4.1
Rocket launches are synonymous with space. Their imagery, wonder and excitement shape popular perception about the space industry. Australia launched its first satellite into space in 1967 from Woomera, South Australia. In 2020, South Australia was home to Australia’s first commercial launch of space-capable rockets by Southern Launch at the Koonibba Test Range.
4.2
In Australia, it is estimated that launch service providers could contribute up to $2 billion of direct, indirect and induced value in the coming decade and beyond. Growth in this part of the sector is considered likely to contribute to between 10 – 20 per cent of the Australian Government’s goal to create 20,000 new jobs by 2030.
Australian launch sector
4.3
Stakeholders to the inquiry advocated for Australia to develop its own launch capability. Australian ‘launch leaders’, Equatorial Launch Australia, Gilmour Space Technologies and Southern Launch set out the benefits of a domestic launch industry:
Ultimately, the launch industry attracts and enables investment in, and development of, satellite manufacture, satellite mission control and other space related downstream industries. This is due to modern satellite companies wanting to reduce their supply chain lengths and position their manufacturing hubs as close to the launch infrastructure as practical, to reduce overall logistics costs and transportation timelines.
Box 4.1
Located in East Arnhem Land, Equatorial Launch Australia is developing a commercial spaceport. The development of the spaceport has shown close working relationships with the rural community and traditional owners. It has also brought about direct jobs in land clearing, safety and recovery. The development has brought in 60,000 year old stories and landcare practices which have been melded with practices from NASA and other world leaders in the space community, to see that Australia has real and diverse space jobs.
Carly Scott, Chief Executive Officer, Equatorial Launch Australia, states that “with this example, we’ve got direct employment already, from land clearing to landcare, and ongoing space capability at the Equatorial Launch site in a remote community where there has been significant change and transition as an industry seeking opportunities for Australia.”
4.4
Research cited by the launch leaders noted that an Australian launch industry could service as many as 2,500 satellites in the next five years providing a unique opportunity for Australia to attract foreign investment and create new jobs.
4.5
Boeing Australia emphasized the dual application of an Australian sovereign launch sector, noting its potential to create an enduring national space capability with defence and commercial applications, and provide tangible business opportunities for Australia to be used as a launch location of choice for the region.
4.6
Mr Lloyd Damp, Chief Executive Officer, Southern Launch made a similar point regarding civil and defence industries:
Space technologies are also critical for national security, and a sustainable, industry-led sovereign launch capability for Australia will provide necessary support to the Australian Defence Force. In developing our sovereign capability, we harness Australian grown technologies, we create jobs and we support our service men and women on the front line.
Box 4.2
The Koonibba Test Range (KTR) in the District Council of Ceduna, South Australia, is managed by Southern Launch Space Pty Ltd (Southern Launch). As Australia’s only rocket launch facility licensed by the Australian Space Agency, the KTR was developed by Southern Launch, with strong support and involvement from the Koonibba Community Aboriginal Corporation. The KTR is the Southern Hemisphere’s largest overland suborbital rocket testing facility.
By August 2020, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority approved Southern Launch’s maiden launch from the Koonibba Test Range. Leading up to the launch in September 2020, adults and children in Koonibba actively participated in organisation efforts. Southern Launch organised a Road Traffic Management course for Koonibba community members and hired 19 individuals to staff roadblocks during launch week. The Koonibba school children proudly decorated the town with rocket themed motives, built 3D rocket models and announced their interest in studying STEM subjects.
The broader community has identified that there are now a large cohort of individuals in the Aboriginal community who can perform these other economic activities. The community is now outsourcing these staff to gain additional income for individuals. Corey McLennan, Chief Executive Officer, Koonibba Community Aboriginal Corporation stated, ‘our entire Aboriginal community is very proud to be directly involved in the development of the Konnibba Test Range and [the Koonibba Community Aboriginal Corporation] look[s] forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship with Southern Launch.’
4.7
Australia has a number of inherent advantages for space launch capability including its geography, environment and political stability, as well as potential interest from strategic partners. Southern Launch listed the advantages of its facilities in a global market:
located in environments with suitable weather for launch to take place all year
ease of access for equipment and personnel
potential to rapidly launch space objects into relevant high-inclination orbits (e.g. polar and sun synchronous) using multi-user launch facility infrastructure
limited interference with aviation and shipping routes and an absence of infrastructure, residences, or human activity downrange of flight paths; increasing launch safety, launch window availability and launch window flexibility
Australia is a politically stable nation with supportive export control measures.
