Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) : I move, That the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill be now read a second and a third time. This bill implements New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which requires legislation. The convention establishes a wide-ranging prohibition on the use of cluster munitions, which cause unacceptable human harm. The convention is a significant development in international humanitarian measures, and, therefore, its implementation is a key disarmament priority for this Government. Cluster munitions pose a particular threat to civilians. They have a wide area effect and they very often leave behind a large number of unexploded devices. Decades after their use, the tragedy of lost lives and horrific injuries is still apparent.

The legacy of unexploded cluster munitions endangers civilian lives in the same way that landmines do. In early December I was pleased to attend the global landmine summit at Cartagena in Columbia. There I was privileged to visit a small village in the jungle to view at first hand the sobering challenges facing communities affected by munitions of any kind. New Zealand has played its part in the fight against the effects of cluster munitions. Through NZAID we have contributed to clearance operations and we have given support to assist victims. Our Defence Force has helped clear unexploded cluster munitions around the world, most recently in southern Lebanon. These experiences have brought home to New Zealanders the horrible cost paid by the victims of cluster munitions. The time has come for us to act to help stop others from falling victim to cluster munitions. I am proud that New Zealand played a leading role in the process toward the Convention on Cluster Munitions. We were a member of the small core group of States that drove the convention, and in the process we hosted a crucial meeting in Wellington last year. This bill will enable New Zealand to meet its obligations under the convention.

I would like to put on record my thanks for the work done by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The bill has emerged from the committee in an improved form, with amendments that take on board many of the proposals made in submissions. Some of these are aimed at reflecting the convention more faithfully, and a few are of a technical nature. There are, however, several more substantive amendments that I will mention briefly. Submissions raised two issues relating to the scope of the offences. The first was that the offences contained in clause 11 might inadvertently criminalise New Zealanders who are involved in legitimate cluster munitions clearance activities overseas. This was not, of course, the intention, and subclause (4A) has been inserted in clause 12 in order to make this clear. The bill now provides a further procedural check by requiring the Attorney-General’s consent for prosecutions under clause 11.

The second issue was whether the prohibition on assistance provided sufficient indication that it applied to those who invest in cluster munitions. The select committee recommended making the prohibition against investment more explicit. Accordingly, new subclause (1A) in clause 11 makes it an offence to deliberately set out to provide funds for or to invest in cluster munitions production or development. This offence is similar to some existing offences, and it makes it clear that in order to be convicted the perpetrator must either intend for the funds to be used or know that they will be used in the development or production of cluster munitions. Therefore, the offence is not directed at those who unwittingly invest in a company with some connection with cluster munitions. Rather, it is directed at those who knowingly invest in a company manufacturing cluster munitions. Although this new offence spells out that a specific mental element is required, it is not intended to suggest that there is no mental element for the other clause 11 offences.

These offences have been drafted using the wording in the convention and the approach in similar existing legislation, such as the Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act 1998. All the offences outlined in clause 11 carry the same maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years, or a fine of up to $500,000, or both, which indicates that all these offences are aimed at offending at the serious end of the scale. One of the most contentious issues in the negotiation of the convention was that of interoperability, which is the term used to describe the circumstances in which a State’s parties and their military personnel or citizens may engage in military operations with States that are not party to the convention. This is addressed in article 21. The relevant aspects of that article are implemented in clauses 11(2) and 12(5). Other aspects of article 21 do not need legislative implementation. Rather, they will be implemented through mechanisms such as diplomatic representation. There was also some concern in the submissions that the bill permits the importation of cluster munitions for training purposes. There is no present intention to bring any cluster munitions into New Zealand. However, the bill does not rule out that possibility, as new types of cluster munitions may be developed and New Zealand Defence Force personnel may need appropriate training to continue our ongoing humanitarian assistance.

