Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security section in the Parliamentary Library for welcoming me to the team for the duration of my Fellowship. I extend my sincere thanks to the section Director, Nigel Brew, for supporting this research endeavour. I was honoured to deliver 2 lectures while part of the Research Branch in the Parliamentary Library. Pivotal to facilitating these lectures and ensuring wide-reaching interest was the Research Branch Assistant Secretary, Jonathan Curtis. Finally, I am immensely grateful to former Parliamentary Librarian Dr Dianne Heriot. Dr Heriot ensured the necessary flexibility for me to undertake the Fellowship – part-time to balance work and young family demands – through a global pandemic for good measure.

Introduction

‘Maintaining Australia’s position in the Antarctic is critical, particularly at a time when international activity in the region is increasing’.[1]

Research aim

This study examines how Antarctica is currently dealt with in the Australian Parliament. Australia has a significant connection with Antarctica. Indeed, contemporary Antarctic coverage in Australian media, academia, and think tanks, increasingly focuses on strategic competition in and over the continent. While it is of scholarly interest to assess Australian strategic interests in Antarctica or muse the future of the Antarctic Treaty which manages great power competition at the South Pole, the focus of this study is to unveil how the Australian Parliament conceptualises Antarctica.

In understanding how parliament views Antarctica, this study seeks to offer a contemporary assessment of how parliament has navigated Antarctic affairs since 2000. Since then, we have witnessed renewed great power competition in the global commons. Russia is a global polar stakeholder with an enduring Arctic and Antarctic footing and China has expanded its polar footprint at both ends of the Earth. The notion of Australia as a political stakeholder in Antarctica is less obvious, and indeed, not publicly promoted.

Australia’s national Antarctic narrative is largely fixed around the notion of Australia’s leadership in scientific research and environmental protection. This study challenges this notion, with a key finding being: the Australian Parliament tends to view national Antarctic interests through a political lens, first and foremost. It is apparent there is a gap between the Australian Parliament’s reportage into political developments over Antarctica and the national discourse – not least an incorrect assumption that the parliament views our national Antarctic stake largely in science or environmental leadership terms as per the public discourse.

Methodology

This study employs a qualitative methodology to investigate parliamentary approaches to conceptualising Antarctica since 2000. The scope of this study is focused on materials of the Australian Parliament. Government strategy and policy documents since 2000, while relevant to our national Antarctic debate, are not considered in this study. That said, current documents worth engaging to ensure a robust consideration of Australia’s Antarctic interests in a broader Australian defence and national security context, include:

• Defence white paper (2016)
• Foreign policy white paper (2017)
• Defence strategic update (2020)
• Australian Antarctic strategy and 20 year action plan update (2022)
• Australian Antarctic science strategic plan (2020)
• National security: Defence strategic review (2023)

The Australian Parliament has undertaken various Antarctic assessments and published important committee reports. However, most of these inquiries occurred in the period pre-2000, with key reports including:

• Report relating to the redevelopment of Australian Antarctic bases (1981)
• The natural resources of the Australian Antarctic Territory (1985)
• Management of the Antarctic Division (1989)
• Tourism in Antarctica (1989)
• Australian law in Antarctica (1992)

For the purposes of this study, Hansard debate along with the 3 key parliamentary committee reports tabled relating to Antarctica since 2000, are examined:

• Antarctica: Australia’s pristine frontier (2005)
• Australia’s future activities and responsibilities in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters (2014)
• Maintaining Australia’s national interests in Antarctica: inquiry into Australia’s Antarctic Territory (2018)

The (delayed) 2024 report of the inquiry into Australian Antarctic Division Funding is not examined.

Structure of study

This study consists of 3 parts. Part I begins with an assessment of Australian Antarctic interests and a brief overview of the contemporary security challenges posed. Australia’s Antarctic national interests can be broadly grouped into 2 clusters: the claim; and the system. The ‘claim’ refers to Australia’s sovereign claim to Antarctica – about 42% of the continental landmass – known as the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT). ‘System’ refers to Australia’s commitment to, and support of, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) – a collection of agreements nested together that reinforce the Antarctic Treaty (AT) at its core.

