Goff Phil: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Goff Phil: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9769] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill be now read a first time. 
 I will propose that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. This bill contains legislation needed for New Zealand to become a party to the International Convention against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries which entered into force in 2001. The bill establishes new criminal offences for activities involving mercenaries that are not currently punishable under New Zealand law. 
The use of mercenaries in armed conflicts is an age-old phenomenon. In recent decades however the international community has tried to curb this practice. These attempts reflected growing concern that the use of foreign mercenary forces could impede the exercise of the right to self-determination and violate the fundamental rights of individuals including the right to life. New Zealand has long opposed the use of mercenaries. 
The involvement of mercenaries as an additional party to a conflict impedes peaceful resolution of that conflict. During the Bougainville crisis for example the Papua New Guinea Government considered the use of foreign military personnel. New Zealand opposed this arguing that the crisis would be resolved only through a comprehensive peace process. The mercenaries in the end were withdrawn and the ensuing peace process did prove successful. 
By passing this bill and becoming a party to the convention New Zealand will demonstrate its belief that the use of mercenaries is unacceptable as a method of conflict resolution and that this issue needs to be tackled at the international level. The convention identifies particular conduct involving mercenaries that should be proscribed. This includes the conduct of the mercenaries themselves and those who recruit use finance or train them. The convention also includes measures aimed at increasing international cooperation so that individuals who commit the specified acts can be brought to justice. 
The bill’s definition of “mercenary” reflects the definition in the convention. It encompasses two types of mercenary both of whom have the objective of making a profit from participating in conflict. The first type is a person who is recruited to fight in a foreign armed conflict. This definition is based on a provision in the first protocol to the Geneva conventions. In this context the monetary incentive must be measurable with the person being paid substantially more than members of the armed forces of the parties to the conflict for corresponding duties. The second type of mercenary is a person who is recruited to participate in a concerted act of violence in another country—for example an act aimed at overthrowing the Government. Again the person’s main objective in performing the act must be to make a significant financial gain. 
The definition of “mercenary” is not intended to catch those persons who join foreign armies on the same basis as locally recruited staff or those persons who are motivated to fight overseas by personally held convictions rather than profit. The definition would not catch New Zealanders recruited into the legitimate armed forces of other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. Nor would it encompass those working overseas for companies or non-governmental organisations in security related activities as long as those activities do not include fighting in a civil conflict. 
These definitions reflect the international consensus on those who clearly should be regarded as mercenaries. There are however calls for the definition to be extended to reflect current realities including the increasing involvement of mercenaries in criminal activities such as illicit trafficking including arms and drugs and even selective assassinations. Extending the scope of the convention has been the subject of recent recommendations by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Mercenaries. However in this bill the definition of a mercenary remains as currently described in the convention. 
The bill creates five new offences each with a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. The approach taken is to model the new offences on similar existing offences where possible. For example the offences relating to recruitment and financing are similar to those in the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. The bill also creates two offences relating to the training of mercenaries as a precondition to or after recruitment. The bill aims to catch those who intentionally train people to be mercenaries in order that they can sell their fighting skills to other countries for profit. It does not therefore cover those in the New Zealand armed forces who train our troops or who as part of their duties go overseas to assist with the training of the armed forces of other countries. It would also not catch ex - New Zealand soldiers who assist with upskilling the armed forces of a particular country. What is caught however is the situation where those being trained are part of an army for hire prepared to go anywhere or fight in any war or overthrow any Government for money. 
Extraterritorial jurisdiction is taken in certain circumstances—for example allowing prosecutions of New Zealand nationals or of others alleged to have committed a convention offence who are found in New Zealand but for some reason are not extradited. Other provisions include those relating to cooperation with other States in their criminal investigations and proceedings and are similar to those in the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
These new offences will discourage the use of New Zealand as a base for mercenary activities. The broad jurisdiction allowing prosecution here for acts done overseas will help ensure that mercenaries do not regard New Zealand as a safe haven. The bill will put New Zealanders on notice that they cannot under our law agree to be recruited to fight and kill simply because it is lucrative to do so. This bill therefore reaffirms New Zealand’s long-standing position that it does not condone the use of mercenaries. I commend this bill to the House.