O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Excellent. Inspired choice for the call Madam Chair—humble of course as well. Look I'm very pleased to be standing up in this committee stage. I was very pleased to be chairing the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee over the recent weeks and as I always do I want to thank the committee members for their work and in particular the Minister and the officials as well who provided us with fantastic advice. I will apologise in advance that some of the questions I ask are as much I suspect for the education of the committee and the public than a lack of knowledge myself because I noted in the second reading speech that this is actually a very good bill.The overall context without taking too much time is we're implementing a treaty here to bring into effect an international approach to arms brokering. Really importantly we're talking about effectively a third party who's bringing weapons from one group or supplier and getting it to another. So we're not talking about the selling directly of military weapons made in New Zealand. I mention that because a number of people as they've approached me round this bill are often questioning why there is nothing in this bill in any of the parts including within the definitions of why we're not mentioning the selling of weapons from New Zealand. Fundamentally there are other pieces of legislation which deal with that.In terms of Part 1 I'd be interested to hear from the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin. It's really a small element but clause 3 around the purpose—it's an ordering question to the Minister. The purposes of the proposed Act both make sense. The first is to regulate the brokering of weapons and related items and the second is to support New Zealand's commitments under the Arms Trade Treaty. It's probably a pedantic element but why's it in that order? I mean in effect this is an Arms Trade Treaty. Is that not the first purpose to bring about in this bill—to make sure we are good international citizens and that as a consequence New Zealand wishes to regulate the brokering of weapons and related items? So it's a small item. It wasn't something which the committee spent a lot of time discussing but it's—I suppose again when we look at the catalyst Minister for this bill it was a treaty that was signed I think in New York a few years back. I'm sorry that the date slips my mind. You may be able to elucidate further for the benefit of the committee. But we are reacting to an international treaty. So it's a simple point but why has the Minister continued to allow paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 3 to be in the order that they are?The speaker that just resumed his seat David Parker did begin to pick up some really interesting points around brokering activities. Really importantly in the bill this starts within clause 4 the interpretation clause and then points to clause 5 around the meaning of brokering activities. As I indicated at the start what we're discussing here—and perhaps the best way is just purely to illustrate it—is a New Zealand citizen who for example is buying weaponry from Russia and selling it to Syria. That is what this bill attempts to capture and to stop. Well I suppose an element which would be useful from the Minister if time allows is just to elucidate what is and is not noted as brokering activity—just how wide does that go? The definitions are quite clear I think. I think the select committee was relatively confident in them but it's always a welcome opportunity when we have the committee of the whole House to hear the Minister in charge of the bill or a representative of the Minister in charge of the bill to go into a little bit of depth. As the bill—the proposed Act—states in clause 5 brokering includes arranging facilitating or negotiating a transaction that involves the international transfer of weapons". So again we're not expecting that a New Zealand citizen is the one necessarily picking up said items. It could just simply be I'm assuming facilitating activity online be that through email or God forbid some sort of TradeMe equivalent in foreign arms. In fact I shouldn't be surprised actually—one thinks of the dark net. We can think of a number of ways. So it's really just to give surety to the committee if the Minister would through the officials talk about whether the definition of brokering activity—being "arranging facilitating or negotiating"—is full enough and captures it. I think we don't want as a committee to fall in to the traps of a hole. We've even just seen in the paper today a small element around the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment where someone has missed out on payments. These are oversights which happen so just some surety there would be most welcome.In clause 4 within Part 1 there's also the whole question—[Bell rung] Gosh such enthusiasm from the other side—look it's fantastic.I would just want to end if I could this contribution around the question of dual-use goods. Again it's been lightly touched on by the Hon David Parker who has just resumed his seat. A bit more elucidation from the Minister would be useful probably at this stage just for that broader understanding of the committee. Not all items which are made are purely for military purposes. I mean the most simple example of course is when we manufacture firearms. I'm not sure—although it would be interesting Minister if you could tell the committee—that anyone in New Zealand is manufacturing firearms. You can make a firearm obviously for the purposes of war but firearms can also be used as is quite appropriate at the moment for a bit of duck shooting. It's similar too with guidance chips. Obviously we have a very successful company in New Zealand Raycom which makes guidance chips which are particularly of use in joint direct attack munition bombs if my knowledge serves me right but also these chips can be used for other guidance services. One only does need to think of global positioning systems and so forth. So how exactly is the Minister's ministry going to delineate between these dual-use goods because particularly in the brokering space and we heard this through the select committee there are those items which it is just abundantly clear that New Zealanders should not be brokering between countries. But once you get into that dual-use area it gets rather complicated. We can see with countries overseas—the likes of Syria come to mind even North Korea at the moment—that when certain items are being blocked for military purposes it can actually have an impact to the civilian side.So I think the committee would—well I certainly would and I suspect the committee would—appreciate some greater surety and clarity around how dual-use goods are defined to give some certainty to us. I'm particularly thinking around the humanitarian side. We don't want to end up being so tough on the brokering or the military use of goods that we are affecting the civilian population. I won't go into it for too long but there are enough stories that come out of the international media where various medical devices and products particularly in the pharmaceutical space are actually blocked because they supposedly have a military component to them be it the nature of the drug or the fact that said drug or said medical device could be deployed by or employed for military personnel. But the corollary or the flip side to that of course is that it can help a civilian. So it's a very particular point I have to say. When officials were in front of our committee they gave I think a very good explanation around these various dual-use goods but a little bit of elaboration would be good there. I suspect that plays into clause 4(1)(a) following around the whole notion of what is a military end-use and it is clarified that—I'm pretty sure it is my understanding—it's not only a specific and singular military use but there are elements which may both have a military and a non-military use.The other elements of the definitions I think are relatively clear. In terms of the notions of dual-use goods it really begins to end with clause 4—I've lost track. We're still in clause 4(1) to do with "strategic goods list". I think it's a really good decision in Supplementary Order Paper 24. Something that we did miss in the select committee is that of course we have the Customs and Excise Act being updated so I think some our previous references were around 1996 and now most of it comes in to play in 2018. So Minister I think that's been a good update from your officials. It's really important that that Strategic Goods List is publicly available. I don't believe that's specifically noted in the—oh I do apologise; we have added that in. In fact I'm sure as I look to my colleague Louisa Wall across the Chamber there's an element that we were keen to have in that here we are noting that the secretary's required to maintain and to publish that Strategic Goods List.What might be of interest whether or not the Minister can answer is how often that will be updated. It wasn't something the committee prescribed. I'm sure there's a fairness and a natural justice but we're not expecting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to be updating the Strategic Goods List every five minutes but is it going to be every 3 months 6 months a year? Some sort of indication around that would be quite useful.Look I have a few other contributions to make but I think I've left the Minister a number of questions—brokered if you will—and thoughts in my mind and I look forward to the response."