Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 23 February 2015

Post-Cabinet Press Conference: Monday, 23 February 2015

NOTE: The following document has been turned into text using OCR.

OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER

23 February 2015

POST-CABINET PRESS CONFERENCE: MONDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2015

OK, good afternoon. Cabinet today considered options for contributing to the international coalition against ISIL. As you know, New Zealand has already provided humanitarian assistance and our diplomatic efforts in this area will continue to be extremely important. Following on from Cabinets consideration of other options, l intend to discuss the issue with my caucus tomorrow and communicate with our partners, including Iraq and Australia, overnight. You can expect an announcement on the final decision tomorrow when | make a ministerial statement to Parliament.

Im pleased to announce that Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, will make his first official visit to New Zealand later this week. Prime Minister Abbott will be in Auckland on Friday, and Saturday we will hold our annual leaders' meeting and discuss a range of political, economic, social, and security issues, including advancing the single economic market, our engagement in regional trade initiatives, and cooperation on global defence and security issues. Well also participate in the 10" annual Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum. In addition, we will mark significant events in our relationship, including a centenary of the First World War and the formation of the Anzacs, and the cohosting of the Cricket World Cup. Im looking forward to welcoming the Prime Minister to New Zealand with his wife, Margie.

Today I announced the First World War commemorative events planned for Anzac week in Wellington. This year has a special significance as New Zealanders mark the centenary of the Gallipoli landings during the First World War. Events begin with the Pukeahu National War Memorial Park thats officially opened on Saturday, 18 April, but some areas of the park will be open to the public from as early as next month. The National War Memorial Park includes the Halls of Memories, Carillon, an Australian memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. The park sits on top of the new Arras traffic tunnel, which is lined with symbolic poppies, and named after the French town where the New Zealand tunnelling company dug huge networks of tunnels in the First World War. Anzac week celebrations will include a spectacular light and sound and street parade, and it will culminate with a very special Anzac Day ceremony on the 25" of April.

With regards to the cricket, the tournament is proving a huge success. More than 825,000 tickets to tournament matches have already been sold in Australia and New Zealand. Organisers are expecting the match between Australia and New Zealand in Auckland this weekend will be sold out. An estimated 60,000 people turned up for the opening ceremony in Christchurch, and more than 3,200 have taken advantage of the transTasman visa arrangements making travel between Australia and New Zealand during the tournament easier. Host cities are seeing the benefits, with reports of accommodation being full, lots of visitors on the streets, and, combined with the outstanding performances of the Black Caps so far, theres been a brilliant atmosphere on match days. More than 1 billion people are expected to watch the tournament on television and the 30,000 expected visitors are forecast to spend almost 50 million during their stay here in New Zealand, and that tournaments been great for our country.

As mentioned earlier, its the Governments intention to move a ministerial statement tomorrow afternoon. In terms of legislation, we intend to make progress on a number bills, including the Parole Amendment Bill, and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Amendment Bill. Also note that Wednesday is a members' day.

Just in terms of my own activities, this week Ill be in Wellington today and tomorrow and Wednesday. Ill be in Auckland on Thursday. As announced on Friday, Ill be welcoming Prime Minister Abbott at the airport before the official welcome at Government House. And

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 1 of 12

on Saturday all of this continues with bilateral talks. Ill almost certainly be in Christchurch for the golf on Sunday.

Media: Would it be fair to say, Prime Minister, the deployment has been decided on?

Well, a decisions been made by Cabinet, and now what we want to do is communicate that decision to our caucus, but also to our international partners.

Media: Prime Minister, if that decision is for a group of non-combat trainers to go to Iraq, do you agree that that means New Zealand is at war?

: No. I wouldn't agree with that. On the basis that New Zealand was sending trainers, you know, were obviously sending them to an environment which wed accept is a dangerous environment. Wed certainly accept that they would be there to train Iraq forces to stand up against the threat from ISIL. But its quite different from sending New Zealand combat forces as, for instance, you know, one could argue Helen Clark did when she sent the SAS in a combat role to Afghanistan in 2001 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Media: So in your mind New Zealand has not joined a war?

: No, I wouldn't say that. No. Thats rightl wouldn't say that.

