Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): There are a number of points actually that I would like to bring up having looked through the legislation. Like Mr Lees-Galloway I was not on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but as mentioned I do have a little bit more than a passing interest in this. There are a couple of things and most of these are procedural points. When it is talking about granting a launch licence for example you have got to provide the date the location intended trajectory—it makes sense—except as we know with the launch of rockets there is no specific date. I know that with Rocket Lab's first launch I think it was scheduled originally for a Monday—it might have been a Tuesday—and ended up being launched on a Thursday. These are so weather dependent so what I am assuming—it is just a minor point but I am assuming the officials will be able to advise the Minister—is that you can actually provide a range of dates or more of a window than a specific date. Even though it is always fine on the Māhia Peninsula I would suggest something like a fortnight's worth of dates but I am assuming that when it talks about the date" what it is meant to be is actually a range of dates there.There is another interesting clause. Clause 14 talks about how the "Minister may revoke or suspend a launch licence". It says: "(1) The Minister may at any time vary a launch licence on any conditions that the Minister thinks fit" and it does list down about five different areas that the Minister must consider. But then again down the bottom it has got in clause 14(1)(d) "for any other reason specified in the licence." Again I will come back to a point I made originally: this is a pretty serious game and I do not think the legislation is quite prescriptive enough to provide a level of certainty. We have got some terms and conditions there under which a Minister may vary a launch licence but then when you have the bottom thing it is basically "Well we can do it under (1) (2) (3) (4) and anything else the Minister considers relevant."There is one thing that I am not too sure about actually but I would like to bring it up. In terms of getting a licence what happens is the person seeking the licence has to as mentioned give the date the time the location—that is fine—and intended trajectory. Well that makes sense. But then in clause 18(1)(ii) there are "details of the intended and actual basic orbital parameters (including the nodal period inclination" etc. etc. The question I have here—and it is a genuine question—is whether this information will remain confidential. If someone is launching a rocket into space obviously the technology they are using could well be proprietary and I have no doubt there are a number of patents when constructing a rocket that allow satellites to be launched into space but I am not sure whether in fact the trajectory or any of the launch sequencing is proprietary or not.So what I would like to know is that when a licence for any of this is sought whether it is a facility licence—and that is covered a little bit later on—or a launch licence or a payload licence I would like to think that in fact the information provided by the company or the individual seeking such a licence remains confidential. The last thing we want is for some other company to come in here do an Official Information Act request—or worse go on to the website and have a look and see what a competitor is doing in terms of all the terms and conditions that they have outlaid for a launch or for a licence or a facility licence. Again I look at clause 18. This is "Conditions indemnity and insurance relating to payload permit". It talks about "the date" and I am assuming we need to talk about a range of dates there.One interesting thing is in clause 18(2). This is talking about insurance and it says: "The Minister may require as a condition of the permit a permit holder to—(a) indemnify the Crown in whole or in part against—(i) any claim brought against the Crown …". Basically this is if it falls out of the sky and it injures someone or kills someone or a claim under international law an act or omission of the permit holder etc. In here I do not know why there is any wiggle room there. I would have thought that the Minister must as a condition of the permit require the permit holder to indemnify the Crown. Again I have talked about this: the "may" versus the "must"—the "must" is compelling; the "may" says that it is not compulsory. I would have thought in this game and with the potential liability to the Crown of anything going wrong—and I do believe that Rocket Lab has indemnity insurance to the value of about $2.6 billion something along those lines. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Final call Stuart Nash.STUART NASH: Thank you Mr Chair. I would have thought that the Government would make that an absolute requirement. There is something that I would like to talk about and it comes to the definition of "fit and proper person". Now I did talk about this earlier and I was remiss—clause 53 talks about the "Criteria for a fit and proper person test" and the fit and proper person test is throughout this bill. It was removed in one section but basically the fit and proper person and national security are big tests that must be met in the granting of basically any sort of permit.But one of the things here that surprises me I suppose is that there are (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) criteria and one of them is that a person may be declined on a history of mental health problems. I ran into trouble because I tried to defend the police practice of not employing cadets who had taken mental health medication within a 2-year period. I think we have become a lot more enlightened in managing mental health and what we do know is that mental health in no way is a barrier to people's significant achievements. I am a little bit concerned that the Minister may turn down an application for a permit for pretty much anything in here because someone has a history of mental health problems.Again we talk about "may" so it might not be a factor that the Minister takes into account when considering whether a person is fit and proper but I would be a little bit concerned if in fact a permit holder did not receive a launch permit or licence etc. due to mental health. The thing here it says: "The Minister may for the purposes of subsection (1)"—this is the fit and proper stuff—"seek and receive any information (including medical reports) as the Minister thinks fit;". Now the thing about this is—does this mean that if the Minister requires medical information that overrides the patient-doctor confidentiality? As it reads this is what it says. Again I could be wrong in the way I am interpreting this. I do understand that if we are talking about launching rockets for goodness' sake we do need to make sure that the people we are dealing with—they are not a Dr No or whatever his name was in the James Bond film. But I am a little bit concerned that this might be a little bit antiquated when it talks about mental health problems.The other thing is—let us go to clause 56 "Minister must consult security Ministers about national security". The interesting thing about this clause is that if the Minister has concerns about anything that is going on the Minister must consult. The bill originally said the Minister has to refer the application or other matter to the Minister for National Security and Intelligence but they have changed that to "must … refer the application … to the Prime Minister." We know that in most cases the Prime Minister usually is the Minister for National Security and Intelligence but there is a very recent history where in fact the Prime Minister was not the Minister for National Security and Intelligence. I think—and correct me if I am wrong here—John Key gave that portfolio to Chris Finlayson.I wonder why we changed that because we do note that the Minister for National Security and Intelligence is really the Government's expert on obviously national security and intelligence. I wonder why it has been elevated to the position of Prime Minister even though the Prime Minister I suppose is the boss of all the other Ministers. I wonder whether it has gone to the Prime Minister because they believe that any decision around this—and it is a pretty serious game; we have talked about the possible payloads these rockets can take. I wonder whether it is because the select committee in the end and officials believed that the decision was of such national significance that it had to be taken by a Prime Minister and anyone beneath the Prime Minister simply did not have the moral authority—even though of course the Prime Minister can consult any Minister that they require to get a decision. It is interesting that it has been elevated so high and I suspect that is because with the sort of industry we are dealing with the consequences of getting this wrong are absolutely significant.But as I have said the barriers to entry in this are incredibly high. This is my last call. We do support this bill we support the industry and I hope it grows a lot faster and a lot further than it is at the moment. Thank you very much."