Senator HOGG (7:00 PM) —I rise to speak on this report by the Joint Standing Committee on National Capital and External Territories as a member of that committee and a person who participated in the conduct of the inquiry. I thought that it was a very important inquiry indeed. The focus of the inquiry turned out to be the issue of funding for the Antarctic Division. It became clear to me—and it was a concern of mine that was expressed repeatedly throughout the inquiry—that the funding that has been available to the Antarctic Division over a long period of time, but particularly in the last nine long years of the Howard government, has not moved at all. The funding has been static, and the only way in which the Antarctic Division has been able to operate efficiently has been to make economies and efficiencies within its operations. It is like the old question: how much juice can one squeeze out of the orange or lemon? There is just so much, and I believe that at the end of the day the Antarctic Division is very fast reaching that time in its history.

The Antarctic Division is not one of the more prominent issues in the forefront of Australian minds, but it should be, because it performs a great service in terms of the research that is done at our sites in Antarctica and managed by the headquarters of the Antarctic Division in Kingston, in the outer suburbs of Hobart in Tasmania. The thing that repeatedly came to the attention of inquiry was the strength of the organisation, built on the diminishing resources that were being supplied. The report acknowledges that in the last budget the government determined that they would put in an air link, which is a welcome improvement for our scientists and which, from the evidence that we heard given to the committee, may well improve the standard of research that is performed by Australian scientists in the area. That is welcome indeed.

One of the concerns that I formed during the inquiry was that our research was starting to lag and we were not attracting the quality or quantity of scientists to Antarctica to do the research that is necessary, particularly in an area such as climate change. We had some excellent presentations from the Antarctic Division during the inquiry which clearly showed that the research that is carried out in Antarctica has a real, practical implication for us on the mainland in terms of our seasons, the diminishing rainfall that we are seeing in some areas and the climate change, as was mentioned by Senator Wortley in her first speech, that we may see into the future. I thought that, importantly, the committee did establish that there were some niche needs in that area, and for a report that has not a great number of pages there are a number of recommendations that all basically address the financial requirements of the Australian Antarctic Division.

I will look briefly at the recommendations. The first looks at operations and logistical support. The committee recommends that the government make funding available in this financial year for a scoping study for a new, dedicated marine research vessel. I think that it came across that, while the Aurora Australis is doing a magnificent task indeed, there is a need for a dedicated research vessel. The committee put into its report the need for funding to do a scoping study to determine just how that new, dedicated research vessel could be used to advantage us in pursuing research on the fishing grounds there and looking at changes in water temperature and how that will affect the food chain, not just in our immediate area but over a long distance around and off our shores.

The second recommendation looks at Australia’s obligations under the Antarctic Treaty System. We urge the government to put:

We had to put in that recommendation because it seems at this stage that the government has been remiss in investing substantial resources to show Australia’s interest in this very important conference which will take place in 2007-08. We also urged that, because of our significant role in the Antarctic area, Australia should play a significant role in the International Polar Year activities.

The third recommendation of the committee went to an important area that should not be overlooked, and that is conservation and protection of the Antarctic environment. The committee urged the Australian government to allocate an additional $50 million to the budget over a 10-year period. The committee made this recommendation on the basis that there are some significant remediation programs that need to be carried on with respect to past worksites in the Australian Antarctic Territory.

Senator Ian Macdonald —They’ve been doing that for a long time.

Senator HOGG —The minister on duty, Senator Ian Macdonald, interjects and says that they have been doing it for a long time. That is acknowledged, Minister, but the committee recognised from the evidence that had been presented to it that the need was beyond what the allocation currently is. I believe that that was a fair and reasonable conclusion for the committee to come to in this particular instance. Whether the government act on that will be their prerogative in the longer term, but the committee saw the need and made the recommendation that the government need to invest more heavily than they currently do in the remediation of certain sites in the Antarctic region. I do not think that was unreasonable in any way and I think that the government need to show that, in this particular pristine area, we are prepared to invest the dollars that are required to remediate these sites to a satisfactory standard.

The fourth recommendation of the committee went to the need to better fund the restoration and cultural heritage management of Mawson’s huts. Whilst there has been a program that has recognised that there is a dual role for the broader commercial community to sponsor restoration works in those areas, the significance of these sites should not be lost because there are insignificant funds being put in by the government at this stage. We are urging the government to boost the funding so that the proper restoration can be done before it becomes too late—before the iconic status of Mawson’s Hut gets lost in the pack of ice that currently invades the site itself.

Last but not least, the committee made recommendations in respect of our science program. In the report, we recommend to the government a doubling of funds from the current level of approximately $700,000 per annum for scientific research. We felt that the government have missed the mark. Whilst there is funding there, it is inadequate. It is insufficient.

The report clearly targets the need for better funding for the Australian Antarctic Division to support the magnificent work that has been done there by our scientists over a long period of time so that we can maintain the reputation that we have gained out of this research. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.