Senator McLUCAS —I will start with properties from the Antarctic Division. What properties does the Antarctic Division own?

Mr Allen —The Antarctic Division does not own the property in Kingston. It is leased. It owns property of plant and equipment in Australia and in Antarctica.

Senator Abetz —Are you talking real estate?

Senator McLUCAS —Real estate.

Mr Allen —The only property the Antarctic Division owns is the stations in Antarctica but not the property.

Senator McLUCAS —I understand that. You do not own any property in Tasmania?

Mr Allen —No.

Senator McLUCAS —Have you previously owned property in Tasmania?

Mr Allen —The Commonwealth previously owned property but the Antarctic Division did not.

Senator McLUCAS —When was that?

Mr Allen —I am not quite sure of the exact date that the property was sold but it was probably in the order of about eight years ago.

Senator McLUCAS —Where was that property?

Mr Allen —That was the Kingston property and also there was a set of flats in Sandy Bay.

Senator McLUCAS —What were they for? I know we are going back over time.

Mr Allen —They were expedition accommodation.

Senator McLUCAS —What address were they?

Mr Allen —They were in Lower Sandy Bay. I am not quite sure of the exact address.

Senator McLUCAS —Could you possibly provide that to us?

Mr Allen —Yes, certainly.

Senator McLUCAS —We will now go to what role the Antarctic Division has in the development of Australia’s policy on whales.

Mr Press —The Australian Antarctic Division is not responsible for the development of whales policy but we do provide scientific research and support to the Whaling Commissioner and participate in the IWC Scientific Committee.

Senator McLUCAS —What section of the department is responsible? Mr Borthwick, you may be able to help us there.

Mr Borthwick —It is the Marine and Biodiversity Division.

Senator McLUCAS —With respect to scientific research and support, can you give the committee an understanding of the nature of the work that you do in the division to do with whales policy?

Mr Press —With regard to whales science, we have a number of research programs conducted in Antarctica and elsewhere to do with the ecology of whales and the counting of whales. In fact, we have some research at the moment that is listening to whale acoustics and trying to understand how you might use that methodology to determine whale abundance. We coordinate through the Australian Centre for Applied Marine Mammal Science work around Australia on whales, including observation of their numbers and their behaviour. We have done some very innovative work in recent years looking at the diet of whales by following them and scooping their scats out of the water to see what they have been eating. We have also done some non-lethal research via biopsy for whales and we have done some whale tagging to monitor the movement of whales.

Senator McLUCAS —Is it possible to give the committee an understanding of the budget allocation within your division that is spent on whaling?

Mr Press —There are no dollars spent on whaling.

Senator McLUCAS —Thank you. I am very pleased to know that—on whale policy?

Mr Press —I will have to take that on notice. That is not an easy question to answer without doing some hypothecating, but I can provide that to the committee.

Senator McLUCAS —There is no line in the way you do your accounting where you could say that is money that is being spent on the development of whale policy?

Mr Press —There is no line that says that that is money that is being spent on the development of whale policy. We do have budgets down to sections but, on a fully accrued basis, if you take into account, say, the amount of ship time, ocean support and various other things like that, that line item is not very meaningful. But I can provide the committee with a comprehensive estimate.

Senator McLUCAS —I might come back to you on that. I do not want you to do things for the purpose of answering a question when it is not answering the question that I actually want to ask. I will put that on notice if that is the best way to do it. Can you tell the committee how many whales have been slaughtered in Australian waters in this current year?

Mr Press —That question would be best asked of the Marine and Biodiversity Division. The most accurate answer would come from there.

Senator McLUCAS —I will ask those questions to the department as well. I am moving off whales on to climate change. What research do you do, as the Antarctic Division, on aspects of climate change?

