|
|
|
 |
|
|
United States (of which NASA $16.3 billion) |
62.6 |
|
European Space Agency |
4.0 |
|
Japan |
2.2 |
|
China |
1.5 |
|
Russia |
1.3 |
|
France* |
1.0 |
|
India |
0.9 |
|
Italy* |
0.7 |
|
Germany |
0.4 |
|
Canada* |
0.4 |
|
United Kingdom |
0.1 |
6.49 The United Kingdom's space agency, the British National Space Centre (BNSC), has been suggested as a model. It 'essentially coordinates the activities of a range of ministries that still retain their budgets and their responsibilities'.[41] The BNSC reports to the Minister of State for Science and Innovation. It describes its role in the following terms:
...BNSC is at the heart of UK efforts to explore and exploit space. Formed from 10 Government Departments and research councils, we: co-ordinate UK civil space activity; support academic research; nurture the UK space industry; and work to increase understanding of space science and its practical benefits.
We have three long-term objectives: to enhance the UK's standing in astronomy, planetary and environmental sciences; to stimulate increased productivity by promoting the use of space in government, science and commerce; and to develop innovative space systems, to deliver sustainable improvement in the quality of life.[42]
6.50 This was attractive to some witnesses:
Perhaps the UK approach, which is more like a national committee which has the key representatives at the table, may be an appropriate model. [43]
...the British National Space Centre presents an excellent model for what could be achieved here. It is a partnership among government departments, research bodies and the Met Office, or the Bureau of Meteorology as it is known here... The director-general...I think is the single employee of the British National Space Centre...the rest of them are on secondment from various places...There are 50 of them, or something like that. They spend UK£207 million a year. It is about to go up hugely because the UK sees its needs in climate and environment as really escalating in this century...I could see the Bureau of Meteorology here and the CSIRO, Defence, and you could probably name a few others to take in the astronomy people such as Tidbinbilla and all those people, getting together in the same way and organising their money in the same way. Before you know it, you have a critical mass, which you did not think was possible.[44]
6.51 It is also consistent with the views of the United Kingdom Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, which concluded:
Space is a highly significant area of science policy and it is necessary for the Government to take a strategic approach to space activities...The forthcoming civil space strategy should inspire and motivate the UK space sector and emphasise the UK Government's commitment to space.[45]
6.52 The former head of the ASO had some reservations about the BNSC model:
In 2007 BNSC received £50.67 from its portfolio department and subscribed £21.37m to the ESA general budget, suggesting that it had available £29.3m for administration and program activities. Its total expenditure of £217.88 indicates that other agencies – principally the Science and Technology Facilities Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Meteorology Office – provided a total of £167.21m towards the programs BNSC supported. BNSC’s contribution would appear to be around 1/7th of the total space program expenditure by the UK in that year. Based on my experience at the ASO, this would not be high enough in the Australian context to secure investment by other agencies.[46]
6.53 Entering 'Australia space' into the Google search engine gives the website of the National Space Society of Australia, followed by that of the Australian Space Research Institute (and then the Lost in Space Australian Fan Club!). There is no sign of the relevant parts of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
6.54 This may explain why the committee heard of two amateur enthusiasts in their twenties being approached by the media looking for the Australian view on space issues or by overseas organisations looking to arrange international collaborations:
The National Space Society is frequently confused with being Australia’s national space agency by the general community and tends to be confused by the media as well. I am the first one that is called when something happens...Just this morning with Sky News I was asked to comment on what the water on Mars would mean for Australia and the world.[47]
Anecdotally we have had a number of requests from people who come and speak to BLUEsat, thinking that perhaps we are some sort of conduit to the Australian space industry...[48]
6.55 With no disrespect to the young enthusiasts concerned, it would be better if the point of contact was a professional government agency.
