New Law To Support Safe, Responsible Space Use
Legislation regulating ground-based space infrastructure to deter foreign interference and protect New Zealand's national interests has passed all stages under urgency in Parliament, Space Minister Judith Collins says.
'The Outer Space High Altitude Activities Amendment Bill is a significant milestone and enhances New Zealand's national security with immediate effect,' Ms Collins says.
'It supports New Zealand's interest in the safe, secure and responsible use of space and stop any attempts by foreign entities that do not share our values or interests.
'Ground-based space infrastructure in New Zealand plays a vital role in supporting global satellite operations and space activities, but without regulation, it can also pose risks to national security, and other national interests.
'The global space sector continues to push the boundaries of satellite technology, space communications and orbital operations. As this sector evolves, so too must our regulatory settings.
'From 29 July, when the legislation takes effect, ground-based space infrastructure such as satellite tracking stations and telemetry systems will be subject to appropriate oversight and safeguards.
'While all in-scope operators will be treated as having a transitional authorisation from the end of July, as the Minister for Space I will be able to vary, suspend or revoke these authorisations on national security grounds.'
MBIE will be the administrator, backed with enforcement powers and able to take action to stop malicious activity.
Regulations will be developed later this year setting out further requirements for ground-based space infrastructure authorisation, under which operators will need to implement security and due diligence systems.
A transition period for operators to implement the necessary systems for successful registration will apply until the regulations come into force in the first half of next year.
'This system helps maintain New Zealand's reputation as a trusted and capable space-faring nation, one that takes its responsibilities seriously and is prepared to manage the risks and opportunities of space activity,' Ms Collins said.
Information about the ground-based space infrastructure regulatory regime is available on the MBIE website.
Notes
From 29 July 2025:
Anyone operating ground-based space infrastructure (GBSI) for certain activities, such as communicating with satellites or tracking space objects, will be considered to hold a transitional authorisation.
When seeking authorisation, applicants will need to confirm with MBIE as the regulator that they have appropriate protective security arrangements in place, and due diligence systems to assess any partners they provide GBSI services to, such as customers or research collaborators.
The Minister for Space can decline applications if they are not satisfied the authorisation is in the interests of national security.
The Minister for Space will have the power to vary, suspend or revoke authorisations, where national security concerns arise.
Following the entry into force of regulations next year the Minister for Space's power to vary, suspend or revoke authorisations will expand to include national interest considerations beyond national security.
Enforcement officers will be able to inspect facilities, assess security arrangements and, where necessary in the national interest, the Minister will be able to issue disposal orders requiring a person to divest their interest in GBSI.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
What you need to know about Regulations Review Committee and the new law undermining it
Labour MP Arena Williams chairing Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Among Parliament's many committees there is a small cross-partisan powerhouse that receives scant attention. Unlike the 12 subject committees, it isn't a regular forum for critiques of government bills or finance. Unlike Privileges it isn't about scandal and politics, unlike Petitions it doesn't regularly bring human emotion into Parliament. The Regulations Review Committee is small, calm and cooperative. It is like Parliament's off-field referee; a committee for the legal nerd and the constitutional swot. It inspects the government's use of its delegated powers to weed out government overreach. But the Regulatory Standards Bill proposed by ACT leader David Seymour would duplicate and likely undermine its role, by giving a regulation oversight role to a government-appointed group . Recently on The House we reported a briefing to the Reg's Review Committee (as MPs describe it), about the proposed law. As a follow-up we wanted to discuss the committee itself with the MPs that run it, so we met with the leaders of the committee to discuss its purpose, powers, history and how it's responding to the new challenge. By convention, Reg's Review is chaired by an Opposition MP-currently Labour's Arena Williams. The Deputy Chair is National MP Nancy Lu. Rather than acting as political rivals, they operate as a team. "Most of the committee's power is… because it's cross-partisan," Williams said. "I mean, that's what's important here, that we are