Mr Press —We have a broad scientific research agenda, which is directly and indirectly related to climate change. One of the government goals for the Australian Antarctic Division is understanding the role of Antarctica in the global climate system. We do that principally but not solely in partnership with CSIRO, the University of Tasmania, the Bureau of Meteorology and other agencies in the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre at the University of Tasmania. We have all of our glaciology people there, we have many of the people in our Antarctic ecosystems program at the CRC and we also have some additional research being done through our atmospheric research program looking at the temperature of the very high atmosphere and measuring climate change by proxy there.

Senator McLUCAS —This is the same sort of question that I asked you about whales. Is it possible to identify a portion of funds out of your whole budget that is spent on climate change?

Mr Press —Yes, it is, taking into account that we can do our direct contribution to the cooperative research centre, both in kind and in support, and our own supported research. It comes to around $42 million.

Senator McLUCAS —Annually?

Mr Press —Annually.

Senator McLUCAS —Is that projected to change in the out years?

Mr Press —It will remain fairly stable although with the recent changes to the budget we will probably have more support for that through marine science.

Senator McLUCAS —Through marine science?

Mr Press —We got supplementation in the out years for our fuel costs, which means we will be able to conduct the marine science that we intended to do, so it will be stable or a bit above what it is.

Senator McLUCAS —Does the division have a view as to whether the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report understated or overstated the likely impacts of climate change?

Mr Press —We do not have a particular view on that although much of the research work that went into that has either directly or indirectly been looked at by our scientists, and some of our scientists were involved in providing expertise and were involved in writing parts of the IPCC report. It is fair to say that Australian scientists and scientists involved in research in Antarctica made a significant contribution to that report one way or another.

Senator McLUCAS —Was the division involved in any way in research which was published in the journal Science in May of this year, which shows the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide has weakened by about 15 per cent per decade since 1981?

Mr Press —I am aware of that publication. I am not sure whether any of our scientists were directly involved in that but we have just conducted a significant marine science voyage this summer south of Tasmania to the ice edge in which we were looking at, amongst other things, the changes to the ocean at various depths and directly looking at the impacts of what is commonly known as ocean acidification on the phytoplankton in particular in that part of the Southern Ocean. That research will take some time to be published but the scientists involved were very pleased with the amount of data that they got and there will be some significant publications coming out of that. I think it will be a major contribution to the global understanding of ocean acidification.

Senator McLUCAS —When you say it will take some time, you are at the data collection point, so it will take some time.

Mr Press —Some of those papers are in preparation now but you can never hurry scientists on these things. They are very cautious people.

Senator McLUCAS —I understand that. Are we talking about a year or 10 years?

Mr Press —Some of those publications will be out, I would say, in a year to two years—not all of them but some.

Senator McLUCAS —With regard to the article that was in Science, what are the implications of that research?

Mr Press —There is a fair bit of speculation at the moment about what will be the effects of ocean acidification if it continues but there are broadly two major areas of potential impact. One is the ability of animals and plants in the water to form themselves properly. We know that as the ocean becomes less alkaline, some of those organisms cannot create the shells that they make with the calcium in the water because it is not available to them and they become deformed. The speculation around that is that there may be a whole suite of organisms that will either shift their range or just not be available in the food chain anymore. So that is one area of scientific interest at the moment. The other area of interest is physically how much carbon can actually be taken up by the ocean, and that is still a matter of active research. We do know that the high latitudes—the ocean closest to Antarctica—is showing the effects of ocean acidification more rapidly than many other parts of the world and that is a combination of the oceanography and the regional climate in that area.

Senator McLUCAS —Does it have any implication for sea level rise?

Mr Press —I do not think so. It is to do with the pH of the water and the ability of organisms to live in it.

Senator McLUCAS —That is all I have on the Antarctic Division.

Senator BOB BROWN —Just following on from that discussion, you were talking about the effect of acidification on phytoplankton and how a whole suite of organisms may lose their range or not be available. That presumably will have an impact on whales.

