Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you for picking me from such a great array of possible speakers Madam Chair.Mr Simon O'Connor's been talking about the dual-use goods list and I will just touch on that very briefly because of course the Strategic Goods List does set out exactly what the dual-use goods are—that is that everything after about page 30 falls into the dual-use goods. But in terms of that list I would put to the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin whether there are satisfactory controls around that list because as the bill says in the definition section that list may be added to by a Gazette notice. Now that as I understand it is a departmental decision and not a ministerial one. It is a very significant move to put something on that dual goods list because people may be dealing in those items without realising that they have a military application. But as we work through the legislation we can see that the consequences of doing that are very significant. We know that people don't tend to want to fall foul of the law through ignorance but it does seem that it would be possible.The Gazette notice is a disallowable instrument but I would put it to the Minister that perhaps—I'd be interested in the Minister's response as to whether that alone is a satisfactory protection. This will be a significant part of a network of legislation we have both in New Zealand and elsewhere in terms of arms control. As Mr O'Connor noted it's implementing the Arms Trade Treaty and that is very very important. Minister Parker also identified the question about what a brokering activity is and whilst he looked at the activity itself I would inquire as to whether in fact the cross-border nature of that definition is in fact appropriate because the definition requires the international transfer of weapons. So if we're going to be engaged in some way in brokering international transfer we need to be registered and have a permit.My concern is intranational transfers of weapons—that is to say a transfer of weapons which might occur entirely within a conflict zone like Afghanistan or Syria. Now borders in those areas are so very porous that there's a very good argument to say that that is a transfer and a brokering transaction which should be regulated. Even though it happens entirely within one country's national borders there's a very good argument to say that it should be regulated by the law of the State of the citizen who's undertaking that transaction because we know that the law of Syria or the law of Afghanistan—the civil society is not functioning in those jurisdictions and that's when we need to stand up and undertake our international duty. So I would ask the Minister to consider the international transfer of weapons and whether it should in fact be any transfer of weapons in a foreign State or across a foreign State's borders for that very reason.The other question is overseas equivalent regimes—so if a person is complying with an overseas regime that is in fact a defence to any charge and you're considered to be complying with it. The question is: what is an equivalent overseas regime? Obviously it's not going to be a mirror regime. In fact our Strategic Goods List is a lot longer and a lot more extensive than a lot of other strategic goods lists in less-developed countries. So in terms of that equivalent overseas regime does it just mean a loose brokering and permitting regime or does it mean a fully fledged and robust regime which essentially tracks our own legislation in quite a close way? There is a danger. There is the danger of finding the weakest link. So the difficulty is that arms brokers will simply look for the jurisdiction with the weakest regulatory regime and comply with that. If that happens that's really going to undermine to the Arms Trade Treaty and everything that New Zealand is aiming for. So that's a further question I would ask the Minister to address.