Introduction
4.1
The strategic location of Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories provides agencies, particularly the Australian Government Departments of Defence and Immigration and Border Protection, with a unique staging point for the protection of Australian Government interests in the region. These interests include military, border protection and humanitarian purposes as well as ensuring the security of Australia’s vital trade and energy supply routes. This chapter will consider a range of matters covering defence capability, infrastructure development, and the development of multi-purpose community assets.
Defence capability and infrastructure development
4.2
As outlined in chapter 2, Australia’s interests in the Indian Ocean region are broad and spread across the third largest exclusive economic zone in the world. Through its role in the Indian Ocean region, Australia is also responsible for one of the world’s biggest search and rescue areas. In addition, the dynamic geopolitical nature of the region has highlighted the importance of the Australian Government ensuring that it has adequate capabilities and assets in the region.
4.3
While the prospect of conflict in the region is unlikely, a number of contributors to the inquiry suggested that, from a capability perspective, Australia must be prepared and able to defend its significant investment and interests in the Indian Ocean Territories.
4.4
The Department of Defence advised the Committee that Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories ‘also provide effective locations from which to deploy and support Australian Defence Force capability in the region.’ This provides the opportunity for Australia to contribute to humanitarian and disaster relief operations as well as provide the capacity to respond ‘to security contingencies that threaten Australian interests, including in relation to maritime trade.’
4.5
The Department of Defence maintains a range of capabilities in the Indian Ocean region to protect Australia’s interests. Evidence to the inquiry noted that much of this capability was stationed along Australia’s west coast, including within the Indian Ocean Territories themselves. The Department outlined Australia’s current and future Defence capabilities and assets in the Indian Ocean Territories including manned and unmanned maritime surveillance and response aircraft, offshore patrol vessels, destroyers, frigates, support vessels, small patrol boats, watercraft, and naval combat helicopters. The Australian Government has also acquired a new large-hulled multi-purpose patrol vessel, Ocean Protector. These capabilities are supported by the Department’s communication, navigation, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities based on Australia’s mainland.
4.6
The Committee heard from Dr Malcolm Davis that the Indian Ocean Territories are well placed ‘as critical assets in the theatre of anti-submarine warfare.’ Professor Rory Medcalf of the National Security College at the Australian National University suggested that Australia’s ability to monitor foreign submarine fleets in Australia’s approaches is critical. He noted that there may be the potential for Christmas Island to contribute to undersea detection activities in the future. Dr Malcolm Davis, appearing in a private capacity, suggested that there is a need to monitor the maritime approaches coming out of the Lombok-Makassar Strait as it is a key deep-water entry point into the Indian Ocean.
4.7
In increasing its capabilities, the Department of Defence has also stated its intention to continue with further infrastructure investment in the Indian Ocean region. In particular, the Department advised the Committee that there were proposed upgrades to the runway facilities on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to support the introduction of Australia’s P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. These aircraft will enhance Australia’s border security and search-and-rescue capabilities.
4.8
The National Security College at the Australian National University commented on the benefits of increased Defence-related capabilities in the Indian Ocean Territories, emphasising that the further development of Defence-related infrastructure in the Indian Ocean has benefits including supporting Australia’s alliance with the United States and in time, alliances with other emerging partners in the region.
4.9
Some inquiry contributors however advised that the Australian Government take a more cautious approach to the development of Defence-related infrastructure in the Indian Ocean Territories. Dr Anthony Bergin, appearing in a private capacity, suggested that any investment should account for the value of our strategic partnerships in the region. Strategic Forum added that the cost-effectiveness of significant investment in Defence infrastructure in the islands should be weighed up against the relative strategic importance of the islands. Dr Ross Babbage, appearing in a private capacity, suggested that in constructing any infrastructure on the islands, Australia must also consider its capacity to defend it.