Before I conclude, I would like to pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations that have had an active role in the negotiation of the convention. In particular, I should mention the importance of the global and local Cluster Munition Coalition. Its commitment has been essential in getting us to this point. Non-governmental organisations will also have a crucial role when the convention enters into force. New Zealand was one of 94 States to sign the convention at a ceremony in Oslo on 3 December 2008. There are now 103 signatories and 24 States have ratified, with the convention requiring 30 ratifications to bring it into force.

Our work will not end there. The more States that commit to the convention, the stronger the norm against cluster munitions will become. New Zealand will be a strong advocate for the convention. Through diplomatic channels we have pressed upon other States the importance of the convention and we have encouraged the ratification of it. I urge all States that have not already done so to sign and ratify the convention as soon as possible. I hope that our legislation will be useful to other countries as they strive to implement the convention themselves. Efforts to universalise the convention are key to creating a sense of moral repugnancy and to rid the world of these hideous weapons. New Zealand has a profile on disarmament and arms control issues far above our size or place in the world. We have long taken a strong position on the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions, and we have taken a central role in the development of the convention. I am extremely pleased to continue that tradition with this bill. I am proud that New Zealand is truly committed to a world without cluster munitions, and that I stand to represent the Government and the people of New Zealand in making that stand. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) : I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to say we support the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill, and do so with a sense of ownership of it. My departed colleague the previous member for Wellington Central, the Hon Marian Hobbs, was a passionate advocate for this legislation. Indeed, she introduced it into the House. She was a tireless international worker in this area. I have to say that the Labour Party leader, Phil Goff, in his previous role as foreign Minister, was also a tireless advocate for this legislation. As the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control has just acknowledged in her presentation, New Zealand took a leadership role in the world, and we can be very proud of that. The passage of this legislation today, with the support of all parties in the House, is something that all New Zealanders can feel satisfaction and pride in.

As the Minister said, cluster munitions have caused enormous harm around the world. Indeed, one of the contributions from the Labour side this afternoon will be from David Shearer, the Labour member for Mt Albert—one of our newest MPs—who has worked in the Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He will no doubt talk about the effects of cluster munitions that he has seen, and about their long-lasting impact on civilian populations, particularly children. I know that as a result of the conflict that took place in the Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel, many children in the Lebanon have suffered horrific injuries from playing with these small and shiny objects, which are found scattered across their country. Those children have not been alone in being the victims of these evil and insidious munitions.

I remember that last year, when I visited Cambodia in my role as the then education Minister, I saw firsthand the effects of landmines on young children. They had lost limbs. At this point I want to compliment Mr Chhour, a Cambodian refugee who came to New Zealand in the 1970s, and who has been extraordinarily generous in providing artificial limbs for many of these children. Cluster munitions cause the same problems as landmines. In a way, they are even more dangerous than landmines, because they look so innocent. At least a minefield can be cleared. Finding these small, shiny objects, which are often very attractive to children, can be extraordinarily difficult in places. We have over 20 countries and territories where these weapons have been used, and where they lie in wait for the unwary—most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I am sure Mr Shearer will talk about that.

Why was this legislation not dealt with through the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons? New Zealand is one of the countries that became very frustrated with that slow and bureaucratic process. I know that another of my Labour colleagues, the new member for Wellington Central, Grant Robertson, who was a New Zealand representative at the UN, may well talk in his presentation, and I do not want to pre-empt his speech, about why New Zealand and six other countries, including Norway, Austria, the Holy See, and Ireland—a gang of seven, if you like—got together and thought we had to move things along. We thought they were going so slowly we would never get there—that we never going to get an international treaty that prohibited the use of cluster munitions. So New Zealand, working with those other six countries, set up what was called the Oslo process, which set an objective of having legislation like the legislation that we will pass today adopted globally. We then went on to two more conferences, in Lima and Vienna. Finally, last year, here in Wellington we had a conference where, I think, 82 countries were represented and over 400 delegates came. Mr Goff, in his role as foreign Minister, opened the conference. Out of that conference came this legislation. It makes me really proud, as a New Zealander, to be a part of a process that sees this legislation, which was worked on across the parties, passed in this Parliament to make the world a safer place. Thank you.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I think that the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill is among the most important that we will put through Parliament this year. It was a pleasure to have this issue before our Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and to have members from all parties totally united in preparing the report back to the House. I am just looking back through Hansard and I notice that the bill first came to our attention in late July of this year, so in parliamentary terms we have done quite well. I commend the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Georgina te Heuheu, for pushing so hard to make sure that we got the legislation through in this calendar year. I should also like to commend the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, for his stewardship of this issue in his term in Government, and my colleague Don MacKay in the ministry, who was our lead negotiator on the legislation.

