Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill

I move, That the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

It is a privilege to introduce this bill to the House. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen New Zealand’s space regulatory framework by establishing a new authorisation regime for ground-based space infrastructure, ensuring that activities involving such infrastructure are subject to appropriate oversight, security, and accountability.

New Zealand’s space sector is growing rapidly, and we are home to innovative companies and research institutions that are pushing the boundaries of satellite technology, space communication, and orbital operations. As the sector evolves, so too must our regulatory settings. Growth in our space sector includes ground-based infrastructure. I’m talking about satellite tracking stations, telemetry systems, and surveillance equipment, which plays a critical role in supporting space activities. These systems can interact directly with satellites and other space objects, and unfortunately that means they can pose risks to national security and other national interests if not properly managed.

Until now, our legislation has focused primarily on space and high-altitude activities in orbit or at high altitude. This bill fills a critical gap by introducing a tailored regime for ground-based space infrastructure, ensuring that operators are authorised, risks are assessed, and enforcement powers are available when needed.

The bill amends the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Act 2017. First, the bill requires anyone operating ground-based space infrastructure for certain activities, such as communicating with satellites or tracking space objects, to hold a ground-based space infrastructure activity authorisation. This ensures we know who is operating the infrastructure and for what purpose.

Second, it sets out a clear application process. Applicants will need to confirm with the regulator that they have appropriate protective security arrangements in place and systems to assess their customers. This is about operators making sure their ground-based space infrastructure operations are secure and they understand who they are providing services to and for what purpose. The bill gives the responsible Minister, which is the Minister for Space, the ability to decline applications in which they are not satisfied that granting their authorisation is in the national interest, including national security. This places ongoing obligations on authorisation holders. They’ll need to report regularly, notify the Minister of any security breaches, and keep their security and due diligence arrangements up to date. The responsible Minister will have the power to vary, suspend, or revoke authorisations where national security and national interest concerns arise. This gives the flexibility to respond to new information or changing circumstances.

Finally, the bill strengthens enforcement. Enforcement officers will be able to inspect facilities, assess security arrangements, and when necessary, in the national interest, the Minister will be able to issue disposal orders requiring a person to divest their interest in ground-based space infrastructure. This could mean they could be ordered to sell the equipment or break a lease with a provider.

To support the smooth transition, the bill includes transitional provisions. From commencement on 29 July 2025—next Tuesday—until no later than 29 July 2026, existing ground-based space infrastructure operators will be deemed to hold a transitional authorisation. Enforcement powers will apply during this period, and the Minister may revoke transitional authorisations on national security grounds. From when regulations come into force, but no later than 29 July 2026, all operators must hold a formal authorisation.

This bill supports the Government’s broader commitment to ensuring that New Zealand’s space sector is safe, secure, and internationally credible. Innovation in New Zealand is accelerating, and the space sector is a standout example. In the five years to 2024 it grew by 53 percent, contributing $2.47 billion to the economy in the last financial year. This underscores the sector’s growing role in our economic strategy and its potential to drive future high-value growth. We’re just scratching the surface as we work to grow our economy by becoming the go-to place for space and advanced aviation activities. By introducing a clear and modern framework for ground-based infrastructure, we are enforcing New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible spacefaring nation. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as Labour’s space spokesperson to speak. We are supporting this bill, and why we are supporting this bill is because we do agree that all of New Zealand’s space activity, wherever it is, whether it’s on the ground or in the stratosphere, should be regulated so that it is in the national interest, and that is what this bill appears to be doing.

On the not-so-good side is that this bill is going through all-stages urgency, and so that means that the bill has only just now become available for people to look at. I understand there may have been some prior consultation on aspects of it, but in general nobody has been having any public discussion about this bill, and so there may be parts of it that have inadvertent, unintended consequences. We do want to go through, in the committee stage, and take it seriously so that we all understand the bill as best as we can, and I hope the Minister is of that view.