Mr Press —I would postulate, but it is mere speculation at this stage; there are a lot of scientists turning their mind to this. If you just go back a few years, this was thought to be theoretically possible in the late 1990s. It is now seen to be practically possible and real, so we are looking at something that is very new and something that has not been studied for very long. The scientists that are doing this have only been doing it for the last couple of years, which in the realms of science is a very short time. If those organisms disappear from the food chain, there is speculation about whether that will affect krill. If it does affect krill, will that go on to affect the things that feed on krill, such as penguins and whales?

Senator BOB BROWN —One would expect that that would be proportionate. If not, how do you work out the impact?

Mr Press —At this stage I do not think there are any models that have tried to model what the impact might be. What you find in some ecosystems when there are forced changes is that they flip into a state that is very different from what they started out to be, and so sometimes these impacts are not proportional or linear. They might be dramatic, or prey species switch and find other things to feed on. But at the moment I cannot see and I have not seen any models to suggest what specifically that outcome might be.

Senator BOB BROWN —What other species would the prey species feed on?

Mr Press —That depends on what takes their place in the water—whether things move south or come from different parts of the ocean.

Senator BOB BROWN —Let us look at whales feeding on the krill, which feeds on the phytoplankton. What substitute could you see, for the krill that they feed on, taking their place and providing an alternative feeding source?

Mr Press —The only substitute I would see would be salps, if salps moved further south.

Senator BOB BROWN —In the same volume?

Mr Press —Yes, but there may be others that I am not aware of.

Senator BOB BROWN —This is an important question and I recognise that we are looking at new science here, but what confidence would you have that that would happen?

Mr Press —I would not be confident to make any prediction about that. This is something that scientists who have a direct interest in the ecosystems of the Southern Ocean will be spending a fair bit of time on over the next few years.

Senator BOB BROWN —You would agree that it is hazardous to speculate that when the food source goes for major predators some other food source will be available in equal abundance to replenish the predator at the top of that food tree.

Mr Press —It would be hazardous to speculate.

Senator BOB BROWN —It would be hazardous to depend upon that speculation, wouldn’t it?

Mr Press —I would not depend on it.

Senator BOB BROWN —What would you depend on?

Mr Press —The advice of my scientists when they had a handle on what was happening down there.

Senator BOB BROWN —You would expect they will be able to answer that question?

Mr Press —There is a fair bit of work going on in this area, and I think that some time in the next three to 10 years there will be a pretty good model for how that change might occur.

Senator BOB BROWN —What about the krill replenishment under the ice that is melting in the Antarctic? What is the current scientific assessment of what is going on there?

Mr Press —With the ice or with the krill?

Senator BOB BROWN —Both.

Mr Press —With the ice there are some parts of Antarctica, particularly around the Antarctic Peninsula, where ocean temperatures have risen by a number of degrees—one to three degrees along the Peninsula area—and a number of the floating ice shelves have collapsed. One of those, the Larsen B ice shelf, covered about 3,500 square kilometres approximately. It collapsed about 10,000 years ago, but this collapse was pretty rapid and as a consequence there is now some speculation that the glaciers that are held back by this floating ice may be accelerating and carving more regularly.

Senator BOB BROWN —Is that speculation or is that actually turning up in observations by scientists in the Antarctic?

Mr Press —When I say ‘some speculation’ I mean generally around Antarctica. Yes, there are some direct observations of glaciers increasing there.

Senator BOB BROWN —What are they showing?

Mr Press —Just that the flow rates have increased.

Senator BOB BROWN —By how much?

Mr Press —I cannot tell you that off the top of my head.

Senator BOB BROWN —Could you find that information for us, please?

Mr Press —Of course. To balance that there are other parts of Antarctica where this is not happening and there is a general view among glaciologists that measurements from all around the continent will help answer that question. It is the whole question of mass balance and how much ice there is in Antarctica on the continent.

Senator BOB BROWN —When you say ‘to balance that’, that is implying that there is an accretion of ice balancing the loss of ice. Has that been showing up in scientific experimentation?

Mr Press —It is patchy. There is some evidence that the interior of Antarctica has had increased precipitation but we do not have enough measurements across all of Antarctica to make a general answer to that question.