There are a couple of points in the report back to the House that I would like to quickly address—on issues that had caused the committee to make some recommendations. One of the issues was that we were concerned that the application of the bill could inadvertently criminalise New Zealanders who work for humanitarian or commercial organisations that legitimately work to clear the sites of cluster munitions in other countries. We understand that this was not the intent of the bill, and we recommended amending clause 12 by making it very clear that people engaged in this work did not commit an offence when they undertook cluster munitions clearance activities in a way that was in accordance with the convention.

The second area that caused the committee a lot of deliberation over a period of several weeks was the question of investment in a company engaged in the manufacture of cluster munitions, or in one that had some other involvement in cluster munitions production, although in some cases that may not have been the primary focus of the activities of those companies, and investors may not be aware that such activities were part of the business. An example of that would be Lockheed Martin. In 2008 the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, for example, divested from Lockheed Martin as part of its exclusion of cluster munitions - involved companies from its investment portfolio.

The wording of the offence is not directed at investors who unknowingly find themselves with an investment in a company involved in cluster munitions production, but there would, however, be a reasonable expectation that fund managers and investors would investigate the full portfolio of a company before investing, in case prohibited activities were involved. Under clause 11(1A) a person can be convicted of an offence, but only if that person had made the investment intending that it would result in cluster munitions development or production, or knowing it would do so. For the average investor the mental element would have to be clearly established—that is, the investor invested in that company knowing that it developed or produced cluster munitions. That provision may also be interpreted by the courts to include retaining an investment after the discovery of its involvement in cluster munitions development or production. Because of the extraterritorial provision of the bill, both domestic and offshore investment is covered.

With those few comments I commend this legislation to the House. I particularly thank Jacqui Dean, who chaired the committee for a period of several weeks in my absence. I also thank all my colleagues on the committee for the great work they did in preparing this report and bringing it back to the House. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : This is a special moment. I agree with the comments of my colleagues who have spoken before me that this is one of the rare times when peace breaks out in the House. The reason is that this legislation is unequivocally good law and it is something we can all agree on.

This bill is the latest important development in the evolving international humanitarian law, going right back to the creation of the Geneva conventions, the outlawing of biological and chemical weapons, and, in more recent times, the Ottawa treaty banning landmines, and the development of the International Criminal Court. These are some of the hallmarks of the progress of our civilisation over the last century, and this law, which prohibits or bans cluster munitions, is a useful addition to international law. So it is truly gratifying to be here in the House taking part in the passage of this law.

The treaty will come into effect after 30 countries have ratified it. I think it has already been commented that some 28 countries have already passed the law and 24 have ratified. It may well be that New Zealand, by passing this law now, will be in time to become one of the first 30 countries to ratify and bring the convention to life.

Why is this bill important? It is important because cluster munitions, like landmines, are indiscriminate. Their legacy as a weapon lies in the soil for years afterwards, and in the last 40 years they have caused thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths of civilians. I think it is appropriate that the genesis of this convention and this law lies with the success of the Ottawa treaty to ban landmines. In my 15 years with Oxfam, one of the most gratifying experiences was the contribution that Oxfam as a non-governmental organisation made, both in New Zealand and globally, to the Ottawa treaty and the international campaign to ban landmines. In this Parliament in 1996 we gathered and dumped thousands of single shoes on the floor of Parliament as a symbolic protest against the indiscriminate carnage imposed on civilians all over the world by landmines. Shortly after that a group of all the leaders of opposition parties in Parliament at that time convinced the National Government of the day to become an early adopter of the Ottawa treaty and to change New Zealand’s policy and support an absolute ban on landmines.

One of the things I wanted to say in these comments is that the success of the Ottawa treaty and the success of the international campaign to ban cluster munitions offers a model for the engagement of Governments and international organisations with civil society. It shows us the possibility for Governments to work hand in hand with non-governmental organisations and people of conscience all around the world, confronting the obscene logic of military and industrial interests that for years have manufactured, sold, and used indiscriminate weapons like cluster munitions to the detriment of thousands and thousands of innocent civilians.

It is important to note that New Zealand has made a special contribution in the development of the convention. Under the leadership of Phil Goff, former Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, New Zealand was an early and strong backer of the convention. Norway led the process, but New Zealand was one of seven countries in the core group that drove the process through a series of negotiating conferences. The New Zealand Government hosted the penultimate conference in February 2008, where 160 countries were represented. Ambassador MacKay and Phil Goff ran a very successful process, although it was a difficult one. In that process, New Zealand had to stare down a number of recalcitrant nations, among which were some of our normally closest friends and allies, that wanted to water down the text. If they had been allowed to succeed at that time, we would be looking at a grossly inferior convention. I think there is a really important lesson there. Two months later in Dublin a comprehensive text was approved by the international community, which saw the cluster munitions convention really come to life.

The willingness of Governments to take risks, to show courage, and to show leadership on enormously powerful and important issues like this one is something that we should not lose sight of. I challenge the Government in the area of disarmament, and I challenge the Minister, to bring the same kind of persistence, determination, and courage to other issues, like the international arms trade treaty on conventional weapons, and the growing movement internationally that has been inspired in recent months by the election of President Obama. I challenge the Minister to confront the need to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. It will not be easy and there are enormously powerful vested interests, political and military, that we have to confront. But I urge the Government to show the same willingness to work with civil society and to take a tough stand and confront people, in the interests of doing what is right.

I will comment briefly on the issue of divestment. We had a very constructive, non-partisan discussion in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and I commend the chairmanship of John Hayes. It is good to see the member back in the House today. We discussed a number of largely technical amendments to the draft bill that came to the committee. We benefited greatly as a committee from the advice from the Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition and we worked through, in a very productive and constructive way, the submissions that that non-governmental organisation made. Two previous speakers from the Government commented on a number of those things, and I will not repeat what they said. But I will comment on the issue of worldwide investments in cluster munitions, because it is the area where the select committee really added value to the bill.

The convention does not explicitly prohibit investment in cluster munitions. One could say that there is a double standard if countries are willing to sign up to the convention but are not willing to outlaw investment. I am very glad to say that members of the committee, from all parties, accepted the argument that our legislation should explicitly prohibit investment in cluster munitions. To date, only three countries—Belgium, Ireland, and Luxembourg—have legislated to explicitly outlaw investment. I want to point the House to a report that came out recently by a couple of groups—Pax Christi, and Netwerk Vlaanderen from the Netherlands—that did some analysis on the 138 financial institutions that have been the main financial backers of cluster munitions over the last couple of years. I want to read the names of this hall of shame. These institutions include Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, J P Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, and Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Together they provided $2.5 billion of banking services to the eight companies that produce cluster munitions. The Bank of America, Citigroup, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and J P Morgan Chase provided another $2 billion in loans to the producers of cluster munitions.