Media: Is that because theyre non-combat troops training other

: Well, becauselook, in the past New Zealands made its significant contributions in the areas of training or other activities, which I don't think you would see as war. I mean, Helen Clark sent engineers to Iraq, for instance. That wasn't seen as New Zealand engaging in the war. We have trainers already at the moment in Afghanistan with the British forces over there. I don't think people see that as an act of combat war. So its quite a different situation to send people who are on the front line, who are fighting the enemy, versus potentially being in a situation where we are training others that might be in that role.

Media: So do you disagree with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, who said, when he was here, it was the Third World War?

PM: Well, hes obviously having to live through the nightmare of ISIL, and I have huge sympathy for what his countrys going through, and for them, theyre in a very, very difficult position. But from New Zealands point of view, if tomorrow, as part of the ministerial statement, we announce that were sending people to train Iraqi forces, we are just doing that: training Iraqi forces to stand up to ISIL, to combat ISIL. But its not New Zealand at war with ISIL; it would be New Zealand providing services to assist others.

Media: Do you think you have public support with you, as you send these troops in?

: Yeah, look, I think, on balance, yes. Its always a difficult thing for people to assess, but, you know, if you look at the public polls, broadly theyve been by a slim majority in favour as opposed to the counter view. I think, also, for New Zealanders, they would just, I think, adopt the view that we would, which is to say that ISIL have demonstrated through its actions over the course of the last year or so just how barbaric they are, and I think New Zealanders would expect us to do something to try and stand up to them. Now, therell be a range of views of what that something should look like, but on balance we don't have the air combat capability, for instance, that other countries do. Were certainly not on our own if we make this call62 other countries are involved in some way.

Media: What about parliamentary support? Is it embarrassing that you couldn't pass a vote in support of this idea?

: Well, firstly, we don't know that, but anyway its not the convention to have a vote, actually. The responsibility and authority for sending forces rests with the executive. And, in fact, actually, if you look at history, theres been a range of different things. Yes, in 2001 Helen Clark, when she sent the SAS, had a vote, probably because she knew the National Party was voting for it, but nevertheless had a vote. Thats true, but theres lots of other examples you can point to where there hasn't been a vote. There have been ministerial

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 2 of 12

statements, for instance. We don't have the convention that therell be a parliamentary vote on these matters, and so, in the end, therell be certainly a debate tomorrow. Therell be a ministerial statement, and well be encouraging other leaders to engage in that, but this is not a matter whenyou know, if the basic argument is that New Zealand will be contributing training people, then I don't think thats a matter for a parliamentary vote.

Media: But if this was to escalate in any way and you were required to rethink what our deployment was, would you give a guarantee that you would only do so once you got a vote from Parliament?

: Well, Im happy to give people a guarantee that says Im not sending people off to actively be involved in combat. The decision that is to be made is one that well send training people. The mandate would be very clear for that, and therell be no capability to step outside that.

Media: I wonder if thats the case on the ground, because over the weekend Canadas top general conceded that the previous assurances hed given that Canadas forces would play a non-combat training role had proved to be unfounded. Why should we accept your assurances that theres a clear, bright line between training and combat?

: Well, for a start off I cant speak, you know, authoritatively about Canada, but they had their SAS forces in Iraq, so they have a different level of capability there. Secondly, the way that these deployments work is that theres an operational mandate, and that mandate is agreed between the defence forces and between the Government that give authority for that. So, in fact, to step outside the mandate would require the executive to change the authority. So Im quite confident that, you know, while they would theoretically have the capacity to defend themselves, thats quite different from a combat role.

Media: So thered be an absolute guarantee that no New Zealand troops would go out with the Iraqi troops that theyre training on an operation

Correct.

Media: —to provide that training support?

Thats right. Theres nothere would be notheres no discussion or possibility that we would be going on an accompany function. Training, yes, potentially, as youll see tomorrow, but not necessarilybut not accompanying.

Media: That would suggest not in any air-strike assist capability. You wouldn't be training the Iraqis to locate targets to enhance the capacity of air strikes?

Well, Im not going to go through all of the details of what we may and may not do, partly because, you know, that can be extrapolated in lots of different ways in terms of functions that people might have from intelligence gathering and others, but what I can say is were not going to be involved in combat. Thats an absolute assurance.

Media: But does that mean not being involved in combat? Will you give a similar undertaking that Kiwi troops will not be involved in intelligence gathering?

: Not at this point. Well have some, you know, may have further to say about what the capability of what they are doing, but in terms of actual combat themselves, fighting people, were not doing that.

Media: So Kiwi troops could go beyond the wire for intelligence gathering—

: Well, youll just have to wait and see tomorrow. Beyond the wire" is, you know, a very technical term, but, yeah, youll have to wait and see tomorrow.

