O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Marvellous—thank you very much. Good to be back. Part 3—I might start if I can with Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 24 because again we haven't touched on parts of it. It really is a question around clause 33. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is suggesting that we delete clause 33(4)—I suspect they're just inconsequential but as I'm often heard to be said as a non-lawyer I'm not necessarily up to speed. So at the moment it's removing out of the clause about offences committed outside of New Zealand that For the purposes of this section 'ordinarily resident in New Zealand' has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Crimes Act 1961." So as I understand it the Minister is seeking to remove that from the bill as part of the SOP. It would be good to get a little bit of clarity on that.Where I want to draw my I think last thoughts at this point on Part 3 is around the regulation-making power—so that's clause 38 onwards. I think very prudently we've allowed this to be done by the Governor-General through Order in Council—Hon Andrew Little: That's the usual way you do it.SIMON O'CONNOR: I think it's the usual way except we'll come back to that on some other bills which the Government's up do. But actually it's quite prudent.Clause 38(1)(a) talks about "prescribing fees or charges for applications". So that's obviously when someone seeks to become a broker. To go through the prescribed form Mr McAnulty it's quite a process. A fee is going to be prescribed. I suppose it's just wanting some assurance from Minister Ron Mark that there's going to be some form of limit around this. We don't want to see brokering stifled completely in New Zealand by sort of absurd fees. It's one of those sort of I don't know gambles or elements of trust which this House does—enabling regulatory powers to be given so that they'll be prescribed prudently.Hon Andrew Little: Fortunately you've got the Regulations Review Committee to provide oversight.SIMON O'CONNOR: Yes the Hon Andrew Little does point out we have the Regulations Review Committee—a fine job that they do the bane of every select committee chair. But yeah just some assurance that in clause 38(1)(a) the prescribing of fees will be limited and not too onerous.In clause 38(1)(b) it says the "prescribing particulars of brokers that must be entered on the public register". Two elements on that Minister—clarity again that it won't be too onerous. I suppose it's easy for us to be captured by the fact that this is often a weapons-based piece of legislation but actually they are business people too. I'd like to have your assurance that it will be not too onerous and also that the necessary privacies are kept in mind—you don't want someone having to publish too much of their particular selves or their businesses.Similarly around clause 38(1)(ba)—I keep coming back to the notion of onerous. I'm always just nervous when regulations are put in place that when we say we're going to prescribe the form of the annual report that doesn't become again too burdensome. We actually heard it from a Government MP earlier—I think in relation to that now emotional Part 2—that they were very concerned about the nature of the report and said you know that we don't want to see that we're prescribing paper of 180 grams per square metre double-sided in colour and in A4 or imperial format—so just some surety around that. I think the prescribing of the records and so forth is very prudent.The last point that I would make in this clause 38 is around subclause (2)(b)(i) which provides that the Governor-General through an Order in Council may "prescribe any of the following: (i) the method by which the fees or charges are to be assessed:" and made—so just some clarity on what those particulars are going to be. I assume one could do it by a credit card or ATM. I suppose what I'm really angling for is in the nature of weapons brokering and good behaviour that cash is not going to be accepted. You know it might be imprudent of me to imply that brokers could be up to some mischief—but just making it very clear that you know cash is not going to be one of those methods which will be prescribed there.So look finally that's—well actually I've misled somewhat. Clause 39—this is to do with the disclosure of information to overseas authority. We gave this a little bit of thought. It's obvious that we do have allies around the world—Canada Australia and obviously those within the UK and I'd better not forget the United States. Just around clause 39—just some surety around the mechanisms of how that information is going to be shared.I want to be really clear Minister that I personally believe and I think that by and large the select committee understands that the information that we may garner through the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be of use and of interest to our allies. I suppose it's just some clarity that it will be to our allies that we will be handing out that information. What that nature might be—I think this clause gives relative context but it's probably just some verbal assurance to the committee around clause 39 about how we will be interacting with our allies whether or not we will be proactive or whether we will be reacting to their particular requests and to give some surety around privacy to the committee because this is something which often comes up.And again I suppose I return to what's been my fundamental element throughout this particular contribution: we're dealing with New Zealand businesses and business people here. So really it comes back to the regulatory powers of the Governor-General. Does Minister Ron Mark have any sense around limits around the fees or the onus that's going to be put around the nature of these registers around these annual reports? I think some verbal assurance—if we can have it on the record that it's not going to put too much pressure on these people. We've heard from other contributions that there's 10 or 11 but you know these are legitimate business people.Some surety that the methods of payment will be wide and prudent—but I suspect probably not cash—and some clarity on that would be welcome. And finally as I say clause 39—how are we dealing with the disclosure of information to overseas authorities? I assume it is our allies but as I've asked Minister is that something we will be doing proactively or you would imagine proactively; is it something that we will do upon request; and just some surety to the committee that our privacy provisions are where they're at. With that I think I'll probably to the great relief of—[Interruption] No—did you want to stand up and say something? No? Good."