Bills Digest No. 86 2001-02
Space Activities Amendment Bill 2002
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Space Activities Amendment Bill
2002
Date Introduced: 20 February 2002
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Industry, Tourism and Resources
Commencement: The amendments proposed by
Schedule 1 commence on Proclamation or six months after Royal
Assent
Purpose
The Bill seeks to
amend the Space Activities Act 1998 (the Principal Act) to
provide for changes in liability and insurance arrangements for
space launch activities, allowing for non-commercial scientific and
educational organisations, as well making some technical amendments
to the Principal Act.
The Principal Act outlines the space licensing
regime for the emerging space launch industry based in Australia.
That Act provides for charging and insurance aspects yet to be
fully tested, as no major commercial space launch has as yet
occurred from Australia. Perhaps because of this state, the Bill
caps launch insurance requirements and also allows scientific and
educational organisations to use a simpler licensing regime. With
the promulgation of the space licensing regime, local commercial
launch vehicle proponents complained of excessive charges and
insurance requirements. Scientific and educational organisations
were also forced to assess the implications and requirements. In
the interim, the number of major commercial proposals has reduced
and none have flown.
For additional information relating to the
Principal Act, Australian space launch proposals and the
international space industry, the reader is referred to the Bills
Digests for the:
Sceptics of the proposed space launch proposals
would take heart from recent assessments of the launch services and
satellite industry. A recent report suggests that only proposals
offering launch prices of under US$500 per kilogram to orbit have
any hope of success. It states that "none of the new launch
programs, such as Asia Pacific Space Centre's Aurora (at Christmas
Island, Australia); Space America's Enterprise; Yuzhnoye's Mayak;
Vozdushny Start's air-launched Start and Mashinostroeniya's Strela
are remotely close to providing these price levels. Without
sizeably expanding the market, these programs will have to scratch
for each and every launch contract they can get, and they are going
to have an increasingly difficult job of convincing prospective
investors that boom times are right around the
corner".(1) The satellite construction market also
remains gloomy. For the fourth straight year, the number of
commercial launches performed by United States based launch
vehicles declined. In the face of competition from Russian, Chinese
and Indian rockets, Europe's Arianespace ran at a loss for the
second year in a row in 2001. As of late last year, the overall
number of launches dropped from 86 in 2000 to just
59.(2)
Construction of the Asia Pacific Space Centre
was reported as set to begin in March 2003.(3) The
Christmas Island Space Centre (APSC Proposal) Ordinance 2001
No.4 of 2001 commenced on 18 October 2001 to allow for the
spaceport's construction.
The Bills Digest for the original Space
Activities Bill 1998 (found at: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1998-99/99bd034.htm)
noted that the absence of a definition for space was a significant
flaw in the legislation. This has now been remedied with the use of
a 100 kilometre above mean sea level boundary to represent outer
space.
Tests below 100 kilometres do not need space
permits but do require scientific licenses and basic insurance.
Thus an allowance for educational and scientific organisations
appears sound.
The Bill provides for a strengthening of
Ministerial monitoring and review of space launch activities along
with annual fees. However, it might be argued that the level of
regulation has become onerous and requiring significant resources
by commercial launch operators.
In December, the Western Australia Labor Premier
Geoff Gallop warned that a major disaster at the proposed rocket
launch facility on Christmas Island could cost the petroleum
industry up to $25 billion.(4) He said that the
Commonwealth had only proposed providing insurance and liability
cover for up to $3.75 billion, rather than the unlimited liability
required. The former is the level stated in the Bill, and said in
the Explanatory Memorandum as being within the bounds of
competitive world practice.
The Democrats have expressed concerns about the
launch industry and environmental aspects, especially the
ecological effects of past Russian launch vehicle fuels and debris,
during debate on the Space Activities Amendment (Bilateral
Agreement) Bill 2001 (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2000-01/01BD152.PDF).
These matters and other concerns about the Christmas Island
proposal were also canvassed in the Bills Digest for the Customs
Tariff Amendment Bill (No.4) 2001 (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2001-02/02bd007.pdf),
which provided for a duty-free allowance for space related
technologies imported from the Russian Federation.
Risk assessment procedures require safety levels
to achieve the lowest practicable risk within the bounds of
reasonable cost. There are safety arguments to oppose such an
'affordable risk' strategy on the basis that any level of risk is
unacceptable if it can be avoided. Definitions of lowest
practicable risk and reasonable cost could come in for dispute.
(Also see items 32 to 36 of
Schedule 1 of the Bill below regarding EMA).
Item 7 of Schedule
1 allows for a specific elucidation of rocket
trajectories. This may assist to assuage the fears of parties lying
down range from proposed launch centres.
Item 8 of Schedule
1 requires licence applicants to be a corporation rather
than an individual or business. The rationale given by the
Government in its Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill for this
amendment is that it " will make section 18 of the Act consistent
with the requirement that the holder of a launch permit be a
corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution
applies."
Item 31 of Schedule
1 provides for an insurance cap per launch of $750
million, as indexed from time to time in accordance with the
regulations. It is not clear how this figure is derived, from
either the Government s Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill or the
Second Reading Speech, other than to state that "[T] these
amendments bring insurance requirements for launch activities in
Australia into line with international standards." It should be
noted that insurance premiums can easily exceed 1% of insured value
for satellites, despite what is stated in the Explanatory
Memorandum (ie. that insurance premiums are up to 1 per cent of the
insured value).
Items 32 to 36
of Schedule 1 expand the scope of the Launch
Safety Officer's responsibility to include the return of space
objects to the ground.
Item 53 of Schedule
1 caps the Commonwealth's acceptance of liability above
the insured amount to $3 billion. It is not stated in the
Explanatory Memorandum how this figure has been derived. However,
it might be speculated from the text of the Second Reading Speech
to the Bill that the figure is in conformity with insurance
requirements for launch activities overseas.
Item 60 of
Schedule 1 provides a replacement Agreement
Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial
Bodies in order to correct, as stated in the Government s
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill "substantial textual
inaccuracies". As this United Nations Space Treaty is a definitive
document, it is not known how such errors occurred in the original
Act.
Aspiring launch companies must also deal with
State and Local Governments, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority
and Environment Australia before any rocket leaves the ground. The
relationship between Emergency Management Australia and other
government agencies for space launches is unclear however.
Australia's Space Licensing and Safety Office
(SLASO) sits within the Department of Industry, Tourism and
Resources, whereas its American counterpart, the Office of the
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation,
operates in the Federal Aviation Administration. On this basis, in
terms of similar reporting/administrative structure, SLASO would be
found as a regulatory agency in the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority.
The new legislation clarifies a number of
ambiguities in the original legislation as well as correcting quite
a number of errors. It is arguable that this suggests that the
Principal Act was rushed into effect.
-
- Caceres, Marco Antonio 2002, 'Launch Services Market Going
Nowhere Fast', Aviation Week and Space Technology, 14
January, pp. 139 140.
- Bates, Jason 2001, 'Launch Industry Suffers Major Drop in
Activity', Space News, 17 December.
- Anon 2001, 'APSC receives go ahead', Asia-Pacific
Satellite, August.
- AAP 2001, 'WA: Premier unhappy about rocket launching
facility', AAP News, 30 December.
Ian Ireland and Matthew James
11 March 2002
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2002
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
2002.
Back to top