Reservist capability
4.10
The Department of Defence, together with other Australian Government agencies, shares responsibility for the protection of Australia’s maritime borders in the Indian Ocean. While the defence and border protection activities undertaken in the region are broad, some inquiry participants suggested that an increased presence of Defence-related personnel in the Indian Ocean Territories might support Australia’s engagement with the islands.
4.11
Suggestions for how this could be achieved included more frequent military exercises, occasional naval patrol activities, improved Defence liaison activities, or the presence of a unit of reservists from the local community. This latter suggestion was discussed by contributors who considered whether an Australian Defence Force reservist presence would be appropriate for the Indian Ocean Territories. A range of views emerged.
4.12
Strategic Forum, for example, submitted that such a presence on both Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands would ‘be primarily trained to defend critical facilities, protect the local community and secure key areas so as to facilitate the rapid arrival of reinforcements from the mainland.’ It noted that a priority should be placed on recruiting and training members of the resident communities.
4.13
Dr Ross Babbage of Strategic Forum told the Committee that any reservist force would likely be employed on a part-time basis. The benefits of raising such a force on the islands would include the introduction of new skills, training opportunities and enhanced engagement with local communities. Importantly, Dr Babbage noted that it would change the way external actors see these territories as Australian territory.
4.14
Residents of the islands also suggested that the development of a reservist force in the islands would be positive. Mr Balmut Pirus, President of the Shire of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, expressed support for the proposal, noting that it could include the islands’ youth. Similarly, Mrs Seriwait Iku from the Cocos Islands Cooperative told the Committee that the islands’ younger generation of females would be interested in being part of a reserve unit.
4.15
Mr Stephen Clay, appearing in private capacity, expressed concerns about reservists being based in the Cocos Islands, contending that many on West Island ‘are fairly well employed, with two or three jobs.’ He suggested that any reservist recruitment on Home Island would need to consider both religious and cultural requirements. By contrast, Mr Gregory McIntosh, Chairman of the Islamic Council of Christmas Island, indicated that that the Islamic community was open to being involved in a reservist presence on Christmas Island, and saw it as a positive move for the island’s youth.
4.16
The Department of Defence submitted that reserve units ‘are regionally based but they do not operate in isolation from the wider Australian Defence Force nor are they allocated local defence responsibilities.’ The Department’s submission notes that the only exception to this is Regional Force Surveillance Units which play a role in protection against illegal smuggling and fishing which may have defined roles relating to border security. Such units rely on support from the ‘wider Army and on larger nearby regional centres to provide management, logistics and training.’ The Department advised that an additional reserve group would require resources that are beyond the Department’s current resource allocation.
Multi-purpose infrastructure development
4.17
While some of the infrastructure development in the Indian Ocean Territories centres around the Australian Government’s defence and border protection capabilities, some current and future infrastructure developments could be considered ‘multi-purpose’—that is, infrastructure that is also available to local communities.
4.18
As noted previously, a 2016 report of this Committee examined the issue of infrastructure in some detail. While the present report seeks to avoid duplication, the following section considers some of the concerns the Committee heard relating to strategic assets in the Indian Ocean Territories that might be utilised for strategic purposes but also deliver benefits to local communities.
4.19
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s submission to the inquiry highlights the nature of infrastructure in the Indian Ocean Territories. The Department notes that the Australian Government has invested in long-term strategic infrastructure to support the provision of local- and state-type government services in the region, including in water, wastewater, power, fuel supply and storage, airports, ports, health services, roads, community buildings, and housing.
4.20
Concerns were raised by members of the local communities on the islands about the need for an upgrade to the Cocos Islands airstrip and associated facilities, access to water on West Island, the crane and mooring facilities on Christmas Island, telecommunications infrastructure, and the future of the Christmas Island immigration detention centre.
4.21
The isolated nature of the Indian Ocean Territories means that key infrastructure is challenging to build and maintain. Considerations raised with the Committee included the adequacy of the Australian Government’s budget allocation and the costs and challenges associated with transporting goods and labour. A view was expressed that any infrastructure development that would also benefit local communities should be planned with a long term outlook.
