Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill be now read a third time.

This bill demonstrates New Zealand’s continuing commitment to the fight against illegal arms trafficking and trading, and to address the devastating impacts this activity has on regional and international security and development. The bill introduces comprehensive controls to regulate the brokering of arms and military equipment by New Zealanders, and New Zealand - based entities. Brokering involves the transfer of arms from one foreign country to another. The brokering regime, in many respects, will complement the controls for the import, export, or internal movement of these items under existing legislation.

This bill has been put together by the previous Government in response to a massive problem that they identified. It has been before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and it has had thorough examination from the Opposition, who actually brought the bill to the House. I note their recommendations to the House—myself, personally—that this bill proceed, and that is what the Government is doing.

The bill was introduced to the House on 27 June 2017 by the former Government. It was considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which reported to the House on 29 March 2018. The committee recommended unanimously that the bill proceed, and I personally defer to the wisdom of that committee. With a number of amendments aimed at increasing clarity and addressing submitters’ concerns, the bill was read a second time on 1 May. I do note that it proceeded through the committee stage, and every recommendation that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee made was accepted by this Government, who acknowledged that those recommendations improved the bill.

This bill requires individuals physically in New Zealand, all New Zealand citizens, ordinary residents of New Zealand, and New Zealand entities operating offshore that wish to engage in brokering to (a) register as a broker with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and (b) obtain a permit for each brokering activity.

💬 Hon Mark Mitchell: That’s it, yep.

Brokering permits will be granted if the proposed brokering activity is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations, Mr Mitchell, and would not prejudice the security, defence, or international relations of New Zealand.

The bill creates offences for engaging in conduct that contravenes its requirements, including engaging in brokering without being registered as a broker and having a permit—that was discussed at length in the committee phase—breaching the conditions of a registration or permit—that was also discussed in depth at the committee stage—and providing false and misleading information in connection with a registration or permit, and I note, again, that was also discussed at length at the committee phase, with, ironically, the Opposition proposing further amendments that it never proposed during the actual hearing of submissions on the bill, but never mind.

Given the cross-border nature of brokering, the regime will have extraterritorial effect and will apply to New Zealanders, ordinary residents of New Zealand, and New Zealand - based entities operating offshore. In the same vein, as brokering covered by the bill will always involve the transfer of arms between two foreign countries, the consent of the Attorney-General is required for any prosecution under the bill. This requirement provides a safeguard to ensure that only appropriate cases proceed to prosecution, taking into account, among other things, the need to work with overseas law enforcement authorities to gather evidence.

The Attorney-General may also impose civil penalties, such as formal warnings, enforceable undertakings, and injunctions in appropriate cases. This bill does not prohibit brokering in weapons or military equipment outright, which is a good thing given our fledgling defence industry, but regulates such activity to ensure appropriate controls are in place to prevent these items from ending up in the wrong hands or place.

All too many communities in our region and around the world have felt the impacts of weapons falling into the wrong hands in terms of lives lost, crime, and conflict, and the crippling effect on development and prosperity. Regulating brokering supports compliance with New Zealand’s obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty—that’s a very important factor. It also supports our commitments as a participant in the four international export control regimes for conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction - related goods and technologies—other aspects that were considered in depth also in the committee phase and prosecuted by the Opposition, despite the fact that it wasn’t necessarily prosecuted as deeply in the select committee hearing phase. Never mind.

New Zealand remains a strong advocate of the Arms Trade Treaty and other disarmament, arms control, and counter-proliferation efforts. I’m pleased that New Zealand’s able to play its part in the international framework to prevent and deter illicit arms brokering through this legislation. I’d like to conclude by thanking all of those who’ve contributed to this bill—in particular, I’d like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its careful consideration of the bill, as well as officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I commend the bill to the House.

It does give me pleasure to speak on this bill because it is important, but can I start by saying that that was a good bit of reading by a Minister who—it’s not always been clear that he has been in favour of this piece of legislation. Of course, the bill is in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and it’s good to see that the Minister who read that speech on behalf of Mr Peters is doing what Mr Peters says. In the first instance, Mr Peters says, “Don’t be deputy leader anymore.”, and he did that. Then he said, “Go down to the House and read out a bill that shows categorically you’re in favour of my legislation.” The reason I say that is because before the election, Mr Mark, sitting on another side of the House in Opposition, had a very, very different view of this piece of legislation.

If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to read—because you’re not meant to read in the House—some quotes, because I wouldn’t want to actually put words into Mr Mark’s mouth. The first thing he said was that “It is like Foreign … Minister Gerry Brownlee stumbled across Lords of War and War Dogs on Netflix, [and] then decided that this was his ticket to statesman-like respectability.” Well, I can say that as a Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Brownlee read speeches very well.

Secondly, he went on to say, “this National-led government took us down a rabbit hole to regulate non-existent Kiwis trading non-existent arms in some sub-Saharan fantasy.” I didn’t hear that in Mr Mark’s speech a moment ago. He went on to say, and, actually, he should apologise to the other parties in this house, because it can’t have been National in Government he was speaking of—and I quote—“The peaceniks in … other parties loved the opportunity to dance around the maypole, sing Kumbaya and bag our boutique defence industry but not us.” That wasn’t in the speech just then, Mr Mark. It must be that the people that helped you with your press releases in Opposition are very different from the ones writing the speeches you read in the House in Government now.

