STATE DEVELOPMENT, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Members present: Mr CG Whiting MP (Chair) Mr DJ Batt MP Mr JE Madden MP Mr BA Mickelberg MP (via teleconference) Ms JC Pugh MP Mr PT Weir MP

Staff present: Dr J Dewar (Committee Secretary) Ms N Mitchenson (Assistant Committee Secretary)

PUBLIC HEARING—INQUIRY INTO JOB CREATION OPPORTUNITIES IN QUEENSLAND ARISING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUSTRALIAN SPACE INDUSTRY

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FRIDAY, 1 FEBRUARY 2019 Brisbane Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

FRIDAY, 1 FEBRUARY 2019 ______

The committee met at 8.00 am.

CHAIR: Good morning. I declare open this public hearing for the committee’s inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry. Thank you all for your attendance at this hearing. I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land where we are today. The purpose of today’s hearing is to assist the committee with its inquiry. My name is Chris Whiting. I am the member for Bancroft and chair of the committee. The other committee members here with me today are: Mr Pat Weir, deputy chair and member for Condamine; Mr David Batt, member for Bundaberg; Mr Jim Madden, member for Ipswich West; Ms Jess Pugh, member for Mount Ommaney; and joining us by teleconference is Mr Brent Mickelberg, member for Buderim. The committee’s proceedings are proceedings of the Queensland parliament and are subject to the standing rules and orders of the parliament. The proceedings are being recorded by Hansard and witnesses will be provided with a copy of the transcript. All those present today should note that it is possible you might be filmed or photographed during the proceedings by media and images may also appear on the parliament’s website or social media pages. The media rules endorsed by the committee are available from committee staff if required. I ask everyone present to turn mobiles phones off or to silent mode. I also ask that if witnesses take a question on notice today they provide the information to the committee by 4 pm on Friday, 8 February 2019. The program for today has been published on the committee’s web page, and there are hard copies available from committee staff. Please note that the committee may take evidence in a closed session. If so, at that time we will adjourn and ask members of the public to clear the room.

McDONALD, Air Marshal Warren George, AM, CSC, Chief of Joint Capabilities, Joint Capabilities Group, Department of Defence (via teleconference) CHAIR: I now welcome Air Marshal Warren McDonald, Chief of Joint Capabilities, Department of Defence, who is joining us via teleconference today. The committee is very grateful for the background material you provided ahead of your appearance today. If there is no confidential information contained within that material, would you be happy for the committee to use and publish that material as part of our inquiry? Air Marshal McDonald: Yes, I would. CHAIR: If at any stage this morning you feel it would be appropriate to have a discussion in a closed session, please let me know. I now invite you to make an opening statement after which committee members will have some questions for you. Air Marshal McDonald: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today. I will not labour the point because inside the submission I think provided a fairly good broad overview of where Defence is with its space investment into the future. As you are aware, inside the paper the numbers seem quite large—$10 billion out to 2036—but, in relationship to space, that is quite an insignificant amount. That type of money would be a percentage factor of what the United States would spend in one year. As you know, space endeavour is an expensive endeavour and it is one where an investment may not necessarily reap a return. Australia had a fairly strong space program back in the fifties and sixties, but it too came under pressure financially and we diverted as a nation our resources to other interests. The reason I say that—and it is not that we would not want to continue to invest in space because that is not where we are going; we are trying to get our investment back up—is that it will be significant if people have in their minds that we could match the United States of America or other global players. Australia, with all its resources and all the intellect that it has, would have to make this priority No. 1 to begin to make a very large impact inside the global arena that is space. Therefore, throughout the submission, as you see, we are very selective in what we take on. We do that for several reasons. One is obviously the cost and two is that we remain very closely linked with our major allies, Brisbane - 2 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry particularly the United States of America because they do offer very niche capabilities in space in the military domain. We are very fortunate through our relationship to have access to them. Not many other countries do. The Defence’s focus is very much in that area, although we are very aware of some of the disruptors that are coming to space, and that is why we are seeing a resurgence—low-cost launch, CubeSats and other methods of entering into space. We watch those carefully and we have invested in some, or the Royal Australian Air Force has, as you will read in the submission. That is a minor investment. We are also very aware that when people look at investment in space they look upwards very quickly such as at CubeSats but they forget the complexities associated with controlling them and the ground stations that are required on earth to be able to communicate effectively with them which can be quite complex, particularly with a lot of on-orbit small air vehicles. As we go through today I am very happy to take any questions to try to explain why we are focusing on various areas and some of the reasons why we are quite hesitant to go down the path of some capabilities. Before I open up for questions, I would say that the starting point is mathematics and science at school. I believe Queensland is one of the few states that still makes it mandatory to take mathematics through years 11 and 12, and I applaud you for that. Other states have not necessarily done so. I think that is a deficit that this country must address if we are truly focused on getting into high technology or remaining in that space and particularly for the subject we are talking about today it is absolutely critical. I was a high school student. If you make mathematics or other subjects optional, you will choose the easiest path forward, but easy is not what you need in space. You need to do the complex. That is the starting point. Space is a whole-of-nation endeavour if we wish to make it substantial. Over to you, Chair. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Air Marshal McDonald. We appreciate the information you have given us. What I found interesting is that you briefly talked about the fact that it is now possible to have a disruptive presence, whether it be on the ground or in space, and that is driven by economies of scale. It is relatively easier and cheaper to get things into space than it was many years ago. With regard to dealing with that disruptive presence, is that a driver from a national level—that we need to have that capability to deal with any disruptive presence? Is that becoming a driver in how we respond to the space industry? Air Marshal McDonald: It is certainly a driver. You have very large geostationary satellites. They are vulnerable as you could imagine, but there are certain things you can do to protect them. Space is becoming more congested and more vulnerable to other players. Along with it comes opportunities. We are looking in the smaller domain such as cube satellites and rapid launch to cover perhaps any potential consequences of issues in space so that we can re-establish communications. As you know, Australia—I will preach it as I was converted here—is a large area. Australians focus on beyond line of sight because everything is. We need that range extension and the ability to communicate freely over large distances, and space certainly offers that type of capability. Yes, we do very much focus on what is coming in with disruptive technology—as you have said, the ability to launch more effectively and cheaply and also the cost of smaller satellites, which you may just put up in orbit for a very short period of time unlike what has been traditionally done. Absolutely it is a part of our focus and that is why you have seen that investment out of the Air Force into the new University of New South Wales Canberra just to start to get a good understanding of what is available, what are the limitations—there are always limitations on things—and what are the opportunities associated with that investment. CHAIR: You said that a rapid response capability is essential in dealing with any disruptive presence. Is that correct? Air Marshal McDonald: That is correct. CHAIR: I will hand over to our deputy chair. Mr WEIR: I am curious about how you would see Defence’s role. Is it with working with the private sector? I would imagine that when you look to launch in certain situations it would be time critical. How would you see that playing out? I am also interested to know whether you are interested in either polar or equatorial launches. Air Marshal McDonald: I will be very frank. The launch elements we are watching very closely. Some of them are speculative stocks, if I could put it in those terms. Queensland definitely has some companies we are watching closely, but there is a lot of competition in this market. I believe we all need to be very cognisant of the pitfalls and some of the risk associated with launch companies. We Brisbane - 3 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry are not the only ones investing in this sort of technology. The world is moving very quickly. It will come down to who can get it up the cheapest. However, then comes the sovereign piece—which is what you are getting at I believe, Deputy Chair. It might be nice to launch it at the cheapest site, but it may not be under your control. That is why we are closely looking at what is inside Australia that would potentially come out as a leader of small vehicle launch. Defence would not invest in it if it was not commercially viable. However, there is an element there where sometimes commercially viable is not the most important thing: it is that you own it and that you have control of it. Along with industry, we are trying to work out where those confluences may meet. Mr WEIR: That still leaves it hanging in the air. If a private enterprise were going to invest in a site in Australia and were relying on some Defence backing for that investment, that would be far from guaranteed, from what you have just said. Air Marshal McDonald: That is correct. At this stage we are aware that a company in Queensland has put in through the Innovation Hub to seek funding for launching. That will go through a process of investigation to see the viability of that. At the moment the market is still settling. We would have to be a little cautious about who we would back. I think we still have a fair bit of time to play, but that is not to say that states like Queensland would not be a part of it. That is not what I am saying. It is just that we are keeping a very open mind and watching very closely how they mature and how they eventuate. That may need some lead funding and that is why that particular company has requested some assistance through the Innovation Hub. That is an appropriate vehicle to do so. At the moment giving a guarantee to a particular company is not something that we are yet ready to make. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Air Marshal. I will now go to Jim Madden, the member for Ipswich West, who has Amberley in his electorate. Mr MADDEN: Amberley RAAF base is in my electorate of Ipswich West, and I am proud to have it in my electorate. I would like to compliment you on how well Amberley RAAF base is run. My question relates to the Defence white paper released in 2016. There is a term used in there that I hope you can explain. The paper notes the complex, non-geographic threat from space. I would be grateful if you could clarify what that phrase means and also outline how we deal with that threat. Air Marshal McDonald: I would like to thank you for your considerable investment in ensuring Air Force’s presence in your electorate is so warmly received and so well supported. It is a direct reflection of your support, and I say that very genuinely. Our people enjoy the area of Ipswich and we are very, very fortunate to have our base there so thank you. What the white paper in 2016 is referring to is that space is a global domain, so not geographically locked. That is what it is trying to articulate. Mr MADDEN: Could you outline how we deal with that threat or how that threat particularly applies to Australia? Air Marshal McDonald: We have space situation awareness. There is a telescope in Exmouth in Western Australia through our US alliance. There is also a sea band radar in Western Australia which gives us an awareness of what is occurring in space and any changes, any movements or perhaps any new craft that may enter that domain. That is why we invest heavily in our relationship with the United States, and we have a combined space operations centre which keeps track of what is occurring in space. As we said, it is not geographically locked. That is why we need to work with our partners to understand what is occurring in the global arena, and it is becoming very busy up there. Mr MICKELBERG: Good morning, Air Marshal. My question is a follow-up to the member for Condamine’s. I think I understood the gist of your answer but I want to clarify something. When we are talking about the use of short-term, reactive CubeSats where you have a requirement for rapid launch capability, would you be looking at an organic defence capability for the launch or would you be looking to utilise commercial facilities and/or a mix? Are we at that point where we have thought that through or is that too far out? Air Marshal McDonald: Our initial inclination is to go commercial. Mr MICKELBERG: That has implications with respect to the security and the location of those potential facilities. Is that a fair comment? Air Marshal McDonald: Absolutely correct. Mr MICKELBERG: Are those early stage launch companies in conversations with Defence as to what Defence’s requirement may be in that regard? Air Marshal McDonald: Broadly speaking, not down to definitive terms. Brisbane - 4 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