Because it is going through all-stages urgency—and there may be a reason for that that hasn’t been explained, but maybe the Minister will explain that; I know that she has just indicated that she wants it to be in force by next Tuesday—there should be an opportunity for a post-enactment review of this, because, as I say, we in this House are not all space experts. We do not operate space facilities, ground-based or vertical launch or horizontal launch, even, and we do want to make sure that we’re creating the best laws for this industry that we possibly can.

We agree with the Minister that it is a very important industry to New Zealand, so the point then of being troubled by it coming to us under all-stages urgency is we want to make sure that it’s as robust as it can be and that there are not unintended consequences, because it is not good law-making to do things under all-stages urgency. However, a remedy for all-stages urgency, when there is a proper need to do something in urgency, is to have a post-enactment review. We’d very much like to hear the Minister’s views on that, and we are going to have ample opportunity to, because we’ve got a number of features to do this evening and probably tomorrow morning on this bill.

The bill is talking about ground-based space infrastructure, and, as the Minister said, we already have a lot of regulation that comes from the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Act that governs the launching of various different vessels into space. What that provides is that any payload from those launches has to be signed off by the Minister, and the operation also needs to be signed off—so there is a permit and licensing scheme in the Act that we’re amending today.

What this Act does, and I would welcome the Minister to describe this in one of your speeches, is that this is an authorisation regime—so it’s authorisation rather than licence and permits—and it’s for these ground-based space infrastructure. Ground-based space infrastructure is defined in parts by exception, and so it would also be very useful to hear from the Minister exactly what she considers, and what the drafters of this bill have considered, to be “ground-based infrastructure”.

I am coming here assuming that it is places like SpaceOps down near Bluff and also up in Warkworth, but probably not the horizontal launch that we have in Canterbury, or the vertical launch that Rocket Lab has. But maybe it applies to the Chathams that Rocket Lab has, and maybe it applies to the Wellington Gateway Teleport in Upper Hutt. These are things that I thought would be very useful so we’re all clear on exactly what we’re talking about, what it will apply to, and what it won’t. I look forward to speaking on this further.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to also support this bill, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. Now, understandably, like the Minister for Space has mentioned in her speech, one of the things that we do have potential safeguards for within that space portfolio is what we’re seeing from outer space, but one of the things that is an existing gap within our current legislative and regulatory framework is around ground-based space infrastructure, or GBSI.

Now, again, understandably, because this is the first time that we are seeing this bill, and this is a bill that’s going through all stages of the readings under urgency, there will be a lot more to unpack, both in terms of the second reading but also in terms of the committee of the whole House. There are definitely things that we would like to ask the Minister about around the introduction of this bill and some of the circumstances that led to the introduction of this bill and, of course, some of the specificity of the bill. In the second reading, I will speak more in terms of the specific sections of this bill and maybe unpack the bill a bit further and raise some of the questions that we’ll be asking the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage.

I think, even at first glance, looking at the departmental disclosure statement, there are a couple of things that we are curious about. One of the things that this does talk about is the fact that although we are seeing this bill be introduced under urgency, the consultation has taken place since 2024, since last year, and there were two sets of consultation that took place, contacting the current 21 operators of GBSI and industry members looking to establish GBSI in the future, and around some of the requirements that we see in this bill. I’m also interested in the fact that while there has been consultation with the GBSI operators, there hasn’t been any consultation with Māori stakeholders as a result of the urgency, despite the fact that there has been consultation since last year. So there are a few additional things, I think, that deserve some unpacking in the committee of the whole House stage in terms of the process that led to this particular legislation.

Now, understandably when we are looking at bills like this one, which is going through all stages under urgency, we won’t have the luxury of going through a select committee stage where we’re able to hear both from the New Zealand public but also, equally importantly, from officials who may have additional insight, and we’re able to ask additional things from officials as part of that process. So we will be very much reliant on the opportunities that we’re given during the committee of the whole House stage for that.

I think one of the other things I want to mention in this first reading, other than the context of this bill—and I’ll mention a little bit more about the context and just highlight one additional thing. As with all bills that we see in Parliament, there will be some form of consistency report with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, or potentially a section 7 report if there are any areas that are inconsistent. We still haven’t seen that yet, despite the fact that the departmental disclosure statement states that it will be available once this bill is introduced. So, hopefully, as we progress through this bill, we’ll be able to see something on that and to examine this bill in a more wholesome and full and comprehensive way.

