Power Simon: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14259] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I do wish to take a short call on Part 3 because there is a consistent thread running through this legislation of abysmal drafting and of ambiguity over interpretation. It is worth saying that not only do we have this continued debacle with the definition of mercenary and the non-definition of mercenary but under Part 3 we have what I have to say is one of the most hilarious clauses I have read in my time in this Parliament—short though it has been. That clause is clause 14 relating to the “Certificate as to States Parties under Mercenaries Convention”. It is worth reading that because it provides good humour after a day and a half in the Chamber under urgency. For listeners it is worth getting a sense of the complete waste of time that legislation like this is when this clause is read through slowly. So here goes: “A certificate that appears to be signed by”—I do not know what that means—“or on behalf of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade and that states that a State is or is not a State Party to the Mercenaries Convention is sufficient evidence of that matter unless the contrary is proved.” Now that is just a shambles. What kind of legislative debacle— 
Opposition Member 
: A junk clause. 
SIMON POWER 
: —and junk clause as my colleague calls it is that? “A certificate that appears to be signed by”; so it might not be signed but it might appear to be signed. In other words— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: The Prime Minister is good at this sort of thing. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is right. It could be that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade decided to put a pen to paper but changed his mind. So it may well be that we have an ink dot on the signature line which is not a completed signature but the paper may appear to be signed. It could well be that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade changed his mind halfway through his signature or accordingly signed on behalf of someone else—something that members opposite will know a fair bit about. 
It strikes me that that is a bizarre way to describe the execution of a certificate. It is pretty straightforward: the certificate has either been signed or it has not been signed. It is like the words: this is a definition of a mercenary and this is the definition of somebody who is not a mercenary. So why does the clause simply not say: “a certificate that is signed by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade” instead of saying “appears to be signed by”? What a load of nonsense! 
Then it goes on to state that “a State is or is not”. So now we have a certificate that appears to be signed by somebody and that could mean a State is or is not a party to the convention. It goes on to say that if it appears to be signed and is or is not a member State of the convention— 
Ron Mark 
: On behalf of. 
SIMON POWER 
: —on behalf of—then that is sufficient evidence. That is just ludicrous. But there is more. The clause goes on to say that all of that means there is sufficient evidence of the certificate—unless the contrary is proved. Well does that mean: “No it does not appear to be signed because I am going to prove that it was not despite the fact it could be signed there being sufficient evidence of the fact that somebody else signing on behalf could have signed to say the State is or is not a member of the convention on behalf of somebody.”? Now if that is the type of legislation that is running through this Parliament together with phraseology like: “This is not what a mercenary is but the legislation is designed to capture a mercenary—which we cannot define—so we will tell people what it is not.” as well as certificates that are not signed or purport to be signed— 
Ron Mark 
: On behalf of. 
SIMON POWER 
: —on behalf of somebody else is sufficient evidence unless one can say it is not sufficient evidence in which case whether it is signed on behalf of or not means the certificate could or could not be complete depending on whether or not it appears to be signed by somebody. 
Ron Mark 
: Unless the contrary is proven. 
SIMON POWER 
: That clears it up beautifully! So if I want to travel overseas and become a mercenary I now know my rights—completely! [ 
Interruption 
] That is true; compared with the Associate Minister of Transport I should do a far better job as a mercenary. The one thing we do know about this legislation is that it is sloppy and ambiguous. That is no way to determine whether or not mercenaries are indeed mercenaries depending on whether certificates have been signed as being sufficient evidence on behalf of others whether or not the contrary intention is proved depending on whether or not the certificate purports to say that a State is or is not a State party to the Mercenaries Convention. 
To be fair this is an absolute shambles. For the Government to pursue legislation that is indeed so messy so untidy and so ambiguous is—to be blunt—hopeless when in fact it is the Government’s responsibility to produce clear unambiguous legislation to cover these types of issues and it has not been able to do that in this case. And this clause proves that beyond reasonable doubt. I see that the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven is very keen to engage on this issue— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No no. I just want to ask: is this member a lawyer? 
SIMON POWER 
: Is this a call? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: If the member will yield. 
SIMON POWER 
: I am happy to yield to the Minister so that we can continue to debate Part 3 once he takes the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that if the member yields the Minister can reply only to the questions asked and that is it. It is not a means of transferring a call. 
SIMON POWER 
: I am very happy to yield to the Minister should he wish to answer the question. I am happy to transfer the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yielding is not a means of transferring a call. The Minister can only answer questions; that is it. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I will just carry on. Therefore I think it is very clear to the House that the Government has failed on two counts with this legislation. 
Jill Pettis 
: Just two? 
SIMON POWER 
: Well there are more but we will stick at two at the moment I tell the senior whip. The first is that the Government has been unable to define what a mercenary is. The second is that it leaves the entire world not only New Zealand uncertain as to what the “certificate that appears to be signed” actually means.