Australian Government’s financial commitments
4.22
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development highlighted the scope of the Australian Government’s commitment to the Indian Ocean Territories, noting that the insured value of the Department’s administered assets in external territories including the Jervis Bay Territory is some $1.188 billion. For 2016-17, the Department’s budget for ‘rolling out activities’ in the external territories including the Jervis Bay Territory was $109.1 million and included funding for:
… community policing, health and power services and the provision of all services—ports, airports and education—local government, including the equivalent of financial assistance grants type payments, and management of the facilities and community infrastructure.
4.23
The Australian Government’s administered capital budget for works in the external territories including the Jervis Bay Territory will be $8.4 million in 2016-17. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advised the Committee that this figure is ‘below industry standards which see capital funding provided annually at approximately three to four per cent of the asset value.’ This figure does not include additional funding for a range of one-off, large scale infrastructure works, such as jetty upgrades on Christmas Island and Cocos Islands that have been conducted since 2011.
4.24
Mr Julian Yates, who previously worked for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, advised the Committee that the amount of funding for capital works in the Indian Ocean Territories had diminished, meaning that there is now a backlog of infrastructure maintenance that is required in the region.
4.25
Examples of the types of infrastructure needed on Christmas Island provided to the Committee included improved and reliable telecommunications, reliable port facilities, the sealing of some roads, a new airport terminal, improved drainage, the improved security of fuel supplies, a waste management plan for recycling, and an extension of the renewable energy scheme which currently sees many residential homes with rooftop solar power. Some of the infrastructure that is required in the Cocos Islands is discussed later in this chapter.
Costs and challenges of transporting goods and labour
4.26
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development notes that costs for infrastructure development in the Indian Ocean Territories are several times higher than on mainland Australia simply because of the geographically remote nature of the assets. Costs escalate as projects are reliant on sea freight and require the temporary relocation of labour from the mainland. The Department also notes that weather events such as cyclones and extreme rainfall can also affect assets and capital needs. The Committee received evidence that local businesses on the islands did have the capacity to provide some goods and services to Australian Government agencies, including the provision of some fresh fruit and vegetables from the market garden on Christmas Island.
4.27
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advised that, given the limited scope of the funding, infrastructure project proposals are assessed on a priority basis, based on criteria including ‘supporting safety, service delivery and community needs.’ The submission notes that certain assets, such as the Christmas Island port crane, are earmarked for replacement or upgrade.
Service delivery arrangements
4.28
The Australian Government holds primary responsibility for providing services to the Indian Ocean Territories such as ‘quarantine biosecurity immigration and border protection, and national parks management services.’ The Australian Government has however entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Western Australian Government with respect to some 42 service delivery arrangements. Ms Vicki Middleton of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advised the Committee that these agreements cover justice, agriculture, fishing, education and environment services, public housing, health and power. In addition, Ms Middleton noted that the Department had ‘contractual arrangements for commercial entities, including managing the airport, and the port, and providing cleaning and maintenance services.’
4.29
Ms Middleton also advised the Committee of the roles played by the shire councils in the Indian Ocean Territories. She noted that the shire councils provide services such as road maintenance, waste management, playgrounds, and activities for senior citizens.
The Cocos (Keeling) Islands runway
4.30
One of the projects that received significant commentary was the need for an upgrade of the Cocos Islands airport runway. The runway is a key asset that sustains the work of Australian Government entities in the Indian Ocean Territories and also ensures access for supplies and tourism opportunities for the local community.
4.31
A number of issues were raised in relation to the proposed upgrade including the need for it to be able to cater for an upgraded fleet of Defence aircraft. Inquiry contributors pointed to the benefits the runway upgrade would bring to both the Australian Government and local communities alike. Several inquiry contributors also raised concerns about the upgrade, including the need to ensure an adequate supply of water for firefighting purposes and fuel storage capacity at the airfield. The unique issue of access for locals to the Cocos Islands Golf Club, which is linked to the airport, was also raised, and is discussed in detail in chapter 5.
