Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill

Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei. I too want to talk about the preliminary provisions, in particular—a suggestion from one of the submitters, Venture Southland, that recommended including a reference to peaceful purposes. I just want to add to what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has contributed so far, and that is the whole notion around exactly what the opposite of peaceful purposes is—for example, if a company wanted to send up into space a particular product that is for totally civilian uses right now but could be used in the future for military purposes.

I think the issues that have been raised in the departmental report—and it goes to quite some length to discuss what exactly peaceful purposes might mean. It makes statements like “… in the context of space activities is ambiguous and open to differing interpretation.” I think the point that I want to make is that if in fact a reference to peaceful purposes was made, then surely that could be specified in the interpretation around exactly what that meant. So it could actually say that it excludes products that have the intent of a civil, everyday purpose that might, in some future time, be used for military purposes but the launch of that aircraft was for peaceful purposes.

I really want to acknowledge Venture Southland for making the suggestion in the first place, because I do think that it is relevant to this. But I also want to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I was not on that select committee, but it has come up with a very specific new clause ensuring that the purpose of putting these aircraft into outer space is not for the purpose of carrying nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. So I congratulate the committee on that, but that does not in itself totally mean—certainly from my view of the world—that peaceful purposes could not actually be part of the interpretation and the purpose of this bill. So that is the first part of what I wanted to speak about.

The other issue that I wanted to talk about was orbital debris and also when something goes wrong in outer space—ensuring that there are good processes in place to deal with severe and unexpected, but possible, accidents in space whereby debris is now orbiting around the Earth. During the second reading we heard a number of contributions around the impact of orbital debris. I also want to highlight the contributions from the New Zealand Law Society, the concerns that it raised on these matters—and I think it is on clause 76, I believe.

I feel like we need to be saying something like we have taken this giant leap forward. When you look at the purpose clause of this bill, clause 3, the first purpose is to “(a) facilitate the development of space industry and provide for its safe and secure operation:”. What a wonderful fresh idea it is for New Zealand. It is an idea that we need to get behind and support. And I do acknowledge that this is not something that has suddenly arrived at our doorstep overnight; this is something that has happened over the years—from 2007 right up till now—and we really should be celebrating it. We have punched that skyline. We are now competing with the rest of the world, in terms of this new space industry. What do they say in Star Trek movies? We are going to go where no man has ever gone before, and, literally, this company is the first of its kind. So facilitating the development of a space industry—

💬 Fletcher Tabuteau: No, “person” now—“person”. Where no “person” has gone before.

AUPITO WILLIAM SIO —that is right—is something we need to celebrate. It also sends a very clear message about the changing work environment we will have, because in developing the space industry we will have astronauts. Little kids from Mangere can start dreaming about becoming astronauts—New Zealand or Kiwi astronauts. We can now start talking about young people in South Auckland becoming scientists, to help develop this industry. We can talk about a whole range of new jobs and industries relating to the development of the space industry, and we can get our young people to start dreaming and visualising in terms of going forward into the future.

The second paragraph of the purpose clause implements “certain international obligations of New Zealand relating to space activities and space technology:”. I note that this is a partnership between New Zealand and the USA. I have my concerns about this, because, yes, we do have obligations in terms of the international arena, but I wonder why the partnership with the USA. All that has occurred in terms of the relationship between New Zealand and the USA—how we differ in terms of our antinuclear stance, the GCSB, and all the spying that is taking place of recent times—causes me some concern. I do not know how deep we are in in terms of ensuring that everybody is quite clear about what those obligations are and what that means, not just presently but in terms of going forward into the future.

The purpose clause then goes on about implementing the obligations in the Outer Space Treaty. I did not realise that there was an Outer Space Treaty, but it makes sense that there needs to be one, because the fact of the matter is that if we are shooting skyrockets up in the sky and those rockets are releasing debris and whatnot, where do they end up? Sure, some of it will burn before it reaches our atmosphere if it has gone up high enough. But if they just put it up above here somewhere, where does it fall? How do we know that it will fall into the ocean? How do we know that it will not fall into a space where it is going to fall on a cow or a few sheep or real people? That is a concern, and I am not sure whether this legislation, in fact, gives confidence to the rest of the country about what we are doing here.

It goes on to say: “establish military bases, installations, or fortifications on celestial bodies:”. What does that mean? What celestial bodies are we talking about? Are we talking about angels? Are we arming the angels to become military bases? Look, it may be funny, but the reality is that this is the first time that New Zealand is embarking on developing a space station. We are beginning to send skyrockets into the wide, wide space, and accurate information will help people understand and get around it.

I understand that the local communities where this space station is based are very supportive of it. I can see those local communities setting up little tourism platforms and saying: “Come in and watch space. Give us $50, or something, and stand for an hour.”, and it may be a week before the next rocket goes up. But the point I am making is this is new space that we are entering into. This is new ground that we are going to cover, and it works perfectly with what the Labour Party has been talking about in terms of the work environment changing and the potential for this kind of industry to start bringing forward some of the career pathways that many of our young people can be involved with.

I see that “test any type of weapons” is mentioned next in the clause. That concerns me. What sort of weapons are we doing? We do not have the kind of military base that the States has. That concerns me. Are we being used by the USA to be, sort of, a secondary military base? Is that what its intention is? Because, from where I stand, it is certainly not the intention of New Zealand, nor should it be, to use this space station for the purposes of creating weapons that can land and kill somebody. The intent, I would think, is to develop an industry that can explore, find new life, and promote an industry where we can learn about how to protect this world, which we and other major countries, in many ways, are polluting.

This purpose is also to “manage any potential or actual liability that may arise from the space industry:” Good question—what potential conflicts are we liable for in setting up this space station? I do not envision any, but surely our ministry officials would be able to table that at some stage. Maybe the Minister would like to answer that. What potential conflicts? I mean, you put that in a clause for a purpose. What are we anticipating that we would end up getting ourselves into?

This bill seeks to “preserve New Zealand’s national security and national interests.”—great purpose, great purpose. That would mean that we need to have full control of our space station. We are partnering with the USA—good on them—and NASA is supposed to have a wonderful reputation but, notwithstanding that, we need to have full control. That means that this Government and future Governments need to be investing in supporting innovation in this kind of industry. My point is that, from where I stand, this sort of investment, this innovation, is about creating new jobs that our young people can aspire to.

Like I said, I feel like we should be saying something like we are going to punch the sky and reach new horizons. Fresh ideas are what is required. I am glad that the Government has come, albeit at a later stage, to fund and support this, but I want to give kudos to those have been responsible for this and have believed in it, going back to 2007, and to those Ministers of the Labour Government who supported it and provided that moral encouragement, because that is what is needed to get new innovation.

In terms of the purpose clause, there are wonderful things, but there are questions that I would hope the Minister would take the time to respond to.

I just want to take on, and discuss further with specificity, what the previous speaker, Aupito William Sio, mentioned around the involvement of the US. In the original discussions and, actually, in the original draft of the legislation—and I refer to Part 3, Subpart 2, “Secure areas”, by way of example—the conversation was always around security. In fact, the terminology was “Security areas and security enhanced areas”, and the thinking behind that was safety, protection of technology, and ensuring that in that the general public was safe and kept out of harm’s way. Also, we do have an obligation to our partners in this new endeavour, this new industry, to protect their technology.

So that made sense to me on the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee, and, actually, I should also add that in those conversations, what was exciting and what the potential showed us was that, yes, this is an important dialogue with the United States right as of this moment, but in our conversations we talked about other nations and their space industries, and the possibility of servicing their endeavours. We provide that unique space in the world, as it were, for an alternative launch for those countries, not just in their space in the Northern Hemisphere. So that was a great part of that conversation about moving forward, growing an industry, bringing technologies into New Zealand, and enhancing all of those support industries here in New Zealand.

But then, when you look at the newly written Subpart 2, clause 64, “Segregated areas and areas set aside”, the wording has changed in and of itself, and I do question the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, about the reasoning behind it. It now speaks to, in clause 64(1)(b)—“an area specifically set aside exclusively for work with US launch vehicles,”. Now, firstly, what is wrong with that, in my mind, is that the entire point of Rocket Lab, and the Government giving it millions of dollars, was that these are New Zealand launch vehicles. So what are we actually protecting here? That was the idea—or are we admitting that, actually, the whole ownership of Rocket Lab now is US and there is no New Zealand part to it whatsoever? I genuinely thought there was still that small part.

So now it is talking about US launch vehicles and US spacecraft, when there was no mention of that before. Now I am concerned that the wording has changed substantively. As I tried to preface in the earlier part of my contribution, we were excited about a worldwide space industry. Now the terminology is about US launch vehicles and US spacecraft. I genuinely want to know how we got here. When the officials came back and advised the committee—I tell you what, I apologise if I missed it, but I do not remember seeing what I think is a substantive change to the legislation. Please, Minister, could you advise on that specific part? That is substantively important to me.

But as you move further down that same clause 64, when we talk about segregated areas—this new terminology—that can be set aside, we are now saying that the Minister may declare private land to be included within a segregated area. All right, the Minister now has this power to set aside this segregated land, which the committee discussed and agreed to. But now we are talking about how the owner of the occupied land may disagree—“may not give their consent” is the wording in the legislation. I thought we had resolved it, to the point where we knew what would happen when the owner disagreed with the occupation of their land for the segregated area. But that does not appear to be in clause 64 of Part 2 any longer.

There is a lot to be said about this, but, first and foremost, I do want to say that we know this is to enable Peter Beck and Rocket Lab to go hard. Peter Beck is, to be honest, the most innovative and aspirational Kiwi I have met for a long, long time. This is done from my electorate, on the Māhia Peninsula.

A number of the concerns that members have mentioned I can actually talk to them about privately, if they want, because I have sat down with Peter and I know what he is doing. As Aupito William Sio said, this is very, very aspirational, believe me. It is absolutely fantastic, but we do need this bit of legislation to tidy a few things up.

I do note in clause 6, “Act binds the Crown”, it does say, which is a little interesting: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or any other Act, or … nothing in this Act or in regulations made under this Act applies to the New Zealand Defence Force.” In the purpose clause it has talked about the fact that we cannot put nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction up there. But the Defence Force can, in fact, do what it wants to, and I suppose we have got to allow the New Zealand Defence Force to do what it needs to do to “preserve New Zealand’s national security and national interests.” I have no doubt there is a proper definition for this. We all know what nuclear weapons are, but I do not know what a weapon of mass destruction is—whether it is an intercontinental ballistic missile or it is something bigger or wider than that. So, to me, this is a little bit wishy-washy. I know what it is trying to say, but I am not too sure how it would be put into effect. But, as mentioned, it is interesting that the Defence Force can do whatever it wants to.

The thing that I am a little bit interested in—slightly interested in; curious about—is clause 9, “When launch licence may be granted”. I talk about this a bit. Whenever, in legislation, I see the word “may” or I see the word “must”, they have two completely different meanings. What it does is it actually changes the legislation quite a bit. If the word “must” exists, then it compels a Minister to do something when certain requirements are met. If the word “may” is in the legislation, then it means that it provides ministerial discretion, no matter what else is listed in the legislation. If I look at clause 9, and the title of this clause is “When launch licence may be granted”, what it says there is: “The Minister may grant a launch licence only if the Minister is satisfied that—”, and it talks about a number of conditions that will be met before the Minister may grant a licence, things like the applicant is technically capable, which is quite important; there is no doubt about that; “the applicant has taken, and will continue to take, all reasonable steps to manage risks to public safety …”; “an orbital debris mitigation plan …”; and “proposed launch or launches under the licence are consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations;”.

