Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Space: I move, That the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Thank you to all members for their contributions during the first and second readings and also for the thoughtful debate that we’ve just experienced during the committee of the whole House stage.

This bill represents a significant step forward in strengthening New Zealand’s space regulatory framework. As our space sector continues to grow, so too does the need to ensure that the ground-based infrastructure, such as satellite tracking systems and telemetry systems, are subject to appropriate oversight and standards. Ground-based space infrastructure plays a vital role in supporting satellite operations and space activities, but without regulation it can pose risks to national security and other national interests. This bill ensures the operators of such infrastructure are authorised, accountable, and operating in a way that protects New Zealand’s interests.

It’s been done because it is needed, quite simply. During the past five years, there have been several deceptive efforts to establish and/or use ground-based infrastructure in New Zealand to harm our national security by foreign actors. They’ve deliberately disguised their affiliation to foreign militaries and misrepresented their intentions. To date, these risks have been managed through non-regulatory measures, including relying on the goodwill of ground-based space infrastructure operators. These measures are no longer enough. Passing this bill establishes an authorisation regime for ground-based space infrastructure, backed by enforcement powers to safeguard the national interest. It also provides for a transition period, allowing operators to meet the new requirements, while ensuring that the responsible Minister, being our colleague and friend the Hon Judith Collins the Minister for Space, can act immediately if risks arise.

The bill will therefore help maintain New Zealand’s reputation as a trusted and capable spacefaring nation, one that takes its responsibility seriously and is prepared to manage the risks and opportunities of space activity here on Earth.

I’d like to thank the teams at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their work in supporting the passage of the bill. I also acknowledge the contribution of stakeholders, who helped to shape the policy and ensure that the regime is practical and effective. Thanks to the MPs across the House who have supported the bill and, again, to those who engaged thoughtfully in the debate of the committee of the whole House. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the Associate Minister of Defence just noted, this is a bill that Labour has been supporting because we do agree that space activity should always be in the national interest and that it’s an important part of our economy. I guess a lot of people will think about space and the first thing you think of is the rockets launching off and then you might think about what it is that they are taking into space. But we don’t probably spend as much time talking about this ground-based space infrastructure that does the tracking of those satellites that are deployed in space by the launch that is regulated when it comes from New Zealand. So now this ground-based space infrastructure will also be regulated, and that is a sensible thing.

I do want to briefly comment on an amendment that I put up during the committee stage that was ruled out of order, and that was about a post-enactment review. It doesn’t matter as to the form of it. It is the general idea that whilst Labour accepts that there is a need for urgency in this case, and to go through all-stages urgency because of what is best for our national interest and our security interests—we accept that—we can have both things, though. We can have both something going through urgency and getting the benefit of the national security that it will bring by it being passed and commencing next week, on 25 July; but we can also spend a bit more time on the bill with a post-enactment review. The Government had an opportunity to not use all-stages urgency in a cynical, negative way—which I say this Government often does. They had the opportunity to say, “We’re actually using urgency for a good reason this time, but we do acknowledge that it is not a great way to make laws. And so to fix that not great lawmaking aspect of it, we will have a post-enactment review.”

But the Government has chosen not to do that. I implore them, anybody who’s listening, that there is still an opportunity to put this to a select committee, in some form or other, to make sure that it does have the proper scrutiny. We heard from the Minister, and we saw in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), which we only saw once the all-stages debate on this bill started, that some groups of people have been consulted, and they were consulted on the policy, and the Minister in the chair just before alluded to the fact that some of them might have seen some drafting as well. It is unlikely, and I do not know, but I am assuming that they have not seen the full bill as drafted for comment before they saw it as it was introduced last night. That is a shame, because words matter and we don’t want to get them wrong.

I still didn’t have a clear answer from the Minister in the chair about the relationship of the people who own the site and own the land to other operators that might be coming in and contracting with them. I understand that it looks to be that when the land holder—the person who has the ground space—is applying for their authorisation, they have to demonstrate that they have done the correct due diligence for national security for anybody who might be using some of their equipment from time to time. I think what happens, then, is that if the operator of that equipment is largely offshore or a different entity, that different entity will have to get their own authorisation as well. But, again, this is something that could have been worked through.

Unfortunately, the National Party backbench MPs kept jumping up to call for a closure motion in the committee stage. That is very disappointing when this is all-stages urgency and we we’re trying to make sure that we all understood this bill. So I say to them, shame on them. That just really shows a terrible understanding of how unusual it has been in previous parliaments to do all-stages urgency of a bill. But, of course, this is a term—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. That’s a barrage, not an interjection.

Hon Matt Doocey: Fake news.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m hearing it’s fake news. I’ve got a lot of statistics on this and all-stages urgency has been used by this Government time and time again, and this is the one time that I’ve come across where it makes some sense, and we are agreeing to the all-stages urgency. Yet members opposite still jump up and try and close down these very civil, thoughtful debates. What does that say about their attitude to lawmaking? It is just arrogant. That is all it is: arrogant and not wanting good lawmaking.

Hon Member: Where was that view in the last Government?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m asked now, when was that view in the last Government? Well, the last Government didn’t do all of this all-stages urgency. I can provide the member those numbers—

Tim van de Molen: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we can have this debate—oh, sorry. We have a point of order from Tim van de Molen.

Tim van de Molen: Yes. Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was halfway through making a statement, so if it’s relevant to this—

Tim van de Molen: Yes, I was just pointing out that that was a factually incorrect statement and I suggest the member might want to withdraw it from the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, look, I think the member’s stated a view; she hasn’t put any numbers on it. She’s just made the observation that the closure motions have been called, and she’s expressed a view. She hasn’t made any statements about the frequency in the number form. But what I was about to say is that this is away from the actual bill itself, the debate that was going on across the House. So we’ll give the member a chance to finish her third reading speech.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My point remains, and I’m happy to give information to the members across the House, that there is a lot of legislation that has come through this Parliament in all-stages urgency, and it does not lead to good lawmaking, and they should take that seriously.

Joseph Mooney: Just like the last Government did—or didn’t.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, very much unlike the last Government, Mr Mooney.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, we’re not having that debate. The member’s made a point; now we’ll come back to the third reading. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Very different—sorry. I’ve noted some of the issues that I don’t think were well traversed in the committee stage, and that is a shame. But I’ve also noted that the space industry is important to New Zealand, as is our national security. So that is why Labour has been in support of this bill, if any of the members opposite had been listening. I will end my contribution there. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens on this third reading of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. For those just tuning in today, this is a piece of legislation that establishes a regime for ground-based space infrastructure (GBSI) and imposes an authorisation regime on persons who operate GBSI, which is what we’re calling it these days, to carry out activities. The activities include telemetry, tracking, and control, including activities that could disrupt satellite operations of space objects; space surveillance and identification of space objects; satellite data reception; and other activities of concern if prescribed in regulations.

This bill is passing through all stages under urgency, and we began talking about this last night. We had an interesting discussion with the Minister in the committee of the whole House, and what the Minister told us and what we have accepted is that the bill has been introduced in response to the assessment by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service of the security threat environment that found that New Zealand organisations had been approached by entities seeking to develop space infrastructure. These entities claim the infrastructure would be used for civilian research purposes but it was subsequently found that the proposed activities could have assisted foreign military activity with potential risks to New Zealand’s interests.

That assessment also said, and I quote, “The full capabilities and some of the affiliations of these entities were deliberately hidden. If these projects had gone ahead we would have inadvertently allowed another country to install equipment in New Zealand for plausible military or intelligence functions. To have done so would have risked New Zealand’s sovereignty. By hiding their affiliations, the foreign entities undermine New Zealand’s ability to make informed decisions based on our national security and national interest.” So there’s an obvious gap there and the Greens support that—if you’re going to build something in someone’s backyard, it’s important that we have eyes over that. There was a regulatory gap, so making sure there were some regulations in place is incredibly important.

There were also some very good questions posed. For example, I know a number of people will want to know when this threat became known. As through our discussions and the departmental disclosure statement, we did find out that there had been discussions with 21 GBSI operators, and that began in 2024. So there have been ongoing discussions, and 21 is not a small number. That’s a few people that are doing this. I’m guessing that through those discussions something emerged, which, of course, is why we find ourselves in urgency at this particular time. So I accept that premise from that side of the Chamber while we’re here in urgency.

I do support what was said, I think, very well, by the Hon Rachel Brooking about having a post-enactment review of some kind. The issue is that when we go through urgency like this, we do want to make sure that all the nuts and bolts are holding the wheels to the wagon, so that we can have the best, most robust legislation that we can. And that’s whether you support the legislation or don’t support the legislation—if we put something into the legislative system, we want it to be the best it can be.

