Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to contribute briefly to the debate as well. I was privileged to take part in the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories' brief visit to Antarctica in December and was greatly indebted to members of the Australian Antarctic division for the opportunity both to undertake the trip and to take part in the briefings that occurred in Hobart before the departure of the committee members. I agree with many of the comments made by the chair of the committee and I commend the report to the Senate.

It is, of course, obvious that the work being done in Antarctica is extremely important in a number of ways. The science being carried out there is hard science, in that it is in areas of particular relevance and importance to Australia's strategic interests, and it is valuable research in many areas, particularly in the areas of climate science. There is a range of very good reasons why Australia should continue to operate in that space. With the recent expansion in that role, particularly, for example, the establishment of the runway at Wilkins aerodrome, we have a larger footprint in that space.

It is also worth recording that there have been cuts in recent years to the Australian Antarctic program. Like any cuts, they present a challenge to organisations. With cuts that are essentially the product of enhanced efficiency dividends, we find that agencies need to make decisions based not on how well they are delivering their existing programs and how efficiently they are delivering existing programs but, simply, on the requirements of government in order to make cuts across the top of every program and therefore to have to operate within those new constraints.

It is obvious that programs like the ones run by the Australian Antarctic Division are not easily rearranged or made more efficient, given the enormous overheads associated with having to operate four bases in the Antarctic, service and supply those bases and participate in international agreements which require cooperation with other nations in their work in the Antarctic as well. Obviously there are many areas where we might regret the way in which cuts have occurred. In this particular area, I think that we retreat from our commitments towards the pursuit of the science which is happening in Antarctica at our peril as a nation. We have a very significant footprint in Antarctica, although of course Antarctic claims are matters of international dispute. Our claim on the maps is the largest in Antarctica and our commitment there ought logically in the future to grow and grow significantly if we are to take up the consequences of having such a significant geographical footprint in Antarctica, if not for the reasons associated with the science that is being carried out there.

I commend the report but I urge the government to consider carefully whether it can afford to continue to make cuts to the Australian Antarctic program, due to the importance of the work being done there and the inflexibility, if you like, in the nature of that commitment, because it is very hard to cut out a journey that the Antarctic supply ship might make or to reduce the number of flights that might be made to Wilkins given the incapacity of those places to operate with fewer direct connections with Australia in the course of, for example, an Antarctic summer.

Question agreed to.