it is this: so much for the benign strategic environment! The irony is that this Parliament has just in the last couple of months debated three significant deployments by the New Zealand Defence Force to parts of the world that certainly cannot be called benign. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition but there are people close to him who are talking. There is too much noise. I regard it as a rare occasion when I accept one of these debates. This debate is to be held in comparative silence and I want it to proceed from now on in that vein. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Parliament is conducting this debate against the background of a defence policy that is based purely on that one single assumption: that we live in a benign strategic environment. It is becoming increasingly clear—in fact I think it is actually a fact of Government policy—that New Zealand is the only country in the Asia-Pacific region that believes we live in a benign strategic environment. The commitment to the Solomons is yet another piece of evidence. 
Let us just sort out the facts of the matter about what this commitment is because I would be interested in the Government explaining its own rhetoric. We are being told that it is a police-led deployment. Well that must and can only mean that the police get off the boat first because in fact it is a major defence commitment first and foremost. We can go only on the reported comments coming out of the Pacific Islands Forum which say that New Zealand will commit up to 200 soldiers and 40 police. 
The Government is going to have a discussion in Cabinet about the exact size of the deployment and the details of who goes when and with what equipment. But the Government should stop calling it a police-led deployment. We are sending 200 of our armed defence personnel—soldiers not engineers; 200 of them—to a place where there is plenty of shooting going on and where as the Minister has pointed out today 750 automatic weapons are estimated to be floating around what is quite a small community even by New Zealand standards. 
 There also happen to be 40 police going as well. The Government seems very anxious to couch this whole deployment as simply a matter of law and order—dealing with the criminals and getting a law and order system going. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that the fact that the Government is sending 200 armed soldiers tells us that the objectives of this deployment are rather different. Certainly the Australians think so. 
Listen to this description from Greg Ansley at the Pacific Islands Forum: “With several hundred firearms in the hands of militants and criminals including automatic weapons”—and members should listen to this—“combat troops will be deployed to quell opposition by militants.” Now what does that mean?—“combat troops will be deployed to quell opposition by militants such as warlord Harold Keke ...”. Quelling opposition with soldiers does not sound like a police-led deployment. Either one story is being told at the Pacific Islands Forum and we are getting a different one here in New Zealand or worse than that maybe there is fundamental disagreement between the New Zealand Government and the Australian Government about the purpose of this deployment. 
The Minister of Defence who I know has been over there in discussions with Alexander Downer and the Australian Defence Minister ought to get up in the House and tell us whether New Zealand is sending combat troops who will be deployed to quell opposition by militants. Is that what we are going to do or are we going to send some police to round up a few criminals—because these are completely different objectives? I am asking the Government today to explain clearly to the public of New Zealand and the Parliament of New Zealand who will back our defence forces to do the job and to explain to us exactly what it is they see as the objectives in the Solomons. 
I have been hesitant to inject criticism into this debate because in general I believe that this is exactly the kind of role New Zealand should be fulfilling in its region. But I have learnt as has this Parliament that the Government is at best economical with the truth in describing what it is doing with our military resources and our police. Here we have two completely different descriptions of the objectives: a police-led deployment focused on rounding up some criminals or on the other hand the evidence of 200 soldiers we are sending. Australia is sending about 1500 troops. Let the Parliament not be confused: 200 is simply New Zealand’s contribution. The Australians are sending well over 1000 armed soldiers to this police-led deployment to round up a few criminals. 