We also had some really interesting discussion around the authorisation regime. There were four options, and we heard the various reasons why this particular regime was the one that was picked. I guess there were some interesting discussions there and some questions that I continue to have around exactly happens—because we’re in a very fast-moving world where somebody might be a GBSI operator and that’s what they’re doing, and then they onsell to another group, and then that group onsells to another group. What are the actual parts in place to ensure that there is proper oversight over that? Also, if there are nefarious foreign actors, if I can put it that way, who are influencing some of these GBSI operators, we need to make sure there is oversight over that as well.

There was also, I think—and this is where I have some unease on this; an unease that is out of the scope of this amendment bill but it is definitely connected to it, and I think the Hon Phil Twyford mentioned this a number of times around the national interest element of it. Of course we don’t want people building stuff in New Zealand which is against the national interest and could be harmful to Aotearoa. So making sure we have a regime that is in place to deal with that is important. But it gets difficult when we have different interpretations of what the national interest is. In the regulatory impact statement, it talks about how we need to be careful of foreign actors that do not share New Zealand’s values. Well, the question I have is: what are New Zealand values? Those things develop over time and they evolve, and we do, I think, as parliamentarians, want those values to be the best kind of values. Many of us often make the point that we’re in the Pacific. We are a Pacific nation and part of a family of Pacific nations, so making sure we do everything we can do to take care of our neighbourhood is an important thing to do.

Outside of the Pacific, things are changing incredibly rapidly. We had a ministerial statement yesterday about the situation in Gaza, and a number of countries that would typically align themselves with the US have spoken out on what’s happening in Israel. Does that show that our New Zealand values are changing? Are they developing? I hope so. I think evolving values in a way that puts people at the heart of them is incredibly important.

There was an argument around having more specificity in terms of what the national interest is. There is part of that in this amendment bill—I think there are three or four aspects. But the argument was made that you could be more specific. So, for example, with the launching of payloads, you can’t launch things that would contravene our nuclear-free legislation. That makes sense. You can’t do other things that would cause environmental impact on other satellites in outer space. That also makes sense. I think you can be prescriptive, but I also think we need to have some space to allow for our values to develop in a good way. That’s a good thing as well. So that, although outside the scope of this amendment bill, is foundational to the entire Act as well. I hope that the Minister takes on board those points of clarification, which I think would make this a stronger piece of legislation.

The other thing that was not answered at all, I felt, was the part around the role of tangata whenua. A few years back, I did go up to Māhia to talk with the whānau up there who are unhappy with what Rocket Lab was doing. They said it was one thing, and the next thing you know, other things were happening and it was impacting the wider community. Yes, they might be funding this, that, and the other, but the intention around making sure you take care of the environment and don’t launch military payloads on behalf of foreign actors—the US—is an important point that has been made to me repeatedly when I visited them.

The other thing that the Minister also talked about and that we talked about for some time was around the exemptions. The New Zealand Defence Force gets an exemption. My understanding of it is if you’ve got a Waihopai-type situation, that exemption applies, but if you’ve got a Māhia Rocket Lab situation, that falls under the Act. I didn’t get a lot of clarity from the Minister as to whether that distinction was correct or not, so if people on that side of the House could clear that up, that would be really good for people who are watching this at home. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support this bill. We just had the committee of the whole House before this reading, and it was really good to see that the Minister answered questions that came from various members. I can fully understand, as this bill is going through urgency, members had lots of questions, and those questions were addressed in the committee of the whole House.

It is totally justified that this bill is going through urgency, given that we know there are risks, and these risks are real risks, because through the ground-based space infrastructure, we know that some entities, while they are using this infrastructure, this technology, for everybody’s benefit—this technology can also be used to strengthen their own space capability while degrading others’ capabilities. That’s the big risk that we have. We cannot let anybody compromise or undermine our national security.

This bill is about ensuring we are protecting our national security, protecting our reputation, because when we talk about national security, it’s not just our country; it’s the entire region as well. It also puts everybody on notice because, from next week, all the authorisations will become a transitional authorisation—so, basically, they will be on notice, and they will have to prove that their activities align with our national interest. It’s a great bill, and I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill in the third reading. Look, it’s very, very clear that space is a rapidly evolving environment, and what we’ve heard in terms of that rapid evolution goes to a need for speed in terms of this legislation. Also, what we’ve heard from the Minister for Space—in fact, both Ministers who’ve supported this bill—is that there have already been malicious operators seeking to take advantage of what is a gap in our legislation as it is at the moment.

