Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I just want to take on and discuss further with specificity what the previous speaker Aupito William Sio mentioned around the involvement of the US. In the original discussions and actually in the original draft of the legislation—and I refer to Part 3 Subpart 2 Secure areas" by way of example—the conversation was always around security. In fact the terminology was "Security areas and security enhanced areas" and the thinking behind that was safety protection of technology and ensuring that in that the general public was safe and kept out of harm's way. Also we do have an obligation to our partners in this new endeavour this new industry to protect their technology.So that made sense to me on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and actually I should also add that in those conversations what was exciting and what the potential showed us was that yes this is an important dialogue with the United States right as of this moment but in our conversations we talked about other nations and their space industries and the possibility of servicing their endeavours. We provide that unique space in the world as it were for an alternative launch for those countries not just in their space in the Northern Hemisphere. So that was a great part of that conversation about moving forward growing an industry bringing technologies into New Zealand and enhancing all of those support industries here in New Zealand. But then when you look at the newly written Subpart 2 clause 64 "Segregated areas and areas set aside" the wording has changed in and of itself and I do question the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith about the reasoning behind it. It now speaks to in clause 64(1)(b)—"an area specifically set aside exclusively for work with US launch vehicles". Now firstly what is wrong with that in my mind is that the entire point of Rocket Lab and the Government giving it millions of dollars was that these are New Zealand launch vehicles. So what are we actually protecting here? That was the idea—or are we admitting that actually the whole ownership of Rocket Lab now is US and there is no New Zealand part to it whatsoever? I genuinely thought there was still that small part.So now it is talking about US launch vehicles and US spacecraft when there was no mention of that before. Now I am concerned that the wording has changed substantively. As I tried to preface in the earlier part of my contribution we were excited about a worldwide space industry. Now the terminology is about US launch vehicles and US spacecraft. I genuinely want to know how we got here. When the officials came back and advised the committee—I tell you what I apologise if I missed it but I do not remember seeing what I think is a substantive change to the legislation. Please Minister could you advise on that specific part? That is substantively important to me. But as you move further down that same clause 64 when we talk about segregated areas—this new terminology—that can be set aside we are now saying that the Minister may declare private land to be included within a segregated area. All right the Minister now has this power to set aside this segregated land which the committee discussed and agreed to. But now we are talking about how the owner of the occupied land may disagree—"may not give their consent" is the wording in the legislation. I thought we had resolved it to the point where we knew what would happen when the owner disagreed with the occupation of their land for the segregated area. But that does not appear to be in clause 64 of Part 2 any longer."