6.56 The former CEO of the Cooperative Research Centre for Satellite Systems described how he by default was sometimes regraded overseas as representing Australian space science:
I was introduced at a number of international fora ...as head of the closest thing Australia had to a space agency... it was a tag with which I was quite uncomfortable because I had no executive authority to act or represent the whole or even part of government, unlike the majority of colleagues around the table...I continued to be invited to represent Australia even to chair or co-chair important meetings such as the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agencies Forum in Canberra in 2004 and in Japan in 2005.[49]
6.57 Similarly, private industry organisations are sometimes regarded as a proxy space office:
I received an email from the Korean Space Agency saying that they did not know who to speak to in Australia. They got my name from NASA and were contacting me to see if I could give them some specific information... we are repeatedly contacted by international companies who are looking for someone to talk to in Australia about the nation’s needs, the opportunities, and so on.[50]
6.58 This concern that there was no prominent point of contact in Australia for overseas agencies or private companies who wish to discuss space matters was expressed by many witnesses:
...‘Who do we come and see?’ has been the question to many of us in the industry.[51]
...there should be a centralised coordinating body...which has the capacity to act as an international point of contact.[52]
When I came here first of all, I said, ‘So who do I talk to that is coordinating your requirements and the industry?’ and there was no-one.[53]
One of the standard complaints is that the international space agencies or companies or just the research groups do not know who to contact in the Australian government if they want to do something.[54]
6.59 Although some submissions advocated the establishment of an 'Australian NASA', many others recognised that Australia already has much occurring in the space arena and better coordination, as well as political will to enhance the sector, is what is required.
6.60 The committee found the views of Dr Bruce Middleton, former Executive Director of the Australian Space Office between 1987 and 1993 to be particularly instructive. Dr Middleton considers that Australia is making a serious mistake in not investing significant public funds in space, in addition to the funds invested by individual government agencies in pursuit of their own missions:
I believe that by not investing we are missing out on opportunities and making ourselves more dependent on others. I believe our current policy on space short-changes the educational, scientific, technological, innovation, industrial, environmental, public good and national security objectives of national policy. I believe we will pay a heavier price in the future if we continue not to invest.[55]
6.61 One thing that came out clearly from the inquiry is that although large amounts of funds can be expended on space related activities, they do not have to be. A range of estimates of appropriate funding levels were advanced. Dr Middleton suggested $50 million a year:
I would think that if Australia was not committing A$50 million a year it was not serious and would be seen for that. I would not see $50 million in a national program as being a honeypot. I would see it as a very careful effort to target that to national objectives, with those objectives being carefully weighed and with a very hard-nosed decision being asked: are we going to address national prestige? If the answer is yes, we might train an astronaut, because that goes a long way to getting people excited about space. If it is no, forget about things like that, forget about things like the remote manipulator arms and focus your money in other areas. Those decisions have to be made. [56]
6.62 The Australian Space Research Institute argued that an agency would:
...give cohesion to the various disparate space elements that are still in Australia and help bring back some of the expatriate space assets that have had to go overseas to look for work in the last decade or so.[57]
6.63 The lack of an agency may mean that Australia misses out on larger interdisciplinary projects:
Missing are large coordinated programmes of research and development that span many organisations both in Australia and obviously internationally. We cannot do things like this alone. As director of a research institute, that is really where I see the lost opportunity.[58]
6.64 Dr Andy Thomas argued:
I do personally believe that a single coordinating body is needed in Australia...I do have a sense that there are a lot of competitive organisations in the Australian arena in all of those various dispersed activities that you referred to. I am sure the people in those organisations have the best of intentions of their organisations, but I think you do need an operation that has a vision that looks at the national scale of what has to be done on a national basis and pull all of those things together to support that national programme.[59]
6.65 The Australian space industry is supportive of a central coordinating body:
...noting a persistent call from industry and other groups for stronger and more visible coordination of effort, recommend that the Australian Government establishes a national coordination body responsible for, and to show leadership in, all facets of Australia’s space engagement, including relationships with international space agencies.[60]
