Clark DavidDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): As we start I would like to put my thanks to you on record Mr Chairperson for your contributions to my first reading speech which was the last time I was able to contribute to this debate. I was just rereading the transcript earlier—you challenged me on reading my speech which encouraged me to put a little bit more emotion into it. You questioned whether I was admitting that I really was in outer space and also encouraged me to come back to the bill. It was all good advice.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes. It still holds.Dr DAVID CLARK: I believe that excellent advice was part of the reason why the speech was reported in the New York Times. So my thanks to you—I made page 2 of the New York Times with my last contribution to this debate. The bar has been raised. I have to say I am not anticipating a rerun of that but I do wish to thank you Mr Chairperson for my little moment where I reached for the stars myself in the international media.I wanted to speak just a little about the mechanisms to exclude people from areas affected by a space launch. The departmental report which I am waving in my right hand recommends no changes to the bill on this front. It talks about the Maritime Transport Act and says an amendment could be made to clarify that local authorities can use their existing powers to regulate access to marine areas to ensure navigational safety in relation to space launches." It goes on but the point the officials are making in the departmental report is that they believe existing legislation is sufficient to exclude people from launch sites.The legislation itself—and I might ask whether the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith can clarify—clause 64 under Subpart 2 "Protection of sensitive space technology" in Part 3 talks about segregated areas and areas set aside. I will read subclause (1): "For the purpose of the Technology Safeguards Agreement the Minister may declare by a sign or signs affixed at the perimeter of an area or by other appropriate notification that the areas is—(a) a segregated area; or (b) an area specially set aside exclusively for work with US launch vehicles US spacecraft or equipment that is related equipment in relation to those vehicles and spacecraft." It sets out how segregated areas are to be marked out and then there are infringement offences in Part 3 in clause 78 and around that part of the bill. That seems to contradict the departmental statement which says that existing law is adequate for keeping people from launch sites and indeed the recommendations of the department itself on the previous page which talks about "Ensuring regulatory costs are kept to a minimum".So here we are applying a whole lot of extra requirements on those who have to protect the launch site from access by people who should not be there and we might assume in this Committee that the law enforcement agencies that are in place and the laws that are in place are adequate. Mr Stuart Nash the proud member in the area where this launch is taking place is our police spokesperson. He is familiar with the law in that respect and he raised concerns about red tape. To me this is another potential area of red tape that the department itself has advised against in its report and I am interested in what the Minister saw in the existing legislation or did not see that he felt this additional information needed to be added. Why is this additional red tape in the bill?You know I am not saying there is no good reason for it. There may well be. The Minister may have had some information that said that the existing legislation was not adequate or was not sufficient but I think it would be helpful for the Committee to understand why because the barriers to entry—the capital costs for this kind of work—are significant and several members have talked about that in the debate so far. Those extra barriers to entry—you know there is the cost of capital associated and so on. We do want to minimise them. We want to see business success we want to see export success—both literally and figuratively in this respect because we will be exporting those satellites hopefully before long—and part of that is making sure that it is cost-competitive and that the business itself is capable of being "launched" in a way that is not overly burdensome on those who are carrying it out. So I would like the Minister to address that.Furthermore on the question of keeping those regulatory costs to a minimum and on that aspect of keeping people from the launch site the amendment to the Maritime Transport Act that could be made—is that something that is being made? Is that something I have missed in the bill? I mean is that something that—yes it is. Kindly an official in the background is nodding and has answered it. That is one question that the Minister does not have to answer because I will take it as read from the officials that that change is being made and good on the officials.But I would ask the Minister whether those other things that the recommendations are about which effectively to my mind are about reducing red tape—why the Minister is not taking those up and what he sees as being additionally necessary. I mean of course we do not need to think too hard about getting too close to a launch site and the dangers that could be there. We know that recently Alfred Ngaro tried to relaunch the housing policy and he certainly got burnt. We know that—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes do not go there. Stick to the bill.Dr DAVID CLARK —Todd Barclay was launching his campaign and he got burnt.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Just stick to the bill—Dr DAVID CLARK —and I could go on. Nicky Wagner was trying to—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No you cannot actually.Dr DAVID CLARK —launch her career out on the harbour and she got burnt and—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! Dr DAVID CLARK —I will come back—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! No sit down. Now let us see whether we can get you in the New York Times for something else. When the Speaker gives you a direction you stop doing what you are doing and it applies when I am in the Chair as well. So do not take the piss by just throwing in a few more.Dr DAVID CLARK: Can I put on record my apology Mr Chair. I did not hear you so I do apologise if I have missed an instruction there.So to come back to the bill quite directly as I said I was going to do I would like the Minister to explain to us why those additional restrictions around the launch site have been put into place what additional red tape he thinks if any is created by them and why that is necessary. I think the Committee will want to know that because this is indeed a serious matter.Finally before I close I too wish to put my congratulations on record. This has been a broad debate. Others have acknowledged Peter Beck's fine contribution to rocket science. He has spent time in the South of New Zealand and as those coming from the South we are very proud that we have helped—we like to think—and contributed something to his education along the way. His entrepreneurship is without question and I have certainly met people who have been glad to be a part of that journey.I mentioned in my first reading speech the chair of the Gisborne Chamber of Commerce who I know contacted him and encouraged him to come down and look at launch sites and sent him some Google maps to try to point out where the opportunities lay. I too have visited the factory in Auckland where the vertically integrated—again puns are everywhere here—building of these rockets takes place. I have had a peek into the launch centre and my goodness it is impressive. It makes me feel very proud of our abilities as a country to get new technologies across the line. We have the skill sets here. We know we need to grow our exports as a percentage of the economy. I have been critical of the Government for failing to achieve its targets in that respect but here we have people trying to make it happen. Let us celebrate that success as Kiwis let us celebrate the opportunity that is here and let us see just how far we can take this. Thank you."