It’s been great also to hear the stories about, and to see the numbers about, how important the space industry is now to New Zealand, across several parts of our country. We’ve got a fantastic range of entrepreneurs and, typical to New Zealand, we have innovation, and space is no exception. In the five years to 2024, we read that the space sector grew by 53 percent, and at 2024, it was a $2.5 billion contribution to our economy, and that is only going to rise. But that means it’s really, really important that that sector is regarded as trusted and is regarded as reliable, and so this legislation itself, in a sense, also helps not only our national security but also our national economy.

I’ve heard comments made about Rocket Lab in particular. Having visited them a few months ago, what I did see in here is the importance that they place both on employment but also on training and development of local people. I thought that was absolutely fantastic to see around the Māhia Peninsula.

This is an amendment bill. The 2017 Act, which it seeks to amend, is very, very focused on the things that we send into space, the payloads that we send into space. I think what this bill is doing is it’s identified that there is a sizeable gap about the space-related infrastructure which actually sits on the ground and communicates, if you like, with the satellites that are sent into space. Satellites are now an essential part of so much of what we do—whether it’s communications, navigation, weather forecasting, scientific research, being able to watch sport, all of those things. Satellites make a huge difference.

What are some of those things there? We’ve got relaying signals; broadband internet if you’re not on cables; secure financial transactions—that’s very, very important—global positioning system, GPS; real-time tracking of vehicles, deliveries, and all of those sort of things; aviation and maritime safety, surveillance, search and rescue; and environmental monitoring. There are a huge number of things which satellites are part of, but they’re also used for less productive, more malicious, more nefarious, and more aggressive purposes. That’s what this bill is about, trying to make sure we have a means of dealing with this.

I think that we all now understand that New Zealand is in a strategically important location for space. We are an island in the middle of the Pacific, which means there’s not a lot of other places for you to base this kind of ground-based infrastructure on. Australia’s a long way one way, and South America is a very long way the other way, so we are an important location also in relation to the South Pole. I think we also accept that there are now increasingly malicious operators who would like to disrupt things and would like to launch things from our sovereign soil, and this bill is about making sure that that does not happen. We want to ensure that our national interests are protected, as well as those of our friends and neighbours, and to ensure that we as a nation remain a reliable, trusted partner which upholds the law, and that is also good for the businesses which operate out of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Māku ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori, otirā te iwi Māori mō te anga o tēnei pire. Nō reira kaua koe e māharahara mō taku hāte. Tēnā tātou.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. The statements on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, indeed the Māori people regarding the direction of this bill, is up to me. So don’t you worry about my shirt. Greetings to us all.]

We do not support the bill, and it’s for a fairly straightforward principle. It’s a principle of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The bill, not its predecessor nor the amended bill, mentions anything about Te Tiriti o Waitangi—about the partnership that Te Tiriti o Waitangi created, or the place of Māori in it.

Whilst we might be here talking about space and an emerging field of technology and an emerging economic opportunity, this lesson has been learnt, has been tracked, time and time and time again by this Parliament. We arrive at a new technology and then the Parliament takes the view, “Oh, Māori don’t have anything to do with that technology—don’t have anything to do with that.” This was the same thing that happened when the spectrum case came up in the early 2000s—the spectrum case—and the somewhat arrogant view of the Government at the time was that Māori didn’t have any use or history in the use or utilisation of the spectrum. This would ultimately be disproven, right?

Joseph Mooney: Start a business. Give it a go—have a go at starting a business.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: This would be disproven. So here we are again—

Joseph Mooney: Encourage people to start a business.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Here we go. Here we go. We’ve got the 1840 guy over here. What were the ancestors of the Brits doing in 1840? Not a lot in space. The principle is the same. The principle is the same.

Andy Foster: Who developed the technology?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: I hear the supporters of the myth of technology idea over here on my left—astounding, astounding. A new resource is available, there’s some regulation wanted for it, being proposed for it, and Māori are being regulated out of it. It’s worth billions of dollars into the future.

Andy Foster: Ngāi Tahu are doing very well out of it

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, Ngāi Tahu did very well out of it? We’re sticking to the root facts here. Māori have a long cosmological history. They have deep knowledge. We’ve been navigating the biggest ocean in the world for 10,000 years using the stars. We’ve managed to name every planet, every constellation. Māori—

Andy Foster: So has everyone else.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: “So has everyone else.”—the attitude of this House, when it comes to this type of discussion, is deplorable. It’s deplorable. It’s a joke. It’s an utter joke, the attitude of this Government. The House isn’t built to facilitate the Te Tiriti o Waitangi conversation. I can say that to the Speaker, absolutely 100 percent knowing that: this House isn’t built to facilitate the Te Tiriti o Waitangi conversation. This Government isn’t interested in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi conversation. They keep spewing out stupid views that I’d love to take a little bit more time to rip to bits, but we don’t have it right now.

