2.1
Space is a global industry. Nearly every country accesses and uses space based technologies and data. In the last 10 years, over 15 countries, including Australia, have established national space agencies to capitalise on a rapidly growing sector of the global economy.
2.2
International space economies are different, characterised by each country’s diverse strengths and priorities, levels of development and amount of investment. While the Australian space industry is often described as ‘fledgling’ or ‘nascent’, it has a long history in space tracking, launch, earth observation, and space science research.
Defining the space industry
2.3
The Australian space sector is defined as a set of space-related activities along the space value chain. The sector is part of the broader space economy and includes private, public and academic stakeholders. Four broad segments make up the ‘space value chain’:
manufacturing and core inputs: includes satellite or payload manufacturing and the building and integration of ground-based facilities and equipment that perform space-related activities
space operations: includes launch activities and the management of objects in space
space applications: includes producing the hardware and software to process earth observation imagery or direct to home television
enablers: includes essential service delivery, infrastructure and capabilities, research, development and engineering, and specialised support services.
2.4
This definition is drawn from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and is used by New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. The use of it allows for consistency with international space sectors, and for inclusion of other activities as the Australian space sector changes and grows.
2.5
The space industry can be separated into ‘in space’ and ‘from space’ activities. In space refers to commonly perceived space activities such as launch, rockets and satellites while ‘from space’ refers to the use of data and information that is captured from space infrastructure.
2.6
Similarly, the space industry can be segmented into ‘upstream’ and ‘downstream’ activities. Upstream is focused on sending objects into space and space exploration. This part of the industry is characterised as ‘providers of technology’. Alternatively, downstream activities use the research and technology from upstream operations in different applications on Earth. This part of the industry is characterised as ‘exploitation of technology’, and is considered the area of greatest growth and opportunity.
2.7
Figure 1 illustrates the different areas of the space economy.
Commonwealth Government
2.8
The Australian Space Agency (ASA) is the Commonwealth entity responsible for coordinating civil space matters across government, providing advice on civil space policy, and supporting the growth and transformation of the industry. Established in 2018, the ASA is a non-statutory, separately branded body that sits within the federal Industry, Science, Energy and Resources portfolio.
2.9
Guiding the work of the ASA is the Advancing Space: Australian Civil Space Strategy 2019-2028 (the strategy). The strategy sets out the Australian Government’s plan to triple the Australian space sector to $12 billion and create up to 20,000 jobs over the next decade. It is structured around seven national civil space priority areas and four strategic pillars. The four strategic pillars – international (open doors), national (increase capability), responsible (regulation, risk and culture), and inspire (build future workforce) – focus on creating an environment for the industry to grow, and promoting Australia as a responsible country in civil space.
2.10
The seven priority areas include:
Position, navigation and timing
Communications technologies and services
Space situational awareness and debris monitoring
Leapfrog research and development
2.11
The ASA is currently developing roadmaps for each of these areas, which are expected to be released over the coming year. The first roadmap, Communications Technologies and Services 2021-2030, was released in December 2020.
2.12
Since 2018-2019, the Australian Government has committed over $700 million to develop Australia’s space industry. This investment has included:
$150 million over five years for the Moon to Mars initiative
$15 million over three years for the International Space Investment initiative
$19.5 million for the Space Infrastructure Fund targeting seven projects
$6 million each for the Australian Space Discovery Centre and Mission Control Facility.
2.13
Space is a priority industry under the Australian Government’s Modern Manufacturing Strategy. Announced on 1 October 2020, the Australian Government will invest $1.5 billion over four years to help manufacturers ‘scale-up, become more competitive and build more resilient supply chains’.
2.14
Commonwealth agencies that work across the civil space sector include the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Geoscience Australia, and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). Further information about the space related work of these agencies, including the ASA can be found in their submissions to the inquiry.
Box 2.1: CSIRO PULSE@Parkes
PULSE@Parkes is CSIRO’s education program, designed to provide school students the opportunity to observe with the radio telescope located in Parkes. Students have the opportunity to control the Dish, select pulsars to observe, as well as gather and analyse their data. In addition, students meet with CSIRO scientists and PhD students, and can discuss study options and career pathways in astronomy and space. In 2019-2020, more than 160 students and 25 teachers across 19 schools participated in the program.
Due to COVID-19, all PULSE@Parkes sessions have taken place remotely since March 2020. As a result, the program has reached more schools (approximately 25) and more than 200 students, in locations across Australia. CSIRO has also run sessions for groups including CSIRO’s Young Indigenous Women’s STEM Academy, BHP Foundation Science and Engineering Award finalists, and for a large public session at Perth Astrofest.
Reforms
2.15
There is little doubt that stakeholders are buoyed by an invigorated Australian space sector. It presents an opportunity to compete for a share of the lucrative global industry while enabling the broader economy via space based technology and services. Acknowledging the infancy of the revived domestic space sector, stakeholders identified several areas of strategic reform including:
increasing Australian Government funding of the ASA
establishing a national space program and missions
government being a primary customer for industry
aligning civil and defence space programs
improving national coordination across and between governments
encouraging greater collaboration across industry sector.
2.16
Investment in space infrastructure and regulatory reform, particularly relating to launch, was also raised. These issues are discussed in chapters three and four.
Australian Space Agency funding
2.17
Data shows there is a strong economic return from government investment in space. For every $1 invested in the space industry, there is a direct return of between $2 and $10 while the indirect return could be up to $17, depending on the part of the space sector.
2.18
The Committee consistently heard that compared to other countries, Australia’s funding of its space agency is small, restricting what the ASA can achieve, and insufficient to meet the goals of the strategy. For example, the Queensland Government stated:
The Space Agency has had a positive impact on growing Australia’s space industry. However, its relatively small budget has limited its capacity to undertake both its national leadership and regulatory roles. The demands of the growing space industry and the Space Agency’s responsibility to deliver the civil space strategy and its seven subordinate roadmaps will exacerbate this issue.
2.19
The same point was made by the ANU Institute of Space. It called for the ASA to be funded at a level equivalent to countries with a similar GDP:
The Space Agency is currently funded at a level that prohibits these kinds of missions and does not reflect the GDP of our nation. It is truly underfunded for the growth level we need to triple the size of our space workforce now and create a clear pathway to build the next generation of Australia’s space workforce.
2.20
According to OECD analysis, Australia ranks 18th among the G20 countries for government investment in space as a percentage of GDP (0.003). As shown in Figure 2, Turkey has the same level of investment as Australia, while Mexico is the only country that is ranked lower (0.001). This compares to the United States (0.243), United Kingdom (0.024) and Canada (0.016).
2.21
There was general consensus that Australian Government investment should be increased. The Space Industry Association of Australia (SIAA) argued that despite considerable government and industry effort to kick-start Australia’s space industry, it remains a ‘late and lagging’ participant from a government investment perspective. It recommended that government investment be lifted to a level at least comparable to Indonesia and South Africa, on a relative GDP basis.
2.22
Asia Pacific Aerospace Consultants (APAC) also argued that Australia requires more funding to grow the Australian space industry. Citing research which compares the space agency funding of the UK, Canada, France, and Norway, APAC recommended that the budget for ASA space programs be increased to $250 - $350 million per annum to enable it to meet its 2030 goals. Small World Communications recommended that this figure be even higher. It suggested an eventual budget of 0.1 per cent or $500 million a year, to be provided within 5 years.
2.23
The strategic value of comparable funding was highlighted by Moonshot, Australia’s first space technology incubator. It noted that without government support, Australia does not have the ‘heritage’ or ‘capital’ available to operate at the same pace as other global space sectors. Specifically it said:
Today, other governments are spending relatively larger amounts into space programs and procuring space services that help their local sectors establish a base level of space sector capability. This creates a platform on which the private sector can build from, as it can develop differentiated products and services for other private sector customers both local and global.
2.24
Building on this, Sitael Australia recommended that increased government funding should be aligned to the Australian Civil Space Strategy 2019 – 2028. It stated that the strategy was released without a significant funding announcement to deliver it, and that the Moon to Mars initiative, which comprises the majority of ASA funding, is not incorporated into the overall strategy.
Statutory authority
2.25
There is overwhelming support and praise for the ASA, its establishment, and achievements to date. Many submissions and witnesses described the game-changing nature of a central agency to signal government intent, drive growth and provide a front door to Australia’s space industry.
2.26
Earth Observation Australia (EOA) stated that the ASA’s formation and its activities have ‘galvanised the Australian space industry and given Australia credibility in the global space sector.’
2.27
The SIAA noted the ‘extraordinary growth in [its] membership in the four years since the ASA was announced , and international companies, Airbus, Sitael Australia and MDA all cited the establishment of the ASA as a catalyst for increased engagement with Australia’s space industry.
2.28
Notwithstanding the significant difference the creation of the ASA has made to the Australian space industry, stakeholders made several suggestions for improving the current structure, operation and administration of the agency. In addition to increasing the ASA’s budget, these included:
establishing the ASA as a statutory authority
separating its industry engagement and regulatory functions
establishing separate deputy positions within the current agency
engaging more staff with industry experience or technical expertise
improving education and awareness of regulatory processes including the development and provision of regulatory guidance documents.
2.29
Establishing the ASA as a statutory authority is in keeping with the recommendation of the Expert Reference Group Report and was widely supported in evidence to the inquiry. Southern Launch Space argued that the ASA as a statutory authority would allow for ‘better coordination on space matters across government, greater efficiency in the application assessment process and could allow Federal Parliament to delegate some of its legislative power to the agency’. It contends that a statutory authority would be in a better position to ‘respond to the rapidly developing space industry in a timely and proactive manner.
2.30
Similarly, Dr Graeme Kernich, Chief Executive Officer, FronterSI set out the value of such a change:
…the establishment of the Australian Space Agency as a statutory body with sustained funding will provide a focal point for an established space strategy that builds on the current space priorities. This provides a capability and avenue for procurement of sustained national space missions and provides confidence to industry to invest in space in the long term. Coordination of national programs of work is key to ensuring alignment of space endeavours with national challenges.
2.31
Other stakeholders including Inovor Technologies, Sitael Australia, the SIAA, APAC, and the Space Law Council of Australia and New Zealand (SLCANZ) all supported the ASA rebranding as a statutory authority.
2.32
Separating the industry and regulatory functions of the ASA is discussed in chapter 4.
National space plan and missions
2.33
Governments around the world have been central to building a national space industry. Retired Air Vice-Marshal Hart, AM, Queensland Defence Advisor for Aerospace argued that due to the complex nature of the space industry and the range of infrastructure, regulation and cooperation required to support it, national leadership is needed to provide direction and focus. He told the Committee:
Space is probably recognised, I think, as one of the most challenging environments, requiring a really heavily multidisciplinary approach. And that's why around the globe there's no space capability or no space nation that hasn't been led by a government, by a national level government, or supported by that national level government. It's not something you can see organically grow out of commercial enterprise. It needs that national leadership…And so no matter what we do we need that focus, not just on regulation, but on building capability and understanding what we want to do as a nation.