I am really proud that this legislation explicitly outlaws investment in cluster munitions, and in that respect I am confident that it will be one of the best pieces of legislation putting into practice the objectives of the Cluster Munition Coalition. I also acknowledge the people who have played a really important role in bringing the legislation to this point: Phil Goff, the former Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Marian Hobbs, Don McKay, and Mary Wareham, the New Zealand coordinator of the Aotearoa New Zealand Cluster Munition Coalition, who is sitting in the gallery today. She has played an extraordinary role and deserves credit too.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : It gives me pleasure to speak in support of the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. The committee took some time to work very closely together to deliver a good bill for the House. Like all members, I believe that the sooner we get this into law, the better. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I am most grateful to follow Mr McClay, because I think I will not be able to beat him in his record. I do not plan to spend a long time, but I want to rise, and I take pleasure in doing so, to express the Green Party’s support for the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill, as we have expressed support from the beginning, in the first reading and during the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee’s consideration of the bill. To us, as has been identified, the bill is a very encouraging example of cross-party cooperation in the committee. I would like to pay tribute again to John Hayes and Jacqui Dean for their chairmanship, and, for that matter, to officials, who gave us a lot of support and advice.

I think we can take particular pride in achieving, with good accord, the final outcome of the clause relating to divestment in cluster munitions. It was not the easiest thing to do, and I want to pay tribute to Maryan Street for her leadership in that respect, and to Todd McClay for his constructive comments, as well.

That said, as has been noted, I think it is almost a love fest tonight. Peace is breaking out around the House. I do not think we should get too carried away by this. Peace has not broken out around the world, and I do not think we want to engage in over-self-congratulations on this, either in the House or elsewhere. There are a couple of comments I make in passing. I touched on one or two in the first reading and I will very quickly repeat them. Firstly, in the future, when it comes to issues pertaining to the use of force or of banned weaponry, we need to look at the role of the Attorney-General, to whom is given the empowerment to give consent to any prosecution. We do not have much time and I do not wish to pursue this issue too far, because I was mindful of the time constraints and the political objective of getting a quick ratification here, but I think it is a fundamental constitutional issue that we need to explore, if not ideally in a generic sense, then in a committee pertaining to another treaty.

Secondly, as I mentioned, there is the whole question of the withdrawal clause that members will find in the convention itself, I think in article 20. I believe that in the current age it is an outmoded notion that States entering this kind of treaty banning weapons that violate such fundamental notions of human rights should be seen as ius cogens and peremptory norm. There should be no withdrawal from those. But, that said, we are happy to support it. I have heard some comment that we in New Zealand are leading the way in this. Again, I think it is a form of moderate self-delusion to think that we have it perfect in our foreign policy around the world. It is one thing to be in a group that is leading on this issue, but let us recognise that all we are doing here is something that we do elsewhere; that is, to find that the international community has created new forms of weaponry and then, in a fit of contrition, find they are so inhumane that we proceed to ban them. That is not a massive step forward in the broader sweep of human history. It is simply a form of clearing away problems that we create for ourselves.

So we do not need to get too carried away by that. Without wanting to strike too sour a note, I think we need to be a little more sober about where we fit in the world in terms of our contribution to international security. We created a nuclear weapon-free-zone, yet in certain votes we continue to support nuclear deterrents at the United Nations. We endorse the International Criminal Court and look at the issue of aggression coming down the track in the court, but we are not prepared to take a leadership role in importing it into our national legislation in advance, or possibly even at all. We commit ourselves to an aid target of 0.7 percent, but after 30 years we are battling to achieve half of that target. We commit to the International Criminal Court by way of universal jurisdiction to apply to any person on the planet who has violated laws by way of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, but if one of the suspects sets foot in New Zealand, we tend to get cold feet in terms of how we proceed in that respect.

I am not wishing to unduly put down this nation or our foreign policy; I think we can be decently proud of it. I do take issue with pretending we punch above our weight and that we are a model United Nations citizen that everyone else aspires to be, because that is patently not the case. I do not intend it to be a sour note at this point of adopting the resolution; I just think we need to be a little bit more sober about our own self-appreciation of our foreign policy. With those self-admonitory comments, I certainly reiterate the support of the Green Party to adopt this legislation. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : It is a pleasure to rise and make a brief contribution to the debate on the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. It makes me feel primarily very proud to be a New Zealander today. New Zealand’s leadership in the cause of peace and disarmament in the world is well known to everybody in the House, and this is another significant step. When we stand up on the world stage and say how proud we are of our nuclear-free status and how important it is to our sense of nationhood, we can also add to that the Convention on Cluster Munitions and this legislation.

