Mark RonRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well I have to say I will make no apology for using a full 10 minutes this evening because New Zealand First is quite puzzled by the introduction of this bill in this the dying throes of this term of Government by this Government and its cling-ons. We could be prioritising biosecurity which is being punctured daily but no. We could be debating myrtle rust and kauri dieback disease which threaten iconic species this country but no. We could be asking what Parliament can do to support our exporters but no we are not doing that. We could be raising the Manawatū Gorge as a road of real significance but we are not doing that. We could be focused on healthcare especially in the regions but we are not doing that either. We could be zeroing in on education outcomes for the young and particularly for those students out at Mauriceville School in the Wairarapa or on ongoing resourcing scheme funding and how totally out of kilter that is but no we are not doing that. It seems that in the dying throes of this Government's tenure the single-biggest issue facing New Zealand in the Parliament right now—and it just saddens me that every other party in this House seems to have just fallen over and swallowed this hook line and sinker—is about brokering of arms and military equipment.There may be some in this House who are more peace-sensitive than other parties and who love this opportunity to dance around the maypole singing Kumbaya" and telling everyone what a wonderful job we are doing here tonight. They do not like the military they do not like the defence industry they do not like the trade in military equipment or any of that violent sort of stuff and we have seen enough rhetoric out of certain parties in response to the Government's approach to youth training using the military that it is not a surprise to us that everyone is holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" over this piece of legislation. We expect this bill like the outer space one will see bans raised in an attempt to strangle our boutique trade and military equipment industry. In saying this New Zealand First will support it to select committee so we can have a sensible conversation but there is no guarantee that we will support the legislation beyond that point.We recognise and acknowledge the commitment New Zealand has given by signing—and by crikey this is a test of my pronunciation—the Wassenaar Arrangement which came into effect 21 years ago. It was 21 years ago. But we have to point out that the United States regulated its arms brokering industry in the same year that being 1996. So an agreement that was signed in 1996 has only just assumed a position of paramount importance in this Parliament and is being put through in the dying throes of this Government's tenure. Given it is 2017 we wonder whether Gerry Brownlee watched Netflix and stumbled across Lord of War which saw him wonder whether we had a Nicolas Cage - type person darting around selling arms in Africa. We assume that Mr Brownlee asked his officials about this issue and they responded: "Yes Minister. If you think it's that bad you need to watch War Dogs." While in actor Jonah Hill Minister Brownlee might well have seen a kindred spirit he might well have resolved at that point to do something about it and so this bill was born. Well this bill is over late it is over here and typically from our look at it right now it is over the top.New Zealand First and exporters eagerly look forward to hearing from earnest National Party backbenchers and from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee saying that this meets important international obligations and that controlling the trade in arms is vital for our country's reputation. But here is an inconvenient question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and every other member who takes a call on this and speaks in favour: what exactly is the scale of the issue? We could argue that the speech previous to mine by Barry Coates actually was a good example of how people who trade illegally get caught. We could argue that in actual fact the one area of greyness that allowed that to happen has recently been highlighted in the Panama Papers where people were able to use New Zealand use its lax procedures to set up a company set up a trust and take advantage for their gain using New Zealand's name. Yet has this Government seriously sought to close those loopholes? No it has not.So it introduces this bill. This bill is one that demands primary legislation as opposed to an amendment to something like the Customs and Excise Act which already regulates the importation and export of arms—already. A simple adjustment to the Customs and Excise Act done through a statutes amendment bill would resolve this and negate the need for all this palaver—wasting the time of the House ignoring the plight of every other New Zealander who cannot get a home and cannot get sufficient funding in their district health board. But oh no no we are going to pass primary legislation and every other party in the House appears suckered into it. Having done our research via the United States Department of State which administers the United States' International Traffic in Arms Regulations we wonder why this sledgehammer approach has been taken. Is this just to pontificate on the international stage and make Mr Brownlee and Mr McCully look wonderful? Is this to make Mr English look wonderful on the international stage: "Oh look what we're doing about illegal arms trading." Just amend the Customs and Excise Act—a very simple change to a clause or two. But no no we have this palaver and this performance.Bearing in mind that the United States is the world's largest arms exporter exporting goods worth about 5000 times more than what New Zealand exported in 2015 a country that boasts Boeing Lockheed Martin General Dynamics and others—guess how many brokers it has? We are just trying to tease it out. How big is this problem? So in a country that manufactures arguably the most weapons in the world how many dealers exporters brokers does it have? Is it 100000? Is it 50000? Could it be 25000 in the whole of the United States of America? Maybe 10000? Is it 5000 or 2000? Well the answer is that the problem is so huge in the United States or New Zealand that in the United States it affects only 1300 registered brokers.Clayton Mitchell: How many?RON MARK: 1300. There are more people living in Eltham than there are registered arms brokers in the entire United States. Does that therefore mean the number here will be counted on fewer than the fingers of one hand? We would say probably yes. So why Minister do we need a whole new Act when the Customs and Excise Act could have been amended to create a registry more in keeping with the likely numbers involved? But typical of National the Government against red tape and bureaucracy and legislation and regulation this Government as always has managed to create a regulatory Mount Cook out of regulatory molehill.The question that the Government needs to think about is this. If a ship-broker in Whangarei purchases a retired navy minesweeper from England and sells it to a millionaire in Florida for conversion into a gin palace does that now mean that that broker in Whangarei has to be registered as an arms broker? Yes it does. What is the sense in that? What is the purpose in that? There is no purpose. It makes no sense. What about someone who buys and sells military artefacts collectable artefacts? So let us say I have a sword there is a buyer in Australia who wants this and I know a seller in America who needs that. So I arrange a deal between those two. Do I as an antique arms collector now have to register as an arms broker?This legislation actually typifies this Government—the Government that came to power telling business that it was opposed to red tape and opposed to increased compliance costs. Here it is once again doing exactly that which it promised not to do. Our minds just boggle.Clayton Mitchell: Time for a change.RON MARK: Time for a change."