6.66 A number of other groups also felt the absence of a single space agency was damaging to Australia:
...Australia has become ever more dependent on space based services, often invisibly. Much like water in a tap, we do not understand where the services come from; we just expect them to be there...there appears to be no whole‑of-government coordination that addresses our dependencies and hence our vulnerabilities that arise from those dependencies...[a space agency] should initially reside probably within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet so that it holds a whole-of-government perspective and does not need to consider individual departmental priorities, and therefore it can look at all of the nation’s dependencies at a strategic level.[61]
The primary impediments [to strengthening space science and industry in Australia] are first, that Australia has no single coordinating body for space science.[62]
There is an urgent need to establish a single coordinating framework for Australian space related research and applications.[63]
Having an agency gives you a centralised, unified voice that can look after the governance and provide leadership, vision and so on and so forth. Our space agency reports directly to our minister of industry...[64]
If we had an Australian space agency—a national body that could encourage that, could fund it, could coordinate and ultimately could buy the technologies that we produce—I think that would lead to long-term benefit for the country.[65]
...so many countries—in fact, almost all countries in the Western world—look to Australia and wonder why Australia is not running any sort of serious space programme. The reason for that is that we are part of a civilisation that expects to find more and more work in space and those countries are bit surprised that we do not accept that as part of the culture and take it up.[66]
There currently appears to be a lack of cohesion across state and federal jurisdictions in dealing with space sciences, with no specific agencies identified as having carriage of space-related issues...herein lies the opportunity to seriously consider the formation of a national council, group or forum, comprising key federal and state stakeholders, focusing specifically on space science related issues.[67]
You need a group of good people to make the decision as to which way we are going, to work out a long-term policy and hopefully to provide funding for five- or 10-year plans to achieve that.[68]
Ultimately I think the government has to set the policy and you need an agency to implement it.[69]
It is not possible to extract maximum return from public investment in space through a decentralised structure; there will inevitably be gaps and overlaps, not to say duplication. Therefore, effective coordination is essential.[70]
We have been losing credibility [internationally] regarding...global issues—like climate change, perhaps, and security aspects which are global. We have been losing that credibility over some period of time... I think that Australia is viewed as a country which has had individuals doing a lot but which has not had an organised programme at all...[71]
the establishment of a single, national, coordinating agency that covers all space related policies, programs and directions is absolutely vital.[72]
It is dangerous for a major country not to have an organised way of assessing space opportunities. This capability is the minimum. It isn’t enough to know that there is a lot of expertise scattered here and there in universities, industry, et cetera. It requires a more systematic approach. But this need not be expensive, especially if Australia can demonstrate enough expertise to make it once again an interesting international partner.[73]
6.67 The Bureau of Meteorology commented:
...Australia would benefit from a more coordinated national policy framework on space matters, developed and administered through a whole‑of‑government mechanism; that, through such national policy arrangements, the value of current and continued international collaboration on space is recognised and coordinated; and that targeted national investments in space science and technology in relation to both ground and space segments should build on and complement the international effort, with a special focus on Australia’s national objectives—for example, in relation to climate monitoring, water resources, environment, and disaster mitigation... in terms of a coordinated engagement with other countries, there is no single framework for that to happen. [74]
6.68 The Department of Defence sounded supportive:
Defence could see value in greater national level policy coordination of Australia’s space dependency. We believe that the current arrangements are not able to fully address this complex area of policy. We think that some form of coordinated whole-of-government policy discussion might assist a more consistent and clearer approach, especially as space policy becomes more complex. As for a national coordinating body, Defence’s position would be guided by the scope and authorities of such a body. However, as a key stakeholder, Defence would be happy to work closely with such a body should government choose to create one.[75]
6.69 The CSIRO sounded unenthusiastic about having their space-related activities hived off into a new agency:
it is actually a real benefit because we can bring together the Earth Observation folk with the hydrologists or with the spatial analysts or whatever and you can actually do that in a very flexible way...one of the real benefits that we have at the moment is that space is embedded within other parts of the...CSIRO. I think that, for government to consider that, you would probably want to take into account whether we could maintain all of those particular linkages.[76]