I pay particular tribute to the officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, some of whom are in the gallery today. Don MacKay’s leadership in this area has already been noted by John Hayes. Don was my boss at one point when I was working at the United Nations in New York.

John Hayes: Pity he didn’t teach you something.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I tell Mr Hayes that even he could not pull me into line. He played a significant leadership role in this area and I think New Zealanders can be very proud of him in the role he played, as well as of the other officials. I particularly mention Jillian Dempster, who I know had many sleepless nights trying to pull together the meeting in 2008. That was obviously a critical point in the process of finalising the convention, and we can all be very proud of that work. I also pay tribute to the Ministers who have overseen our work on this, particularly Phil Goff; my predecessor in Wellington Central, Marian Hobbs—who I know, should she be awake in the UK now, will be watching and listening to this debate and will be very proud—and also Minister te Heuheu, who has lead us through to this stage today.

My colleague Phil Twyford has already mentioned that this bill really represents another stage in terms of international law and a comprehensive set of arrangements that start to deal to some of the humanitarian crises we see around the world. New Zealand’s role in de-mining in places like Mozambique, Cambodia, and so on is very well known. I hope that as we move through we can continue to play that role in terms of cluster munitions. As has been noted, 24 countries have ratified this convention. Timing is everything in comedy and politics, and it will be interesting to see whether we are close to being the 30th nation that will allow this convention to enter into force. It would be a great thing for New Zealand if that were the case, given the leadership role that New Zealand has played in this issue.

Other speakers have spoken about the horror that is cluster munitions. I think it is important to note that their use goes as far back as 1965 in Viet Nam and has continued through the decades. That is a great tragedy for the world. It is an enormous tragedy for the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost and the many thousands of people who have been maimed as a result of cluster munitions. Cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons. They largely affect civilians. Research has shown that 98 percent of the victims of cluster munitions are, in fact, civilians. So these are insidious weapons that have made enormous impacts on the lives of innocent people. They create de facto minefields that people often have to move through simply to go about their daily business. Again, research has shown that the victims are often people simply trying to make sure that they can continue their livelihoods and that they can go to places where they need to go in order to support their economic lives. So it is vitally important that we are able to address this problem. As has already been mentioned—my colleague David Shearer will speak shortly, and I am sure he will refer to Lebanon—in 2006 there were a million unexploded bomblets from cluster munitions in Lebanon. Thousands of hectares of land are covered with these dangerous weapons, which ordinary, everyday citizens were unfortunately encountering in their lives. That is why a convention such as the one we are debating today is so important.

It will be clear, when people look at the countries that have signed this convention and the countries that have ratified this convention, that some big names are missing. The United States and Russia are two of the biggest names of all. But that does not diminish the importance of this convention, because through acting together in this way the international community can apply pressure on those large nations to acknowledge that they should not continue with the use of cluster munitions. It is important to remember that this is why New Zealand should involve itself in multilateral action. This is where a small country like New Zealand can make a huge difference to the world, by involving ourselves at the multilateral level, taking a leadership role, and changing the world for the better. That is why I believe that even though those large countries have not signed this convention, it is still an incredibly important instrument.

I acknowledge too the role of non-governmental organisations, internationally and here in New Zealand, in terms of how this convention has come about. Along with my colleague Phil Twyford, I congratulate Mary Wareham and the group in New Zealand who have led the charge in terms of this issue. It is a great example of Governments and non-governmental organisations working together. It is a great example of how international action can lead us forward.

