Glen Tindall
Director, New Skies Satellites Australia Pty Ltd
Department of Industry, Innovation & Science
Attention: Dr. Steven Freeland
Industry House
10 Binara Street
Canberra, ACT, 2600
[email protected]
6 May 2016
Subject: Review of Space Activities Act 1998
SES S.A. ("SES"), through its subsidiary New Skies Satellites Australia Pty Ltd, is pleased to have
this opportunity to comment on the Department's review of the Space Activities Act 1998 (Cth).
SES is a commercial satellite operator with a fleet of over 50 satellites in geostationary orbit providing
coverage of 99% of the world's population. SES provides satellite capacity to media, telecom, and
enterprise customers for the carriage of video, voice, data and Internet. Video distribution platforms
on SES satellites deliver over 7000 channels of video programming to over 300 million households,
either directly or to a broadcast or cable headend. SES satellites are also used to cost-effectively
expand cellular and Internet networks to areas underserved by terrestrial technologies.
Governments around the world also use SES's satellite capacity to provide secure communications
for their embassies, national defence, public protection, and disaster response. SES has partnered
with the Luxembourg government to provide a worldwide rapid-response service called
"emergency.lu" and to provide an e-health platform called "SATMED" to extend medical services from
the developed to the developing world. SES will also be launching the X-/Ka-band SES-16/GovSat-1
satellite in 2017 to support the Luxembourg government's commitments to NATO.
While SES has not had direct experience with the Space Activities Act 1998 (Cth), SES has launched
satellites under the space laws of other countries and can offer a few general observations from its 40
years of experience in space.
1.
Support for innovation and the advancement of space technologies
SES would encourage Australia's efforts to promote innovation and advancement of space
technologies. Increasing innovation and competition in the space industrial supply chain can only help
in the development of new services and system architectures at reduced cost.
Of particular interest to SES would be the development of additional reliable options for launching
satellites into geostationary orbit. In recent years, the demand for geostationary launches exceeds
supply to such an extent that the manifests for all launchers are completely full for years in advance.
The emergence of SpaceX as a new player in commercial launch has helped, but its manifest has
also become quickly backlogged. SES has a long-standing history of supporting new entry into the
Australian Com pany No. 85 114 962 248
New Skies Satellites Australia Pty Ltd
[personal information removed]
1/4
www.ses.com
commercial launch market - it was the first to launch a commercial satellite on ILS's Proton rocket
and first to commercially launch on SpaceX's Falcon 9 - and would be interested in supporting new
launch providers capable of supporting its requirements.
SES understands that the Space Activities Act 1998 was intended to foster the development of a
commercial space launch industry in Australia. The failure of such an industry to emerge in Australia
in the last 18 years, however, cannot be attributed to particular features of the law itself {though the
burdens of compliance should of course be considered). At the end of the day, simply crafting a legal
framework for an activity has rarely been enough for an entire new industry to spring into being.
Governments can take (and many have taken) more direct, indirect and proactive action to promote
or encourage the development of a private space sector. Such additional measures could include
identifying and reducing the barriers to entry, increasing educational emphasis on relevant knowledge
and skills, and increasing direct spending on government and civilian space programs to kick-start the
industry. It is worth noting that SpaceX could not have emerged without renewed U.S. government
interest in finding alternative suppliers to Lockheed and Boeing's United Launch Alliance.
2.
Entrepreneurship, investment and participation in global markets
In SES's view, the impact of the Space Activities Act 1998 on private investment and innovation is
likely modest at best. as evidenced by the non-emergence of an Australian private launch industry.
This is because the Outer Space Treaties are but one part of the broader regulatory landscape within
which the commercial satellite industry operates.
Of greater importance to SES's investment decisions are a nation's industrial, competition, spectrum
and telecommunications policies. International satellite operators, such as SES, would likely be
deterred from making investments in a nation that emphasised terrestrial communications to the
exclusion of space-based communications; that favoured designated domestic "champions" over a
competitive global marketplace; that did not maintain a stable spectrum allocation and licensing
regime for satellite services; or that had burdensome regulatory requirements or high licensing fees
relative to its international peers. A perfect regulatory regime for space launches is worth little if these
other policies deter those who might actually procure such launches.
While SES continues to serve the Australian market, and to use Australian teleports to support its
satellite fleet in the Asia-Pacific region, its incentives to invest more in the Australian market has been
dampened by several factors. For instance, the spectrum pricing mechanism adopted by the ACMA
has resulted licensing fees that are significantly higher than other countries in the region. It should be
noted that Canada recently undertook an international comparison of satellite licensing fees, resulting
in fee reductions to ensure that it remained competitive with the United States and the United
Kingdom as space-faring nations. Given that satellite operators have a choice of jurisdictions within
which to locate their facilities, Australia may wish to take a broader view of "market" pricing and to
consider international benchmarks if it wishes to encourage private investment in this sector in
Australia.