able-me and Nancy-to work together, to chair the committee in a way which gets buy-in from everyone around the table." Regulations Review manages this cross-partisan approach because its fundamental drive is not about policy, but good law. "Basically, we want good lawmaking," Nancy Lu said, "and we want ministers and departments who have the power to make regulations, to actually make good use of their power and make good regulations for New Zealanders… Sometimes things come to us because there may be inappropriate use of the power (in making regulations), or there are complaints from New Zealanders. And therefore it is our job to look at it bipartisan[ly] and with one common purpose-which is better good lawmaking." National Party MPs Joseph Mooney & Nancy Lu in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith When governments want to change the law in New Zealand they have to ask parliaments to do that. Parliament is sovereign, government is only a subset of Parliament. But primary legislation (the Acts that parliament agrees) can't possibly include all the necessary details for efficient government, so laws often delegate authority to ministers or their departments, to specify or update legislative details later. Those post-hoc details are regulations. "Most New Zealanders will come up against the law," Williams said, "but it'll actually be in regulations. "…So if you've ever tried to, say, install a toilet in your bathroom, you will have run up against what's in the building code. "It's not actually in the primary legislation, but that building code has a big impact on your life." The law that delegates that authority to make regulations is agreed by the House, but the regulations themselves are not approved by the House before coming into force. The Regulations Review Committee fills that gap. It tests existing regulations, and any proposed laws that give regulation-making power. Anyone can make a complaint to the committee about a regulation. The committee can investigate regulations and recommend that the House strike them down ("disallow" them). The committee was created in 1986 in the parliamentary reforms of Labour's Geoffrey Palmer. It was a Labour campaign promise, deemed necessary because Robert Muldoon's National Party government had been using vastly powerful regulations to achieve things that ought to have been approved by Parliament. Things like wage freezes, price fixing and carless days. "Regulation-making was getting to be seen by the public as an overreach in itself," Williams said. "The power of the Executive was seen as a bit out of control. Your fruit and your vegetables, your trip in your car. It was all heavily regulated." The solution was to bring Parliament back into the equation. Williams described the response in 1985 to "out of control" regulation as: "a power for elected officials (who get chosen every three years by their communities), to actually strike that [bad regulation] down. "And so that's what the disallowance power is about. …It was enabling this …pressure valve… to turn off some of that overregulation." In fact very few regulations have been disallowed over the years. This is because the committee - being bi-partisan - tends to opt for soft-power, getting ministers to change poor regulations without resorting to the House by spotting the potential for regulatory over-reach within bills under debate. Williams agreed that soft-power was opted for by the committee. "Ding, ding, bingo! …That's 100 percent true. Most of the committee's power is soft power because it's cross-partisan. "I mean, that's the importance here, is that we are able, me and Nancy, to work together, to chair the committee in a way, which gets buy-in from everyone around the table." Asked whether it might be bad for a new National MP's career-prospects to point out the missteps of senior colleagues who were Ministers, both Lu and Williams laughed. "Great question," Williams said. "Most of the feedback that we have received from our ministers and ministries have been actually quite positive," Lu said. "You know, mostly 'hey, thanks for letting us know. We didn't realise that, but now we know', and… 'we'll make it better next time'. "I think that's what makes the… committee powerful and very unique in its way," Lu said. "And I think it's needed, because we want to make sure that we are using our powers within the appropriate realms and to make sure that we're setting good laws. "So maybe hopefully by calling them out, or by investigation, we can make it better in that way." Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in Parliament's Regulations Review Committee. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Reg's Review is, on paper, one of Parliament's smallest committees, with just five MPs. Three from National and two from Labour. Despite the official membership, recent changes to parliament's rules allow MPs to attend and participate in select committees they are not official members of. A recent Reg's Review meeting included Labour's Vanushi Walters, and apparently Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan attended often. Williams, as Chair, had a more-the-better philosophy. "It's getting harder in an MMP environment, when we have minor parties that have more sway in any executive government agenda, or indeed, in opposition politics. "It is really great that we have Dr Xu-Nan from the Greens coming along to every meeting and participating in that. "We don't have an ACT member who comes to the committee. And we need more of this ability as parliamentarians to come together and go, 'hang on, does this regulation make sense? Let's do something about it if it doesn't.' " ACT's absence is notable. ACT's brand includes being the natural enemy of bad regulation, but they neither have representation on, nor attend the one parliamentary committee tasked and equipped to fight against it. ACT have instead chosen a different approach, one which may threaten Reg's Review. Their coalition agreement with National includes the passing of a Regulatory Standards Bill, something previous ACT parties have tried and failed to achieve. The bill would, among other things, create an external Regulatory Standards Board, appointed by the Minister for Regulation (currently David Seymour). At first glance, the Board's task appears similar to the current Reg's Review Committee, but it is not. The Board does not have the same powers - it cannot refer regulation to the House to be disallowed. It is a creature of the Executive, not Parliament, and so is on the government side of the governance relationship. It also has a very different idea of what bad law looks like. The new Board would evaluate legislation and regulation against a set of principles embedded in its enabling legislation. The principles consider the effect of legislation on: "existing interests and liberties, including the rule of law, liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies, and the role of courts; and good law-making processes, including consultation, options analysis and cost-benefit analysis." The bill contains a much more detailed list of these principles. While the Board's inquiries could be self-determined, they would also be "in response to stakeholder concerns" and ministerial "direction". The Regs Review Committee also has a list of principles to judge good law-making against. The grounds for referring regulations back to the House are outlined in Standing Order 327. The grounds are that the secondary legislation: While there are concepts that appear in some form in both sets of principles, one set of principles appears focused on good legislative form within constitutional boundaries while the other includes more political philosophy. Regulations Review Committee Chair, Arena Williams said the committee had been "thinking deeply" about the proposed law's impact on the committee's powers, place and processes. She said the prospect of another competing entity was "pretty challenging". Arena said the two bodies appeared similar, but her committee "has this special constitutional place, and traditions that have been built up over many years around the way that we consider whether regulations are doing what they say they will do 'on the tin'." She said MPs had an advantage over appointed board officials, as they represented the affected community. "They get to put us back into Parliament (or not) every three years. …and it makes us all quite focused on… things like, 'how does this really affect someone's life?' "It will ultimately be this committee and the Standing Orders Committee (which proposes changes to Parliament's rules) which have to make some decisions and probably some accommodations …about how to work alongside [each other]. "But ultimately I would say that in our constitutional framework as it is now, that [Reg's Review] has a sort of system of constitutional preference about how it should engage in those issues." That constitutional preference comes from the fact that Regs Review is an instrument of Parliament (which is sovereign). The Regulatory Standards Board would be an instrument of the Executive, which is subservient to Parliament. "I really want to see the Regulations Review Committee as [something that] we can agree as parliamentarians, including ACT members, …is a special part of our constitutional framework. "I think New Zealand is on the good stuff here, when we've got parliamentarians …earnestly and diligently work[ing] through secondary legislation from the perspective of how it's affecting our communities. That's really special. "If [David Seymour] is [saying] there is too much regulation and that there's not a strong enough mechanism to disallow regulations, then this [committee] is the place where I think we should be focussing our attention. "[He should be putting that energy into improving the current] mechanism, so that it is parliamentarians-who are accountable to the people-who are ultimately making the decisions." RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Why planned voting changes could be a civic rights breach
