Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister in the chair Tracey Martin for that explanation; it is helpful. I know certainly in my own electorate of two manufacturers that supply military equipment which could easily be classed as dual-use—for example mounts for weapons that go up on to a helicopter. Now if any layperson saw those they would have no idea that they have a military use. My concern would be if people were unwittingly buying those goods and then shifting them off overseas how are the people who are those manufacturers captured by the bill? I'm for the bill; I've got no concerns about that. I just want to make sure we're not spilling over and catching people who are quite innocently going about their business.I also have another business within my electorate that supplies and fits out specialist boats for special services. They also could be bought in parts and retrofitted to another use a military use in another country. That could easily be a brokered deal. I know they are not the broker and supposedly not captured in this bill but they could be part of the chain of the deal. That's how these deals are done often these days. You don't need to be the person holding the goods necessarily to be a part of that chain. So I would like some assurance around that from the officials perhaps if the Minister doesn't have those to hand.But I do note on the dual-use thing that it is pretty broad and you know one could imagine boots for example being dual-use goods that could be quite innocently also used. I see in the clause in the bill related to the definition that military end-use means—(a) incorporation into military items that fall within a specified category; or (b) use production or testing of equipment and components for the development production or maintenance of military items that fall within a specified category; or (c) use of any unfinished products for the production of military items that fall within a specified category."I guess that's the bit—particularly that last bit "unfinished products"—where you have a known manufacturer that can build components that are quite specialised and could be ordered in isolation and the manufacturer may not know that that's going to be utilised as a mount for a military aircraft for military weapons which could be used for sinister use. So how does that work for that specific manufacturer and are they captured by this bill? I mean the bill is laudable in its intentions and I think we will get there but we just have to ensure that we aren't catching or capturing people who are going about their ordinary lawful business with no sinister intent.There's no doubt at all that all of the conflicts in the world that are fought by terrorists and sort of quasi-armies—they get hold of their weapons somehow. This bill is trying to ensure that we on our shores have our laws squared away so that we are not a part of that problem. Meeting our treaty obligations is obviously very important in an international sense and it's great to see that New Zealand First have come along on this because I note from Mr Mark's speech from August in 2017 that and I quote "The peaceniks in the other parties loved the opportunity to dance around the maypole sing Kumbaya and bag our boutique defence industry but not us." So I'm wondering how long it took Mr Mark to learn to sing "Kumbaya" and to dance around the maypole. I would actually pay to see that. So with that Madam Chair thank you."