O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Madam Chair. We're still on Part 2 and I think I do just need to remind the committee that we have four subparts here. I've just been able to spend 10 minutes prior talking about Subpart 2 and being slightly Irish I have gone to Subpart 2 and now I want to go to Subpart 1.I also wouldn't mind reminding the House that this is the substance of the bill. We've also had actually I thought a very good contribution by one of the Labour members who was looking—granted—at clause 18A around of what the nature of annual reports are. I suspect she was interested in the grams per square metre paper quality and so forth.But look Part 2 Subpart 1 is looking around the whole notion of the registration and the permit required for a brokering activity. The questions that are about to follow are actually very similar to what I raised in Part 1 around the purpose about why we split things. My colleague Chris Penk noted that a person must not carry out a brokering activity unless they're registered as a broker and have a permit for the activity. I suppose the question to the Minister in the chair Ron Mark is why that has been split out. What is happening there?Obviously to be registered as a broker one might assume that your activity is therefore permitted. So what is the distinction that is being sought in clause 9(1)(a) and (b)? I suppose to the layman once you're registered as a broker would it not follow that you are therefore doing an activity which is permitted?I suppose that I theorise out loud in the committee of the whole House that the registration is in the nature of you being a broker; the activities become a whole lot of separate activities that while you may have a registration to be a broker you may be undertaking a whole series of other activities that may need to be regulated. Perhaps it's a little bit similar to when we did some legislation in the Health Committee a couple years back around the use of radiation; that actually there are permits for the people but then the activities need to be prescribed. But I wouldn't mind just a little bit of clarity around that.As I mentioned earlier I sought some clarity on Part 1 clause 3 around a distinction. I found the Minister's response last night very useful. I would find it helpful here to just understand that a little bit further. I know the Minister in his reply earlier noted that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee had probably asked a number of these questions. I would just note as a committee of the whole House that sometimes as select committee chair I may be asking questions perhaps for the interest of other members but in this particular case it's one that's I suppose approached my mind as I came in here today. So why has that been separated out?Look the removal as promoted of what's now crossed out as subclauses (2) (3) and (4) of clause 9 makes perfect sense and if I could I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the officials for clarifying this point—this is around particularly exceptions. In the new clause 9A(1)(b) it's saying that the exemptions do not apply to a person who before the person carries out the brokering activity has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the dual-use goods will not be used for a prohibited use." So fundamentally and really importantly we err on the dual-use goods; not the single use.But the question becomes: who is checking? Now I assume it's the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade itself. As the Minister himself indicated earlier he or she is too busy to be doing the operational side. But if someone is not having to seek registration on the basis that they the person—the potential broker—has taken the reasonable steps to ensure that their goods their dual-use goods are not going to be used for prohibited use who's checking up on that? I mean the obvious thing through to the Minister is that someone who is intending to use dual-use goods for a military purpose just continues to be under the radar. They say "Oh well you know I'm not going to register. It's not going to apply to me. I did some steps to ensure that you know it's all OK." Who's checking up on that? How is that going to be found out?In new clause 9A(2) we're in a negative space here. It's that "Section 9 does not apply to a person—(a) who carries out a brokering activity from a place outside New Zealand". Now I know this was of very particular interest to a Labour member on the select committee and very much for quite a period of time to Green Party members around why we're only including New Zealand. I think it would be helpful—and I certainly would find it helpful—if the Minister will be able to articulate the reason why we are only including brokering activity inside New Zealand. Why does it not apply to someone who is outside of New Zealand? Now obviously it's not that our law is going to apply to someone in the United States or in Tonga. However the really fundamental question becomes—"