And then finally he said, “The United States is the world’s largest arms exporter and has only around 1,300 registered brokers. The number of Kiwi ‘arms brokers’ may well be counted on less than the fingers of one hand”—I note he needs a hand to count—“[but] we can fix this by amendment rather than a whole new law.” And that wasn’t in Mr Mark’s speech then either.

This is an important piece of legislation. There may well not be many, if any, New Zealanders involved in arms brokering, but we have an international commitment, signed up to by the New Zealand Government and supported, I assume, by all parties in this House. The Arms Trade Treaty, which we signed in 2014, bestows an obligation upon New Zealand, and this legislation introduced by the last Government, delivered to the House before the election, and opposed by New Zealand First then, is important because it sends a signal that New Zealand’s laws line up with the rest of—[Hon Ron Mark leaves Chamber] I’m going to say a bit more about you, but all right, never mind. They line up with other countries who have also implemented these laws, and it does mean that if a New Zealander is involved with the arms trade anywhere, we need to know about it. We can keep records on them. They too have obligations, and should they fall foul of them, they can be brought to justice and they can be prosecuted.

As I said in the committee stage of this bill, in the select committee we went to some lengths to question officials to ensure that there wouldn’t be unintended consequences. Of course, things that have a military use can also have a civilian use, and it is important in meeting our obligation that we don’t burden law-abiding citizens who are going about their business, who may well have equipment that they are not using nor have designed for military purpose but that could have a military consequence at some stage if used by somebody else.

I think we got the balance about right. I mean, first and foremost in this would be New Zealanders who legally trade in recreational firearms for purposes of competition, be it in the Commonwealth Games or the Olympics, or, equally, be it for sporting purposes of hunting in New Zealand. We didn’t want the unintended consequence of them being burdened so that they would have to abide by some of the very strong and important rules in this legislation. Officials gave us an assurance that wasn’t the case, as opposed to the last speaker on the bill, Mr Mark, who I think deep down still opposes this legislation. He’s not in favour of it. I think he probably stands up for the press release he put out some time ago, but is doing what his leader is telling him in Government. The National Party does support this bill. We’ve always thought it’s important. We will be voting for it. Thank you.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. I note that this had its first reading in August 2017. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee dealt with consideration of this bill on 29 March 2018, and now we are here—March, April, May—two months later, to take its third and final reading.

I want to acknowledge, firstly, the members of that Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as well as the people of the ministry. Why? Because whilst there’s been a change of Government, the officials of our ministry remain the same. I want to acknowledge that even when we were in Opposition and dealing with international affairs, particularly when it came to the Arms Trade Treaty, it was the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who continued to provide us with information, ensured that we were briefed, and ensured that we were articulating consistent messages on the international arena, particularly around the Pacific region.

So I want to say that, and I also want to acknowledge the work of the elder statesman of this Parliament, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because although this began from the Opposition last year, I think most of us will acknowledge the fact that in that role of foreign affairs Minister, he has taken the bull by the horns to provide good, strong leadership in terms of establishing strong stakes as to our role in this region of ours, the Pacific region, but also our role on the international scene.

I then come back to this bill, which is introducing a new regime to regulate—and the bill refers to the brokering of weapons and military equipment. “Brokering” simply means the transfer of arms from one country to another, and it includes weapons, military equipment, as well as related technologies. The bill also refers to dual usage, both military and for civil services.

I remember when there was a campaign around the region for the Arms Trade Treaty. New Zealand took a very strong leadership role in that. It wasn’t just the Government; there were a number of organisations, both in New Zealand as well as around the region, who felt strongly that we needed to sign up to the Arms Trade Treaty and therefore ratify it, which we did, in 2013 and 2014. One of the reasons was that the Pacific region did not want those weapons of war circulating in our region and being used for the wrong reason—being used in conflict zones, being used in particular areas where human rights would be at risk, and the lives particularly of women and children would be at risk. And so this legislation actually is a good signal for New Zealand that we mean what we say when we are talking to the region, when we are talking to the international community, about us being responsible and us being a country that is genuinely concerned about ensuring that the transfer of arms, weapons, and whatnot from one country to another is being regulated and can be used for individual military purposes and for civil usage, but not for the illegal use of killing, war, etc.

This bill also supports that commitment that we made in 2013 when we signed up to the Arms Trade Treaty and therefore ratified it in 2014. I know around the Pacific region there are many Pacific Island countries that struggle a little bit with implementing the Arms Trade Treaty or acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty, given that climate change is really the issue of the day and is one of the priorities for many Pacific Islands. The argument I’ve used in trying to promote our moral stance around the region is to say to the Pacific Island nations, “Look, as small as we are, it is important to show to the rest of the world that we do take seriously our responsibility as global citizens and that we do take seriously the fact that climate change threatens lives, global war threatens lives, and nuclear weapons threaten lives.” Therefore, it is a responsibility of all global citizens to take seriously the need to regulate the movement or the transfer of weapons and military equipment and related technology.

The bill also supports our commitment as a country in terms of our participation in the four international export control regimes for conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and related goods and technology. Why do we need the brokering legislation? Well, the Arms Trade Treaty requires us to do so. While New Zealand currently regulates the import, the export, and the internal movements of arms, we do not currently have a statutory regime that regulates brokering or the transfer from country to country of weapons and arms. Our voluntary registration scheme was put in place when New Zealand ratified the Arms Trade Treaty, but this bill introduces more comprehensive controls consistent without our obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty, and the bill enables New Zealand to play its part in the international framework to prevent and deter illicit arms brokering.