Media: Yeah, but they could go out into the field for intelligence gathering, and you wouldn't necessarily classify that as combat?

I wouldn't expect that to be the way you might define that, but youll have to wait and see tomorrow.

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 3 of 12

Media: What is your definition of behind the wire? Because youre the one who first raised it.

Yeah, so in terms of a training capability, training capability would take place in a particular areaa particular secure location. That is what I consider to be behind the wire. So, without getting into too many of the technical details, you know, in the event that they had to defend themselves, if that was the situation, then theoretically they could do that at the real margin. But in principle, in a hypothetical situation, if there was some fire fight down the road and the Iraqis were being overpowered, they couldn't go and assist that.

Media: However, if they were being attacked themselves, presumably they could return fire?

: Correct. They can defend themselves.

Media: Could they not, though, go and give intelligence to form an air strike?

Well, youll have to wait and see tomorrow in terms of the sort of announcements and statements that we make. But, you know, intelligence gathering has been things that we havehas been a function that weve done in the past in lots of locations. And weve certainly done that in places like Afghanistan, and thats been well and trulywell and truly documented.

Media: What do you understand intelligence gathering to be if its not air strike assist? What does it actually consist of

Oh, look, it could be air strike assist. It could be for a variety of different

Media: It could be?

: Yep, intelligence gathering.

Media: So, if a troop, or some troops, go out—

: I think youre probably thinking about the wrong person, and you would be way better to wait until tomorrow because youre creating a whole lot of hypothetical examples that I think you don't quite understand. So if you just wait until tomorrow, youll be able to see the announcement and itll be quite clear for you.

Media: Will the announcement tomorrow be the final deployment for New Zealand troops to Iraq, or is there potential that it could be augmented a bit further down the track?

No, my expectation is what we announce tomorrow is what well be doing.

Media: So, just to clarify that you don't consider intelligence gathering for air strikes being part of the war?

No, I dont. No.

Media: So they could do intelligence gathering? Troops could do intelligence gathering?

: Like I say, youd better wait until tomorrow.

Media: Have you set a time frame for the length of this deployment?

Again, youll have to wait till tomorrow.

Media: Because my understanding of intelligence gathering is that it includes, like, troops out in the field saying: Theres an IS target over there."

Yep.

Media: So is that non-combat in your eyes?

Just waitwait until you see tomorrow.

Media: Because that situation is precisely how the Canadians have been involved in fought four fire fights since January. Its in that—

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 4 of 12

Well, they have, but then that may be what the Canadians are doing, but its not what the New Zealanders are doing. Were not going

Media: But they are doing exactly the same thing, by what you are describing.

: No, if you go back and have a look at New Zealandand, as I say, were better to have a full and open discussion tomorrow. But if you look at what we did in places like Afghanistan, we had intelligence people that gathered intelligence, and that intelligence may have been used by other forces. Im not saying thats the case. Its not necessarily troops that have gathered that intelligence. You guys are a bit offbeam, I think, but well just see how that goes.

Media: Do you have in your own mind a sense of how many casualties you would tolerate before rethinking a deployment?

Well, obviously we are conscious of the potential risks, but we are also conscious of the fact that its important that New Zealand, I think, stands up to a group of people which are threatening New Zealanders. And, you know, with all of these things, you cant go into them with your eyes closed; you have to take advice and you have to assess them. All I can say to you is on the basis that if we were to send forces to train Iraqis, we will be doing everything we possibly can to keep our people as safe as we possibly can. Certainly I think its a safer environment if theyre in a contained, secure environment as opposed to being out in a combat role.

Media: So do you think its safer than it was in Afghanistan, where we lost 10 young military personnel?

PM: Arguably, yes. I mean, in so much that youre subjected to IED attacks at the side of the road and its a far more uncontrolled environment. But, of course, there are always risks of green-on-blue attacks. You cant rule those out. But weve been training people, as Ive said, in Afghanistan for quite a period of time and we havent had any problems there.

Media: How significant is that risk of green-on-blue attacks?

I cant put, you know, an accurate assessment on it, other than to say that its a risk, and its one that youd have to do everything you could to mitigate against. And on the basis that we made the decision to go and train people, one of the reasons wed have our own force protectionin other words our own soldiers protecting our own trainersis because we believe, in our view, that is the safest form of, and highest level of, protection we could afford our soldiers.

