O'Connor SimonPart 3 Miscellaneous provisionsSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Madam Chair we got to Part 3 a little bit quicker than I was hoping and I'm slightly disappointed I didn't get to address Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 24. I know that's now Part 2 but the additions of and the reasons for it in clauses 16 and 25 would have been useful to have discussed I have to say before we effectively voted on a SOP which we didn't get to raise.Look Part 3 is Miscellaneous provisions" but is actually dealing with a whole range of effectively consequential elements. The first is around the extraterritorial application. It was one of the elements—and the Minister Ron Mark will probably appreciate this—of an ongoing discussion in the committee which yes did conclude in terms of the report back but is an ongoing discussion around how this bill and this Act by the sound of where the voting's going applies to those outside New Zealand.So much of this comes down to someone having to be a New Zealander or importantly ordinarily resident in New Zealand so we're dealing here with Part 3 clause 33(1)(a). Subparagraph (iii) has been removed here and it'd be interesting to understand more fully why. Why is it that that person who "has been found in New Zealand and has not been extradited;" has been removed? So we can certainly understand the situation which is the intent of the bill and is developed in Part 3 that if someone is not of New Zealand—so they're not a citizen they're not a permanent resident so let's say they are Iranian; that seems popular at the moment—if they are found to be in this country brokering weapons why would they not have been extradited? I'm sure we must have a variety of extradition treaties. Is that going to be therefore part of the arms treaty which is being discussed? Is that part of the inter-collegiality between our countries?So I mean fundamentally it's coming down to how we are in this country going to be dealing with people who are not New Zealanders who have been found to be brokering weapons and in their case have not been extradited. That's been removed. I would have thought there could be occasions where someone cannot be extradited probably because it's sub judice and so we won't go there but we can think of a few cases in general where people are arguing that they should be able to stay in New Zealand and have not been extradited. So some clarity would be useful. So again that's clause 33(1)(a)(iii).I think the clarity is sufficient around clause 33(1)(b) and I do want to thank the officials for this for getting very specific—that if these acts or omissions have occurred aboard ships that are registered ships of the New Zealand Defence Force obviously aircraft and so forth. A little bit of clarity would be useful though because it comes up from time to time that it could be a New Zealand ship but it can be flagged to another country or of course the flipside to that and we're very familiar with a whole lot of other jurisdictions. We were actually doing the briefing recently on the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources down in the Antarctic where a ship may be under the flag of another country. What happens then? So it's highly highly unlikely—in fact I would be completely stunned—that the situation would be that someone is brokering weapons from a ship with the North Korean flag. What are our options then? I'm sure the Minister in the chair will take this very seriously seeing that could jeopardise the current peace process but it would be good to understand that a little bit more fully.Subclauses (2) and (3) I think for me make a lot more sense. Look in terms of the Attorney-General's consent being required clause 33—why this I think becomes relevant and clarity would be useful we've partly discussed in Part 2. I'm still hurting a little bit but we partly discussed in Part 2 that the secretary is going to have all the powers required. It becomes a question then of why the Attorney-General's consent is required. I do get the feeling it's probably around if action is taken against a person. It's probably I'm guessing that the secretary will require the Attorney-General's consent to move forward on a prosecution but that's not at this point abundantly clear to me. So look some clarity around that would be useful.But the fundamental question is the status of someone who is to be or is not being extradited. Then I suppose the second question is just that clarity that if brokering is to have happened by a New Zealand citizen on a vessel flagged to another country or in fact a non - New Zealand citizen flagged to a New Zealand ship what exactly is going to happen there. If for good measure the Minister wants to address the New Zealand Defence Force assets as well if brokering was to happen on one of Her Majesty's vessels that would be useful too."