4.8
Dr Carly Scott, Chief Executive Officer, Equatorial Launch also highlighted Australia’s geography and proximity to the equator as a ‘huge advantage’ in the global space market. Dr Scott explained to the Committee:
…there are about 22 orbital launch sites around the world, but not all of those are accessible or able to do the launches that the market requires. Australia's unique geography and the fact that we have wide-open launch windows, and very-wide-open spaces with a very low risk profile, means we're a primary spot for launch both down south and up at the equator, where we're uniquely positioned globally to do GEO launches.
These are launches that, in terms of market dollars, are the most dominant in the space market. Doing those close to the equator positions Australia uniquely to absorb a significant chunk of the international market in addition to the southern launches that we're doing. We're also able to cover using one tenth of the satellite.
4.9
The ability to service both geostationary (equatorial) and high inclination (sun synchronous, polar orbits) satellite markets is a particular strength for Australia. It builds on the opportunity to be a primary launch location for Asia and a preferred provider for launch activities globally.
Challenges
4.10
Despite the benefits of developing a domestic launch industry, stakeholders identified current challenges inhibiting the sector’s growth. These primarily relate to investment and infrastructure, and the current regulatory framework and administration.
4.11
The SIAA attributed the current lack of space launch capability in Australia to ‘government ambivalence’. It stated:
government ambivalence on the requirement and appropriate technologies for an Australian domestic space-launch capability has potential impacts on wider industry development and second-order commercial opportunities. Australia should either commit to developing a domestic launch capability, as the United Kingdom has, or accept the strategic and commercial risk of being dependant on foreign launch partners.
4.12
Mr Lloyd Damp called for national leadership on this issue noting that industry alone cannot position Australia as a global leader. Mr Damp stated:
…it is vital that policy and regulation on the national level aligns with the same vision. Matters such as strategic direction, funding priorities and regulatory frameworks are the factors which can make or break Australia's opportunity.
Infrastructure and investment
4.13
Launch is a driver of upstream technology development and an enabler of downstream use of space services. Stakeholders told the Committee that national coordination of this essential infrastructure is required.
4.14
Domestic launch capability is needed to build a domestic satellite industry. Otherwise, Australia needs to take its products to be launched from other countries. Mr Richard Price, Chief Executive Officer, South Australian Space Industry Centre, told the Committee:
…if we don't have a solid launch base, we're not going to have any business case that makes sense to manufacture satellites in volume. Why would anybody manufacture satellites thousands of kilometres away from their launch site? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So, if we want to unlock a manufacturing base here for satellites, we naturally need to launch them here, if we want to do it in volume. That connection is critical.
4.15
Mr Price said that investment in infrastructure should be concentrated on select launch facilities given that ‘fragmentation will be unsustainable’.
4.16
The Queensland Government called for a more coordinated approach to developing the nation’s launch industry, including the development of a national launch strategy. It stated that the broader economic value of launch rests in the potential for Australia to develop a world class launch supply chain. This could enhance the development of advanced manufacturing and produce spill over effects into other Australian industries such a mining and agriculture.
4.17
The absence of a dedicated launch strategy may give rise to capability gaps and market loss. The Queensland Government identified the following risks:
upstream technology value chains becoming fragmented
the relocation overseas of Australian launch and satellite development and manufacturing
even if manufacturing stays onshore, satellites and rockets are deployed overseas.
4.18
Capability loss may also impact Australia’s upstream supply chains and the ability to build sovereign capability.
4.19
Nova Systems, a Technical Advisor for Space Launch for the ASA, and a Suitably Qualified Expert raised the lack of launch infrastructure as an issue, and suggested consideration be given to government ‘taking a stake to aid in the development of strategically important infrastructure, which could be coordinated at a national level’.
4.20
Similarly, the University of Southern Queensland noted that in order to build in launch and payload development, the Australian space industry needs appropriate infrastructure for large scale propellant manufacture and rocket static testing that is available to the whole industry and embeds research capabilities.
4.21
Boeing Australia stated that the challenge for sovereign launch in Australia is the investment in launch infrastructure. It argued that:
Taken on a program-by-program view, this investment will likely prove cost-prohibitive and of limited competitiveness in a market already well served by the established players. However, when viewed across the portfolio of programs and interests in both the defence and commercial sectors, and combined with other intangible benefits, the business case for a sovereign launch capability may well prove compelling.
