Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the final debate. This is clauses 1 and 2, which is the title and commencement.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this is a very short part, and I have one question on clause 1 and one on clause 2.

The first one is about the title, which is the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Act. I ask whether the Minister for Space would consider any amendments or changes to put in some brackets there like “(Regulating Ground-based Space Infrastructure)” after “Activities” and before “Amendment” just so that when people are looking for the amendment, they might be able to find it more easily, because it does seem that all of our discussion has been about that ground-based space infrastructure with its quite odd-to-say acronym.

Then, on the commencement date, my question is around the fact that it comes into force on 29 July 2025—so that is next Tuesday. That late July date—not necessarily Tuesday, 29 July, but late July—has been bandied around by the Minister for some time now as being the time that she wants this legislation to be enacted and enforced. So my question is: why is it that we only saw the legislation yesterday and that it’s being progressed under all stages in urgency when it has been in train and in progress for some time?

We accept that this legislation is needed and we’re supporting it, but it could have been in the House last week and been with the select committee over the weekend and back in the House this week, for instance. We know that there are not a huge number of people in the country who know about ground-based space infrastructure, but there are some, and it would have been useful to get their views on this and to make sure that we were asking the good questions about it. So that is my question about the commencement date, and also about the title.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I too have a very quick question for the Associate Minister of Defence on clause 2, “Commencement”, but from a different approach than that of the Hon Rachel Brooking. I agree with the Hon Rachel Brooking that the question that she asked around the commencement date is an important one, particularly in light of the fact that we do see that the consultation with the operators has been done since 2024, and so this is something that’s been in train.

However, my question is around the fact that this bill has been brought into the House under urgency—all stages under urgency—with the Government citing that this issue is something that potentially will create security risks and this bill is in our national interest, and yet the commencement date isn’t the day after Royal assent, but, instead, it is next week. I just wanted to check if there’s any potential—like what could happen now that people know about this, because, again, the House didn’t know about this bill until it was placed on the Table during the first reading. There was no heads-up and no way for anyone to know—including the New Zealand public—because of the national security risk, and yet we are now left with five days of people knowing that this is something that’s happening. So what is the potential risk from now until 29 July, and why was the commencement date not the day after Royal assent?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To address the two time-based elements, I take the point made by both members, actually, in terms of the time frame. But it’s probably helpful to note for the record, by way of background, that consultation with existing ground-based space infrastructure holders did take place in the formulation of the policy—and perhaps even in terms of the drafted outcome for that policy—and, likewise, with a couple of experts in this space. So I take Ms Brooking’s point that there are some others in New Zealand, albeit a limited number, who would have expertise to speak in this space, and, no doubt, again, without rehearsing old ground too much in terms of the ongoing nature of review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act, I’m sure that we’ll welcome hearing any well-informed opinions about the extent to which that is working well and as intended.

As for the time frame element that Dr Xu-Nan identified, I suppose that whenever there is a gap between the passage of the law and it becoming effective in the real world, there is a possibility of actions being taken in contemplation. The fact that it’s a relatively short time frame I think mitigates as best as possible the risk that particular activities ramp up in the meantime, but, of course, that’s at the same time an argument against having a long lead time for the legislation to be coming into effect. We don’t want people to take contemplation of this in a way that takes advantage of a gap that’s now, arguably, highlighted by the fact that we’re now discussing and identifying potential vulnerability in our arrangements.

Finally, as to the name of the bill, I suppose one can always be more explicit about the contents of a bill within its title. The length of it already is considerable and, hopefully, it will be reasonably obvious to those reading the bill, and for anyone who’s minded to be even more diligent and read the Hansard of this discussion—they’ll get a pretty good idea, I think, of what’s in it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question around—and I was listening carefully to the Associate Minister of Defence—those time frames. We had that consultation process with around 21 of the entities that are ground-based space infrastructure (GBSI), and now we’re at this particular point here. Just for clarification for the committee: did something happen between awareness from those discussions with these different entities, and is that why we are in this situation of moving through urgency? I think that will help to alleviate some of the questions that we’re having around the committee in terms of that gap between that consultation process that happened, and the fact that we are moving through urgency at this particular time and are looking at 29 July as the commencement date. So a quick question there.

The other thing is that I support what the Hon Rachel Brooking was saying around making it easier for people to be able to find this amendment. You might want to not use the entire sentence, because I get what you’re saying—it’s a paragraph, and we don’t want that. But you could have “GBSI”, or whatever it is as the acronym, to make it easier to find things. That’s just a helpful suggestion for the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Associate Minister of Defence for answering my questions before. I just want to put it to the Minister: does he agree that there is a difference between consultation on policy versus the drafting of the full and final bill—do words matter?

I’m happy to confirm for the committee of the whole House that words do matter. As for the period of time between the consultation taking place, the substance of the consultation, and the time frame of the effectiveness of the legislation, there’s no particular insight I have in terms of what was consulted upon that led to that time frame being specified as 29 July 2025.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading