Mark RonHon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'll start with the last question first. Acknowledging that the Hon Tim Macindoe was on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and assisted in the compilation of the report could I draw his attention to page 3 of the select committee's own report. Now I do accept the explanation this evening from the honourable members of the Opposition that they're going through this exercise of questioning for the benefit of the mums and dads that are tuned in right now and all the school kids who are doing their homework around this particular topic and are looking for some guidance as to what the legislation really intends but I would draw the member back to their own report and the particular paragraph on page 3 that deals specifically with clause 10(1)(c).If I might indulge the House just for a moment and read out the select committee's own report on that particular clause it says in particular The elements of the offence—We recommend amending clause 10(1) to set out more clearly the elements of the offence."—something which I understand from officials was accepted—"In particular clause 10(1)(c) [which] would provide that a person commits an offence if when carrying out the brokering they know or ought to know that (except in some circumstances) they must not do so unless they are registered or have a permit. The 'circumstances' referred to are the exceptions in [the] new clause 9A." Now members might not have caught up with the amendment but it is covered off already in the legislation very much on the recommendations of the committee. So I thank the committee for the constructive approach to the bill but I wouldn't have expected anything else because you know the majority of the committee are National Party people who proposed the bill in the very first place and who have deep understanding of these very issues that they're canvassing here tonight.I'll just come back to one other question from the honourable Simon O'Connor—my travelling companion from Iraq and Afghanistan—who clearly in his position as chair of the committee has a very genuine and serious interest in these matters. The question is around what amounts to a person taking reasonable steps to ensure that the dual-use goods will not be used for a prohibited use under the bill. It really does from my reading of the advice put the onus back on to the person applying. The bill only applies to dual-use goods that are listed in the New Zealand Strategic Goods List so that puts the onus on the applicant to go and read what's listed there in New Zealand Strategic Goods List. Dual-use goods listed in the New Zealand Strategic Goods List are already subject to strict export controls in New Zealand and elsewhere under the four international export control regimes so they should know that if they're professionals in the field. As dealing with dual-use goods is already a controlled activity it is not unreasonable—and this advice was given to the committee I know—to expect individuals given that this is their trade this is their business this is their craft to have knowledge of their status as listed dual-use goods and to themselves as good business practitioners undertake due diligence as to whether they may be subject to controls and their intended end use or end user.Reasonable steps to ensure that dual-use goods will not be used for a prohibited use under the bill include making appropriate inquiries to ascertain the intended end use or end user to see if they would be used only for a civilian purpose and an assessment of the reliability of that information. I guess that's where we come right back to the first point and that is ascertaining the secretary's responsibility to ascertain whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person. Of course a fit and proper legitimate person who does not wish to breach international laws or contravene the treaties we have signed into would of course do that due diligence themselves would they not?"