Mr MICKELBERG: Air Marshal, I had a read of the white paper with respect to defence’s EW capabilities and how that will evolve, broadly speaking. I have a question with respect to how capability advancements within space may cannibalise existing military capabilities. I am looking at it from the perspective of existing defence investments in Queensland. I understand that you may not be able to speak about it in detail, but presumably as technologies evolve we will see some existing capabilities which may have a significant footprint in Queensland no longer be relevant or be superseded. Is that a fair comment? Air Marshal McDonald: We would see it as complementary and provide us with a layered effect. You may see some terrestrial based electronic warfare functions move to outer space and some platforms, as you said, may be under threat. However, you then have to look at the threat to space and you may then need to keep that platform that you might be thinking of removing. There are always threats no matter what domain you go into, and the response time is another important factor. We would look at it very much as a complementary set of a layered effect for electronic warfare when you push them into space. Every single part has a part to play. As you know—from how you are asking those questions; you are well across it—it is a complicated space, and you need a sophisticated and layered approach to get the best out of electronic warfare, but it is certainly a domain that is moving very quickly. Ms PUGH: Air Marshal, thank you for taking the time to help the committee with our inquiry this morning. My question concerns what you said about education. Ultimately, the point of this inquiry is to create more jobs in the space industry in Queensland. However, if our children are not getting the education they need, then the children of Queensland will not be filling those positions. It is really important to me, and I am sure to the rest of the committee, that our schoolchildren are best equipped to fill these jobs should we make strategic investment. I am really interested to hear your thoughts on what the Queensland education department can be doing. You alluded to the importance of compulsory maths. Are there any areas of improvement that you might have identified? Air Marshal McDonald: I left school when I was 15 so I am probably really poor at providing a good answer to that. However, I would say maintain your focus on making maths compulsory. I may be extrapolating here, but I would say to you that the reason Boeing has headquartered in Brisbane may well and truly be a direct reflection of availability of specific skills being in engineering, mathematics and science. I do not think it was by accident that Boeing decided to place a significant amount of investment in Brisbane. I would say that by keeping mathematics as a mandatory subject you remain in a box seat. Obviously the education department can look at providing space in schools, establishing pathways and roles, and keep the momentum on STEM to make sure that both boys and girls feel they have a pathway to contribute in the future. I meet many talented young people. They are very capable. We just need to give them the opportunity to invest in some things that they may not necessarily think they are suited to such as engineering. I think we must keep on the endeavour to educate our young workforce and to continue their education. I will be very frank: we put sport ahead of education in this country to our demise. Everyone loves sport but academics are something that is not celebrated. A quick contrast to that would be if you go to the United States of America and you drive through a suburb and you see flags on the lawn of a residential house. I asked my children to get out and have a look at them. On those flags it had: ‘John, first in mathematics, year 8’. I asked my children, ‘What would happen if I did that in our suburb?’ and they said, ‘We’d be ostracised.’ I think that is something that we can all help to prevent. We should celebrate those people who wish to take an academic career and wish to contribute in such things as science, engineering and space in the future. Ms PUGH: Thank you very much, Air Marshal. That is very much appreciated. You have mentioned sport. I am thinking of my own local high school where they have a pathway into space program. Are there any pitfalls that need to be avoided? Perhaps there are things you have observed from the different education systems in Australia. I must profess that I am not an expert on all of the different education departments throughout Australia, but you would probably have graduates from all over the country. I am very interested to hear, without naming any states, if there is anything that we should be avoiding. Air Marshal McDonald: I would say the pitfall would be not continuing what you are doing. Maintain maths as a requirement in years 11 and 12 and continue your focus on it. As soon as you take your focus off it, it will drift back. The Royal Australian Air Force and Defence are pushing very hard with STEM. The Avalon air show in Victoria has a very big STEM focus. Any opportunity that you have to get students engaged in such programs will only be of benefit to them. I would say, if I may, that the education department should maintain its focus on providing mathematics and science Brisbane - 5 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry subjects all the way through but, in particular, in years 11 and 12. Particularly for girls turning to women, show them that they are of great benefit to the engineering fraternity. We have more and more women joining the Australian Defence Force, and their skill sets and their ability are exceptional. I would ask that you continue to promote that. Ms PUGH: That is so lovely to hear. Thank you so much. CHAIR: My cousin’s girl has just started at ADFA this week and I know that she will be another outstanding graduate. Mr BATT: Thank you very much for your time, Air Marshal McDonald. In your background report you talk about Defence Project 799, phase 2, about acquisition of a sovereign geospatial intelligence surveillance system and the opportunities for industry involvement during the course of the study. Could you outline the types of things that industry involvement could include—the types of things we are looking at for businesses in Queensland? Air Marshal McDonald: It is hard to be specific. As you know, phase 1 is what is out there and readily accessible. It is a low-water amount, $500 million. I am not trying to say that is a small sum of money, but in space it certainly is. Then you go to phase 2, which is $2 billion to $3 billion, and in space that is not much money either. Our US alliance will be very much focused in the military capabilities that the US alliance may be able to provide either by potentially purchasing into a memorandum of understanding or purchasing a satellite in a constellation with the United States. I will have my team have a look at what aspects Queensland may be able to contribute in that area. What will happen, though, is we would open any tenders to companies through the natural course of that project. To answer your question more specifically, I will take it on notice and we will send you the information. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Air Marshall. We will reiterate the questions to be taken on notice at the end of the session. My question deals with the ground stations. Obviously we have heard a lot in Space 2.0 and ground stations are one of the keys. A lot of opportunities are happening not in space but on the ground, including the very crucial role of ground stations. Can you outline the importance from your point of view of having an effective array of ground stations throughout Australia and particularly Queensland? Air Marshall McDonald: Absolutely. The ground stations need to be in politically and geographically stable locations and Australia is most definitely one of them. That is why the United States of America is entering into memorandums of understanding and agreements with us. Politics and geography have very much a big part to play in the security of space. We are very much in a box seat for that. Also, our weather has distinct advantages given the expanse of our nation and our location. CHAIR: Certainly Queensland offers a range of areas where you can look at a range of frequencies without a large deal of interference; would that be correct? Air Marshall McDonald: That is correct, yes. Our urban environment is pretty much tucked on the coast. We are very fortunate, in some ways, to be able to go to rather quiet areas, both for electronic interference and also industrial lighting interference for telescopes. We have the geography and we are four to four-and-a-half hours apart in flying time from east to west coast, which also gives distinct advantages for satellite passes. We have some very distinct advantages. Queensland is well placed for that, as well. Mr WEIR: In my previous question I alluded to equatorial and polar orbits. Are you interested in both or one more than the other for launch sites? Air Marshall McDonald: They all have a part to play. We are not singular in mind. It all depends on what you are trying to cover and you need redundancy in space. We have no particular preference of one over the other. Mr WEIR: I am also interested in the relationship between the Defence Force and the Australian Space Agency. What role does Defence play? Is it a part of that agency? How do you fit in there? Air Marshall McDonald: We are closely engaged with them. We have a liaison officer embedded with them one day a week. We have open correspondence with them as they stand up. I have attended particular conferences that they have put in place. We are fairly closely linked with them and will remain so into the future. Mr MADDEN: I am interested in the ground facilities that we need to have to facilitate the transfer of information from our satellites. Can you give us some idea of the magnitude of those facilities? You mentioned previously that we have the joint facility at Exmouth in WA. How many of those ground facilities would the Defence Force be looking at having for the satellites that you are proposing to be launched into space? Brisbane - 6 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

Air Marshall McDonald: For WGS, we have satellite dishes that link the east and west coasts. In size, the dishes are not that large. Some people may think they are, but they are certainly not in the Parkes and Forbes environment. They are probably three to four metres in size, depending on the frequency that we are trying to upload or download. The facilities themselves are not particularly big. They are probably no bigger than three domestic houses with air-conditioning units, et cetera and a very small number of personnel. Our aim is to pull that back remotely into a central agency. Generally, it is back to Canberra. The other area is in Exmouth, which has telescopes. That is to get away from industrial light and interference and also for the weather. It also has a sea-band radar over there, along the same lines of protecting against interference, as the chair has noted. Also, in Adelaide we have a 1RSU or range surveillance unit, which looks after over-the-horizon radar and anything else to do with space. It brings it all together. Mr MICKELBERG: Air Marshall, this may be a sensitive question, but I am interested to know if there are any unique niche capability opportunities or technologies that as a country we could use to make us more attractive or indispensable to our allies. Do we have geographic advantages that already provide that? If not, is there a line of thought with respect to developing capabilities so that we are able to protect our relationships for the longer term by providing capability that no-one else can? Air Marshall McDonald: In response to that, yes, we do. Our geography, which you touched on and which I talked about before, is relatively unique, as is our stable political situation, which the United States of America looks at very favourable. We are in discussions with them to see what niche capabilities can be located in Australia and that is complementary to our global endeavour to understand what is occurring in space. Yes, we are looking for those. We are looking to bring them onshore, because we believe we have, as I said, the geographical and geopolitical stability to do so. The United States has invested significantly in the past in recognition of that fact. Mr MICKELBERG: Further to that line of questioning around the geographic advantages and also, I guess, weaknesses in some respects, are there more permissive environments for launch capability than others in our own landmass? My thought process here is that presumably the equatorial launch capability would be at greater threat of interference due to the fact that there are more people in that band of the world, as opposed to launches that may use a southerly or a polar launch approach and/or across the Pacific or Indian oceans. Are there certain areas of our country that have a proposed capability in Arnhem Land? Presumably, in a contested environment, that would be a fairly high-risk location as opposed to somewhere further south in Australia? Air Marshall McDonald: That is a fairly broad range of questions and I will try to run around and pick up the batons as I go forward. Queensland is well placed. Coming back to your question of where you would launch it in the world, it comes down to cost; if it is commercial. The least amount of fuel and the least amount of energy you need to expend will be favoured, depending on where you want to position the satellite to get the best outcome. Queensland is well positioned for positioning satellites in certain areas. You talk about the vulnerability of some launch sites and that is a factor. However, these days the reach of weapons is quite considerable, so perhaps everywhere is vulnerable. We try not to launch over landmass, but Australia has a lot of landmass with not many people in it. We are in a unique position there as well, unlike some more heavily populated countries. Also, we have considerable sea mass around us, which gives us a lot of opportunities that other countries do not have. You would not want to centre on just one launch facility, obviously, because it all depends on what you want to do. As you are alluding to, redundancy is important. We would see Queensland as something you would not dismiss quickly and it would be rather foolish to do so, as a launch site. Mr MICKELBERG: I guess that was the cut and thrust of my question. In your submission, you spelt out that we probably do not have sufficient capability, either from a Defence or a civilian perspective, to maintain an organic space industry and launch capability at this point in time, and probably not in the near future. If Defence intends to use commercial launch facilities, there will be a requirement for there to be multiple launch platforms. Commercial viability at the present time, as I understand it, is fairly tenuous on some of those launch capabilities. Will Defence be investing through, for example, the Defence Innovation Hub or other mechanisms to make those a commercial reality sooner rather than later or, as you said earlier, will we wait and see how it evolves and go from there? Brisbane - 7 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

Air Marshall McDonald: It would be the latter. We need to let it settle and see how commercially viable some of the launch companies will be. If we think they are becoming viable and they are complementary to Defence’s outcomes, then we would look at investing at an appropriate time. To give you any certainty of that would be disingenuous. It is not that we are not interested in what is occurring; we are actively monitoring that space to make sure that we understand it. We understand the complexities of trying to stand up something like this. It is big money and trying to get the return is difficult because of the competition in the global market. New Zealand is very active and everyone wants to get a part of it. Payload costs have reduced significantly around the world. That will cause a tension in the market that will either sink some or make some very competitive. Going back to our geographical location, we are in a box seat there for launch. Our stability as a nation is highly prized. The majority of projects that we currently have are still in the define requirements phase. That is why we are actively monitoring who is about in the Australian industry, in the states and particularly in Queensland, so that we can best understand how to go forward. Because we are not engaging really closely that should not be seen as an indication that we are not interested. To be definitive is not something that we can do at the moment. Mr MICKELBERG: Some submitters in this inquiry have suggested that existing Defence land— be that training areas or other land—would be suitable for proposed launch facilities. I am aware of the pressures that many of those Defence training areas are under already in terms of usage. Is a commercial launch capability complementary with a Defence training area? I will use the example of Shoalwater, or Wide Bay. Air Marshal McDonald: It all depends where you want to launch it. Some will be complementary Defence land. If it were complementary to do so, Defence would not be opposed to look at it. From my understanding, they would not be off limits. If there were a perfect intersection, then Defence would likely take it. Ms PUGH: Point 22 of your submissions says that there will be opportunities for Australian companies to compete on merit. You have outlined in your submission some of the different areas where Australian companies might have the opportunity to participate in the space industry. Could you expand on this point and explain what those opportunities might be and if there were any ability for organisations that are not already within the space industry to get involved if the right investment were made? Air Marshal McDonald: That is a list of all of our projects we are involved in. Australia is quite good in its innovation in particular senses, which I cannot go into too much detail on this line. Australia is good at those sorts of aspects or capabilities that the United States may not necessarily pick up on at first blush. You get those outcomes from deep investment in your universities and your schooling to make people well educated and understand what some of the complementary aspects of various technologies can bring. As I said, I will take a question on notice, which we can provide to all, of where we think Australian industry—and we will try to make it very relevant to Queensland—has the opportunities to invest in. As I said, it can be a very fickle space. The United States is where we have to look at our military aspect, because they are the most robust—they spend billions on this a year—and that is where you will see Defence more heavily aligned but, in our engagement with the United States, we make them aware of some of the capabilities or technology that is being developed in Australia. We have been successful in some areas in getting that taken up by the United States and sometimes not successful, because they have their own industry that generates similar or like capabilities. I will take it on notice and I will get back to you with where there may be some areas that Australia, and in particular Queensland, may focus on, but to give you a definitive list as we sit here today would be rather complex. Ms PUGH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Mr WEIR: I was interested in your comment about a launch site. You mentioned the remote areas of Queensland. Most of the talk has been about the east coast, but that raises sensitivities with the Barrier Reef, shipping and so forth. From what you stated earlier, you think that the more remote areas of Queensland would be worthy of further consideration? Air Marshal McDonald: Yes, absolutely. The further away you can get a launch site from population and other aspects in case it does not go well is a good consideration and so is cost, climate and access. You need to find the best outcome for that. There are many variables in it but, generally, it will come down to money. Brisbane - 8 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

