It is now eight years since the New Zealand Defence Force was first deployed to Afghanistan.

They have provided civil reconstruction, security, and have directly engaged Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters. In all roles they have brought great credit to the professionalism of the Defence Force. Many including Corporal Willie Apiata have been highly decorated for bravery, and leadership. Their contribution has been highly valued in Afghanistan.

It is appropriate that New Zealanders ask what we intend to achieve in the future. Today's debate, the discussion in the media, and the letters and emails are centred on this question. Most people, including the Green Party, do accept that we have a role in Afghanistan. The issue is what kind of role that New Zealand should undertake.

We should recall the principal reason why we first went to Afghanistan. It was September 11. Al Qaeda had its base in Afghanistan. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was unwilling to reject Al Qaeda and ensure they were brought to international justice.

It is intolerable that a government should provide a safe haven to terrorists who had perpetrated the worst terrorist incident in history. New Zealanders have died in each of the Al Qaeda-directed and inspired incidents, including September 11, London, Bali, and most recently in Jakarta. We have a duty to our fellow New Zealanders to deal directly to the source of terrorism.

The Taliban government was defeated in 2002 by an international coalition, which included New Zealand. There was specific United Nations Security Council authorisation for this action - UNSCR 1368 (2001) and UNSCR 1373 (2001). There are continuing annual Security Council resolutions to support the NATO/ISAF missions.

The challenge now is to produce a sufficiently stable Afghanistan so that it does not once again become a haven for terrorists. That was the case in 2003 and 2004 when the SAS was deployed, and is the case today. President Obama, during the 2008 campaign, understood the importance of focusing on Afghanistan, that the United States had neglected the rebuilding of Afghanistan.

In February this year at the NATO/ISAF Defence Ministers' Conference in Krakow, I put New Zealand's case that we needed a much more sophisticated approach. The goal of the NATO/ISAF mission should be specifically to deal with the risk of terrorism, to build the institutions of civil governance, and to enable the reconciliation of the political factions in Afghanistan including the more moderate elements of the Taliban. The use of defence forces needs to be carefully considered, including a more careful use of air power. This view was widely shared, particularly among the European ISAF partners, and by Australia.

In April 2009 the NATO/ISAF set out the new strategy, which adopted many of these concerns. It does involve an increased commitment of defence forces to build security within the country. The reason is to prevent the country reverting to Taliban control, and therefore providing a safe haven for terrorists, particularly Al Qaeda. Of course, this involves the strengthening of the Afghan government and the Afghan security forces. The Afghan government also has its role to play in being more inclusive. It has to find an effective way to reconcile the people of Afghanistan including moderate parts of the Taliban.

The NATO/ISAF partners are taking a dual approach. It involves first building the security of Afghanistan, and second, civil reconstruction of the country. This is not just physical infrastructure such as schools, health clinics and roading and electricity distribution, it is also improving civil governance, training police, the judiciary and the civil service. In the longer term these will be the key for a stable Afghanistan that does not threaten, or allow its territory to be used to threaten wider international peace.

New Zealand's deployment in both the PRT and now the SAS meets both of these needs. New Zealand's engagement in Afghanistan requires contributing to both security and to civil reconstruction. This is common with the other NATO/ISAF partners.

The current surge of troops is intended to change the security situation. There is no doubt this would be risky for the SAS. But so it is for the Provincial Reconstruction Team. In fact if security is not improved, the PRT will be in greater danger.

There has already been an increase in activity in Bamyan over the past eight months. This was occurring before the surge in April. We do face a challenge of changing the security picture. I recognise that New Zealanders will need to see improvement over the next 12 months. That is the expectation of the people within all of the NATO/ISAF countries.

We need to understand the risk, not just to our service people. If Afghanistan fell into the hands of radical Taliban, then Afghanistan would become an uncontested home for Al Qaeda. That is an intolerable risk.

We need to know the stakes here. New Zealanders have been killed in terrorist attacks. We are protecting ourselves by dealing with the terrorists and those who support them where they actually are. Afghanistan is that place. By our presence we protect ourselves and our values.