Part II of this study explores the ways in which the Australian Parliament has navigated, assessed, and considered Antarctica since 2000. The 3 key parliamentary committee reports tabled between 2000 and 2023 are examined with a view to determining how parliament has conceptualised the challenge of Antarctica.

Part III then considers the implications of the various ways in which the Australian Parliament has ‘dealt’ with Antarctica since 2000. It highlights the disconnect with existing broader public discourse on Antarctica. Clearly inferred by parliamentary committee report recommendations, is the significance of our territorial claim in Antarctica. This points to a second finding of this research study: the Australian Parliament could further underscore the duality of Australia’s Antarctic interests – to support both the territorial claim and the treaty system.

Part I Australia’s Antarctic Challenge

‘We are … entering a key juncture for international involvement in the Antarctic. Australia can no longer afford to be complacent’.[2]

The quote above is almost a decade old, yet it aptly captures Australia’s Antarctic challenge today. Part I of this study explores the complex issues that shape Antarctica and the different agendas driving global interests in the region. Why does Antarctica matter?

1.1    Antarctica

Antarctica is a unique continent with no native population, but it has drawn interest from numerous countries across the globe. The continent is home to a diverse range of plant and animal species, but more significantly, it houses up to 90% of the world’s ice and about 70% of the earth’s freshwater. Antarctica is home to some of the world’s largest ice sheets and an array of unique flora and fauna, which provide a wealth of opportunities for scientific study and exploration.

Due to its strategic location, astride all 3 major oceans (the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans) the geopolitical significance of Antarctica is immense. Rising populations, resource demands, and advances in technology have resulted in broader global interest in Antarctica – which might see growing political tensions and competing interests over the continent.

Enduring media interest in brewing strategic conflict and geopolitical disputes over territorial claims, competing interests, and access to resources, makes Antarctica ever relevant in national security discourse. While there is currently no immediate risk of war on Antarctica, current geopolitical tensions make it crucial to understand threats to the status quo and cooperative efforts of those involved in the continent’s management and protection.

1.2    Antarctic Treaty System

A series of negotiations between states partaking in the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957–1958 resulted in the Antarctic Treaty (AT). Discussions as to ‘what to do with Antarctica’ post the IGY – and largely based on fears the Soviet Union would not pack up its temporary research camps – concluded on 1 December 1959 and the AT subsequently entered into force on 23 June 1961.

The AT prohibits military activity and establishes Antarctica as a zone of international cooperation for scientific research. The AT places existing territorial claims to Antarctica in a ‘holding pattern’ – essentially setting the debate as to their legitimacy aside. States with claims are Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Further protected by the AT are the United States’ and Russia’s rights to maintain a ‘basis of claim’ to Antarctica. These extant territorial positions are protected into perpetuity by the AT as the strategic status quo (articulated by Article IV of the AT). It follows that no new claims can be staked, existing claims cannot be enlarged, and parties to the AT are not able to establish a claim to Antarctica via activity today.

The above 12 original parties to the AT, are now joined by a further 17 states that have illustrated their commitment to substantial research activity in Antarctica. These 29 parties are dubbed ‘consultative parties’ and have voting rights at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM). The first ever ATCM took place in Canberra (at Old Parliament House) in 1961. The AT remains a unique example of an international law instrument providing a governance mechanism for global cooperation. Membership of the AT has grown from 12 original negotiating parties (those states partaking in the IGY) to a total of 56 states in 2024.[3]

The AT forms the ‘heart’ of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) – a complex set of agreements that facilitate international cooperation over and in Antarctica. Two key international agreements that sit within this ATS umbrella, which Australia was pivotal in negotiating, are:

• Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) (1980)
• Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid Protocol) (1991)

1.3    Australia’s Antarctic interests

Australia has significant interests in Antarctica (and the Southern Ocean), which are integral to the nation’s strategic outlook. Australia’s presence in Antarctica is critical for ensuring that Australia’s territorial sovereignty is maintained. This is important for national security and contributes to the nation’s strategic goals of promoting peace and stability in the region.