Now, we all agree that that is important, but I would have thought that the Minister must be able to grant a licence if everything in this piece of legislation is met by the person seeking the licence. Otherwise, it means there are other things that the person or the licensee might have to end up doing that they are unaware of. What I would argue is that that creates legislative uncertainty. If it was a comprehensive list, then anyone who was seeking to launch a rocket or seeking a licence to launch a rocket would know exactly what they have to do. But the way the legislation is written, the Minister may in fact say: “You have met all of the requirements. However, I do not have to grant this, and I’m not going to.”

It is the same when we talk about when a Minister may decline a licence. This is clause 9(2), and it says: “The Minister may, despite being satisfied of all the matters in subsection (1),”—which I talked about—“decline to grant a launch licence if the Minister is not satisfied that—(a) a proposed launch under the licence is in the national interest; or (b) the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a launch licence …”. Again, I have looked through this and I cannot find any definition of “fit and proper person”. In other legislation the definition of what constitutes a fit and proper person is causing concern because it is too subjective. We need to have an objective definition of fit and proper, when it comes to something like this, otherwise the Minister can just say: “Well, I don’t like the cut of that person’s jib.” or “This is not a fit and proper person.” or “This person spent some of their time in North Korea or in Russia.”—I do not know, but it does not matter, because there are so many loopholes through which the Minister may decline a licence.

When it comes to something like this, I do not think that is good enough. The reason I say that is we are not talking about an industry where the barriers to entry are low. The barriers to entry in this industry are exceptionally high. In fact, they are so high that Peter Beck’s Rocket Lab is the only private company in the history of space exploration or launches that is not Government funded. It is the only private company undertaking this. I just think, when it gets to the point where someone is actually seeking a licence and they are told they are not a fit and proper person, that is unacceptable. Firstly, there needs to be a definition of fit and proper, so anyone can know, before they even look at getting in the game, whether they meet that definition or not.

Again, we look at “The Minister may, despite being satisfied of all the matters … decline to grant a launch licence …” if it is not in the national interest test. Now, there are some points down here that give the Minister guidance around what is in the national interest. For example, and this is in clause 9(2A): “(a) economic or other benefits to New Zealand of the proposed launch: (b) any risks to national security, public safety, international relations, … (c) the extent to which the risk can be mitigated by licence or permit conditions:”. And that is all very good, and I get that and we understand that, but then it says: “any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.” Now, for an industry that is so capital intensive, I just think that is too open-ended.

Of course we support this legislation, and I disagree with a number of things that Mr Tabuteau said. I think this is truly aspirational. But what I am doing is highlighting some of what I believe are the deficiencies in the legislation that might—just might—provide a barrier to entry or keep people out of the game or impose significant capital costs on someone seeking to get into this.

And the other thing, if we look at clause 10, “Conditions, indemnity, and insurance …” it talks about the fact that someone has to get a licence every time they want to seek to launch a rocket and they have got to provide the date, location, intended trajectory, and all these other things. Well, what we do know is that Peter Beck and Rocket Lab’s ultimate aim is to launch one of these every single week—every single week. Now, would that not be fantastic? That means that he has got a globally dominant position, and I think it is game-changing; it really is. It is hard to comprehend.

But the concern I have is that if Mr Beck and Rocket Lab staff have to put in an application every single time—and it is quite onerous, and I get that to a certain extent—then is this going to hold back the development of this industry, or is it going to be a case where on Mr Beck’s tenth launch the Minister knows that this is a business of true integrity and an organisation that does what it says it is going to do, and it is almost a box-ticking exercise in the way that a pilot has to launch a flight plan. So we know when you are going to fly from Wellington to Napier this is how you do it, this is the way you go about, and it is all nice and easy and it is a box-ticking exercise. I hope that this is what this is about. Even though I do not want to minimise the impact of a rocket going wrong—because it can be quite significant—I just hope that this does not provide any sort of barrier to entry, or, a better way to put it, any sort of undue red tape that will stop Peter Beck and Rocket Lab from doing this.

But, having said that, I do understand that this legislation, whilst enabling Rocket Lab to do what it needs to do, also has to guide other organisations or people who also want to get in the game. So it needs to be robust. It cannot be there just for a person with the integrity of Peter Beck or the competency and the skills of Rocket Lab. It must be there for everyone, but I am just a little bit concerned about some of the provisions in here and how loose they can be and the power it gives the Minister. I just think it should be a little bit more prescriptive than it is when we are talking about such an important and such a capital-intensive industry.

I would just like to take the last 42 seconds of this call to say an absolute congratulations to Peter Beck. He has actually just been inducted into the international entrepreneurial hall of fame. He is a fantastic New Zealander who is employing real, true, fair-dinkum rocket scientists. What he is doing in Auckland and on the Māhia Peninsula and, actually, in his base in the States is game-changing. It really is game-changing. In a way, this is actually disruptive technology. This is not small advances. It is disruptive, and it is happening here. It is happening in the Napier electorate. It is happening near Wairoa. I congratulate Peter and his team, because I think it is just outstanding. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I would echo the comments from the honourable member Stuart Nash, that Peter Beck is doing a fantastic job. He is a great inspiration to, particularly, young New Zealanders, and hopefully more of them get interested in engineering and science and maths, and dream of a future among the stars. It is truly fantastic.

