Urgent Debates

I have one thing only to say to the Government, which is that if there is any substance to such a press release, it should deal with such a matter the same way we would: “Can we fix it? Yes we can.”—and we are doing it every day.

I come now to the debate on the Solomons. I do not think there is anyone in any party in the House who will deny that there is a need for New Zealand to be involved in the Solomons, given that the Solomons is a part of our Pacific backyard, and given the problems that face the people of the Solomons. I do not know whether any members of this House have friends who have tried to live and work, or do business, in the Solomons, but it is no secret that the rule of law was lost there many years ago. The only thing I ask is that if the Government is so concerned about human rights, why has it taken it so long to do something positive in the Solomons?

But there is a greater question that the Government cannot be allowed to duck and dive away from, and that is this. We agree with the purpose of that deployment; we now know that the Government is committing 30 to 40 police to the Solomons, and some 100 to 200 Defence Force personnel in the role of protecting those police. We also know from history, and from knowing our Defence Force personnel and our police very well, that, first, there will be no shortage of volunteers to go, and, second, that when they get there, they will do a superb job. But there is a price and cost to New Zealand for that deployment, and one cannot ignore it. Looking at that price and cost, one has to ask oneself where this Government’s priorities are. The cost to the House is the rule of law here in New Zealand. We already know from the documents presented to us that the Minister of Police has told this Government that he does not have enough police to do the work he is trying to do. We know that he specifically asked for more police to deal with counter-terrorist issues, and that this Government’s response to his request for 169 police officers was to cut the Minister back to 55 over 4 years and tell him to get on with the job. Hello!

On top of that, we found out over the weekend that the Government now wants the commissioner to take some of his best, most experienced police—who should be back here guiding, steering, and mentoring the young rookies on the beat—and send them off to the Solomon Islands. We have heard the public complain ad nauseam about their frustration at their inability to get police to attend crime scenes—it is in every paper, every day. This Government blithely ignores that, and once again commits the stretched, overworked, stressed-out policemen and women on our beats to another task.

It is the same with the Defence Force. Despite assurances that there were no such papers—and we will deal with that in another arena—we have papers here that say that the Army, Navy, and Air Force have black holes in their organisations. But do we listen to that? No. In search of political kudos and a good issue that will take the Government off the front pages in areas where it is doing appallingly, we get ourselves involved in another deployment. We are sending off another 100 to 200 Defence Force personnel, ignoring the fact that the Chief of Defence Force has told his Minister that he is understaffed and overstretched, that people are being employed in roles above their level of ability and responsibility, and that they are suffering stress and burnout. Is that not ironic coming from this Government? This Government is going to legislate to deal with bad employers who stress out and overwork their staff. It has been proud of its occupational safety and health legislation, talking about overuse and burnout, yet it continually ignores the advice of its own officials and heads of department, who say that the very same thing is happening in the police force and the Defence Force.

If we want to commit ourselves to our own backyard in the Pacific, and deal with the law and order and security issues that face us, then given the current shortages of Defence Force and police personnel, surely the Government should be reassessing its priorities and commitments elsewhere. It should be asking itself whether we serve a purpose that is any longer worth serving in the Sinai. Can we afford to send 60 engineers to Iraq? Can we afford to be involved in peacekeeping activities beyond the Pacific, when we cannot even meet our needs back home? It is not the rule of law in the Solomons that people in west Auckland, Manukau, and the Rotorua shopping centre are worried about; it is the rule of law and order here in New Zealand.

That rule of law has fallen down around our ears, because this Government will not accept two simple facts. Fact one: it has a huge surplus, which it boasts is the biggest in the history of this nation. Fact two: we are understaffed in police and defence. New Zealand First has made it very clear that it believes it is necessary to double the size of the police force to meet current workloads and the internal security needs of New Zealand, but this Government will not even give the Commissioner of Police another 169 officers. This Government will be responsible for doing to its own employees the very thing its socialist Ministers say that private enterprise is doing to its employees. There is a word for that; we are not allowed to use it in the House, but it is relevant all the same.

The sad tragedy of it is that our defence and police forces will go out there, bind things together, and do the very best they can. They will perform admirably, while their families back home get broken up. Here in New Zealand, the families of staff who are required to pick up the extra workload because this Government will not give the Defence Force and the police force the extra personnel they need will get broken up, and this Government just does not want to know. How many more official papers do we have to read from the Defence Force and the police asking for more staff and an increase in baselines before this Government actually does something?