Anyway, a great mentor of mine, an uncle, Moana Jackson, spoke about colonial myths a lot. One of them was the myth of technology, Andy—the myth of technology—and that the colonial settlers and the successive Governments and power structures of this country built colonial myths into our history. One of them is the idea that all Māori development halted in 1840, and that’s where we should stay. You should go and look up the myth of technology, e hoa mā—go and look it up.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Go look up Tāwhaki.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: I know about Tāwhaki. I know about Māhia-mai-tawhiti. We know about all of those things. I also know about Ihirangaranga. I also know about Mātairangi. I also know about things like Matariki. Everyone knows about Matariki now—

Tim van de Molen: At least read the title of the bill.

Joseph Mooney: He doesn’t even know about Tāwhaki.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, here we go, here we go—no decent debate from this side of the House, just slanging stuff. Slanging stuff, eh? [Interruption] I’ll just give it a minute to simmer down. I hope everyone’s listening. Although you can’t hear at home, I hope everyone’s at least getting a feel of the attitude here when I’m raising quite a simple point—a simple principle—and it’s the principle of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This House has passed laws that protect these rights that Māori possess. You’ve passed laws, and here you are just riding roughshod straight over the top of them. Nō reira, kia kaha koutou. We do not support the bill at all.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m not going to raise a point about the member Tākuta Ferris not addressing the bill, but I am going to raise a point of order in regard to wearing a political slogan on the previous speaker’s shirt, which has a logo, as well. If that’s the ruling, I’d just like some clarification—you don’t need to give it to us now—because we could all wear T-shirts in the House with party logos and slogans on them, but I just want to know what that ruling is. So I’ll leave that with you.

I can’t see a party logo from here, but I can see that the member has a T-shirt with something on it. But it’s not visible from the Chair, and I don’t know if it’s visible on the TV screens.

Tākuta Ferris: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member wishes to speak to the point of order, I’m happy to take that.

Yeah, speaking to the point of order, I’m not sure who the sovereign party is, but I do know that the Deputy Prime Minister has been pulled up in this House about three or four times for wearing his ACT pin. So if you want to come and clear that up, you’re welcome to it.

Cameron Luxton: Speaking to the point of order.

Look, as long as it’s constructive, I’m happy to follow up. But there is no visible party branding on the member who was just speaking that I can see from here.

Sure. The member is using a tactic that’s well-known in bullying circles, which is to raise a different issue when there’s an issue on the table, and—[Interruption] Points of order are heard in silence, and I think—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, look, I’ll tell you, the member has been attempting to make a speech and has had a lot of barrage and interjection from the Government’s side of the House, which—I think it’s been coming from both sides, and I’m not prepared to accept that that particular member has been directing what he’s been saying at this, other than to react to interjections.

CAMERON LUXTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and a related point of order—

Tākuta Ferris: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, we’ve got a member on his feet.

CAMERON LUXTON: As the Deputy Speaker has acknowledged, it’s hard to read what is written on the shirt of the member. The member did actually just refer to what was written on the shirt, so it would behove the House to look at Standing Order 119 in regard to what the member has just said, as to whether that is an affront to that Standing Order.

I’ll follow that one up. Thank you.

Speaking to the point of order, with regard to the first part of the member’s point of order, deeming the relevance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to a debate in this House as some sort of act of bullying and not being relevant to this bill is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard to date.

Look, that actually wasn’t a point of order. I’m going to shut this down now. I accept that there has been some to and fro going from both sides and, as I say, when the member was actually making his speech, there were a lot of interjections coming at him, which made it hard to speak. I’m closing down the points of order now. I can’t see what’s on the member’s T-shirt and I’m accepting that I cannot see any political logo, and we’re going to move on. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Cameron Luxton: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’ve ruled—I’ve ruled and I’m moving on, and I’ve called Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to make his participation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Who knew that this bill, which was introduced under urgency, could be so contentious?

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on the third reading of this bill. I want to start by pointing out that the Green Party does support this bill from the perspective that it does address a gap within the current regulatory and non-regulatory environment—that would be beneficial from the perspective of our security, but also from a so-called national interest perspective. So it is important in that regard. I just want to point out a few things that we have discussed during the committee stage. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t concerns that we have regarding this bill and particularly around the regulatory-making power of this bill.