How much of an issue is brokering in New Zealand? Well, the scale of brokering activities taking place in New Zealand is limited. We currently have about 11 entities registered with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the voluntary registration scheme. However, of those 11, less than five were potentially interested in actual brokering, and while it’s unknown how many New Zealanders may be involved in brokering activity overseas, without legislative controls we risk facilitating the illegitimate movements of arms and military equipment. So we’re also seeking to avoid having illicit arms brokers shift their activities to New Zealand, and this bill prevents New Zealand from being a weak link in international efforts to address illicit arms brokering.

Is New Zealand currently meeting its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty? Yes, of course we’re meeting our obligations. This bill is seeking more comprehensive controls, particularly inter-territorial application. Who’s subject to the brokering of this regime? Any person physically present in New Zealand if they conduct brokering activity, and that includes foreign nationals in New Zealand—for example, a British national in New Zealand who manages an arms transaction from one country to another is captured. New Zealand citizens—New Zealand ordinary citizens—and New Zealand entities registered or incorporated in New Zealand that may be living or operating overseas and conduct brokering activity from that country are all captured by this regime.

How would the average person know they may be subject to the bill and should be registered as brokers? Well, it’s reasonable to expect most people dealing with weapons, military equipment, or dual-use goods to know that it is a controlled activity and that they should look into how to broker these goods lawfully. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade will publish extensive guidelines on its website for prospective brokers on New Zealand’s regime. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade encourages all prospective brokers to first inquire with them to seek advice on the status of the goods they’re intending to broker and whether they may or are likely to fall within an exception.

There are other safeguards in the legislation which I’m supportive of, and I think that’s important. I think people will have confidence that we’re doing the right thing as international citizens of the world, but also applying to make sure that all our citizens, whether here or overseas, are living up to our international commitments to international regimes around export controls of weapons and the like. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and support the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill in its third reading. It’s pleasing that it’s passed through the House quickly and that we’re able to have the third reading today. It is actually a very important bill, and I’ll talk to some of the issues that the previous speaker, Aupito William Sio, raised.

First of all, I just want to acknowledge, again, Minister Ron Mark, who stood and took the call today for the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who is actually the sponsor of the bill and is taking the bill through the House. He stood up and showed such commitment and passion for the bill, which seems to have been somewhat of a reversal, as was highlighted by Todd McClay. With comments like “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. [We will not do that.]” It’s actually good—I’m acknowledging it. I’m being very gracious in my acknowledgment in saying that it’s good to see that he has taken a different position and he’s in the House and he’s supporting what, fundamentally, is actually a very important bill. So that is very good.

I actually wondered what a peacenik was. I wasn’t even too sure exactly what the definition of “peacenik” was. There’s a whole lot of definitions, but one of them is “an opponent of war”. Actually, I’d be surprised if there’s not one member of the New Zealand House of Representatives that would not stand up and say that we are an opponent of war. I’m sure that we’re all opponents of war. The last thing that we want to see is wars or conflicts, and so if that’s what a peacenik is, then I guess I’d maybe have to join the Greens and Golriz and say that, actually, I’m a peacenik, because I certainly don’t want to see proliferation of conflict or wars. So it’s probably the only time you’ll ever hear that, but I’ll make the admission here and now anyway.

The legislation is important, because prior to us actually bringing this legislation—and, of course, what drove it was the fact that we did sign up to the Arms Trade Treaty—we were relying on an honesty system. So someone that was going to engage a Kiwi company, or a Kiwi that was going to engage in brokering arms, was going to have to sign up to a system under the UN, but it was voluntary.

The thing I think is really important about this legislation is that, actually, a Kiwi that was going to start to enter into illegal or dishonest activity around the brokering of arms is probably highly unlikely to have signed up voluntarily to a programme. So what we’ve got now is we’ve got a mechanism in legislation whereby we can go after that person or that company if they do decide to engage in the illegal brokering of arms, particularly into conflict zones.

In the call that I took in the House, I think it was last week, one of the questions I put to the Minister was around an example I used of Iraq post the second war, when they were trying to re-establish their security services and they were coming up against some pretty major threats and resistance, and most of their opponents were better armed because they were dealing with porous borders, where the shipment of arms was actually very easy. It just highlighted the real issue that had to be dealt with and grappled with.

Like I said last week, the good thing is that the international community as a whole have become a lot more organised and a lot more motivated and focused on making sure that the proliferation of weapons and arms is actually controlled properly and stopped where it’s illegal. But the problem was that we had no mechanism to actually go after them and charge, prosecute, and convict. Now we have a very good mechanism to do that, by which we will cooperate and work through international organisations like Interpol to be able to gather the intelligence, to be able to gather the information and the evidence, that we need to actually bring to trial a Kiwi or a Kiwi firm that has decided to engage in the elicit brokering of illegal arms. So that in itself is a milestone and a very important step for us as a nation. We’re sending out a very positive message, and that’s why I’m very proud to stand in support in the third reading of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill and recommend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you very much for the call. It is a pleasure being a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. This is one of the first pieces of legislation I have been involved with for the duration, and I just want to make a comment on our select committee and the way that we operate. I think it’s a very good select committee, well chaired by my colleague Simon O’Connor, and it’s bills such as this that really do bring us together, can I say.

I’d initially like to contribute from the regulatory impact statement. The executive summary, basically, says it all: “New Zealand currently has an export control regime that regulates the movement of arms, weapons and military equipment from New Zealand, and an import control regime that regulates the movement of arms into New Zealand. However, there are currently no controls on persons in New Zealand or New Zealand citizens operating abroad who negotiate, arrange or facilitate the international movement of arms and/or military equipment—an activity known as brokering.” So the piece of legislation that we are discussing closes that loophole and it also enables us as a country to actually ensure that the Arms Trade Treaty that we’ve signed up to in 2013 is enacted in our domestic legislation.