Senator BOB BROWN —Is there some evidence that there has also been loss?

Mr Press —Yes. As I said, around the Peninsula there has been loss.

Senator BOB BROWN —But not on the interior?

Mr Press —I think I am correct in saying that I do not think there is any evidence of decreased precipitation in the interior, but I may be wrong.

Senator BOB BROWN —But loss of ice.

Mr Press —The ice has to flow into the ocean to be lost. It is not sort of melting.

Senator BOB BROWN —Yes. So we have got an accelerating loss of ice in at least parts of Antarctica—

Mr Press —In some parts.

Senator BOB BROWN —which will lead to a loss of ice in the interior, won’t it?

Mr Press —It will eventually, yes.

Senator BOB BROWN —Can you tell the committee about the reports in the last couple of days about a very large area of loss of snow in Antarctica?

Mr Press —I am unaware of that report, I am sorry.

Senator BOB BROWN —Could you find that report of the last 48 hours? I will get it for you if you have trouble. It is in national and international press. It is about loss of snow leading to a very worrying concern therefore about loss of reflectivity in Antarctica and accretion of heat. This is showing up in recent scientific data.

Mr Press —I shall.

Senator BOB BROWN —Thank you. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about Macquarie Island. When did your division first approach the federal government or supply information to the minister about damage to Macquarie Island from feral species—the rabbit? I will come down to the species causing the havoc at the moment—rabbits and rats.

Mr Press —The first formal approach to the minister may have been from the Tasmanian government.

Senator BOB BROWN —When do you think that was?

Mr Press —It would not have come through us so you may have to ask the Heritage Division that.

Senator BOB BROWN —All right. Was there no informal information coming from you to the federal government?

Mr Press —A number of our scientists worked down there so it was reasonably common knowledge that the rat population is increasing, and this has been discussed by the Tasmanian government in its MIRAG committee, the Macquarie Island Research Advisory Group, whose responsibility it is for signing off on research projects at Macquarie Island.

Senator BOB BROWN —When was that?

Mr Press —Because I am not a participant in MIRAG I cannot tell you, but I can take that on notice.

Senator BOB BROWN —My understanding is that the Tasmanian government had information about quite devastating environmental impacts from the population explosion of rabbits two years ago. Would that be when scientists had that information?

Mr Press —I cannot really speak on behalf of the Tasmanian government.

Senator BOB BROWN —I am asking about your scientists.

Mr Press —I would imagine that it was the Tasmanian government scientists that passed that information on to the Tasmanian government, because we support a number of Tasmanian government positions down there—researchers, and Parks and Wildlife officers, as well as officers from the Department of Primary Industries and Water. I presume that the information that the Tasmanian government got directly was from them.

Senator BOB BROWN —If you would not mind, I will get you to take this question on notice, because I do not expect to you to know straight off. When did the division first become aware of increasing environmental damage from the growth in the population of rabbits consequent on the loss of cats? Can you let the committee know when that information was first passed to the minister’s office or when your contact to or from the minister’s office about that issue began, and also the Tasmanian government? Can you tell the committee what the situation is on Macquarie Island at the moment as an outcome of the rabbit plague that is there?

Mr Press —That question would be best answered by somebody from the Heritage Division. They went down there this year.

Senator BOB BROWN —Your division is not aware of it?

Mr Press —Of course I am aware of it. I have seen the pictures, talked to people about it and in fact supported the scientists to go down there, so I am aware of it, but to get a comprehensive picture of where that is it is probably best answered by the Heritage Division rather than by me.

Senator BOB BROWN —Have you approached or spoken with the minister or his predecessors about this matter?

Mr Press —I think I am correct in saying that I have not spoken with the minister about this matter and I do not recall having spoken to Minister Campbell about the matter.

Senator BOB BROWN —Didn’t you think it was serious enough to approach the minister about it?

Mr Press —The matter was being handled elsewhere in the department.