There are two main areas I would like to touch on. I would like to quickly touch on the point around launch licences and the regime, and then touch on some of the peaceful purposes debate, which has been pretty prominent in this Committee stage. The first is, I think, on the launch licences—I never have heard Rocket Lab complain that there should be a regulatory process to launch rockets. It is, in fact, a major undertaking to launch a rocket and reach orbit. We are, quite rightfully, proud in New Zealand that we are the only country with a privately owned space company that has reached orbit, but we should not forget that this is a major issue that only, I think, 11 nations have actually achieved. Others have tried, of course.

But I think I would also point out that it is important that there is a robust regulatory launch-permitting regime. One area where the member Stuart Nash was a little bit incorrect is that although New Zealand is the first country to have reached orbit entirely privately, there are a number of private space companies reaching orbit—Blue Origin, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, for example. But these other countries have previously done it only through a national space agency. So I think it is entirely correct there is a launch regime and there is a launch permit that is granted. The main area I heard Rocket Lab raising queries and concerns about, in terms of the viability going forward, was the liability, insurance, and indemnification requirements.

It, quite rightfully, pointed out that in China, third-party liability for launch operators is capped at $100 million, France $65 million, Japan $50 million, and the US $10 million to $270 million. This is up to regulations, under this legislation. This is something we raised in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that is a concern, because every party around that committee table wants to see New Zealand have a space industry going forward, supporting these fantastic new, entrepreneurial, innovative companies. This question of what the liability is and what the insurance payments are that these companies, for example Rocket Lab, are going to have to pay—it is still up to regulations. So really the ball is in the Government’s court, and this was the main concern I heard from Rocket Lab.

On the issue of the peaceful purposes debate and the militarisation of space—the argument we have heard in this Committee—look, this is something the Green Party takes really seriously. It is the core of our party charter, which encourages non-violence. So it was something we were very keen to pursue in the select committee. What we wanted to see was a peaceful purposes clause included, and I acknowledge the work of the Hon David Parker, who was very vocal and active on this issue as well.

This was a submission that was raised by Venture Southland, which was urging us to consider this. Venture Southland, of course, has a long history, particularly with the European Space Agency (ESA), monitoring ESA satellites from Southland, which, in itself, is a fantastic story that I wish more New Zealanders were familiar with. It was recommending this.

We had quite a vigorous debate in the select committee on the pros and the cons. From the Green Party’s perspective, we have heard different clichés around, you know, whether we have the right stuff, and to boldly go into space—all these sorts of clichés. And I guess the Green Party probably falls more on the Star Trek side of pop culture than Star Wars—you know, sort of exploring space and finding out scientific knowledge, than trying to dominate and blow up planets etc., in Star Wars.

So we wanted to see a peaceful clause. We do not like the idea of weapons going into space. Obviously, no New Zealand company is going to put a nuclear weapon into space, and that would contravene existing legislation, but there is a real vexed question around weapons. But then, once you go into the debate, there is quite a tricky question—what, in fact, is a weapon? Officials, quite rightfully, point to GPS, which it could be argued is a dual-use technology. One of science fiction’s great dreamt-of weapons of the future is simply a cobalt rod, called the “Rod of God”, which you would launch from a satellite, and which, in some cases, would actually be more destructive than existing nuclear weapons. It is a cobalt rod; is that a weapon? It is not a weapon on Earth, but it could be a very damaging potential weapon in space. You also get the example of Reagan’s “Star Wars”, you know, the national missile defence system, which George W Bush tried to restart in the mid-2000s. It is a defensive system, but the Russians and the Chinese would argue, in fact, that having a nuclear weapons shield is, in itself, allowing offensive nuclear weapons to be used. There is a huge debate.

The Green Party would have still liked, despite the debates and arguments, to have a peaceful purposes clause included. And we would point out that, when this legislation refers to our international treaty obligations—in fact, “peaceful purposes” is explicitly mentioned in the Outer Space Treaty. It is used by other countries—for example, Korea and the US. In terms of the Outer Space Treaty, it refers directly to the moon. So, it exists, we feel comfortable with it, and I think it would have been good to have that more explicit because, as we have heard from some members, there are concerns that we are going to see weapons being put into space, either by the New Zealand defence forces or on contract from other countries.

As a sort of compromise, what the committee came to do was amend the purpose clause in Part 1 by adding clause 3(ba)(i), which prohibits any objects carrying nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, installing weapons on celestial bodies, or stationing such weapons in space; and then, in subparagraph (iii), not allowing the testing of any weapons or conduct manoeuvres on celestial bodies; and adding a few other points around military installations and fortifications.

This is a very positive step. It is getting closer to the idea, which I think all New Zealanders can get behind, that we do not want to see the militarisation of space and we do not want to see an arms race in space. There are legitimate arguments, when you look at Reagan’s “Star Wars”, for example, and reports of cosmonauts taking up pistols on their side in the early days of the Space Race, for example. So we would have preferred a peaceful purposes clause, explicit in the purpose clause. We got as far as we could, through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and, basically, it is going to come down to the way the Minister does enact the launch permitting, and that incredibly important national interest test, which that Minister must use.

I would like to comment lastly, given I have got a little bit more time, on the debris recovery zone changes. This was an area we were quite concerned about in the original first reading of the bill because the wording of the legislation, as introduced to the House, was explicit that if there was an accident, if there was debris from the rocket launch scattered—maybe over a farmer’s paddock, for example—it would be prohibited to take a photograph or to record. This was even down to the minute detail—it was prohibited to even sketch the debris, which, to us, seemed a little bit zealous and overkill.

