Franks Stephen: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14250] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I look at the definitions in Part 1 with some curiosity. Having started my political career from the left we had a number of heroes. We believed that the people who went off with the International Brigade to fight Franco in Spain were heroes. Later I learned about the Flying Tigers who were the only help for the Chinese against the Japanese. I could name many others who had an honourable tradition an honourable career as mercenaries—right back to our Scottish forebears who fought for most of the kings in the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War in Europe. 
But now that we are in the Committee stage I look at this as a technical matter. The definition seems to say that it will be OK for New Zealanders to fight in rich countries’ wars but not in poor countries’ wars. If they are in a rich country’s war the amounts they will receive and be happy to receive might be less than those received by the locals. It seems to say that it will be all right for Fijians to go because they will take small amounts of pay but not for New Zealanders. It seems to say that the status quo can be preserved but not those who oppose a barbaric or dictatorial status quo. Curiously enough if a party that is fighting does not have any combatants and makes all its combatants mercenaries then that too seems to be OK because there will be no one else to be adversely compared with. This is a piece of legal nonsense as far as I can tell. The compensation test seems to me to be made for avoidance and made to suit the interests of those who are in power—the establishment—wherever this might be applied. 
Has the Minister considered whether there is a distinction between private gain and collective gain? For example it seems to me quite possible that we could make sure that payment goes out collectively and avoid the intended purpose of this provision if mercenaries are worried about what New Zealand is going to do to them. How will this Government distinguish the situation of the pilots and the engineers who go off to help a group like the Flying Tigers the next time such a group is needed somewhere in the world to protect desperate people from a barbaric enemy? Will they have to rely on the Attorney-General trying to commit in advance saying that they will not be prosecuted? What about when it is the Government’s own interests—as indeed President Roosevelt had in having the Flying Tigers operating in support of the Chinese who otherwise would have been left facing a barbaric invasion by the Japanese completely without international support? Why would a Government pass something like this bill in advance when it has absolutely no idea to whom it might apply and whether it will serve its interests? 
When I look at these definitions I see that they are badly drafted. I had a look to see which lawyers might have been responsible and I see that our committee membership seems to have been dominated by that worthy Peter Dunne with the assistance of Tim Barnett Keith Locke Martin Gallagher and the Hon Matt Robson—international statesmen all of them and all of them with great knowledge of how despotism has been beaten back in the past! We need an explanation from the Minister in the chair as to why those people would have decided to assist Helen Clark’s retirement plans. 
What possible reason is there for subjecting ourselves to a United Nations obligation like this when in the Pacific we have no idea of what we may need to support ourselves over the next 5 or 10 years? It may well be that it is in New Zealand’s interests to ensure that there is mercenary support if we do not want to have open conflict with whoever is supporting the other side in our backyard. If for example we fear that Indonesia is causing trouble somewhere and we do not want to take them on directly of course we will want mercenaries to be in there making sure it is not a walkover. Yet for the sake of her retirement job with the United Nations we sign up to this kind of tripe. 
I say to the Minister that we need an explanation of what lies behind bad drafting and behind definitions that are so palpably oriented to support the status quo. I would like to hear from a politician why the left which used to stand up for people in trouble now wants to help the enemy.