Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): We really do live in amazing times. We are in an age of almost exponential technological growth and advancement. The human mind sees man go farther and faster than he ever has before so it is a truly exciting time. Let us be clear: the bill is an attempt to enable that technology to facilitate what is an exciting industry. I would like to take time in the House to acknowledge the work of Peter Beck and Rocket Lab—for what he has done and for what he has achieved. It is really incredible.For New Zealand to be participating in these endeavours is exciting. It is a niche industry as others have said. It is about what we have talked about in this House so often—about a New Zealand entrepreneur finding a niche in the worldwide market and exploiting it taking advantage of it and trying to make money out of it. It is amazing that it just so happens to be a niche that would compete against the likes of NASA and the space industry where we would think that it is dominated by the US by China and by Russia.It is with some regret that I do have to point out—and I do have to be frank in the House—that Rocket Lab is essentially a US firm now. You look at the listings on the US markets and you see that it is pretty much owned in the main by Lockheed Martin and it does kind of put—Todd Muller: So?FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Well I will come to why that is an issue Mr Muller. It is an issue for New Zealand First. Normally I would not be anxious about enabling big corporate profits but I do know that it is enabling local industry and I have spoken and I have just said how incredible it will be for New Zealand. So I do stand on behalf of New Zealand First—let us make that perfectly clear—in support of this bill. But I do want to say that the Government gave millions upon millions of dollars of funding to this company Rocket Lab as a Kiwi firm and then it was sold. There was no attempt to recover the taxpayer's money involved in that research which the New Zealand Government expedited through its funding. There was no attempt to establish some kind of share of the company for those millions. Our research system is a flawed system with all of that money being given to these firms—and it does put kind of a black mark against what should be a celebration today. But here we are. We support the bill and we would like to go forward. There are some support industries and others have contributed eloquently on this too; for example the number of rocket scientists per capita in New Zealand is the highest in the world. So we celebrate that and we need to move forward.What I would note with some caution is that officials have stated in their reports already that some work has not been undertaken in their own work because of the tight time frame with which this bill has come to the House. It has been expedited so that the legislation is here in time for the first launch and I just want to point out as Mr Hughes also pointed out before that this may bring about a few issues that have not been considered because of the haste to enable this first launch.We have already signed up to other international space treaties but obviously we have never had to comply before because it is only now that we are talking about a specific instance of a firm wanting to take advantage of launching facilities in New Zealand. This legislation does bring about compliance with those international agreements so we recognise that. I acknowledge that the Government and its officials have also used other work from around the world to inform and to draft this bill. In so doing and through my comparative readings of these treaties it does look like even in this first draft—I am not presuming anything about the outcome of the select committee process and saying that we are in compliance from the start but I do look forward as others have said to the select committee process. On cases like this when we can come together the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is a good select committee to be a part of and I know that we are dealing with space rockets and sending stuff into space so it should be fun as well as positive for our economy going forward.We do respect the intent of the bill. It is a deliberate effort to enable an almost No. 8 fencing wire approach allowing for innovation and cost cutting and—it is our hope—without compromising safety. By using a permissive approach in defining the minimum necessary to meet our international obligations it empowers those who would seek to be licence holders to make critical decisions themselves in and of that time rather than what we saw from the Australian example where it was too much about regulatory compliance and quite heavy on the regulations and not about innovation and quick decision-making.So we see that in the bill. It is hopefully that No. 8 fencing wire approach without compromising safety. But in this permissive approach the Government does need to be mindful of risk and liability. New Zealand First is cognisant of the prohibitive nature of existing regimes from around the world in other States and we do see that that does make these launches cost-prohibitive but part of that cost is about putting the risk and liability—insurance for example—on the private firm on the owner-operator. So what this bill seeks to do is adopt a kind of a mixed-model approach where the Government takes on board some of that and then limits the obligation of the business such that it is not fully liable. That is of some concern and in fact I will be taking it to the select committee to explore further because we do not want private companies to recuse themselves fully of liability if there are any safety concerns or safety issues under this licensing regime. So we will have the opportunity to do this. I will acknowledge that this is an amazing opportunity for New Zealand and I do look forward to the select committee process and further contributions on this legislation in the House. Thank you.