CHAIR: Member for Buderim, did you have any further questions? Mr MICKELBERG: Yes, if we have time? CHAIR: Yes. Mr MICKELBERG: I am interested in capturing the skill sets of serving members as they transition out of Defence. I am thinking about the GIS analysis types of capabilities of many serving personnel in Queensland who might have been tertiary trained by Defence. There are various transition programs, but is there any thought about trying to cultivate small businesses using ex-serving members who are able to support the delivery of Defence capabilities? You can use the GIS example if that is easier. Air Marshal McDonald: When we send people to Queensland we have trouble getting them back, which is a great compliment to your state—particularly Air Force personnel with some of those skill sets you talked about and also with electronics engineering. Queensland, I think by nature, harvest those on exit quite well. I think that is part of why Boeing has placed its focus on Brisbane. As to the point of your question, I think if you were to do that my natural extrapolation would be that you would say that we would place people into small industry directly out of Defence. I think that would be personal preference. Whilst they are in the military we sometimes send people out on secondment to industry—generally the larger ones, such as the Boeings and the Northrop Gummans et cetera—but more and more Defence is open to putting their personnel for a year or so into a company where they can gain experience and also the company can gain experience from their skill sets. We have not given thought to mandating, ‘On exit you will go to a small company,’ but we try to make known to the best of our abilities some of the opportunities available in industry. Do you have any views on how you might make that come together? Mr MICKELBERG: Yes. I was thinking less from a mandated approach, because that would not be overly successful. It was more an incubator type of approach as exists in many regional areas where they have an innovation incubator hub—a similar type of approach. It could be complementary to tertiary people in Defence as well where we are trying to work up capabilities and existing business ideas within Defence. I am an ex-serving member. One of the things that I see is that many people do not paint a natural pathway out of Defence aside from going to one of the primes or becoming a copper—a skill set that is effectively just the civilianisation of their existing military skill set. Are there any opportunities to try to cultivate an environment where there is a symbiotic relationship post Defence as well? Air Marshal McDonald: It is a good point that you have raised. If you wish, I would be happy to talk to you independently on it to see what might be possible. Mr MICKELBERG: I appreciate that. Air Marshal McDonald: Obviously, with Defence we invest into universities and we keep very close contact with them to get an understanding of the skill sets et cetera. DSTG does that as well— our Defence Science and Technology Group. They are very actively engaged. Outside that arena, as you said, to try to assist smaller industries populate their skill sets, we have not necessarily been strident in that. As you said, people gravitate out of Defence and more commonly go to the larger organisations. Maybe they are attracted financially or perhaps they just do not know that others exist. Maybe that is one avenue—making them aware that other opportunities exist in smaller industry. That could be something that we might be able to do. Mr MICKELBERG: I have a question with respect to the availability of bandwidth and the prioritisation of bandwidth for Defence purposes versus civil purposes. We have heard at times that that is one of the constraints on the industry—that there is limited bandwidth available. I am aware that Defence probably has a similar view—that it is a threat to their capability as well. What are your thoughts with respect to the current arrangements around the allocation of bandwidth? Air Marshal McDonald: As you know we use a variety of the spectrum—from HF satellite communications to line of sight and we always balance that. There are technologies emerging and in existence that assist with those challenges. At the moment, we are not necessarily constrained by bandwidth. It is talked about a lot and people say that we will be overwhelmed by the requirement but, as yet, that has not necessarily eventuated. As I said, there are new technologies emerging that can quickly sidestep that and provide other avenues. Mr MICKELBERG: Thank you very much. CHAIR: From talking to our local industries and companies, they are keen to engage at some level with Defence. We have seen from your submission that you use different innovative models for industry engagement to engage with all of these players in the industry. Can you outline for the committee how you engage with industry, what you aim to do and how you are doing it at the moment? Brisbane - 9 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

Air Marshal McDonald: The space agency is a good place to engage. Obviously, you would come in contact with the liaison officer and broader Defence as they interact with it. Also, the Defence Innovation Hub is an excellent way for people, if they have a good proposal, to get engaged with Defence. CHAIR: You have mentioned here the annual Military Communications and Information Systems Conference. Obviously, that plays an important role in your engagement as well. Air Marshal McDonald: That is absolutely correct. CHAIR: We started off talking about sovereignty capability and it is probably important to finish off on that as well. It is very clear that our sovereign capability is a natural driver for the space industry. Is there any message that you would like to give to us in government or the industry about how important sovereign capability is as a driver in the space industry? Air Marshal McDonald: In a word, essential. I would say broadly, though, to Queensland in particular and the industries that have nestled in Queensland that are either involved or are interested in getting into space to do your homework really, really well, because it is becoming a very contested and complex space. Make sure you pick out where you can be the very best, because there is a lot of competition. It is exciting, but excitement should not overshadow judgement. I applaud the Queensland government for discussing these issues, to make awareness of what is available and what are some of the pitfalls. I would say to be very prudent in your investment and understand what is changing around the world to a very high degree. Sovereignty does not always equal Australian because of some of our very tight and close alliances. However, our sovereignty is very, very important. That is why we are investing in these capabilities in Australia as well. It also comes down to our ability to control what is going on and understanding clearly what we are up to and what others may be up to. That is where it is important for us to know what we are dealing with, why we are dealing with them and that we can rely upon them to deliver to Defence what we need. In summarising it all, I really applaud what you are doing. The more you can talk about it, the better off it is so that we can settle on where Queensland may best invest and what its distinct advantages are. From my quick understanding from the people who are asking some questions, you have people who have a great deal of knowledge. I would certainly keep that knowledge at the forefront and look to invest in those areas where you will get the best outcome. CHAIR: Thank you very much. That is a great summation. I really appreciate that, air marshal. We have one question taken on notice about Defence Project 799 and the opportunities for Queensland and where Australian industry has the opportunity to invest. We need a response by 4 pm on Friday, 8 February 2019. That will be forwarded to you. There being no further questions, we will close this session. Thank you, Air Marshal McDonald, for your time today. It is greatly appreciated by the committee and the parliament. The committee will now adjourn for a break and the hearing will resume at 10.45 am. Thank you very much, air marshal. Air Marshal McDonald: A pleasure, chair. Thank you very much for your time and thank you for the support that Queensland provides to Defence. It is considerable and we very much appreciate what Queensland does. Thank you. CHAIR: It is very important to us. Thank you. Proceedings suspended from 9.01 am to 10.46 am.

Brisbane - 10 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

DOWSE, Dr Andrew AO, Air Vice-Marshal (Retired); Director, Defence Research and Engagement, Edith Cowan University (via teleconference) CHAIR: I invite you to make an opening statement, after which committee members will have some questions for you. Feel free to begin. Dr Dowse: I would like to firstly thank the committee for the invitation to speak to you today. I note the importance of this inquiry to the creation of jobs, focusing on the space supply chain and areas of potential competitive advantage for Queensland. Although I have only been fortunate to live in Queensland for 12 months since graduating from high school, I am a proud Queenslander and strongly support your efforts in this regard. From the outset, I would like to say that my knowledge in space is primarily associated with Defence’s use of space. Similarly, my broader expertise in technology and innovation has been associated with defence systems, both during my Air Force career and in the 12 months since when I have been leading Defence research here at Edith Cowan University. Having said that, with billions of dollars in the Defence Integrated Investment Program intended for space systems, there is potential for Queensland industry to compete for the associated projects in that plan. Additionally, Defence is in some ways a good representative sector to consider in this inquiry in that there are substantial similarities between Defence’s need for space and those needed in other industry sectors and by our society in general. In Defence we consider space in terms of three demands: firstly, communications within Australia and overseas, especially to deployed and mobile users; secondly, earth observation services; and thirdly, navigation and timing services. The same three demands are relevant to other sectors and commercial services to the public. More recently, Defence recognised the need to protect our use of space and added a space situational awareness mission with its associated capabilities. My intent in addressing this committee is to highlight what I see are six key points that you may consider in your inquiry. There are a lot of things that a space industry can do, from craft and payload defence and the manufacture of those systems, to launching systems, to anchoring capability and ongoing mission support. My first point is that anything that we want to do within a space industry needs to be demand driven. It needs to deliver value and have a viable source of revenue, whether that is from customers or parent contractors. This might seem obvious, but in the frenzy within the space agency there has been a lot of talk of doing things that have not been demand or revenue driven. Also, there are examples in the past. There have been a lot of satellite communications companies, especially in the low-earth orbit market, that have struck problems through a ‘build it and they will come’ approach, as presuming a future demand is a significant financial risk. A current example is the matter of space debris. Clearly there should be a demand for such a service, but at this stage a source of revenue for space environment management has been difficult to secure. My second point may seem a bit of a contradiction to the first. Providing space capabilities that are already being provided elsewhere is unlikely to be successful as we may not be able to compete effectively. Other countries have already spent billions of dollars in R&D to get where they are and, noting the typical lead times for space systems, we may end up delivering yesterday’s technology tomorrow. Hence, Australia’s space industry needs to be innovative and look to not only developing new technologies for the future but also potentially servicing different demands from today. This will lead to a demand risk, but one that may produce rewards for an innovative industry. It will also put more of an onus on industry and academia to invest in appropriate research and development. On that point, we are hosting a major Defence symposium on emerging disruptive space technologies in Perth next month and the participants will include experts from Queensland. In due course this will lead to Defence funding research opportunities for Australian universities and companies. One area that we must consider, and which is important in the development of a space industry, is the very real prospect of a Kessler scenario, in which cascading collisions effectively preclude our use of space for the three primary demands that I spoke of earlier. Accordingly, a priority for Defence and for the nation—and a possible niche area for Australian space R&D and industry—may be the development of capabilities such as high-altitude, long-endurance air systems that provide communications, observation, navigation and timing services as an alternative to space systems. This sort of work would fit in well with the trusted autonomous cooperative research centre that is being headquartered in Queensland. The state government is a key player in incentivising innovative research in space in conjunction with federal agencies, academia and industry. Promoting a space Brisbane - 11 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry cooperative research centre in Queensland would be a good idea, although it is likely that South Australia may have stolen a march with their proposal for a SmartSat CRC. My third point is to think of the Australian Space Agency as an enabler and not just focus on it. The agency will be in South Australia, but many of the activities in our space industry should happen in other states. Moreover, the agency is not funded for the broader space industry, the business of which needs to be supported through their own demand and revenue streams. Additionally, the agency’s remit is only commercial, whereas industry should be targeting both military and commercial opportunities, especially noting the commonality of both demand and, in many cases, technology. My fourth point is to emphasise the importance of understanding space services as an integrated system of systems. Space capabilities such as satellite communications comprise different elements such as ground elements, space elements and user segments. There are several examples over the past decade when military satellite communication programs have been plagued by poor performance in just one part of the system, but it impacts the whole capability. It is entirely likely that Queensland firms will be part of an overall supply chain and deliver only part of the integrated system; however, if these parts do not all work together or are not delivered in a timely manner, the impact on the program, the revenue and the whole industry would be substantial. This leads me to my fifth point, which is to recognise that the space economy is global and there are well-established multinationals who will be difficult to compete with. Indeed, one of the great criticisms of Defence and government in general is that Defence only contracts for the big projects with major companies. In many cases the best option, especially for start-up space industry companies in Queensland, will be to provide niche capabilities to the major companies within a supply chain. If we think about the F-35 strike fighter as an example, joining a global supply chain also opens up export opportunities for our industry. Building partnerships is critical, and Queensland already has a good representation of major companies such as Boeing. The state government has a role in incentivising these big companies to have a presence in Queensland. My final point is a bit of a counterpoint to the previous one, in that at times we also need to think more sovereign than global. This might be by having aspects of Australian space systems provided by Australian companies for security purposes or to otherwise encourage sovereign industry; it might be to argue more strongly at international forums for Australian ownership of radio frequencies and geostationary orbits in our part of the world; and it might be to make greater use of our geographic advantages in occupying a significant part of the globe for launch, test and anchoring capabilities, including anchoring services for global constellations. Adding to the concept of focusing on sovereign issues, I would also recommend greater local cooperation between universities and industry. There would be an advantage in greater cooperation between universities on space R&D; for example, the four Western Australian universities are taking a cooperative approach on Defence and space research in order to combine our diverse expertise. This gave us an advantage that has led to Perth hosting the space technology symposium I mentioned earlier. I would also recommend greater cooperation between universities and industry to enable commercialisation of space related R&D. Otherwise, too many good ideas are left on the shelf while too much other research is not relevant to real world problems. Mr Chair, I hope my comments are useful to the committee. I am happy to try and answer any questions you and the other committee members may have. CHAIR: Thank you very much, Dr Dowse. You have packed a lot into that statement, so we will have a few questions. You mentioned the high-altitude alternative. Can you expand on that? Dr Dowse: If space becomes unusable, either because of a big space debris event or for any other reason, including the increased military contest of space, an alternative is to use services being provided by something like a high-altitude UAV or a balloon or some other service that is not in space but is in the air domain. An example is the Airbus Zephyr program, which is an experimental system that is being tested here in Australia at the moment. It is able to stay up there at 70,000 feet for long, long periods of time and provide services that emulate or replace the sort of services that we traditionally have expected from space. That is a possibility if we are looking at niche areas and innovative areas in which to contribute rather than just doing what other people are doing. CHAIR: High-altitude alternatives are not something that we have covered too much so far. I think you said that South Australia is advanced in smart satellite manufacture or technology. Can you expand on what you said about that? Dr Dowse: Are you talking about the SmartSat CRC that I mentioned? Brisbane - 12 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