The need for a runway upgrade and benefits to local communities
4.32
The runway at Cocos Islands airport, located on West Island, has contributed to Australia achieving its strategic interests in the region, however, evidence to the Committee points to the need to both strengthen and lengthen the runway to cater for larger aircraft acquired by the Department of Defence.
4.33
The need for an upgrade to the runway is well established and has been part of the Australian Government’s considerations for some time. Mr Peter Jennings noted that the concept of upgrading the runway was floated in 2009-10, during his time as Deputy Secretary for Strategy of the Department of Defence. Inquiry contributors also noted that the issue of the runway upgrade had previously been raised as part of the 2012 Defence Force Posture Review, and the 2013 Defence White Paper. It was also raised in the 2016 Defence White Paper. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s submission states that the Australian Government has committed to upgrading the Cocos Islands airport runway and associated infrastructure at a cost of approximately $200 million.
4.34
The 2016 Defence White Paper commitment to upgrade the runway was supported by many inquiry contributors. Witnesses highlighted the benefits to the Australian Government of the runway upgrade. In particular, the runway would facilitate an increase in Australia’s ability to extend its air power in the Indian Ocean region through the replacement of the AP-3C Orion with the P-8A Poseidon aircraft. Mr Jennings advised the Committee that the P-8A is bigger and heavier than its predecessor and requires a longer and strengthened runway. Runway upgrades would also enable the support of other larger aircraft or those carrying larger loads.
4.35
The Committee also heard about benefits to local communities as a result of an upgraded runway. Ms Vicki Middleton of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development told the Committee that, as administrators of the airport, the Department sought to work closely with the community to ensure that the runway upgrade project is conducted ‘sensitively and appropriately.’ The Department would look to get ‘the best possible benefits that flow from that project’, particularly in relation to land use and other commercial possibilities such as tourism.
4.36
Plans to upgrade the runway are in the early stages of consultation and the project is due for completion in approximately 2020. The Department of Defence is developing a detailed proposal in consultation with other Australian Government agencies, including the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advised the Committee that the runway upgrade would ‘increase local economic activity and support local service providers.’
Ancillary issues
4.37
During the course of the Committee’s inquiry, a number of issues related to the Cocos Islands airport runway were raised. In particular, inquiry contributors raised concerns about the availability of fuel and water and access for residents to the Cocos Islands Golf Club, which forms part of the airport precinct. The issues of fuel and water are discussed below, while access to the Cocos Islands Golf Club is discussed in chapter 5 in the context of impacts on local communities.
Fuel supplies and storage
4.38
Evidence to the Committee was that supplies of fuel and storage capacity at the airport required assessment and upgrade. Dr Sam Bateman and Dr Anthony Bergin cited the 2012 Defence Force Posture Review, which stated that fuel stocks and other facilities such as accommodation on the islands are limited and more intensive use of the airfield would require major upgrades.
4.39
Dr Bateman and Dr Bergin advised the Committee that increased fuel storage at the airport would cater for a range of needs including aviation fuel, marine diesel, and the refuelling of patrol boats. Their submission to the inquiry cited, for example, that the Australian Navy’s soon-to-be acquired P8-A Poseidon aircraft ‘carries about 34 tonnes of fuel so the daily fuel requirement for continuous maritime surveillance and patrol flights using these aircraft from Cocos Islands could be in the order of 100 tonnes or more.’
Water supplies
4.40
Another issue that was raised in relation to the Cocos Island airport was the supply of water on the island, particularly for firefighting. Mr Greg Cahill, a member of the community who worked with the fire brigade, advised the Committee that if there were to be an incident on either end of the runway, it could prove problematic. He noted that the fire truck used by the local fire brigade ‘only has three minutes of water for firefighting purposes’ and that this supply was drawn from the side of the runway.