6.70 An agency could also help give Australian entities more credibility overseas. For example, the BLUEsat student satellite-builders thought:
An Australian space agency would also add to our credibility when we go overseas for most of the launches which we have targeted as useful. If there was an Australian space agency which was able to say, yes, BLUEsat, or a similar student project, is a legitimate project that gives us more credibility and would make the space launch and certification process much more straightforward.[77]
6.71 A representative from Canada's largest manufacturer of space technology noted that in Australia:
I have found a range of very good capabilities and technologies associated with the space, ground and data-processing segments. However, in my opinion, what was lacking was an ability to bring these elements together.[78]
6.72 An agency could help to bring together people working in aspects of space science:
Up until about two years ago, there was essentially no communication at all between different members of the space science community—as in even space physicists like me from the University of Sydney might have had absolutely no idea what our colleagues at the University of Newcastle, a scant 200 kilometres away, were doing, let alone what our colleagues in astrobiology were doing. We want to become a much more cohesive community which manages itself and identifies scientific goals which are important and crucial in our opinion but which also have national benefit.[79]
6.73 Dr Middleton suggests that there are two elements for coordination: some machinery where people with sufficient authority to commit their agencies meet together; and a program with enough money to 'put mortar between the bricks'. [80]
6.74 One suggested model for a co-ordinating agency was a unit within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet:
the National Security Science & Technology Unit that was set up in PM&C a few years ago to provide a single point of contact for counterterrorism technology development. This organisation is peopled by secondments from the interested organisations and agencies so that there is representation there and no-one feels that their sovereignty is being threatened or that their toes are being stepped on.[81]
6.75 It will always be a challenge in getting departments to agree to a coordinating agency which may be seen as encroaching on their turf. The former deputy director of the Australian Space Office recalled:
I would never expect them to hand over any responsibility to some central agency...I suppose you would always lose their support if they thought that money was coming out of their budget to go into the Space Office, which I think might have been part of the problem all along.[82]
6.76 Drawing on his experience with the Australian Space Office, its former director suggested:
I would think that if Australia was not committing A$50 million a year it was not serious and would be seen for that. ...I would say it needs to be a statutory agency. It needs to have enough staff but not too many, and it needs to have expert staff. It needs to have a board of eminent people who command respect in government and in the industry—and in the research community...[83]
...high-level secondees from stakeholder departments and agencies (including the Department of Defence)...[84]
6.77 The success of a space agency may also reflect its status as reflected in the seniority of the minister assigned responsibility for it. Examples of very senior ministers include India, where at one stage the Minister for Space was Indira Gandhi, and the United States, where the National Space Council is chaired by the Vice President.[85] The former director of the Australian Space Office suggested:
Clearly a minister needs to be responsible...It needs to be a senior minister. A junior minister is a kiss of death. The bureaucracy is very sharp: ‘Junior minister? Don’t pay it as much attention; he doesn’t have the horsepower in cabinet.’ And you are on the slippery slope.[86]
6.78 An alternative view is that what is more important is that the minister have a commitment to, better still an enthusiasm for, a space policy.
6.79 There were some views that a new agency should start off with modest goals:
I think we should start it small and get its foundations laid and then let it evolve in an appropriate way.[87]
...a space agency in Australia could start off at a very simple level by simply acting in a coordinating role, pulling together various industries and academia throughout Australia...[88]
6.80 The committee notes that for each successive review into the Australian space sector, broadly similar findings are made each time, including for the committee's current inquiry. Principally, these findings are that the Australian space industry is fragmented, there is a lack of clarity in organisation, confusion as to who does what and who is able to fund what.[89]
6.81 However, it notes the problems that arose when these findings were implemented in the mid-1980s. It would be highly undesirable if a new agency were again to dissolve after a decade with promises unfulfilled. Accordingly, the committee wants a new agency to evolve gradually.
6.82 The committee notes that firms within the Australian space industry seem keen for an agency to succeed. They already donate time to industry and enthusiast organisations and share information. They may be willing to contribute to a space agency.