2.34
Stakeholders told the Committee that Australia needs a national space plan or strategy consisting of a series of space missions to grow the domestic space industry. This means determining what Australia wants to do as a space faring country, what capabilities are needed to do it and seeking that from the Australian space sector.
2.35
Professor Paul Tregoning promoted the value of a ‘very good, overarching, well-thought-out plan’ to help Australian industry understand ‘where Australia wants to go’ and what is needed to achieve it. Dr Peter Woodgate, Chair of Board, SmartSat CRC made a similar point, highlighting the importance of a national space plan that ties into the ASA roadmaps:
This needs to lay itself out, in an overarching set of priorities, a set of space missions looking forward over the next decade. We need the detail. We must also identify what we need to own as a nation. This should absolutely be a critical priority for us over the next couple of years. We need to control our own destiny and this is the way of doing it. The plan should build on the very good work of the Australian Space Agency on its national plan and all the roadmaps which are under development.
2.36
The benefits of a more strategic space program are far reaching and include:
offers a sustained pipeline of work for industry
provides clarity and certainty about the type of space related work required over the coming decades
helps to manage and address national problems and challenges
enables Australian businesses to build global credibility
stimulates innovation and facilitates a ‘disruptive capacity’
attracts investment by providing certainty
increases opportunities for international collaboration
inspires and encourages people to be part of a future space workforce
2.37
Underpinning the success of a national space program is the ‘planning of missions across time and planning continuity’. Investment in long term space missions is central to models adopted by other countries.
2.38
Fronter SI advocated for a ‘firm commitment’ to a series of space missions which address national challenges, and explained:
This serves to engage and develop capability in industry and Australian SMEs in particular, and to showcase research and technology outcomes to the public and the world. It also provides opportunities to partner in to the global space industry and demonstrate the impact of integrating space solutions further into our existing industry supply chains. This should build on our strengths and focus on end-user driven application areas and markets of interest in the national economy, areas such as natural resource management, disaster resilience and urban and regional development.
2.39
Establishing a national program and space missions allows industry and stakeholders to make informed decisions about where they want to invest and develop capabilities. Mr James Brown, Chief Executive Officer, SIAA told the Committee:
If you're a small company looking to scale and you're trying to convince investors to put their money behind your activity, you need to show that there's an opportunity or a market. Small grants from the Space Agency don't achieve that. But if you were able to say, 'Well, the Space Agency has said that Australia, in the next 10 years, on this time line, is going to build a constellation that does bushfire detection,' for example, or, 'is going to build a constellation that does water monitoring,' or, 'is going to do what Israel did,' for example, 'and put a spacecraft on the moon for civilian science reasons,' then you'd have that predictable time line; you'd have that long-term time line.
2.40
Moonshot made the same point. Chief Executive Officer, Mr Troy McCann told the Committee:
I think one of the things we need to do is strike a balance of government investment into the space sector as well as private investment.
... But one of the things that I've noticed, if we want to increase that amount, is that the private sector is kind of stepping back and waiting to see: 'What is the vision of the Australian government? What are they looking at doing in space? If we're going to put our money somewhere, are they going to put it in competition? How do we work together more collaboratively with that?' So, when we're talking to international investors and saying, 'Come on board with us; have a look at the groups that we're growing,' they're looking at those sorts of things as well.
2.41
Moonshot suggested that the ASA be provided with a mandate to collaborate with allied space agencies in conducting strategic government-funded space missions. This was identified as being critical to defining a unifying vision for the space sector to assemble around, while allowing the sector to leverage knowledge and capability transfer of international partners as Australia creates a base level of essential space capability.
2.42
The opportunity to work on national space programs and missions can spark further opportunities for those within the space industry to develop their own space capabilities domestically, and use their skills and experience to win international contracts. APAC noted that the majority of major space companies have developed their space capability by working on national Government programs. It argued that without such programs Australia will continue to have a ‘credibility gap’, and this gap will prevent the space industry from performing economically and internationally. APAC explained the flow on effect of accessible national space programs:
At a basic level delivering the type of growth desired for the Australian space sector will require an increase in Australian exports in space products and services. At its core the pathway to export growth is an issue of establishing credibility which requires successful demonstration of capability on a platform and in a way that is widely visible to others. The traditional method of achieving this credibility in the space industry has initially been through participation in national space programs.
2.43
Professor Russell Boyce, Director, University of New South Wales (UNSW) Canberra Space argued that Australian space missions should be research-led and given priority alongside operational and capability building missions. This is because research-led missions are likely to drive disruptive innovation which is needed for a globally competitive domestic space industry. Here, disruptive innovation describes a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent businesses, and develop commercially competitive skills and products as a result.
2.44
In articulating its support for an ambitious civil national space program, Sitael Australia summarised the following key elements:
provide a uniting vision and purpose for the ASA, driving an outcome focussed culture, and inspiring the Australian public
include multiple projects under each of the Australian Civil Space Strategy priority areas
be funded to deliver value to the nation, driving economic growth and social benefit, whilst maintaining an inspirational focus particularly in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) outreach
include a high level of Australian industry content in its delivery, and used to deliver against the goal of tripling the Australian space industry by 2030
include a technology development stream, with regular calls for proposals (i.e. quarterly) to supercharge innovation and grow space research and development in Australia
include international cooperation through bilateral Agency contribution to mutually agreed projects, to drive sustainable cooperation with partner nations
directly address the lack of space qualified and experienced individuals in Australia.
2.45
Several witnesses identified the benefits of communicating a vision for space, not just for industry but for the country. SkyKraft called on the ASA to drive an Australian space vision to ‘rally the Australian people around a dream that can be achieved’. This vision needs to ‘raise the interest of the Australian public and be of suitable breadth and scale to grow the Australian space eco-system’. Shaol noted that government can stimulate and foster the growth of new space industries with a vision of Australia as a resilient Space 2.0 age society, articulating its inclusiveness and benefits to all Australians.
2.46
In promoting the need for a national space vision, SmartSat CRC identified the following key elements:
a vision supported by a nationally conceived space architecture addressing national security, economic prosperity and social benefit
a collective commitment by government and key stakeholders to stay the course in implementing the vision over the decade to come
coordination through the leadership of the ASA
an increase in the tempo of decision making and actioning
a willing R&D ecosystem that is collaborative and agile and focussed on high impact needs.
2.47
As a starting point, SmartSat CRC offered the following vision statement for wider public consideration: Australia is the recognised leader in space systems and services in our part of the hemisphere by 2030.
2.48
In his evidence to the Committee, Mr Enrico Palermo, Head of Agency, ASA, told the Committee that the ASA roadmaps currently under development will address many of the issues raised by stakeholders regarding a national vision, space missions, and investment priorities. Mr Palmero also shared his thoughts on the ASA becoming a statutory authority. He told the Committee:
…in the coming months we will be publishing the remainder of our road maps. That's going to be very key to addressing a lot of the things that we've discussed today: What is the infrastructure we need? What are the market opportunities? What are the missions we want in the future? Our CTO and wider team across government is working on those road maps, which are really going to set the vision and aspirational targets and also guide government on where best to invest. We've touched on the statutory authority piece. I think that's something the nation wants and it should be considered as part of this review.
Government contracts and procuring locally
2.49
Governments are still the major clients for most space activity. This is no different in Australia, with the Australian Government being one of the largest purchasers of space data and services in the country. However, a large percentage of Australian Government purchases are made to companies overseas. This may be due, in part, to a perceived lack of capability within the Australian space sector.
2.50
Restructuring the way funding is provided to industry was raised as a way to build this domestic capacity as well as confidence and certainty within the sector. Stakeholders consistently advocated for a shift from grant based funding to industry contracts. For example, the Queensland Government stated:
Federal space grants and funding programs, such as Moon to Mars and Payload Qualification, are capability agnostic in that they do not guide industry towards known sovereign capability requirements or market gaps. Instead, when applying for funding programs, an applicant’s challenge is to build a case about why their capability or project should be funded. While this potentially might identify previously unknown capabilities it may not optimise the resources allocated to developing Australia’s sovereign space industry.
2.51
Southern Launch Australia stated that providing contracts to Australian companies is more beneficial than other forms of funding such as grants, as it delivers guaranteed work. This creates more certainty for small start-ups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) looking to grow their business. For government, contracts help to build a resilient supply chain, create jobs, and allows for the collection and distribution of more accurate, custom data for the Australian context. In their joint submission, Gilmour Space and Equatorial Launch Australia joined Southern Launch Australia to recommend that future government investment in the space sector be provided in the form of contracts that preference Australian owned and operated industry content.
2.52
The current grants based funding was described as problematic for industry. Dr Matthew Tetlow, Chief Executive Officer, Inovor Technologies, told the Committee:
…we've got to have a look at how some of the programs are structured, where you have this co-investment or you have these grant-type mechanisms that don't allow profit—and, in fact, oblige the company to make a loss—to try to find the in-kind support.
… what we need is industry to grow up and deliver contracts to say, 'We'll deliver this capability,' and learn to do that. If we just continue with these grants which don't necessarily have a concrete outcome and they are partially funded then industry is going to really struggle to make ends meet or basically justify going after them.
2.53
Furthermore, the Committee heard there is a risk the Australian Government is acting as a welfare provider to the space industry by providing one-off non-recurring grants. This is because a grant-based approach does not prepare industry to be commercially competitive.
2.54
Sitael Australia made a similar point. It advocated for the ASA to be restructured to acquire and deliver national capability and projects, moving away from a grant focussed ‘industry supporting’ agency. It argued that requiring industry co-funding on ASA activities not only presents ‘a significant competitive disadvantage’, but is ultimately unsustainable, particularly in non-commercial activities. Sitael Australia suggested that grants should only be limited to small innovation and development projects.
2.55
Stakeholders advocated for Australian governments to preference procurement of Australian space products and services. This is fundamental to the Australian space industry establishing credibility. This occurs by providing industry the opportunity to develop space capabilities which can then be sold nationally and internationally. As explained by APAC:
Australian space companies will have diminished credibility on the international stage if they cannot sell their products and services to their own government. Conversely, the purchase of Australian space products by the Australian Government gives a strong endorsement to the Australian companies and enhances their credibility internationally as a supplier of space products and services.
2.56
Evidence to the Committee suggests there is a tendency for government to look overseas for its space needs either because it is perceived that local industry does not have the capability, or the procurer does not have the time or appetite to take on the perceived risk of an untested Australian space company. Furthermore, there is no requirement in government procurement contracts for Australian content to be used. This can result in missed opportunities for the Australian space sector.
2.57
Mr William Barrett, Senior Vice President, APAC stressed the significance of engaging Australian space companies and encouraged the Australian Government to be less risk adverse. Specifically Mr Barrett said:
Rather than saying, ‘we're only going to buy someone who's actually put this up there and has this experience' et cetera, we ought to be able to find a way to open the envelope a little bit so that you can take a slightly higher risk profile. That may mean the project might take a little bit longer. But, since we've waited 20-odd years for this, maybe that's not such a risk, in order to give a chance to Australian companies to participate in these things and earn their spurs. Once they've earned their reputation—done a good job in a project like that—the world is their oyster. They actually have the ability to point to that, say: 'We have done this for the Australian government. This is a successful program. We can deliver for what you are looking for, NASA or ESA or JAXA.' So that is one of the ways that the Australian government could do this.
2.58
Mr Barnett referred specifically to the procurement of SBAS - a space based augmentation system for GPS signals - by the Commonwealth Department of Defence which has ‘no requirement for Australian participation’. He emphasized that Australia ‘[needs] to build some slack in there so that perhaps we accept a little bit of a broader risk profile’.
2.59
Mr Troy McCann, Chief Executive Officer, Moonshot emphasized the same point when highlighting the purchase of a satellite by the Office of National Intelligence from American company, Spire, without giving the Australian space industry an opportunity to do it. He told the Committee:
I 100 per cent believe that in Australia we had the capability to put something like that together. There are no companies at the moment, to my knowledge, that are selling that specific thing, which, as I understand it, was the reason why no Australian companies were selected. I think the line that I heard was that Spire could produce one of these satellites within 48 hours, so that's why it was decided that they'd go for them, which was a little bit unfortunate, because we have the capability here. We can form those supply chains. If we had given ourselves an opportunity to try it, we could have done that here and we could have built up a few more businesses that can start selling those capabilities internationally ourselves, because we know that governments around the world all want that. So I feel like we missed a great opportunity here.
2.60
Mr McCann described this as another example of a government department that is ‘very risk averse’ prioritising the product over the policy to build the domestic space industry.
2.61
Stakeholders suggested that more needs to be done to ensure that at least some Australian content is mandated for government procurement, particularly when this is a policy of international competitors. Dr Matthew Tetlow told the Committee:
Most other countries have specific policies to ensure that space technology and know-how is locally owned and controlled, as they understand the commercial value of the space industry to their economies, not to mention the issue of sovereign priority access to technology when they need it. Australia, by comparison, does not mandate this federally or at the state level to support the Australian commercial space sector. Australian space tenders are usually open to all international companies and sometimes don't even consider Australian industry content as part of the evaluation criteria.
2.62
Strengthening procurement policies to consider Australian space content over potential cost savings from outsourced or imported capability was identified as a needed change. For example, Vocus, an Australian-owned specialist fibre and network solutions provider, stated:
the Australian Government is likely to face decision points where it will be faster and more affordable to procure infrastructure and services developed overseas. While such an approach may deliver short-term results, policy settings and procurement frameworks should be tuned to develop long-term local capacity which builds Australian industry expertise and will position Australia to be an exporter of space and satellite products – as well as serving the local market.
2.63
In addressing the policy and funding arrangements Australia will require for the long term growth of the space sector, Mr Enrico Palmero, Head of Agency, ASA told the Committee, that he takes an ‘integrated view’. Specifically, Mr Palmero said:
I think it's widely understood across government and in the sector, as you've received through feedback, that the grants alone won't be enough to grow the sector to its full potential. That said, grants have their place—low technology readiness level development or perhaps investing in some key infrastructure. It's horses for courses with different mechanisms for investment. It's not always investment; it may be policy, regulation or other financial stimulus that all need to come together into an integrated suite of investments. We've seen other jurisdictions having procurement programs as a stimulator for the sector; we've seen that in the US, with various things in its program. As we look to the future, I think there's definitely consideration to be given to how we can signal government as a potential customer for programs.
2.64
Noting the challenges faced by industry to engage with government, the SLCANZ made a series of recommendations aimed at supporting the Australian space industry navigate government markets for space products and technologies, particularly government procurement processes. It suggested:
reviewing the Commonwealth Procurement Rules (CPR) with a focus on the impact on Australian space industries
resourcing Business Advisers with specific space industry expertise to assist government customers (for example similar to the Centre for Defence Industry Capability Business Advisor roles)
supporting new space industry participants with navigating the CPRs when they are participating in government procurements for space goods and services
working with industry and lawyers to draft a suite of appropriate contracts based on common types of space goods and services that government departments are procuring.
2.65
Providing guidance to industry for dealing with government and procurement processes was also raised by other stakeholders.
Alignment of civil and defence programs
2.66
Australian civil and defence space matters are managed by separate Commonwealth entities. While the ASA coordinates civil space matters, the Department of Defence is responsible for Australia’s national security and defence in space. Both agencies work together where civil and space activities interact.
2.67
Over the next decade, the Australian Government will invest around $7 billion in defence space capabilities under its 2020 Force Structure Plan. This plan aims to improve the resilience and self-reliance of Defence’s space capabilities, and enhance a large number of space-dependent capabilities, including communications satellites and ground control stations.
2.68
A common theme in the inquiry was that Australian defence and civil space priorities and programs should be better aligned and coordinated. This is because space and defence are closely related and interdependent. As explained by Electro Optic Systems (EOS):
A lot of defence functions depend on space technology to operate, while space technology often develops as a result of defence investment and expertise. The same applies to space and defence industries, which often share skills, facilities and technology. Understanding and leveraging this interrelationship at both the capability and industry level will be crucial for expanding Australia’s space sector.
2.69
By recognising the existing civil-defence space relationship and supporting its growth, EOS argues that technology and expertise will flow between the two sectors, and production and adoption of new systems and intellectual property (IP) will accelerate and be mutually beneficial. Furthermore, given Defence’s access to considerable funding for R&D and capability development, and the civil industry’s wealth of academic research and private entrepreneurship, both sides have a great deal to gain.
2.70
Symbios Communications noted that ‘smart national space programs optimise leverage between civil and defence program spending’. In its submission it stated that:
In particular for small national space budgets, complementarity between civil and national defence spending needs to be maximised. There is no room for protectionism by the military and there should be maximum overlap where practical with civil programmes. This is especially apparent in the Earth observation domain, where there can be a high degree of overlap between the requirements of both communities. If well executed and well constructed, shared capital expenditure and operations can provide efficiencies and strengthen national capacity.
2.71
Space technology is often described as ‘dual use’; that is, it can support both industries. The CSIRO explained:
a significant proportion of the space industry, particularly those parts relating to Earth observation, communications, position, navigation and timing, space domain awareness, and space launch, can equally service civilian and Defence markets. With Defence as the primary Australian customer for space capability, Australia’s space capability and industry growth goals should be complementary to Defence space capability needs, particularly with regard to areas in which it would be desirable to develop sovereign capability.
2.72
Northrop Grumman made the same point. It submitted that the industry does not reflect a clear distinction between military and civil capabilities since many technologies are dual use. It called for an increased level of coordination and oversight to help focus industry investments and ensure a coherent national strategy that achieves civil and military objectives. For example, it noted that while the ASA has identified six National Civil Space Priorities, there are many military space pursuits that would align with these priorities. A national governance framework would give foreign and domestic industry the investment certainty to skill their workforce appropriately and strive towards commercialising their products to an economically viable level.
2.73
Boeing Australia also stressed the need for a consolidated set of space priorities to help target space investments. It asserted:
By aligning Australia's cross-domain space requirements, industry can better understand and target future space investments in Australia, and this is especially critical given ongoing work to support the men and women of the Australian Defence Force with satellite communications and other space based capabilities. These are critical, not just for our ADF mission success but also for our allies, particularly in the Five Eyes community.
2.74
The Committee heard that while Australia’s defence budget ‘will do more than any other initiative to assist the Australian space industry in reaching a sustainable scale and capability level’ there is a risk that these opportunities will be missed or at the very least, not fully realised. Greater coordination of defence and civil space industry policy and investment is therefore needed to minimise these risks. The SIAA stated:
Whilst the Space Agency liaises extensively with defence, there is currently no formal mechanism to resolve differing space priorities between Australia's defence space program and civilian space activities.
…a significant risk to Australia's 2030 space goals is that the cadence of defence acquisition decisions may not be optimally aligned to the evolution of Australian space industry.
2.75
While acknowledging that some operational requirements offer little flexibility to coordinate national security space programs with domestic industry capabilities and timelines, the SIAA argued for high level government oversight of space industry development to ensure that defence and civilian space industry investment and development are coordinated and mutually reinforcing. The SIAA recommended:
a National Space Strategy to better coordinate whole of government efforts and priorities for space
appointment of a National Space Adviser within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, with responsibility for strategic space issues and international liaison on national security space matters
development and publication of unclassified space policy and doctrinal documents that provide a more comprehensive insight into the operational drivers of major space acquisitions.
2.76
Sitael Australia also suggested that consideration be given to how civilian and defence space activities could be coordinated at a ministerial level, to maximise national outcomes while EOS recommended that the ASA be empowered to help shape Defence programs to better consider civil space priorities, particularly the capabilities, potential and interests of civil space companies.
DEF 799
2.77
Professor Stuart Phinn, Director, Earth Observation Australia used the example of DEF 799, a geospatial defence intelligence project to highlight the benefit of national coordination. He told the Committee:
the coordination across civil and defence, and that high-level in camera meeting you were talking about would help tremendously. Particularly in the earth observation space, you have DEF 799, which is a geospatial intelligence project, which is sort of sitting out separate to what we're doing in the civil space. Those two really would benefit from being brought together...
2.78
Other submitters also noted the potential of DEF 799 to the civilian industry. For example the South Australian Government recommended support for industry to design, build, launch and deliver a constellation of sovereign satellites for Australian needs, including Defence projects such as DEF 799. Mr Martin Rowse, Key Account Manager, Space, Airbus told the Committee that DEF 799 ‘should be a sovereign capability for Australia’ noting that it has smallsat, launch and payload capability to support the project.
2.79
The ASA provided further information about DEF 799 stating that Defence will continue to engage with stakeholders to understand how this capability could be supported by Australian industry.
2.80
In response to calls throughout the inquiry for a national space strategy and better alignment of civil and defence priorities and programs, Mr Enrico Palermo told the Committee that a refresh of the Civil Space Strategy, which was published in April 2019, presents a good opportunity to address these issues.