New Zealand First reminds the Government that in the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 it signed up to four full-strength rifle companies per battalion. Has it moved to meet that? No. Currently, our army would be lucky to scrape up one and a half to two rifle companies on a very good day, and the Minister knows that. It is all very well to trumpet Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 when it suits him, but on staffing levels, he blithely ignores it.

I give the Government marks for doing something in the Solomons, but it should have done something months ago. It should admit that there is a need to restore law and order on its own streets—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: The member has never yet asked a question on it in the House.

There goes the Minister of Justice—the man who gives us home detention detainees like that cretin I talked about. Do members remember that that Minister used to call all crims “scumbags”? Well, there is a new term, which is “scunter”, and the people he is letting out on home detention are an absolute abomination on the State. He should think about his faulty and flawed sentencing and parole legislation.

The Minister does not care about the work the Defence Force does. He does not care about the stress and overwork that exists now inside the police force; he just wants to look good on the international stage, saying: “New Zealand will be in there—we will give more police, and we don’t care what Robbie Robinson says.”

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Is the member against that?

Come on, Minister! Does the Chair want to give me an extension of time? She should tell him to sit down and shut up.

The Minister should look after his police force and Defence Force. He should not go out in the international community seeking photo opportunities and feel-good moments for himself at the expense of the good men and women who are here to provide security back at home. He should give them the staffing they need. Right now, this Government is stretching the personnel rubber band so thinly that when it breaks there will be repercussions inside the Defence Force. The Minister has the papers here that say that the Defence Force is suffering stress and burnout—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. From the running barrages, I know it is hurting the Minister, but running barrages are not permitted.

This Minister—along with the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Police, but primarily the Prime Minister—is big on representing the rights of workers, but where are those rights for the police force? Government Ministers do not give a rat’s about the police force. The Commissioner of Police simply asked for 169 extra officers over 3 years—that is all he asked for. I think he totally undershot it, but, as he has publicly said, there is no sense in asking for what one really needs, because one knows one is not going to get it; one has to ask for something that is realistic. He should have added “in the eyes of the Government”, because that is what he meant. Fine, commit, but tell me now—how long can we sustain that commitment, given the current problems inside our forces?

First, let me say that, in principle, the ACT party is in favour of the proposal, but we will obviously reserve our position until we have looked at some of the details. The reason I say that is that the House knows I have a connection to the Solomons. My wife comes from the Solomons, and has been the honorary consul for a number of years, and I have spent some time in the Solomons. I was in the Solomons during the uprising, and I was actually in the first plane to arrive there after the Townsville peace agreement. I went up to the various barricades and spoke to some of the “rascals”—somewhat to the horror of the New Zealand diplomatic community.

💬 Peter Brown: That’s what the “rascals” were saying about you.

Probably. Does the member think they recognised a kindred spirit?

Firstly, let me make a few comments about the situation there, and not in an “I told you so” way. I told the previous National Government, and then the Labour Government, that the various measures that were being taken would not work, and that the only way we would be able to restore things in the Solomons would be to send some real police with the ability to arrest criminals—and, yes, because the criminals had some high-powered weapons, I said that the police had better be armed.

The House should also realise that this request from the Solomons Government is not a new one. Bartholomew Ulufa’alu, who was the Prime Minister of the Solomons when the real unrest started and was really replaced by a police coup, had himself made a request for police to Australia and New Zealand.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Had he?

Yes, he said he wanted 200. I do not know whether he needed 200, but he said that he wanted 200. He said: “If you don’t give them to me, there’s going to be a coup by our police force”, and there was. That was the Malaita Eagle Force, and things in the Solomons got worse. Basically, Honiara became a Malaitan town surrounded by the people of Guadalcanal, who, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade correctly said, did their own ethnic cleansing.

How bad are things at the moment? In some ways, they are not as bad as people say. I have been up there this year and personally have never felt under any threat. I have walked around Honiara and been in various parts of Guadalcanal, but then I am obviously an expat. If one talks to the Solomons Islands people themselves, in many ways things have improved, but in other ways things are awful. They are so bad because law and order really fails in a country when the police cannot be relied upon. While there are many good policemen in the Solomons Islands, I am afraid there are some very bad ones, and some who are criminals.

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade mentions, as he did in the media, that shots were fired at the Prime Minister’s residence, most people think that the shots were fired by the police. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade said that the militants demanded money, but the militants who demanded money just before Christmas were actually police officers. The commissioner turned up and said to the Minister of Finance: “If you don’t give me all the money the Government’s got”—and that is not a lot, because it is a very poor country—“the police can’t guarantee that Honiara won’t be burnt down today.” What would one do if one was the Minister of Finance and in that position? Basically, the Cabinet was locked up until he was prepared to walk down to the Solomons Islands Reserve Bank and empty the vault. That money went to the police in so-called bonus payments. No, there is another name for it.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Allowances!