The reason we do these things is because we are a global citizen—we’re part of a global community. The issue of arms brokering is relevant in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the Ukraine, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mexico, and the Central African Republic. So that’s the relevance of this piece of legislation. On one hand, we acknowledge that these pieces of military equipment are actually manufactured, and there are a lot of countries around the world that make a lot of money from manufacturing and selling those weapons. This piece of legislation joins an international consensus that says, “While [arms] brokering can be used to facilitate legitimate arms deals … uncontrolled brokering assists the movement of arms and military equipment to illegitimate users or undesirable destinations,” including—those war zones that I’ve just read out, and includes—“countries under [UN] arms embargo and conflict zones, where they are often used to commit human rights and other abuses.”

So, people, that is why we debate and discuss treaties and then enact them in domestic legislation. We do so because we do want to bring peace to the world. I mean, the “Kumbaya” comment is kind of interesting, because, at the end of the day, I do think there have to be principles and values that guide what we do as respective democracies globally. It is through that international consensus, and that forever aiming for peace to reduce human suffering, to promote cooperation, transparency, and also to help build a world that, actually, is more about the good things in life, which is about young people getting a good education and people having dreams and aspirations so that they can go to things like the Commonwealth Games and world cups. It is actually about wanting to be part of a world and having a world that facilitates those types of opportunities that really do look at what human potential looks like.

I mean, I could talk for the rest of my six minutes—and maybe I’m going to get a note that says I have to!—but, essentially, the process that we have all been through has led us to one where we have universal consensus in the House. Even though we’ve tried to beat up on poor Mr Ron Mark, he and his party are going to support this piece of legislation. As I said before, I think that the process that we have been through, and I do hope that Golriz Ghahraman—I note my colleague Duncan Webb isn’t on the speaking list, which is a real shame, because there were some intense discussions about—

💬 Chris Bishop: Intense—intense.

—intense—jurisdiction, about mens rea, about a whole lot of other things that the lawyers in the room had this intellect—they were doing intellectual gymnastics, and I think I’ve mentioned it before. Seriously, I just had to sit there and watch. I think Simon O’Connor and I enjoyed being passive observers at some of those meetings. But we did diligently go through this bill and try to make it a better bill. I think if you read the select committee report, in the commentary, I think that everything that we’ve done in terms of the select committee process has enhanced this piece of legislation.

So I’m not going to bore anyone for any longer. I have been given the eye and the word that I can sit down. So, without further ado, I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could I assure the honourable member for Manurewa that far from boring us, she was indeed speaking very intelligently and I’m happy to carry on where she has left off, and I thank her for her thoughtful contribution to this debate. As she noted, New Zealand joined the international Arms Trade Treaty—I have to say it was actually 2014, not in 2013, but that’s a minor point. I’m pleased that she adopted the stance that she did, because it was very clear from the flippant tone adopted by the Minister of Defence a short time ago when he was moving the third reading and reading out the Foreign Minister’s speech that he is still not convinced that this bill is necessary.

Given that we have thoroughly traversed Mr Mark’s sarcastic remarks of last October and the more appropriate and informed comments of MPs from other parties, including my own National Party, since the bill’s first reading last year, I thought it’d be useful for those who are following this debate outside the House to hear a bit of its history and the views of some of our Five Eyes partners on this security issue.

Speaking at the final Arms Trade Treaty conference in March 2013, the then Australian Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr, noted that around 500,000 people are killed each year by the estimated 875 million small arms that are currently in circulation—875 million small arms. He went on to say that more than 325,000 people are said to have lost their lives through armed violence since the previous round of negotiations had ended just nine months earlier, in July 2012. Then he went on to make some really interesting and alarming points about the proliferation of AK-47 rifles. “With only eight moving parts, weighing less than five kilograms loaded, and costing less than US$100 in some locations, it is little surprise”, said Senator Carr, “[that] the AK-47 rifle has become a ubiquitous feature of conflict zones around the globe. Around a decade ago, tens of thousands of AK-47 rifles were transported into Liberia in violation of the UN arms embargo—firearms that were used to commit terrible crimes by young boys forced to kill.”

This is a serious issue. This was five years ago when Senator Carr was speaking. Today, around 70 million AK-47 rifles are in circulation worldwide.

In September of that year, Senator John Kerry, who was President Barack Obama’s second Secretary of State, articulated the views of the US administration in supporting the treaty, when Senator Kerry said, “This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong. And this is about promoting international peace and global security. And this is about advancing important humanitarian goals.”

While I’d like to say much more, I’ll just put one final comment on record, and that is of Britain’s Foreign Secretary under the former Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Government. These are the words of the Rt Hon William Hague, who was the then Foreign Secretary: “This treaty will help make the world safer, by placing human rights and international humanitarian law at the heart of decisions about the arms trade. For the first time, countries have agreed international rules governing everything from small arms to warships. If these rules are implemented globally and effectively, they have the power to stop the arms from reaching terrorists and criminals, and fuelling conflict and instability around the world.”