It turns out it is the result of the Technology Safeguards Agreement signed with the US Government. It is designed to protect the actual intellectual property of how you build an intercontinental ballistic missile, because that is, in fact, what these rockets are, if you put a nuclear weapon on the top. So it is something the Green Party could support: the idea that we would protect and keep secret from elements that would want to learn how to build intercontinental ballistic missiles to do damage—rogue nations like North Korea, for example. But what we wanted to stress—and it has been stressed—is the idea that this does not prohibit news reporting. If there was a rocket accident, this would, of course, be quite legitimately an issue of national interest where the media should be able to report. What we do not want to encourage though is the reporting of sensitive technologies that could help people do harm. It is entirely consistent with the Green Party charter, which is trying to encourage peaceful, non-violent uses of space and back on Earth as well.

So I will limit my comments to that, but I really hope a National member can take a call. This is incredibly important legislation. It is exciting legislation. We are at a time of huge knowledge being gained through space. There is a huge shift in the way space has developed, from, originally, the Soviet and US Governments, through to a number of countries participating in the International Space Station and other international scientific experiments, through to a host of new companies. Just this week we have seen new evidence of new extrasolar planets being discovered in the Milky Way galaxy, which is tremendously exciting. When you look up at the stars—in fact, 60 percent of those stars probably have extrasolar planets orbiting them. That is something that was considered science fiction only two decades ago, when I was growing up and learning about space. It is exciting to think that New Zealand can pay a constructive, positive, but, most importantly, a peaceful part in the exploration of space.

As we start, I would like to put my thanks to you on record, Mr Chairperson, for your contributions to my first reading speech, which was the last time I was able to contribute to this debate. I was just rereading the transcript earlier—you challenged me on reading my speech, which encouraged me to put a little bit more emotion into it. You questioned whether I was admitting that I really was in outer space, and also encouraged me to come back to the bill. It was all good advice.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes. It still holds.

I believe that excellent advice was part of the reason why the speech was reported in the New York Times. So my thanks to you—I made page 2 of the New York Times with my last contribution to this debate. The bar has been raised. I have to say, I am not anticipating a rerun of that, but I do wish to thank you, Mr Chairperson, for my little moment where I reached for the stars myself in the international media.

I wanted to speak just a little about the mechanisms to exclude people from areas affected by a space launch. The departmental report, which I am waving in my right hand, recommends no changes to the bill on this front. It talks about the Maritime Transport Act and says an amendment “could be made to clarify that local authorities can use their existing powers to regulate access to marine areas to ensure navigational safety in relation to space launches.” It goes on, but the point the officials are making in the departmental report is that they believe existing legislation is sufficient to exclude people from launch sites.

The legislation itself—and I might ask whether the Minister in the chair, Paul Goldsmith, can clarify—clause 64 under Subpart 2, “Protection of sensitive space technology”, in Part 3 talks about segregated areas and areas set aside. I will read subclause (1): “For the purpose of the Technology Safeguards Agreement, the Minister may declare, by a sign or signs affixed at the perimeter of an area or by other appropriate notification, that the areas is—(a) a segregated area; or (b) an area specially set aside exclusively for work with US launch vehicles, US spacecraft, or equipment that is related equipment in relation to those vehicles and spacecraft.” It sets out how segregated areas are to be marked out, and then there are infringement offences in Part 3, in clause 78, and around that part of the bill. That seems to contradict the departmental statement, which says that existing law is adequate for keeping people from launch sites, and, indeed, the recommendations of the department itself on the previous page, which talks about “Ensuring regulatory costs are kept to a minimum”.

So here we are, applying a whole lot of extra requirements on those who have to protect the launch site from access by people who should not be there, and we might assume in this Committee that the law enforcement agencies that are in place and the laws that are in place are adequate. Mr Stuart Nash, the proud member in the area where this launch is taking place, is our police spokesperson. He is familiar with the law in that respect and he raised concerns about red tape. To me, this is another potential area of red tape that the department itself has advised against in its report, and I am interested in what the Minister saw in the existing legislation, or did not see, that he felt this additional information needed to be added. Why is this additional red tape in the bill?

You know, I am not saying there is no good reason for it. There may well be. The Minister may have had some information that said that the existing legislation was not adequate or was not sufficient, but I think it would be helpful for the Committee to understand why, because the barriers to entry—the capital costs for this kind of work—are significant, and several members have talked about that in the debate so far. Those extra barriers to entry—you know, there is the cost of capital associated and so on. We do want to minimise them. We want to see business success, we want to see export success—both literally and figuratively in this respect, because we will be exporting those satellites, hopefully, before long—and part of that is making sure that it is cost-competitive and that the business itself is capable of being “launched” in a way that is not overly burdensome on those who are carrying it out. So I would like the Minister to address that.

Furthermore, on the question of keeping those regulatory costs to a minimum, and on that aspect of keeping people from the launch site, the amendment to the Maritime Transport Act that could be made—is that something that is being made? Is that something I have missed in the bill? I mean, is that something that—yes, it is. Kindly, an official in the background is nodding and has answered it. That is one question that the Minister does not have to answer because I will take it as read from the officials that that change is being made, and good on the officials.

But I would ask the Minister whether those other things that the recommendations are about, which, effectively, to my mind are about reducing red tape—why the Minister is not taking those up and what he sees as being additionally necessary. I mean, of course, we do not need to think too hard about getting too close to a launch site and the dangers that could be there. We know that recently Alfred Ngaro tried to relaunch the housing policy, and he certainly got burnt. We know that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes, do not go there. Stick to the bill.

Dr DAVID CLARK —Todd Barclay was launching his campaign, and he got burnt.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Just stick to the bill—

Dr DAVID CLARK —and I could go on. Nicky Wagner was trying to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, you cannot, actually.

Dr DAVID CLARK —launch her career out on the harbour, and she got burnt, and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order!