We simply do not believe the story because the story does not add up. On these matters more than any the Government should be candid. We are looking for a full explanation of the Government’s aims and the Government has already set out some of those aims. It has said that it wants to restore a working police force a justice and corrections system that works. They are quite laudable aims. We believe that a contingent of New Zealand police will be able to contribute to restoring that part of law and order in the Solomons. But Minister Phil Goff could not help getting carried away. He is also setting out to rebuild the social system that has broken down. Now again the Parliament needs an explanation. We have a role for the 40 police and we have an implied role for the 200 armed soldiers to back up those police. But is either of those groups capable of rebuilding the social system? What does the Government mean by that? This sounds a lot like nation rebuilding. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s a pretty good thing to do when the nation has collapsed! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it is a pretty good thing to do. But will the Government explain just what role for combat and aggression there will be? The problem in the Solomons is not just about a few criminals breaking windows and taking the odd potshot. The problem in the Solomons is a fundamental breakdown of government—as the Minister has said a collapse of a State. Why? Is it just because the police force is not working? No it is because there are underlying ethnic and historical tensions that run very very deep in that community. To call them criminals—well of course they are criminals—is a bit like saying one can fix Northern Ireland just by rounding up a few of the IRA criminals. That is what they thought they were going to do 30 years ago only to find now that in Northern Ireland they are conducting political discussion with the IRA. The problems are very deep seated and I am asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of Defence I think a reasonable question. It is not a partisan matter. It is not a criticism. Simply there is a need for the Parliament to know the purpose of the deployment. 
How will the police and the soldiers contribute to rebuilding a social system? What measures will New Zealand be taking on our behalf to deal with the fundamental underlying ethnic tensions in the Solomons? Because if those are not dealt with then there is little hope that that State can be rebuilt. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What has that got to do with anything? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it will take a quarter of an hour to explain it. I would also be interested in how long the Government believes that these New Zealand troops will be committed to the Solomons. If in fact the goal is to rebuild that State—to put back together a shattered nation—the troops will not be home by Christmas. This problem has been decades in the making. Our contribution to Bougainville which now looks very simple by comparison with the situation in the Solomons went on for 5 years. I would hope that the immediate objectives of the Australian and New Zealand Governments will be achieved that law and order can be sufficiently restored so that we no longer need 1500 or 1700 armed troops from Australia and New Zealand in the Solomons and that a process like the Bougainville process can be begun. 
I have said that National supports this deployment—and we do. We believe that Australia and New Zealand ought to be paying a great deal of attention to matters in our own region. I would note in passing the contrast between how Australia and how New Zealand are balancing their regional and global interests. Australia now has very minimal involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s got a thousand people in the Middle East for goodness’ sake. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it has a lot less involvement than it had. Proportionately what troops are there are relatively small compared with Australia’s resources. On the other hand New Zealand in recent months has with the full support of this side of the House made significant redeployments to Afghanistan to Iraq and now to the Solomons. That of course underlines the original point I made—that we do not live in a benign strategic environment. But it does raise this issue. These deployments are all likely to be lengthy and there is now accumulating evidence that they are putting pressure on our defence forces. The effect of East Timor is still rolling through our defence forces. I understand that the Territorial Force has almost halved in number since the beginning of the deployment to East Timor. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: More than halved. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Its numbers have more than halved to be under 2000. We are clearly not sustaining our Territorial Force on the past deployments that we have made. The past deployments have been sufficient to exhaust the Territorial Force. The evidence is that with the shortages of personnel in the defence forces those three major commitments are beyond the sustainable capacity of our defence forces. It is not that the defence forces cannot do the job they have been given in the short term but in the long term it makes it very difficult for the current defence establishment to maintain its training its skills and its professional attitudes as a modern professional army. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister of Defence about how he sees the impact of those major deployments on New Zealand’s defence forces— 
John Carter 
: And on the police. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and on the police. I will just come to that. The Government cannot resist saying too much. The fact is that we have made a decision out of our best impulses as New Zealanders to send 30 police to the Solomons. Why does the Prime Minister not just own up to the fact that there will be 30 fewer police in New Zealand? Why do we get given all this stuff about how it will not make any difference how the Government has a bottom line about policing in the community and what is needed there and how the number could be trebled and it would not make any difference? There will be 30 fewer police and all the Government has to do is to appeal to New Zealanders’ better instincts and say: “Yes we have decided that it is important that New Zealand makes a contribution to law and order in the Solomons and yes that means fewer police in New Zealand.” If we listen to the Government we get the impression that we will have 30 more officers in the Solomons but no fewer in New Zealand. I am asking: “Why bother?” and “Why go to all that trouble?”.