I’m sure that we would all agree with those comments. There are many more of that nature that I could put on the record, but I very much hope that the immature approach of our current Minister of Defence will not be seen by those following this debate to reflect the views of members of this House as a whole, because I can assure members of the public they most certainly do not. This is an appropriate, intelligent, and important response to a very serious and challenging matter of international security, and I wholeheartedly support it.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise today proudly, again, to speak in favour of this bill. As has been said by every member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we did have some robust discussions and we’re all incredibly proud of our work on this bill, but also I would like to thank the officials that assisted us. We called them back week after week, and they responded diligently to all of our queries and were incredibly useful to our—what have been called—robust debates on details of law.

I am so proud of that select committee. I’m also so proud of this Parliament that we are in agreement and consensus over this. I particularly welcome the comments by my then colleague on that select committee the Hon Mark Mitchell, who declared himself to be a peacenik with the Greens, on this issue only. But we are today all peaceniks, with the Greens. We stand today as a Parliament, as a House of Representatives, for peace.

I do want to—as I’ve done on a previous occasion—just draw on my own personal experience on this particular issue, because I have seen war. I would like us to come back to that context—that very important, very real context. Anyone who has lived in war, as I have, will know, will remember, the sounds and the terror, but also, in particular, as one of the ordinary people, the helplessness and that sense of being trapped and having no control over violence that escalates, that ebbs and flows but does seem—particularly in the part of the world that I emanate from—to be never-ending. We seem to be living in a time of perpetual war now—in particular, in the Middle East, but not just in the Middle East.

I’ve looked at the conference that came to be—as part of the arms trade movement—within the UN that came up with the Arms Trade Treaty. The countries that begged for this, the States that came with their representatives, the NGOs that begged for this, included South Sudan, the tiniest, newest nation in this world, who reminded delegates that the eyes of the world, the eyes of the victims, were upon them. Even though some quite powerful nations also fought against this treaty, the delegates at that conference came to an agreement.

I do want to remind us all of what the victims said. One statement said, “Arms cannot continue [to be] commercialized without regulations. The present situation does not allow us to avoid diversion [of] illicit [markets], or to the criminal and terrorist organizations which destabilize our society.” So that’s what we’re trying to stop right now.

There are hundreds of little communities and societies all around the world that are being destabilised by violence, and we see it on TV every day. But New Zealand, until now, has not been part of the solution. We’ve not had a law that regulates arms, or brokering in particular. We are a country that has actually been the centre of arms brokering in at least one major incident, where a shell company registered on Queen Street in Auckland was used to broker some 35 tonnes of arms between North Korea and Iran. That is frightening. That happened in 2014, the year that, actually, this treaty came into effect and we were signatories, proudly, as part of that international rule of law effort.

But today we can say that we are in fact giving effect to that movement and we will be part of the solution. Our laws, now, will define what illegal arms brokering means. So whether it’s an individual or a company that’s registered here, they will have to be transparent with the kinds of activities that they’re involved with. We will have a definition of the types of items that are going to be regulated—whether they’re mixed-use items, whether they’re actual arms—and we’ll have experts feeding into this very fast-moving industry so that we know what we should regulate and how we should do that.

So we should be very proud of that, because New Zealand has always been a beacon for peace. New Zealand has always been on the side of the rule of law, and we will on this day be a beacon, again. This kind of thing can’t be stopped by any one nation. I think, as part of the free world, we have a particular responsibility to regulate, because, of course, arms do get moved between legitimate arms manufacturers who manufacture small arms for recreational use and organisations or groups that can’t buy them legitimately because there are sanctions in place to control them because they’ve been identified as a terror group, and this is the kind of group that fights these proxy wars that go on for ever and ever for profit. Today, we’re going to contribute to stopping this.

I do want to congratulate NGOs here in New Zealand as well, like Oxfam New Zealand, who fought very hard for this on the international stage, and the ex - Green Party MP Barry Coates, who was involved at the forefront of this. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call in this third reading on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. Look, it is an excellent bill. The reasons for it have been very clear and well-articulated by members earlier, and I’d like to add my own voice and earlier presentations.

Can I acknowledge all of the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, who worked on this in the robust debates, as it’s been referred to, but I think it’s probably a good example of how the Parliament works that everyone’s come together. I particularly want to pay mention to the officials in the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who worked very hard to pull this together on some elements that were particularly technical. I think too of their patience as we moved through the committee of the whole House, but I’m sure they served the Minister well.

Look, this is a small piece of legislation for this House, but an important one. Unlike the previous speaker, Golriz Ghahraman, I haven’t lived in a war zone, but I was lucky enough—if that’s the right word—to be in Afghanistan and Iraq earlier this year, and one can see the devastation wrought by weapons in general, knowing full well that many of those are brokered into those theatres of conflict.

But some might suggest, after the committee of the whole House, that I have said far too much and spent far too much time on this bill. So it’s an absolute pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

It does give me pleasure to speak on this bill. Unlike my namesake on the other side of the House, Simon O’Connor, I’m a newbie to this. It’s one of those wonderful occasions where, having listened to a lot of my colleagues speaking on this as I prepared for a speech on another issue, I couldn’t help but absorb much of what they were talking about, such is the interest in this topic. I couldn’t help it, too—I did look up, and often, as you’ll know, Madam Deputy Speaker, sometimes you’re working here, and I saw the Hon Mark Mitchell describe himself as a peacenik. My mind immediately drifted to the sight of Mark Mitchell with, perhaps, a tie-dyed T-shirt, a ponytail, a headband, and a banjo. I look forward to perhaps seeing him in that, because, as he looked up dreamily, I think that’s how he saw himself.