I close my brief contribution to this debate by talking about the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee and acknowledging the excellent work that was done there under John Hayes’ and Jacqui Dean’s leadership. I also acknowledge my colleague Maryan Street, who is not here today, who really led the way in terms of the divestment provisions that have now been included within the bill. I think that is very important. Maryan Street also led the way in the previous Parliament in terms of helping New Zealand to move towards more ethical investment of the funds we invest. I think it is important to note that as part of this process the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has divested itself of the assets involved in the manufacture of cluster munitions. That is a great start, and, in fact, there may be some other areas where we can look towards more ethical investment. It is another example of the practical way in which New Zealand can take a leadership role on these issues.

I commend this bill to the House. This is a very proud day for New Zealand. I am pleased that we are able to get it through in the cooperative way we have today, and that New Zealand once again can stand up on the world stage and say that we have played our role in making this world a safer place.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : It is a great privilege and pleasure for me to stand today to take a call on the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to do this, because I was not involved in the select committee process, but for me this issue is rather personal. In July 2006, during the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict, I was appointed the humanitarian coordinator in charge of coordinating the relief effort and rehabilitation, particularly the relief effort in southern Lebanon. About a million Lebanese had to flee from the south when Hezbollah fired off rockets into Israel and Israel responded by effectively flattening and destroying most of the towns in southern Lebanon. As I said, a million people left the area.

Israel used cluster weapons in that war, and, perhaps most appallingly, it used them at the end of the war once we had an agreement. As humanitarian coordinator, I remember holding a press conference in Beirut and stating the outrageous fact that nearly all of those munitions were fired in the last 3 to 4 days of the war. It was outrageous because by that stage the conflict had been largely resolved, in the form of the UN Security Council Resolution 1701. That resolution halted the war, but it did not stop millions of cluster bombs being fired into the southern part of Lebanon just as those one million people were returning to their homes, as Grant Robertson has mentioned. The people returned to their homes at a time when cluster weapons literally littered the countryside.

I remember driving through the southern part of Lebanon and having to go round the cluster munitions. They were just small canisters, with ribbons on the end, and they floated down. On many occasions they landed unexploded. It is estimated that 30 to 40 percent of the cluster munitions that were fired came down and did not explode. They littered the ground. They littered the hospitals, the playgrounds, the schoolyards, and the residential areas of the people of southern Lebanon.

At the time a colleague of mine, an Israeli reporter who was in contact with me and who wanted to know about it, found some of the soldiers who had been responsible for firing off some of those bombs. One of the battalion commanders, who estimated that he had fired about 1,800 cluster bombs containing 1.2 million cluster bomblets, stated: “What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs.” These were soldiers whose consciences spoke to them, and they spoke out publicly at the end of the war about what they had done. So for me it is a very proud moment to be involved in this legislation during its passage through the House.

When I left, the war in Israel was claiming either the life or limbs of about three people a day; it has now killed about 20 people and maimed or injured about 170 others. Overwhelmingly, as Grant Robertson said, more than 90 percent of those people are civilians. A lot of them are children, because children go out, pick up the bomblets, and play with them, and the bomblets explode in their hands. Cluster bombs have polluted and continue to pollute the agricultural land of south Lebanon, on which 70 percent of the population rely. Those people cannot go back into their fields because of the threat of cluster munitions. If they do go back, then there is the threat that those unexploded munitions can go off.

I join with others in the House in congratulating the people who have championed this legislation in both this Parliament and in the previous Parliament. Phil Goff, Marian Hobbs, Georgina te Heuheu, John Hayes, and the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee have brought this legislation through. Again, I pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations and the civil society groups that have, in a sense, paved the way and been in the vanguard of making sure that New Zealand is at the front, and that the two Governments involved have been able to follow through with the knowledge and certainty that this is the right way to go forward.

As my colleague Phil Twyford mentioned, this bill is one of the strongest pieces of legislation globally to ban cluster munitions. The divestment provisions, in particular, are to be applauded. This legislation means that we back up our talk with actions. As I say, it is a very proud moment for New Zealand, and it is something that I am very pleased to close the circle on, from a moment in Lebanon in July 2006 to being here in December 2009. Thank you.

• Bill read a second and a third time.