CHAIR: Yes. You said that in one particular area South Australia is more advanced than other areas. Can you expand on that? Dr Dowse: One of the ways that we can embrace innovation is through funding streams and cooperative efforts between government, universities and industry through things called cooperative research centres. We have a lot of them around the country. Here at Edith Cowan University we run a Cybersecurity Cooperative Research Centre. There is one proposal that is being considered and is going through the stages of consideration for a federal cooperative research centre, and that is the SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre, which comes out of the University of South Australia but with a bunch of other partners. They are looking at the sorts of things that I have been discussing today about innovative development of the space industry in Australia. I think something similar to that would be good, but government will only consider one CRC in a particular area. That is why I said that it may be a little bit too late if the South Australian proposal proceeds. I can take on notice to provide some more information to the committee. There is a website smartsatcrc.org—I think that is the website—that explains exactly where they are in the proposal process. CHAIR: There is no need to provide that. We can download that and have a look. They have made an advance in South Australia with the manufacture of satellites. Is there great differentiation in CubeSats? We have heard about different aspects of the space industry needing different products. Is that a potential area for Queensland? Are there different kinds of satellites that need to be manufactured? Is there a niche there for us if the South Australians have already advanced on this? Dr Dowse: South Australians have some expertise in CubeSats but so do other states and other industries and universities in other states. I would not say that they have cornered the market by any means. CubeSats are a great alternative to start-ups because, in comparison with traditional high-cost, big satellites, they are far more affordable for a small start-up organisation to get into CubeSats. Typically they have a much shorter life. The points that I made about demand and revenue become even more critical then about ensuring that you have a revenue stream when you only have a limited life of the system. CubeSats are a very good entry point for an emerging industry. CHAIR: It sounds like that, as that part of the industry matures, it will become obvious where there are needs and niches in the future. Dr Dowse: Yes. CHAIR: We will go now to our deputy chair, the member for Condamine. Mr WEIR: You made a comment that you would need to be very careful about business cases and going where the demand is. Do you have particular examples of where you think there may be a false trail? Do you see any traps that we should be aware of or that you would like to mention? Dr Dowse: What I was originally discussing was that when the Space Agency was first brought up people were talking about exploring and doing mineral exploration on planets and things like that. If you think about the costs of such ventures and the revenue required, the business case for those sorts of things just is not there. The more realistic concerns you would have is that when you are looking at a CubeSat proposal or something in the communications or earth observation area—which are the two most obvious areas where people will be servicing demand—you would have to make sure that you have done your work in understanding the market and make sure that someone is going to want the product or the services that you are going to put there. It is business 101 to understand who your customers are and to make sure that it is a viable system before you go and do a start-up and spend a lot of money in developing payloads and launches and things like that. CHAIR: The member for Mount Ommaney has a similar question. Ms PUGH: My question is around a comment you made around investing in yesterday’s technology to deliver tomorrow. Expanding on what the member for Condamine has said, do you have any past or present examples of where that might occur and how we as a committee can steer away from that? Dr Dowse: That is a great question. My area has particularly been in satellite communications. One area that is fairly obvious there is people deploying communication satellites who are using technology that has been around for 10 or 20 years or even today’s technology that they have access to. What happens is that they are very quickly overtaken by some of the big players who are doing things called High Throughput SatCom. I will explain that.

Brisbane - 13 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

Traditionally a satellite system will have a band of frequencies and a footprint on the ground that it communicates with. Those frequencies are across that entire footprint. There are new technologies that have been around for probably not much more than about five years and are increasing on a yearly basis. These high-throughput satellites have, instead of one beam, hundreds of beams which re-use the same frequencies throughout the entire overall footprint. With the same allocation of frequencies they have an effective increase in the throughput that they can put through to a single user of orders of magnitude. That increase in technology has led to you being able to access the internet while you are on planes now. Things that we could not possibly think of doing 10 or more years ago are now capable because of this improvement particularly in antenna design of these communication satellites. If you try to put a traditional satellite up against someone who is providing that sort of service, it would be akin to providing an internet service competing with the NBN but only providing 9,600 bits per second. That is the sort of issue that you have unless you keep up with the technology. If you try to compete with yesterday’s technology and deliver it in future, customers just will not want to have it. Ms PUGH: It sounds like it is difficult for the smaller industries and the start-ups to develop the newest technology that they need to be advanced enough in the field to have that first mover advantage. Is that a fair statement to make? Dr Dowse: Yes, it is. That is where people are focusing on the low end of the market and trading off that high capacity by having low-cost systems. That is why a lot of the discussion I would presume in this inquiry has been around CubeSats where people have been looking at the low end of the market and have therefore been able to have a lower number of customers and therefore have perhaps a similar level of service or a service that is competitive because of its lower cost. Ms PUGH: That being the case for those smaller start-up companies, assuming we are wanting to assist them to get in the market and stay in the market, can you provide any guidance as to how we as a government might go about allowing those companies to stay competitive in this industry? Dr Dowse: Absolutely. Industry is not my strong point, but I will give an opinion anyway. From my perspective there are two ways of going. One is that, if something is very viable, if I were in government I would give them every incentive to stay viable by giving financial incentives and assistance wherever I can. If you were to do that, you would want to make sure through your own diligence that the company is viable and that it has something to offer. The second one—and the one I am preferring and where my emphasis was in my comments— is that, instead of trying to push for a company that is competing with the big guys, I would try to push for niche technologies. I would focus on areas that we are really good at that we can specialise in where those companies can join a global supply chain—so, instead of competing with the big guys for local markets, you join the big guys for global markets. Mr BATT: Dr Dowse, you mentioned earlier about space debris. It has been something that quite a few people whom we have spoken to over the past few months have discussed. With what is already up there plus another thousand satellites a year going forward, it is going to get pretty congested. Is that an area where there may be commercial use or how far away are we at looking at removing some of that? Do you believe the laws are there and are good enough so it can take place already or do the laws need further support as well? Dr Dowse: I will take the second part first because you are spot on: the laws are not there to support what needs to happen. I am not sure whether you have had a chance of having a discussion with Mr David Ball, who is the chair of the Space Environment Research Centre. CHAIR: No, we have not. That is something to look at. Thank you for that information. We might chase that up. He would certainly be interesting. Dr Dowse: I will continue, but I was wondering whether you had had a chance to speak to him so that I was not repeating anything that David might have said. They have started this space environment management CRC. Its acronym is SERC. That is a federally funded CRC which has again industry and universities also involved. Its mission has been to look at how we can clean up space—what we can do both to understand the debris problem and then to do something about it. Some of the things they have looked at is the possibility of using laser systems to move debris and those sorts of things. As I touched on in my remarks, the issue there is that there is no obvious revenue stream. It comes back to the second question of the lack of laws and standards to provide such a funding Brisbane - 14 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry stream. There is an expectation that when people put something in space they should have the capability of removing it from orbit at the end of its life, but there have been too many exceptions to those rules and there has been limited ability to get the current operators of space systems to help fund the clean-up of those orbits. It would be a good thing. It would seem to be a potential market to do something about it with innovative technologies, but there has been a level of frustration about a business model for doing so. I would recommend the inquiry touch base with the SERC cooperative research centre because they have a lot more information about that than I can probably provide here. Mr MADDEN: I am interested in the perspective you can bring to the committee as somebody working in academia in the area of space research. I am particularly interested in the view of future employment for students entering university to study in this field. Could you enlighten the committee as to the expectations those students have when they come to university and what employment opportunities and research opportunities they have available to them? Most importantly, could you advise whether you think the courses that are currently available at our universities match the needs that we will have in the future for the people working in the space industry in Australia? Dr Dowse: Sure. To start with I should correct that, even though I am working on some areas of space, I am not dedicated to space research by any means here. It is a bit of a sideline. It is more to do with our multiuniversity relationship that we have here in Western Australia. Our university does not have a lot of space courses. There are other universities that have better space courses. As far as those sorts of qualifications for space, they are varied. It is quite a multidisciplinary sort of area. I have had people come to me and ask, ‘I want to be involved in space. What university degree should I do?’ Being an engineer myself I would automatically say, ‘You should do engineering,’ and indeed, even in engineering there are multiple sorts of disciplines—electrical, aeronautical, and even chemical for launch—that are relevant. I would usually push people towards engineering, but there are also mathematicians, people doing general science and even lawyers and other disciplines where people can get involved in space. There is quite a level of excitement in people around the age of 16, 17 at the moment around having a career in space in the future. I hope that we are not going to let them down with the rhetoric that we are talking about with space—that there will be job opportunities in four or five years time for them when they go through these degrees. I am very hopeful of that but, if I liken it to the Defence sector at the moment, which went through a similar level of rhetoric over the last few years with Minister Pyne talking about the $200 billion in Defence expenditure, we have some students coming here doing engineering at our university who are very interested in Defence but, when they look out there in the job market, in comparison, especially with the mining sector and some other sectors, the Defence sector and, certainly the space sector, is very small. At the moment, the jobs are not there. I am hoping that we can grow the sector and, therefore, the people who are coming in and doing university degrees in science, engineering, maths and the like will all have jobs in the future. I also mention computer science, because one of the key ways of extending the life of satellites and space systems in the future will be by doing software updates. Ms Pugh referred to yesterday’s technology and tomorrow’s technology. One of the ways that you can safeguard against the obsolescence of space systems is having the majority of functions being software enabled rather than the traditional approach of having hardware systems in space. That allows you to do the same thing as do you with your iPhone or your desktop computer. When new functionality, new capabilities become available, you just do a software update to the space system and do not have to launch a new system. I am hoping that I have answered part of your question at least, Mr Madden. Mr MADDEN: You have covered my question very well and really covered much more than I expected. I think that, in this inquiry, we have to look at it from the point of view of our students at university. We want to meet their employment expectations in the future. Mr MICKELBERG: You mentioned in your second point the replication of existing capabilities and the risk that that poses. In your answer you mentioned other states where they have a competitive or first-mover advantage. I am keen to expand on that. What areas do you see as primary opportunities for Queensland? In your view, in what areas are other states more advanced and that Queensland would be well served to avoid? Dr Dowse: It is just a matter of looking at the maturity of where things are at. I think South Australia has cornered the market largely in defence and space in recent years. Whether that is to do with politics or whether that is to do with real capabilities is arguable. One of the key areas where they have excelled is through their academic generation of IP. For example, the reason the University