Australia’s historical connection with Antarctica dates back to the early 20th century when Australian explorers, including Sir Douglas Mawson, played pivotal roles in expeditions to the continent. Mawson’s exploration and scientific work laid the foundation for Australia’s enduring interest in Antarctica. The establishment of Australian research stations, such as Mawson Station in 1954, further solidified Australia’s presence and commitment to the region. Today, Australia operates 4 year-round permanent stations in the region: Macquarie Station (on sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island); Mawson Station (in the AAT); Davis Station (in the AAT); and Casey Station (in the AAT). Australia’s Antarctic footprint is illustrated at Figure 1.

Figure 1           Australia and the Australian Antarctic Territory

  

Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Foreign Policy White Paper, 2017

Historical parliamentary acts passed almost a century ago solidify Australia’s linkage to the Antarctic continent. The 1933 Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act and the subsequent Australian Antarctic Territory Act of 1954 served to underscore Australia’s sovereign interest in some 42% of the Antarctic continent. Further, Australia was pivotal to the late 1950s discussions and debates regarding the future history of Antarctica – resulting in the AT.

Australia’s Antarctic interests are often considered in terms of geopolitical, scientific, and environmental terms. What follows is a brief discussion of these. As global interest in Antarctica grows, Australia’s strategic positioning becomes crucial in navigating the evolving geopolitical landscape. Antarctica serves as a strategic buffer – it is our southern doorstep – necessarily shaping our security considerations. The stability and cooperation established under the AT contribute to our southern regional security by preventing militarisation and conflicts at the south pole, benefiting our broader security interests.

Although the AT prohibits military activity and establishes Antarctica as a zone of international cooperation for scientific research, geopolitical undercurrents remain. As global powers continue to seek influence in the international system, Antarctica’s wealth of resources, including minerals and freshwater, could spark future geopolitical disputes.

While the 1991 Madrid Protocol designates Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to science, the evolving geopolitical landscape may challenge the sustainability of this commitment, raising questions about the potential exploitation of Antarctica’s resources and the enforcement of the existing legal framework. The continent is believed to contain vast reserves of minerals, including oil, gas, and valuable metals. As technological advancements make resource extraction in extreme environments more feasible, the economic allure of Antarctica may become increasingly challenging to resist.

Antarctica’s isolation makes it an ideal location for astronomical observations. Observatories in Antarctica provide unparalleled views of space, free from light pollution and atmospheric disturbances. The scientific discoveries made in Antarctica contribute not only to our understanding of the planet, but the utility of Antarctic-based ground receivers for satellites points to an increase in global interest in the continent. There are of course, evident military-strategic applications of research observatories, too.

Beyond geopolitics, Antarctica serves as a barometer for the health of the planet. The continent’s ice sheets and glaciers store vast amounts of freshwater, contributing to global sea level regulation. The potential melting of Antarctica’s ice, hastened by climate change, poses a significant threat to coastal areas worldwide. Antarctica is a unique natural laboratory, providing invaluable insights into climate change, glaciology, astronomy, and biodiversity. The continent allows researchers to study ice cores, which reveal crucial information about Earth’s climate history. Australia has long prided itself on scientific research in Antarctica. Australian scientists have made significant contributions to the scientific field, and continue to support collaborative efforts, often involving multiple nations, to leverage expertise further.

Antarctica’s significance to Australia is multifaceted, encompassing historical ties, geopolitical considerations, scientific contributions, environmental interests, and potential economic opportunities.

Part II Antarctica in the Australian Parliament

‘At a time when budget pressures are diminishing Australia’s ability to maintain its Antarctic effort, other nations are rapidly building their presence and investing in new capability to support an Antarctic presence for the decades ahead’.[4]

Part II of this study examines the approaches the Australian Parliament has taken to challenges, issues and concerns related to Antarctica since 2000. To unveil how Antarctica has been conceptualised by the Australian Parliament, over 2 decades of parliamentary Hansard and committee inquiries were canvassed.

2.1    Approaches

The study covered parliamentary Hansard from 2000 to 2023 for reference to, or discussion of, Antarctica. Four themes were used to group the Hansard parliamentary discourse: economic, environmental, legal and political.

Three relevant committee reports delivered to the Australian Parliament on Antarctic affairs since 2000 were assessed. Key findings and recommendations made by the parliamentary committee were analysed and considered in terms of how Antarctica was conceptualised – in terms of our territorial claim and our interest in the ATS. These report recommendations were further grouped according to the same themes as the Hansard discourse:

• Economic – discourse and policy recommendations regarding economics, trade, and/or wealth.
• Environmental – themes that touch on preservation and the natural world, especially one affected by human activity.
• Legal – sanctioned or legitimate activities or actions undertaken in Antarctic affairs (these predominantly relate to Australia’s engagement with the Antarctic Treaty System).
• Political – governance, procedural and strategic efforts done in the interest of states, as opposed to actions taken as a matter of principle.

2.2    Findings

Table 1 illustrates the key themes of parliamentary Hansard related to Antarctica between 2000 and 2023. Some themes – particularly that of the ‘2048’ treaty expiration and concerns over budgetary spending in Antarctica are not surprising. Nor is the fact that ‘science’ is a recurring theme. However, it is interesting to look at the holistic results (see Figure 2). Of the 38 themes identified in Hansard (Table 1), the majority are economic in nature.

Australian parliamentary debate has therefore been largely fixated on the fiscal windfalls and challenges of Australia’s Antarctic stake. It is worth reflecting on the reality that the average Australian might frame our national Antarctic stake in terms of ‘protecting the pristine home of penguins’, not in terms of ‘understanding the economic gains of a functioning Antarctic gateway city’.

Table 1      Themes of Australian Parliament Hansard discourse on Antarctica (2000–2023)

Reference material

Themes

Hansard (2000–2023) House of Representatives Senate Federation Chamber Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (Estimates – Agriculture, Water and the Environment Portfolio) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee

Economic mining potential in Antarctica Tasmania as the world’s gateway to Antarctica funding for Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) RSV Nuyina commissioning and delays investment plans for future Antarctic capability investment in inland traverse capabilities, charting activities, mobile stations, aerial and inland capabilities, medium-lift helicopters for the AAD climate change understanding stems from Antarctic research projects cancelled by AAD due to budget pressures development of Hobart Science Precinct domestic manufacture of Antarctic equipment relationship between ‘intent’ and ‘investment’ COVID-19 expedition impacts Davis year-round runway proposal base inspection forward program Environment World Heritage listing for Antarctica Australian ‘caretaking’ responsibilities in Antarctica Hobart port insecurities – with particular references to refuelling challenges Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) leadership Southern Ocean responsibilities Legal unambiguous nature of mining ban (Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty) Antarctic Treaty significance for keeping Antarctica free of militarisation ‘expiration’ of treaty concerns (2048 date) Antarctic territorial claims issue lack of treaty enforcement measures dual-use technologies and science Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings Antarctic Treaty System processes Political government commitment to peaceful presence in Antarctica international presence in the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) Chinese bases and their probable use in AAT presence in Antarctica provides protection from exploitative activities national security threat posed by Chinese programs Antarctic role in global satellite communications offshore patrol vessel inabilities science as a policy justification for Antarctic investment Australian public awareness of Antarctica surveillance activities AAD-China memorandum of understanding for operational cooperation

Figure 2     Focus of Australian parliamentary discourse on Antarctica (2000–2023)

 

Source: compiled by author

 

The next most prominent theme in parliamentary Hansard Antarctic discourse between 2000 and 2023 appears to be political in nature. Again, perhaps not too surprising is the prominent feature of China-related concerns. Yet, this aspect of parliamentary debate has not often flowed through to government-of-the-day policy in Antarctica. Indeed, these strategic challenges clearly debated in parliament, failed to land Antarctica a single mention in government policy documents like the 2023 Defence strategic review. In other policy documents, governments have tended to play down concerns related to political challenges in Antarctica – as the 2016 Defence white paper does by noting Australia’s Antarctic Territory is under ‘no credible risk’ of requiring military support in the future.

It is striking to see the environmental theme account for the least percentage of Australian parliamentary discourse on Antarctic affairs – primarily because the Australian Antarctic Division and governments over the 2000–2023 period have actively promoted Australian Antarctic interests through a narrow environmental lens. Perhaps to reduce diplomatic blowback in drawing attention to the political dynamics at play in Antarctica, it became standard operating procedure to fashion Australian Antarctic engagement rationales around environmental principles and ‘leadership’.

The second set of findings this study produced relates to three Antarctic-specific Parliamentary Committee Inquires undertaken between 2000 and 2023. Table 2 below summarises the key findings of each report.

Table 2      Key findings of Parliamentary Antarctic inquiries (2000–2023)

Report	Findings
Antarctica: Australia’s pristine frontier (2005)	Australia referred to as a ‘major player’ in Antarctic affairs underscored policy goals: promoting participation in the Antarctic Treaty System and enhanced influence within it; environmental protection; and global climate research role referred to Australia’s contribution to Antarctic science as world-leading found budgetary commitment to Antarctica should be ‘to an extent which not only reflects Australia’s standing as the nation with the largest territorial claim in Antarctica but also allows Australia to retain a competitive edge in the conduct of Antarctic science’ Australia has ‘profited’ from international collaboration in Antarctica Australian science facilitates Australian credibility in Antarctic affairs
Australia’s future activities and Responsibilities in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters (2014)	Department of Defence noted international activity and interest in the region was ‘increasing’ Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade argued ‘rather than seeing the interest of new states in the region as a threat’ Australia should ‘welcome their engagement’ Antarctic Treaty System seen by committee as a ‘keystone’ in Australian foreign and strategic policy found Antarctica should be more prominent in bilateral and multilateral discussions with Australian diplomats and ministers scientific research is the ‘currency’ of the Antarctic Treaty System Antarctic logistics are ‘both necessary and expensive’ China is a key partner and investor in Tasmania and Australian Antarctic activities – references the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding between Government of Tasmania and the State Oceanic Administration of China flags limited cooperation with the US in terms of using Hobart as a ‘gateway’ city of choice notes the ongoing discussions with India and Russia to promote Antarctic ‘gateway’ facilities suggested creation of an Antarctic ambassador for Australia
Maintaining Australia’s national interests in Antarctica: inquiry into Australia’s Antarctic Territory (2018)	report recommended Australia proceed with building a year-round paved runway at Davis Station four key themes in report: Australia’s leadership in governance of Antarctica; logistical support required into the future for program operations; Australian research standing in Antarctic science; and the economic benefits to be derived from ‘gateway’ city status of Hobart

The first inquiry since 2000, Antarctica: Australia’s pristine frontier, focused on the adequacy of funding for Australia’s Antarctic program. The 2005 inquiry attracted 40 submissions. The aim of the inquiry sought to uncover the ‘whether the Antarctic Division was receiving adequate finding to achieve the Government’s stated goals for the frozen continent’.[5] It is worth returning to the ‘stated goals’ for Australia in Antarctica as per the inquiry background:

• enhancing Australia influence in the Antarctic Treaty System
• protecting the Antarctic environment
• understanding Antarctica’s role in the global climate system
• conducting scientific research of practical, economic, or national significance

This 2005 parliamentary inquiry handed down only 5 recommendations, grouped in 4 priority areas: operations and logistical support; Australia’s obligations under the Antarctic Treaty System; conservation and protection of the Antarctic environment; and Australia’s Antarctic science program. The recommendations across all 4 priorities are listed below at Figure 3.

Figure 3     2005 Antarctic inquiry recommendations

Source: Antarctica: Australia’s Pristine Frontier, 2005

These 5 recommendations were assigned to the themes of this study, as per Table 3 below. The 2005 committee report noted ‘it is clear from the weight of evidence that Australia could – and should – be doing more to capitalise on its relationships with other Antarctic nations’. However, recommendations made by the report failed to include political ones, as Figure 4 illustrates, and most of the focus fell across Australia’s economic and environment interests in Antarctica.

Table 3      Thematic breakdown of 2005 Antarctic parliamentary inquiry

Theme	Recommendation
Economic	1 5
Environmental	3 4
Legal	2
Political	-

Figure 4     2005 Antarctic parliamentary report focus

Source: compiled by author

The second inquiry since 2000, Australia’s future activities and responsibilities in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters, focused on emerging political issues for Australia in Antarctica. This 2014 inquiry attracted almost half the submissions of the previous Antarctic inquiry – with a total of only 23. The reduced volume of submissions is of interest, given that the 2014 inquiry closely coincided with the launch of the Australian Government’s 20 year Australian Antarctic strategic plan – commissioned in late-2013. Arguably, Antarctica was certainly on the national agenda (not least, national discourse).

The 2014 inquiry included terms of reference that included Australia’s management and monitoring of the Southern Ocean specifically in terms of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and cooperation with international partners in Antarctica. Further, the inquiry sought to underscore whether there was appropriate resourcing for Australia’s Antarctic footprint.

The 2014 parliamentary inquiry tabled a vast array of recommendations related to Australia’s role in Antarctica. These recommendations are listed at Figure 5 below.

Figure 5     2014 Antarctic inquiry recommendations

Recommendation 1	Government to reaffirm the primacy of the Antarctic Treaty System to Australia’s sovereignty and national interests
Recommendation 2	Antarctica and Southern Ocean issues be a standing theme for Australian ministers and officials in multilateral and bilateral discussions
Recommendation 3	Commit to re-commencing maritime patrolling in the Southern Ocean
Recommendation 4	Explore new agreements with like-minded countries in patrol and deterrence in the Southern Ocean
Recommendation 5	Investigate new (non-vessel) Defence assets to support patrolling Southern Ocean
Recommendation 6	Continue to fund the Southern Ocean Research Partnership
Recommendation 7	Active pursuit of diplomatic discussions with Japan about its future whale research plans
Recommendation 8	Researching global climate change remains a strategic priority
Recommendation 9	Advocate within CCAMLR new Marine Protected Areas in East Antarctica
Recommendation 10	Government continue funding for scientific research beyond sunset dates of existing initiatives; Include funding line in budget
Recommendation 11	Allocate funding for young and early-career scientists; Organise mentoring program
Recommendation 12	Develop a Southern Ocean mapping program
Recommendation 13	Supports Antarctic Strategic Plan proposal of a comprehensive review of the budget and resourcing needs
Recommendation 14	Budget allocation be provided to restore the ability of the RV Investigator to spend its optimum 300 days per year at sea
Recommendation 15	Interagency working group to review Australia’s current and proposed marine assets; Commission study of Australia’s requirements for effective patrol, surveillance and research
Recommendation 16	CSIRO and AAD work on a streamlined and integrated approach to the management of research proposals
Recommendation 17	Maximise Tasmania’s potential as an Antarctic Gateway
Recommendation 18	Strengthen WoG coordination and appoint an Australian Antarctic and Southern Ocean Ambassador

Source: Australia’s future activities and responsibilities in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters, 2014

These 18 recommendations were then assigned to themes as per Table 4 below.

