Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I have made two matters of public interest speeches to the Senate so far in my two years here. This my third. Both of my previous speeches have been on matters deeply important to me—especially before I came into the Senate—and I recognise the privilege of being able to speak at this time in a non-political, non-combative way to raise issues that are critically important both to my state myself. The first speech I made reflected upon the growing environmental disaster of marine debris, especially marine plastics. I talked about how plastics reach all corners of our marine ecosystems—how you can find tonnes and tonnes of litter and debris washed up on even the most remote beaches of the otherwise pristine World Heritage areas of Tasmania's south-west coasts. In that speech I offered one of several solutions to help address this problem, including container deposit scheme legislation—legislation that recent studies by CSIRO have shown successfully reduce wastage and litter levels in South Australia and in South Australian waters and beaches. We could lead on this nationwide.

Unfortunately, the industry lobby has been too powerful and has sought to kill off any momentum towards this goal. That was reflected in the parliamentary decision of 2012 to reject the Greens' national container deposit scheme.

In my second MPI I talked on whaling. It was in the days leading up to the International Court of Justice case against Japan for whaling in the Southern Ocean. In that speech I urged caution—caution not to prematurely celebrate what a successful court victory could mean in the fight to prevent whaling. I then urged the government to prepare before the case a diplomatic strategy on how to engage with Japan to maintain enough pressure so that Japan would not seek to circumvent the court verdict and return to whaling. The government prepared no such strategy.

When the Japanese Prime Minister visited here, Prime Minister Abbott was silent on whaling. It took the media scrum to raise the issue. The government prepared no strategy when it visited Japan in bilateral talks on trade. What we have seen since is Japan seeking to circumvent both the International Court of Justice decision and the will of the International Whaling Commission, which was firmly reflected in a motion put by the New Zealand government last week—not the Australian government; the New Zealand government—once again, with no significant diplomatic pressure from Australia. When Minister Hunt was asked by the media if Japan could bring back whaling following the ICJ decision, he scoffed at the suggestion. He was wrong and the Australian government's inaction has now come at a cost, with Japan seemingly pushing on in its endeavour for commercial and lethal scientific whaling.

The third speech that I would like to give today is on the importance of the Southern Ocean and Antarctic research and research communities to my home state of Tasmania. Hobart is one of the few precious southern ports on this planet—with Capetown in South Africa, Ushuaia—the capital of Tierra del Fuego in Argentina, and Christchurch in New Zealand. Hobart is one of a small club of these precious few cities that face south, that have an affinity with the Southern Ocean—as many people who live in these cities and town have an affinity with the Southern Ocean.

There is a special feel to these places. It is an international outlook. You feel that you are a long way from the rest of the world, but you are a city that everyone who wants to head off into the 'wide blue yonder' has to pass through to get to the depths of the Southern Ocean or to Antarctica. These cities are taking part in a major, strategic global economic race—a science race; a geopolitical race; an economic race; a race to be the leader in Antarctic and Southern Ocean research and to subsequently secure a large slice of the growing Antarctic economy as the superpowers of the globe cast their eyes south. All of the world has to pass through one of these four cities to get to Antarctica. These are the launching places to voyage south. It is either Capetown, Ushuaia, Christchurch or Hobart. And, for the eastern half of Antarctica, the list narrows to South Africa, Australia or New Zealand. Our geographic location gives us distinct advantage, and our track record in research and logistics rams it home.

Hobart is home to the Australian Antarctic Division, the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. These are heavy-weight global institutions that have all made monumental contributions to our understanding of Antarctica, especially in the last decade, the Southern Ocean and especially our understanding of global and regional climate change. These 'big four' institutions play a critical global role in climate science. They provide research that is essential to our understanding of the fate of the planet and the fate of future generations of humanity.

I cannot underestimate the value of this research. How fast will the world warm? How fast will the oceans acidify? How high will the seas rise? How much drier or wetter will Australia get? These are questions we cannot properly answer without continuing and expanding research efforts in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. As an economist I can say that there has been no single valuation given to the impacts or the potential risks and impacts of climate change. But we do know from a range of studies that it will be in the trillions of dollars. The only people who would place no valuation on those potential risks are climate deniers.

Only recently have we come to grips with the quirks of expanding Antarctic sea-ice and the significant decline and potential collapse of the continental ice-sheets. We are learning that the Southern Ocean is warming faster than other oceans and faster than we expected. We have also learned that the climate and rainfall of Australia is connected to the climate of Antarctica. The decline of rainfall of south-west Western Australia is directly related and highly correlated to climate changes in Antarctica and events such as snowfall. We need this research. We need these institutions to carry out this research. And we need these institutions to be based in Hobart.

Until recently there were as many as 630 scientists as part of a community of 800 professionals involved in Antarctic research based in Hobart, and there are many more people employed in technical support work, such as engineers, tradespeople, dock workers et cetera. For a low-average income state all of these jobs are high paying—twice the state's average wage. The employees are highly specialised scientists or tradespeople who need to develop deep expertise to be able to carry out and support work in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. The Tasmanian government estimates the Antarctic sector has a direct and indirect economic benefit to the state of $600 million to $700 million per annum. Any growth in this sector is an economic boon for the state, and any decline in this sector will have dire economic consequences—not to mention social consequences to a tightly knit Hobart community.

