Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 26 and 27, “Amendment to Outer Space and High-altitude Activities (Licences and Permits) Regulations 2017”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to point out again that one of the things the Minister said yesterday as part of the first reading was that the consistency report against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) will be available on the Ministry of Justice website. I want to, first of all, raise the point that that BORA report is still not available on the Ministry of Justice website—so if the Minister wouldn’t mind looking into it.

My question is around clause 27, “Regulation 3 amended”. I understand that when we’re looking at the licence and permits, the revocation of the definition of “protective security arrangements”, as expressed earlier, is due to the introduction of the authorisation regime, particularly when we’re looking at the activities under permits and licences, which are replaced by the definition of “protective security arrangements” being inserted into section 4 of the principal Act by clause 5. That is also a covered activity under “GBSI activity authorisation”, and, again, just going back to the regulatory impact statement, when we’re looking at table 1 on page 8, which covers what the existing regulatory environment and non-regulatory environment is, versus what the authorisation regime will be doing, my question to the Minister is this. By revoking—sorry, just another piece is that we already see there’s still a degree of overlap between, for example, the new authorisation regime and other legislative environments, such as the Overseas Investment Act, around collaboration with overseas parties.

Can I just check with the Minister as a reassurance that the revocation of the protective security arrangements in the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities (Licences and Permits) Regulations isn’t going to create a gap in the regulatory environment that the authorisation regime doesn’t cover. Is there any possibility that we have inadvertently created a separate gap?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very simple question for the Associate Minister of Defence because, as he will be aware, Part 2 of this bill is very, very short. What clause 27 does is amend an interpretation in the regulations, and—just to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing—that regulation has a definition of “protective security arrangements”. It seems that the definition in the regulation is very, very similar to the new definition that is coming in through this amendment bill and the only difference is that it now refers to an authorisation. So my question is: am I right—is the point of this clause in Part 2 simply to delete the secondary instrument’s definition because it’s now going to be in the primary instrument?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to the question posed by the Hon Rachel Brooking: that’s my understanding—yes—that that’s the intent of what lawyers call a switcheroo, of course, whereby revoking the definition at the same time as creating the new definition within primary legislation will be so as not to create a gap. So I think we’re on the same page with that, and it’s a fair point, of course, to seek clarification.

A fair point, as well, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan has raised is around coverage, or the possibility of a gap between this legislation and the Overseas Investment Act. That’s a piece of legislation in which I take a certain degree of interest as the Minister for Land Information, wearing another hat. I’m currently moonlighting for the Minister for Space. Some might unkindly call me a space cadet, but I’m sure that wouldn’t be a phrase everyone else would agree with in any other context. As land information Minister, I’m naturally interested in the operation of the Overseas Investment Act, and it seems to me if the passage of this legislation were to result in any kind of mismatch or undesirable duplicate of coverage or—more importantly—a gap, then that would be a matter that we can and should review. So I’ll take that as a helpful point from the member.

In terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, it’s unfortunate if the member doesn’t have access to that by way of it being uploaded to the Ministry of Justice website. This is something I’ve encountered myself before, and it’s not a particularly helpful situation. But, for what it’s worth, I can relate to the member at least that my understanding is that the vet passed, which is to say that there is nothing in this Act that was considered to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tuatahi tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe e te Minita.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. First, I would like to acknowledge you, Minister.]

Who called you a space cadet? How unkind! Anyway—

Hon Member: He did.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Oh, you called yourself a space cadet? OK.

No doubt there will be continued discussions about the role of kaitiakitanga of space. Hoi anō rā [However], we are talking about ground-based space infrastructure (GBSI), te whenua, tae noa mai ki te mana whenua [the land, and also the authority over the land].

I want to acknowledge Rocket Lab, obviously, which is a shining star in part of my electorate, in the beautiful Te Māhia, and one of the things as to why they stand out is that they support around 12,000 jobs, which is always a great thing, but we’ve also learnt some excellent lessons from Rocket Lab in terms of working with mana whenua. While neighbours such as Tawapata station happily coexist, throughout the establishment there were concerns around cultural impacts, environmental impacts, access to moana, consultation concerns—you know, some people felt as if the process was rushed—and genuine engagement.

So, as we look at the Schedule to the bill and at clause 9 in the new Part 2 to be inserted in Schedule 1 of the Act, it says that they “must be granted a GBSI activity authorisation for the operation of GBSI for the activity.”, my question to the Associate Minister of Defence is: knowing what we know from the establishment of Rocket Lab, how will Māori land owners, or mana whenua, be involved throughout the process—not just in consultation about establishment of the GBSIs but the ongoing monitoring of the licences? Indeed, it is any neighbouring landowners, not just mana whenua, because I think that’s a concern for anyone who is a neighbour of such establishments, especially when space is still the final frontier for a lot of people, and so this might just seem a bit out outlandish for the landowners and neighbours.

Also, there is the consideration of wāhi tapu, or sacred land, and how that’s going to be taken into consideration—if at all—and, as I said, there are environmental concerns. Koirā aku pātai mō tēnei wā. [Those are my questions at this time.]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to acknowledge the points made by the member, it’s positive to hear that there’ve been constructive relationships locally with the operation of Rocket Lab, whom she has rightly acknowledged as a significant employer but also a major player in terms of the activity within that part of the world. The engagement with local iwi sounds as though that has been very constructive.

Broadening out the conversation in terms of new ground-based space infrastructure, it seems to me that our resource management laws and requirements and regime, more generally, and decision making outside the remit of this legislation will continue to govern that. I take the member’s point that this is important, not only because there is a land-based element, or the ground-based or whenua aspect of what is included within the remit of the bill, but also the cultural aspects and the access to the moana, etc. I just acknowledge those points, but I say that I don’t think that it’s necessary for this legislation to contemplate some sort of new way of understanding what should be approved in the first place or the ongoing interaction, because that’s covered elsewhere within our statutory frameworks.