Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I would echo the comments from the honourable member Stuart Nash that Peter Beck is doing a fantastic job. He is a great inspiration to particularly young New Zealanders and hopefully more of them get interested in engineering and science and maths and dream of a future among the stars. It is truly fantastic.There are two main areas I would like to touch on. I would like to quickly touch on the point around launch licences and the regime and then touch on some of the peaceful purposes debate which has been pretty prominent in this Committee stage. The first is I think on the launch licences—I never have heard Rocket Lab complain that there should be a regulatory process to launch rockets. It is in fact a major undertaking to launch a rocket and reach orbit. We are quite rightfully proud in New Zealand that we are the only country with a privately owned space company that has reached orbit but we should not forget that this is a major issue that only I think 11 nations have actually achieved. Others have tried of course.But I think I would also point out that it is important that there is a robust regulatory launch-permitting regime. One area where the member Stuart Nash was a little bit incorrect is that although New Zealand is the first country to have reached orbit entirely privately there are a number of private space companies reaching orbit—Blue Origin SpaceX Virgin Galactic for example. But these other countries have previously done it only through a national space agency. So I think it is entirely correct there is a launch regime and there is a launch permit that is granted. The main area I heard Rocket Lab raising queries and concerns about in terms of the viability going forward was the liability insurance and indemnification requirements.It quite rightfully pointed out that in China third-party liability for launch operators is capped at $100 million France $65 million Japan $50 million and the US $10 million to $270 million. This is up to regulations under this legislation. This is something we raised in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that is a concern because every party around that committee table wants to see New Zealand have a space industry going forward supporting these fantastic new entrepreneurial innovative companies. This question of what the liability is and what the insurance payments are that these companies for example Rocket Lab are going to have to pay—it is still up to regulations. So really the ball is in the Government's court and this was the main concern I heard from Rocket Lab.On the issue of the peaceful purposes debate and the militarisation of space—the argument we have heard in this Committee—look this is something the Green Party takes really seriously. It is the core of our party charter which encourages non-violence. So it was something we were very keen to pursue in the select committee. What we wanted to see was a peaceful purposes clause included and I acknowledge the work of the Hon David Parker who was very vocal and active on this issue as well.This was a submission that was raised by Venture Southland which was urging us to consider this. Venture Southland of course has a long history particularly with the European Space Agency (ESA) monitoring ESA satellites from Southland which in itself is a fantastic story that I wish more New Zealanders were familiar with. It was recommending this.We had quite a vigorous debate in the select committee on the pros and the cons. From the Green Party's perspective we have heard different clichés around you know whether we have the right stuff and to boldly go into space—all these sorts of clichés. And I guess the Green Party probably falls more on the Star Trek side of pop culture than Star Wars—you know sort of exploring space and finding out scientific knowledge than trying to dominate and blow up planets etc. in Star Wars.So we wanted to see a peaceful clause. We do not like the idea of weapons going into space. Obviously no New Zealand company is going to put a nuclear weapon into space and that would contravene existing legislation but there is a real vexed question around weapons. But then once you go into the debate there is quite a tricky question—what in fact is a weapon? Officials quite rightfully point to GPS which it could be argued is a dual-use technology. One of science fiction's great dreamt-of weapons of the future is simply a cobalt rod called the Rod of God" which you would launch from a satellite and which in some cases would actually be more destructive than existing nuclear weapons. It is a cobalt rod; is that a weapon? It is not a weapon on Earth but it could be a very damaging potential weapon in space. You also get the example of Reagan's "Star Wars" you know the national missile defence system which George W Bush tried to restart in the mid-2000s. It is a defensive system but the Russians and the Chinese would argue in fact that having a nuclear weapons shield is in itself allowing offensive nuclear weapons to be used. There is a huge debate.The Green Party would have still liked despite the debates and arguments to have a peaceful purposes clause included. And we would point out that when this legislation refers to our international treaty obligations—in fact "peaceful purposes" is explicitly mentioned in the Outer Space Treaty. It is used by other countries—for example Korea and the US. In terms of the Outer Space Treaty it refers directly to the moon. So it exists we feel comfortable with it and I think it would have been good to have that more explicit because as we have heard from some members there are concerns that we are going to see weapons being put into space either by the New Zealand defence forces or on contract from other countries.As a sort of compromise what the committee came to do was amend the purpose clause in Part 1 by adding clause 3(ba)(i) which prohibits any objects carrying nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction installing weapons on celestial bodies or stationing such weapons in space; and then in subparagraph (iii) not allowing the testing of any weapons or conduct manoeuvres on celestial bodies; and adding a few other points around military installations and fortifications. This is a very positive step. It is getting closer to the idea which I think all New Zealanders can get behind that we do not want to see the militarisation of space and we do not want to see an arms race in space. There are legitimate arguments when you look at Reagan's "Star Wars" for example and reports of cosmonauts taking up pistols on their side in the early days of the Space Race for example. So we would have preferred a peaceful purposes clause explicit in the purpose clause. We got as far as we could through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and basically it is going to come down to the way the Minister does enact the launch permitting and that incredibly important national interest test which that Minister must use.I would like to comment lastly given I have got a little bit more time on the debris recovery zone changes. This was an area we were quite concerned about in the original first reading of the bill because the wording of the legislation as introduced to the House was explicit that if there was an accident if there was debris from the rocket launch scattered—maybe over a farmer's paddock for example—it would be prohibited to take a photograph or to record. This was even down to the minute detail—it was prohibited to even sketch the debris which to us seemed a little bit zealous and overkill.It turns out it is the result of the Technology Safeguards Agreement signed with the US Government. It is designed to protect the actual intellectual property of how you build an intercontinental ballistic missile because that is in fact what these rockets are if you put a nuclear weapon on the top. So it is something the Green Party could support: the idea that we would protect and keep secret from elements that would want to learn how to build intercontinental ballistic missiles to do damage—rogue nations like North Korea for example. But what we wanted to stress—and it has been stressed—is the idea that this does not prohibit news reporting. If there was a rocket accident this would of course be quite legitimately an issue of national interest where the media should be able to report. What we do not want to encourage though is the reporting of sensitive technologies that could help people do harm. It is entirely consistent with the Green Party charter which is trying to encourage peaceful non-violent uses of space and back on Earth as well.So I will limit my comments to that but I really hope a National member can take a call. This is incredibly important legislation. It is exciting legislation. We are at a time of huge knowledge being gained through space. There is a huge shift in the way space has developed from originally the Soviet and US Governments through to a number of countries participating in the International Space Station and other international scientific experiments through to a host of new companies. Just this week we have seen new evidence of new extrasolar planets being discovered in the Milky Way galaxy which is tremendously exciting. When you look up at the stars—in fact 60 percent of those stars probably have extrasolar planets orbiting them. That is something that was considered science fiction only two decades ago when I was growing up and learning about space. It is exciting to think that New Zealand can pay a constructive positive but most importantly a peaceful part in the exploration of space."