Firstly, regarding the urgency that we see for this bill, we did ask the Minister that if there was consultation on this bill—and since 2024 they have consulted with 21 operators, according to the departmental disclosure statement—why was this bill introduced under urgency? There is the idea that, yes, there’s a security risk, but then we also pressed to ask why, if they had the time to consult with 21 operators since 2024, there were no Māori hapū iwi collectives consulted as a requirement of this bill. That was not fully clear as a part of that committee stage. So that’s the first thing that we wanted to address.

The other thing that we’re asking about in the context of GBSI or ground-based space infrastructure is that this does give the Minister a lot of powers in terms of approving those authorisations. One of the clearest things, and this is from the perspective of regulatory-making power and also from the Regulations Review Committee, is it will cause some nervousness. And then there’s the fact that the Minister, in the end, despite the fact that they talk about flexibility and all of that, did not take on the departmental recommendation in clause 154 of the regulatory impact statement to put in a review period.

Now, the regulatory impact statement was very clear. They recommended a two-year review period because something like this is very new internationally, and that will also be in line with the principal Act, specifically section 86 of the principal Act, around the review period, which was three years in the principal Act. So there will be things that people are going to be picking up, as a result of this.

Now, the third point I want to address is that we do constantly go back to the idea of our national interest, and we do acknowledge Aotearoa New Zealand’s strategic geographical location globally as someone who has this relatively rare and quite expansive Southern Hemisphere GBSI coverage. There are two issues with this. Number one: we go back to the issue of the role of Te Tiriti and the role of Māori within this space, and how that relationship will be rebuilt, will be made stronger despite the lack of consultation. I think that is something we have yet to see the Minister making a commitment on, and we would like to see further work being done in that space.

The second area is around what is considered “national interest”. Now, I want to be very clear. The Green Party has always talked about the need for an independent foreign affairs policy here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We are concerned with the fact that we have seen Five Eyes expanding beyond what is an information-sharing agency to potentially interfering with even something like this around GBSI. Because the bill does say that the Minister may seek advice from the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) and, as we know, the NZSIS has a singular target and a singular country that they are targeting as a result of this. So in this case, is this national interest or is this Five Eyes interest? I think we need to be very clear on that.

So, yes, the Green Party does support this bill, but I think there’s a lot more work to be done around this area.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now, I want to pick up, firstly, on the blatantly untrue statement made by Ms Brooking before, in her contribution, that the previous Government had not used urgency to pass any bills through all stages. That was, verbatim, what she said—incredible. A short Google search shows 24 bills were passed through all stages under the last Government, 17 of those were outside the Budget process, and, indeed, that included changes to the electoral law of this country—a totally unjustified use of urgency.

This case is a particular case for a particular purpose that has been well traversed for sensitive issues. So I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to set the record straight, given that the member that just resumed his seat has claimed that the Hon Rachel Brooking said that our Government never passed any legislation under urgency. That’s not what she said; what she said was that we didn’t do it as much as this Government is doing it, and we didn’t do it for reasons that seem completely unjustified for significant bills, as this Government has done repeatedly, time and again. However, she also acknowledged that this bill is not an example of that. So it would pay for the member who made those claims to actually listen in future, and that would go for members opposite who have been unnecessarily nasty during this debate, given that members on this side are actually supporting this bill.

The purpose of this bill, of course, is to manage national security and other risks to New Zealand’s national interests that are posed specifically by GBSI, or ground-based space infrastructure, and it does that through the enactment of a regulatory regime. We all know from the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) threat assessments—the most recent one in 2024—that companies that are focused on technology and innovation are particularly vulnerable, and we’re seeing that; we’ve seen that in recent years. They are particularly vulnerable to being used by foreign States to advance their own military and intelligence goals. Often this has happened in instances where we’ve then found out that, initially, those malicious activities or that malicious intent was not actually even realised by companies here in New Zealand.

Entities have approached New Zealand organisations specifically to develop space infrastructure in New Zealand territory. They have claimed that the purpose of that infrastructure was for civilian research, but it was then later found out in each one of those cases that that was not true; that the infrastructure was designed to assist foreign military activity and the affiliations between those foreign entities and the entities that approached New Zealand companies were deliberately hidden. So none of us disputes the need for this legislation, which is to plug the gap in our regulatory frameworks or regulations legislation that we currently have.