Media: For you personally, sending troops into a dangerous situation like this, does this weigh on your mind? Has it kept you awake at night? Are you, you know, aware of the significant consequences?

Yeah, well, look, Im the person who has sent our SAS off to Afghanistan on a number of occasions, and we have lost people as a result of those executive orders. Ive sent, on numerous rotations, our people back to Bamian, and again weve lost people. And obviously I feel that very closely. Ive been to funerals and Ive spoken to the families, and Ive seen the pain that that has on those families, and I acknowledge that fully.

But equally Im responsible for the safety of New Zealanders, and I happen to know that there are 35 to 40 people on a watch list locally. I happen to know theres a watch list of other people that we are unsure about, but gathering information. I happen to know that there are credible risks if New Zealanders potentially travel in the region from returning foreign fighters, and I happen to know that there are New Zealanders who could be in those locations at risk. And so, in the end its all about weighing up that, and I think, as I said earlier, there are some risks, potentially, if you send people, but I think you cant take the view that says there is just no risk to New Zealanders if we do nothing. Theres not. That risk actually increases; it doesn't decrease.

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 5 of 12

Media: Could GCSB or SIS agents go to Iraq to identify, or help identify, targets for air strikes?

: Have to wait till tomorrow.

Media: Youve already spoken about the potential cotraining role with Australia. Would that necessarily mean that our troops would have to be located at the same air base that the Australians are currently at?

: Well, its highly likely if we do send people, wed likely train alongside others. But in the end other countries can make their own calls for different things that they might do. If We Were to

Media: But an ANZUS deployment would necessitate, presumablyseeing as theres more of them than there is of usthat we would go where they are. And where they are, as you know, in Anbar province, has been very recently under attack from IS forces.

Again, I think its really important to understand that the Government is considering what we believe is the right course of action for New Zealanders and New Zealand forces. Were not dancing to somebody elses tune. It might be that its beneficial, we think, to work alongside somebody else, another country, but they may have a whole lot of different assumptions that theyre making about what they might want to do, about their own forces and the roles that they might play, and youre seeing that with Australia already. Theyve already got 600 people in Iraq; theyre likely to grow those numbers significantly over time. Any contribution they make in Iraq is likely to be of quite a different nature to the one that we might make. There may be some crossover, but there may be quite a lot of differences.

Media: So when you say another country, this would suggest that Australia is on the same footing as our other coalition allies when it comes to cotraining.

: Well, it depends. There are dozens of countries that are involved in training.

Media: Yeah, Im asking whether Australia is first among equals.

: In what way?

Media: As a cotraining partner for New Zealand.

: Well, its a highly respected cotraining partner.

Media: Thats not what Im asking. Im asking whether it is our first choiceour first cab off the rank.

: Ohthat, you have to wait till tomorrow.

Media: Do you still think that going to Iraq is the price of the club, as you put it?

Well, the club, as I would define it, is those 60-odd countries that are involved in supporting the conflict against ISIL. And, actually, if you look at my direct comments, thats exactly what I said. You go and have a look at them. Thats exactly what I said. You guys interpreted it as the Five Eyes, but in fact I listed out a series of countries and others.

Media: Well, your Foreign Minister said it was the human race.

: Sorry?

Media: Your Foreign Minister interpreted it as the human race. Was he wrong?

: Well, I don't know. I havent seen his comments.

Media: Prime Minister, has a status of forces agreement been secured with the Iraqi Government, or will you be looking at another method of protecting the troops?

Youd have to wait till tomorrow.

Media: Will the troops be relying on diplomatic passports?

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 6 of 12

Youll have to Wait till tomorrow.

Media: What proportion of the troops are likely to be in that force protection role?

Youd have to wait till tomorrow.

Media. But likely a highyou have kind of indicated in the past that itd likely be a high percentage.

: Well, youd have to wait.

Media: When you say they won't go in a combat role but theyll be able to defend themselves, if the decision is to send them, without getting too theoretical, if theres ISIS forces, you know, lobbing RPGs into the area behind the wire where our forces are, will they be they mandated to go outside? Could they be mandated to go outside and fight?

