﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 9, Hon Phil Goff.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Defence:
What rules of engagement, if any, has the Government set
for the NZ Defence Force personnel operating in Iraq
if they come under attack?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General)
on behalf of the Minister of Defence: Rules of engagement
are currently being finalised. It is a longstanding practice
that we do not release rules of engagement, as that would provide
a level of operational detail that could endanger the safety of personnel.
Hon Phil Goff: Was the Minister’s statement on Radio Live yesterday
that if there were assailants outside the camp wire,
“We are not going to say: ‘Whoops! Can’t go after them because the wire’s there.”,
consistent with the Government’s position and the rules of engagement?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It was a general statement.
As I have said, however, rules of engagement for specific missions
are classified as they detail the extent of force, including lethal force,
that may be used. For that reason they are not disclosed.
Hon Phil Goff: Why did that so-called general statement
totally contradict the Prime Minister’s assurance at his post-Cabinet
press conference on Monday that there is no way NZ troops
would go outside the wire at Camp Taji, stating that even
“If there’s some fight down the road, they couldn’t go out and assist.”;
how are those two statements lining up with each other?
They totally contradict each other.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I actually did not hear the specific answer.
I am sure the Minister of Defence, in his customary way,
was trying to be helpful. I have said, however,
what the rules of engagement are and what release of the details means.
I have repeated that, and repeat it.
Hon Phil Goff: How on earth will the Kiwi soldiers deployed into Iraq
know what they are not or are allowed to do if the Prime Minister
and the Minister of Defence utterly contradict each other in that way,
when they are already concerned that they will not have
a status of forces agreement to give them legal protection?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They will know very clearly
what they have to do. As that member knows, as a former Minister of Defence,
the NZ Defence Force’s rules of engagement are orders
of the Chief of Defence Force for the purpose
of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971.
Hon Phil Goff: In the absence of a status of forces agreement,
if there is a green on blue attack where the trainees turn their guns
on those training them, what legal protection will there be
for a Kiwi soldier who shoots a rogue Iraqi soldier in self-defence,
or will the response be, as has been suggested, that you will simply
whip him out on a diplomatic passport as if he had committed a criminal offence?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Actually, the first part of the question
before it degenerated was a good question and it is a very fair one.
The Government will not be deploying the Defence Force overseas
without appropriate legal protections. I say to that member that one does not
have to get hung up on the title “status of forces agreement”,
it is the substance that matters.
That is what is being worked on at the moment.
I can give that member and the House the assurance
that they will not be going until that is sorted.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No 10.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community