Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): There is a lot to be said about this but first and foremost I do want to say that we know this is to enable Peter Beck and Rocket Lab to go hard. Peter Beck is to be honest the most innovative and aspirational Kiwi I have met for a long long time. This is done from my electorate on the Māhia Peninsula.A number of the concerns that members have mentioned I can actually talk to them about privately if they want because I have sat down with Peter and I know what he is doing. As Aupito William Sio said this is very very aspirational believe me. It is absolutely fantastic but we do need this bit of legislation to tidy a few things up.I do note in clause 6 Act binds the Crown" it does say which is a little interesting: "Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or any other Act or … nothing in this Act or in regulations made under this Act applies to the New Zealand Defence Force." In the purpose clause it has talked about the fact that we cannot put nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction up there. But the Defence Force can in fact do what it wants to and I suppose we have got to allow the New Zealand Defence Force to do what it needs to do to "preserve New Zealand's national security and national interests." I have no doubt there is a proper definition for this. We all know what nuclear weapons are but I do not know what a weapon of mass destruction is—whether it is an intercontinental ballistic missile or it is something bigger or wider than that. So to me this is a little bit wishy-washy. I know what it is trying to say but I am not too sure how it would be put into effect. But as mentioned it is interesting that the Defence Force can do whatever it wants to.The thing that I am a little bit interested in—slightly interested in; curious about—is clause 9 "When launch licence may be granted". I talk about this a bit. Whenever in legislation I see the word "may" or I see the word "must" they have two completely different meanings. What it does is it actually changes the legislation quite a bit. If the word "must" exists then it compels a Minister to do something when certain requirements are met. If the word "may" is in the legislation then it means that it provides ministerial discretion no matter what else is listed in the legislation. If I look at clause 9 and the title of this clause is "When launch licence may be granted" what it says there is: "The Minister may grant a launch licence only if the Minister is satisfied that—" and it talks about a number of conditions that will be met before the Minister may grant a licence things like the applicant is technically capable which is quite important; there is no doubt about that; "the applicant has taken and will continue to take all reasonable steps to manage risks to public safety …"; "an orbital debris mitigation plan …"; and "proposed launch or launches under the licence are consistent with New Zealand's international obligations;".Now we all agree that that is important but I would have thought that the Minister must be able to grant a licence if everything in this piece of legislation is met by the person seeking the licence. Otherwise it means there are other things that the person or the licensee might have to end up doing that they are unaware of. What I would argue is that that creates legislative uncertainty. If it was a comprehensive list then anyone who was seeking to launch a rocket or seeking a licence to launch a rocket would know exactly what they have to do. But the way the legislation is written the Minister may in fact say: "You have met all of the requirements. However I do not have to grant this and I'm not going to."It is the same when we talk about when a Minister may decline a licence. This is clause 9(2) and it says: "The Minister may despite being satisfied of all the matters in subsection (1)"—which I talked about—"decline to grant a launch licence if the Minister is not satisfied that—(a) a proposed launch under the licence is in the national interest; or (b) the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a launch licence …". Again I have looked through this and I cannot find any definition of "fit and proper person". In other legislation the definition of what constitutes a fit and proper person is causing concern because it is too subjective. We need to have an objective definition of fit and proper when it comes to something like this otherwise the Minister can just say: "Well I don't like the cut of that person's jib." or "This is not a fit and proper person." or "This person spent some of their time in North Korea or in Russia."—I do not know but it does not matter because there are so many loopholes through which the Minister may decline a licence.When it comes to something like this I do not think that is good enough. The reason I say that is we are not talking about an industry where the barriers to entry are low. The barriers to entry in this industry are exceptionally high. In fact they are so high that Peter Beck's Rocket Lab is the only private company in the history of space exploration or launches that is not Government funded. It is the only private company undertaking this. I just think when it gets to the point where someone is actually seeking a licence and they are told they are not a fit and proper person that is unacceptable. Firstly there needs to be a definition of fit and proper so anyone can know before they even look at getting in the game whether they meet that definition or not. Again we look at "The Minister may despite being satisfied of all the matters … decline to grant a launch licence …" if it is not in the national interest test. Now there are some points down here that give the Minister guidance around what is in the national interest. For example and this is in clause 9(2A): "(a) economic or other benefits to New Zealand of the proposed launch: (b) any risks to national security public safety international relations … (c) the extent to which the risk can be mitigated by licence or permit conditions:". And that is all very good and I get that and we understand that but then it says: "any other matters that the Minister considers relevant." Now for an industry that is so capital intensive I just think that is too open-ended.Of course we support this legislation and I disagree with a number of things that Mr Tabuteau said. I think this is truly aspirational. But what I am doing is highlighting some of what I believe are the deficiencies in the legislation that might—just might—provide a barrier to entry or keep people out of the game or impose significant capital costs on someone seeking to get into this.And the other thing if we look at clause 10 "Conditions indemnity and insurance …" it talks about the fact that someone has to get a licence every time they want to seek to launch a rocket and they have got to provide the date location intended trajectory and all these other things. Well what we do know is that Peter Beck and Rocket Lab's ultimate aim is to launch one of these every single week—every single week. Now would that not be fantastic? That means that he has got a globally dominant position and I think it is game-changing; it really is. It is hard to comprehend.But the concern I have is that if Mr Beck and Rocket Lab staff have to put in an application every single time—and it is quite onerous and I get that to a certain extent—then is this going to hold back the development of this industry or is it going to be a case where on Mr Beck's tenth launch the Minister knows that this is a business of true integrity and an organisation that does what it says it is going to do and it is almost a box-ticking exercise in the way that a pilot has to launch a flight plan. So we know when you are going to fly from Wellington to Napier this is how you do it this is the way you go about and it is all nice and easy and it is a box-ticking exercise. I hope that this is what this is about. Even though I do not want to minimise the impact of a rocket going wrong—because it can be quite significant—I just hope that this does not provide any sort of barrier to entry or a better way to put it any sort of undue red tape that will stop Peter Beck and Rocket Lab from doing this.But having said that I do understand that this legislation whilst enabling Rocket Lab to do what it needs to do also has to guide other organisations or people who also want to get in the game. So it needs to be robust. It cannot be there just for a person with the integrity of Peter Beck or the competency and the skills of Rocket Lab. It must be there for everyone but I am just a little bit concerned about some of the provisions in here and how loose they can be and the power it gives the Minister. I just think it should be a little bit more prescriptive than it is when we are talking about such an important and such a capital-intensive industry.I would just like to take the last 42 seconds of this call to say an absolute congratulations to Peter Beck. He has actually just been inducted into the international entrepreneurial hall of fame. He is a fantastic New Zealander who is employing real true fair-dinkum rocket scientists. What he is doing in Auckland and on the Māhia Peninsula and actually in his base in the States is game-changing. It really is game-changing. In a way this is actually disruptive technology. This is not small advances. It is disruptive and it is happening here. It is happening in the Napier electorate. It is happening near Wairoa. I congratulate Peter and his team because I think it is just outstanding. Thank you."