﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 11, Hon Phil Goff.
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Defence:
Does the NZ Defence Force training of Iraqi Army troops
include giving them the will to fight?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence):
The NZ Government has made a decision to assist
the Iraqi defence forces in their training because we assess
that there is a threat to NZers from Daesh.
It is, therefore, appropriate that we assist the Iraqis
to try to defeat Daesh. This question, I think,
cheapens the desire of so many Iraqis to overcome that evil.
We would not be there if the Iraqi Government had not made
that request. We can only assume that that is a commitment
from the Iraqi Government to defeat the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Might I also say that
the NZ Defence Force has a very proud record of training
in these sorts of conflicts— it goes right back to Malaya
in the 1950s, through to Afghanistan most recently.
These sorts of loaded and facetious questions are,
I think, very disrespectful to the NZ Defence Force.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Would your office have allowed a question as the primary question
that you judged to be facetious?
Mr SPEAKER: I would not have used those words myself
but in the answer that was given, Mr Brownlee certainly
addressed the question that was asked. If the member wants
to take it further with a supplementary, I invite him to.
Hon Phil Goff: Does he accept that the lack of will to fight,
which the United States’ defence secretary, Ash Carter,
blamed for the failure of the Iraqi army,
results predominantly from the abysmal leadership
of the Iraqi army and from the extensive corruption
that undermines the will of the ordinary soldier to fight?
And does he accept that neither of those things
can be altered by the professional work of the NZ Army?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am certainly not going to make
any comments about the views of the United States Secretary of Defense.
I will be meeting him shortly,
and I will have a further discussion with him.
The rest of that question was based on Mr Goff’s
own opinion of Iraqi forces. Although he is entitled
to that opinion, I am not making a comment on it.
My view is that the NZ Defence Force is very, very capable
and professional. It has engaged, in this exercise,
with some very specific aspects of the training mission
that it will deliver—we think, in the best interests of NZers.
Hon Phil Goff: When people like Dr Ron Smith from Waikato University,
who was a fervent supporter of deployment to Iraq,
now believe that it was a bad idea to go there,
what will it take to persuade the Government that the benefits
of the training that we provide are too little and the risks
too great to pay the price for being in the club?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I very much doubt that the analysis
that the professor has relied on would be as good as the analysis
that the NZ Government has made its decision based on
and continues to support.
Hon Phil Goff: What assessment has he given of the risks
now facing the NZ Defence Force approximately 100km away
from Islamic State (IS) forces in Ramadi, and is that assessment
such that if the risk is regarded as considerable,
he would reverse his position and bring those troops home?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Answering the first part of the question:
considerably better information than the member has.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Somebody with the temerity to accuse a questioner
of being facetious then gives an answer that can be described
only in exactly the same way—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, no— I listened, again, quite carefully
to the question. In fact, there were two questions asked.
The Minister has chosen to address the first one.
It may not be to the satisfaction of the member but it was addressed.
Question No 12.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community