4.22
Issues related to the national coordination of infrastructure more generally across the Australian space industry were discussed in the previous chapter.
Regulatory framework
4.23
The regulatory framework for launch in Australia is governed by the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018. Examples of regulated activities under the Act include:
launching a space object from Australia
returning a space object to Australia
launching a space object overseas (for Australian nationals with an ownership interest)
returning a space object overseas (for Australian nationals with an ownership interest)
operating a launch facility in Australia.
4.24
Australian laws regulating the space industry are primarily derived from international treaties governing the conduct of governments and private entities in outer space. Australian government agencies participate in a range of international organisations and forums that facilitate Australian space capability or provide other benefits to Australia. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.
4.25
In addition, there are non-treaty export control regimes in place to prevent the proliferation of sensitive technology or materiel with military applications. Australian space capability depends upon access to technology that may be owned by foreign companies or in some way regulated by foreign governments.
Box 4.3
The objects of the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 are:
(a) to establish a system for the regulation of space activities carried on either from Australia or by Australian nationals outside Australia; and
(aa) to establish a system for the regulation of the launch of high power rockets in Australia; and
(b) to ensure that a reasonable balance is achieved between:
the removal of barriers to participation in space activities and the encouragement of innovation and entrepreneurship in the space industry; and
the safety of space activities, and the risk of damage to persons or property as a result of space activities, regulated by this Act; and
(c) to implement certain of Australia’s obligations under the UN Space Treaties.
4.26
The ASA outlined the background to the current regulations noting that it was updated in 2018 and 2019 to ensure it ‘supports the growth of the space industry by removing unnecessary barriers to participation and encouraging entrepreneurship, as well as ensuring the safety of the activities and making sure our international obligations are met’.
4.27
Stakeholders to the inquiry expressed their frustration with the current regulatory arrangements, particularly relating to launches. For example, the SLCANZ submitted that the recent reforms to the Space Activities Act 1998 fell short of the ‘wholesale change the industry was seeking’. It argued that the Australian Government should adopt a ‘new, ambitious approach to regulating the space industry’ to ensure that future operations are accommodated and the Australian legal framework is harmonised as much as possible with ‘mature and upcoming markets’ , including the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
4.28
The Adelaide Law School made a similar point, and advocated for ‘a purpose built and future looking legal regime’. It stated:
Despite the 2018 amendments…there appears to have been a substantial lack of appetite for the creation of legal regimes with a future looking space focus. The 2018 amendments to the Space Activities Act 1998 were narrow and focused on selected issues, primarily the reduction in insurance obligations for operators, changes to titles, and minor variations responding to specific concerns during the review process.
The Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 (Cth) regime only regulates the operation of launching facilities, launch (in Australia and overseas) and returns of space objects. At present, this legislative framework fails to capture the full life of a space operation, especially the 'operational' phase of a space asset.
4.29
The Adelaide Law School further noted that the recent ‘substantial reform processes undertaken by other western economics have left the Australian legal framework wanting’. In evidence to the Committee, Professor Melissa De Zwart, Dean of Law, University of Adelaide said:
…the regulation as it is currently drafted is too complex. …it is vastly expensive to comply with the requirements, such as the need for expert assessment. There are delays in getting launch licences, delays with the review process and loss of contracts offshore.
4.30
Southern Launch recommended that the Australian Government commission a review of the Space (Launches and Returns) (General) Rules 2019 in consultation with industry and stakeholders. It stated:
Unfortunately… the Rules do not streamline the approvals process in any measurable manner since the prior 1998 Act. Neither have the Rules helped make Australia a more cost competitive launching state in the global launch market. … Sadly, minimal consideration was given to the comments, issues and concerns raised by industry, academia and associations during consultation on the draft delegate legislation prior to its adoption were implemented in the delegate legislation.
4.31
Southern Launch recommended that the submissions and issues previously raised by industry be revisited.
4.32
The SIAA commented on the ‘regulatory overburden’ in Australia’ and supports a review of the regulatory process for launch to ensure there are no impediments to Australia developing launch activities and spaceflight heritage. It advocated for a ‘forward leaning, industry-friendly regulator willing to work actively and closely with space companies to evolve Australia's space capability’.