One last thing I wanted to address in terms of this bill—and just, again, raising some of the issues that we’d really like to question the Minister on—is around whether the bill contains any provisions that could result in compulsory acquisition of private property. This is where it says, “The Bill gives Ministers the power to require an operator to dispose of their interest in or right to … GBSI where the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the [person operates] … or has given … risk to national security.” So we just, again, want to unpack in terms of some of the legal risk components, but also, considering that the departmental disclosure statement specifies that it is within the Minister’s power, we need to look at it from a perspective of regulatory-making power as well as through either secondary legislation or additional aspects.

I’d just say the Green Party is supportive of this bill. It does address a gap. We’ll look forward to further engagement with the Minister on this.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And thank you, Minister Collins, for bringing what appears to be a very good piece of legislation, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. I just want to note that satellite technology is now ubiquitous in our modern life. The days of Sputnik—I think we all remember the stories of Sputnik when we were kids.

Hon Scott Simpson: Tom Rutherford does.

MARK CAMERON: Well, there you go. And isn’t science a wonderful subject? This certainly speaks to that. I wrote down a few notes, but apparently I have a limited period of time to talk about the speed of light at 299,000 kilometres a second.

Hasn’t our world changed in the last 50 years? I think also, to add to the obvious, with good actors come bad actors, and that we see our satellite telemetry and ground-based assets potentially being used for nefarious purposes. I think this bill speaks to the importance of protecting that satellite network. Obviously, space vehicles and technology, both hardware and software, are a little bit harder to corrupt, but certainly land-based technology is less so. We see the potentiality for nefarious actors to undo all our good work and our investment.

Certainly, in a world where we’re now immersed in this kind of technology, whether it’s the national grid, whether it’s communication capabilities, and certainly our ability to data share, anyone or any group that might compromise that kind of technology and our sovereignty in New Zealand should be protected against.

So this is good bill. I thank again the Minister for introducing it to the House, and I certainly look forward to more dialogue on this very subject.

The final frontier is exciting. I thought we’d start off with a reference to at least one famous genre. I think we all bask in the reflected pride, if you like, in the innovation and the growth of the space sector in New Zealand, something I think we’re all very proud of. But it also holds perils, and that’s really what this bill, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill, is about. The regulatory impact statement (RIS) talks very eloquently about the potential for malicious interests. We know not everyone is benign in this world. There are people who would misuse that final frontier, and so the RIS talks about that, and this bill is about protecting our national security—our national security. That is a very, very important thing.

I think it is also something that’s about our reputation with our friends and our neighbours, because it’s also about their national security as well. If we’ve got a lot of payload which is launched from New Zealand, it is not just affecting New Zealand but affecting potentially globally, but certainly around our neighbourhood in the South Pacific.

Often in this Government we don’t like adding regulation, but this is about allowing the regulation of what would otherwise be an unregulated sector—and making sure that what goes into space from New Zealand’s sovereign territory is not carrying malicious payloads for nefarious purposes which would affect our national security and the national security of other nations around us.

Also, when you think about things that could be launched—the surveillance, for example—we want to make sure, as much as we can, that if there are things which are taking photographs or coverage of New Zealand, it is not going to cause adverse effects to New Zealand. Without this bill, there would be, as I understand it, no powers to regulate the payload which is launched from New Zealand soil, and this is what this bill allows to be done.

