Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the committee on their work and their report. I also—Dare I say it? Dare the words pass my lips?—congratulate the Greens on raising this issue and initiating this inquiry. The report is a very good one. It is very well prepared and well argued. It covers many of the issues that are important to Australian—indeed to the world—relating to the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic mainland.

Antarctica, and all things associated with it, is another area where Australia punches well above its weight. Australia has been, and has been recognised as, one of the world leaders in Antarctic science for many years. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is based in Hobart. It is an international body that deals with Antarctic marine living resources, as its name suggests. That aspect—being a worldwide organisation—attracts a lot of attention and a lot of world-class scientists to Hobart, which helps build upon the Australian domestic work on Antarctica. I have always had a very high regard for the Australian Antarctic Division and that regard remains unabated. They do a wonderful job, as do all of the associated research entities in Australia—mainly in Tasmania—in supporting the work on the Antarctic continent and in the Southern Ocean.

For me, going to the Hobart hearings was like a return home to the family. It was lovely to see, so many years after I was more closely involved, the same people there with the same passion for the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean. I will name just a few. It was great to see Professor Tony Press there, as well as Professor Denzil Miller, Mark Exel and Alistair Graham—who did not actually give evidence but who was the man who first excited my interest in the Southern Ocean and the Patagonian toothfish issue those many years ago. It was great to see Alistair there. I always say to him—and you would appreciate this, Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson—that I consider him to be a close friend notwithstanding his close association with the Greens. He has been passionate about this area for many years. I also see that Mr Peter Venslovas gave evidence. Peter, when I knew him, was the AFMA officer who dealt with enforcement issues. Many years ago, when the Australian government had a major campaign against illegal fishing for toothfish in the Southern Ocean, he was at the forefront of that campaign to enforce Australian and international rules.

The scientific work done by Australia across all fields of Antarctic and Southern Ocean research is significant. That is recognised. As you did in your contribution, Mr Acting Deputy President, I lament that we do not seem to be giving it the same prominence that we did in the past. I was not associated with the inquiry when the inquiry went into the figures, so perhaps I am wrong and perhaps the government could well say that expenditure on Antarctic science is as big or even bigger than it ever was. However—and I do not want to be too political about this, although I will be a little bit political—during the period of the last Labor government, resources in this area seemed to be diverted. They seemed to go to an area that was more prominent with that government—trying to manage and house the huge number of illegal maritime arrivals that came to Australia at that time. A lot of the resources involved in Southern Ocean research that had been in place for many years under the Howard government seemed to get diverted at that time.

I, like you, Mr Acting Deputy President, think it is essential that we maintain that world recognition of the effort we put into that part of the world. It is important and Australia has a recognised leadership role. It is also very important, as you and Senator Gallacher have mentioned, to the Tasmanian economy. Governments over a long period of time have assisted the Tasmanian economy through the support they have given for Antarctic operations out of our island state.

I have only briefly glanced through the recommendations. Without committing myself to all of them, that brief glance suggested to me that they are on the right track. They seem to be recommendations that, in the main, I would be able to support. I will make a passing comment in relation to recommendation 2 of the additional comments by the Australian Greens, which relates to the Hobart runway extension. I am not familiar with all the detail from recent times, but suffice it to say that getting an air service to Antarctica was a very significant, very important issue about 10 years ago. The only science we used to do down there was when the Aurora Australis took scientists down there. It was usually a lengthy sea trip. Once you got there, you were pretty much confined there for some time—depending on when you went and when you came back.

The complaint was always that there was not enough turnover of scientists, particularly new scientists wanting to develop their expertise in the area. Achieving air contact with the continent was a step that was intended to address that issue. I understand the runway is being extended to allow bigger planes into Antarctica. I caution against in any way diverting funds from that project into more ship days. While ship days are important, the real science on the mainland depends on getting scientists there and getting them back in a timely way that fits in with the budgets of the various organisations they work for, as well as with their own timetables. I am not saying that I totally oppose the recommendation, but I would urge some caution in looking at that.

I am delighted that the committee has again brought to the fore and highlighted Australia's leading role in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. For that, I again congratulate the committee—as well as for the work they have done in producing this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.