4.41
In relation to other sources of water, West Island has a number of water galleries from which water could be drawn. However, it was suggested that these could not be expanded unless a desalination facility were installed, which was the case on Home Island. Mr Stephen Clay noted that the limited water supply was due to the water lens underneath the island.’ Mr John Clunies-Ross noted that the there is a ‘massive resource’ of fresh water on nearby South Island but that to draw water from it to West Island would have a significant environmental impact.
Christmas Island port facilities
4.42
Given their remote location, the ability for the islands to receive freight by sea is crucial for the sustainment of life, business and Australian Government operations.
4.43
The Committee was told that the crane at the Christmas Island wharf had significant issues, compounded by the fact that the wharf itself is ‘fully exposed to north-westerly winds’, meaning that there can be long periods where ships are unable to unload cargo.
4.44
The Shire of Christmas Island advised the Committee that ‘the wharf crane has failed completely and the mooring system is in the process of decline that will result in total failure.’ The Shire noted that the phosphate mine company operating in Christmas Island, Phosphate Resources Limited, had provided use of its only crane to load and unload food, business supplies and other goods-- including those utilised by the Department of Defence -- in the absence of a dedicated piece of infrastructure. The Committee was informed that the crane was ‘not fit for purpose’ due to its size.
4.45
Mr Barry Haase, Administrator of the Indian Ocean Territories, noted that the lack of an operational crane at the wharf would impact the phosphate mine’s operations and that, longer term, a dedicated crane at the wharf would be a boost to the development of the tourism industry.
4.46
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development advised the Committee in its submission that the Christmas Island wharf crane was due for replacement or upgrade. In June 2017, the Department advised through its regular community bulletin that a part for the Christmas Island wharf crane had been ordered and was due to arrive in mid-August 2017. The Department advised that the crane would resume operations once the part had been installed.
4.47
In addition, the Department advised that the Australian Government ‘has provided $3.3 million for the purchase, refurbishment, delivery, and commissioning of a second-hand 350 tonne mobile crawler crane.’ The mobile crane, which was expected to arrive at Christmas Island in early to mid-August 2017, would provide back-up to the wharf crane once commissioning, testing and training had been completed.
Reliability of telecommunications
4.48
Given the remote nature of the Indian Ocean Territories, access to reliable telecommunications services is an important link for local communities. Evidence to the Committee suggests that the reliability of the existing services for residents on Christmas Island is an issue.
4.49
Mr Cliff Tindall, a local resident, advised the Committee that Christmas Island had previously been serviced by a satellite internet provider, however, without ongoing Commonwealth financial assistance, the service was not viable. This service, run by the Christmas Island Internet Administrator, was due to end in June 2017 when ‘the Commonwealth ends its subsidy of the temporary operator.’
4.50
Currently, the interim internet service provision, as part of the National Broadband Network (NBN) on the island, was inadequate and was affected or unavailable, particularly when it rained. Mr Tindall suggested that there is limited scope for the current NBN service on Christmas Island to be improved or for internet speeds to be increased.
4.51
The Shire of Christmas Island advised the Committee that around 30 per cent of the Christmas Island Community may not be able to access the NBN’s ‘Skymuster’ satellite internet service because ‘the cliffs of the Island stand between them and the satellite.’ The Shire suggested that the installation of the wrong technology and equipment had made the satellite internet service difficult for local businesses to utilise.
4.52
The Shire of Christmas Island suggested that the Commonwealth may wish to consider the investment ‘in the branch line cable that is on offer from Australia Singapore Cable, for a short time’, which it suggests would provide:
... secure infinite communications capacity for defence that satellites cannot, and state of the art internet communications for the whole community including business needs that the NBN service cannot meet.
4.53
Mr Tindall suggested that this alternative fibre network appeared to be more reliable than the NBN services currently on offer on Christmas Island. The Committee was advised that the developer would require an immediate commitment by the Australian Government for Christmas Island to be included in the rollout, with cost of estimates ranging between $7 million and $15 million.
4.54
Mr Tindall also raised the issue of mobile coverage on Christmas Island. He noted that the 4G mobile network was not supported by the existing services on Christmas Island.
Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre
4.55
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection operates the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre, which plays a role in ‘maintaining the integrity of Australia’s migration framework and ensuring our international obligations are met.’
4.56
As part of the 2015 Federal Budget, the Australian Government announced that the immigration detention facilities on Christmas Island would close. However the Department has assessed, in consultation with its Australian Government partners that, as a result of ‘the enduring and credible threat to Australia from organised illegal maritime ventures’, that it would ‘retain priority access to relevant facilities, infrastructure, services and support capabilities’ on the island.
4.57
The Shire of Christmas Island informed the Committee that the Minister for Local Government and Territories, Senator the Hon. Fiona Nash, had ‘offered to work with our community to plan the future post-IDC closure.’ The Shire advised the Committee that it wished to cooperate with the government in relation to developing a future plan, however, it notes in its submission to the inquiry that the:
… Australian government has a lot to answer for in not having a strategy or plan for diversity on Christmas Island to soak up the employees who will have no job to go to when the Government shuts down the detention centre on Christmas Island.
4.58
This concern was echoed by Shire President Mr Gordon Thompson, who advised the Committee that he believed the Centre would be placed into a ‘contingency’ mode and would only employ a limited number of local residents. At present, the Centre employs approximately 70 local staff. Evidence relating to the future of the Centre were consistent with the messages received during the Committee’s meetings during its visit to Christmas Island. The Committee was also advised that, despite the negative sentiment associated with the Centre in the past, the tourism outlook for Christmas Island had recently improved.
Committee comment
Strategic presence and activities
4.59
Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories are of strategic importance to Australia and provide strategic advantage for Australian defence and border protection activities. The Committee appreciates the efforts by the Australian Government and its agencies to ensure that Australia’s interests in the Indian Ocean region are protected now and into the future.
4.60
The Committee sees the Indian Ocean Territories as vitally important to Australia’s defence and border protection capabilities. The Committee considers that the Australian Government’s defence capability commitments through successive Defence White Papers, border protection initiatives, and participation in various international forums and military exercises in the Indian Ocean region, are all avenues for the demonstration of our defence commitment. However, the Committee sees a need for further investment in some areas.
4.61
One area that would benefit from further investment is in increased Australian Government exercises in the Indian Ocean region. Together with increased bilateral and multilateral activities in the region, this would highlight the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean Territories and demonstrate Australia’s commitment to the islands.
4.62
The Committee accepts that the key guiding strategy for defence infrastructure in the Indian Ocean Territories are those commitments made in the 2016 Defence White Paper. Consideration should also be given to how these commitments support partnerships with key allies in the region, as outlined in the previous chapter.
4.63
With any development of Defence-related infrastructure, however, the Committee believes that the Australian Government must assess not only its strategic position but also weigh these against the proposed financial costs and capability enhancements, ensuring that a full analysis is carried out and a complete consultation process with all stakeholders is undertaken.
4.64
The Committee notes the views of a range of contributors to the inquiry that some form of reservist capability engaged in the islands would be of benefit to the local communities and to Australia more broadly. With respect to reservist capability, the Committee acknowledges Department of Defence views that the commission of such a capability is not practicable given the geographical constraints.
4.65
Nevertheless, the Committee considers that further investigation of possibilities to engage local residents of the Indian Ocean Territories in activities endorsed by the Australian Defence Force is warranted. Consideration should be given to the benefits to both the Department of Defence and local communities alike.
4.66
Noting the receptiveness and support of local communities, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider increased Defence and Border Protection activities, such as surveillance, naval patrols, a military reserve or cadet unit, and potential training exercises on Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to demonstrate Australia’s commitment to the islands. Consideration should also be given to how locally engaged employment opportunities can be provided as part of these activities.
Infrastructure development
4.67
The development of infrastructure in the Indian Ocean Territories has come at a significant cost to the Commonwealth, particularly given the additional costs relating to operating in these remote locations. In the Committee’s view, however, and in light of the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean Territories, these costs are justified and are a means of providing effective support to local communities.
