Power Simon: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14267] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I thank the stand-in Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven for his comments on the third reading but they still have not resolved for members on this side of the House the three or four main issues that we raised at the second reading and extensively throughout the Committee stage. If the Committee stage had been a tennis game I would say that it was probably 40:love to the Opposition because I do not recall a Minister sitting in the chair taking a call and answering any of the issues raised by Opposition members during that time. 
There are four outstanding issues. First is the definition of “mercenary”. The Hon Harry Duynhoven tried to convince the House in his contribution on the third reading that it was all a bit tough and a bit tricky and that we did not really want to capture anybody who was not whatever a true mercenary is so for that reason the definition had to be somewhat more extensive. Members on this side of the House say to him that if that is the case the term “mercenary” should be defined properly. The Minister should not then move on to include a definition of what is not a mercenary that is larger than the definition of what is a mercenary. We say to Government members that we will continue to oppose this bill to its dying moments because the Government has been unable to convince us that the bill is sure enough unambiguous enough and certain enough to dispatch our concerns about the definition of “mercenary”. 
 The second issue raised by members on this side of the House is simply that we are about to pass domestic legislation ratifying a convention that puts us way out of step with our traditional allies the US Australia and the UK and finds us in company with countries such as Azerbaijan Barbados Belarus Cameroon Costa Rica and as my colleague Ron Mark pointed out Libya. It seems to members on this side of the House that signing up to such important conventions should be done in around or slightly ahead of in some cases our traditional and historic friends and allies. That is not the case here. 
Jill Pettis 
: This man changed the National Party policy at a regional conference. 
SIMON POWER 
: Screeching from the other side of the Houses does not make the member any more likely to address the issues that have been raised by Opposition members. The member who is screeching from the other side of the House should take a call and answer some of the concerns we have listed very carefully very methodically and very clearly. 
The third thing we are concerned about is the continuing trend of this Government to put into domestic law conventions and international agreements that have very marginal relevance to our own domestic circumstances. We have highlighted that problem throughout the passage of this debate. The last issue I wish to raise relates to the certificate as to State parties under the mercenaries convention. In the break the officials managed to advise me with the blessing or consent of the Minister that the wording contained in clause 14 is a standard-recipe clause used in these cases. I would simply say to members of the Government who are about to vote for this legislation that just because it is done all the time does not make it right. 
The Government has failed to convince members on this side of the House that this definition of mercenary is sufficiently tight clear and unambiguous to create good law. The National Party will continue to oppose this legislation and will vote against it in the third reading for those reasons.