Approval processes
4.33
Timeliness of processes and approvals was a key issue affecting the launch sector. Southern Launch explained that without timely approvals it cannot conduct or host space launches and therefore will be unable to meet its financial commitments. Furthermore, there is a real risk that Australia will not develop a sovereign launch capability.
4.34
Mr Blake Nikolic, Chief Executive Officer, Black Sky Aerospace, noted Australia’s approvals are out of sync with other space countries. He told the Committee:
…the time frames for approvals put Australia out of touch with international standards. Whilst increased launch complexity will require more scrutiny—even the simplest of launches can take up to six months to approve. Other countries do these in a matter of weeks.
4.35
Deloitte submitted that regulatory differences between jurisdictions can also add to complexity. It noted that regulations seem to differ based on geographies, which inhibit start-ups wanting to launch outside of their country of origin. It added that the multiple definitions of what a rocket or spacecraft is, and its changing propulsion mechanisms result in complications for permit applications.
4.36
A similar point was made by Virgin Orbit when discussing partnerships between Australia and the United States:
Given that both Australia and the United States will require separate licenses and regulatory approval to support a singular launch operation from Australia, there is risk of burden and duplication of effort… Steps should be taken between Australia and the United States to minimize the differences between their regulatory requirements, standardize methodologies to demonstrate regulatory compliance, or otherwise develop a framework of mutual approval of one country’s launch license as demonstrative of regulatory compliance.
4.37
The space industry’s risk-adverse nature was identified as contributing to the time taken to process applications and licences. To address this, Nova Systems recommended a regulatory framework based on levels of risk. It proposed:
Activities with inherently low risk to public safety or the space environment undertaken with small investments need not be subjected to the same process as large commercial endeavours with higher levels of risk. If possible, tailoring of the process could apply to the level of independent assessment industry is required to obtain, the size, detail and type of documentation required and the processing timeframes.
Moreover, Government could engage early as a matter of formal application planning process with industry entities, assess and advise them on suitable limitations they should apply to their activities to ensure they remain within acceptable levels of risk, and undertake a suitably sized safety assessment process. This could be conceived as an Operating Permit Plan (Facility or Launch).
4.38
Nova systems argued that ‘right sizing’ the level of oversight to the risk of the activity would facilitate a greater number of activities, encouraging growth of the industry. It will also lead to more efficient use of Government resources as the Government increases ASA resources and those of space related institutions to provide oversight to a growing industry.
4.39
Gilmore Space Technologies also commented on the risk adverse nature of industry, describing launch as an opportunity, not a risk.
Suitably qualified expert provisions
4.40
Some stakeholders advocated for the removal of the ‘suitably qualified expert’ provisions in the Rules. Mr Adam Gilmour, Chief Executive Officer, Gilmour Space Technologies, explained to the Committee:
There's a concept called a 'suitably qualified expert' that's in the legislation. That's a person who has technical expertise to evaluate the flight safety risk of a launch. In the regulations, in Australia, that has to be an independent expert, that's probably going to be another company that will do this on a commercial basis. One of the issues with that is there are not many of these companies that are suitably qualified. The second thing is that when we look into the other countries that launch rockets, this activity is done internally by either the space agency or the civil aviation authority.
4.41
The launch leaders consider the ‘suitably qualified expert’ provision to be counterproductive and a risk to developing Australia's launch capability. This is because:
experienced international launch vehicle operators are not permitted to perform flight safety tasks on vehicles in Australia. Instead they must be undertaken by third parties. This increases the risk to safety where entities unfamiliar with the launch vehicle, its development history and technology inputs are performing risk hazard analyses.
contracting risk hazard analyses to third parties raises commercial concerns for domestic and international launch vehicle operators.
there are no equivalent requirements in other commercial launch legislation, including the United States and New Zealand.
4.42
By amending Australia’s launch application rules to be in line with comparable countries, the launch leaders submit that this will incentivise launch operators to launch from Australia and enable Australia to remain competitive in a global market.
4.43
Mr Gilmour further suggested that the ASA could be equipped to conduct these activities in the future, and remove the need and commercial cost of a third party. Similarly, Southern Launch suggested the ASA should assess the flight safety aspects of an application on ‘their merit rather than on the basis that the flight safety matters are performed by an independent party’. It further argued that should the applicant be competent to perform its own risk hazard analyses, the ASA should be resourced to assess those analyses, providing for increased safety and competitiveness within the global launch market.