Opinion: You might recall that in the 2023 election, National and Act 'lost' two seats once the special votes were counted post-election day. In other words, the special votes weighed against them. This meant that they could not form a government without NZ First. Fast-forward to July 2025. National, Act and NZ First have just passed the first reading on the Electoral Amendment Bill, a bill that will almost certainly reduce the number of special votes. Is this bill an apolitical, justified limitation on the holy grail of democratic rights – the right to vote? Or is it a power-abusing, rights-breaching, Trump-esque attempt to rig voting in their favour? Let's look at this a bit more closely. One proposed amendment is that people must enrol to vote 13 days prior to election day. If they don't, they cannot cast a valid vote. Under current law, people can enrol up to and on election day. Votes from people enrolled after 'writ day' – approximately two months before the election in 2023 – and election day are so-called special votes (together with, for example, votes cast overseas). In other words, votes from people who enrol in the 12-day period leading up to the election are special votes. In 2023, 110,000 voters registered on election day and, of the 600,000 special votes cast, 97,000 people enrolled for the first time during the voting period. These votes would be discarded under the proposed law change. Unsurprisingly, then, the Attorney-General – the Government's highest legal officer, and senior National Party member, Judith Collins – found in her report that there was a real possibility a large number of people would be caught by this new rule and, as a result, their votes wouldn't be tallied. She also noted that the highest courts of the land – here and overseas, especially Australia – have stressed 'the fundamentality of the right to vote as lying at the heart of the democratic system'. The coalition argues we need to restrict who gets to vote to avoid delays in post-election count and the formation of a new government. There just isn't the evidence to prove that this amendment is necessary to expedite a verified election result. And as Collins writes, 'While acknowledging the public importance of promoting timeliness in the counting of votes … there may be alternative measures for addressing delays in the processing of votes, which are less restrictive of the right to vote, and could therefore possibly be justified.' It is not even clear that restriction would remedy delays in counting. Those not enrolled before the cut-off can still apply for and cast a special vote. These special votes must still be processed after the election but won't be included in the ultimate vote count. Anyway, any detriment associated with any delay is – to me at least – relatively small because we have a longstanding plan b in place, in the form of caretaker governments to ensure the country keeps running while votes are tallied, checked and verified. Collins also recognises that the restriction on voting registration will effectively discriminate against Māori, Pasifika, Asian and youth voters, who are currently more likely to enrol in the 12 days ahead of the election. 'The Electoral Commission has data that indicates that special votes are more likely to come from areas with larger Māori, Asian and Pasifika communities, and that younger people are more likely to cast special votes. This may indicate that these communities will be more affected by the proposed registration deadline.' The Government had Collins' report before it passed the bill in Parliament but chose to ignore the Attorney-General's recommendations. Let's now consider the bill in the light of the current political context. At least one political poll has the National Party heading towards one term in power and it's likely that the next election will be tight. Just like in 2023, every vote could tip the balance one way or the other. Now balance the long-standing trend that special votes favour the left. As leading election law professor Andrew Geddis notes, 'Restricting same-day enrolment and voting can … be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties.' This Government has enacted some of the most regressive laws breaching the rights of Indigenous peoples we have seen in decades. In a constitution such as ours, there are few legal barriers to it doing so. This bill is likely to disproportionately affect Māori and their right to vote, thereby making it more difficult to defend their rights. The Act Party has promoted its role as the defender of democracy and the right of one person, one vote. Leader David Seymour said in 2023 that, 'Yes, it's pretty frustrating that it's taken so long to count the votes, but let's not lose sight of the real goal here which is free and fair elections that are above any kind of suspicion. That's absolutely key no matter what the result is.' Given there is no convincing justification for the bill, as assessed by Collins, the reasoning behind it looks suspicious. It has the whiff of a calculated move by National, Act and NZ First to weigh the next election in their favour, in a way that is reminiscent of Donald Trump's advocacy for redistricting of congressional boundaries in Texas to favour the Republican Party. If that is the case, and you be the judge, then this could be a substantial breach of one of the most important of our civic rights and democratic process.