We know that the ways in which this was addressed to date has been through non-regulatory measures. We know that space is increasingly contested and competitive, that technologies change rapidly and therefore legislative fixes are required to continue to ensure our national security, and that is why Labour is supporting this bill. However, there were a few concerns that I raised, questions that I asked during the committee of the whole House stage that we’ve had. I will also make the point that this is being considered under all-stages urgency. We accept the Minister for Space’s point that this is being done for national security purposes, and we don’t question that; that is fine.

However, I want to emphasise the point that my colleagues have made, both the Hon Rachel Brooking and Vanushi Walters, in their contributions at the committee stage, and also the amendment by Rachel Brooking which was for the Government to include a post-enactment review clause. This legislation is being considered through all stages under urgency; we accept that—but there is a mitigating factor given so much detail is in regulations, given that consultation has been minimal. The consultation document was put out to 21 operators that are known to the regulator. However, only two have substantively responded to that consultation. That was on the policy intent of the bill. The actual bill itself, as far as we’re aware, has not been consulted on.

So the suggestion from this side was a review clause so that we can mitigate potential loopholes created by the quick enactment of this bill and also mitigate the lack of consultation on this legislation. It is disappointing that the Minister has chosen not to take that any further and I do want to put that on the record.

The other point that I raised was the lack of requirement within the legislation, within the amendment bill, for the Minister for Space to consult directly with Ministers relevant to intelligence and security and the security agencies. The Minister has clarified in the committee stage that there is a requirement for the regulator to consult with the security agencies, and I accept that. However, I don’t see it necessarily written into legislation.

Finally, the point that I made in committee that I felt was not addressed adequately was the fact that this particular option—there were four options laid out—option three, which the Government has decided to proceed with, is what has led to this bill. I get that it’s a balance between the effectiveness of the design and the implementation regime versus it being cost-effective; I take that point. However, I have questioned the lack of resource that has been put in to ensuring the effectiveness of the implementation. The Minister has said it’s basically a movable feast. However, I don’t necessarily think that gives this side of the House a huge amount of comfort that it’s being resourced enough to be effective and protect our national security in that sense.

Those are the main issues that we have traversed and ultimately, though, on balance, given this is a bill that aims to protect our national security interests, I commend the bill to the House.

I quote Rachel Brooking: “I’m asked … when was that … in the last Government? Well, the last Government didn’t do all of this all-stages urgency.” That is the direct quote. Let’s just get that right—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): As it relates to this bill.

TIM COSTLEY: That’s not what she said, Madam Speaker, and I don’t think—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, I’m saying to you—

TIM COSTLEY: Well, this relates to this bill because that was her—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I know. It’s been well—

TIM COSTLEY: —direct quote from this reading on this bill and that is what the debate has centred on. What I would like to centre it on—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Mr Costley, what I’m saying to you is please relate your debate to this bill.

TIM COSTLEY: Yes, Madam Speaker—absolutely. This is a debate on this bill. My debating point is to counter two speakers in a row now, who have stood up and said that that quote was never made. It is in the Hansard. It would be outrageous if we couldn’t reference that.

Madam Speaker, this bill is actually something that we started out yesterday evening agreeing on, that there is a need here, for our national security, to act. We’ve got a Minister for Space that is acting quickly. We should move on, and I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai, ka tū atu awau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire mā te Pāti Reipa, arā te pire, Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill.

[Madam Speaker, I stand in support of this bill on behalf of the Labour Party—that is, the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill.]

I just want to commend that side of the House for having the wisdom to quote this side of the House—very smart. Hoi anō rā [However], in the committee stage, I raised a few points that had been reinforced—

Hon James Meager: What did “Chippy” say?

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: You can just wait and listen, then you can quote me—you can quote me for some words of wisdom.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I assure the member that I am listening.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: While we support this bill, some of the things that I raised during the committee stage must remain pertinent.

At a time when people are telling us that they need jobs, better healthcare, and homes, I know that it can be tempting to support initiatives for their economic development, but we must make sure that this remains about national security, which, in these trying times, is actually at the forefront of a lot of people’s minds who it may not have typically been.

While reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been badgered this morning, it actually is very relevant. While I’ve said that we have learnt lessons from the establishment of Rocket Lab, the relationship with Rongomaiwahine, and while, of course, it’s pleasing to hear not only the educational support but the employment support that comes from such projects, we have to make sure that Te Tiriti is honoured and mana whenua are honoured, because while we’re talking about space—and, like I said, that debate will continue about kaitiakitanga and space—we are talking about ground-based science infrastructure. At the end of the day, whenua is for ever and kaitiakitanga is for ever. So these conversations must go beyond consultation.