4.44
Professor Melissa de Zwart also noted the ‘significant’ costs and agreed that further expertise could be developed within the ASA:
Certainly it would be preferable, more than preferable, to have that expertise in house at the Space Agency because that reduces the cost and, as you say, builds up expertise. That's why I feel that the Space Agency needs better funding, and it needs to really clarify what its role is as a regulator. Remembering that one of the objects of the act itself is to facilitate industry, that should be an object of the Space Agency, but its role as a regulator should be properly resourced with people with expertise. I think it is fair to say that, because of the particular niche areas of expertise that people in the Australian space industry have, it's almost impossible for them to find someone outside of their own start-up who has expertise that's better than what they actually have in house anyway.
4.45
King and Wood Mallesons (KWM) made a similar point about in-house expertise to assist industry. It stated:
…navigating the regulatory landscape – both in Australia and abroad – remains a barrier to entry for some participants, particularly new entrants that are early stage companies without in-house expertise or existing relationships with legal providers.
4.46
The SIAA recommended that the ASA absorb the costs of conducting risk hazard analysis for launch applications for at least two years in order to catalyse Australian access to space.
Australian Government Cost Recovery Scheme
4.47
Stakeholders raised the Australian Government Cost Recovery Scheme as a particular issue for industry. For example, Southern Launch described an intention to charge ‘approximately $189,894 per launch permit application assessment’ as being ‘uncompetitive’ and stated that the proposal should be abandoned.
4.48
In its submission, Southern Launch explained:
…investors are informing us that, notwithstanding the technical advantages… it may be less preferable to launch in Australia over the long term due to the existence of this Cost Recovery Scheme. … This Scheme is grossly disproportionate to other like-minded commercial space-faring nations.
4.49
Fellow launch leaders expressed the same view citing ’uncompetitive costs on launch vehicle operators and Australian launch facility providers’. They noted that for small launch vehicle operators, the fees are as much as three times the value of rocket development and mission costs; severely limiting Australia's ability to gain investment from the global launch market.
4.50
Furthermore, the Committee was told that the scheme is ‘grossly disproportionate’ to other like-minded space countries. Mr Lloyd Damp, told the Committee:
New Zealand charges a flat rate of $60 and America charges zero dollars. The Northern Territory government has, in its submission collated 11 countries, I believe, that do not charge a fee, or if they do, it's somewhat minor, like NZ$60. This is a very large impediment to Australia being competitive on a global scale, especially when the modern launch vehicles are far smaller, far less complex and far cheaper to operate.
4.51
Mr Scott Schneider, Southern Launch, also noted the purpose of the scheme:
..the purpose of cost recovery has been made clear. It is not to enhance the capabilities of the agency. It's to recover costs that are used in the assessment of the application, which could be staffing hours but also could be outsourcing those assessments to third parties—to contractors. That's the purpose of cost recovery under the current framework.
4.52
The Queensland Government highlighted industry concerns about the user-pays and cost recovery models being placed on the emerging space industry, particularly the launch sector. This can lead to ‘negative impacts on jobs and economic growth in a start-up industry which already faces high competition and legacy investment overseas’. The Queensland Government further argued that the user-pays regulatory model makes it more expensive to launch in Australia than comparable countries like New Zealand, and the USA even accounting for freight costs. It called for consideration to be given to reduce or remove the regulatory fees for launch until the industry is more developed.
4.53
The Australian Government recently announced that it will defer the introduction of partial cost recovery for applications submitted under the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 until 1 July 2022. This decision to defer cost recovery fees follows a review, and is designed to encourage launch activity, continued investment, and growth in the broader space sector.
4.54
Southern Launch recommended the Australian Government abolish the Cost Recovery Scheme all together. It argued that extending the moratorium ‘does not go far enough’, as it raises the possibility that the moratorium might be lifted, creating uncertainty for potential operators considering an Australian launch. Furthermore the scheme unnecessarily impedes Australia’s international competitiveness as a launch services provider because the scheme does not demonstrate how it enhances launch safety. Southern Launch concluded that fees should not be applied to the assessment of launch permit or facility applications.
Technology Safeguards Agreement
4.55
Evidence to the Committee highlighted the particular importance of concluding a Technology Safeguards Agreement (TSA) with the
United States (US). The US requires a TSA be signed with partner countries, prior to the export of specific space technologies, such as launch vehicles. It requires foreign governments to ensure that US technology is properly handled, consistent with US non-proliferation policy, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and US export control laws and regulations. It also provides for specific controls on access to, disclosure of and procedures for safeguarding US launch vehicles, spacecrafts, related equipment, technical data and other areas that contain these items during launch activity.
4.56
The SIAA discussed the TSA in its submission:
Australia has been carefully preparing the way for a Technical Safeguards Agreement with the United States for the past 18 months. This treaty would allow for the transfer of sensitive equipment between the United States and Australia, and make it easier for satellites and instrumentation to be launched in Australia.
…the lack of a TSA severely impedes the ability of Australian companies to develop partnerships with the world's largest space export market. The Missile Technology Control Regime and International Traffic in Arms Regulations can place limitations on the ability of Australian and allied personnel to work on space projects and can be a barrier to space technology development.
4.57
Virgin Orbit expressed a similar view, submitting that the absence of a TSA is a significant barrier to initiating collaborative partnerships and missions between American commercial space companies and Australian entities.
4.58
A number of countries, such as the United Kingdom, Russia, India, New Zealand and Brazil, have entered into a TSA with the US. Australia does not currently have a TSA in place, and without such Australia is locked out of the US space market, which carries a significant portion of the global space market share.
4.59
Australian based space operators are not able to access US technologies, experience, knowledge, space missions and development programs. For example, Southern Launch stated that the company had a number of potential clients based in the US who have been prepared to invest millions of dollars in Australia, but have been prevented from doing so because of the lack of a TSA.
4.60
On 1 July 2021, the Australian Government announced that it will be commencing negotiations on a TSA with the US.
Australian Space Agency status and functions
4.61
Issues about space activity regulation raised a broader issue about the role and functions of the ASA more generally. The SIAA emphasised that the ASA ‘must perform its regulatory function in a manner which is more permissive to industry growth in a safe and sustainable manner’. In particular, the SIAA raised concerns with the administration of the Act and the development of regulatory guidance and processes.
4.62
EOS submitted that critical to ASA’s success will be its staffing. It argued that the agency would ‘benefit from increasing the level of direct space industry experience in its workforce, providing it with further insights into the challenges being faced by Australian space businesses and industry perspectives on how to help resolve them’.
4.63
Some stakeholders suggested that the industry and regulatory functions of the ASA be separated, describing the current dual roles of the agency as unique. For example, the SLCANZ submitted that the current co-location of industry promotion and advocacy, and industry regulation presents the potential for conflicts of interest or direction. The University of Adelaide Law School recommended that these functions be separated:
…formally separating industry promotion and regulatory functions of the agency into separate entities… or in the alternative introduce a reporting and management structure that separates oversight of agency functions…
4.64
The Committee heard that the role of the ASA needs to be clarified. Furthermore, it must be better resourced to perform its regulatory function. Air Vice-Marshall Chris Deeble (Retired), Chief Executive, Northrop Grumman Australia stated:
If you want them to be looking across space industry and harnessing those things, that's a very different skill set for the Australian Space Agency. When you're looking at a regulatory role and comparing that to a husbanding role, they are two extremes, conceivably, in the way in which you would expect them to do business. So I think it's really important that we define exactly what we expect them to do, make sure they are skilled in delivering those outcomes, and make sure they have a clear charter to be able to undertake that work.
Regulatory guidance
4.65
Publicly available guidance was identified as an important means to assist industry navigate the regulatory process and reduce lengthy delays and costs. It can also reduce barriers to entry for SMEs, and reduce the legal costs by providing industry with support from legal specialists. The Adelaide Law School explained:
Regulator guidance plays a significant role in putting applicants under a legislative framework on notice as to the expectations of a regulator and insight into how they will exercise their discretion.
…unlike …the US, UK, NZ, Japan and other jurisdictions, there is no publicly available guidance on how the Australian Space Agency intends on assessing applications it receives for licences under the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018.
4.66
To assist in timely assessment and approval of applications under Australia’s space legislation, Southern Launch recommended the Australian Government through the ASA:
provide further clarity and detail, in publicly accessible documents and guidance material regarding the technical expectations under the Rules and the stylistic requirements of launch facility licence and Australian launch permit applications; and
establish a dedicated branch or personnel, responsible for engaging with applicants under the space legislation.