Yes, so-called allowances. I am obliged to the Minister. After the Townsville settlement, various militants, in collusion, had emptied the police armouries and got guns. They came up with the idea that the thing to do with these militants was to make them members of the police. They made them special policemen, but that did not stop them being criminals; it did not stop them robbing. Indeed, all it did was to put them on the payroll. The Solomons Islands Government now has this huge number of police and special police—so many that its tax base cannot afford it. Money that ought to be going to pay for nurses, teachers, and the like, is going to these so-called special constables. They have made a number of attempts to try to stop this system, but have been unable to do so, because the police feel that they cannot. That is why we need the numbers. We now have a British police commissioner, but he reports that he cannot restore law and order until he has a number of reliable policemen. In that respect, it is mainly a policing problem, but those police need some protection from the army. I suspect that it will be the army that will have to go after Harold Keke.

I heard Mr Locke say, and I am not criticising him, that these are just a few desperate people. Mr Keke has killed about 50 people. The Weathercoast of the Solomons is total jungle. If people walk into that jungle, they are in darkness. People have no idea where they are going. During World War II, the Americans and the Japanese landed troops in that jungle, and the whole army was lost. They knew that the other enemy was 3 kilometres away, but they could not find each other, even when they were trying to. People should not underestimate the difficulties of trying to catch Mr Keke and his group. That is their home, and that is what they know about.

The Solomons is in the bottom ten nations of the world in terms of wealth. It is a truly very poor nation, but it has great potential. The Gold Ridge Mine is a rich mine. It is only a few kilometres from Honiara, but has not been able to be reopened. That mine used to provide 25 percent of the Government’s revenues. The palm plantations that the Minister referred to are within a few kilometres of Honiara, as well, and palm prices have been good.

However, I want to say to the House—I made the comment somewhat frivolously during question time, but I mean it quite sincerely—that I think the ethnic problems of the Solomons are real. It is very hard, for example, to arrest somebody from one’s own tribe. I have been in a situation where I was trying to pay customs duties, and the officer would not accept it. I was told that I was causing huge embarrassment because he came from my wife’s “onetalk”. Can members imagine what it is like for a policeman to be asked to arrest someone from his own “onetalk”? People there find it difficult.

A State like the Solomons will need assistance. I do not like the idea of sending New Zealand police there for ever. We have brought 74 British police over to New Zealand, and the idea of hiring some Brits permanently is a good one. They ran the place for 100 years, and did it with about 20 policemen. There is a need for a few people who are seen by everyone in the Solomons to be independent. I know that contradicts our notions of nationality, and the like, but we are hung up by our own political correctness. If we had acknowledged the real problem 5 years ago, then a lot of Solomons Islanders would not have lost their lives, the State would not have collapsed, and we would not be in the position of asking the taxpayers of New Zealand for the amount of money that we are asking them for.

I say sincerely that we ought to look at that as a long-term solution. The Solomon Islands has a British commissioner at the moment, but he will need at least 20 officers for the foreseeable future. It would be far better to pay them for doing that than taking police from our streets in south Auckland. We would be in trouble as a Parliament if we sent New Zealand police to the Solomon Islands long term. I make that suggestion, but given the position we are in, the actions that the Minister is taking are the right ones. He is entitled to ask this House for support, and he has it.

The Green Party supports our police going to help the Solomon Islands people to move to a situation where the rule of law applies, and we support what our police force has done so far. I understand that about 10 New Zealand police are there now, and that that will expand to perhaps 30 or 40 under the arrangements. We are very grateful to those police who will go on this operation for what they will do, and for the sacrifices they will make. The Green Party wishes them well in their work over there. The critical element in determining how we see such an operation is what the people of the country itself want. So far it seems that the people of the Solomon Islands, from the Prime Minister Sir Allan Kemakeza down, want to have a contribution of this sort. But, of course, we have to keep monitoring that, because we want to make sure that as we go through this exercise it is always with the support of the Solomon Islands people.

I am a bit concerned about some of the Australian Government’s comments, which almost determine in advance that this will be an operation that will last for years, when the aim should obviously be to help, through this process, to boost the confidence and ability of the Solomon Islands people to get their own society on track. Our aim should be to complete the operation in the shortest possible time frame. It is good that the Pacific Island leaders, who met yesterday, endorse this operation. I hope that they will make a contribution to it, because sometimes Australia and New Zealand are seen as the bigger, white members of the Pacific nations, although of course the New Zealand contribution to such operations usually has a strong Māori and Pacific Island dimension. However, it will be good if other Pacific Island countries are involved in the Solomons, alongside Australia and New Zealand.

Essentially, as the Minister has explained, this is a policing operation against criminal elements, and there is a need for an armed back-up of military components to support those police, given the situation that has been outlined by other speakers in this debate. But I am still concerned at the number of military personnel envisaged—1,500 Australians, and a total force of 2,000. I take the point that Richard Prebble has made, but I do not think it requires a force of that size to indicate to the criminal elements that there is a seriousness about this operation. It is not like the East Timor commitment where, because there was organised backing from West Timor in support of the militias that went into East Timor as organised forces, we needed to have more systematic patrolling than will be the case in the Solomons.

I take up the point that Bill English and Ron Mark have made: can our armed forces stand this contribution? I think there is an easy solution to their concerns, and that is not to send the 60 or 100 troops to Afghanistan as planned, where they will be involved in a dirty war, essentially defending one set of warlord factions against others. That will be a dirty war, in the sense that any prisoners we capture in Afghanistan will be handed over to the United States and held in places like Guantanamo Bay, where the rule of law does not apply and people are mistreated, etc. Rather than getting involved in a dirty war in Afghanistan, as the Government is planning to do, it should concentrate our forces on peacekeeping, which we have gained good experience in through our Bougainville and East Timor commitments. We are developing a speciality in peacekeeping with regard to both our military and our police. I think the nation is proud of what we have achieved in peacekeeping, and will be proud of what we can achieve in that role in the Solomon Islands.

I want to go back to the origin of the problem there. I think, to a large extent, it is the result of overseas interests, such as Malaysian logging interests, corrupting the political system to their own ends. Ten years ago there was a big debate in the Solomon Islands about that. The present Prime Minister was forestry Minister at that time, and there was much criticism of him for allowing Malaysian logging companies to clear-fell much of the Solomons, with little taxation, duties, or anything like that applying to them. A couple of years later, in 1995, an anti-logging activist was murdered and seven Government Ministers were charged with accepting bribes. So outside interests were fostering corruption, and we must put that problem on top of the economic problems that developed around the time of the Asian economic crisis. The growing unemployment at that time was exaggerated by the International Monetary Fund’s prescriptions that the Solomon Islands should cut the public sector. The resulting social crisis allowed the more corrupt element in the political system to use factional differences to foster ethnic differences and conflict between Malaitan people and those from Guadalcanal, in furtherance of their own narrow political interests.

The problem of corruption continued through to the year 2001. Sir Allan Kemakeza was dismissed then as Deputy Prime Minister. He was charged with taking hundreds of thousands of dollars for himself and his family. The former finance Minister, Snyder Rini, was dismissed because he had given undue remissions of duties to forestry companies. So there was that continuing problem of corruption, and a very bad economic situation.

Unfortunately, there is another contributing factor. I do not think Australia and New Zealand have provided sufficient aid to the Solomons over the years. We have, of course, had an aid programme to the Solomons, and currently we give $8 million in aid. It is very good that the Government has announced that part of our response to the Solomons crisis will be a doubling of that aid. That will catch up on some of the shortfalls in the past.

However, I am not sure whether we need to have 2,000 military people in this force. I think we have to be concerned that we could have too much overkill, in terms of military intervention. I am not really concerned about the New Zealand troops operating in an insensitive way, because they have a very good record internationally—a better record, probably, than the Australians. But I think we have to learn, for instance, from what is happening in Iraq today, with the US getting off side with the people. I am not making a direct parallel here, because our peacekeeping force in the Solomons will not be an occupation force, as is the US force in Iraq. But we do have to be mindful of the problems that could develop if we do not handle the situation sensitively, or if there is a bit of overkill in our response. We could draw hostility from the local population, which could make the situation worse.

What we want to do—and I think Bill English was right—is to move as fast as possible to continue the process that began at Townsville in the year 2000 of trying to get the civil society and the various parties back together. We need to work with the politicians and the civil society. There are groups like the Civil Society Network in the Solomons that are trying to draw things together. One of the problems with the political system there is that it is a first-past-the-post system. I think one of the MPs is there on 13 percent of the vote, so it is an inappropriate political system. We need to work with the civil society, and also to resist the temptation to dominate the country too much. I have heard reports from Australia that it will put various Australians in the different ministries for the long term. I think we have to be a bit wary about being seen to dominate the Solomons.

I think another lesson we can draw from this situation is that we should watch for problems in the Pacific and give support at an early time. For instance, we tend to ignore another Melanesian nation, West Papua, when ignoring what is happening to its people may can come back to haunt us. We should support the rights of those people against the Indonesian occupation, as well.

The New Zealand Greens support this peacekeeping force, as do our colleagues the Australian Greens on other side of the Tasman. We are very pleased that they are putting their support behind this force, because something that the Greens as a whole, internationally, have put forward is that we should really concentrate on peacemaking, trying to bring parties together, and trying to resolve situations in other countries in as peaceful a manner as possible, but backed up with policing and peacekeeping forces where required. I think we need to specialise in that area. One of the Green Party’s proposals is to set up a peacekeeping school in New Zealand, and there are some ongoing discussions with the Government on how to progress that. I think such a school would increase our ability to do this peacekeeping work, and to be able to work with other police and military personnel in our region towards resolving situations like the one we see in the Solomon Islands today.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): The litany of the history of the Solomons from the time of the start of the struggle between the Malaitan people and the people of Guadalcanal has been well canvassed this afternoon. This is not really the time for us to enter into a debate about the rights and wrongs of what happened when, and who did what to whom. It is time for us simply to recognise that that country is on the point of economic and social collapse, that it is in our region, our part of the world, and that it is in the sphere of influence we may claim as our own. The question then becomes this: what role, if any, should we, as a sovereign nation with a history of seeking to uphold good Government in our own country and elsewhere, play in response to that situation? That is the background, I believe, against which the House debates this matter this afternoon. May I note in passing the appropriateness of this debate today, at this time, given that when a similar debate was sought in 2000 it was ruled that it could not occur until such time as an intervention took place. On that basis, we would not have debated World War II until the first shot was fired. It is appropriate that we debate this issue in the House today.

This debate immediately raises the question of the status of New Zealand’s decision. If one listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade in question time this afternoon, one heard there has actually been no decision by the New Zealand Government at this stage. There has been an indication, in principle, given at the Foreign Ministers meeting in Sydney yesterday, of the type of commitment that New Zealand may make in response to an invitation from the Parliament of the Solomon Islands. However, I was struck by the fact that this afternoon the Minister said, in response to my question, that the New Zealand Cabinet has not yet decided formally on its position. The first step to be taken is that the decision in principle made yesterday in the context of the Foreign Ministers meeting in Sydney obviously needs to be considered by the New Zealand Cabinet and endorsed, and then we await the invitation from the Parliament of the Solomon Islands, which, from memory, is due on about 7 or 8 July, before the deployment can even begin. People who may fear there is a rush to judgment going on here should bear that time frame in mind. There will not be a precipitate deployment.

The next issue that arises is the nature of the deployment itself. Arguments have been raised in the House this afternoon about whether we can afford—if we are sending 30 police officers and a couple of hundred military personnel to support them—such a level of deployment, given some of the pressures at home. I think that is a very reasonable question. I for one am not convinced that we can give satisfactory answers to it at this stage. I know in my own electorate—and I do not want to dwell on this unduly—there are problems with community policing. One the one hand it will be difficult to tell people to endure their problems, while on the other we are sending police to sort out the difficulties in the Solomons. There are matters relating to the level of recruitment for the armed forces at the moment, both in terms of the regular forces and the territorial forces. Those issues will come back into play as a result of a decision that may be made to send a force to the Solomons. But I say that, important though those considerations are—and they should not be overlooked—in my view, they are not of themselves reasons for New Zealand not to seek to play a role. They are excuses that can be offered as to why we should not play a role, but they are not reasons that we should not play a role, if we value our role as a good, international citizen.

If I may hark back to the debate this House held a couple of months ago regarding Iraq—and I am not trying to make a political point here, so no member should assume that I am—at that time the debate was over whether New Zealand should play a role in that conflict because, as a good international citizen, it was its responsibility to do so. The counter-argument was raised that that event was some considerable distance away from New Zealand, and that we had limited supply lines and difficulties in meeting those needs, etc. I think all those arguments become more difficult to sustain in respect of something that is going on in our own region. That is why I think it is appropriate for New Zealand to give support to a prospective deployment to the Solomons.

But there are some bigger issues here. Mr Prebble alluded to some of them, and they require some expansion. This is not just an issue about the impenetrability of jungle, or about warlords, or about the breakdown of law and order. Important though those things are, this is an issue about the lack of economic viability of many small Pacific States, and about that lack of viability giving rise to the instability that we see exemplified in the Solomons, but by no means isolated to that country. It is a chilling fact that over the last 30 years some $50 billion in cumulative overseas aid has been pumped into the Island States in the Pacific, yet their net positive economic growth rate in that time has been around 1 percent. There are lessons for all of us in respect of that process. If we want to uplift the standard of living, and to promote the level of democracy and security, then very clearly the developed world has to do much better than has been its record to date.