Well, you always want to make sure that there is flexibility to ensure that they could protect themselves but not involve themselves in a conflict. Theres quite a bit of difference, I think

Media: But you may be protectingsorry to interrupt. But you may be protecting yourself more effectively by going outside the wire and preventing—

You could do, and so you would never have a mandate that said youd get to this point and you could not move a single inch beyond that, but theres, I think, quite a lot of difference between, you know, what New Zealanders would understand, and certainly what I would understand, in forces that you send into a combat conflict role, and the capacity of people to defend themselves. So the police have the capacity to defend themselves, and in fact they do that. From time to time theyre attacked and they defend themselves. Thats quite a different scenario from saying theres a fire fight happening down the road, and our guys believe theyre being overwhelmed and so they go and help them.

Media: Is the risk of insider attacks the chief reason behind taking force protectionhaving force protection?

Well, as I said earlier, my assessment would be, if thats the call we make, thats the highest level of protection, and I would want to ensure our forces had the highest level of protection.

Media: And its about insider attacks? It's about guarding against insider attacks?

Well, its just about, you know, in the end, you could do lots of roles which, you know, New Zealand replicate there and do itself because its confident that that would be the best way of doing that. Thats historically the way weve done things. If you go and have a look at Bamian, I mean, some of it probably wasn't possible to replicate on the ground, some of it was, but as a general rule weve, you know, typically looked after ourselves, provided logistics for ourselves, provided force protection for ourselves, because we believe thats the best way.

Media: And given that risk of insider attacks, would you expect our troops to have access or have loaded weapons within arms reach at all times?

Well, again, well cover that off tomorrow.

Media: On Donghua Liu, last year you said you couldn't remember where the dinner took place that you had with him. Its now emerged that that was at his home.

I don't think thats actually right. I think that statement came from my office, but Id have to check it.

Media: But do you remember that dinner now at his home?

: Well, I did at the time. As I said, it was a fundraising dinner.

Media: But your office said that—

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 7 of 12

No, it wasn'tmy office was asked whether we went to a fundraising dinner or what activities wed had, and they pretty clearly spelt out we went to a fundraising dinner. We don't say where we go to dinner.

Media: Are you misleading by omission, though?

: No. 1 mean, look, at the end of the day, were never going to start getting into a process of saying where we had dinner, you know, basically what I ate. You know, in the end I think its quite appropriate that you ask us if we go to fundraising dinners, and its quite appropriate that were clear with you that we do, but that level of specificity, were never getting into.

Media: In general, do you go to many fundraising dinners at private homes?

: Sometimes, yeah.

Media: When did you know that JamiLee Ross had received a donation from him?

Well, I only knew that he was returning it, so I cant tell you I knew at the time, but I knew it was a Cabinet club dinner, so I figured

Media: When you were at Inaudible] was that donation discussed?

No. 1 never involve myself in donations. I go to events, but Im not involved in donations. Theyre handled by the party.

Media: Just to be clear, last year your office denied that the dinner was a Cabinet club dinner. Emphatically, they said no.

Right.

Media: Are you saying it was a Cabinet club dinner?

: Well, thats only what I read in the paper on the weekend. People have their own definitions of it.

Media: So can I be clear: was it a Cabinet club meeting? : | don't know. Youd have to ask to JamiLee Ross then. He organised it.

Media: But didn't you just say it was a Cabinet club dinner?

Well, like I say.

Media: How do you define a Cabinet club dinner?

Well, thats right, how do you?

Media: Well, we don't go to them.

OK. Well, I mean, look, it can be a variety of different ways. They can be someone whos in a Cabinet club and someone whos not.

Media: But it was a fundraising dinner? : Yep. As my office said, it was a fundraising dinner. Media: Do you know why the donation wasn't declared?

: I don't think it has to be at that point. I mean, I don't know. Youd have to ask JamiLee Ross. It was a local

Media: There was a delay on the receipt of the donation and it being returned.

: Don't know. I don't handle that. Youd have to ask him.

Media: So you seem to be contradicting your office, who emphatically said it was not a Cabinet club dinner.

Well, probably it wasn't then. I don't know. I don't knowI don't know the details. All I can tell you is it was a fundraising dinner. I was asked whether it was a fundraising

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 8 of 12

dinnerwell, my office was asked, and they said it was, and thats it. Were not going to start going into saying that, you know, its at a particular place or we eat a certain thing. Were quite happy to tell you whats a fundraising dinner and whats not, but thats it.

Media: But just moments ago you said it was a Cabinet club dinner.

Well, only because thats what I read in the paper. If youre telling me it wasn't, it wasn't.

Media: But you were there.

