Seymour David; Henare Peeni; Mallard TrevorDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I join with ACT in offering very sad condolences to those who have already been slain by this awful regime for those living in Afghanistan who now face an uncertain and brutal future under that regime one devoid of many of the human rights particularly for women and girls in Afghanistan that had been hard fought and hard won at great sacrifice not only by the Afghanis but also by the New Zealand Defence Force and our allies over nearly 20 years.It also is an event that has wider implications—one of them about the fragility of liberal democracy. The way that we live is a magnificent way to live with universal human rights and respect for the dignity of the individual regardless of their beliefs or identity or choices but what has been shown in Afghanistan is how even with 20 years of enforcement it can vanish in only a matter of months. That is something for those of us around the world who cherish liberal democracy and universal human rights to reflect on probably for a long time before we can make much sense of it.It also raises questions around the New Zealand Government's response. We have a number of interests in Afghanistan—one of them is an indeterminate you just heard number of New Zealand citizens who may be there. The other is many Afghanis who risked tremendous amounts—in fact they risked their lives—to help the New Zealand Defence Force and their fate and what it means for the representation of New Zealand and our Defence Force doing business overseas in the future. Who would trust New Zealand given what has just played out? The Government was aware of the plight it knew that these people were endangered and now it's saying Well it happened faster than we thought." That is certainly true—faster than anyone thought—but the question that should be put to the Minister and I'll put it to him soon is when did the Government plan to end airlifting people out and what date did it believe that was before?There are also serious questions around immigration and these have been summed up today by Justice Cooke where he says "I also accept they have an arguable case."—this was in Afghan Nationals vs the Minister for Immigration and Chief Executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—"As I understand the allegations the applications were no longer processed because the introduction of the Covid-19 border controls meant that the applicants would not be able to enter New Zealand if their applications were granted. But when the evacuation attempts commenced only those who had actually been granted visas qualified for evacuation. I accept that there is an argument that this outcome is not rational. The visa applications were not processed because the applicants could not enter New Zealand and yet they were not eligible to be evacuated because they did not hold a visa. That is a catch 22 that may not be consistent with the lawful exercise of the statutory powers." Well that's a tremendous amount of understatement by the judge there.I think the Government needs to answer a few questions. When did it plan to evacuate New Zealand citizens and those who helped our Defence Force? What is the pathway forward? Will there be special exemptions so that those who do manage to escape Afghanistan can live lawfully in New Zealand? Will there be a refugee exemption for those who helped the New Zealand Defence Force and to help restore our international reputation with them and others we may encounter in the future? And does the Minister take any responsibility for any failings of the Government in this regard or is it the fault of other Ministers such as Immigration?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): Thank you Mr Speaker. There are a number of questions there and I'll attempt to go through some of them. I'll also outright refute some of the assertions made in that member's contribution. The trust and the reputation and integrity of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) internationally is strong and continues to be despite the assertions made by that particular member.I can say that the NZDF did not employ anyone after April 2013 when the Bamian provincial reconstruction team closed. Afghan interpreters played a critical role—yes we agree—in the operation of New Zealand's provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan. In 2012 and 2013 the New Zealand Government provided groups of Afghan interpreters who had worked for the New Zealand Defence Force and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Bamian Province with an assistance package which included the opportunity to resettle here in New Zealand. Resettlement was offered to interpreters as they were considered to be at the highest risk of Taliban retribution and reflected the service this group provided to the New Zealand Government during that time. The opportunity to resettle to New Zealand was also extended to the interpreter's spouse and dependent children. Financial support was also provided to local staff who were closely involved with the New Zealand Defence Force and New Zealand Police in Bamian but who did not venture around the province with the NZDF and were therefore deemed to be less directly associated with the NZDF. New Zealand agencies and those of our partners had seen an increase in inquiries from locally employed contractors seeking resettlement outside of Afghanistan in recent months. Might I also note that there were also offers of financial support to allow some of those who were involved either directly or indirectly with the New Zealand Defence Force resettlement packages within Afghanistan which I understand a number of them took.Another part of the question made by the member was around the decision to start evacuating people. Commercial flights still operated right up until the time when the US troops decided to close down the airport to use only for the evacuation efforts of a multinational evacuation operation. So any assertion from that member that we sort of turned the switch on only to make evacuations at that point in time are completely untrue. Evacuations and commercial flights continued up until the time the US troops secured the airport.I also want to say that one doesn't have to be in New Zealand to process an application. They can actually make representations to process an application for a number of visa classifications to be able to come to New Zealand here and I know that this Government and the officials in particular—Immigration New Zealand and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—continued to work with these people and continue to do so today. They did so before we started the evacuation operation. They did so during the evacuation operation which is why some of the intel informed our people to explain to the people who are trying to get to the airport not to come because of the threats associated with it and I will reiterate the point: we continue to communicate with these people to see how we can assist even more evacuations out of Afghanistan.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I'd make one brief comment: the Minister has attempted to interpret my comments as denigrating the reputation of the New Zealand Defence Force; I think it is fair to say that that reputation is legendary. Kiwi soldiers in a range of theatres have been recognised as more trusted and humane than from other countries on many occasions. It is not my intention to in any way denigrate them. My point was that the abandonment and plight of those who helped the New Zealand Defence Force in this case won't have helped that reputation. I ask the Minister: does he believe that the reputation of the Defence Force has been damaged by that abandonment and if so what is his plan to fix it?Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence): No.SPEAKER: Right. No reply?"