We also need to look at our processes of engagement. In this particular instance, the potential decision has arisen out of an initiative by the Foreign Ministers of the Pacific Islands Forum, meeting, it would appear, under the joint convenorship of our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Foreign Minister in Sydney yesterday. That initiative is to be applauded, but it is essentially an ad hoc one. There is the Biketawa Declaration, and there are the processes of the Pacific Islands Forum. They need to be refined more thoroughly in order to ensure that we can become involved in situations as they develop, and not very much as an ad hoc afterthought, as I think is potentially the case at the moment.

When the New Zealand Government does make a decision, it is important that those who are deployed to the Solomons go with the knowledge that the Parliament and people of this country support them. As I have said on the occasion of other such deployments, they go not as the representatives of a particular Government but as the representatives of the people of New Zealand, and therefore they are entitled to know that when they go they have the support of the people of New Zealand. They will go into what will be very difficult and stressful circumstances in the Solomons, and I do not imagine that any member of this House would willingly trade places with any of those forces to be so deployed.

On behalf of United Future, I say that like other parties we join in supporting the intention for New Zealand to play a role in attempting to restore law and order to the Solomons. We recognise the huge difficulties that that of itself involves, but we acknowledge also that this deployment is only part of a wider process to put in place better ways for the States of the South-west Pacific to work collaboratively and constructively together, so as to ensure that in our sphere of influence the rising arc of instability that has been occurring in recent times can be diminished, and the collective peace and security of all of us can be ensured.

It is a rare occasion when the entire House—certainly, it must be the first time in my experience—supports a deployment. Not a single party has said that this deployment should not take place. However, serious questions have been asked across the House by National, New Zealand First, the Greens, ACT, and United Future. Through the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Government has chosen not to answer those serious questions—not to address them properly. I hope that the Minister of Defence will deal with them seriously and not in a partisan fashion, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade did.

The National Party and I have been saying for many months—in fact, years—that we needed to take a closer look at the serious problems emerging in the Solomon Islands, which have many of the characteristics of the inter-tribal disputes that occurred in Bougainville. In Bougainville there was a dual-track process: bringing the parties together to deal with the very deep issues between them, and providing a surety around law and order and the building of stability in civil society. The question raised by National in this particular case is whether we have taken a too one-sided approach. Certainly, we recognise the need to restore stability in the Solomon Islands, and obviously that is the reason for both the defence forces and the police being deployed. But it would be wrong for us to pretend that that is the totality of the situation. I believe the Government has too often minimised the broader issue, and has focused largely on the law and order issue.

Certainly, it is easy to refer to corruption in the police. The fact is that the Solomon Islands police are part of the problem, rather than the solution; they have raided the Treasury and helped to be part of the destructive force. People who are now referred to as ex-militants are the very same people—or at least their representatives are—who were part of the political dialogue that occurred in Townsville in the year 2000. The reality is that people do not fundamentally change their character. People who admittedly commit serious criminal acts need to be brought under control, but nevertheless in their own fashion—in much the same way that perhaps the IRA did—they represent political interests within the Solomon Islands. The same thing happened in Bougainville. We have to deal with people almost simultaneously, both in a law and order situation—hence the need for the troops and the police—and also on the political level, notwithstanding that there is a democratically elected Government in the Solomons.

The Solomon Islands are a very good illustration of the tensions in the South Pacific between the processes of representative government, which we all support, overlaid on a tribal society. Although the Solomons, perhaps, from afar, look like a somewhat homogeneous Melanesian society, beneath that surface there is a whole series of competing tribal interests. We know they have had a difficult outcome in the past, and they have a continuing outcome today. The reality is that we do not get a total collapse in a society on a law and order or on an economic front, unless there are also quite deep ethnic issues involved, as well.

We, on the Opposition side of the House, have asked—I believe United Future also did ask—the Government to look at those issues seriously. There will have to be more than one track involved in this intervention: the law and order track—the defence track—and also the building of civil society. Mr English posed that serious question to the Minister, but the Minister chose to simply dismiss it. That was a mistake. Unless the Government addresses that additional dimension as well, then there will be serious problems ahead. We know that is the case because we have tried to intervene in the past, unsuccessfully, over several years. A new way forward is needed. We cannot look at this issue purely on the basis of the defence and police forces alone.

