Dunne Peter: Amended Answer to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister; Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Amended Answer to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister; Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9774] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I do not have the detailed knowledge of international conspiracies that the member who preceded me has nor do I have the same interest in the subject but the issue that the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill deals with is an important one and for that reason because it is giving effect to an international convention signed in 1989 United Future will support it going to the select committee. But I want to give notice of two or three issues that we will be keen to pursue at that committee because I think they do need clarification in terms of the future of this bill. First the bill and I think also to a slightly less confused extent the original convention refer to individuals to persons who act as recruiters to persons who train to persons who do various sorts of things. Yet as Mr Locke pointed out there are a number of organisations that these persons operate on behalf of. It strikes me on the face of it a little odd that we create an offence for persons who recruit train or do whatever with mercenaries but in effect we do not have any sanction on the organisations that employ them. I would have been interested to explore—had the Minister been here—by way of a question that issue with him as to what the rationale is for the emphasis on individuals rather than the organisations that employ them. That is something we can pursue further at the select committee. 
Next I notice that in the bill itself there is reference in Part 3 to a number of actions that the Attorney-General has to take in terms of determining whether New Zealand has jurisdiction whether consent to prosecutions ought to be given whether the outcome of those prosecutions ought to be communicated to any persons. While I do not have any particular problem with those sections it does strike me as a little strange given the nature of the bill and what it deals with that there is no reference within it to whether it is in conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act particularly in terms of the rights of freedom of association and other things that are enshrined in that legislation. 
I find it strange for this reason: over the last year the Attorney-General has made a particular point of obtaining the advice of the Crown Law Office on New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues and making that advice publicly available. We have done it on things like the Kyoto Protocol and the counter-terrorism legislation. Now we have a bill that potentially affects the rights of perhaps a small number of people who might be involved in the mercenary industry if I can call it that. It deals with the question of both jurisdiction within New Zealand and clause 13 also covers extraterritoriality yet at the same time it makes no comment at all about the rights that those people who are its target have under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I am curious as to why that omission is there. 
Certainly the original convention makes no reference in that regard. One would not expect it to. However I would have thought that a Government legislating to give effect to a convention of this type would want to ensure that the rights of its own citizens were protected to the greatest extent possible notwithstanding the evil that they were seeking to outlaw. For that reason I am genuinely surprised that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act seems to have escaped mention altogether. There may be good reasons for it. I had hoped as I said earlier that the Minister would have been here and by way of interjection I would have sought an answer from him on that point. 
It seems to me to be odd that we set up some very clear definitions of what we would regard in this legislation as now illegal in terms of recruiting someone to be a mercenary in terms of using mercenaries financing mercenaries training prospective mercenaries or training any mercenaries in terms of the way in which those people might participate in hostilities or any concerted act of violence etc etc without putting any presumption on their part of what their rights might be and how they might be protected. I think that is an important issue particularly when we are to make it possible for people to be extradited to New Zealand to face charges under this legislation—if they ever eventuate—and where we are putting some pretty severe penalties in place for an activity that by this legislation we regard as highly undesirable. 
With those few thoughts I am happy to see the bill go to the select committee. I assume it will go to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee although to my knowledge the Minister did not indicate that in his speech. I am sure the committee will want to give consideration to the issue in some detail. I do not think one should view this as a necessary extension of the counter-terrorism legislation that the House has been dealing with recently although it is tempting to see the juxtaposition of the two events as more than coincidental. However I think the two are quite separate events but one might have a wry smile about the timing. 
As I said this gives effect to an international convention that has been around since 1989. One is a wee bit surprised that New Zealand has taken 14 years to get to the point of bringing legislation to the House but having done so we ought to consider it and consider it properly.