Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill

2.1. Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

No

2.2. Does this Bill seek to give effect to New Zealand action in relation to an international treaty?

No

2.2.1. If so, was a National Interest Analysis report prepared to inform a Parliamentary examination of the proposed New Zealand action in relation to the treaty?

No

2.3. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?

Yes

Regulatory Impact Statement: Managing Risks of Ground Based Space Infrastructure was provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill.

Note that some information in the Regulatory Impact Statement is redacted for proactive release, consistent with section 6(a) – to protect the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand and section 9(2)(a) – to protect the privacy of natural persons.

2.3.1. If so, did the RIA Team in the Treasury/Ministry for Regulation provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?

No

The impact assessment did not meet the threshold for receiving an independent opinion from the RIA team based in the Ministry for Regulation.  MBIE’s RIA Panel reviewed the RIS and considered it met the quality assurance criteria.

2.3.2. Are there aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill that were not addressed by, or that now vary materially from, the policy options analysed in these regulatory impact statements?

No

2.4. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

Yes

Yes. Further additions were made to the policy and the Regulatory Impact Statement was updated accordingly. An MBIE panel reviewed the updated statement and considered it met the quality assurance criteria. 

2.5. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there analysis available on:

(a)     the size of the potential costs and benefits?

No

(b)    the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?

No

The costs imposed on regulated parties by the measures in the Bill are likely be low, however given the novel nature of the regime, it is difficult to estimate the potential size of the costs and benefits accurately. We expect that implementing the protective security and due diligence requirements may impose a cost to operators but will result in enhanced management of national security and broader national interest risks as the countervailing benefit. Implementing these measures is considered best practice, and as a result, some operators will already have these systems in place to realise the benefits to their own businesses.

We do not expect that any group of persons will suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth resulting from the policy that will be given effect by the Bill.

Further information is available in the Regulatory Impact Statement.  

2.6. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, are the potential costs or benefits likely to be impacted by:

(a)     the level of effective compliance or non-compliance with applicable obligations or standards?

Yes

(b)    the nature and level of regulator effort put into encouraging or securing compliance?

Yes

The existence of the regime will likely act as a significant deterrent to GBSI activities that are not in the national interest being conducted from New Zealand - this benefit is not impacted by compliance. However, the effectiveness for managing risks posed by GBSI activity taking place in New Zealand will depend upon successful monitoring and where needed, the use of enforcement capability to ensure GBSI activity is compliant with requirements. Further information on the compliance monitoring and enforcement aspects of the regime can be found in the Regulatory Impact Statement.  

3.1. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations?

The policy was assessed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have provided advice on New Zealand’s international obligations, especially in the case of foreign operators. The Bill and policy are consistent with international obligations.

3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

In the development of the policy to be given effect by this Bill, preliminary consideration has been given to its alignment with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. While formal engagement with Māori stakeholders has not been undertaken due the urgency of the legislation, the policy is consistent with the principles.

3.3. Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

Yes

The Ministry of Justice has undertaken an assessment of whether the Bill is consistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) and has provided advice to the Attorney-General. Advice provided to the Attorney-General by the Ministry of Justice, is generally expected to be available on the Ministry of Justice’s website upon introduction of the Bill.

In this case, Hon Paul Goldsmith will act as the Attorney General as the Attorney General, Hon Judith Collins KC, is introducing this Bill and therefore, cannot preside over the BORA vet.

3.4. Does this Bill create, amend, or remove:

(a)     offences or penalties (including infringement offences or penalties and civil pecuniary penalty regimes)?

Yes

(b)    the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal)?

No

The Bill includes a suite of offences and penalties, most of which are aligned with existing offences/penalties in the legislation. The existing ability to apply to the court to impose additional penalties under the OSHAA has also been extended to the GBSI regime to deter offending by operators for commercial gain.

Key provisions include:

• Section 68A (new): Creates an offence for operating GBSI to carry out a regulated activity without a GBSI activity authorisation, with penalties of:
  • Up to 1 year imprisonment or $50,000 fine for individuals.
  • Up to $250,000 fine for bodies corporate.
• Section 69 (amended): Expands the offence of providing false or misleading information to the Minister to cover all purposes under the Act, including GBSI authorisations.
• Section 70 (amended): Extends the offence of failing to comply with licence or permit conditions to include GBSI activity authorisations.
• Section 75A (new): Creates an offence for failing to comply with a direction to stop any person operating GBSI that is subject to a disposal order. (Subject to a fine not exceeding $5000 for an individual or $50,000 for a body corporate).