Dr DAVID CLARK —I will come back—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! No, sit down. Now let us see whether we can get you in the New York Times for something else. When the Speaker gives you a direction, you stop doing what you are doing, and it applies when I am in the Chair as well. So do not take the piss by just throwing in a few more.

Can I put on record my apology, Mr Chair. I did not hear you, so I do apologise if I have missed an instruction there.

So to come back to the bill quite directly, as I said I was going to do, I would like the Minister to explain to us why those additional restrictions around the launch site have been put into place, what additional red tape he thinks, if any, is created by them, and why that is necessary. I think the Committee will want to know that because this is indeed a serious matter.

Finally, before I close, I too wish to put my congratulations on record. This has been a broad debate. Others have acknowledged Peter Beck’s fine contribution to rocket science. He has spent time in the South of New Zealand, and, as those coming from the South, we are very proud that we have helped—we like to think—and contributed something to his education along the way. His entrepreneurship is without question, and I have certainly met people who have been glad to be a part of that journey.

I mentioned in my first reading speech the chair of the Gisborne Chamber of Commerce, who I know contacted him and encouraged him to come down and look at launch sites and sent him some Google maps to try to point out where the opportunities lay. I too have visited the factory in Auckland where the vertically integrated—again, puns are everywhere here—building of these rockets takes place. I have had a peek into the launch centre and, my goodness, it is impressive. It makes me feel very proud of our abilities as a country to get new technologies across the line.

We have the skill sets here. We know we need to grow our exports as a percentage of the economy. I have been critical of the Government for failing to achieve its targets in that respect, but here we have people trying to make it happen. Let us celebrate that success as Kiwis, let us celebrate the opportunity that is here, and let us see just how far we can take this. Thank you.

Tēnā koe. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a short call on this particular bill, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill, and I want to focus in the vein of my colleague Dr David Clark’s contribution around some of the red tape and bureaucracy but, more importantly, the practical nature of some of the enforcement provisions that are outlined in this bill.

But just to start my contribution, in the past week my son turned 21. Now, I can understand you looked perplexed, because of how young I look, that I have got a 21-year-old son, but the reason for putting it on the record first is that when he was a child, Toy Story was the movie. There is Woody and there is Buzz Lightyear. Of course, he loved Buzz Lightyear; I was more of a Woody fan—bit of a traditionalist.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Careful!

But we have come this far—we have come this far. [Interruption] Are you taking the piss? I am sorry. No, but we have come this far and now this is an exciting opportunity for future generations to actually, as my colleague has said, punch through the sky—that glass ceiling that sits above us—and explore the new frontier.

But I want to come back to the bill now, now that that is on the record for my boy—happy birthday, boy. In clause 16, “Application for payload permit”, subclause (1) says: “A person or persons may apply to the Minister for a payload permit for the launch and operation of 1 or more payloads of a particular type.” Now, I can understand that sometimes we do not want to burden people with bureaucracy, but just because of the sheer nature of this type of activity, I would have thought that for each rocket launch, especially in the initial stages of this particular endeavour, a permit must be sought each time. As I read this—and I could be wrong; some clarification from the Minister would be great—it says: “operation of one or more payloads …”. Well, how many more are we talking about? I understand that in the commercial sense the particular payloads we are talking about might be of one single nature, but is this a sort of open door to say “Well, any payload of that particular nature from that permit holder can actually just go ahead.”?

I would like to think that there would be a little bit more of a strict view by the Minister on this particular matter, until, of course, we are at a stage where we are comfortable with the settings in exactly how this particular endeavour looks for our people here in Aotearoa New Zealand—when we have got our systems right, and when we have got our mechanisms in place to safeguard against some of the questions that are being asked in this debate. I certainly do not think that that is unreasonable or outside of the scope to expect something from the Minister, or perhaps some more direction on this particular matter to make sure that those—I do not want to use the word “restrictions”, but I do want to make sure the safeguarding of any commercial endeavours of the payload permit process moving forward are actually in place to make sure that we can see a trend, we have got a clear list identifying what types of payloads are going into the ascent up into the orbit, and I think that this is an important part that I would like to hear a little bit more from the Minister and the advisers on that particular matter.

My colleagues on this side of the Chamber—and I have got another meeting to get to shortly so I just want to wind up, if I can, with the next clause, clause 17, “When payload permit may be granted”. I want to focus on clause 17(1)(aa): “the applicant has an orbital debris mitigation plan that meets any prescribed requirements;”. My colleague Dr David Clark talked about the segregated areas that can be declared by a Minister. I just quickly want to point out that for those who are able to access that site, I wonder exactly whether we have thought about the practicalities and, indeed, the capacity of our workforce to actually deal with something like this. If we send a workplace safety assessor on to a segregated site declared by the Minister, does that person exactly understand what they have got themselves into and how this might work?

I just want to hear whether there are any ways that we can build our capacity. I understand that this will always happen when we reach into new frontiers—I understand that—but there should also be a robust plan for our workforce: ambulance, police, and all those people who will be confronted by these particular matters should mitigation debris plans actually not work. I will leave those questions for the Minister now. Thank you.

I would like to turn my attention to Part 3, which relates to enforcement and other matters. I will say at the outset that the questions I have are the questions of a member who is not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and is coming at this with fresh eyes, so some of them might be a bit naive, but here we go.

My questions are around the enforcement officers. I presume that this legislation is going to fall under the auspices of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Minister of Business, Innovation and Employment, given that he is in charge of this legislation and MBIE provided the official support for this legislation. I am interested in exactly how the enforcement regime of this legislation is going to be established.