Somewhat predictably, from the Opposition we’ve heard, “Yep, we support it, but we’re concerned about urgency.” I guess I would encourage the Minister in further speeches to actually say, “Look, why is it important to get this thing through now?” I think you can see the way in which it’s been put on the table, why it’s been put on the table, the way it’s been done, and the way it’s been pushed quickly is because it is seen as an imminent concern which we need to deal with straight away, to cut any problems off at the pass. The RIS also, I think, very helpfully sets out that this is also about our reputation and it’s about the reputation of our operators here out of New Zealand. That’s a very, very good thing for them to have that good reputation. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, happy to take a call on this bill, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. It’s an important bill, and, I think, reflects the growing technological advances we’re seeing here in New Zealand. There’s a lot of opportunity for us in space and in advanced technologies, but with opportunity comes risk. We can see that when we look around the world. There is growing uncertainty. So it is appropriate that we take precautions and sensible steps to ensure that we are managing these technological advances appropriately and setting the framework. This bill will establish a new authorisation regime for the ground-based space infrastructure, which aims to deter foreign interference and protect our national interests. That’s an important consideration for us to look at as we go forward as a trusted, responsible, space-faring nation. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As other speakers before me have alluded to or mentioned, this is a bill that aims to protect New Zealand’s national interest and New Zealand’s national security. It aims to discourage foreign interference in the country’s infrastructure when it comes to tracking and controlling of spacecraft, space surveillance, and the transfer of data to and from spacecraft. It’s also one that aims to send a clear message that New Zealand considers its national security a very serious matter and will take action if it suspects that it’s under threat. As Labour spokesperson for the national security agencies, that is, of course, an aspiration of the legislation that I support.

Just in terms of the why of this bill, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill, I do want to point to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service’s (NZSIS) New Zealand’s Security Threat Environment. That was the assessment that the NZSIS did, or published, last year in 2024 where they talk about some of the malicious activity that targets the private sector here in New Zealand, and that’s particularly companies focused on tech and innovation. They do lay out all of this. This is in the public domain, so I don’t think there’s anything particularly to not touch on in terms of what they’ve laid out here, but they do state that big data applications, space-related technologies, and advanced manufacturing processes have all reached a stage where the line sometimes between what is ordinarily commercial and what is military or intelligence use can become blurred.

They do also lay out a case study where they outline that in the past few years, in recent times, New Zealand organisations have been approached by specific entities that seek to then develop space infrastructure here in our territory, who then claim that that infrastructure will be used for civilian research purposes, but it was then later found that in each of those cases what was proposed by them could have assisted in foreign military activity that would have then harmed New Zealand’s sovereignty, New Zealand’s national security, and our interests more broadly.

The full capabilities and, specifically, some of the affiliations of those entities were deliberately withheld or deliberately hidden, and therein lies an issue. If those projects had gone ahead, we would have inadvertently allowed another country to install equipment here in New Zealand with a plausible military or intelligence function, without even having really known the extent of that. That would have, as I said previously, risked our sovereignty. By deliberately hiding their affiliations, the foreign entities then undermine our ability to be able to make informed decisions about our own national security and our national interests.

What this bill does is it puts in place a regulatory framework. There is a lot of detail in the regulations, and I will come back to that in a minute, but basically what it does is it requires operators of that specific type of infrastructure to obtain a ground-based space infrastructure activity authorisation from the Minister. It also then empowers the Minister to be able to assess whether proposed activities meet the national interest test, and that includes considerations of economic benefit, national security, and international relations.

We do think that the national interest test is a bit vague, and we would want more transparency around balancing the national security test. I do have a question for the Minister, probably when we come to committee stage. I get that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will be the regulator of this framework that’s proposed, but I do want to know what the interactions will be with national security agencies and the Minister responsible for national security when it comes to that national interest test. But as my colleagues have laid out, we do support this because of its focus on national security.

We do have some questions. We do have a question around the need for urgency for all stages and what sort of consultation will happen when it comes to the regulations within this bill, and have proposed, as Rachel Brooking mentioned, that a review be built into this, just because it is being passed through all stages under urgency. Thank you.

Sir, this evening I and others—the Hon Chris Penk, Tim van de Molen, and Vanessa Weenink—joined veterans who served in East Timor in 1999 to commemorate and acknowledge their service. The world is a different place. Technology has evolved markedly since that time, and while to some it might feel a bit far-fetched to say that we are facing space wars or something similar in the future, actually, the space domain is already critical to security operations around the world, and indeed in New Zealand.

