Franks Stephen: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14269] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to record our opposition to the passage of this bill that criminalises mercenaries. As earlier speakers have said this bill has nothing to commend it to New Zealanders. There was apparently an argument that appealed to the majority on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that the bill is in the interests of the world community. It is not easy to see even then why that should be so. 
We heard nothing from Government members during the Committee stage to reassure those of us who are concerned about the very long tradition of brave people who have made their living by fighting—sometimes for ill and sometimes for good—other people’s fights. We heard no comment about or response to the fact that this law would have criminalised the people who manned the Flying Tigers which provided the only assistance the Chinese had for some years in their battle with the most awful foe the Japanese. There was no attempt to explain why New Zealand should put itself in a position whereby had this law been in force at the time of the Japanese aggression on China we would have been obliged to arrest and hold those pilots should they have come to New Zealand and to hand them over to the authorities in the north of Japan—that is as the situation seems to me when I look at this legislation. 
I heard no answer to the concern I expressed that if there had been technical experts who were being paid more than Franco’s troops they could not have assisted the International Brigades. I met a woman—I think it was last Friday evening—who must have been 85 and who had been in the International Brigades. She was a New Zealander passionately committed to the cause of socialism and when Franco’s troops assisted by Nazi planes were overrunning Spain she took herself off—to the great alarm of her father—to assist in Spain. She happened to be a nurse so would not have fallen foul of this law. But anyone who had been prepared to defend Guernica from the German planes would have been paid just as the Flying Tigers were. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: They didn’t get paid. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: We have this awesome stateswoman Marian Hobbs saying that they would not have been paid. Why were the Flying Tigers paid when they were trying to defeat the Japanese? Does that mean that because they helped the Chinese patriots against Japan they should be criminals but that those in the International Brigades should not? Of course with any money the International Brigades would have employed people to help with servicing. As in almost every modern war people are needed to service equipment and those people would be caught under this legislation 
I asked also for clarification as to how this bill could be in New Zealand’s interests when it exposes us to the potential for requests from big and menacing northern neighbours—perhaps from Indonesia which does not like our attitude to Aceh. If there are some New Zealanders out there who fall foul of the Indonesians or if there are some Aceh refugees down here who are raising money to try to defend their kith and kin this measure says we should hand them over. 
Why is that in our interests? Why is it in our interests even to give such countries a weapon to beat us around the ears with? Sure the officials can say to us that we do not have to and that the Attorney-General can stay a process; sure the officials and the Minister can say there is always an opportunity for people to go to court to try to defend themselves against extradition. Yes there is but they still have to make sure they do not fall within the tests. 
These definitions are fatuous. They are so poor that after saying what the conduct is that represents people as mercenaries—and basically it means those who are more highly paid than the people they may fight alongside—they then state that a number are not mercenaries even though they are doing those things. So we get subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 5. 
I have also had assistance—and I thank the Minister for the advice from the officials—on the meaning of clause 7. I was concerned that it made recruiting a wider offence than that of being a mercenary and I am not reassured. Clause 7 does not have the qualifications that appear in clause 5. It does not have what I believe to be essential exceptions to the mercenary definition and therefore we have an even wider opportunity for some malign Government to use it. 
I am indebted to Mr Ron Mark for his comparison with the attitude of the Chinese Government to Falun Gong. I understand that China is not a party to this treaty for which we can be grateful. Of course it could become a party to it at any stage and we imagine it would be an extremely cynical party that would use these provisions in the same way that it misuses other statements of intent and in the same way that it is trying to renege on the promises it made to Hong Kong. 
This is entirely unnecessary legislation or if it is necessary that necessity has not been explained. We have a Government that loves to go off to attend battle commemorations a Prime Minister who will not miss any opportunity to be photographed alongside old soldiers and a Government—her Government—that is paying no attention to the old soldiers in this House who are attesting to the honour of mercenary activity. We have a Government that may well need to sponsor and use people who can go and fight—or who can support others fighting—in our region. 
Our region is not benign. There are many competing interests. There is a power vacuum—or there would be if the Australians had reneged as disgracefully as New Zealand has on defence commitments. We have a near vacuum in some areas and it may well be that mercenaries are the best way in which we can support those who share our values. This bill will make that a very difficult thing to do. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: So if you do it for money it’s OK? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Barker braying as he usually does did not bother to take a call. We will not hear him make a speech but he brays that doing it for money is wrong. I take it that the member is here out of altruism. I take it that he has not been banking his pay cheques. Does that taint everything said in this House by the member? Does that make what would otherwise be worthy brave and courageous activity all wrong? 
Ron Mark 
: If they’re supporting communist ideology it’s OK! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is OK if it is supporting communism—I thank Mr Mark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill please. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The contribution made by the Ministers or from any member on that side has been conspicuous indeed! The only reason offered in this entire debate for passing this legislation is that fighting and being paid is somehow not appropriate. 
But this bill does not actually do it. The only offence here arises if some people are paid more than others. If people are alongside a conscript army or beside the poor kids in Africa who are forced to fight for nothing then they are mercenaries but if they are alongside some highly paid Arab soldiers who could easily be paid more than them then it is not mercenary activity. Could the Government please justify that? There are plenty of calls in this debate. I am sure there will be space for it. I long to hear it. We would give leave if the Government needed more time. We would love to hear an explanation of just how this bill can be in New Zealand’s interest. There has been no explanation throughout the debate.