But going back to the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker—as I know you’ll be pleased to see I intend to do—as I read through the papers, there’s one thing that did occur to me. With this legislation, what it will do is actually protect a lot of New Zealanders as well. Being an immigrant nation where many of the peoples who arrived here in different waves, be it the 12th century right through to today, were people who were coming from places for—obviously, you only emigrate for something better. Often, we left areas of conflict and places where traditional rivalries going back centuries, often, had brought about the conditions that required our families to immigrate. One of the downsides of that is that often when we come to a new land like New Zealand, we bring the history of those conflicts with us.

As someone who’s of Irish Catholic descent, I know I grew up with stories of how badly the English had treated the Irish, going back a century and a half. What that did tend to do is manifest itself in a belief that even generations later, you needed to help in those conflicts that had perhaps continued. Of course, the way to do that—and, again, I look at the experience that I’ve had with those who continued to supply the IRA in Ireland through the conflict, and also the Protestant groups on the other side. A lot of the funding for those groups came from groups in the New World, where they’d gathered money through charitable organisations and various others and sent arms and money back to accentuate those conflicts.

So when I see that and remember that and I look at this legislation, I see that it’s actually a piece of legislation that while it will achieve much of what the previous speakers have spoken to, is something we can reflect close to home, providing the protections so that when, perhaps, that requirement, that request, comes from one of those old countries—whether they be in Africa, Asia, Europe, or the Pacific; wherever we came from—for people to assist by way of sending arms or brokering, or sending that back to those areas, then this will actually form: “Well, I’d like to help, but I can’t because there’s a five-year sentence involved in this.”

So I think it’s looking at it slightly from an internal point of view. Again, of course, I look at—it’s unusual, I see, that in New Zealand we do regulate activities overseas. This, of course, gets up there with the regulation we have around child sex exploitation up in Asia. So that is, again, another area where we have previously legislated the activities of New Zealanders who are overseas. So, again, it shows how seriously we do take this—the misery we can cause overseas and, I suppose, the measures we can take within our own country to prevent that happening. So, again, looking through this legislation, it is not only very sensible and not only very timely but also something that provides protection for those overseas who are so often victims.

I see also the prohibition does not apply—it’s got that pragmatic approach to it—to a person who carries out in relation to a weapon that’s related or is a dual-use good. In other words, it may have a civilian use but is intended for military end—so, again, a sensible thing. It’s not designed to prevent New Zealand companies doing business just because something could, perhaps, at the end of the day, end up in those hands. A person who carries out the brokering activities outside New Zealand and complies with an equivalent overseas regime, so as long as it’s not breaking the law of that place, and anything done by a person who is employed by a department—and, of course, obviously, giving that protection within New Zealand.

Again, unlike my namesake, having been something of a johnny-come-lately to this piece of legislation—in the time I’ve had to examine it, it looks very sensible. It’s something that I’m very pleased to stand here and commend to this House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m pleased to take what will be a much shorter call on this bill than I’ve made previously, and I’d like to start by acknowledging, as others have done, various parties who have been involved in the drafting and now passage of this legislation: the officials who drafted and also those who advised the select committee; those who have submitted, members of the public, including NGOs, as has already been acknowledged by another member who’s spoken on the bill; and fellow members of the select committee. I wasn’t part of the select committee from the very start in considering this bill, so I am, in the parlance of the navy, something of a half-tripper in this regard, but I did enjoy my time considering the bill. While the conversations were at times pedantic, I suppose an unkind person might say, these were important matters that we were thrashing out between us.

Also I congratulate the Governments—plural—who have been involved in the passage of the bill. Of course, my party’s Government initially introduced it and the current Government continued it on to this stage. The structure of the bill is clear enough and needs no further explanation from me—essentially, setting up a registration and permit regime.

It’s been noted by other members who have taken a call on this third and final reading that the bill is an important measure to help New Zealand meet its international obligations. There are two dimensions to that. One is the legal obligations that we have via the Arms Trade Treaty, but also we have a moral obligation as a country, not only to other nations but also to ourselves. The heart of the bill, it seems to me—and an important mechanism within it—is the fact that it controls the activities of New Zealand citizens albeit they are not necessarily in New Zealand at the time that they are performing the conduct that’s prohibited by the bill. So that’s not unique to this legislation, of course, but it is quite an interesting characteristic and, of course, completely in keeping with the fact that it is a bill that seeks to regulate and control activity across the border.

I will be interested to see, as I’m sure other members of the House will be, how the bill is applied—or the Act is applied, as it will soon become—in future years. The devil is always in the detail in such matters and those of us who have paid close attention to its provisions will be interested to see exactly how it plays out in terms of those definitions in the application of it both here and overseas. So, with no further ado, it gives me pleasure to commend the bill—along with other members of my party, and indeed it seems the whole House—for it to be passed into law at this third and final reading.

Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to first of all acknowledge a couple of members who have passed a week or so back. I never got the opportunity to honour them. They were both National Party members: Tony Steel and Katherine O’Regan. I wanted to mention them because I always had a lot of admiration for Tony Steel, not because he was a National Party MP at all, but because he was an All Black and a pretty genial sort of bloke. We had a lot of good discussions about sport in the House.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: And a great sprinter.

Yeah, a great sprinter, wasn’t he? Wasn’t he a great sprinter and a neat guy, actually. I remember working with Tony on a few things, as we do sometimes across the House, and as we’ve done on this bill.

