Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Hurley, I present an interim report of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics on Australia’s space science and industry sector.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure that colleagues also wish to contribute to the discussion on the Senate Standing Committee on Economics preliminary report entitled Australia’s space science and industry sector. As senators may know, the Senate inquiry was an initiative of the Australian Democrats, and we are very proud of the fact that the Democrats sought to have an inquiry into Australia’s space science and industry sector. I am pleased to see that the motion received cross-party support and, indeed, cross-party sponsorship from Senator Hurley and also Senator Grant Chapman, also from South Australia—I see he is entering the chamber—who has a keen interest in these issues.

I am really happy to speak to this interim report because not only have the Democrats played a role in this issue but sometimes in this place, as many of us would know, we have the opportunity to effect some real change. I think there is great potential for this interim report—I acknowledge there is another one to come—to be such an example.

I know some in this place and in the wider community question the value of space science and industry and maybe see it as, if you like, an extravagance that has little bearing on day-to-day lives. Indeed, something that I have been confronted by in my own office and in my own party room is that there appears to be a certain giggle factor associated with space activity. Some people do not take it as seriously as we would like. In fact, I actually asked a number of witnesses in the inquiry, ‘Why is there a giggle factor with space?’ Apparently, it is still considered perhaps a little nerdy, a little funny and, at worst, perhaps a little extravagant. However, I find it a bit sad, because I do not want us to be this cynical.

I want to respond by putting on record two points particularly on the so-called giggle factor. The first point is that the evidence collected for this inquiry highlighted just how fundamental space science and industry are for our modern way of life. For example, satellite communications, imaging and positioning systems are now deeply ingrained in our economy. Measuring their true value is very difficult, but these technologies have generated significant improvements in areas such as transport, logistics, agriculture and environmental management. I think we tend to take, too quickly, some of those new technologies for granted.

The second point I would like to make about the corrosive effect of such cynicism is that if we are going to look at every activity that we do with only short-term pragmatism in mind then I think we will potentially lose one of the most exciting qualities about being human: that desire to explore, to question, to push the boundaries.

It would be a sad state of affairs if policy were wholly and solely focused on the here and now and on only those issues and projects that can be shown to have an immediate effect and a direct pay-off. We are only where we are now because others in the past did not follow that well-trodden path. Unfortunately, however, indifference towards space science and industry sectors has prevailed in our country for a long time.

I do not know whether or not colleagues are aware of this, but our country in fact is essentially unique among wealthy, developed nations in relation to the limited effort and money that we put into space science and industry. Other developed nations, and in many cases some developing ones, have a specific national space strategy and space policy and/or formally contribute to supranational approaches such as the European Space Agency.

One of the recurring themes of this inquiry to date has been the inspirational power of space science and industry. Many academics and school teachers claim that space science gets students fascinated in science and engineering generally. They are drawn to the big science: the possibilities of working on something that is on the frontier of what we know and what we can do. And, while it is not a reason in itself to have a space effort, it is a very valuable spin-off benefit, particularly when we have a shortage of scientists, engineers and mathematicians in this country. Without a space effort of any profile, this potential benefit is lost to us. Even despite the previous government’s lack of interest in space activity, in part, reflected by the evidence given by some government departments, this inquiry has turned up some areas of real Australian expertise. Some examples are the hypersonic scramjet engines under development in Queensland and the plasma and ion thrusters being tested at the Australian National University. This is world-leading, cutting-edge research and it was all done, at least to begin with, on a shoestring budget. It makes you wonder what our science and industry could achieve if the so-called indifference of our government were to be overcome.

In the end, the level of interest in this inquiry has actually justified its establishment. The committee received 80 submissions from a range of private citizens, government agencies, researchers, academics and companies both large and small. We had two well-attended hearings, one in Parliament House and one in South Australia, including—and I think this was a highlight for all of us—the evidence provided by astronaut Dr Andy Thomas, who gave evidence early in the morning but stayed for the rest of the day. This is an issue that he is obviously professionally excited about and committed to not just through his work in NASA and around the world but also because he cares about his home state and his home nation when it comes to these activities.

I was really thrilled to see the level of interest from colleagues—and some of them are in the chamber today—Senators Hurley, Chapman, Bushby, Eggleston and Webber and a number of colleagues who I think have all found this an interesting topic to pursue. Of course, I again thank my co-sponsors, Senators Hurley and Chapman, who helped get this inquiry underway. I think it is great that this inquiry has come about and that it was brought about in a cross-party fashion. Space science and industry is rarely a topical issue, and without the support of the Senate—and I acknowledge the involvement of Minister Carr, with whom I discussed this idea quite early this year—it is difficult to see how it would have been advanced.

Hopefully the findings of this interim report and the final report due later this year will be considered by the government and by the expert panel for the national innovation review. If this inquiry serves to kickstart renewed Australian involvement in big, inspirational space science and industry then, the doubters aside, I think the Senate committee can be very proud of its role.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure in speaking to this interim report, Australia’s space science and industry sector, of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. As many senators will be aware, this is a topic which I have promoted before not only the Senate but also in public debate.

