Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12831] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I will put on the record first up that New Zealand First is opposed to this bill and will vote against it. There are very clear and specific reasons why. 
The first comment I would make is that as much as doctors get tired of hearing politicians—particularly politicians who have had no experience in the medical field at all—tell them what is clinically possible or impossible what is medically possible or not possible and how the health system should be run so too do soldiers get very bored and tired of hearing from politicians who have never worn a uniform never served overseas and who are well known and well reputed for showing up on Anzac Day. Those soldiers tend to hear speeches such as the one we have just heard and shake their heads. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: That member never showed up at the dawn ceremony. 
RON MARK 
: I will allow myself to be deflected for a moment because that member is a goddam liar. That member knows full well that I was at the dawn parade as I have been for the last 16 years in Christchurch and elsewhere for many years before that. So before the member starts chucking around aspersions of that sort he had better sort himself out because he is a liar. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Mark— 
RON MARK 
: I am sorry. Did I say something wrong? I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You know exactly what you said. Have you withdrawn and apologised? 
RON MARK 
: I withdraw and apologise because it is the rule of the House. 
I go back to the minority report that New Zealand First and National documented which states quite clearly the reasons we oppose this bill. The first reason is the definition of “mercenary”. The definition lacks clarity. In fact it would be fair to say that the definition is all over the place. It has more holes and more gaps than one could imagine—enough for any shonky bush lawyer to drive an articulated truck through. 
The second reason is that the parties to the convention—we have been very polite in the bill—do not include traditional friends and allies particularly the United States the United Kingdom and Australia. But let us be blunt about it. When one looks at the list of the parties that are signatories to the convention who the heck are they? There is Azerbaijan Barbados Belarus Cameroon Costa Rica Croatia Georgia Guinea Libya—that is a good one is it not? Libya has signed this convention. Well holy do! We will not talk about Lockerbie will we? 
There is Senegal the Seychelles—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I suppose they should. They were invaded by Mr Hoar and a group of mercenaries. There is Uzbekistan the Ukraine Turkmenistan and Mauritania. 
The point is that people have not heard of most of those countries. Most of those countries do not share the same values that we in the West do. Most of those countries have at some time or another employed mercenaries. When I asked officials to validate for me how many of those countries still to this day enforce the convention—that do not use mercenaries and do not condone them—they could not tell me. No one has done an audit on the countries that signed this convention to see whether they are complying. 
But what do we have in New Zealand? We have this politically correct little nanny Government that wants to tell everybody how to mind their own business—everything from smacking to golly knows what—and now it wants to sign up to this convention along with Mauritania and Qatar. 
Even Saudi Arabia is mentioned in the bill. When I was serving in Oman as a contract officer who was manning the borders? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is that pc? 
RON MARK 
: The borders of Saudi Arabia were manned on our side—the good guys’ side—by a mercenary battalion from Baluchistan. The border down on the Yemen was protected by two Belushi mercenary battalions all led by British and Omani officers. On the other side—the people we were keeping an eye on—were Pakistani mercenary battalions. But it is good to know that Saudi Arabia which employs mercenaries—along with every other Middle Eastern State—is a signatory to this highly credible highly enforceable convention. 
The question of the definition has been long debated. I have a message for Mr Cosgrove. Most soldiers listening to this debate would say to him: “Excuse me Mr Cosgrove when I have finished in the Army I want to go and do contract work. I want to go and serve with the Brits. I want to go and serve with the Aussies or with any like Government organisation that will have us pay well and have us doing some good work.” 
There are many New Zealanders who if this definition were interpreted the wrong way would be facing charges. But then being smart we could take this definition and tear it apart. I could still be a mercenary and not break the law. I simply would take a contract that does not require me to wear a uniform. I could take a contract that does not require me to be at the sharp end as point man in an infantry section. I could be a battalion commander and from behind the scenes direct and command 980 men to do the work for me. Under this legislation I could not be prosecuted. Under this legislation I am not the one personally pulling the trigger. 
I know that the Government’s—and the world’s—intention is to clamp down on mercenaries of the type that one hears about in movies comic books and  
Soldier of Fortune  
magazines. The dilemma that we have to live up to and face is who was sending mercenaries into Afghanistan when the Soviets were occupying it. Mr Locke may be able to tell us that because I think he was on the side of the Soviets who were liberating Afghanistan—or was he on the side of the Taliban who were liberating it from the Soviets? I am not quite sure. 
The fact is that our allies the Western nations used retired servicemen to go in and train the mujahedin in anti-aircraft drills how to knock out Soviet aircraft how to knock out Soviet helicopters and how to destroy the BTR-80s—the ones that look like LAVIIIs. The mujahedin knocked about 1300 of those things off. We had people over there teaching them—not just the official seconded Defence Force personnel but extra contract Defence Force personnel. I guess the message here is that if they are doing it for us it is OK but if they are doing it for the Taliban it is not. Well that is a subjective position to take. 
The bottom line is that no matter how one looks at the definition in this bill there are gaps holes and areas where the law can be simply worked around. It is unworkable unenforceable touchy feel-good fluffy legislation designed to allow New Zealand to join the ranks of such countries as Croatia Saudi Arabia Qatar Ukraine Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. I am sure that so far as Labour voters are concerned we will fit very well alongside those countries. There is a degree of hypocrisy in this bill. Aspects of this bill make it totally unenforceable and for the life of me I do not understand why we would want to pass legislation that we know to be unenforceable. 
New Zealand First is opposed to this bill. We will vote through it. We may well try to make some amendments part way through the Committee stage but given this Government’s propensity to not be flexible during the Committee stage of any bill—in fact Government members tend to just sit there doing their knitting—I do not see that we will have any joy and we will be forced to vote against it at the third reading as well.