I now turn to two particular issues: first, the question of sustainability, which relates to the previous issue, and, second, the role of multilateralism in regional security, and that of the United Nations. The Government’s desire to be a good citizen in the South Pacific is obviously to be applauded. We know that it is a region of instability, these days. It is not a benign strategic environment, and it does require our defence forces. At the same time we have deployments right through the Middle East. It has been noted in the New Zealand Herald, inaccurately, that there could be up to 579 defence personnel currently deployed. That is largely the Army component. On top of that, we also have the Orion deployed to the Gulf. It is not just a matter of eight or 10 crew members; there is a whole airfield team, as well. Also, there is the Hercules deployed north of Afghanistan, and the Anzac frigate in the Gulf, which also has a shore component in the Gulf of Oman. We say there is a serious risk in terms of sustainability. The reason I raise that question is that in East Timor the six battalion-sized rotations caused serious problems for our defence forces. I am sure the Minister of Defence recognises that reality—the Army has done so.

The whole issue of the Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000 was to narrow the focus of, and to build depth in, our defence forces. I am sure the Minister of Defence would accept that. The abolition of the air combat force was intended to be part of meeting that goal. But that has not yet happened. Certainly, some new equipment has been ordered—no question about that. But what has not happened is the beefing-up of the components of the defence forces that we use the most, so that they are made more sustainable. The question that has come out of East Timor, and the deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in the Solomons, is whether we should not have a three-battalion Army, so that it would have that continuity and sustainability. I understand that the Army has looked at that question. It will take money, but that money was saved when the air combat force was ended. Similarly, that issue arises with regard to the two Anzac frigates. We had the two Anzac frigates simultaneously in the Gulf of Oman. That is our entire Navy. Surely the change in circumstances asks us to look at the issue of frigate numbers afresh.

The final issue I wish to talk on is the matter of regional security. In our region Australia and New Zealand take the lead; there is no question about that. This deployment is largely an Australian – New Zealand deployment. The Government has said that it is all multilateral, and that the UN supports it through its political committee. What if the UN did not? Would we say we were therefore disempowered? I think not. That is why Alexander Downer, on 27 June, said that in our region we have to take responsibility, along with the South Pacific nations. At best, the United Nations is informed. We expect its acceptance that we have responsibilities in terms of regional security. Members should contrast that to the situation with regard to Iraq. There the Government says that the UN should make the decisions exclusively. The problem with that is that a veto or a threatened veto by France would have had the result of Saddam Hussein still being in power. Surely that could not be a good thing. So the Government needs to be honest on this issue. It is not about UN approval but about the countries of the region taking the leadership roles, and being responsible for the security of their region. We say the Government should at least recognise that fact, be honest with the people of New Zealand, and not pretend that UN approval is actually a prerequisite for a deployment.

Firstly, I would like to recognise the thoughtful, dignified, and, I think, genuinely sincere contributions from Richard Prebble, Keith Locke, Peter Dunne, and, indeed, Wayne Mapp, which sadly contrasted with the—

💬 Mark Peck: Wayne Mapp?

Yes, indeed, Wayne Mapp. It would perhaps have been better had his leader led off with that speech rather than with the unfortunate, rather sad, miserable, and petty contribution from him—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: They are serious questions.

I say to Mr Mapp that I listened quietly to him for 10 minutes and I ask that he afford me the same dignity.

A number of members raised important and serious questions that I will endeavour to give some response to in the limited time available. Firstly, reference was made to the numbers in the territorial force. Indeed, there are issues to address there, and they are being addressed. I should point out that the absolute numbers need to be understood against what is called the efficiency level—the percentage of those in the force who are at the required level of training to be deployable. That level is the highest it has been in decades. So although the absolute numbers have reduced, the number of efficient members has increased. I am not for a moment disputing that we have a challenge and an issue to address there, but it is well on the way to being addressed through a number of measures that are being taken, and by others that are being addressed, as we speak, through the select committee.

I refer to the matter of attrition. Again, 10 or 20 years ago if one went to a Minister and a Chief of Defence Force, then yes, indeed, they would have been talking about problems of recruitment and retention. Ten years from now I am sure they will be doing the same. We have compounded problems at the moment. We have record employment, which means there is a more competitive job market. We have the problem that we have always had in the New Zealand Defence Force: we have the very finest people, we train them to the highest standard, and many of the skills and talents they have are internationally marketable.