Table 4      Thematic breakdown of 2014 Antarctic parliamentary inquiry

Theme	Recommendation
Economic	6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Environmental	8
Legal	1 9
Political	2 3 4 5 7 18

Source: compiled by author

The 2014 inquiry concluded that Australia’s activity on the southern flank is ‘expensive business – Antarctica is an expensive business’, but that the benefits are enormous for our strategic future. The economic focus of the inquiry and its recommendations was challenged by the increasing environmental focus of the Australian Antarctic strategy in the 20 year Australian Antarctic strategic plan and the activities of the Australian Antarctic Division, which largely framed our national Antarctic interest in environmental leadership and duty terms.

Figure 6     2014 Antarctic parliamentary report focus

Source: compiled by author

As illustrated by Figure 6, the political element of Australia’s Antarctic interest emerged as a clear focus of the Australian Parliament following the previous Antarctic inquiry (of 2005). The focus of the Australian Parliament had seen political themes replace environment as areas of interest and focus in terms of committee work.

Finally, the third inquiry since 2000, Maintaining Australia’s national interests in Antarctica: inquiry into Australia’s Antarctic Territory, focused on international engagement in the continent. The 2018 inquiry’s terms of reference spanned the maintenance of national interests in Antarctica, securing a scientific program into the future, international engagement, and collaboration, as well as avenues to foster economic opportunities (consistent with ATS obligations). The inquiry attracted 32 submissions and made 22 recommendations, as per Figure 7.

Figure 7     2018 Antarctic inquiry recommendations

Source: Maintaining Australia’s national interests in Antarctica: inquiry into Australia’s Antarctic Territory, 2018

These 22 recommendations were then assigned to this study’s themes as per Table 6 below.

Table 6      Thematic breakdown of 2018 Antarctic parliamentary inquiry

Theme	Recommendation
Economic	4 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 18 21
Environmental	5
Legal	3 16 17
Political	1 2 9 11 13 19 20 22

Source: compiled by author

The 2018 inquiry continued along a similar trajectory to the 2014 Antarctic inquiry – economic and political themes featured as driving forces of the Australian Parliament’s interest in and framing of our interests in Antarctica. The environment and legal aspects of parliament’s conception of Antarctica and Australia’s role within it, had remained somewhat secondary to economic and political interests. It is of interest to note that, as illustrated by Figure 8, the discrepancy between the 2005 and 2018 inquiries that focus on environment – fell from 40% of committee report focus in 2005 to just 5% by 2018.

Figure 8     2018 Antarctic parliamentary report focus

Source: compiled by author

Part III     Implications

‘Australia’s standing in Antarctic affairs is eroding somewhat, because of historical under investment at a time when new players are starting to emerge on the Antarctic scene’.[6]

Part III of this study considers the implications of the way the Australian Parliament has conceptualised Antarctica since 2000. As illustrated by Figure 9 below, political themes have increasingly shaped Australian parliamentary inquiries when it comes to Antarctica. The overall trend in Australian parliamentary committee inquires related to Antarctica that sees political and economic themes driving recommendations, is further bolstered by the findings at Figure 2 on the themes of discourse in Australian parliamentary Hansard.

Figure 9 also highlights how environment as a thematic driver of the Australian Parliament’s interest in and conception of Antarctica has long fallen behind the other key themes explored in this study. This is striking given public perception, and media coverage, of Australia’s environmental leadership and duty/commitment to maintaining the pristine southern continent. It is more interesting in the context of the Australian Antarctic Program’s motto ‘Antarctica: valued, protected, understood’.

Figure 9     Themes of parliamentary Antarctic committee inquiries (2000–2023)

Source: compiled by author

Assessing Australian parliamentary Hansard and committee inquiries since 2000, this study offers a range of findings across the economic, environment, legal, and political aspects to Australia’s Antarctic interest. When it comes to economics, Australian parliamentary discourse and debate has underscored that much of the economic windfalls (resources and logistics) Australia possesses is not widely known to the public. This disjuncture makes it difficult to communicate a value proposition for investing in Antarctica and Australia’s capability to remain competitive on the continent.