National coordination
2.81
The Australian space industry spans across federal and state governments, with a presence in each state and territory. The Committee received submissions from each jurisdiction highlighting the breadth of space related capability, technology, and infrastructure across the country.
2.82
In addition to coordinating civil and defence space priorities, the Committee heard there is a need to coordinate overlapping and sometimes competing state and territory policies and initiatives. Furthermore, the success and continued growth of the Australian space industry will require a nationally collaborative approach which draws on the particular strengths of Australia’s states and territories.
2.83
The NSW Government called for greater collaboration within and between states. In particular, it suggested that the strengths and capabilities of each jurisdiction be mapped so that national initiatives can be strategically designed and implemented in appropriate locations. While acknowledging that competition is important for ensuring that capabilities are robust and effective, the NSW Government stressed that collaboration be prioritised given the relatively small size of the Australian space industry.
2.84
Mr Blake Nikolic, Chief Executive Officer, Black Sky Aerospace also emphasized the need to prioritise the strengths of state and territories and work together. He told the Committee that a lack of states and territory cooperation is one of the challenges experienced by his company:
Many seem to have forgotten that, first and foremost, we—Australia—are a country that can unite as one. Instead we have a state-versus-state rivalry which detracts from the objectives and, frankly, is often embarrassing in the international arena. Of course there'll be crossovers; however, states should cooperate to each prioritise their strengths—for example, Queensland in manufacturing, the Northern Territory with opportunities for equatorial launches and South Australia with satellite and sensor development. The list is extensive.
2.85
ANU InSpace expressed the same view calling for space initiatives, funding and goals to remain national for ‘maximum future benefits and economic growth’:
Our greatest concern about the Australian space industry today is the potential fracturing of the national industry into state sub-industries. The creation of these smaller, competing, state-led space efforts stops us from maximising national growth, harnessing areas of regional strength for the wider good and taking a holistic view of jobs and growth. We need to preserve national strength to compete on a global scale.
2.86
Southern Launch recommended the ASA explore options to integrate with existing state and Commonwealth authorities who regulate other aspects of space activity, for example, import and export controls, emergency management, and environmental approvals. It sees potential for the ASA to be a ‘one-stop shop’ for all regulatory matters, increasing efficiencies and coordination on Australian space activity.
Commonwealth bodies and forums
2.87
With renewed focus on the domestic space industry, and the critical role of space to our lives, stakeholders identified mechanisms to better coordinate national efforts and improve access to industry expertise. This included giving space a more visible presence across government and the Parliament.
2.88
Boeing Australia advocated for co-ordination of Australia’s defence, commercial and civil space strategies as a key priority. It stated that multiple activities are currently occurring in many areas of government and the private sector and by aligning Australia’s cross-domain space requirements, industry will be able to better understand and target future investments in Australia, as well as risks to its broader security.
2.89
Dr Brendan Nelson, President, Boeing Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific, told the Committee:
There needs to be an overall coordination of our entire space effort not just for the development and manufacture of sovereign domestic space related technologies and capabilities, but also to ensure that everybody in every part of the sector is aware of the potential risks to our economic, social and other forms of security. From our point of view, at the moment there is a lot of money in defence, there's money in different parts of government supported programs and there are different areas of responsibility for space held in different portfolios. For us, what ideally should happen is there should be a single, overarching process which brings together the defence, commercial and institutional elements of space.
2.90
To facilitate this strategic direction and coordination, Boeing Australia recommended the establishment of a Ministerial Council – comprising key federal and state ministers, industry players, researchers and stakeholders – to oversee the further development of the space industry, and bring together the disparate elements of the industry and government agencies supporting it.
2.91
In setting out a framework for the operation of the Ministerial Council, Boeing Australia identified the following features:
the Council would meet three times a year and be chaired by the Ministers for Defence Industry, Industry Science and Technology, Education, Transport and Regional Development, Employment and Workforce Skills.
the Council would be supported and coordinated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Chief Scientist, and could include representatives from the ASA, the Department of Defence, peak engineering, science and technology organisations in the field of space, the CSIRO, a cross section of industry, universities and vocational education providers, state and territory governments and eminent persons in the field of space research, innovation and manufacturing, and regional Australia.
Members of the Council would be required to canvas widely within their sector for issues to be considered and views to be placed before the Ministerial Council.
the Council would establish working groups to address key challenges and issues for each meeting at which presentations would be made for consideration by Ministers.
meetings could be held in Canberra but also elsewhere, providing opportunities to stimulate further public interest in Australia’s Space Program. It would also expose Council members directly to infrastructure and activities related to Council’s work.
Council meetings could be preceded or followed by a dinner addressed by a speaker on a topic relevant to the work program.
2.92
The concept of a whole-of-government Ministerial meeting to oversee the development of the space industry was supported by other stakeholders.
2.93
Other suggestions included those put forward by the SIAA, Southern Launch and Mr Scott Schneider. The SIAA suggested establishing a Joint Standing Committee on Space as part of the Parliamentary committee system, and a specific space researcher position within the Australian Parliamentary Library to assist the work of Members and Senators.
2.94
Southern Launch recommended that a taskforce or inquiry be established to examine the ‘practical uses, and opportunities to use, emerging space technologies in the Australian context’. It advocated for any findings to be made public to inform industry decision making.
2.95
Mr Scott Schneider suggested the Government consider input from industry and stakeholders in a more comprehensive manner, in particular by improving engagement between industry and the Space Industry Leaders Forum (the forum) and undertaking a review of the effectiveness of the forum as a mechanism for reaching the 2030 space targets.