1News
2 days ago
- 1News
Former Green MP Elizabeth Kerekere runs for Māori Ward
Former Green Party MP Elizabeth Kerekere says she is excited at the potential opportunity to bring her government experience to a local level. Kerekere is campaigning to become a Māori ward district councillor in Gisborne's upcoming local elections. She said she could offer a "bridge to government", which no other candidate could bring, and wanted to "hear the voices of different people" that might not always get heard. Kerekere was elected to Parliament for the Green Party in 2020 but resigned to become an independent MP in 2023 after allegations of bullying. Speaking to Local Democracy Reporting, Kerekere said she refuted all of the claims. ADVERTISEMENT "Most people don't believe it because it wasn't true. "It is not an unusual thing for an MP to get kicked out of their party because of petty power struggles inside that party. "So that happened to me. I get on with life. I've got better things to do. And for me, running for council is one of those." Kerekere said her first experience with central governance was at age 19 on a government advisory group while studying at teachers' college in Dunedin. "Governance is something I have been in for decades." She wants to use this experience to help clarify the council's responsibilities to the public. "Here's the person in Parliament you need to speak to about this ... this infrastructure ... that's us," she said. ADVERTISEMENT "Council is not responsible for everything, but it definitely gets blamed for everything." After finishing her parliamentary term in October 2023, Kerekere reflected on what she wanted to do next. "What is the best way I can help my whānau? It's my tribal home. It's where I was born." Kerekere said she had always worked on a national scale, which meant domestic and global travel. However, she wanted to be more local. "My preference would have been to be local for most of the time, but that's where my work took me and my income was." As part of Ngāti Oneone, Kerekere had been doing overnight shifts with her wife at the hapū protest movement, called "a reclamation of whenua". Kerekere is an LGBTIQ activist and scholar. Her doctoral thesis (2017) was on takatāpui identity (Māori who identify with diverse genders and sexualities). ADVERTISEMENT After finishing her parliamentary term, she took a role as an adjunct professor for the School of Health at Victoria University, which allows her to live in Gisborne and fly to Wellington most months to lecture and conduct research. "Health has been my background for a very long time, particularly in violence [and] suicide prevention, [with a] focus on young people and takatāpui. Of course, Māori all the way across." Kerekere is also a sole trader for a business she set up almost 20 years ago, she said. "I'm an organiser, a project manager, a co-ordinator and a strategist, so people bring me in when they are trying to achieve something." When asked why electorates should support her, she said: 'If people want the status quo, don't bring me in. But if you want things to change, bring me in.' She is the founder/chairwoman of Tīwhanawhana Trust (2001), chairwoman of Kawe Mahara Queer Archives Aotearoa, and on the boards of Mana Tipua and ILGA Oceania – both LGBTIQ organisations. Understanding the difference between governance, management and operations was essential to a councillor's role, she said. ADVERTISEMENT "It's a particular skill set that means you've got to make those top decisions and then let it go and let other people put it in place, and sometimes that is difficult for people to do," Kerekere said. When asked if she was bringing a Green voice to the council, she said she would be a Māori voice, which is "inherently green in the sense of protecting Papatūānuku [the earth mother]". "So, in terms of council, then ... what's our wastewater? That's not sexy, but it directly feeds into the quality of our rivers and our beach." Kerekere said connecting the council with services that looked after young people and ensuring youths had a place to go, such as drop-in centres, would be a focus for her. 'We've got incredible agencies here that work with young people in different ways, particularly for our rangatahi [and] takatāpui/rainbow ... places where kids can just go because sometimes home is not the safest place.' She also wants to help bring back a form of youth council, designed by youth themselves to boost youth engagement with the council. "It shouldn't be old people deciding what young people need. Go and ask them, 'Is this the best way for you to have representation'?" ADVERTISEMENT Kerekere said it was her youth activism and doing these kinds of roles when she was young that was the basis for her "complete confidence" in youth and "what they can achieve if they're given the support they need". Kerekere was among 11 candidates standing for the five Māori ward seats. Local Democracy Reporting is local-body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