Brisbane - 15 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry of South Australia does so well is that all the research they do is all industry oriented. It is all user inspired and it typically results in capabilities. That has been very attractive. I think one of the areas where it is possible to compete is by using the fantastic expertise that you have, particularly at the University of Queensland, QUT and other universities, whereby you can use the relationships that you have with local industry and also those big companies that you have within the state such as Boeing and grow those capabilities, get those good ideas. It is arguable that other states may have better capabilities as far as launch is concerned, although that has not stopped CubeSat-type companies embarking on ventures at the very north of Queensland. There is a possibility of launch. You just have to look at whether the weather and the space that you have available is adequate. I do not see any sort of things that would preclude from doing that. I really think that you look at where that core expertise is within your universities and your small to medium enterprises and try to incentivise those to grow and become big companies and revenue-producing ventures. Mr MICKELBERG: You talked about incentivising investment in the space industry. At what point will that support get the best bang for your buck? Should it be targeted at the ideas end where we have unproven theories being worked up to an idea, say, at a university or should it be targeted, in your view, at the commercialisation end where you have a proven technology that is not yet commercially applied, but is likely viable? Dr Dowse: If your focus is on jobs, personally—and this might seem a little bit odd coming from someone who is working in the university sector—I think certainly the latter. You look at good ideas that have already have come to the point where they need assistance in growing. I would put my emphasis on backing those small to medium enterprises that already have good ideas but just need a bit of assistance. As I said, that requires a little bit of due diligence to make sure that you are backing a good horse. Secondly, I note that, if you back those SMEs and they get a bit of money, the smart ideas in the universities and the other companies where the ideas are a little less mature will start getting a lot more focused, because they will see those commercialisation opportunities downstream. Mr MICKELBERG: Are there any jurisdictions that you are aware of that do that well from a government investment perspective? Dr Dowse: Again, South Australia has done that well from the university perspective. I think here in Western Australia, not in the defence or space sector, there have been some small to medium enterprises that have done very well in that area. Really, we are starting to get a little bit outside my area of expertise when we start to talk about industry and how companies are doing in relative states. Mr MICKELBERG: No worries. Thanks. CHAIR: In this inquiry we are talking about generating jobs and opportunities in Queensland. In terms of the supply chain, you have talked about how local companies can be involved in that. Is there a final message that you can give to all of those companies that want to get involved in the supply chain? You have talked about being timely and integrated, finding our niche and not taking on the multinationals. Is there a final message that you want to give to all of those companies, those start-ups in Queensland that want to be a part of that supply chain? Dr Dowse: Yes. I would just reemphasise the points that I made before. It is great to have good ideas, but there needs to be some diligence both from the people who come up with the ideas and those who support them—whether it is the people who help finance them or the government that helps to support those ideas being matured—to make sure that they are viable, that they are sustainable, that you are not wasting money on something that, in the end, is not that viable. I would really emphasise the idea of pushing those good ideas. Go outside the envelope and question the idea, ‘Do space systems have to be provided out of space or can some of those services be done in other ways?’ Be innovative and come up with some good ideas, but then really test and analyse them to make sure that they are going to be something that is going to result in a sustainable industry and jobs for people. Ms PUGH: You have touched on the niche areas that the smaller companies can look at. Can you expand on the niche areas that you think start-ups should be focusing on? If you have any views on that, I would love to hear them. Dr Dowse: It is a great question. I will feel around a little bit in the dark with some ideas. One of the things that is good for thinking of niche areas is to understand the limitations now. One of the limitations that I mentioned was the fragility of space and some of those innovative ideas that are being explored in terms of air systems. Another area where there is a limitation is in the radio

Brisbane - 16 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry frequency spectrum. There is only limited spectrum that is available for use. One of the good ideas that I mentioned before was antenna design—where you re-use spectrum. Another good idea is just to ignore that part of the radio spectrum and go to free-space optics or, if you like, lasers. They can be very effective ways of communicating, but they have difficulty going through weather—clouds and things like that. Some of the more innovative systems are how we can use laser communications to increase the throughput of communications within the limitations that I mentioned of spectrum—so looking at those sorts of areas. Those can get into some very niche areas, but very high reward areas. Big companies will certainly value the IP that comes out of that. Part of the important area of government is to ensure that your small to medium enterprises, when they are dealing with these big companies, get a fair go. CHAIR: Thank you very much. There being no further questions, we will close this session. Dr Dowse, thank you very much for your time today. We really appreciate what you have been able to communicate with us as well. Thanks very much indeed. Dr Dowse: Thanks very much.

Brisbane - 17 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

STARKEY, Ms Alisa, Founder, Ozius Pty Ltd

CHAIR: Welcome. I invite you to make an opening statement, after which committee members will have some questions for you. Ms Starkey: Good morning. I am the founder of Ozius. Ozius is an earth observation analytics company established and based here in Brisbane. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and for taking such considered time and effort to explore the benefits of the space industry for Queenslanders now and in the future. I must confess that I am a New South Welshman born and raised in Wagga Wagga, and I have completed my honours degree at the University of Wollongong, but Queensland is my home. I have started a family here, I am undertaking my PhD here at the University of Queensland and, most importantly, I am proud to call Ozius a Queensland business. Queensland gave me my first full-time job as a remote-sensing scientist working in the globally respected remote sensing centre now within the Queensland Department of Environment and Science. I am quite certain that Ozius would not exist today without the experience, mentorship and deep science I was exposed to at the remote sensing centre. Our vision here as Ozius is to revolutionise the way that we as a society measure, monitor and manage the environment. We do this by fusing earth observation data with environmental science and artificial intelligence to create new knowledge of the environment. There are three fundamental steps involved as we form part of the downstream analytics part of the space ecosystem. We acquire the raw earth observation data from various satellites to meet the customers’ needs. We take our customers’ existing on-ground data and information that they have been collecting for years, maybe even decades, and we bring it all together using our own proprietary analytics to create new knowledge about their operations. To be clear, Ozius is not in the business of providing data. We are in the business of providing our customers with answers. We use the vast archives of earth observation data available, and we can go back in time to fill gaps in knowledge. By filling gaps in knowledge, we reduce assumptions which improves decision-making today, and predictive analytics helps forewarn and forearm decision-makers against the challenges of tomorrow. Since inception, Ozius has helped our customers measure how the environment functions prior to a mine opening so that they can benchmark the success of future rehabilitation. We have helped them quantify the success of past management decisions so customers can improve management in the future. We anticipate future risk based on historic performance or decisions, and we have been able to help Queensland government scientists discover groundwater fed springs that no-one knew existed previously. In the last four years Ozius has analysed nearly two million square kilometres of the earth’s surface, providing new environmental knowledge spanning five decades in some cases. In doing so, we have leveraged data from over 20 different satellite platforms, from public satellite sources such as NASA and European Space Agency missions through to commercial high-resolution missions from DigitalGlobe, Airbus Defence and Space, Planet and more. Earth observation positioning and communication technologies are symbiotic—that is, the benefits of one cannot be fully realised without the other two. Commercially speaking, earth observation is the least developed of the three in terms of infrastructure and the downstream benefits here in Australia. Traditionally it has been the domain of government and research institutions only. After three years of self-funded research and development, Ozius is now undertaking commercialisation pilots with some of the largest energy and resources companies in the world on four continents, including Australia of course. Queensland offered Ozius the perfect testbed to conduct our R and D and user testing, and provided us with the confidence to apply our algorithms in other parts of the world. Queensland has a distinct advantage because of the diverse economic and environmental conditions here in Queensland. Operating your business in Queensland means earth observation solutions must cater for broadscale information through to fine-scale detail—hundreds of thousands of square kilometres to a few hundred metres; from the tropics to the deserts and pastoral plains to dense urban areas as well as sensitive marine and coastal environments. Queensland has all manner of industries operating across these varying landscapes. In short, collectively here in Queensland we have to be good at everything, which puts us at a distinct advantage to our Northern Hemisphere colleagues and competitors. The Australian space industry might be perceived as the relatively new and relatively small kid on the block, but when it comes to applied earth observation solutions we think Queensland is the best on the block.

