Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14243] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to congratulate Dr Wayne Mapp a former serving officer in the New Zealand Army on his insight into this legislation and what it means. I congratulate the National Party and the ACT party also. It seems that only members on the Opposition side of the Chamber understand the realities of maintaining international law and security and the responsibilities—and sometimes the price—that seem to come with those rather challenging tasks. Is this Government not interesting! It is so concerned and interested in this bill that its members have private little chit-chats all around the Chamber. They do not even take calls and that is what the country gets as good governance. I am astounded at that. 
If members of the Government were to read the bill and pay some attention to it they might like to consider clause 4 “Interpretation” and in particular clause 4(1)(a). [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Barker may like to call me mercenary but I was quite— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I never said that. 
RON MARK 
: Those members were quite happy to have me stand as a candidate for them straight after I came back from Oman. They did not have any problems with that then. They knew full well my military service background yet they selected me. If those members interject then they deserve a slap. Mr Hughes should read clause 4(1) and consider this point: a “concerted act of violence means an act of violence designed to (a) overthrow a government or otherwise undermine the constitutional order of a State; or (b) undermine the territorial integrity of a State”. 
I ask the Government whether we should stand idly by and not protect the world from chaps such as Saddam Hussein Tariq Aziz and “Chemical Ali” Hassan al-Majid who appeared on page B1 ofthe  
Dominion Post 
 this morning. Are they the sorts of people this Government does not want to see overthrown? The question is this. When the Governments of States decide that it is time to do something because there is a rogue State—a nation that jeopardises the security of the rest of the world—traditionally they have used both covert and overt means to achieve that end. New Zealand has sat as a partner in many alliances and accepted that and agreed with it. Let us take the East Timor situation. How many mercenaries were involved behind the scenes in helping East Timorese fighters to fight for their freedom? They were people whom Keith Locke and Matt Robson championed. How many mercenaries were hired behind the scenes to help to overthrow Pol Pot? Those were people whom Keith Locke championed and people whom Matt Robson said he abhorred. How many people would have been hired—or could have been hired—to help to alleviate the situation in Rwanda because the legitimate States were sitting on their hands doing nothing? How many clandestine covert operations have been sanctioned around the world involving the use of contract personnel in order to enhance the security of the greater free world? There have been tens of thousands and that is the truth. 
Members should think of the Congo and of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Whom did Britain the United States and by implication the entire British Commonwealth sanction to go into Afghanistan? I look at the United Future member who will vote for this legislation. Everyone tells me that he or she absolutely detested the Taliban. Who were the people who helped the mujahideento chuck the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan? For one there were legitimate defence forces such as the SAS and the CIA. But a large number of contract personnel were also put in there and sanctioned and approved with the knowledge of legitimate States such as the United States and the UK.