Senator BOB BROWN —Yes, but you in your position obviously can add to the gravity of the situation by making sure the minister is fully aware of it and that you have added your authority to the concern.

Mr Press —I usually do not take it upon myself to speak on behalf of somebody else that has responsibility for a policy matter.

Senator BOB BROWN —Do you mean somebody else in your department?

Mr Press —Yes.

Senator BOB BROWN —Did you ensure that somebody in your department made sure that the minister knew exactly what was happening?

Mr Press —I think I am right in saying that the Heritage Division acted appropriately, but you should ask them that.

Senator BOB BROWN —I am asking you: why did you not approach the minister directly?

Mr Press —It is not my responsibility to approach the minister directly. That was somebody else’s responsibility, and my assessment is that they were doing this appropriately.

Senator BOB BROWN —That the minister was informed appropriately? That is what I am asking you about.

Mr Press —I cannot answer that question, I am afraid.

Senator BOB BROWN —Ought not you have known and made sure that the minister was informed as early as possible about this damage to the World Heritage Macquarie Island?

Mr Press —I think I have answered that question.

Senator BOB BROWN —You answered it by saying you did not make that approach. Let us be clear about it: you did not think it was important enough.

Mr Press —I did not say that at all.

Senator Abetz —That is not what he has been saying at all. It is the Heritage Division that is responsible for Macquarie Island.

Senator BOB BROWN —Yes, I am aware of that.

Senator Abetz —So the normal chain of command would be that the Heritage section would make representations to the minister, not the Antarctic Division?

Senator BOB BROWN —Let me put it this way: are you aware of a very great concern within the Antarctic Division about the damage on Macquarie Island?

Mr Press —I am aware that we have scientists and others in the Antarctic Division that are aware of what is happening on Macquarie Island and, yes, they have some concerns.

Senator BOB BROWN —Does it concern you that action was not taken over the last 12 months to reduce the impact on Macquarie Island of the rabbits?

Mr Press —It is not really my place to answer that question. It is a matter for the Heritage Division to answer that question.

Senator BOB BROWN —Your concerns are a matter for the Heritage Division?

Mr Press —No, how the department acted and otherwise.

Mr Borthwick —Macquarie Island is a World Heritage Area. Concerns about maintenance of the World Heritage values and damage that rodents are causing have been addressed by our Heritage Division, and of course they talk to our Antarctic Division in terms of that, but all the advice that goes to the minister on the rodent problems comes from the Heritage Division.

Senator BOB BROWN —I will keep further questions until I get to the Heritage Division, and you can judge my concern about it. I would like to ask about the supply of energy to the bases in Antarctica. How is that provided?

Mr Press —The primary source of energy to our research stations in Antarctica is fuel oil, but we have run a reasonably successful industrial scale wind generation program at Mawson station, which was the subject of quite some interest at the recent Antarctic treaty meeting. That has reduced our requirement on fuel oil at Mawson station considerably.

Senator BOB BROWN —By how much?

Mr Press —I think the exact figure is about 30 per cent annually. We have also had a very small but nonetheless interesting demonstration project looking at whether we can use the excess energy that is produced sometimes by that wind generation to produce hydrogen as well. But the hydrogen economy is a long way off.

Senator BOB BROWN —How many bases are there in Antarctica?

Mr Press —We have three permanent stations—Mawson, Davis and Casey—as well as the station at Macquarie Island, and there are a number of smaller field sites.

Senator BOB BROWN —Why is it that only one of them has a renewable energy source?

Mr Press —That is a reasonably complicated question. We chose Mawson station because of the predictability of the winds. We needed a rather large capital investment to do that. It is not cheap. We managed to find suitable wind generators. We sourced them from Germany from a company called ENERCON, and we did it there to see the potential we had and whether we could gain the penetration that we needed to make it economically viable. As I said, it has been reasonably successful. It has not been completely successful. We do have two issues, which we are still grappling with. One is how to store excess energy in Antarctica, and the other is how you deal with the interface between the grid that you are putting power into and the wind turbines themselves when you have great fluctuations, as you do in Antarctica—very strong winds and then no wind—and getting that interface. The computing around that interface has been very difficult.

