Duynhoven Harry: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14265] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: I move  
That the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill implements into New Zealand domestic law the International Convention Against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries which entered into force in 2001. The bill criminalises the conduct of mercenaries and the recruitment use financing and training of mercenaries. It allows New Zealand to demonstrate to the international community that we are committed to stamping out the use of mercenaries and to show our support for the growing concern internationally that the use of foreign mercenary forces can impede the exercise of the right to self-determination and also violates human rights. New Zealand has long recognised the impediment that mercenaries can cause to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. In the Bougainville crisis New Zealand opposed the use of foreign mercenary personnel by the Papua New Guinea Government. We argued that the crisis would be resolved only through a comprehensive peace process and we are pleased that has happened. It only confirms our belief that mercenary activity should be prohibited. 
Although there has been some criticism of the definition of “mercenary” used in the convention it is nevertheless important to become a party to the convention in order to plug a gap in New Zealand’s law. This bill covers what we would term “true” mercenaries—that is what people have traditionally envisaged by the term “mercenary”. The convention is not aimed at covering all the people who may sometimes be loosely referred to as mercenaries in today’s world. That is outside the scope of the convention and outside what we see as the appropriate focus of this bill. Our concern is to put in place provisions that proscribe the form of mercenary activity that has been recognised as being of greatest concern. We see this bill as a useful and viable first step towards encompassing at least those generally regarded as true mercenaries. 
 Some people have claimed that the definition contains too many elements. Of course in the context of this legislation it is intended that only a small number of people will be caught by the definition so it needs to contain more rather than less detail in order to ensure that it does not incidentally catch others. Changes have also been made by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to obtain greater clarity in the definition. For example—and this addresses some of the points raised by Opposition speakers—it is now spelt out that people on peacekeeping missions who are carrying out mine clearance delivering humanitarian aid and providing policing and security services that protect individuals or property are not mercenaries. There have also been calls internationally for the convention to be amended so that the definition more accurately reflects today’s reality including the use of so-called mercenaries in criminal activities such as arms and drug trafficking. By becoming a party to the convention through the passage of this bill New Zealand will be better placed to actively contribute to international discussions around the appropriate scope of the term “mercenary” and to influence any negotiations concerning amendments to the convention. 
The bill also includes measures relating to international cooperation in investigations and prosecutions which are important to ensure that individuals can properly be brought to justice. It was pointed out during the select committee process that few of the usual like-minded countries to New Zealand have become party to the mercenaries convention. Although that is true New Zealand needs to make its own decision as to whether it wants to ensure that mercenary activity is outlawed in this country and whether the obligations in the convention accord with New Zealand’s view that the use of mercenaries should not be supported—as they do. Some concern has also been expressed by members that this convention is not relevant. In reply to that comment I would say that mercenary activity needs to be tackled at the international level and domestically and that this convention provides us with the opportunity to manifest our commitment to that end. An issue was also raised—and I depart from the Minister’s notes here—by Mr Franks. I think Mr Franks’ concern has been reduced as a result of his conversation with the officials and myself in that he has been told we still have protections for those who might otherwise be extradited. 
Accordingly the Government supports this bill. We do not want New Zealand to be seen as a safe haven or a soft spot for mercenaries and this bill will ensure that that does not occur. I commend the bill to the House.