Katherine O’Regan was a woman who I admired very much, because I went overseas with her about 30 years ago. It was a leadership delegation that she led with Richard Northey. I thought she did some neat things, Katherine, and I was very sad to hear about her passing, too. I remember going to China with her in 1986, and I remember her working so well with our Māori membership in particular. She had quite a distinguished political career, serving as a Minister and very nearly knocking the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, out of Tauranga. I think she lost by 62 votes one year. So I want to just honour those two.

He tika me mihi ki a rāua kātahi anō kua hinga, nō reira e te tokorua nei moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[It is fitting here to acknowledge the two who have recently passed away, so to you both, rest in peace.]

In terms of this bill, it’s been spoken about at length. I will say that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has worked very well together—no doubt about that. Despite National and Labour both being on there, generally we’ve worked pretty tightly, well chaired by Simon O’Connor—no doubt about it. Also, a lot of experience was brought to the table from our member here from Manurewa, Louisa Wall.

💬 Louisa Wall: I miss Gerry.

The saddest part of it all, of course, is that National decided to demote our good friend Gerry Brownlee, and now he’s missing in action. We do miss his experience and what he brought to the committee, which was a lot of humour and a lot of experience and certainly some background. So, he’s sadly missed now and, sadly, he’s been replaced by the former Foreign Minister Todd McClay, who brings nothing apart from sarcasm and reminders about what Ron Mark said about this bill the last time that it was brought before the House. But, as we all know, time has moved on and Ron’s had a good rethink and now—I should say the Hon Ron Mark—realises that this bill is the right bill to go through.

So I want to acknowledge our committee. I think it’s a good committee, and we seem to work from a pretty good position.

In terms of the bill, it establishes, as everyone has said, a regulatory regime for the brokering of weapons and military equipment by New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities operating offshore. Of course, that brokering involves negotiating, arranging, or facilitating the international transfer of weapons and military equipment from one foreign country to another.

Quite rightly, the bill requires all New Zealand citizens, New Zealand ordinary citizens, and New Zealand entities wishing to engage in brokering to register with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade and obtain a permit for each brokering activity. Of course, the secretary may grant permits if satisfied that the proposed brokering activity is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations and would not prejudice the security, defence, or international relations of New Zealand.

We’ve traversed many of the components of this bill during the second reading, but it’s important to say that the bill does not prohibit the brokerage of weapons or military equipment, and it’s appropriate to repeat that it regulates its activity to ensure controls are in place. That’s a key point, because the dangers of them ending up in the wrong hands—like Kiritapu Allan’s relations down there in Tūhoe—are probably absolutely minimal, but you never know how Governments respond to that danger when they hear about arms being handed around. As we all well know, there’s quite a sensitivity around who’s got weapons or who may have weapons. We hear and see the horror stories every day. Items such as cars, trucks, and rubbish bins are being used in terms of weapons. Imagine the damage that could be inflicted on our communities if more advanced-design weapons were to fall into the hands of the wrong people. That’s why around the world at the moment pieces of legislation such as this are so important.

In terms of keeping communities safe, in terms of keeping a level of stability in different communities and different countries, and in terms of providing peace and protection, this type of legislation safeguards and makes a number of communities feel safe and comfortable in terms of going forward. The bill on its own, though, won’t be the only solution, but it is us doing our part here to hold Kiwis accountable, New Zealanders accountable, who act or behave in an inappropriate way. It’s not only part of our wider international obligations but also part of the solution to control or limit the damage that can be caused. You know, whilst we can be accused of overreacting or exaggerating what some of the problems might be, it’s better—whether we’re a National or Labour Government or, in this case, a coalition Government—to act on the side of safety.

I also want to highlight, as I did when speaking during the first reading on the bill, that its intent is to enable appropriate conditions—enable appropriate conditions—to be placed on a broker’s registration or permit. New Zealand plays its part in the international framework by ensuring that there are appropriate controls in place that will prevent New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities from being involved in illicit arms brokering and deter any illicit arms brokers from shifting their activities to New Zealand. Now, again, we have to be very serious about this, and we have to err in terms of the safety side of things. I know that the bill, of course, doesn’t excite many of us out there, but it remains important to remember the impacts that some of these weapons that are traded can obviously have on innocent communities around the world.

We’re getting numerous examples of, I suppose—for want of a better word—terrorist activities around the world by all types of people. Some of that comes about because there is no control framework that has been put in place. That’s why it’s my view that it’s vital that we as a country continue to play our part in this international context—that when Kiwis play a role, no matter how insignificant, in the brokerage of weapons, they’re registered with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and they have to obtain the appropriate permits.

I said this last time I contributed to this bill, and it remains just as true today. We all look from the relative safety of our country, from Aotearoa, at some of the effects the weapons have had abroad, from attacks that have taken the lives of the innocent to those that have helped change the landscape of many a nation, and it’s essential that we continue to rally against the illegal trading in weapons and military equipment. This particular bill will ensure that monitoring and reporting in this area will directly prevent Kiwis from engaging in brokerage where there is a real risk that these weapons will fall into the wrong hands. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I didn’t interrupt the member, but I just do want to remind the member, especially as he is a Minister, that we are expected to deliver speeches without reading them—much better improvement this time, but we really should be delivering speeches without reading.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a somewhat more succinct call than the last member, Willie Jackson, on the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill. Look, I would just like to admire, I suppose, the last member’s ability to take 10 minutes to say what he could have said in approximately 30 seconds. Having said that, I will try to minimise my contribution and stick to some of the facts here.

