Smith Lockwood: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14249] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 This Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill and in particular Part 1 that we are speaking to now is really important and should not be treated lightly by this Parliament. 
There are a number of things that trouble me about Part 1. The first is that clause 3 “Purpose” does not tell Parliament or New Zealand when the mercenaries convention was concluded or drawn up. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to implement in New Zealand law New Zealand’s obligations under the Mercenaries Convention.” I think it is relevant to New Zealanders to ask: is this a convention that was drawn up in 2003—last year? I do not think it is is it? Is it a convention that was drawn up in 2000? Was it drawn up in 1999 perhaps? That would make it 5 years old. Maybe if it were 10 years old it might still be relevant but if it were 10 years old that would mean it had been drawn up in 1994. But I do not think it was drawn up then. I think it was drawn up in 1989 if I remember rightly. 
The question that has to be asked of this Labour Government is: what on earth has suddenly provoked it to implement a convention drawn up in 1989 that none of our allies and partners has actually implemented? That was 15 years ago. 
Simon Power 
: I was in my second year at university then. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: My good colleague Simon Power tells me he was in his second year at university in 1989. In 1989 Dr Cullen had the chance to implement it. He was the Deputy Minister of Finance in the then Labour Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I was not. Wrong again. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: He was. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I was the Minister of Social Welfare in 1989. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It was probably 1990; I beg the member’s pardon. He was a senior member of the Labour Government that could if it wanted have implemented this in 1989 or 1990. What has happened 15 years later that has suddenly provoked the Labour Government to implement this when clearly it is tricky legislation? Members should look at the countries that have actually implemented it: Azerbaijan Barbados Belarus Cameroon Costa Rica Croatia and the list goes on. 
I do not want to spend too much time on that because there is some important detail here that we need the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard to answer and I realise we may not get many more calls. What I would like the Minister to respond to is this. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee put a lot of time into looking at the definition in clause 5. We heard from respected academics in this field of international law who advised us on the definition and on how the UN saw the definition and as to what other countries are trying to do about this issue. At the final analysis when the select committee was considering this legislation I asked the expert advisers to the select committee whether the definition would enable people who had not sworn an oath of allegiance to the country for whom they were involved in hostilities to be defined as a mercenary. 
This is an important issue and I would like the Minister in the chair to advise the Committee on it. Even with the changes made at the select committee to the definition of a mercenary is it correct the way the definition now remains that if a person in the employ of a country—a sovereign nation—to assist in resolving hostilities in that nation has not sworn an oath of allegiance to that nation that person would be caught up in this definition of a mercenary? I can tell the Minister that on 25 March this year which is the date of the last notes I have from the select committee on this very issue—clause 5 the definition of a mercenary—I asked specifically what would be required to make it quite clear that someone is employed to be involved in hostilities as distinct from someone who is an automatic part of the armed forces of a sovereign nation involved in hostilities. The answer I got was that the person really would have to have sworn an oath of allegiance. 
There have been cases in history—in fact we were advised that even the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan considered sending mercenaries to deal with the disaster in Rwanda. This definition is hugely important and we deserve an answer from the Minister.