Well, because they don't have a big banner on them. You just go to a dinner. mean, youre being a bit pedantic and a bit silly about it. I mean, I don't know those things. I go to lots and lots of dinners, I go to lots of fundraisers, and theyre well and truly declared. I don't involve myself in donations. I go to things. That was a particular fundraising dinner. We were asked that question and we made it quite clear theres nothing terribly special about it.

Media: Do you know if someone in the National Party advised JamiLee to give the donation back?

: No. Im not aware of that.

Media: Just on ACTs claims for a referendum on the super age, would you support that at all?

No.

Media: Have they spoken to you about that?

No. 1 mean, I saw it in the paper, but—

Media: So that was the first you heard of it

PM: Sorry?

Media: That was the first you heard of it?

PM: Yeah.

Media: And absolutely no plans?

: Well, the National Partys positions clear, actually, on super. I think we believe that the age should stay at 65, and the rules around it, 66 percent entitlement, should stay there.

Media: Did Tony Abbott ever talk to you informally about an Australian force entering Iraq?

: Theres been so many discussions aboutyou mean, about what Australian forces are doing there?

Media: Yeah, well, there was a report at the weekend in the Australian saying he had raised the notion informally of 3,500 Australian

: Oh, Ivehe never raised that with me, no. I was just aware that his SAS is going there. Thats it.

Media: Have you seen his national security statement from today?

: Look, Ive just had someone sort of paraphrase it for me, but I havent read it.

Media. He seems quite a lot more alarmed about the threat in Australia. Do you think thats reflected here in New Zealand?

PM: Well, the advice I get is that the number of people of potential interest to the Government, or to the authorities, probably more precisely, as a result of ISIL is rising.

Media: Has it risen since Novemberthe speech you gave?

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 9 of 12

Yes, thats the advice Ive had.

Media: By how much?

: Well come back to you and tell you exactly, but the last time I was briefed by SIS they said it was rising.

Media: Have you been advised that Boko Haram have said theyre going to target Westfield shopping malls?

Again, Ive just seenthats internationally, isn't it, in the USA? Ive just seen the media reports. I havent had any formal advice.

Media: Nothing about New Zealand?

No.

Media: How concerned are you about the fruit fly find?

: Well, obviously, were concerned because, you know, it presents a risk to the horticultural sector, and its a very important sector in New Zealand. I mean, I do think that if you look at whats happening, youre obviously seeing the fruit flyits more prevalent in Australia. Its movingits moved to quite a number of states. Its a bigger risk to New Zealand. I think what isn't correct is the arguments that were not doing enough. I mean, we have added 125 extra people, weve doubled the number of -ray machines, were spending 7 million more on biosecurity. So theres a lot of different actions that we have been taking, but what is clear is its a bigger threat, because theres simply more of them.

Media: So you don't think its a fault with our customs?

: I dont, no. I mean, in fact, actually, there was quite a bit of work done onyoull remember the arguments around screening, and whether there should be 100 percent screening through the green lane, and, in fact, the profiling work has proven to be the right thing to do. So people are far more likely to declare when they go through the green zone, and, in fact, you know, the work that were doing there gives usand the fact that were profiling gives usthe ability to target where we think theres much greater risk. What is true is there are four ways that you can get fruit into New Zealand; only one of them actually is through our airports. Theres many other ways. We don't actually know how this affected fruits got in here, but we do know that itsweve got very big borders, and theres quite a lot of threat from a growing problem in Australia.

Media: Are you confident that MPI has the resources it needs to be able to eradicate it?

Yes. I mean, theyve got four stages or levels they can go to. Theyre at level 2 at the moment. I think theyre working hard to try and eradicate them. Theres been an example of a different fruit fly, I think it was, but back in 1996, and they were successful. They had 40, in the end, of those particular flies, I think, that they got. So theyre going to work hard to eradicate it, and theyve got, I think, ,500 traps. So theyve got a lot of people and a lot of energy going into trying to eradicate it.

Media: And will the Government step in at all to assure our export markets that our fruit are safe?

Weve already contacted all of our export markets, and at this stage theres been a pretty muted response internationally.

Media: Would our force protection be akin to the guardian angels role that NATO held in Afghanistan?

I don't know what youre talking about there.

Media: Right, so, guardian angels within armed forces that were just protecting joint operations or gathering Inaudible.

Wouldn't want to offer a view on it, havent heard of it.

>>>> Prime Ministers post-Cabinet press conference page 10 of 12

ENDS

© Scoop Media