Recommendation 1
6.83 The committee recommends as a first step that the Government give the existing unit within the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research more resources to enable the establishment of an Australian government Space Information Website. This would provide information on government programmes and contacts, and links to Australian companies working in the space industry as well as Australian universities offering courses in space science and space engineering.
Recommendation 2
6.84 The committee notes that Australia is the only OECD country without a national space agency and, as a consequence is missing out on opportunities to engage in this important area of innovation and technology. The committee also notes the comments by the Chief Scientist and the conclusion of the Cutler Report in relation to the importance of the space industry for innovation within Australia. The committee recommends that immediate steps are taken to coordinate our space activities and reduce our over reliance on other countries in the area of space technology.
Recommendation 3
6.85 The committee notes the wealth of expert, well informed evidence received by the committee. Despite some deviations, the overwhelming majority of witnesses strongly supported the formation of a government unit to coordinate Australian space activities, including those in the private sector. The committee supports this conclusion and notes that there must be a proper balance between industry and government involvement.
Recommendation 4
6.86 The committee notes the various models of space agency within the OECD and emerging economies and supports Australia having a space agency. The committee recommends initially establishing a Space Industry Advisory Council comprising industry representatives, government agencies, defence, and academics. The committee recommends that the advisory Council be chaired by the Minister for Innovation Industry Science and Research or his representative.
Recommendation 5
6.87 As a precursor to the establishment of the space agency the Advisory Council would:
• Conduct an audit of Australia's current space activities within six months of the establishment of the Council;
• Analyse the strengths, weaknesses opportunities and threats to Australia's emerging space industry;
• Focus on the key "workhorse" space applications of Earth observation, satellite communications and navigation as the most practical and beneficial initial priorities;
• Systematically evaluate the medium/long-term priorities for a space agency including the national benefit of defence related activities, Earth observation, environmental, land management, exploration, national disaster prevention and management, treaty monitoring, e-commerce and telemedicine;
• Examine the benefits to Australia of improved international collaboration including membership of the international space groups;
• Develop a draft strategic plan for the establishment of a space agency and the most appropriate form of that agency, including public/private funding, budget and staffing priorities; and
• Identify critical performance areas such as research, technological development, development of the skill base, effective partnerships, delivery of new services, and financial management.
6.88 Back in 1985 the Madigan Report had suggested that:
Australia should also initiate discussions with other West Pacific countries on the establishment of an appropriate agency to create the synergy which the European Space Agency has brought so beneficially to its subscribing nations.[90]
6.89 An Australian space agency would facilitate linkages to other space agencies. The European Space Agency has four times offered Australia an associate membership. Some leading space scientists advocate taking up the offer, pointing out it would allow Australian companies and universities to win contracts with the ESA and gain better access to satellite data.[91] However, the committee was told that a lack of an Australian space agency makes it harder to take up membership. When the ESA approached Australia in 2006:
the request was sent all around Canberra. There was no-one really in a position to say yes or no and there was no individual agency that had the funds to commit to it. So Australia was not in a position to say yes even though there was some enthusiasm to do so.[92]
6.90 An interesting case is Canada, arguably the most similar country to Australia.[93] It has its own space agency, funded to around $300 million per year.[94] The Canadian Space Agency is an associate of the European Space Agency. They gave this example of how the relationship works:
we were the first non-European country to join the Galileo program. As a result of that we have several companies in the GNSS domain who have secured contracts. Since Galileo will be here for many years to come, that spells out great opportunities for Canadian industry.[95]
6.91 The committee heard that there can be strong returns to industry from associate membership with the European Space Agency:
Canada has enjoyed great success in the space domain, largely due to our international cooperation and participation programmes...Our contribution to ESA alone has resulted in over $420 million in contracts.[96]
Under the ESA rules they would expect about 80 per cent of what they contribute to come back in contracts to Canada...[97]
Recommendation 6
6.92 The committee recommends that any Australian Space Agency reassess the case for Australia becoming more closely linked to an international space agency.
Senator Annette Hurley
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 12 November 2008 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