Brisbane - 18 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

CHAIR: I will start with a general observation and I hope you can expand on it. In our inquiry on space we are hearing that the big opportunity in the space industry is using the massive amount of data that has been generated over decades and turning it into products and services that we need, which is exactly what you are doing. Can you expand on that as one of the real opportunities for businesses and jobs in Queensland? Ms Starkey: Absolutely. That is the reason for me deciding to embark on such a path four years ago. I could see the momentum building in the pure volume of data. Also, with the economic environment in Queensland but also globally businesses will need to operate more efficiently, to find new ways of doing things and to leverage the data that is available. One of the big observations I found four years ago was that there were plans to launch more satellites to collect more information. We are just about to hit a tidal wave of data that businesses can leverage. I think that growth and jobs can be established along many paths of that ecosystem. It can be established in the analytics space, where my business is, in that more businesses can look at different aspects of this data to solve different problems for Queensland businesses and there can be jobs in the actual business of analytics. There can be more growth and opportunities for existing companies and users to augment their business practices in order to consume the information that we are providing and make better decisions from that. At the minute that is a huge opportunity, but I think we need support for big business to embrace this technology and to see it as a viable solution. For a lot of the last three to four years we have been educating the market on how they can possibly use the products and services that we can provide. Some of the biggest questions that we get asked, first and foremost, is: will the regulator accept outputs from your technology? We want to rely on these products and services. However, will it be accepted more broadly? For example, conditions for operating mines set as early as five years ago have not necessarily anticipated the technology of today let alone what is coming. The legislation around mine operating conditions and the environment must be flexible enough to encourage miners and other organisations to adopt future technologies without the fear of noncompliance. We are currently on a journey at the minute with large mining customers who want to be able to use it for regulatory reporting but need the certainty that the regulator will accept this technology. At the minute their conditions require them to go to the same spot on the ground every six months and check that something is still there. They take a reading, go back to the desk, write a big report on it and send it to someone else sitting behind a desk who reviews it. Strictly complying with conditions means that, if there is a problem, by the time it is reported it is quite late in the piece to do something about it. This technology enables proactive management and a proactive response to the dynamic environment that is happening out there at the minute. We have eyes on the ground everywhere using earth observation technologies. Our approach means that we can see every square metre of operations frequently so they can meet their operational, regulatory and social obligations. This starts to head towards preventative maintenance and becoming economically and technically viable. It can potentially prevent catastrophic failures like we have seen more frequently in the news globally as well. CHAIR: As a follow-up, you have said that the regulatory authorities in Queensland cannot only assist the development of industries and companies like yours by accepting how this technology is used but also improve how they do things by accepting this technology—that is, using technology by sending someone out in a truck four hours that way to have a look at something and come back. Ms Starkey: Yes. We are reducing the risk of businesses that are currently needing to do that by being able to remotely assess what is happening and then only sending people when and where they are required to issues on the ground. CHAIR: It is probably a message we can give to our regulatory bodies about how to best use this technology. Mr WEIR: I was wondering about the harvesting of that data, that information and the future capacity for that data storage as this develops. Ms Starkey: A lot of what I say is ‘at the minute we do this’ but where we want to go is much better. I think we are on the journey with our customers as well. As a small business we cannot afford to build the grand, planned solution unless there is that uptake and traction in the industry. As soon as we see more people needing this information, we can head down certain paths to support that. At the minute we rely on external sources—as I mentioned, information from NASA, European Space Agency and commercial providers from France, China, America, and South Korea. We have tapped Brisbane - 19 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry into satellites from all over the world at the minute. With the announcement of the Australian Space Agency, it would be very exciting to start to lean on some domestically launched capabilities as well, but at the minute we rely on other data sources which is very interesting from the perspective that they are all outside of Australia. From a data storage perspective, we have to tap into stores globally, cloud based infrastructure as well as holding our own localised storage. The storage does get large fast, so there is going to need to be more investment into that in the future. Mr MADDEN: Ms Starkey, the idea of data that has been stored over decades now being reviewed is fascinating. It reminds me of the data that was stored from seismic testing in the mining industry and how we really could not analyse that data until we had computers. It was a wealth of information. I apologise if this is outside your area of expertise, but I want to ask about something that comes up in the inquiry, which is that it is not just about satellites but also the ground stations. I am curious about the transference of the data that we are speaking about from the satellite to the ground and presumably to computers. Maybe we have a bigger idea of ground stations than we need to have. We could be talking about an antenna sitting on a building out at the university. Is it the case that when we are downloading data from satellites, the ground station has to match that degree of data? Am I right in presuming that? Ms Starkey: This is a little bit outside of my area of expertise, so I will probably answer it from Ozius’s perspective around latency of data and getting the data when we need it. The advantage of ground stations locally is that we can get to data faster. However, again, that need must be driven by the need for fast data, as well. A lot of our clients are happy with 48- to 72-hour turnarounds, but I do see advantages in that with more satellites going up there is going to be a bottleneck at some point. Therefore, it is about being able to provide more local options to make sure that Australia is getting the data that we need and that we are not getting a backlog as the satellites pass over and head into the northern hemisphere for more collections. If there was some certainty there that would be nice to have. Definitely from that bottlenecking perspective, there is definitely a need for some local ground stations. I am not in a position to talk about the staging of that. Mr MADDEN: Certainly we have to have the ground stations to match the data that we are bringing down? Ms Starkey: It has to be equal: what goes up, must come down. If you are launching a lot of satellites, yes, we will need some services to bring that down. However, if we are not launching a lot of satellites immediately, that need is probably not quite as urgent. It all has to be relative to what is going to be available for Australia. Mr MADDEN: Keep up the good work. I am glad you saw the light and moved to Queensland. Mr BATT: Ms Starkey, my question relates to space debris, which we spoke about with the previous speaker. Your company uses other people’s hardware to get the analytics out. Should we be doing more of that, rather than everybody putting up their own satellite for their own use, so that we do not have that conglomerate of eventual space junk because what comes up, must come down? Ms Starkey: That is the other level, which is that what is happening out in space has to find its way, as well. I think that it is up to the space community to be strategic, particularly Australia with our position here and our maturity in the space race 2.0. Not to create duplication I think is the biggest thing. We need to try to work together, dare I say, not just to try to create what the person or the company next door is trying to create but also trying to provide a very collaborative and leveraged space ecosystem for Australia. I do not think we have the time or the resources and we cannot afford to just duplicate efforts. That is in terms of what gets launched and how it is launched, through to how it is processed down on the ground, as well, so that that actually happens across all stages of the space ecosystem. It would be great to see the space community work together in understanding where their best fit is and how we can minimise redundancies in space that are above and beyond what is required. Ms PUGH: Alisa, not to put too fine a point on it, but my question is around gender. You are a woman working in STEM, which we all know makes you a bit of a rarity. I am really interested to find out a little bit about your path to get here, any deterrents that you encountered and any blockages that you see to getting more women in STEM. The evidence that we have heard from previous witnesses is overwhelmingly that our young primary school students, male and female, are studying STEM in equal measure, but then there is a sharp drop off in the secondary level. I am really keen to hear your viewpoints on how we can keep our female STEM students engaged, so that there is not such a gender imbalance going forward. Ms Starkey: Thank you very much for the question; it is great. I have definitely felt I have navigated that pathway despite my gender. I thought, ‘That is where I want to go and that is what I want to do’, and I have been very fortunate to feel that I can go that way and be supported in that. I Brisbane - 20 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry do see those ratios. I used to go into schools to introduce them to technologies. At the time, it was more around GPS, spatial systems and positioning systems. I actually went into Corinda State High School and Indooroopilly State High School. It was some years ago now. Ms PUGH: You may or may not be aware that Corinda has a fantastic space program. Am I hearing that I can attribute that to you; is that correct? Ms Starkey: No, I cannot take credit for that because I am sure it takes a lot of commitment to keep that going. It is fantastic to hear that, a decade on. To have that nurturing at that level is absolutely critical. From wanting to employ graduates, I am definitely starting to see a lot more females coming through in remote sensing applications and analysis. I think there is a changing tide there. I think that is where earth observation provides a really great channel for women. Typically in the past the only way to get into this field has been through more positioning and engineering and physics based sciences. We are starting to see a broader base of science, maths, engineering and technology that can actually enter this world. Keeping that engagement up has to be the key. I am trying to think if there is any deterrent. I have been very fortunate: I have had great experiences in my career that have encouraged me to stay in it, so I cannot really comment on deterrents. It is not necessarily about blockages; it is just about opportunities. It is keeping those opportunities open and engagement at all levels. CHAIR: I have a quick question to follow up on some of the issues that you have talked about. We talked about the real opportunities in the space industry being around the use of that data. The companies or the businesses that do that value adding could be located nearly anywhere, which is what we are focusing on in regional Queensland. There is no reason why a number of companies such as yours cannot be based along the eastern seaboard or elsewhere to deliver those products and services; am I correct? Ms Starkey: Absolutely. You need a good internet connection, though. CHAIR: When talking about the space industry, is one of the keys—and it is often overlooked— that it is no good if we do not have great internet connections throughout the state? Ms Starkey: Yes. This is all about the transfer of data and information. We need to make sure that it is as fast as possible. Going back to the question around the ground stations, again that is all linked. It is a very connected system right from the launching of the hardware through to coming down to the ground stations and then into our offices and into the customers’ hands, who can then make their decisions based on our information. At any one of those points, if there is a disconnect in communication or a slowing then there is a backlog. That includes getting it from small businesses to the customer. From that perspective, good internet connection and other transfer technologies is definitely required. Hopefully we are going to see more of that improve with the Internet of Things. Again, in that world, being able to connect in with the Internet of Things regionally will be very important. CHAIR: You are a user of the stored products. I would be interested to get your perspective on that. Like internet connections, an aspect of the space industry that is often overlooked is that you have to have those storage facilities or services available. What has your experience been with that, whether it be through a cable or cloud based? Is there a deficiency there and an opportunity for us? Ms Starkey: There is an opportunity, because we need to make sure that area is derisked. We want to be able to store as much information as possible. In the past, once you used the information, people would set it aside and it would go on a bookshelf and that is it. In the digital world and with technology, we are finding that we can go back to those libraries of data and re-use them. It is very important to be able to have that access. As the data grows, we still need to be able to access it all. Yes, I think there are some opportunities around data storage. That has been taken care of somewhat by companies and governments themselves, by opening up their data and vaults of data through the cloud. We have also seen efforts through Digital Earth Australia to store high volumes of data. It is definitely something that needs to be considered and looked at, because there is only more coming, as I said. Efficient ways to store and access would be fantastic. CHAIR: Is the cloud based service secure? Is there a question around the security of that data? Ms Starkey: Again, I can only answer on what we have found. We have not had any problems there. From that perspective, it would be nice to have local hubs for us to tap into, as well. Brisbane - 21 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

Mr WEIR: My question is along the same lines. Data storage and managing data is going to be a big part of this. If we look at the plans for driverless vehicles, that is also going to be part of the harvest that will have to come down. One cannot work without the other, I wouldn’t have thought. Ms Starkey: Here is where I can see a path where we are going to hit some more interesting conversations around where people feel happy to store their data. We deal with very confidential and proprietary information of other businesses and we cannot just put that into a public data space. This goes to another point that I have around the role of government versus the role of private industry to support the ecosystem supported by the government. I feel that there is a line in the sand that needs to be considered at all stages of this ecosystem. Again, sometimes a private based solution can offer a great service to Queensland that is supported by the Queensland government. Similarly, from the analytics perspective as well, I feel that analytics can be carried out by the Queensland government to improve processes that the government carries out. However, there is still that vital need for private industry to be able to offer services to other businesses and to answer commercial questions that can keep economic growth happening in this state. There is a real opportunity in these private-public collaborations in the space sector at all levels of this ecosystem that you mentioned—from the driverless vehicle data storage through to environmental monitoring. Ms PUGH: At the risk of sounding parochial, Corinda State High School has been brought up over and again by a number of different witnesses. I am very proud that that school must be doing something right. You visited 10 years ago. I want to find out a little bit more about how you came to visit Corinda State High School, the program that you were involved in, how that school was selected—anything that you recall about how it was that you came to visit Corinda State High School. I can assure you that they have a fantastic program today. There is no doubt in my mind that your visit would have played a role in that. Ms Starkey: Thank you. In about 2005-2006 I was working for the Queensland state government at the remote sensing centre, which is still in the Department of Environment and Science, and was approached to be a part of education extracurricular activities for those who wanted to do it. I cannot remember the exact situation, but a handful of students were selected from Corinda State High School and Indooroopilly State High School. I and another colleague would go out about once a fortnight to once a month for a term. We would take them through a real-life project using GPS technologies and linking that with GIS technologies—geographical information science spatial systems. Basically, we ran a science experiment. We collected some information. In one year it was around koala populations and in another year it was using GPS to collect information on water quality at Oxley Creek. We had real information to work with. We took each of the students through a science project for two hours once a fortnight for a term and then they delivered a project at the end. That was for the advanced science students. They had real, hands-on use of data and were able to manipulate it, come up with an answer and be able to present that in a succinct way. We ran that over two years. The head science teacher was really driving that at the time. I believe they were also linking that in with some government funding to support the purchase of GPS and some software for the school. It was a great initiative to be a part of and, hopefully, inspired some of those students to go on to scientific roles today. CHAIR: There being no further questions, we will close this session. Thank you very much, Ms Starkey, for your time here today. Ms Starkey: Thank you very much for your time as well. Thank you. Proceedings suspended from 12.06 pm 12.16 pm.

Brisbane - 22 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

TIRTEY, Dr Sandy, Director of Business Development Australia, Launch Director, Rocket Lab CHAIR: Please state your name and the official position in which you appear today. Dr Tirtey: My name is Sandy Tirtey. I am working for the company Rocket Lab, which is an American company based in New Zealand and in the US. I am the director of business development in Australia and I am also the launch director for the company. CHAIR: Thank you. I invite you to make an opening statement after which the committee members will have some questions for you. Dr Tirtey: I am a Belgian and an Australian citizen. I have been living in Brisbane for about 10 years. I lived for five years in New Zealand. I used to work at the University of Queensland, where I was trained, before I joined the company Rocket Lab. When I joined the company we were just 10— so a very small start-up. We are now more than 400. I joined the company as vice-president of the vehicle system. Basically, my team developed the rocket. My present role is to be the launch director, so I am in charge of launching the vehicle. When we are not launching, I am in charge also of developing the business. What does it mean to develop the business? It is not simply like a car seller who tries to sell rockets; it is getting involved in different projects—typically commercial space projects—and helping companies to go into space. That has a commercial side and it has a technical side. CHAIR: Thank you. We have heard a lot about Rocket Lab and your role in the space industry. We are keen to get an outline of the history of the company—who started it and what it was they were trying to achieve. Dr Tirtey: The company was started roughly 15 years ago now by the CEO, Peter Beck. His goal was always to make access to space cheap and easy. For the first five years the company was basically a one-man band, or a two-man band. Their goal was to basically develop credibility. They got involved with NASA, with DARPA and with the US Air Force. They managed to get some international recognition, mostly in the US. After this first, let us say, incubation phase, when they decided to go to the main project, which was to develop an orbital vehicle, this reputation allowed them to raise some capital from venture capital in Silicon Valley and basically start growing exponentially for the last five years, with the goal of regular and cheap access to space dedicated to small satellites. I believe that we are the first company that has managed to develop a vehicle dedicated to small satellites. There are a couple of companies that are getting close to having their first flight and then there are myriad companies that are at the very early stage trying to get to that goal. CHAIR: When you started, it was a start-up company of a couple of people with this idea. That was 15 years ago. What is the ownership structure? I believe that you are owned by NASA or a larger company; is that right? Dr Tirtey: At the beginning we were owned completely by the CEO and there was only Rocket Lab New Zealand. Then we developed Rocket Lab USA, because it was important to be an American owned company, simply because most of our clients come from the US, including government clients. Now, Rocket Lab New Zealand is owned by Rocket Lab USA. Most of the development happened in New Zealand, but that gives us the status of a US launch company. I believe now that the company is owned mostly by the investors. I do not know what proportion the CEO owns, but I would think it is probably a small proportion now. The main investors are some venture capitalists in Silicon Valley but also Australian pension funds. This way, the biggest investors are the large funds, so I would think they own a large part of Rocket Lab now. CHAIR: That is very interesting to know. One of the relationships in terms of developing a space industry—and we have not really explored this—is that relationship between venture capitalists, angel investors and these companies. As far as you know, what has been the reason behind the success of that relationship? How have you been able to engage those investors? Dr Tirtey: I think the reason we were successful is that we always delivered what we promised. That is most important for investors. Typically, you have to be in a position where you choose your investors. Your investors do not choose you. For the very early investors you want seed funds, but when we moved to phase A of our program—when I got on board—our CEO could have easily raised money in New Zealand. He decided to do it in the US and get tier 1 venture capitalists to invest in him. Basically, those are capital funds from Silicon Valley that would only invest in an opportunity that they think would be worth a minimum of $1 billion. The advantage of using such investors is that they also are going to work with you and basically push you. Quite often we needed their support. Brisbane - 23 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

