Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm as grateful as Mr McAnulty for the opportunity to address the committee further on this excellent piece of legislation specifically Part 3 now.It seems to me that clause 33 entitled Offences committed outside New Zealand" is a really important one. The extraterritorial application as we say is a key feature of the bill for reasons discussed already under the heading of Part 2 which I need not rehearse now. But some of the technical nature of that provision I think needs to be unpacked a bit further and stated clearly for the record notwithstanding that some of it may have been discussed in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. But for the purpose of providing direction to the courts if they are to interpret this clause in the future the issues and indeed concerns that I will raise now I think do deserve a response and some clarification from the Minister in the chair if indeed he is able to provide it.So at clause 33(1)(a)(ii) it says that a person is to be charged if they are and I quote "ordinarily resident in New Zealand;"—then an act or omission that they have committed will be eligible for being prosecuted under this bill. Now the meaning of "ordinarily resident" is not in fact defined in the legislation so in order to understand its meaning we either have to rely on an ordinary natural meaning of the word or perhaps consider where else we might find some guidance. So in the New Zealand statute book I know that in the Companies Act—excuse me I believe it's in the Companies Act certainly the application of this piece of legislation in relation to directors who are required to be New Zealand residents—the standard practice is to consider "ordinarily resident" to mean something of the nature of dwelling in New Zealand for more than half of the days in the past 12 months. So if there's any guidance that can be provided by the Minister on that point either to confirm or deny—surely he can do one or tother—that would be most helpful indeed. In relation to clause 33 remaining with offences committed outside New Zealand we read in clause 33(3)(a) that we are talking about "acts or omissions that occur wholly in New Zealand;"—specifically that the clause doesn't limit the application of other sections in relation to such acts or omissions. Now it might seem an obvious point what is considered to be New Zealand for the purposes of the Act but it's worth noting that as a matter of international law traditionally ships of Her Majesty's navy—or indeed other nations however they might be described outside the Commonwealth—are considered the territory of that nation. So for example a Royal New Zealand Navy ship abroad is considered to be New Zealand territory for the purpose of international law. And so it seems that if we're talking about acts that occur wholly in New Zealand there's a valid question to be asked there although I do note that there is some guidance perhaps to be gained in subclause (1)(b) which does specifically talk about ships of the New Zealand Defence Force or as I would say perhaps in slightly parochial fashion the Royal New Zealand Navy. The other occasion in international law in which we might have a different view of what constitutes New Zealand is in relation to diplomatic missions. So an embassy or a high commission of New Zealand for example physically situated on overseas soil is considered to be New Zealand territory. So I don't suppose there's a lot of weapons brokering that takes place in such embassies—perhaps in between courses of cucumber sandwiches—but if it does occur then we'll need to know. We'll need to know how that would be regarded by the courts if a prosecution were to be brought under the Act. So for those reasons—in fact I've got a couple of other questions you won't be surprised to hear Madam Chair but I sense my time approaching the end of its natural life perhaps in the hope of addressing that again immediately."