Expert advisers
2.96
Some stakeholders advocated for specific expert advisers to assist government in its procurement of space products and services, and to inform the development and implementation of national missions. This was described as trusted ‘above-the-line expert advice’; similar in style to rural research and development corporations (RDCs), and the USA’s federally funded research and development centres (FFRDCs) and university affiliated research centers (UARCs) such as Aerospace Corporation.
2.97
Professor Russell Boyce recommended that the Australian Government establish a separate independent body to provide expert technical advice to inform space procurement, space investment and space missions. He described this entity as an extension of the ASA and Defence:
The Australian Space Agency was not established to be a technical agency like, for example, NASA. It was established to be a coordinating agency to ensure that space industry grows in the country, to set strategy and policy. Therefore, unless government chooses to expand the remit of the Australian Space Agency, there will be a small amount of space hard-core expertise within the agency that can assist, but not to the extent that is needed for what I'm talking about. But, even if you look at NASA, they rely on entities like Aerospace Corporation, as does the US Air Force, as do other agencies in the US.
2.98
Professor Boyce suggested that UNSW Canberra Space could be the basis for such an entity; bringing together key national capability and the provision of ‘trusted advice to government, built on deep space engineering and operations expertise’.
Committee comment
2.99
The Australian space industry is enjoying a renewed focus across government and commercial sectors. The benefits to be gained from a globally competitive domestic space industry will have far reaching benefits across all sectors of the economy, greatly improving the way we live and interact with each other. The enthusiasm and commitment of stakeholders to drive these outcomes was evident to the Committee.
2.100
The overwhelming message from the Australian space industry is the need for more national leadership and direction. While the sector has been invigorated by the establishment of the ASA and its achievements, it wants to know what Australia wants to achieve in space. In other words, for the Australian Government to clearly articulate how Australia wants to cement itself and be recognised as a space nation. This will provide confidence and certainly for stakeholders to make informed decisions about investment, capability development, research and development, as well as the education, training and expertise required to support the industry into the future.
2.101
The Committee notes the evidence provided by the ASA regarding the release of its upcoming roadmaps and updated Civil Space Strategy. The Committee supports this work and agrees it will work with the Agency to develop a national direction, including the opportunity to identify national space missions and better align civil and defence priorities and programs.
2.102
Given the renewed interest in Australia’s space industry, the rapidly growing global market, and the enormous potential the space industry offers to grow the economy, create jobs and fundamentally improve Australian lives, the Committee supports efforts to strengthen its visibility and prominence across the Australian Government and the Parliament. In particular, it considers the establishment of a Ministerial Council with stakeholders across government and the states and territories as an important means to further develop the industry and improve coordination across and between governments.
2.103
The Committee also considers the upcoming operational review of the ASA a timely opportunity to take stock of the ASA’s achievements, the progress and issues raised by the domestic space industry, and the broader changes occurring across the global space sector. It recommends that this review give important consideration to the status of the agency, its future funding and operational requirements needed to support and potentially exceed the stated 2030 goals of government.
2.104
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government in consultation with industry seek to define:
an overaching vision for the Australian space industry
a set of long term national space priorities to guide and galvanise the Australian space industry
with the aim of inspiring the Australian public, providing investment confidence, developing Australian space capabilities, and positioning Australia as a globally competitive player.
2.105
The Committee recommends that these national missions be informed by the seven civil space priority roadmaps under development.
2.106
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review the way it delivers funding to the Australian space industry with a focus on the development of space capability and capacity. This includes:
broadening the funding streams to include contracts for specific space capability
the necessity for industry co-funding where private entities are likely to be commercially disadvantaged.
2.107
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government examine ways to better coordinate and align civil and defence space priorities and investment.
2.108
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with industry to identify current and future opportunities for the civil space sector to support Australian defence space requirements, including on projects such as DEF 799.
2.109
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a whole of government Ministerial Council on Space that comprises representatives from Commonwealth and State and Territory governments, stakeholders and industry groups to oversee the further development and coordination of the Australian space industry as a whole.
2.110
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review or strengthen procurement policies and guidelines to ensure that Australian owned and operated space industry content is used where reasonably possible.
2.111
As part of these procurement guidelines Australian Government departments and agencies be required to set out the rationale for procurement of any space products and services obtained from overseas, including why such a capability could not be sourced domestically.
2.112
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government identify suitable points of contact within the Australian Space Agency or the broader Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources to assist industry navigate government procurement processes.
2.113
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government examine the feasibility of establishing an expert technical advisor, similar to the model adopted in the United States, to support government with procurement of space based products and services, and the development of national missions.
2.114
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government examine options to increase the visibility of space across the Government and Parliament to emphasize its importance and communicate its relevance to Australians. This could include but not be limited to:
incorporating space as a specific focus of a joint or house parliamentary committee, including in the name of the committee
ensuring that a research position within the Parliamentary Library covers space related issues to ensure that adequate research support is available to Members and Senators
ensuring that adequate positions across the Australian public service can cover the breath of space related issues and matters as they relate to particular departments and agencies.
2.115
The Committee recommends that, as part of the Australian Space Agency’s post operational review, the following matters be given careful consideration:
establishing the Australian Space Agency as a statutory authority
separating its industry engagement and regulatory functions
future workforce requirements, including engaging more staff with industry experience and technical expertise as required
budget and resourcing to ensure that it is adequately positioned to meet its stated goals and objectives.