Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14264] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 There again is the point. I plead with the Government to listen to the arguments. The bill’s ambiguity is such that maybe it should be titled—since we are discussing the title—the “We’re so very confused that we don’t know how to define what a bad mercenary is in comparison with a good one that we’re going to pass legislation that tries to define what a mercenary is not although we’re not really sure that we’ve got it right and the United Nations is telling us that it too doesn’t believe the definitions are sustainable stand up stack up or are enforceable Bill”. What does it take to get people to listen? As I think about Mr Franks’ speech I am drawn to remember the representations that have been made to Parliament by the Falun Gong. Is that what the Greens want? Do the Greens now seriously want this legislation to be used by the Chinese to have the Falun Gong arrested and tried or extradited because the Chinese deem those people to be a subversive element within their country that is engaged in recruiting mercenaries—or as the Falun Gong may say in recruiting converts to a belief? Is that what the Greens support? 
This legislation has so many hooks in its back end in Part 3 that can be misused to cause us huge international embarrassment that it is not worth passing. The dangers are there and they have been flagged. The Greens have probably another hour to consider Part 3 in particular seriously before they cast their vote. The “United Poodle” party—well who knows? It is a case of sit up beg lie down roll over and play dead because Helen Clark says so. The United Future members will just do as they are told. They do not have a coalition agreement and if they had any agreement of any worth this bill would not be going through for one reason and one reason alone: it is unworkable. It is too ambiguous. Dr Lockwood Smith was perfectly correct when he said that the Labour Party acknowledged as the commentary on the bill states that the Special Rapporteur on Mercenaries’ and the United Nations’ views on the convention are clear. It is not enforceable; it is not workable. It is too full of ambiguity. The title of this bill should be “You’ve Got to Be Joking Mercenary (Prohibition) Bill” because it is not workable. 
I re-emphasise that when talking about Part 3. The countries that have not ratified the convention as Dr Lockwood Smith said include Australia. Who are our major trading partners? Who are the people we most rely on for our growing economy? Australia the United States Britain Singapore! Excuse me have any of them signed this treaty? Do any of those countries allow regulated private companies to work in the security field? Yes they do. Have they signed the treaty? No they have not. Will we therefore put ourselves in the situation where one of those people who comes here to recruit people to go overseas work for that person and do legitimate good work will be prosecuted arrested and detained by us? It may well be that that person is a representative of one of a country’s internal security agencies. It may well be that that person is a representative of a company that the Government has ticked and approved as being a company with moral values that does nothing to jeopardise the interests of a free and democratic world and therefore he or she is the type of person who should be contracting personnel to go into Iraq Sierra Leone or Cambodia. But those people will not fit within this definition. 
Even worse we now have a definition of what a mercenary is not and a sort of a definition of what a mercenary is and those definitions do not quite stack up. Once we get into the courtrooms and we are dealing with vexatious litigants how will a person prove he or she does not fit within the mercenary category? The room in this legislation for dragged-out legal actions for diplomatic embarrassment and for the inappropriate harassment of Falun Gong members is so broad so wide and so available as to make it not worth passing. 
I would simply sayto members that they should walk with caution take a breather take time out and reconsider this bill.