The best example is that we needed to establish a bilateral treaty between the US and New Zealand for being able, as a US launch company, to develop a category 1 vehicle in New Zealand. It is called a category 1 vehicle because, even if our goal is purely commercial, once you can put something in orbit by definition you can deliver the key to everywhere on earth. The same product can also be used as an intercontinental ballistic missile. Of course, this is technology that has to be highly controlled. The US has signed a treaty that it would not help any other countries that do not yet have category 1 capability to develop category 1 capability. I think that treaty was sometime in the 1970s. I am not exactly sure of Australia’s status, but I believe that, because the British have flown some vehicle in Woomera in the 1970s, I think Australia could be exempt from this. When we had to put in place this bilateral treaty—and, by the way, the US has refused to get involved in such a treaty for decades—it was of tremendous importance to get these venture capitalists to help us. I do not know all the details of the story, but I know that they played a very important role. Definitely, the New Zealand government, the ambassador up to the Prime Minister level, has played a large role in pushing this up to the White House. CHAIR: I have a couple of other questions but I will go to Mr Weir, the member for Condamine. Dr Tirtey: I am sorry, I am not sure if I fully answered your question. I have said that we have always delivered and I only gave you an answer to part of the question. The reason it is important to always deliver is that you need investors who have invested in you to reinvest in your next round, because new investors are looking at this as a sign of quality. If these guys have invested in you and they reinvest to keep their pro rata, it means that you are developing; you are doing what you are supposed to do. CHAIR: I absolutely agree and appreciate that. Certainly, the same can be said about having to deliver as to how you solidify that relationship. I think that perfectly encapsulates what needs to be done. Certainly, by expanding, you build up that faith and encourage them to take that next step when you deliver what you say. I think that it is an excellent point. Dr Tirtey: Exactly. One thing that is critical for delivering on such a difficult project is that you need to be able to rely on some universities to deliver young people, because we have to work 13, 14 hours every day. When you do this you need to have young people who do not have a family yet and who can spend time at work. That is the way it works. Mr WEIR: I am interested in your role as the launch director. Part of the role of this committee is to look at establishing an industry in Queensland. That is right from the launch site through to support. With your involvement in the New Zealand project, what would you say were the main pitfalls to be aware of as far as a launch site and your experience in New Zealand? Dr Tirtey: Developing an orbital vehicle is probably one of the hardest engineering tasks that you can think of, because it covers absolutely every single aspect of engineering. One that has been really critical for us is that we could focus 100 per cent on engineering. I felt that in New Zealand we were given total freedom. There were not so much roadblocks in terms of regulation and things like that. The government has worked with us as an enabler and made things easy. For example, if you land at Auckland Airport, if you look on your left you will see some rocket engines being tested just next to the international airport. This sort of thing is an enabler, because it takes us five minutes to drive there. You always have an issue; you always need to quickly change something. Regulations and government support have been really important, basically, to let us focus totally on the technical aspect. For the range, one thing that was important for us was that we could control every single aspect of our project. We fully integrated. We produce everything and it is all range. We did not want to do this at the beginning. At the very beginning, we thought that we would be based in the US and we would fly out of the US. We visited every single range in the US and we told them that one of the most important things for us was to fly very regularly. If you think about it, if FedEx were delivering only once a month, shipping goods would not be a reality. We need to get to the point where we launch twice a week. When we talked to all the established launch firms in the US they told us, ‘With all the air traffic and the maritime traffic, you are not going to do this out of the US.’ This is why we fly in New Zealand. Out of Mahia, we can fly every 72 hours. We can fly more out of that one site than all the sites in the US together. We can fly more than the United States. Because we are in the Pacific, there is not much boat traffic, there is not much air traffic and we have that freedom. Brisbane - 24 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

The range is ours so if we are delayed, we are delayed. We do not need to change contractors and things like that. With such a hard engineering task, if you have roadblocks like this that are not technical, you just never get there. You need to be driven by the technical aspect. This launch range gives us the total freedom to do what we want. Another important aspect is that I have seen a lot of projects in Australia to develop launch range. A launch range is not a gas station where any rocket can come and you plug it in. It has to be developed around the rocket. You have to know, ‘This is the rocket we are going to develop a launch range for.’ The best example is SpaceX. They are probably the most successful launch company so far. When they go to Cape Canaveral they take it apart, they completely strip it bare to the concrete and then they rebuild it themselves, so they have this range built completely around their vehicle. It is not ‘one range fits all vehicles’. I am a bit concerned about all these projects to develop a range without having a vehicle in mind, because if there is investment and then it is not suitable for a particular vehicle then it is a waste of money and it is money that cannot be used when someone actually needs it. Mr WEIR: So flexibility needs to be part of building the facility? Dr Tirtey: Yes. First of all is the identification of an application. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to put things in orbit? Are we trying to have suborbital flights? They are all different. If you try to put things in orbit, which direction do you need to fly? If you fly that direction and if the rocket explodes in flight, where is the debris going to fall? What are the potential casualties? Obviously you cannot have casualties, so if you choose a site that limits the direction in which you can launch, is that compatible with your business model? How many flights can you have if you go in that direction? For example, if you try to fly from North Queensland and you can only insert a satellite on the equator, how much business return can you hope to get? Really, you need to do an analysis of the market: what is the need, what vehicle can deliver that need and then what location is appropriate? Then you can do a safety investigation and see if you can capture this vehicle to fly from your range and how you are going to build infrastructure around this vehicle. Mr MADDEN: My interest is in your connection with universities and graduates coming to work with you. Does your company have a special relationship with any particular university? Do the qualifications of the graduates you receive properly match your needs as a space company? Dr Tirtey: Yes, we do work with a few universities; however, we work with them in an unconventional way. We cannot work in the typical way that universities like to work. Typically, a university likes a company to bring some money and approach them with a problem. Then they define a time line of a couple of years and they deliver, or not, in a couple of years. We cannot work this way. We have tried and we have always failed for the simple reason that we are all about moving fast. There are always a lot of different pieces of the puzzle that are moving, so if we develop a project with a university then chances are that one month later the project has changed. Universities cannot deal with this. Typically, the way we like to work is that we identify a few departments that are cutting edge in their field and they can place some students with us without the need of the students to write a consistent report about one single topic. They can work on any topic. By doing this we can leverage their relationship with their university and their training. That is the first part of your question. We can work with them, but they have to be prepared the way that we work. With regard to education, typically the sorts of students who work with us are not typical academic students; they are typically passionate students who develop projects at home. When we hire someone we ask them to show us a portfolio of their projects, but most of the time they are personal projects. We believe that an engineer is an engineer 24/7, so when you go home you still build things. If you can show that you still build things at home and the level of quality that you build— it does not matter if you fix your car as long as you do it very well—it means that you are going to be good with your hands and you are going to take good care of the powers that we give you. It is all about passion. Obviously we need smart people, we need people who are committed and pay attention to details, and we need really practical people. We are not so much interested in university grades. For some jobs it is important—if someone runs analysis, for example—but usually we need people who are very applied, smart and passionate. These are the students who do well with us. Mr MADDEN: Am I right in assuming that the people who work for you could come from academia or could come from trades; for example, electricians and fitters? Dr Tirtey: That is correct. We have a lot of people who come from trades, but everyone we hire is tested. I will use an example. You can test 10 welders and only one or two will do the job. Typically I would say we would never accept something that does not look good. Even if it is something that just needs to support weight for five minutes, it still needs to look good. It needs to be Brisbane - 25 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry painted and all of that. It tells you a lot about a person when they take pride in their work. We hire people from academia, trade or wherever as long as they pay attention to detail and have a high level of expectation with their own work. Mr BATT: Dr Tirtey, your business Rocket Lab is only used in New Zealand with launching. Is most of the business you are looking at already on board from the US, New Zealand or Australia? Can you tell us where your clients come from? Dr Tirtey: The concept of small satellites is quite new and the US is a bit ahead of the others. So far we have more plans out of the US; however, I personally signed the contract for the first small satellite that was launched coming from Australia, which was a satellite from the company Fleet Space Technologies based in Adelaide. They flew in November with us. There are about five start-ups that are developing small satellites—a couple in Adelaide, one in Canberra and one in Sydney—so it is really starting. I think that, regardless of the state, Australia has a very good role to play for a few reasons. First of all, there is actually quite some know-how about satellites in Australia. Let me rewind a second. When you think about the space industry you think of three things: rockets are probably the first thing that comes to mind, because they are obviously inspiring and I was always inspired by that; satellites; and ground infrastructure. Australia is already doing pretty well with ground infrastructure. One of the reasons is that we are in the perfect location. We are the antipode of the US, so any satellite that flies out of the US has a very high chance of passing over Australia. Ground infrastructure is perfect here and there is quite a lot already and quite some know-how. There is actually a fair bit of know-how about satellites as well. Again, I think Australia has assets here because Australia, like New Zealand, has no heritage. That allows you to be very agile. I worked for the European Space Agency before coming to Australia, and the reason I came to Australia was that I felt I could not achieve in Europe what I could achieve in Australia, simply because Europe has a long history of dealing with space. They have a lot of structures. For every project that you work on you spend much of your time in documentation, and it is a very heavy process. When I joined the Scramspace project in UQ, which I led, we had total freedom. With my computer I could simply compute whatever I wanted. As long as I could prove that technically the numbers matched and it was fine, we could fly it. Because you do not have this long heritage in Australia, you have also a lot of freedom about the approach and a lot of flexibility and agility. That was true in Victoria and New Zealand. The companies that are now developing small satellites in Australia are known to be quite cheap and work quite fast. The best example is the company Sitael in Italy, which is quite a well-established satellite company in Europe. It has opened an office in Adelaide. The US is working a lot with the SDG—the former DSTO—where I was trained. My office was at the SDG although I was a UQ employee. They were both for the same reason. In Australia you can develop something quickly and cheaply, and I think you can totally leverage on this. There is also the rocket aspect. The same thing goes for the rocket, so you can also be agile. If you compare working on satellites to working on rockets, there are some fundamental differences. I think both are very exciting for the younger generation—probably rockets a bit more—however, working on rockets is infinitely more difficult than working on satellites, simply because there is a path of investment that is very difficult with rockets. Typically when you release a product, the first product you release is not great. In Silicon Valley they even have a saying: ‘if you are not ashamed of your product when you release it, you have released it too late’. For rockets it does not work this way. A rocket that is 99 per cent done is not going to leave the pad; it is going to end up in a massive fireball. It is very hard to develop a rocket because you always need to get investment for years. You need a considerable amount of money. You need to bring in a lot of people and you need to survive. You need to convince people to keep investing. Yes, you have delivered what you said, but you have not made any money. Right now at Rocket Lab we have never made any money. We aim to this year or maybe next year, but right now we have only cost money. In Silicon Valley we are considered to be what they call a unicorn. That tells you a lot about how hard it is to develop this sort of vehicle. And we were first, which helped a lot. Now there are about 100 companies trying to do what we are trying to do, so there is a limited investment pool and a limited talent pool. On the satellite front, if you look, for example, at Fleet, which is probably the most advanced satellite start-up in Australia, it is in business and making money without having launched a single satellite simply because they could use the satellites of others. Yes, their costs—because they were using the assets of others—were higher than their revenue, but they could get clients and demonstrate to investors that ‘everything is set up now. If you invest this in us, all we need to do is launch a satellite. Then all revenues are going to equal our costs, and then we are going to have Brisbane - 26 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry more revenue than costs.’ So you can start to have revenue as a satellite company much earlier and consistently have a road map where you develop five per cent of your project and then 10 per cent. It does not have to be 100 per cent all at once. From an investment point of view and from a talent pool point of view, it is much easier. I may deviate a little bit from the question here, but I think this is a fundamental aspect. The other reason it is very good is that you can leverage a lot of other technologies that already exist in Australia. Drone technology can be used directly for making satellites because a drone is nothing other than a robot which is flying. That is what a satellite is. It is all about maths, meterisation, software and basically a robot. There is NoHo. It can inspire people. It does not require a high level of investment at the beginning. Typically, if, for example, in Queensland you open a centre where a few companies such as some software companies, some drone companies and some electronic companies come together, you have everything you need to make satellites—and you can leverage the fact that Australia has a lot of ground infrastructure. Both are exciting for the young generation. I think you need it to excite the young generation. One key aspect—and I can tell you because I was trained with government money in Australia on the Scramspace program; however, when the program ended there was no money, and there is only some time that you can survive without a salary, so I moved to New Zealand—is to have continuous investment so you can keep people and keep building it. Because from start to having a product with satellite is so much shorter than with rockets, I think it is probably a very good investment. It is something where you can build it progressively and capitalise on knowledge in existing companies. I apologise that I do not remember your original question. Please tell me if I have diverted too much. CHAIR: That is fine. You have given us a lot of information which is really good. Ms PUGH: Rocket Lab was originally privately owned in New Zealand—also known as ‘West Tasmania’. I say that as a proud half Kiwi. What is it about Rocket Lab—it is a start-up; it was originally privately owned—that enabled the company to attract and write the rules on which investors it wanted to take? That is an enviable position to be in. Inversely, what learnings have you, being a leader in your field, taken away and what would you maybe do differently if you had your time again? Dr Tirtey: Fortunately, there is not so much. There are some details that we would do a little bit differently. One of them is that at the beginning we wanted to have some collaboration. We did not want to do everything ourselves. For every single aspect we contracted who we thought was the best company or the most advanced to do it and then we tried to do it ourselves on the side just in case they did not deliver. Every time we had to cancel the contract with the experts, either because they did not deliver or because we changed the way we wanted to approach things. I would not even bother next time. I would make sure that we do absolutely everything ourselves so that we control every aspect of the projects—which is what we ended up doing. I think you need to control everything simply because it is such a puzzle and all the pieces have to come together. With all the great collaborations that university does when someone delivers this and someone delivers that, they are all as good as your original plan on how things were going to work out but that changes all the time. You need to be very dynamic and able to change the plan as it goes. Once you have signed contracts with people—this one will deliver this and this one will deliver that—you have lost your flexibility. Being able to do everything ourselves was very important. That is probably the only thing that I would change. We would from the start understand that that is what we need to do—get more people on board instead of sometimes giving money to other people. That is probably the main learning. CHAIR: To clarify that, to achieve something, instead of building a collaboration, directly employ someone and task them to do it. I am understanding what you have said? Dr Tirtey: Yes, exactly. Keep your knowledge in-house. Australia has, I believe, invested a lot of money in space. Until recently they were paying people overseas to do things for them, so you do not have the knowledge. You have paid people and you have to keep paying them so they can keep telling you how to look after your asset, but you do not have the knowledge. Accepting that you need to train people and accepting that young people are going to make mistakes I think is fundamental. One difficulty that we have been facing is that we could not hire anyone from the US. Americans could not work for us because they could not help us develop a technology. We could not get anyone from Europe because anyone in Europe had a long lead time. They had to work for another three months for their current employer even if we offered them a job or something like that. We could not get anyone from Russia, China or any of those countries because otherwise we could not work with Brisbane - 27 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