Isn’t it good that here we have a Government, and a Minister in the Hon Judith Collins KC, who is doing something about that for our country? I commend the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill to the House.

As colleagues have said, this bill, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill, puts in place an authorisation framework to regulate ground-based space infrastructure. It’s worth noting for the folks at home that ground-based space infrastructure includes any earth-based facilities that support space operations, including satellite ground stations, tracking and monitoring systems, data reception and processing centres, launch support facilities and mission control centres, and cyber-physical systems used to interfere with orbiting spacecraft.

The risk, I think, that this bill is seeking to address is espionage and foreign interference by foreign powers. The sort of ground-based space infrastructure that we’re talking about here can be exploited to intercept satellite communications, monitor payloads and launch schedules, and map New Zealand’s scientific and military capabilities. They’re also vulnerable to cyber-attacks and intrusions. There are a number of examples internationally, global precedents where foreign actors have successfully hacked into satellite ground stations in Norway, in India, and in the US.

A number of like-minded countries who have space sectors have, in recent times, introduced regulatory safeguards to manage the risks of foreign interference and national interest risks associated with ground-based space infrastructure. In 2020, the Norwegian Government tightened the security rules for foreign access to satellite ground stations in the Arctic. They brought in restrictions on data sharing, requiring greater transparency and compliance with security clearances. Canada in 2019: a Chinese-controlled company was blocked from acquiring Canadian satellite imaging firm Norsat, and Canada mandates that operators of satellite ground stations and space data systems comply with their defence and intelligence vetting. Sweden has done similarly with their Space Activities Act. Australia: the Office of National Intelligence and Defence Space Command now advise on all proposed space activities involving international collaboration.

I want to use the remaining time to really ask the question about whether the concern for national sovereignty and the protection of the national interest in relation to ground-based space infrastructure begs the question of whether we’re doing all we can to protect our national sovereignty in relation to the rest of the New Zealand - based space programme, including the launches at Māhia Peninsula. The threat there, of course, is not espionage, foreign actors who might wish to interfere or disrupt; it’s foreign actors who may be the paying customers of the launch programme. Why do I say this? Because what began as a launch industry taking advantage of our uncluttered skies and ocean with exciting economic development potential has grown with a very heavy reliance on launching payloads for US military agencies and private sector firms who supply the US military.

The salient example is BlackSky’s technology. A geospatial intelligence firm have had satellites launched for them by Rocket Lab over a number of years. Now BlackSky supplies the high temporal frequency images and analysis to the Israel Defense Forces. Israel’s artificial intelligence systems use geospatial data to select their strike targets in their military operation in Gaza, where they are routinely bombing civilian targets and breaching international law on a daily basis. The question is: are Rocket Lab payloads supporting a genocidal war on the people of Gaza? Well, we don’t know.

The Minister is required, when they sign off a payload, to ensure that it meets the national interest test and a set of principles which include the payloads with the intended end use of supporting or enabling specific defence, security, or intelligence operations that are contrary to Government policy must not be allowed. But there’s no transparency. We have to take the Minister’s word for it. That is the question.

This bill seeks to strengthen the regulatory framework to protect the national interest in relation to ground-based space infrastructure. But are we applying the same level of care to the rest of the space programme, particularly the payload launches at Māhia Peninsula for military clients and the private sector firms that serve them?

Grant McCallum: Madam Speaker?

I’m sorry there’s no more speech—[Interruption] Is there one more? Oh, one more National—sorry. Apologies. I see an arrow that’s been drawn here. I call Grant McCallum. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon Matt Doocey: Oh, you could have saved us, Madam Speaker!

GRANT McCALLUM: Ha, ha! The support is overwhelming—it’s overwhelming!

It’s a real pleasure to rise to take the final call on the first reading of this very important bill, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. The space industry—who would have thought many years ago that once upon a time New Zealand would be one of the key leaders in the space industry in the world. It’s a very proud moment to be able to rise to speak on this. I acknowledge the work of the Hon Judith Collins KC that she’s doing in this “space”, you might say—boom, boom.

For that, I’d just like to say I look forward to moving through the rest of the bill, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading