Australia’s second series of reforms to its current space launch regulations and their impact on the nation’s competitiveness in the global launch market.
Paradise or impracticality?
On 4 February 2025 Australia introduced updates to its approval framework governing launch activities. This marked the second time the domestic space activities legislation had undergone amendments since coming into effect in 2019. It will not be the last. On the one hand it is promising to observe a government willing to refine existing regulation on space launches, not least as this indicates the framework itself is able to adapt to the developments in space affairs.
From another perspective, the fact that the legislation requires updates at all is cause for concern, especially considering the specific updates made over the two series of amendments.
Australia is a near-ideal location for conducting sub-orbital and orbital launches. Not only does much of its territory experience fair weather all year long, but, with high political stability, strong business confidence and low air traffic, it makes sense that Australia would host a civil launch service industry.
Yet, there are two key disadvantages facing Australia as a launching state. The first is due to what Australians refer to as the tyranny of distance. While not adverse in and of itself, the remoteness of Australia from other territorial regions in the context of space launch poses a challenge for foreign spacecraft developers and operators when deciding where to conduct their research, experiments and missions.
As a foreign launch provider, for instance, conducting a launch from Australia usually requires confidence of future launches. And that confidence is typically low when the provider is developing new technology or conducting a maiden launch.
Transporting personnel, equipment and resources to and back Australia from European, American or Asian jurisdictions is not viable. The alternative to regular transport is to commit to establishing operations in Australia, which is something launch developers generally do not consider without direct government support.
The second disadvantage Australia has as a launch destination is not one of natural causes, but of human (mis)design. Regulation. Generally, the three main reasons national governments regulate launch activities are to:
- reduce the risk to personal safety and property integrity
- reduce the risk of threats to national security and other national interests and
- comply with the national obligations under international space law.
These three objectives are largely present in domestic space law frameworks. The means by which each legal framework achieves these aims, or what other objectives they may lay out, are distinct from state to state. In Australia’s case, conducting a space launch, as well as certain sub-orbital launches, and developing and operating a space port are prohibited under the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 (Cth). These are crimes. Alongside them, however, are exemptions in the form of approvals, namely an Australian launch permit (launching above 100km), a high power rocket permit (launching an object with at least 889 kNs of thrust) and a launch facility licence (constructing and running a space port). An entity holding such an approval, and complying with the conditions of that approval, is exempt from the corresponding crime.
To this extent, Australia’s space activities law is neither unique nor against the interests of Australian space actors. Yet, for years launch service providers in Australia, and their customers, have struggled to obtain approvals under this framework. The reason is not to do with the framework’s intentions but the framework’s requirements. In other words, it is not that approvals are required that is the challenge but, rather, the prescribed process to obtain those approvals.
These processes are prescribed under the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 (Cth) which allow an applicant seeking to conduct launch activity or develop a space port to inform the decision maker, the federal Minister of industry and science, that specific criteria are met. If the Minister is satisfied, an approval is granted.
Addressing adverse consequences
Since the framework came into effect in 2019, voices among industry, academia and parliamentarians presented constant critique as to the effects of its prescribed process. Perhaps the most comprehensive single account of these critiques, with explanations given upon each, is the December 2021 report of the parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s space industry “The Now Frontier”.
In April 2023 the federal government had opened a public consultation on some of the critiques which had been raised. This led to the first series of amendments taking place, which updated laws concerning who may conduct and attest to the adequacy of risk hazard analyses, flight safety plans and technology security plans. This first series of amendments was not due to any developments in the launch market or technologies but, rather, due to the adverse effect caused by the original legislative requirements. Those effects included increasing the risk to safety, disproportionately increasing the cost of the application process and compromising the confidentiality of commercial information of applicant or an applicant’s customers.
It was almost exactly four years since the original legislation came into law until the series one amendments were enforced to alleviate some of its adverse consequences. Arguably, this was a four-year handicap placed on Australia actors seeking to win business in the launch market. With the highly competitive landscape at the time for foreign entities choosing which country to carry out launch locations, potential customers of Australia’s launch service providers, those who understood these regulatory nuances, were deterred from entering commercial engagements for an Australian launch.
In July 2024 a public consultation opened for the second series of amendments. As with the first series, these amendments were made not in response to any developments in the launch market or to consider any changes in technology. The amendments which came into force on 4 February 2025 remedy the adverse consequences presented by the original drafting of the legislation of seven years earlier. The difference between seven years ago and now is that the adverse consequences had been realised, meaning those consequences had shifted from being a possibility asserted by stakeholders to actually an experience of stakeholders.
The second series amendments addressed issues such as:
- the convoluted and protracted submission requirements of applying for a launch facility licence
- the broad scope of events which trigger the government shutting down operations and conducting an investigation
- residual red tape concerning who may conduct and attest to certain critical analyses and planning (the subject of the first series of amendments) and
- the lengthy time between when an approval is granted until a launch is permitted to take place.
The changes under the series two amendments ought to give greater confidence to the Australian launch service providers, allowing them to make representations to their customers that the complexities in the law are resolving.
A redemption ahead?
Despite the two series of amendments improving the national laws controlling launch activities, there remains uncertainty as to whether this is too little too late to recapture the attention of foreign actors considering where to carry out their activities. The main competing jurisdictions to Australia for launch operations are Sweden, Norway, the United Kingdom and French Guiana. It will be up to the industry actors, industry associations and government representatives of Australia to demonstrate to the world that the nation’s legal frameworks are no hindrance to viable launch activities. Two upcoming events which, together, can significantly facilitate this message, providing a unique opportunity for the Australian launch sector to promote itself.
Australia’s first civilian orbital launch is set to occur in the coming weeks. This also marks the first time the government has granted an Australian launch permit for orbital activity. The media and government will likely, and understandably, focus on whether the mission is a success or not – whether there was a bang or a whimper. The potential investors and customers of Australian launch service providers overseas, though, will have only one take away – how easy was it for the launch provider to tick all the boxes to get to the launch pad.
The story to tell the world is not of how many launches have achieved ignition or not from Australia, but of how friendly Australia’s regulation is for allowing launches to occur. This should be a central theme during the International Astronautical Congress which will be held in Sydney in October this year. The event is expected to attract over 7,000 delegates from the world over, including leaders in launch services, launch vehicle development and satellite operations. Both the Australian government and the conference local organising committee would do well to not miss this opportunity and use the occasion to give a new life to Australia’s Space (Launches and Returns) Act.
An impending maiden orbital launch to be followed by hosting the world’s largest space conference offers the nation a potential lifeline to regain the level of international attention it received when the launch laws first came into effect in 2019.
This time, let’s make it last.
Scott Schneider is Special Counsel at International Aerospace Law & Policy Group
for personal attention: < [email protected] >