Growth is necessary from a national interest perspective on the need for climate knowledge alone. It is also needed from a national interest perspective because we need to maintain a significant presence to our south to justify the claims of sovereignty we make on the Southern Ocean, the whale sanctuary and Antarctica itself. But growth in this sector is also possible from outside of Australian government support. The world needs this scientific research. The world wants a deeper understanding of Antarctica. I believe this is very close to the single biggest economic opportunity for our state. But, unfortunately, this current government is going in the wrong direction. Massive across the board cuts to the Australian Antarctic Division and the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Centre has caused an enormous and ongoing brain drain and also cut our technical and logistical capacity to undertake research. These cuts are a direct assault on the economic future of Tasmania and put at risk the greatest opportunity we have.

Our researchers are world-class and world respected. We attract students from all over the world to study at UTAS and IMAS—something Peter Rathjen talked about here at Parliament House last night. Those researchers work in collaboration with the other institutions. But we need a critical mass, now and into the future, to retain them and to encourage future investment. Cuts to funding across the board only add uncertainty to their potential and their future careers in science.

It is no secret that China and other world powers are looking to boost their research presence and capability in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica and are looking for partnership opportunities, but they need to choose between Hobart, Christchurch, South America or Cape Town. What will swing the decision will be logistics, research capacity and reputation. Reputation is everything in scientific research. Collaboration is essential for reputation, and vice versa. Our research capacity at the moment is at risk. We are doing okay on the logistics front. We have a shiny new CSIRO research vessel, which I and the Southern Ocean inquiry committee members were able to visit only last week. The Southern Ocean inquiry is very timely. It is finishing this Friday. It has certainly shone a light on the importance of research in the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic, to both Tasmania and Australia.

We are tendering out the construction of a new ice breaker and the AAD has an Airbus A319 to take passengers and light cargo down to Casey Station when it can. But we are cutting our research output and we are taking the axe to logistics routine expenses. We are getting fewer days of research on the Aurora Australisand, shockingly, the brand new RV Investigator only has a budget for 180 days, not the 300 days a year it was purchased for and scientists were promised. This means that research projects are now on the backburner. I quote from the recent Southern Ocean inquiry hearing in Hobart that early career academic researchers are 'sitting twiddling their thumbs'. Other scientists question whether this is a false economy as it adds to both research and maintenance costs for the vessel to have it sitting in the dock and taking shorter voyages. It also means that we will not be able to undertake climate research in all seasons. This may punch holes in long-running climate projects and skew our understanding of climate change impacts. We have an impending crisis in our Southern Ocean endeavours. It is cutting to the core of our ability to undertake research and it is a handbrake on the sector's ability to grow and prosper.

I offer a suggestion to the government. The government has committed $38 million to extend the Hobart runway. This is an important initiative in the long term. It is not necessary or anywhere near the most pressing issue in Antarctic logistics and scientific research at the moment. It is the wrong time to allocate these funds when the sector has crises elsewhere. Here are my issues with the extension of the Hobart runway as a tool to benefit Antarctic research. The purpose of extending the runway is to enable Hobart to take larger planes that can carry heavier payloads, yet there is no assessment of the airfreight or passenger needs with regard to Antarctic transport. I do not see $38 million in value to the Antarctic sector at the moment from this investment. Our Wilkins runway at Casey Station, opened in 2008, was built for 30 flights a year, but due to ice melts it has barely managed to reach 10 a year. In some years they have had as few as four flights. Why add more capacity at one end of an air link if the other end is broken? Competition with the US-NZ route is often flagged as a reason to expand Hobart airport, but even Hobart airport recently admitted they could never compete with this 50-year relationship.

It makes sense to look at expanding Hobart runway, but only when you have a full assessment of all the Antarctic transport needs together: air and sea freight; Hobart and Wilkins runways. We also need to look at intracontinental transport on Antarctica itself. To say that we need this runway extension to attract immediate Chinese investment is a furphy. It would be like building all the stadiums before you have won the right to host the Olympics. I propose that the government commission Infrastructure Australia to undertake a full and independent review of Antarctic logistics: freight and passengers, ports and airports, air travel and sea travel. We need to look at both ends of the air chain: Hobart runway and Wilkins runway. I suggest that $1 million should be enough.

The funding for Hobart airport should be deferred until all of this planning has been undertaken. A business plan just for Hobart airport alone is insufficient justification for $38 million in spending. In the interim, the remaining funding should be redirected immediately to allow extra days of research to be carried out by the RV Investigator and the Aurora Australis. Both boats are sitting at dock in Hobart. The RV Investigator costs approximately $140,000 a day to run. Redirecting this money could give it over 85 days per year research over the next three years and would solve a major research logistical bottleneck. All of these things were very clearly pointed out to us by both the senior management of these major research institutions in Hobart as well as some of the world's best scientists, who cannot access this boat for two years for some absolutely critical projects, like ocean acidification projects. When the Antarctic transport review is completed, then we could look at reallocating funding to the Hobart runway extension, once a full business case has been produced by the government and by Infrastructure Australia, if it is deemed necessary.

We need to get this sector sorted. It is the future of my state and it is critical to our understanding of the fate of the climate and our planet. We cannot allow the brain drain and logistical crisis to continue in Tasmania. We need to intervene now. I have put forward a positive practical suggestion and I hope that the government will consider it seriously.