In the committee stage, I also raised the fact that while there was consultation, it felt rushed. Even when consultation is done well, the relationship with landowners, iwi, hapū, and mana whenua must not end with consultation, otherwise it’s mere lip-service and it’s a mere tick-box exercise. This relationship must go beyond that to include the monitoring and the review of this bill.

At the moment, you’ve got to get authorisation from the Minister for Space, and this bill empowers the Minister to assess whether proposed activities meet the national interest. That’s quite a lot to put on an individual responsibility.

So, hei whakakopi, like I said, Rocket Lab is doing some great stuff but there are lessons to be learnt there about the involvement of mana whenua, because, like I said, whenua is for ever and kaitiakitanga is for ever, and that relationship needs to be from the start and enduring. So on behalf of the Labour Party, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill in its third reading.

I’m the MP for Banks Peninsula, where we have Tāwhaki based. That’s a wonderful partnership between the Crown and two of the local rūnanga. It’s a real exemplar of how the Crown and Māori can work together, and given that it is a site of advanced aviation and potential space industry, I commend this bill to the House.

The concluding remarks, really, in this debate from me are just to observe that this bill is filling a gap in our regulatory framework. I noted earlier in these debates that many other like-minded countries have modernised their regulatory framework to properly keep an eye on, and control the use of, ground-based space infrastructure to protect national sovereignty and to protect their national interests, including other countries who have space programmes, and so it’s right that the regulatory framework that was largely developed from an economic development perspective to support the growth of the New Zealand space programme is improved in this way.

Notwithstanding all of the debate we’ve had over the last 24 hours on this bill, I think it is a no-brainer that we should be supporting it, because it is putting in place a mechanism that will allow this and future Governments to protect New Zealand’s national interest.

I’ve actually enjoyed the debate, notwithstanding the fact that urgency has meant that it’s been pretty challenging to tease out some of the detail and complexity—collectively, I think—to get our heads around the detail of the bill, but I think it hasn’t been too bad a discussion in spite of that. We remain, on the Labour benches here, disappointed that the Government has not supported Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment that would have added a post-enactment review. We think that, on a matter of this importance with some granularity in terms of the processes and the systems in place, it would have been much better. Given that it’s been rushed through under urgency without any select committee scrutiny or expert or public submissions, it would have been a prudent thing to do to legislate that review. This House is very familiar with the defects and the flaws of law that is too rushed.

I’ve enjoyed the discussions that we’ve had around the national interest test and national security. I remain of the view that this regulatory framework would benefit from the additional principles that support the application of the national interest test in relation to the launch of payloads from New Zealand. Those principles spell out a much more precise definition of things that would prohibit certain payloads being put up. I think that when we consider the potential threats posed by ground-based space infrastructure, there are some parallels there, and I think that a much more precise definition of the national interest test would be good for New Zealand.

I thought one of the interesting things that came out of the debate, from my perspective, was what I call the Waihopai principle, where, actually, ground-based space infrastructure managed by the GCSB, our signals intelligence agency, over quite a long time in New Zealand was found to have been conducting mass surveillance on New Zealand’s friends and neighbouring countries with little to no public oversight or parliamentary scrutiny. We should learn from that episode in our history. In the modern era when much more advanced technology and much smaller kit is available to a range of private-sector operators, we should be vigilant that ground-based space infrastructure cannot be used for that purpose in New Zealand without proper scrutiny and oversight. My hope is that this legislation will enable this and future Governments to take that responsibility seriously.

Finally, I remain intrigued by the possibility that some future Government may regard the ground-based space infrastructure of some embassy in New Zealand to be conducting a regulated activity under this law and, therefore, exercise some oversight and control over that. Foreign embassies here, and all around the world, routinely use ground-based space infrastructure for the purposes of intercepting communications and carrying out intelligence-gathering activity and surveillance. That’s no secret, and, in general, Governments tend to turn a blind eye to that sort of activity. But the intent and the substance of this bill really asks us to consider whether or not we would consider that that sort of activity carried out in New Zealand for purposes that may or may not be consistent with our national interest should be properly regulated. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take this last and final call on the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill. We fully support the bill. We are pleased to see a regulatory framework for ground-based space interests. I’m not the MP for Māhia, but I am a frequent visitor. I am just next door, and my good friend and colleague Katie Nimon is the MP for that area. So on behalf of both of us, I commend the bill to the House.