Hodgson Pete: Urgent Debates — SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan 
Hodgson Pete: Urgent Debates — SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan 
[Volume:656;Page:5610] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I seek leave to give a speech lasting 10 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sort for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: When the Government announced on 10 August that the SAS would be deployed in Afghanistan and that the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian would be gradually wound down it did not give reasons for either decision. The Government has not sought to justify either decision and it has declined to proactively set time aside in Parliament for a public debate. 
We in Labour believe that both decisions are wrong and we are certain that the process is wrong. We might have come to a different more supportive more understanding view if we had been given access to advice the Government presumably has or we might not have. We might even on receipt of advice have come to the same position we are in now: that both decisions are wrong. But we have not been given access to any of that advice and we would have been denied the opportunity to debate the issue in Parliament had it not been for the decision of Mr Speaker to allow an urgent debate. 
In the course of the debate the Hon Murray McCully the Minister of Foreign Affairs was the lead Government speaker and he made his contribution to give us a glimpse into his Government’s thinking. He told us about the totality of our engagement in Afghanistan particularly the remarkable efforts of our forces in Bamian through the provincial reconstruction team. He continued to read from what I noticed was a prepared speech that I think was derived from the bowels of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In essence he spoke of the need to contribute to the military response in Afghanistan so that non-military efforts such as those of the provincial reconstruction team might flourish. The essence of his contribution was that we need to step up our military contribution in order to make room for the non-military activity we already have going on there. 
He spoke very highly of the provincial reconstruction team and he reminded the House that many other people—New Zealanders and many others—also speak very highly of the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian. We strongly endorse the Minister’s remarks and his sentiments and we wish those who are serving in Afghanistan today every best wish and our warm appreciation of their efforts and of the efforts of those who have gone before them. 
Minister McCully then went on to say that in taking the decision to send the SAS to Afghanistan the highest consideration for his Government—the consideration that ranked above all others—was what is in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders. At that point he invoked the threat of international terrorism reminded us that one of our citizens has been killed—nowhere near Afghanistan I say parenthetically—in a terrorist bomb blast recently and reminded us that New Zealanders stay in hotels all around the world and are therefore vulnerable to the possible actions of terrorists. Well there right there is the error of logic—right at that point. 
Afghanistan is no longer the single seat of global terrorism it once was. Al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and it was from there that the events of 2001 emerged. That is why in the 4 years following 11 September 2001 New Zealand deployed the SAS into Afghanistan three times and for extended periods of time after a parliamentary debate. As it happened one of the SAS’s number was awarded a Victoria Cross. But nearly 4 years ago we in the Labour Government decided that the SAS should not return to Afghanistan because the circumstances had changed. The Minister of Defence who at that time was the Hon Phil Goff and others led a debate in Cabinet. Cabinet changed our nation’s emphasis in Afghanistan because Afghanistan had changed. Al-Qaeda was no longer holed up in Tora Bora or wherever. Today al-Qaeda is to be found everywhere including Pakistan Yemen Sudan Somalia and elsewhere. 
The idea of provincial reconstruction teams had gathered a lot of momentum. It had taken root and we put our hand up for such a role. Afghanistan is still substantially a tribal land. We said we could work in one such tribal area with one group of people. It has gone well. On that we are all agreed. So why should we wind down the provincial reconstruction team where we are making a difference where we are helping with the training of the Afghan National Police and the Afghan National Army where we are respected and where our soldiers so I understand respect those who live there? Progress is being made yet we are about to pull back. 
Then there is the decision to send the SAS back to Afghanistan when the war on terror has dispersed all around the world and when commentator after commentator has offered advice that the situation in Afghanistan has evolved to the point where it is now much much more akin to a civil war. If the SAS goes it will do well; it did last time. 
Two features of this decision are unfortunate. One is the process and the other is the issue of international pressure. The process was a joke. When the SAS went to Afghanistan last time Prime Minister Clark came to this House and led a debate on the decision. When in 1999 our forces went to Timor-Leste Prime Minister Shipley came to this House and led a debate on the decision. When in early 1991—for those of us who can remember that far back—our forces went into Kuwait and the southern part of Iraq Prime Minister Bolger called a special meeting as I recall in late January— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He called Parliament back. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: He called Parliament back at the end of the Christmas period and led a debate in this House on that decision. But when New Zealand’s policy changed on 10 August and the decision was made to send the SAS back to Afghanistan after 4 years of policy to the contrary Prime Minister Key came nowhere near this House and will not partake in this debate. 
The issue of international pressure is harder to explore. On this side of the House we simply do not know what pressure the Government has come under. We have heard Murray McCully say that it was the Government’s decision and its decision alone but history regrettably does not support that assertion. 
John Key today’s Prime Minister said in 2003: “New Zealand should support its allies first and the United Nations second. Any relationship with the US or Britain has to take precedence over the United Nations.” According to the  
Rodney Times 
 in 2003 John Key “would be prepared to commit any support requested by the United States for a war against Iraq including SAS and combat troops.” Then in this House in 2003 John Key said: “I look down the list and I see Australia; yes the roos are there. So is Britain. So is the United States. Our traditional allies are in this agreement. Where is our name? Missing! It is “MIA” … This country will pay for that—members need not worry about that. There will be no US free-trade arrangement with New Zealand.” Well let me make the point that no Kiwi blood gets spilt in the name of a free-trade agreement. Our foreign policy is independent and has been forged thus over decades and across Governments. But that is what John Key said in 2003. 
I wonder what would have been the case had he been the Prime Minister when the decision on whether to go into Iraq was taken by New Zealand. After all our three best friends went there but we did not. However in defence of Mr Key I can say that by March of this year it appeared that he might have changed his mind. Mr Key said on 31 March that from New Zealand’s point of view we already have a big contribution to our provincial reconstruction team in Bamian. He said we have over 150 people there so we do not have a lot of extra resources and on a per capita basis we are doing more than a lot of NATO countries. That is precisely the Labour position. So why then were both decisions overturned 8 days ago? 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.