Space approvals in Australia: Launch sites and the law

Australia’s growing ambition to become a significant player in the global space economy brings with it a practical challenge that sits squarely at the intersection of space law and environment and planning law: how do you get a launch facility approved? With launch sites proposed in remote and ecologically sensitive locations from coastal Cape York to arid South Australia, the environmental assessment and approval pathway is complex, multi-layered, and high stakes. This article examines the key environmental and planning considerations that space sector participants must navigate to get launch infrastructure off the ground. 

Australia’s domestic launch capability is already taking shape. The Arnhem Space Centre on Gumatji Country in East Arnhem Land has hosted NASA rocket campaigns. South Australia is home to two licensed launch facilities: the Wahlers Way Orbital Launch Complex on the Eyre Peninsula and the Koonibba Test Range. Each of these projects illustrates why getting launch infrastructure approved requires careful navigation of a multi-layered regulatory framework.

The EPBC Act: the federal gateway

Any proposal to construct or operate a launch facility in Australia must consider whether the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) is engaged. The EPBC Act is the Australian Government’s central piece of environmental legislation and operates as a ‘trigger-based’ regime: if a proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES), it must be referred to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment for assessment and approval. 

For launch facility proponents, the need for EPBC Act referral is a critical threshold question. In most instances, the EPBC Act will be engaged and an approval required. The MNES categories most likely to be engaged by launch infrastructure proposals include:

• Listed threatened species and ecological communities. The Arnhem Space Centre, for instance, is located in a region of East Arnhem Land that supports habitat for species listed under the EPBC Act, including migratory shorebirds and threatened mammals.
   
• Marine environments. Where launch trajectories overfly or where facilities are sited adjacent to Australian Marine Parks or the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the referral threshold is readily engaged. Rocket launches involving stage separation or debris fall zones over marine environments present particular complexity.
   
• World heritage and national heritage areas. Australia's extensive network of heritage-listed places, including culturally and ecologically significant landscapes, may intersect with proposed launch corridors or ground infrastructure footprints.
   
• Ramsar wetlands: coastal and estuarine launch sites in tropical regions may be proximate to internationally significant wetlands, adding further MNES assessment.

Proponents should note that the EPBC Act referral and assessment process can be lengthy and resource intensive. A decision on whether a referred action is a ‘controlled action’ (and therefore requires formal assessment) can take up to 20 business days. If the action is controlled, the Minister will determine the assessment approach, which may range from preliminary documentation to a full environmental impact statement, depending on the scale and sensitivity of the impacts. For launch facilities that intersect with multiple MNES categories (for example, a coastal site affecting both marine environments and listed threatened species), the assessment process can extend for 12 months or more. 

Early engagement with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is strongly recommended.

State and territory planning regimes

In addition to the federal EPBC Act, absent facilitation through project specific legislation, launch facility proposals will also be subject to the relevant state or territory planning and environmental assessment framework. The EPBC Act only addresses impacts on MNES. It does not deal with land use zoning, development consent, vegetation clearing, pollution controls or building approvals – all of which are governed by state and territory planning and environmental legislation. In practice, this means a launch facility proponent will almost always need both Commonwealth EPBC Act approval and separate state or territory planning and environmental approvals.

The applicable regime depends on the location of the proposed facility. For example:

• In New South Wales, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) governs development assessment, with major projects potentially assessed as State Significant Development or State Significant Infrastructure under Part 4 or Part 5 of that Act.
   
• In Queensland, the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) will govern development assessment and environmental authority requirements.
   
• In Victoria, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) and the Environment Protection Act 2017 (Vic) set the planning approval and environmental permission requirements.
   
• In South Australia, the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA) and associated planning rules will apply.
   
• In the Northern Territory, the Environment Protection Act 2019 (NT) establishes the environmental assessment framework.

Each jurisdiction has its own assessment triggers, approval pathways, and public consultation requirements. In some cases, a project may be declared a ‘major project’ or “coordinated project” or similar under state/territory legislation, which consolidates multiple approval streams, but also increases public scrutiny. The Australian Government has also entered into bilateral agreements with some states under Part 5 of the EPBC Act, which can accredit state environmental impact assessment processes for Commonwealth purposes; but even then, both levels of government retain their separate approval powers. This dual-layered regime is a recurring source of complexity, and potential delay, for proponents.

