Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14267] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise in the third reading debate to once again make it clear that New Zealand First opposes this bill. Let me make it very very clear for the benefit of the senior Government whip: New Zealand First is not opposed to dealing with the people the Government is choosing to describe as the true or traditional mercenary. We are not opposed to that. We are not opposed to outlawing renegade private armies that fight for fortune and not for ideology the integrity of the sovereign State or its borders. We are not for those people. We will assist any Government that brings to this House sane legislation that seeks to deal with those people. However we are against legislation that is ambiguous—so ambiguous and so broad in its net that it scoops up people the Government says it does not intend to scoop up. Indeed the Government by its own words in the inclusion of amendments to this legislation has gone out of its way to try to deal with the problem the United Nations says exists with the convention—that problem being that it is hard to define what a true mercenary is. 
The Government has recognised that problem to the extent that it has tried to include paragraphs—big paragraphs—to try to define what a mercenary is not. The problem is that those definitions are still ambiguous. In this world which has moved on since 4 December 1989 the use of private armies and private companies in security work has absolutely exploded across the world. Legitimate Governments sovereign States and democratically elected leaders to this day are using more than ever private companies to put people in to assist countries to preserve their democracy and sovereignty through the use of private contracted defence personnel. Our reading of this definition wraps those people up and improperly so. 
The Minister raised a number of issues with the true mercenary one being a big argument. I have consistently asked the Government what the urgency is about this legislation and who brought it to the Table. When we asked the officials at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee nobody could answer the question: why are we doing this? What is the pressing urgency? When I ask why we are debating this bill under urgency a very clear reason should be given as to why this matter must be dealt with now but there is not. It only leaves the cynics to presume that maybe other motives are in play. If the Government wanted to deal with arms and drug trafficking that would be fine—so does New Zealand First—because that is about organised crime. I believe that every member in this House would want to bring down organised criminal networks. We do not need this legislation to do that. We need better security relationships with our traditional allies and with our trading partners and that brings me to my next point. 
Who signed up to this treaty? Whom are we throwing our hat in with? Libya! Excuse me! Libya signed the agreement on 4 December 1989 when on 21 December 1988 it blew a Pan Am aircraft out of the skies over Lockerbie killing everybody on board. Is that a credible signatory? The only thing this legislation does is bring our integrity into question. Why should we be hopping into bed with people like Gadaffi and telling the world that he is a leader in the campaign again mercenaries? He is not never has been and never will be. For us to be throwing our hat in alongside of him brings disservice and discredit to New Zealand not credit. Who else is a signatory to that treaty? Azerbaijan Barbados Belarus Cameroon Costa Rica Croatia Italy the Maldives Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Traditionally they have always used contract personnel and to this very day they still do. 
The next question I asked the officials was what compliance test had ever been conducted on these outstanding leaders of the international community—like Gadaffi and Croatia. What compliance test has been run over them? What measures and what tests were conducted to see that they are indeed complying with the convention that they would have us support? The answer is none. There has been no compliance test and no measure and we have no idea of their level of collusion with mercenary companies that the Government describes as true mercenaries. We have no idea. We are signing up to fluffy feel-good legislation that we cannot enforce and if we do we will run the risk of scooping up people whom we should not be attacking. 
The test of the credibility of this convention lies in the fact that the United Nations itself questions its value. The United Nations wants to work with the Labour Government of Britain towards regulating the industry and so gaining better control in a more legitimate and appropriate fashion. For the life of me I do not understand why this Labour Government which looks so fondly on Tony Blair as a wonderful Labour leader and a fine example of Labour Governments does not listen to him. This Government should pause for a moment to listen to what Tony Blair’s Government has to say. Tony Blair has put his finger on it. He said that that is not the way to deal with the issue that we have quite rightly recognised. That saddens me—no it does not really because I know a heck of a lot of people out there who used to vote Labour and who do not agree with this nonsense. They do not agree with the logic. They do not agree with passing law under urgency that is ambiguous unenforceable and therefore meaningless. 
I shall go to the final area of concern from New Zealand First’s perspective. I refer to the international implications of New Zealand now seeking to be party to or allowing itself to be forced into arresting detaining deporting or extraditing people whom another country says are mercenaries who are not here recruiting converts to Falun Gong but who are recruiting mercenaries who have the aim of going back to China and undermining the sovereign State of China and its legitimate Government. What a horrible position to now be put in—and all for what? There is no gain here. One risk that lies in here and has not been dealt with is the diplomatic risk of embarrassment at being at loggerheads with the people with whom we trade and on whom our economy depends all because we want to be alongside Libya Qatar Saudi Arabia and Mauritania. Well I am sorry but that is not logical. That does not make sense and this House has better things to do. This Government has better legislation which New Zealand First will support sitting in the wings and waiting to come to the House. Instead it is here dealing with this nonsense. New Zealand First opposes this legislation.