Carter Chris: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading 
Carter Chris: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12827] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: I move  
That the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill implements into New Zealand domestic law the International Convention against the Recruitment Use Financing and Training of Mercenaries which came into force in 2001. The bill creates five separate offences: criminalising the conduct of mercenaries and the recruitment use financing and training of mercenaries. It also includes measures relating to international cooperation investigations and prosecutions so that individuals can be brought to justice. 
The majority of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee recommended that the bill be passed with some amendments. I welcome these amendments which give greater clarity to the definition of “mercenary” and to the activities that are targeted by those new offences. The bill will ensure that mercenaries and mercenary activity will not go unpunished by New Zealand and will therefore fill a gap in our existing law. 
Passing this legislation will allow New Zealand to become a party to the mercenaries convention. Such a move will demonstrate to the international community that New Zealand is committed to discouraging the use of mercenaries in the world today and will show our support for the growing concern internationally that the use of foreign mercenary forces can impede the exercise of the right to self-determination and also violate human rights. New Zealand has long recognised the impediments that mercenaries can cause to the peaceful resolution of conflicts and opposed their use in the Bougainville crisis. New Zealand opposed the use of foreign military by the Papua New Guinean Government and argued that the crisis would be resolved only through a comprehensive peace process which as we can see has happened. 
Turning to the specifics of the bill the definition of mercenary reflects the definition in the convention which targets two types of mercenaries. The first is a person who is specifically recruited to fight in an armed conflict and is motivated by profit. The second is a person who is recruited to take part in a concerted act of violence and again whose motivation is profit. These are what we would term “true mercenaries”—that is what people have traditionally envisaged by the term “mercenary”. The convention is not aimed at covering all the people who might sometimes be loosely referred to as mercenaries in today’s world. That is outside the scope of the convention and outside of what we see as the appropriate focus of this bill. Our concern is to put in place provisions that proscribe the form of mercenary activity that has been recognised as being of the greatest concern. 
In response to concerns expressed by some submitters the select committee recommended several amendments to the definition of mercenary to remove doubt as to the type of person who would be covered by these new offences. Those amendments make it clearer that only those involved in armed combat as combatants—that is those who actually take part in hostilities—will be considered the first type of mercenary. I support this amendment. In addition a further amendment is designed to clarify the circumstances in which a person will not be considered a mercenary. Those are when the person is taking part in a peace support mission—for example in mine clearance the delivery of humanitarian aid domestic policing or other similar lawful activities involving the protection of individuals or property. Clearly those activities were not intended to be covered by the convention or the bill and accordingly I welcome this being made clearer in the bill. 
There has been criticism of the workability of the existing definitions—a point of concern mentioned by National and New Zealand First members. I believe that determining who should and should not be considered a mercenary is not easy. However the definition used in the convention and the bill represents a useful and viable first step to encompass at least those generally regarded as true mercenaries. There have also been calls internationally for the convention to be amended so that the definition can more accurately reflect today’s reality including the use of so-called mercenaries in criminal activities such as arms and drug trafficking. 
By becoming a party to the convention through the passage of this bill New Zealand will be well placed to contribute actively to the international discussions around the appropriate scope of the term “mercenary” and to influence any negotiations concerning amendments to the convention whether in relation to the definition or more generally. The increase in the event of private military companies around the world particularly in Iraq gives rise to the question of how in the future the international community should tackle regulation of these new organisations. However such issues go beyond the scope of this bill which is aimed at criminalising the activities of the true or traditional mercenaries and implementing the mercenaries convention as it currently stands. 
Moving on to the definition the bill contains new offences that will make it illegal to recruit a person to be a mercenary use a person as a mercenary finance a mercenary train a mercenary or take part in hostilities or a concerted act of violence as a mercenary. The bill allows for extraterritorial jurisdiction to be taken in certain limited circumstances. For example this will allow the prosecution of New Zealand nationals who are involved in those mercenary activities outside New Zealand and the prosecution of people who are found in New Zealand and for some reason have not been extradited or face charges elsewhere. 
Other provisions in the bill include providing for international cooperation with other States in relation to criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to mercenary activity. It was pointed out in the select committee process that few of our usual like-mindeds have become party to the mercenaries convention. Although that is true New Zealand needs to make its own decision as to whether it wants to ensure that mercenary activity is outlawed in this country and whether the obligations in this convention accord with New Zealand’s views that the use of mercenaries should not be supported—as they do. Accordingly the Government supports this bill. We do not want New Zealand to be seen as a safe haven or a soft spot for mercenaries and this bill will ensure that. I commend this bill to the House.