Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Part 1 of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill. I would like to speak, in this first call of many, with specificity to Part 1, clause 3—the purpose clause—new paragraph (ba), which has been inserted by the select committee. It relates to our obligations—New Zealand’s obligations—under the Outer Space Treaty, specifically not to “(i) place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner:”. The inclusion of that subparagraph and subsequent subparagraphs appears to be a response to the concern raised by some submitters that there was no restriction placed in the original legislation, using this bill, on performing activities in outer space and at high altitudes for military purposes. Some submitters requested of the select committee that the purpose clause be amended to require that this legislation be solely for peaceful purposes.

Reading the departmental report, there was some discussion about the difficulties of including the term “peaceful purposes”, and it would appear that this specific paragraph has been included in response to that. I actually wonder whether the inclusion of this new paragraph is actually necessary, for two reasons. One is that New Zealand already has nuclear-free legislation; we are already nuclear-free, and that remains the case 30 years on from when the Labour Government first made New Zealand nuclear-free. The other reason I wonder whether this is actually necessary—this new paragraph—is that we are signatories to the Outer Space Treaty, and whether or not we include this new paragraph in the purpose clause of this bill, that remains the case. I wonder whether the Minister would be able to address the first question, being: “Is this new paragraph actually necessary, or would our nuclear-free status and our being a signatory to that treaty actually mean that we are bound by those with or without the inclusion of this paragraph?”.

I have a more substantive concern about the wording of these subparagraphs, because they specifically restrict or prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction into outer space, as well as prohibit the establishment of military bases, installations, or fortifications on celestial bodies, or the testing of any weapons or the conduct of any manoeuvres on celestial bodies. But what these subparagraphs do not appear to prohibit is the use of conventional weapons or the deployment of conventional weapons into space. Certainly, it would appear that the deployment of conventional weapons on to celestial bodies is prohibited by this legislation, but it does not appear that the deployment of conventional weapons or military technology into orbit is prohibited.

I might have thought that I might be unnecessarily cautious, except for a comment that was made in the departmental report. Paragraph 19 of the departmental report, on the submissions on this clause, says: “… the effect of the provision”—and this would be the provision to include a peaceful purposes paragraph in the purpose clause—“would be to unduly restrict New Zealand’s ability to use space to further its national security interests. This could be harmful to New Zealand’s national interests.” I find that a little bit concerning—that the advice that the select committee received on this clause was that overtly stating that the purpose of this legislation is solely for peaceful, civilian purposes could be harmful to New Zealand’s interests. So my question to the Minister is about whether it is the Government’s position that this legislation could eventually allow the deployment into space, from New Zealand, of weapons or of weaponised technology, and whether it is the Government’s intention to use our ability to deploy packages into space to further our national security interests. Could that include the use of weaponised or other military technology?

The other aspects of the purpose clause are around facilitating the development of a space industry, to provide for its safe and secure operation, and to implement our international obligations. The purpose, I think, as it is broadly understood by the public, is to develop a civilian space industry to make it possible to launch various—whether it be satellites, whether it be communications technology, whether it be to launch packages that might support the development of space stations and what have you in orbit around the planet. That is what I think people broadly understand this legislation to be about.

But it would appear, by the very careful wording of this additional paragraph to the purpose clause and by the advice that the select committee received, that it leaves the door open for New Zealand to engage in the weaponisation of space. And I note from the departmental report that the United States legislation actually specifically states that their outer space and high-altitude activities will be for peaceful purposes. Now, officials advised the committee that the definition of peaceful is somewhat ambiguous, that there is no agreed definition of peaceful, and also that civilian equipment or technology that has a civilian purpose can, over time, come to have a military purpose and, likewise, the opposite can be true. The example was used of the global positioning system that, initially, had a military purpose but now has a range of civilian purposes.

I understand that, but the fact that the US legislation specifically attempts, at least, to overtly state that the development of their space industry is strictly for peaceful purpose yet not only are we leaving it out of this legislation but we appear to be specifically leaving the door open to military purposes I think warrants a comment from the Minister. So my question around clause 3, new paragraph (ba) is whether we are specifically leaving the door open to a space industry that could develop into a military industry and could be used to further New Zealand’s national interests through the deployment of conventional weapons into orbit, because I do not think that is what most people understand the purpose of this legislation to be. If the Minister could answer those questions, I would be very grateful.

I apologise for not doing this at the beginning. I seek leave for the debate on all of the clauses in this bill to be taken as one debate, with each of the questions to be put separately at the end.

Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 to 3, schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2