Section 83C (new): Empowers the District Court to:

• Issue forfeiture orders if a person fails to comply with a disposal order related to GBSI.
• Vest interests or rights in the Crown.
• Direct disposal of forfeited interests or rights.

3.4.1. Was the Ministry of Justice consulted about these provisions?

Yes

The Ministry of Justice was consulted on the policy and the drafting of the Bill, which included these provisions.

3.5. Does this Bill create, amend or remove any provisions relating to the collection, storage, access to, correction of, use or disclosure of personal information?

Yes

Yes, the existing ability under Section 85 of the principal act, to share information with relevant government agencies will apply to the administration of the new regime.  However, the bill does not create, amend or remove provisions in a manner that is inconsistent with the Privacy Act 2020.

3.5.1. Was the Privacy Commissioner consulted about these provisions?

Yes

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was consulted on the policy intent and the Bill and had no concerns.  

3.6. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this Bill, or on a draft of this Bill?

Yes

Two sets of targeted consultation with industry stakeholders were carried out in 2024 on the policy to be given effect by the Bill. The first round of consultation consisted of consultation meetings with industry, including seeking their technical knowledge to inform the policy, particularly on the scope of the GBSI regime. The second consultation provided a written document outlining the policy intent and potential options for regulatory regime design. This gave stakeholders an opportunity to provide written feedback.

We contacted 21 operators of GBSI and industry members looking to establish GBSI in the future. We met with 10 operators during the initial consultation and three operators responded in writing in the second round of consultation. Responses to the regime design were largely positive, with respondents supporting the clarity the GBSI regime would give them as currently we rely on non-regulatory measures and the good will of these operators to report suspicious behaviour. Consultation included both commercial and academic operators.

Additionally, we conducted consultation with two GBSI experts on the Bill provisions that set out the regime scope and key definitions. Feedback provided helped to identify where the scope and definitions could be improved for clarity.

Discussion was also undertaken with international partners to understand how they manage or seek to manage GBSI installations of concern.

Appendix 2 and the Regulatory Impact Statement provide additional information on consultation.

3.7. Have the policy details to be given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete?

No

4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?

Yes

The Bill gives the Minister the power to require an operator to dispose of their interest in or right to the GBSI where the Minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person’s operation of the GBSI gives rise, is likely to give rise, or has given rise to a risk to national security or another national interest. If a person fails to comply with the disposal order, an enforcement officer or constable can apply to the District Court for a forfeiture order. The Court can direct the interest or right vested in the Crown and order the officer or constable to dispose of the interest or right and pay any proceeds of the disposal to the recipient of the disposal order.

4.2. Does this Bill create or amend a power to impose a fee, levy or charge in the nature of a tax?

No

4.3. Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively?

No

4.4. Does this Bill:

(a)     create or amend a strict or absolute liability offence?

Yes

(b)    reverse or modify the usual burden of proof for an offence or a civil pecuniary penalty proceeding?

No

There is an existing strict liability offence in section 71(1)(a) which provides that failing to comply with the request of an enforcement office is an offence.

Secondly, section 75A provides that failing to comply with a direction without reasonable excuse is also an offence.

Additionally, under section 70(1) it is an offence for failing to comply with conditions on an authorisation without a reasonable excuse.

The purpose of the regime is to manage significant national interest risks, including national security risks, strict liability offences as noted above are, therefore, considered necessary.

4.5. Does this Bill create or amend a civil or criminal immunity for any person?

No

4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests?

No

4.7. Does this Bill create or amend a power to make delegated legislation that could amend an Act, define the meaning of a term in an Act, or grant an exemption from an Act or delegated legislation?

Yes

Yes, there will be a regulation making power in the Act that will enable adjustments to the definition of the terms ‘ground-based space infrastructure’, ‘operate ‘and ‘regulated activity.’ This is necessary for future proofing the regulatory regime, as further clarity may be needed on these terms in the future in the context of novel technologies and business operating models.

Additionally, existing regulation making powers in Section 88 of the principal act will apply to the GBSI regime.

4.8. Does this Bill create or amend any other powers to make delegated legislation?

No

4.9. Does this Bill contain any provisions (other than those noted above) that are unusual or call for special comment?

Yes

The Bill includes a power for the Minister to direct an electricity or internet service provider to stop supplying services to specified GBSI in order to prevent the continued operation of that GBSI if it were deemed to be contrary to New Zealand’s national interest and national security.