4.67
Southern Launch argued this will result in applicants satisfying the Commonwealth’s requirements under the space legislation in a timelier and more direct manner. This benefits the industry and government as less resources are required for staff to assess applications. Sufficient resourcing to prevent timely assessments and determinations of pending launch applications was also stressed.
4.68
Nova Systems made a similar point, observing that consideration should be given to the user experience of industry and ‘soft law’ guidance:
… Australia’s legislation should be supported with tools and resources which enable industry to efficiently meet their legal obligations. Consideration should be given to the “user experience” of industry, particularly in sectors which have been underdeveloped in Australia. Nova has previously suggested ‘soft-law’ guidance, online tools and support, exemplars and templates, and suggested Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) as commonly used in modern global aviation regulatory frameworks including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation(AST).
4.69
Nova Systems advocated for legal compliance to be a ‘standard to strive for rather than simply a barrier to overcome or boxes to be ticked’. Mr BJ Martin, Nova Systems told the Committee:
it would be advantageous to focus on getting regulatory certainty at the beginning of the process, having the discussions between the agency and the applicant, working through education sessions—'This is what we expect'; 'We can't do that. We've got this alternative; 'We'll consider alternatives.' The consideration of alternatives is something that hasn't been given a lot of space, because, I guess, it's all new.
4.70
The Adelaide Law School advanced that regulator guidance assists with managing expectations and reducing costs. It stated:
Producing guidance would be a simple, yet effective method of placating industry and reducing barriers to entry for small to medium enterprises. Further, regulatory guidance reduces legal spend by allowing industry participants to act without immediate and continuous input from legal specialists.
4.71
Similarly, the Queensland Government noted that while the Act is a ‘much needed framework for the regulation of launch activities’ there is little to no precedent for industry to draw on when preparing applications for permits and licences. It recommended additional support to industry, in the form of guidance and information sessions, and highlighted the information provided by New Zealand to its industry as a useful example.
4.72
The SIAA observed that the ASA ‘has recognised the need to better educate both agency staff and industry licence applicants on regulatory processes so that respective priorities and expectations can be managed’. The ASA noted it plans to hold a roundtable with companies considering launch activities to identify areas where guidance would benefit industry.
Committee comment
4.73
The Australian launch sector presents a significant opportunity for Australia to develop a sovereign space capability, and establish itself as a global launch destination. Investment and infrastructure will be fundamental to grow this sector of the industry. As with other sectors, success will depend on the ability of launch providers to market themselves globally. This means that Australia’s regulatory framework must facilitate easier collaboration with international stakeholders - helping rather than hindering space companies wanting to launch in Australia. Given Australia’s proximity to other launch destinations in the region, it must establish itself as a competitive and comparable destination for launch.
4.74
The Committee heard the frustration of launch providers regarding the complexities of the regulatory system, the desire for better engagement between industry and government, and the need for regulatory guidance documents to help stakeholders navigate processes and manage expectations. While the Committee acknowledges work is underway in this area, more could be done to streamline processes and reduce regulatory burden.
4.75
At the request of the Committee, the Adelaide Law School set out suggested detailed amendments to the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 to improve Australia’s space legal framework and provide benefits to the Australian space industry. These suggested changes are included in supplementary submission 16.1 for the consideration of Government.
4.76
The Committee makes the following four recommendations, which are designed to complement recommendations made in other sections of the report that are relevant to launch.
4.77
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider a national launch plan or strategy to support a sovereign capability in Australia including the investment, infrastructure and expertise required. This includes development of policies that preference Australian launch capability to support government space requirements.
4.78
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government give consideration to further reforms to the Space (Launch and Returns) Act 2018 and Rules 2019, in consultation with industry to ensure that regulatory provisions:
support the growth and competitiveness of the Australian domestic industry
ensure the safe and responsible management of the space environment
are in line with the regulations used by similar space countries.
It is recommended that further engagement be undertaken with government and industry to determine the most suitable regulatory changes to best benefit growth and investment. Consideration may be given to the Adelaide Law School supplementary submission given to the inquiry.
4.79
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government give consideration to further suspending or amending the Australian launch permit application fees to ensure that Australian businesses are not financially or commercially disadvantaged, and remain competitive with other space countries.
4.80
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish dedicated and effective industry engagement mechanisms to guide stakeholders through the application and regulatory processes. This includes designated staff within the Australian Space Agency to work with industry, and the development of publicly available guidance documents.