Why Australia should have a military space policy

Having our own defence oriented space satellites, launched from the infrastructure provided by a civil space policy, geared towards intelligence gathering and communications would lower our strategic dependence upon the United States. The Department of Defence, in its submission to the Senate Committee, noted that access to the US system "has largely met Defence's needs, in particular for intelligence and more recently for satellite communications".

However, the Defence submission also stated that "assured access to allied systems may not necessarily be guaranteed in all circumstances and is subject to host nation priorities". It is quite clear that although access to the US system has largely met the needs of the Defence Department, it nonetheless obscures an Australian dependency in what will increasingly be an important factor in both global and regional strategic affairs.

An indigenous space based intelligence capability directed towards covering the sea-air gap to the north would decrease, but not eliminate, Australia's military dependence upon Washington. Greater situational awareness and communications provided by our own space assets would increase the Australian Defence Force's own network-centric warfare capability.

This would be an example of the militarisation of space, but one that militates against the case for the alliance and the need to engage in joint military operations with Washington globally. If the "peacenik Left" is indeed serious about Australia pursuing a "non-aligned and independent" foreign policy then surely it would not want to leave Australia strategically blind, especially as other regional powers are further developing indigenous satellite and space launch capabilities.

If the states of the Asia-Pacific develop their own space capabilities would it be wise for Australia to remain dependent upon the United States? Would the benefits of greater independence offset the cost of developing an indigenous space policy?

US space weapons hawks like to refer to what they call a "space Pearl Harbour". Australian strategic planners should be mindful of a "space fall of Singapore".

The Committee is right on target in its opposition to the weaponisation of space. Australia would be a loser if it adopts a civil space policy in the context of space weapons proliferation and the most rational outcome, from an objective national interest perspective, would be an indigenous intelligence and communication capability in the presence of a global ban on space based weapons.

In fact, it might well be the case that Canberra will support Washington's drive to weaponise space.

One possible link is with Ballistic Missile Defense. The Labor Party has generally opposed Australian support for, and participation in, US Ballistic Missile Defense since Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative; we might even call this "Labor tradition".

Labor continued to oppose BMD in opposition, but there are signs that the Rudd Government may be backtracking. Rudd led Labor sought to develop a distinction between theatre missile defence and strategic missile defence when in opposition, but now things are more blurry.

The previous government was all but set to acquire a Navy based ballistic missile defence capability, built around the US Aegis class cruiser, the AN/SPY-1 phased array radar and the SM-3 interceptor, which it claimed did not have a strategic capability.

The Rudd Government has inherited a Howard government study on the topic, which likely has become a part of the wider Defence White Paper process. The main focus appears to be on Aegis BMD.