O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Can I acknowledge the Minister in the chair Ron Mark and in particular the officials who are doing all the hard work yet again in the background. This is the first call I am making on Part 2 and as the previous speakers indicated its primary purpose is around brokering activity the registration of activity and the permits associated with it. Those on the committee and those who are reading through the bill will understand this is sort of the real meat of the bill and in that light there are a few elements that I want to go through.There are four subparts and all of those are quite critical in and of themselves. I actually want to start with Subpart 2—Dr Deborah Russell: Oh start with 1—go on.SIMON O'CONNOR: —if I might. I might jump back to Subpart 1 within Part 2 but Subpart 2 is to do with the registration of brokers and in clause 14 it's very clear that that application's done to the secretary. We can completely understand the reasons the Minister has effectively delegated that power to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade to take care of it.Where some of the questions arise—and there are quite a number for me in this section. The first is around clause 15(1) where the Secretary is [to be] satisfied that the person is … fit and proper". Look I'm no lawyer as I always keep saying in this House but it would be useful to understand if there is I suppose a legal or common law precedent around this. Intuitively I and the House would understand what is "fit and proper" but does that have a legal aspect to it? Some surety around that would be fantastic.I notice in clause 15(2) that the secretary is directed to make certain considerations in terms of whether a person is fit and proper. That partly begins to answer my question. However as I read through clause 15(2) I don't think that's a complete set of definitions to make sure someone is fit and proper. In other words if someone was to pass through all the criteria of registration in 15(2) onwards does that therefore ipso facto make them fit and proper or are there wider considerations? If I could again perhaps phrase it in a slightly different way is there discretion available to the secretary to intervene?Perhaps on top of that—and I don't think it is later in the bill—is there any mechanism ultimately for the responsible Minister to step in and to effectively override? If that's the case what is the mechanism there? I can imagine situations where the secretary in complete good faith and with excellent judgment allows someone to have a registration as a broker but it may become known perhaps because of the Minister's level of knowledge and information that it's not proper—can they overturn that?In clause 15(2)(a) as it begins to define what is "fit and proper" one of the first elements to be taken into account is whether this person applying has had a conviction for an offence punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or longer. Having chaired the committee we did look at all of this but a question in my mind is: is 12 months sufficient or is it a little too low? Again I suspect there's legal precedent of what certain crimes and activities are within a 12-month imprisonment or not. But I suppose if you wanted to play a really straight bat and play this very strongly we are talking about people here who are involved in a business selling weapons be they dual or single use. They are involved in a fairly dangerous—some at times might find it even unsavoury—form of work. Is having any conviction acceptable? Is any conviction acceptable at all? Should they really come in with an absolute clean slate? Are we being a little bit too soft on this?But I suppose the corollary to it to the Minister in the chair is: are we being a little bit too tight here? I suppose the flip side is that a lot of people have committed little crimes in the past particularly when they were younger. Should this now stop them continuing their legitimate business?The next part—and I'm afraid I never quite know how to properly describe it but it's clause 15 part (2) section (a) subpart (i)—I'm looking forward to some of the lawyers getting up afterwards and giving me a bit of counsel on this. Hon Member: Careful what you wish for.SIMON O'CONNOR: It's a bit of a—yes I better be careful. That's all right; I've had three lawyers on the committee with me. It's talking about "the conviction was in a New Zealand court" and this is a concern—[Interruption] It states that "the conviction was in a New Zealand court"—makes perfect sense. I can think of instances though—because we obviously are a country of migrants; what happens if that person has been convicted in a court outside of New Zealand? It will be a relief I'm sure to Dr Russell that I'm not going to go through all 168 known countries to work—Hon Tim Macindoe: Oh go on—go on. SIMON O'CONNOR: That would be wasting—Hon Tim Macindoe: She was hoping you would.SIMON O'CONNOR: I'm sure she was. But it is actually a serious question: if it is known to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade that someone has a conviction over 12 months according to this proposed legislation—if the conviction was in a court other than in New Zealand are we allowed to act on that? So really at this current time a New Zealander who's had an offence over 12 months may well not get a registration as a broker but we can probably think of examples—and I won't name names—of people who have convictions from overseas be it in fraud dishonest behaviour or other tautologies. Can that be taken into account?I know this is getting quite forensic Minister and there's quite a bit more to go but in effect should we have here a further line that convictions from jurisdictions other than the Realm of New Zealand should be taken into account? I assume by talking about New Zealand courts and speaking of the Realm that those from Tokelau Cook Islands and stuff are already included but should we have people from overseas?I think it's absolutely prudent that having that point about the offence committed before the commencement of the Act—I think that's very prudent. The other elements in 15(2)(c) and (b) again make perfect sense—whether they've been registered before. I do have a small question though around why we still have 15(2)(d) which is around the financial position of the person. You'd have to ask the question: why is that particularly relevant to the brokering of weapons? I suppose if it is a business you want to know that they can do a business well and that the secretary doesn't want to be giving permits to business people who are going to fall over or have a proven ability to fall over again. So I suppose it's a question of asking: why is that particularly relevant?The last two points that I would like to raise around the criteria for registration—and again always asking: are those criteria for registration the only reasons a person can be deemed fit and proper—is that I don't see anything here to do with a police check. Will we be doing police checks? Is that again just sort of already a given? Does it not need to be in the legislation? I know in this House I think pretty much both sides have always moved to put police checks on just about everything these days. We're almost at the paradox of needing to get a police check to get a police check. So why is that not part of Subpart 2 of Part 2 the "Registration of brokers"?Finally I would want to know around this particular clause whether other permits the person may hold become relevant. In my contribution yesterday I was at pains to stress to the House that there is quite a difference between the brokering activity and then the manufacturing and selling of military grade or military quality supplies. Why that remains vitally important is if someone is manufacturing and selling weapons—to use a rather colloquial term but if they're selling weapons we have separate legislation for that which makes perfect sense compared to this brokering one. I think it would be good for us to know when we're dealing with the registration of brokers over here will the secretary be moving to check what other permits have been issued; will they come into effect?I suppose the wider question when I actually think about it here is: does the secretary of the ministry look at all its information on that person. So if I'm someone who's had multiple interactions with the ministry over time—be it as a diplomat be it as a civil servant be it as someone who has been manufacturing weapons; whatever it is—are those factors coming in?So look I'll round off this contribution on this very small part of Subpart 2 of Part 2 and I'll return to some others. But it's really just coming back to that core notion of what is deemed to be a "fit and proper person". Why is it that it's only convictions in New Zealand and not overseas? Why is it that the imprisonment is sitting at 12 months—and I put forward I suppose the two reasons why it could be less and why it could be more. The question around the financial position: why—particularly relevant then of course—the elements that are the police check and so forth."