The economics committee will be issuing its final report in October, when I regret I will no longer be a member of this place. In fact, I only have a few more days to go until 30 June. The interim report seeks to frame some key questions and summarise the views on them contained in over 50 submissions received so far. It also draws on the hearings of the committee, held in Canberra and Adelaide. As the interim report notes, Australia was the fourth nation to launch its own satellite—many, many years ago, back in the 1950s—and the big dish at Parkes played a crucial role in the American Apollo missions.

While we still play an important supporting role, such as receiving data from the Phoenix Mars Lander, we can no longer claim to be a leader in space science. Indeed, we are one of the few rich, medium-sized economies that do not have a dedicated space agency or a specific space policy. The interim report describes how the Australian Government Space Forum brings together various parts of government engaged in space related activities twice a year. But the forum falls well short of a coordination role even within government let alone among the broader community.

In 2005, I put together a space policy advisory group made up of industry, academic and other experts in space from right across Australia to assist me in preparing a report, which I subsequently called Space: a priority for Australia. It argued the case for a dedicated space policy for Australia, and I commend that report to those with an interest in the field.

Unfortunately, successive Australian governments have not recognised space as a priority. I look to this committee’s report to put these issues more prominently on the public agenda. I am pleased that the Australian Academy of Science is in the process of producing its own decadal plan, and a number of submissions to the inquiry commended that. I have spent some time working in relation to space policy issues, including meeting in the United States with experts at Cape Kennedy and with Dr Andy Thomas, of South Australian origin, at Houston, and also engaging with the space industry in the United Kingdom, which reinforced and highlighted the importance of Australia developing a space policy.

The committee heard claims that the Australian Research Council is not very supportive of space science and looks forward to testing these claims with the council at its future hearings. With no coordinating body, space research is spread around a number of Australian universities. It is possible it would be more effective to concentrate it in a smaller number of centres of excellence, which could form the basis of industry clusters.

There were varying views put to the committee about what role Australia could reasonably take in launching rockets or designing and building propulsion systems for them. But there was no doubt that Australia will depend on satellite data for an increasing range of vital economic activity. This ranged from monitoring short-range fluctuations in weather to the long-run dynamics of climate change. Remote sensing can be of great use in mineral prospecting. Once mining operations commence, it may soon be commonplace for them to be controlled remotely from city offices. There is similar scope for farming equipment such as harvesters to be controlled remotely or operators to be assisted through satellite information. There is also potential for remote farms to control stock movements with virtual fences: collars fitted to the animals deterring them from straying. Satellites can track the movement of goods and so lower inventory costs. They are also used to synchronise the time stamping of financial transactions. Finally, and probably most importantly of all, Australia’s national security depends on being able to monitor our borders and beyond for information obtained from satellites.

It is this increasing dependence on the use of satellite data that raises the strategic concern that Australia does not own or control any satellites. We are essentially reliant on the goodwill of other countries, which we cannot guarantee will always be on offer. Of course, there is no indication that this will change today or tomorrow. But, if global circumstances change, it will then be too late to wish we had our own national source of satellite data. Even without any crisis, it would be helpful if we could have more influence so that satellites reflected our priorities.

At its Adelaide hearing, the committee was honoured to have as a witness Dr Andy Thomas, the Australian astronaut. He has not only the right stuff but the right vision. He told the committee:

There is no doubt in my mind that a robust national space project is unmatched in its ability to inspire the next generation and motivate youth to seek higher education … after my first flight into space, enrolments in engineering where I studied skyrocketed, ...

Like Dr Thomas, I want Australians to be inspired to take more interest in space. I also want them to secure access to the space data on which Australia increasingly depends. Therefore, as a retired senator involved in other things but certainly still maintaining my interest in the space industry and its future, I will look forward to reading the committee’s conclusions and recommendations on these issues in its final report, due to be tabled in this place in October.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics into Australia’s space science and industry sector has been extremely interesting so far. For me the key question is whether we need to give particular importance to the space area. There are a number of disciplines involved, including physics, mathematics and engineering, that do a range of research in a range of areas. The question is whether those working under the space science umbrella deserve any particular attention and assistance from the government. Why should it be that people in these areas deserve particular attention, rather than physicists, mathematicians or engineers working in a whole range of other areas that are looking for grants in research, technology or other areas? So far in our inquiry we have received answers from a number of sources, and I think Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Chapman have outlined a number of these and the issues particularly well. Key among them so far, in my mind, are the ability to attract more people into science areas and to build upon the past achievements that Australia has had in the space science area. These have been very significant, and it would be a shame to lose the range of expertise that we have built up in Australia.

Particularly exciting to me is the ability to do all kinds of remote sensing, which is obviously very useful to us in South Australia. Given the extent of our Southern Hemisphere land mass, we do have quite an ability to view satellites over a long period of time. That is particularly useful for us because if we can see satellites it means we can have a constant image coming down. Also, the ability for remote sensing in areas such as mining and agriculture is very real for us in Australia. The other area that interests me is the ability to monitor climate change and other changes in global patterns. It was hard, seeing the passion and dedication of the scientists in that area, not to feel a similar response while hearing about the possibilities in the space science area and I do indeed look forward to hearing the remainder of the evidence.

I would like to also say that we will sorely miss the contributions of Senators Chapman and Stott Despoja. They have obviously had a passion for space science for a long time, they are very knowledgeable about the area and they have been able to point the committee in a number of very useful directions. We will sorely miss their input, and I hope that the committee will produce a report that is worthy of their long-term interest in this area.

Question agreed to.