The other disincentive for greater investment in Australia's satellite sector has been Australia's
decision to fund the creation of the National Broadband Network (NBN), including two custom-build
satellites to address the parts of the Australian market that cannot be served terrestrially. SES
applauds Australia's recognition of the role of satellite in achieving universal service. But, by
Australian Company No. 85 114 962 248
New Skies Satellites Australia Pty Ltd
[personal information removed]
2/4
www.ses.com
announcing its intention to "occupy the field" in a subsidised manner, there can be no doubt that
foreign satellite operators have been deterred from making significant investments in new capacity
over Australia. Moreover, it may be worth asking whether Australia could have achieved the same
universal service outcomes in a more competitive and less costly manner by, for example, partnering
with multiple international satellite operators to put dedicated Australia payloads on their satellites
(and thus sharing the costs of launch and of the satellite bus).
Looking beyond the regulatory regime, SES is not aware of any particular obstacles to Australia's
participation in the global space supply chain or in the financing for space projects. Australia's space
industry is relatively small today, but well regarded internationally. In addition, recent reforms to the
U.S. export control regime provide Australia with a license exemption for the export or re-export of
space-related technologies governed by U.S. laws. This is a welcome development that should
facilitate the participation of Australian manufacturers in the space supply chain. Moreover, the
financing of commercial space ventures is international in scope and well-developed, as evidenced by
the satellite financing summit that takes place in Paris every year. Some governments provide export
assistance for their domestic space industries (e.g. U.S. Export-Import Bank, COFACE), and the
adoption of similar measures by Australia could help kick-start its domestic industry.
3.
Commonwealth responsibility for national space activities and liability for damage
caused by space objects
The Department correctly notes that different countries approach the issue of private liability for space
activities differently, with varying levels of required private insurance and government indemnities.
Australia's approach of requiring private launchers to be responsible for the first AUD 750 million of
liability is comparable with the approach of some countries.
For example, under the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (as amended), the private
launcher is responsible for the first USD 500 million of liability (and must obtain insurance or financial
responsibility for such amount). The U.S. government is then responsible for the next USD 1.5 billion
in damages (now USD 2.8 billion after adjustments for inflation), and beyond that the private launcher
becomes responsible again. Despite the many private launches from U.S. soil, the U.S. government
has never (to SES's knowledge) been called upon to pay on its indemnity. Nor has the liability placed
on private parties deterred the emergence of private launchers in the United States.
The Department notes that the French government has decided to cap the liability of its launcher at
EUR 60 million. In 2 015, the United Kingdom followed the French approach, and announced that the
liability of certain licensees under the Outer Space Act 1986 (U.K.) would be capped at EUR 60
million, while retaining a requirement for licensees to carry insurance for this amount.
4.
Emerging issues
Besides the launchers themselves, the Australian government should consider responsibility for
objects launched into space by or on behalf of Australian entities. Orbital debris, especially in low
Earth orbit, has received increasing media attention in recent years, and the mitigation of orbital
debris is in the collective interest of all actors in space. In this regard, SES would urge Australia to
ensure its space actors bear legal responsibility commensurate with the orbital debris risks that they
create, especially for other space actors. This is particularly important given the increased interest in
the launch of "cubesats," especially by universities and the scientific community. The temptation is to
Australian Company No. 85 114 962 248
New Skies Satellites Australia Pty Ltd
[personal information removed]
3/4
www.ses.com
encourage the scientific missions of "cubesat" industry by limiting their responsibilities or insurance
requirements. This would, however, create moral hazard and lead to serious negative externalities for
all other actors in space, who must for many years to come take steps to avoid the "cubesats" that no
longer have (or never had) any propulsion capability but which are still in orbit.
There are also private industry efforts to promote the safety and integrity of the space environment.
SES, together with other satellite operators, was instrumental in setting up the Space Data
Association (www.space-data.org) to enable space actors to share accurate data about the orbital
parameters of their space operations in order to improve conjunction analysis and avoid in-orbit
collisions.
5.
Alignment with Australian legislation and international obligations
Questions of alignment of national legislation with international obligations for space activities can be
difficult to resolve, especially under outdated international arrangements such as the Outer Space
Treaties, which were forged when only nation states were actors in space. Nevertheless, many nation
states have found practical approaches to deal with the increased complexity of private space
activities under the principles of the Outer Space Treaties.
In particular, SES has worked with the Canadian, Luxembourg, Mexican, Netherlands, United
Kingdom and United States governments (among others) on issues in connection with the Outer
Space Treaties in the course of its business. Some of these jurisdictions have a dedicated space law
to implement the Treaties (e.g., the United Kingdom and the Netherlands). but others do not (e.g.,
Luxembourg), and yet others take a more patchwork approach (e.g., the United States). All, however,
have had to make pragmatic, case-by-case decisions on how to address situations not specifically
covered or even contemplated by the Outer Space Treaties. Such flexibility in national approach is
essential as it is not practical to put innovative space activities on hold until international treaties are
revised to address a novel situation.
. ..
SES would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Department to discuss in greater detail any of
the matters raised in this submission.
Please contact Glen Tindall (+65 6593 3615, [email protected]) or Daniel Mah (+65 6593 3631,
[email protected]) if you have any questions.
Yours Sincerely,
-
� \j'J�
-�da�
Director, New Skies Satellites Australia Pty Ltd
Australian Company No. 85 114 962 248
New Skies Satellites Australia Pty Ltd
[personal information removed]
4/4
www.ses.com