So, look, this is an important piece of legislation. We’re really looking to just develop some appropriate regulations around the transacting of militarised equipment from New Zealanders. It’s good to see, actually, that New Zealand First have decided to come to the party, as it were, and change their stance. I commend Ron Mark for that in particular, moving away from his comments around the potential “War Dogs Bill”, as he previously called it. Perhaps he had plenty of opportunity to reconsider his stance while he was repurposing military aircraft to fly him around the country.

So, look, as we saw through the committee stage of this, we had Supplementary Order Paper 24, which brought in a few minor amendments there, which was an appropriate reflection to get a few tweaks to tidy it up a little bit. But, look, the main one I wanted to focus on with my contribution was around the classification of dual-use goods, and the exemption of that from this particular bill for people who are conducting brokering activities. Of course, they require a permit under this bill, but they can be exempt if they are transacting in dual-use goods. I’m talking here about navigation, avionics-type equipment, electronics, lasers, propulsion units—any of these sorts of things that could, indeed, have both a military purpose and also an agricultural purpose, for example. Interestingly, that can have quite a contrasting impact on the particular nation that those pieces of equipment then might be utilised in. It could be bringing significant benefit through agricultural purposes, or causing significant harm through military purposes, if used inappropriately.

I think it’s really important for us to have that exemption here in New Zealand because we are, indeed, world leaders in a number of areas. We have a significant electronics programme being developed, and we can look at projects such as the autonomous kiwifruit harvester in the Bay of Plenty—Robotics Plus are doing some great work up in that space. So it would be inappropriate to capture them and restrict them from being able to trade some of those pieces of equipment that may potentially have a dual use. So this gives us the ability to exempt them, provided they have made some effort to endeavour that their goods will not be used for any military-type purpose.

So, look, I’ll just wrap it up there. This bill has been well supported. It’s important that we continue to take a strong leadership stance, especially around the implementation of our Arms Trade Treaty, and I think this makes an important contribution to that, with appropriate exemptions and rules in place. Thank you.

It’s a delight to rise, as the final speaker on behalf of the Government, to speak in support of the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill in its third reading. Before I commence my remarks proper, I want to acknowledge—

Ka huri au ki tō tātou reo rangatira o tēnei whenua.

E tika ana kia mihi atu ki a koutou ngā iwi o Te Pirirākau i waenganui i te Whare nei. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou.

[Allow me to use our revered language of this country.

It is only proper that I welcome you, the Pirirākau people into this House. Warm greetings to you all.]

I just want to acknowledge those people that have travelled from far and wide, from Tauranga Moana, and came to this House this morning. Oddly, it could be said, in some ways it’s related to the substance of this bill.

Right now, this bill—that we are all in full support of as a House—is about the controls in an international environment. It’s the regulation and the controls that relate to weapons and arms in an international environment. I reflect that at the commencement of today we had a significant wero, or a challenge, laid down by the peoples of Tauranga Moana to us, and I reflected just the other day that it wasn’t so long ago, in a less than global world as it was back then, that many of the origins within our own country were predicated on war, and so it was interesting to have that reminder as a commencement to my day today. So I acknowledge the people of Tauranga Moana that are with us.

Too, I want to acknowledge my poor friends here to my left who are getting a bit of a hammering—our dear friends in our coalition, New Zealand First. But I want to acknowledge the work of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his leadership in terms of bringing this bill into the House to complete its cycle. It was started under the previous Government—the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Whilst my friends to my right miss him on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I can say I’m absolutely delighted to have gained him on the Regulations Review Committee. He’s been a very welcome addition to our team; I’m sorry that he has been a loss to yours.

But look, the work was started—sometimes in this role it’s actually nice to not have to bicker and go toe to toe with the Opposition, and this is one of those occasions that we can do so. In bringing this legislation into the House, we join alongside our other Five Eyes parties: the United States, the UK, now us, and Australia already have—in terms of introducing domestic legislation that seeks to regulate the way in which arms are transferred across the world.

It’s been well picked up, but I think it is interesting to reflect on the fact that there are some particular nuances in this bill that do indeed set it aside. My colleague the Hon David Parker, when he made his remarks in respect to this bill, picked up on the fact that it’s not very often that we introduce legislation that seeks to follow New Zealand citizens where they go around the world, and this bill does, in fact, do that. It regulates the way in which a New Zealand citizen can conduct themselves whether they are within our territory or in external territories.

My colleague from the Green Party, Miss Ghahraman, earlier mentioned that it was only in recent times, about 2014 or so, that little old New Zealand, which isn’t a big player, one would think, in terms of international weapons trade and so forth, found ourselves—a little company registered up there in Queen Street in Auckland found itself being implicated in an arms trading operation and it was only a few years ago.

So albeit we’re probably a little player when it comes to these matters at an international level in comparison to some other countries, we nevertheless do have and have had a role that I think has in some ways been a bit of a blemish on our international name, so this bill here pulls us in line. It gives effect to the agreements that we made when we signed the Arms Trade Treaty. It pulls us in line with other contemporary nations internationally and, I guess, gives it effect domestically. Whilst it wasn’t actually needed—we didn’t need to introduce legislation to give effect to the Arms Trade Treaty; we have, indeed, ratified it—this does enable our Government to exercise separate and distinct measures and regulations when it comes to weapons being brokered.

Like my colleagues across the aisle, I don’t need to lament and talk about all the nuances because I think that has been, by and large, said across the House. This is one of the rare occasions—but I do hope that there are more—when we can find agreement from both sides of the aisle in respect of matters that are of fundamental importance to New Zealand and our international brand and the way that we conduct our affairs on the world stage. So, with that, it’s a delight to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.