Senator BOB BROWN —Has there been an assessment of what proportion of the total energy use for the four stations could be provided by wind and other renewable sources?

Mr Press —We have looked generally at that question. We would still like to try to get the problems that we are still trying to sort out at Mawson solved. Because if we cannot solve those problems there, then the reliability of wind at the other two stations is not as great and would make the economic payback on that wind generation a lot more difficult. You do have a fairly big labour cost in trying to erect wind turbines in Antarctica, so we are waiting to see how our wind generation at Mawson goes over the next couple of years before we would embark upon another big project like that somewhere else.

Senator BOB BROWN —Has there been an energy audit at the bases?

Mr Press —Yes, there has been. In two ways—we have reduced energy consumption particularly over the last 10 to 15 years simply by being more efficient—

Senator BOB BROWN —Are you using less energy now than you were 10 years ago?

Mr Press —We are using less fuel now than we were 10 years ago. We put in computerised management systems that help us regulate temperature and energy consumption on the stations and that has had a steady impact on decreasing fuel consumption on all of our stations.

Senator McLUCAS —I will refer this question on properties to Mr Allen. Do you have any rental properties in Australia other than the Kingston property?

Mr Allen —Yes, we had one at the wharf where we do our packing and stores. That is Macquarie No. 4 Wharf Shed.

Senator McLUCAS —In Hobart?

Mr Allen —In Hobart.

Senator McLUCAS —Is that it?

Mr Allen —Yes.

Senator SIEWERT —Are you involved in the Antarctic CRC?

Mr Press —I am not personally.

Senator SIEWERT —Is the department?

Mr Press —Yes. We are the major shareholder of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC. We hold about 61 per cent.

Senator SIEWERT —I understand there is a new project starting that is related to the climate change issue that is going down to do some new work under the ice later in the year?

Mr Press —This year in August, Voyage I will be a mid-winter sea ice voyage, so they will be going into the ice and doing all kinds of things there.

Senator SIEWERT —Is one of the projects looking under the ice to measure under the ice?

Mr Press —We do have a research project on the Amery ice shelf where we have drilled holes with a hot water drill through the ice 500 metres or so, and we have a number of instruments now under the ice looking at melting and refreezing underneath the glazier.

Senator SIEWERT —Is that new or is that ongoing work?

Mr Press —It is ongoing and it is new. It is both.

Senator SIEWERT —What is the new bit?

Mr Press —It is just that this is the first time we have done anything like this and it is producing some very interesting results. It is helping us understand what is happening with the dynamics of the ice sheet as it is floating on the water. Eventually it will be able to tell us whether there is a lot more melt underneath these floating glaciers than we had predicted in the past.

Senator SIEWERT —Bearing in mind what you said to Senator McLucas about needing time for the science, when could we expect to see the first results coming from that?

Mr Press —I would imagine that it would be in the next 12 months to two years. Scientists do try to get cutting edge science out into the scientific literature pretty quickly, and we have a policy of both supporting our scientists and encouraging our scientists to get their information out as quickly as they can.

Senator SIEWERT —I have a question that might evolve into two or three and which follows on from the question that Senator Brown asked about the other species coming in essentially and taking the place of phytoplankton and krill. Is that assuming that they can then tolerate different pHs?

Mr Press —Yes.

Senator SIEWERT —What you are assuming is species that colonise that space will then be species that can accommodate those lower pHs?

Mr Press —Just to be very clear, I was not assuming anything. I was just speculating that, if something did happen, that is one of the possibilities. Anything that lives in the ocean has to be able to tolerate the conditions that it is in.

Senator SIEWERT —I appreciate that, but we are talking about a changing environment.

Mr Press —Yes.

CHAIR —There are no further questions, so that will conclude the Antarctic Division. Thank you very much for appearing.

[7.54 pm]