Native title and Aboriginal cultural heritage obligations

Native title and Aboriginal cultural heritage will also be relevant consideration when developing an approvals pathway for launch sites.

For example, several of Australia's currently proposed launch sites are on or near land with deep and enduring cultural significance to First Nations peoples. The Arnhem Space Centre operates on Gumatj Country in East Arnhem Land, where the Yolŋu people have maintained continuous connection to country for tens of thousands of years. The Koonibba Test Range in South Australia, described as the world's largest civil overland launch site, is located on Aboriginal community-owned land and was developed in partnership with the Koonibba Community Aboriginal Corporation. Australia's first commercial launch of a space-capable rocket took place at Koonibba in 2020.

Where a proposed launch facility is located on land or waters where native title exists or may exist, the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (NTA) imposes obligations on project proponents. Given that many proposed launch sites are on pastoral leases or unallocated Crown land where native title interests may coexist, proponents should assess tenure history and native title status early in the site selection process.

The grant of tenure for launch infrastructure (such as leases or licences) and grant of approvals may constitute ‘future acts’ under the NTA. These must follow a specific procedural process in order to be valid under that Act. Depending on the specific ‘future act’ involved, the procedural requirements may include rights for the native title party to be notified, to negotiate, and in some cases to object. In some cases, proponents may negotiate an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) to authorise the project under the NTA. This will typically set out agreed terms for land access, benefits sharing and cultural heritage management. 

The native title pathway can be protracted, but early and genuine engagement with native title parties frequently delivers better project outcomes and more enduring relationships.

In addition to native title, proponents must also navigate cultural heritage obligations at both Commonwealth and state level. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) provides federal protection, while each state and territory maintains its own cultural heritage regime, such as the mandatory ‘cultural heritage duty of care’ under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld). Depending on the jurisdiction, proponents may also need to negotiate a Cultural Heritage Management Plan or agreement under the specific requirements of that jurisdiction with the relevant Traditional Owner group.

Meaningful engagement with First Nations communities is not only a legal requirement, but also essential to obtaining and maintaining a social licence to operate. The Australian Space Agency's own Civil Space Strategy 2019-2028 recognises the importance of aligning Australia's space activities with Indigenous knowledge and values.

Practical takeaways for space sector participants

For businesses planning launch infrastructure in Australia, the following points are critical:

• Site diligence: careful site due diligence is required with reference to all potential regulatory frameworks that may be engaged. This would encompass the broad sweep of cultural and traditional heritage, native title, infrastructure provisioning, environmental, planning and Commonwealth approval considerations. 
   
• Start early: environmental and cultural heritage assessments are not items to address at the end of a project timeline. They should be integrated into site selection, transaction structures and project design from the outset. 
   
• Map the approvals pathway: given the interaction between Commonwealth and state and territory regimes, proponents should prepare a comprehensive approvals matrix that identifies all relevant triggers, timelines, and decision-makers.
   
• Engage meaningfully with First Nations communities: compliance with the letter of the law is the minimum. Proponents that invest in genuine, long-term relationships with the relevant Traditional Owner groups will be better positioned to manage heritage risk and secure community support.
   
• Monitor reform developments: the Commonwealth environmental assessment framework is undergoing significant reform. Proponents should stay across legislative developments that may change referral thresholds, assessment pathways, and regulatory responsibilities under the EPBC Act regime.
   
• Consider the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 (Cth): the Space (Launches and Returns) Act 2018 (Cth) regulates launch facility licences and imposes its own requirements, which must be coordinated alongside environmental and planning approvals. There can be several authorisations across federal, state or territory and local government bodies required to conduct launch activities, making early coordination essential.

Australia's emergence as a launch destination is an exciting development for the space sector. However, successfully delivering launch infrastructure demands rigorous attention to the environmental, planning, native title and cultural heritage law framework. This is critical to establishing the right structures at the outset in relation to asset ownership and responsibility for ongoing compliance with approvals, along with timely project delivery. Proponents who take a proactive, integrated approach to these obligations will be best placed to navigate the approvals landscape and get their projects off the ground.