Cosgrove Clayton: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12829] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise— 
John Key 
: Here’s a mercenary. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is rich coming from that member. If we asked people in London they might be able to provide a definition of that member. 
I rise to support the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill. I do it with some amazement given that the member who spoke before me told the House that he and his party are opposed to the bill. He talked about the need to define what a mercenary is. There is a definition within the bill but let us—for those people outside this place who have more common sense than some on the opposite side of the House—go through what we believe a mercenary is. A mercenary goes to any conflict any time any country anywhere to do anything for commercial gain without reservation. A mercenary does not consider whether the cause is righteous. A mercenary does not consider the sovereignty of nations or whether there is a mandate from the United Nations. No a mercenary goes anywhere anytime without reservation for the dollar. A mercenary is simply motivated by commercial gain and is not concerned with issues of command or control—but is definitely concerned with issues of commerciality. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Free-trade deals. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague Michael Cullen mentions free-trade deals. Mercenaries go simply for commercial gain. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Without reservation. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Without reservation. I looked at the minority report of the National Party and in it again that party speaks of the US the UK and Australia which are our allies. They have always been our allies and remain so and I and others on this side of the House stand by them. This Parliament has always stood by them and generally in a bipartisan way. But how members can oppose this bill in this House is beyond me. 
Again I ask—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Mapp to pipe down. Again I ask Mr Power to reflect on recent days and on his recent statement—because I come back to it. He said: “Without reservation we will support our close allies Australia the United States and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” A mercenary is called upon to go anywhere any time for commercial gain. Such people forget about the righteousness of the cause; they just go. They put their lives on the line not for honour but for a dollar. Mercenaries have no principles apart from income. 
John Key 
: No principles. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No principles at all. They are not concerned at the end of the day with the value of the lives of their troops. They are not concerned with any principle; they are concerned simply with a commercial outcome—to go and make a quid. Whether their own men and women come back is immaterial to them. 
When looking at this bill one cannot help reflecting again on the words of Simon Power. I am not comparing him with a mercenary—that would be unparliamentary. But I am drawing attention again to a party and a defence spokesperson who cannot think for themselves and who believe that we should turn the clock back in history and simply be led by the nose. I say again that I am for New Zealand engaging in international conflict where appropriate. I am for New Zealand engaging our troops but in contemporary times it has to be on our own terms and based on more principled reasons than simple trade commerciality. On that point we can draw an analogy between that party’s foreign policy and this bill. With what Mr Power has done this week the mask has fallen away from the National Party’s defence policy and now every New Zealander knows that the defence policy under a National Government will not be based on righteousness at all or on the interests of either New Zealand or our wider allies; it will be based on a mercenary concept—not a mercenary principle—called political expediency. As a Government one does not send troops to fight for their country and possibly die because one wants to do a better trade deal. One does not do that. 
What this bill implements is the International Convention against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries which entered into force in 2001. How on earth could a political party in this House oppose that? How could it oppose outlawing people whose only principle in going to war to topple Governments or whatever is to make a quid? In the same breath how could any party come out and say it will not base its foreign policy on anything strategic will not look after its troops at home but will say: “Boys and girls we’re off.” because it will support whomever wherever without reservation? 
I invite Mr Power and I am sure the Minister of Defence would facilitate it to go around to every military base right around the country—Burnham in my patch—make the same speech and ask the men and women when they are getting into a Hercules to fly off what they think of his statement. Unlike mercenaries soldiers need to know when they go to battle that they are going there for a purpose. They do not go into battle knowing they may not come back because of their pay. If they just wanted pay they would do a safer job. All soldiers want to know that their Parliament backs them and that they are going there for a reason which is to defend their country to defend their allies for a principle—not like mercenaries who simply go for commercial gain. They do not want to be told that we are sending them because maybe hopefully just maybe we might get a trade deal with an ally. 
I do not hold the United States responsible for that in any way. I have a lot of empathy and respect for that nation and its people but I doubt whether Donald Rumsfeld would send his troops into harm’s way simply to secure a trade deal. 
Simon Power 
: No one has. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Power is right. He did not say that. His party articulated it and he went one step further. He said: “It doesn’t even matter. We’re not going to send them for a trade deal. We don’t need that reason. We will send them without reservation.” 
I support this bill. I believe that all New Zealanders including former military personnel returned service personnel and people who have never served in the forces can stand up when asked and articulate a simple common-sense definition of what a mercenary is—everybody that is except members opposite. They have told us tonight they will oppose this bill because they cannot quite understand the definition. What they are really saying is they will oppose this bill without reservation. I am glad that over the last couple of days we have finally seen the National Party foreign policy out in the open. Every defence personnel soldier airman and navy personnel around New Zealand has read that quote and quickly drawn in a breath. 
I invite National Party members for their own sakes for the honour of this House and possibly also for—if they can think about it—the honour of our service personnel to think again about the nature of this bill. I ask Dr Lockwood Smith a senior colleague of Mr Power and a former Minister whether he agrees with Mr Power’s statement. After all Dr Smith is a former Minister for International Trade. I am told he was not a bad one either. I know he will stand up and have a crack at me. Will he stand up tonight and say: “I sign up to my defence spokesperson’s defence and foreign policy.”? Will he say “Yes” or “No”? I invite National Party members to rethink their position on this bill.