In terms of environment, Australian parliamentary debate and inquiry identifies Antarctica as ‘pristine’ wherever possible. Government departments tasked with Antarctic affairs (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water – in which the Australian Antarctic Division sits) and the public discourse continue to frame Australian Antarctic interest and activity in terms of protecting the white continent. Yet when it comes to inquiry recommendations, the Australian Parliament tends to limit environment conceptions to ‘remediation’ of expedition sites, ‘waste management’ or ‘researching climate change’.

These are critical aspects of Australia’s environmental duties, articulated in both Australian Antarctic strategy and the protocols under which Australia is bound within the Antarctic Treaty System. Australian Parliamentary debate and inquiry indicates a depth of awareness of these duties, yet the broader Australian public (and expert at times) discourse remains fixed on more superficial elements of the Antarctic environment. For example, the Australian Antarctic Program has a strong social media platform in which Australia’s engagement with the Antarctic environment is clearly either about penguins or boat trips to the continent.

Very little is shared or articulated in terms of the costs of working and operating in Antarctica. The running of the stations, disposal of waste, machinery operation and refuelling processes are just some of the environmental elements of Australia’s Antarctic footprint. Identifying Antarctica as ‘pristine’ and the ‘last great wilderness’ is perhaps not best practice. An influx of tourism will compound the recent reports of Australia’s decadal failures to remediate work sites in Antarctica in terms of waste in the region. Coupled with historical instances of ‘leaking’ nuclear-power plants in Antarctica (US McMurdo Station had a nuclear-power reactor which leaked in the 1970s and was subsequently dismantled and removed), it is worth reconsidering Australian parliamentary assumptions about Antarctica’s environmental status.

The legal themes explored by the Australian Parliament in debate and inquiry uncover the normalisation of sub-standard legal literacy on the Antarctic Treaty System in Australia. For example, in a 2020 Senate Estimates session of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, the then Director of the Australian Antarctic Program, responding to a question of sovereignty in Antarctica, stated that ‘all territorial claims have been suspended’.[7] This is clearly incorrect, claims have not been ‘suspended’, rather the debate around them has been set aside while the treaty is in place.

Another example of lax understanding of the Antarctic Treaty System in the parliament is the notion that ‘the Treaty is up for reconsideration in 2048’ – otherwise known as the ‘2048’ myth.[8] The Antarctic Treaty itself does not have an expiration date. Since 1991, a legal ‘window’ has been open for treaty consultative parties (of which there are 29) to call a review conference into the treaty. To make amendments, consensus of all consultative parties is required.

The Australian Parliament’s political assessments of Antarctica between 2000 and 2023 are largely lost in translation outside of parliament. First, Australia’s Antarctic presence in public discourse (as well, at times, in the Australian Antarctic Division sphere) appears to be book-ended by Australia’s conduct of ‘science’ on the continent. While the science angle does take care of Australia’s Antarctic Treaty System obligations and, to some extent, our Antarctic standing, there is certainly more to Australia’s Antarctic story.

Perhaps this points to the politisation of Antarctic politics beyond parliamentary walls. With reduced capability to defend and shape the contours of Antarctic geopolitics, the Australian Government of the day has tended to fan an air of success around scientific endeavour and programs when it comes to the Antarctic continent. This study has illustrated how Australian parliament has long understood the national interest in Antarctica to be a sum of the territorial claim, and national support for the extant treaty system in place. There is a duality to this balance, of course, but the Australian national interest in Antarctica is currently in limbo, stuck between a parliament that fundamentally grasps the political nature of Australia’s Antarctic endeavours, and a public (even public service) discourse which increasingly precludes the discussion of it.