Power Simon: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Power Simon: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14248] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Part 1 raises very quickly the heart of the opposition to this Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill. Nobody on this side of the Chamber wishes to condone mercenary activity in any way shape or form but this bill creates a whole lot of uncertainty around the definition of mercenary. During the second reading I said that the most extraordinary thing about the way this legislation has been put together is that when members look at clause 5 where mercenary is defined they will see that the definition of what is not a mercenary is larger than the definition of what is. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Why is that surprising? 
SIMON POWER 
: It is surprising because it is very bad law when the definition of mercenary is unable to capture the essence of the legislation in a way that secures certainty for those interpreting it. I say to the Minister that it matters because the only way this legislation can be clarified is to include an extensive definition of what is not a mercenary. If that principle were applied to all the interpretation sections of all the bills that went through Parliament one can imagine the chaos that would ensue in interpreting law. It is not good enough to have a definition at the crux of the legislation that has to be corrected and clarified by defining further on in the interpretation section what a mercenary is not. 
For example if we were to use a parallel piece of legislation around—to pluck a subject out of the air—Auckland roading we would then find ourselves on this principle defining what is not a road instead of what is a road to make sure the definition of a road is clear. That is an entirely unsatisfactory way for this House to pass legislation. It is evidence of the fact that in the end the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and the Government were unsure about the meaning of mercenary and how to define the concept of a mercenary and were convinced I believe by the number of concerns that were raised during the select committee process that their definition of mercenary as presented was nowhere near good enough. 
The only way to fix that obviously—using the collective wisdom of the select committee the Government and the officials—was to tell the world what a mercenary is not. That is wholly unsatisfactory when it comes to interpreting law wholly unsatisfactory when it comes to applying law and wholly unsatisfactory if one happens to be a mercenary. Mercenaries now find themselves in a position whereby not only do they have to not satisfy one test but they have to also satisfy the other test to ensure they are not captured by this legislation. 
This is sloppy legislation. This is a sloppy definition and we on this side of the Chamber say that the Government should do a better job of defining what evil or wrongdoing it wishes to capture as opposed simply to defining what it is not in order to capture that perceived wrongdoing. 
The UN itself has had difficulty with this concept. It has had a series of reports presented to it that state: “This is really hard and we don’t know how to define what a mercenary is. We accept that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory.” So how does the New Zealand Parliament resolve that? It says: “It’s all a bit tricky so we will say what a mercenary is not.” That is totally unacceptable. 
Debate interrupted.