US planes. We could only employ people from Australia and New Zealand. There was zero knowledge about what we develop, so we had to get people who had no prior knowledge and train them on the job. This is very hard. When you look at a rocket taking off on the TV, it does not look like such a big deal. There are rockets taking off all the time. However, we were a bit a like von Braun because nobody had done it before, so we had no knowledge. Yes, you can find things in books, but it never tells you how to do it. You have to accept that you need to train people and to invest in education. I do not think there is any other way. Mr WEIR: One of the witnesses earlier said, ‘Don’t just think you can build it and they will come.’ How is your experience in that? Do you have to actively pursue customers or have you built a facility for a certain niche of customers? How does that model work? Dr Tirtey: Just to make sure that I understand your question, you are basically asking as a business what I do on a daily basis? Mr WEIR: No. If you build a facility for customers who are going to use that facility, do you seek them out? Do they come to you? How does that business model work? Dr Tirtey: If you select a site that you think is going to work, there are a couple of things you can do before getting what you would call a client. You can build a road. That is the first thing. It sounds trivial but it is not because launch sites are always remote. You can make sure that you choose it correctly—by ‘correctly’ I mean that it has to be accessible. It has to have some things that can support it. If it is a liquid rocket, you have to have a company like BOC or something like that that can deliver all the liquid gas or whatever and it is not too far. There are a few things like this you can do when you select your site: you can pour a bit of concrete; you can do some studies. If it is going to be an orbital launch pad—most of the market needs to go what we call polar, where the rocket goes on top of the North Pole—I need to launch full south. If I want to go equatorial, I need to launch full east. If I want to go with a 45-degree inclination, I have to go south-east. There are a few things that you can research like this. What does the market need? It is fundamental because if you think that the market, for example, wants to do earth observation, the satellite has to fly above the whole earth. Most of the time you would pass by the pole. By the time the satellite goes through the pole the earth has rotated and you basically keep scanning all the earth. This is something that a lot of clients want to do. If they want to do telecommunication and cover Australia, they have to fly regularly above Australia. They do not need to pass by the pole because going on top of Antarctica does not do anything for you. You need to get to quite a high inclination. This gets a bet technical. Depending on the application, you can define what sort of launch you want to do—what direction the rocket is going to aim. Once you do this, you can have a look at what a rocket needs to fly above. If you fly from North Queensland and you want to go full east or north-east, there is Papua New Guinea. There is Fiji. You always have to assume that the rocket is going to explode at the worst location. Where is the debris going to fall? If at some point the rocket is going to be in orbit, there is no debris. There is safety analysis that some groups in Australia are qualified to do. They can say that from that launch site with this commercial application this is the region exclusion zone where you cannot have any populated area, where you cannot have much maritime traffic or many aeroplanes. Once you have done this, you can assess roughly a launch site and say it is a good launch site or it is not a good launch site. Once you have done all this work, this is where you cannot go further unless you get involved with a company. If you get involved, for example, with Gilmour, which is on the Gold Coast, you have to look at what type of rocket they are trying to launch. Their rocket is a hybrid rocket, so what sort of support equipment do they need? What sort of infrastructure do they need? This is where you need to talk to them if you select them as your champion. You need to attract them and then build whatever support you need to build. You have to ask them, ‘What do you need? What can we build for you? If we do this, how often are you going to launch? What sort of revenue? How many people are you going to employ?’—all of those things. It has to be specific. You cannot simply build liquid rocket support infrastructure when you are going to launch a hybrid rocket or a solid rocket. It is like wanting to bring an electric car into a petrol station. It is not going to work. There is some work you can do to assess if it is a good launch site or if it is not a good launch site based on the market. Then at some point you need to stop and you cannot go further because your investment may be a waste. Looking at Queensland, because I assume that is what you are mostly interested in, there are two things you can pursue. You can launch from North Queensland and try to go after an equatorial launch, basically pursuing satellites that want to fly around the equator. Most small satellites are not Brisbane - 28 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry flying above the equator. A lot of people think that everyone wants to fly on the equator and that is the only way to see space. This is because until now most companies were developing one big satellite which was costing a lot of money—maybe $200 million for a satellite the size of a bus—and they had to launch a couple of satellites on the equator called geostationary. The advantage of geostationary is that once your satellite is in the sky it does not move compared to earth. This is why if it is a TV satellite, for example, you can point your antenna and you do not need to move it continuously. It is always going to be there. However, the disadvantage is that this is extremely expensive because you need a big satellite. It is super far from earth, so it needs very large solar panels. It needs strong power—it needs all of these things—and you need a very big rocket. Typically you need to go after a market which is going to be worth maybe a billion dollars for this to be worth it. There are not a lot of companies that can go after this. Also, it is not ecological because the satellite that you put there, after the end of its life, is going to stay there for thousands of years. There is nothing there to slow it down, so it is not falling back on earth. The new way to see space is to develop a whole bunch of small satellites that are going to fly together, so you put maybe 100 satellites in low orbit—that is, 500 kilometres. Each of them stays there for 10 years. After 10 years your satellite is old. When it is old technology, it will fall back on earth and you can renew your technology. You do not generate what we call space junk. It does not cost that much money to put there. You do not have to pay a lot of money to be in orbit. Geothermal stationary orbit costs a lot of money in licensing. If you want to go for small satellites, there is no interest to go geostationary. Launching on the equator is not interesting for the small satellites. Typically you would want to be able to aim full south. There is not a lot of location in Queensland where you can aim full south or full north. Full north works as well. If you go full south or full north, you have to make sure you fly over water. However, there is only a certain distance, a certain radius around the take-off point, where it could be dangerous. I still believe that there could be a few locations in Queensland that could be suitable for flying full south or full north, but you need to investigate along the coast. It is not difficult. When we selected a launch site we hired an Australian student. He came to New Zealand and for one month he looked at Google Earth continuously. He looked at the entire coast and looked at every site—what was suitable and what was not suitable. That is what he did. Read the legislation. It is not difficult. It sounds harder than it is actually. You just have to do it. Look at the legislation. Talk to people on the ground, because you have different communities. There are Aboriginal people, but we have a lot of Maori people. Get engaged with them. Tell them that you are not going to destroy the environment and quality of life. This is the minimum amount of work you need to do when you develop a range. It is reading, engaging with the community and selecting a good location—not based on something that sounds exciting but based on facts and numbers and markets. When you have done all of that, then you can engage with people like Gilmour or whoever. You could put Gilmour as a competitor, but there are not a lot of launch providers and it is a big market. We talk to them regularly. If you ask them their opinion about all initiatives to create a range, they do not like it. They do not like it because they do not think there is any range being investigated that they could actually use, and they are concerned that once the state invests in one of these ranges when they need it they will be told by the state, ‘There is no more money. You need to fly with them,’ and they will think it is not suitable. That is why they talk about a mobile range. A mobile range is hard and does not make sense. The reason they go for a mobile range is that none of the ranges being investigated right now suits them. So select your champion, talk to them and ask them their opinion and they will tell you what they need. CHAIR: Obviously you have chosen your site, and we have talked a bit about ranges and sites here. Is it easy to overcapitalise when you are building a site? You have talked about how your site needs to be specific to the launch technology you are using. Bearing that in mind, is that one of the areas that companies can perhaps overcapitalise on? Is that something that perhaps you have experienced? Dr Tirtey: By overcapitalising do you mean investing too much money in it? CHAIR: Yes. There are huge amounts of money there. Is that an area where companies can overcapitalise? Dr Tirtey: I believe if you do it yourself it is not going to cost that much money. If you contract other people to do it, it is going to be one of those projects that drags on and is going to cost a lot because you are going to revise the project continuously. It is one of the examples where we did it ourselves. With probably $15 million to $20 million you can have a very good range dedicated to what you need to do. Brisbane - 29 - 1 Feb 2019

Public Hearing—Inquiry into job creation opportunities in Queensland arising from the establishment of an Australian space industry

CHAIR: Are they the general costs you would be looking at for that? Is that the lower end? Can you start with $15 million or $20 million and go up from there or down? Dr Tirtey: I think it is probably at the lower end if you do things efficiently, but at the same time I think that is not a crazy number. I think the reason we have been efficient is that we knew what we needed because we developed the range while the range was being developed so we knew exactly how to support it. We are still improving the range. There is work every single day improving the range. All ranges are unique. From our range we can launch over a 180-degree range of estimate. If you really want a launch site in Queensland, you may be restricted to a few directions where you can launch. If you have a great launch site, you may have more options. Typically, for example, South Australia is good because they can go full south. It is easy for them. In Queensland you may have less versatility, but it does not mean that you could not still go for one launch estimate that is required by the market. Even if we could launch over 180 degrees, really we are considering two directions— full south and 45-degree inclination and that is it. Sorry I have been talking a lot, but I can come back another day if you need to ask more questions. CHAIR: It has been quite illuminating and we have gone down several paths which we have found very useful. The time allocated for this session has now expired. Thank you, Dr Tirtey, for your time today. We really do appreciate that. We do not have any questions on notice. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all of the witnesses who have participated today. We appreciate the evidence that you and the other witnesses have given us to consider as part of this inquiry. Thank you to the Hansard reporters and thank you to our secretariat. A transcript of these proceedings will be available on the committee’s parliamentary web page in due course. I declare this public hearing closed. The committee adjourned at 1.06 pm.

Brisbane - 30 - 1 Feb 2019