Clause 58 allows for the appointment of enforcement officers. It says: “(1) The chief executive”—presumably the chief executive of MBIE—“may appoint such suitably qualified and trained enforcement officers as the chief executive thinks necessary for the purposes of this Act.” Now, I thought that maybe the interpretation clause would tell me a little bit more about who these enforcement officers would be, but the interpretation clause tells me that the enforcement officers are the people appointed under section 58, so it rather circular and is not particularly revealing.

So here are my questions. Is the intention to set up a new department of MBIE? I imagine that these enforcement officers will be similar to labour inspectors or immigration enforcement officers. Will there be a new department in MBIE to enforce this legislation? How many enforcement officers does the Government imagine will be required to enforce this legislation? What is the nature of the employment relationship that is anticipated, because I see that under clause 58(2): “An employment officer—(a) is appointed for a term not exceeding 3 years,”. That does not sound like a classic employment relationship; that sounds more like a contractual relationship.

What I found very interesting is that clause 58(5) says: “An enforcement officer appointed under subsection (1) is not to be regarded as employed in the service of the Crown for the purposes of the Government Superannuation Fund Act 1956 or the State Sector Act 1988 just because the person is an enforcement officer.” So does that mean that the Government intends to contract independent contractors, private contractors? Exactly how is this regime going to be established? It is not clear. As I say, I have not been on the select committee, and all this may well have been addressed at the select committee, but these are genuine questions. I think it is important to know whether we are passing legislation through this House that does have an important enforcement aspect to it.

There are other aspects of the legislation that deal with keeping people away from the launch site. There are aspects of the legislation that deal with excluding people from the debris zone, and people not being able to take photographs, or make sketches, and what have you. All of these are important from the view of health and safety, from the view of protecting intellectual property, and from the view of protecting the people who are working in this industry from people who might want to commit criminal acts and nefarious acts.

So the enforcement of this legislation is important, and I think it would be useful for the Committee to have understanding of what type of enforcement regime the Government intends to put in place. Is it that these will be additional duties that current MBIE employees who are already involved in the enforcement of other legislation might take on? None of that is clear, and it not necessary for it to be clear in the legislation, but I do think it is important as we are passing this legislation to have a fuller understanding of how the Government envisages that being established, and so if the Minister were able to address those questions, I would be very grateful.

There are a number of points, actually, that I would like to bring up, having looked through the legislation. Like Mr Lees-Galloway, I was not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but, as mentioned, I do have a little bit more than a passing interest in this. There are a couple of things, and most of these are procedural points. When it is talking about granting a launch licence, for example, you have got to provide the date, the location, intended trajectory—it makes sense—except, as we know with the launch of rockets, there is no specific date. I know that with Rocket Lab’s first launch, I think it was scheduled originally for a Monday—it might have been a Tuesday—and ended up being launched on a Thursday. These are so weather dependent, so what I am assuming—it is just a minor point, but I am assuming the officials will be able to advise the Minister—is that you can actually provide a range of dates, or more of a window than a specific date. Even though it is always fine on the Māhia Peninsula, I would suggest something like a fortnight’s worth of dates, but I am assuming that when it talks about “the date” what it is meant to be is actually a range of dates there.

There is another interesting clause. Clause 14 talks about how the “Minister may revoke or suspend a launch licence”. It says: “(1) The Minister may, at any time, vary a launch licence on any conditions that the Minister thinks fit,” and it does list down about five different areas that the Minister must consider. But then again down the bottom it has got in clause 14(1)(d) “for any other reason specified in the licence.” Again, I will come back to a point I made originally: this is a pretty serious game, and I do not think the legislation is quite prescriptive enough to provide a level of certainty. We have got some terms and conditions there under which a Minister may vary a launch licence, but then when you have the bottom thing it is basically “Well, we can do it under (1), (2), (3), (4), and anything else the Minister considers relevant.”

There is one thing that I am not too sure about, actually, but I would like to bring it up. In terms of getting a licence, what happens is the person seeking the licence has to, as mentioned, give the date, the time, the location—that is fine—and intended trajectory. Well, that makes sense. But then in clause 18(1)(ii) there are “details of the intended and actual basic orbital parameters (including the nodal period, inclination,” etc., etc. The question I have here—and it is a genuine question—is whether this information will remain confidential. If someone is launching a rocket into space, obviously the technology they are using could well be proprietary, and I have no doubt there are a number of patents when constructing a rocket that allow satellites to be launched into space, but I am not sure whether in fact the trajectory or any of the launch sequencing is proprietary or not.

So what I would like to know is that when a licence for any of this is sought, whether it is a facility licence—and that is covered a little bit later on—or a launch licence or a payload licence, I would like to think that in fact the information provided by the company or the individual seeking such a licence remains confidential. The last thing we want is for some other company to come in here, do an Official Information Act request—or, worse, go on to the website and have a look and see what a competitor is doing in terms of all the terms and conditions that they have outlaid for a launch or for a licence or a facility licence. Again, I look at clause 18. This is “Conditions, indemnity, and insurance relating to payload permit”. It talks about “the date”, and I am assuming we need to talk about a range of dates there.

One interesting thing is in clause 18(2). This is talking about insurance, and it says: “The Minister may require, as a condition of the permit, a permit holder to—(a) indemnify the Crown in whole or in part against—(i) any claim brought against the Crown …”. Basically, this is if it falls out of the sky and it injures someone or kills someone, or a claim under international law, an act or omission of the permit holder, etc. In here I do not know why there is any wiggle room there. I would have thought that the Minister must, as a condition of the permit, require the permit holder to indemnify the Crown. Again, I have talked about this: the “may” versus the “must”—the “must” is compelling; the “may” says that it is not compulsory. I would have thought, in this game, and with the potential liability to the Crown of anything going wrong—and I do believe that Rocket Lab has indemnity insurance to the value of about $2.6 billion, something along those lines. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Final call, Stuart Nash.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would have thought that the Government would make that an absolute requirement.

There is something that I would like to talk about, and it comes to the definition of “fit and proper person”. Now, I did talk about this earlier, and I was remiss—clause 53 talks about the “Criteria for a fit and proper person test”, and the fit and proper person test is throughout this bill. It was removed in one section, but, basically, the fit and proper person and national security are big tests that must be met in the granting of, basically, any sort of permit.

But one of the things here that surprises me, I suppose, is that there are (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) criteria, and one of them is that a person may be declined on a history of mental health problems. I ran into trouble because I tried to defend the police practice of not employing cadets who had taken mental health medication within a 2-year period. I think we have become a lot more enlightened in managing mental health, and what we do know is that mental health in no way is a barrier to people’s significant achievements. I am a little bit concerned that the Minister may turn down an application for a permit for pretty much anything in here because someone has a history of mental health problems.

Again, we talk about “may”, so it might not be a factor that the Minister takes into account when considering whether a person is fit and proper, but I would be a little bit concerned if, in fact, a permit holder did not receive a launch permit or licence, etc. due to mental health. The thing here, it says: “The Minister may, for the purposes of subsection (1)”—this is the fit and proper stuff—“seek and receive any information (including medical reports) as the Minister thinks fit;”. Now, the thing about this is—does this mean that if the Minister requires medical information, that overrides the patient-doctor confidentiality? As it reads, this is what it says. Again, I could be wrong in the way I am interpreting this. I do understand that if we are talking about launching rockets, for goodness’ sake, we do need to make sure that the people we are dealing with—they are not a Dr No, or whatever his name was in the James Bond film. But I am a little bit concerned that this might be a little bit antiquated when it talks about mental health problems.

The other thing is—let us go to clause 56, “Minister must consult security Ministers about national security”. The interesting thing about this clause is that if the Minister has concerns about anything that is going on, the Minister must consult. The bill originally said the Minister has to refer the application or other matter to the Minister for National Security and Intelligence, but they have changed that to “must … refer the application … to the Prime Minister.” We know that in most cases the Prime Minister usually is the Minister for National Security and Intelligence, but there is a very recent history where, in fact, the Prime Minister was not the Minister for National Security and Intelligence. I think—and correct me if I am wrong here—John Key gave that portfolio to Chris Finlayson.

I wonder why we changed that, because we do note that the Minister for National Security and Intelligence is really the Government’s expert on, obviously, national security and intelligence. I wonder why it has been elevated to the position of Prime Minister, even though the Prime Minister, I suppose, is the boss of all the other Ministers. I wonder whether it has gone to the Prime Minister because they believe that any decision around this—and it is a pretty serious game; we have talked about the possible payloads these rockets can take. I wonder whether it is because the select committee, in the end, and officials believed that the decision was of such national significance that it had to be taken by a Prime Minister, and anyone beneath the Prime Minister simply did not have the moral authority—even though, of course, the Prime Minister can consult any Minister that they require to get a decision. It is interesting that it has been elevated so high, and I suspect that is because, with the sort of industry we are dealing with, the consequences of getting this wrong are absolutely significant.

But, as I have said, the barriers to entry in this are incredibly high. This is my last call. We do support this bill, we support the industry, and I hope it grows a lot faster and a lot further than it is at the moment. Thank you very much.

I want to draw attention to the duration of overseas launch licences. In clause 27 of the bill, it says: “An overseas launch licence must specify the date on which it comes into force and the expiry date.” I note that the expiry date is 5 years, yet the industry, or the family, or the company that started this goes back to 2007—and the launch took place, when? It was only this year or last year. That is a 9-year period, so I wonder whether any discussion with the company that we are proud to acknowledge took place in terms of that licence period.

Clause 27 then refers to some other sections, 28 and 30, and then clause 28 goes on to “Renewal of overseas launch licence” and states: “(1) The Minister may renew an overseas launch licence for a further period of up to 5 years if the Minister continues to be satisfied of the matters in section 25(1).” I am not a member of the committee, so you will pardon me. The overseas launch licence—that seems to imply to me that we are preparing for international companies to land at our doorstep to launch their rockets, if I am correct. I do not know. But then, if you look at clause 25—“When overseas launch licence may be granted”—it makes reference time and time again: “(1) The Minister may grant … (2) The Minister may, despite being satisfied …”.

The concern I have—and you all appreciate that you will take it with a grain of salt, because I have not been part of the select committee—is that we have often debated in this House who is responsible. Whilst we appreciate that, at the end of the day, we hold the Ministers and the Government responsible, the reality is that from time to time the Ministers will say “Well, that’s an operational matter.”, and I’m not sure of the practicalities of having a Minister give approval for these licences without necessarily securing the best advice from the department that would be charged with operational matters.

I will tell you why I raise this point. We are embarking on a new area. It is the first time ever—proud of that, and I think the company and everybody associated with the beginning of this should be proud of it. But we are now embarking on a new area, and we need to be protective of it in its initial stages. I am not sure whether—there are clauses in here looking at how easily an overseas launch licence can be granted—we are really protecting this industry of ours and the information and the intelligence that we have gathered, because my view is that the fact that a small country like New Zealand is able to launch a rocket in a private launch suggests that we have a point of difference here from the USA. It suggests that we have a point of difference here from the rest of the world. I think that we need to be very protective of that, but the way that I read the clauses of renewing overseas launch licences suggests to me that we are opening up the market at a very early stage without any protection given to those who are responsible for the innovation—those who are responsible for achieving what they have done, going back to 2007, and to the point we are at now.

Why do I air this concern for protecting those who have come up with this innovation? Because there is the potential, as I have said in earlier remarks, for us launching into a new—

I move, That the question be now put.