Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora Mr Chair and tēnā tātou katoa e Te Whare. This Part 2 of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill is clearly a very detailed specific and substantial part of the bill and so I think it's absolutely right that members on both sides of the House are showing the inclination to adopt what my very good friend and colleague the member for Tāmaki Simon O'Connor described as a forensic approach to it.I would like to pay a compliment to the Hon Tracey Martin who was in the chair last night when we were considering Part 1 of this bill. I was impressed given that she's not the Minister in charge of the bill that when we put a number of questions to her she did her level best to answer those and I thank the officials who clearly assisted her to provide those answers. And I very much hope that the Minister who is in the chair tonight Ron Mark—and I acknowledge the fact that it's not his bill either but nevertheless given his current role as Minister of Defence I'm sure he has a very strong interest in it—will be prepared to take note of the questions that have already been indicated from both sides of the House and I'm about to put a few as well and ensure that we do receive some answers to them because New Zealanders will even if they're not aware of it at this stage have a very strong interest in ensuring that we get this bill right.I have to say I am a little bit struck by the irony of the fact that the Minister in the chair as has been noted—and I won't go over it in great detail—just nine months ago when he was not a member of the Government was saying that this is a bill that isn't necessary. Tonight he finds himself perhaps ironically in the chair having to promote it. It's good to see him smiling. I hope that therefore this shows that he has had a genuine road to Damascus moment and that he will be sharing with us—Rt Hon David Carter: He's been told to—he's been told.Hon TIM MACINDOE: I wouldn't dream of coming to that conclusion Mr Carter. You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment. But I hope that he has nevertheless as Minister of Defence genuinely come to see that this is not only something of significance for New Zealanders but for all of our international partners.Chris Bishop: He's had a road to Carterton" experience.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ha ha! A "road to Carterton" experience Mr Bishop indeed. But I didn't believe he used the roads; I thought he used alternative modes of transport! But it's important—this is a serious matter. So could I please concentrate at least initially in this call on Subpart 1. Now as I've mentioned this is an international treaty and clause 9 "Registration and permit required for brokering activity" in subclause (1) lays out this provision: "A person must not carry out a brokering activity unless the person—(a) is registered as a broker; and (b) has a permit for the activity." So what I want to ask first up—because I do think it's an important question—is whether this requirement is mirrored in the legislation that may already be in train or that has been contemplated in comparable jurisdictions. Because if it's not I question just how effective it could possibly be and we do need in New Zealand to have an assurance that it will be. Can we in New Zealand be confident that the regulatory framework in countries with a greater history of insecurity terrorism and so on will be able to guarantee the safeguards that this subpart seeks to guarantee to us here in New Zealand? I think we have to have an answer to that question. What are we doing to monitor this? Or what will we do given that we're probably looking at something that is still ahead of us? Will there be an international agency to oversee this requirement to achieve consistency and the highest safeguards? Because without them this bill probably falls into a description of being something of good intentions but not likely to achieve its purpose.In clause 9A "Exceptions to requirements for registration and permit" we're told that "Section 9 does not apply to a person—(a) who carries out a brokering activity in relation to a weapon or related item that is dual-use goods; and (b) 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." Well those who are interested in legislative interpretation will probably be looking at that very closely wanting to have a clearer understanding than I confess I have at the moment. These questions are particularly important when read in conjunction with clause 9A because we need to know what is the meaning of "dual-use goods". Why is it considered to justify an exception to such an important requirement? Because it is an important requirement. Clause 9 does not apply to a person."