Shirley Ken: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14239] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 That was a very compelling speech from Captain Mapp and I have certainly taken on board the very many good points he made and I concur with them. I think the key point he made is that the International Convention against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries is nothing other than UN feel-good pap that this Government again rushed out there to sign up to without scrutinising and thinking it through. The convention has not been signed by our traditional allies Britain the United States Canada and Australia—not one of them signed this convention. Why did the New Zealand Government rush off and sign this convention and why now today does it want to legislate to give it effect? This is a classic example of what this Government does—and now Major Mark has joined the debate and I hope members also hear from him shortly. The Kyoto Protocol is another classic case of UN feel-good pap. We know that it will not work and that it is ineffective but bureaucrats and officials rush off to those meetings sign up and commit us to it. In this instance we know that the United States Canada Australia and the United Kingdom have not signed the mercenaries convention. They disagree with it so why on earth should New Zealand sign that convention and here today try to legislate for it? 
There have been some very good examples of our getting into very serious problems with definitions. Modern military activity is not just a matter of a bunch of foot soldiers being issued with muskets and lining up against each other; it engages an incredibly high level of technology and support services in terms of the weaponry and the deployment. The example was given of whether a private helicopter pilot who was assisting Papua New Guinea Fiji or Tonga would come within the definition of mercenary in this instance and it seems that that pilot would. But the bill then goes on to state that a computer consultant looking at the computer systems and information technology that control weaponry would certainly come under the definition of a mercenary. So it is bad legislation. We do not support it. 
An example was also given of the Iraq situation. Tens of thousands of people who are assisting in the post - Saddam Hussein reconstruction would fall within the definition of mercenary in this bill. It would be foolish to expose them to prosecution and to the provisions of what is very bad legislation. So the ACT party will not be supporting this bill. 
The example was also given of Major Ron Mark who was a mercenary. I have his attention now. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No he wasn’t a mercenary. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: He was a mercenary and he should be proud of it. He did a very good job for the Sultan of Oman. The other classic example is the Gurkhas who have a very proud tradition within the British army. They are actually paid less not more than the normal British troops which has been a real problem for them for some time. They would clearly be defined as mercenaries within this bill even though they have done a very good job in many areas and theatres of conflict around the world. 
I see no redeeming features in this bill whatsoever. I ask the Labour Government for goodness’ sake to look at things as an independent sovereign State rather than just signing up to UN pap. That is what it has done with this example. It should not be signing up to and implementing this convention. It is foolish and the ACT party will be opposing it strenuously.