So those issues will always be issues, but we have addressed them as a Government in a manner that they have not ever been addressed before. For 3 years and three Budgets in a row, we have seen funded pay increases and improved conditions for the members of the Defence Force. It is a bit rich for Mr Mark, whose party was a member of a Government during which time his party did not even have a defence policy—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

Mr Mark’s party had no defence policy. It went into an election without one and it was in Government without one. The National Party had one, but New Zealand First did not have one. They did nothing, and indeed, even during that time, Mr Worth, a member of the National Party, at the end of 1999 described the state of the Defence Force as perilously low in capability and short of funds to correct the situation because of what he called 9 years of neglect. That was how Mr Worth described the Defence Force at the end of 9 years of National.

We are dealing with those issues with major re-equipment upgrades and the developing of depth across all three services. There is a long list of new equipment, modernisation, and upgrades. Mr Nick Smith does not like it, but facts are a bit of a problem for Mr Smith. He has always had difficulty with those. Even our good friend and neighbour Australia, in its most recent publications about defence policy, acknowledges—as I am sure most of the world acknowledges—that it sees the threats to Australia in the future as being less about conventional threats and more about unconventional threats. I refer to things like terrorism, border security, and so on. The challenges that Australia, and we, and others will face are around those issues.

I also note the comments about a police-led operation. Mr Mapp touched on that, as did others. I will come back to it, but the police-led operation has been strongly affirmed.

The Solomon Islands is a nation that is teetering on the edge of State failure. Civil unrest and an ongoing governance crisis have resulted in significant deterioration there, both in the standard of living for the Solomon Islands people and in their basic level of security. We have seen a cumulative decline in gross domestic product over a 3-year period to 2002. That decline has been as high as 30 percent. They have a Government debt of about US$230 million. At every level they are in crisis. The public service payroll is erratic at best, and operational funding for Government departments is now virtually non-existent. As a result, we are seeing a complete decline in basic service delivery, or at least it being desperately disrupted. Health and education services, the absolute core of any society, are severely curtailed, and there is a real risk right now that if this situation continues, a whole generation of Solomon Islanders will be deprived of a basic education.

Over and above that, there is the failure to exercise expenditure controls within Government, which makes it very difficult for donors to provide support at a sufficient level to arrest the decline and indeed to assist the Solomon Islands Government to make fundamental change. If this situation continues, it will be dire indeed for the Solomon Islands.

I want to pick up on the point that as we anticipate the formal request from the sovereign nation of the Solomon Islands, a formal governmental request, of course New Zealand is sympathetic, and it is pleasing to hear every party in the Parliament express support for a New Zealand response to the Solomon Islands. That sympathy, of course, will be reflected in Cabinet decisions presently. It was good to see yesterday in Sydney Ministers from the Pacific Islands Forum nations gather and again express their collective support for what is importantly going to be, I think, a Pacific response and a Pacific solution to this dire situation in the economy and social structure of one of our neighbours.

The breakdown in those social structures, in governance, and in law and order requires a comprehensive package of assistance, not just a civil/police intervention backed by military capability, if we are to restore law and order and if we are to empower the institutions of the Solomons so that they can ultimately achieve economic and social recovery. There is clearly a need for that police-led intervention, and I want to stress that strongly. It is something that Alexander Downer, the Foreign Minister of Australia, has said. My colleague Senator Hill, the Minister of Defence for Australia, at our press conference last Thursday in Canberra also emphasised the same thing. This must be a police—a civil—intervention at that level, but, of course, it will require, to the extent that is necessary, military support to back it up. It should be seen in those terms: a military capability to back it up to the extent to which it is required to restore civil control and law and order.

But let us not forget that that civil restoration is all about creating what some have called a security pause so that, in effect, in parallel, those social, political, governance, and economic interventions can happen, as well. That may well require integrated packages of assistance from New Zealand, Australia, and others along aid lines to help stabilise the budget, in particular, to help with the strategic planning for the future, and to get those instruments of State and society back on track. It will need help to enable the criminal justice system to function effectively and cope with an increased caseload as a result of the police and defence interventions. Most of all, it will need help to get the health and education systems back on track, because without those no society can function.

So I welcome the support of Parliament. I know that when the time comes to dispatch police and defence personnel, we will give them our full support. I want to say, finally, as the Minster of Defence, that any defence personnel who are dispatched will, I know, go willingly and proudly to represent New Zealand. They will represent us with distinction, and I am sure that that can only add to the high reputation that New Zealand has through the efforts of its defence personnel.

I seek the leave of the House to table New Zealand First’s defence policy of 1996.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

I rise in anticipation of the fact that the member is going to table a document that I was genuinely led to believe does not exist—if it does, in advance I apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is no objection.

Document not tabled.

I also seek the leave of the House to table New Zealand First defence policy of 1999.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

Document not tabled.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.