4.68
At a local level, the Committee acknowledges that the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development plays a significant role in the development of community infrastructure and the delivery of services. However, by the Department’s own measure, this funding appears to fall below community and industry standards and expectations.
4.69
While the Department retains discretion over the allocation of funding, it is apparent that additional capital works and infrastructure are required to service the needs of both Australian Government entities and the local communities, such as the Cocos Islands airport runway and associated infrastructure, Christmas Island port facilities and telecommunications infrastructure. In examining how costs may be reduced and to ensure that some expertise can be retained in the islands, the Committee encourages the Australian Government to consider whether increased use can be made of existing goods and services supplied by local businesses in the Indian Ocean Territories.
The Cocos (Keeling) Islands airport runway
4.70
The issue of the upgrade of the Cocos Islands airport runway has been raised regularly for a number of years. The benefits of the upgrade, in particular to strengthen and lengthen the runway to service the Australian Navy’s soon-to-be acquired fleet of P-8A Orion surveillance aircraft, were raised with the Committee from many participants including Australian Government departments, strategic analysts, and residents of the local communities.
4.71
The Committee supports the Australian Government’s commitment to the upgrade expressed via the 2016 Defence White Paper. The Committee is pleased to note the evidence provided by various Australian Government agencies of the plans underway to undertake the project.
Ancillary issues
4.72
Evidence to the Committee’s inquiry highlighted a number of ancillary issues in connection with the Cocos Islands airport upgrade. These included the need for enhanced fuel supplies and storage, water for firefighting purposes at the airport, and the impact of the runway upgrade on the Cocos Islands Golf Club.
4.73
The Committee notes evidence from contributors that highlight the vital role that fuel supplies play in the Indian Ocean Territories communities. The fuel is used for many defence and civil purposes and, given the strategic nature of the Indian Ocean Territories to Australia; the Committee considers that the security and supply of fuel for these endeavours is of paramount importance. The Australian Government should consider how secure fuel supplies and storage capacity can be improved, particularly at the Cocos Islands airport.
4.74
The limited availability of water on West Island, particularly for firefighting purposes at the Cocos Islands airport, is worth exploring. Of particular concern were comments that suggested that the local fire brigade would not have the capacity to manage a significant fire should one occur. The Committee acknowledges that water resources generally on West Island are also an issue. The concern may be less significant on Home Island given the presence of a desalination plant. These are issues that the Australian Government should assess and address in any proposal to upgrade the Cocos Island runway. In doing so, the Committee encourages the Australian Government to consult with key stakeholders so that appropriate measures can be developed.
4.75
The Committee recommends that, as part of the project to upgrade the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Airport runway, the Australian Government ensure that extensive consultation is undertaken with all stakeholders, including Australian Government agencies, commercial partners, and the local communities. Care should be taken to fully assess and manage concerns relating to water catchment and storage issues, including for firefighting purposes near the airport.
Christmas Island wharf and port facilities
4.76
The Christmas Island wharf crane is a piece of infrastructure that benefits the entire island. The Committee acknowledges that in recent times, there have been significant issues with the operation of the crane which has impacted a range of Australian Government and local activitieson the island.
4.77
The Committee appreciates that Christmas Island’s private mine operator, Phosphate Resources Limited, have generously allowed use of their crane and understands that the diversion of this infrastructure may have impacted the company’s own operations. The Committee notes that the use of this crane is not a long term solution. The Committee therefore welcomes the recent announcement by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development that replacement parts have been ordered and, once these are installed, the crane will resume operations. The Committee is also pleased to note the Department’s announcement that funding for a back-up crane has been secured and that this crane will become available once installation, testing and training has been completed.
4.78
The Committee also acknowledges the comments by inquiry participants regarding mooring, navigational upgrades, and erosion control measures at the Christmas Island wharf. The Committee considers that these facilities are vital not only to the Australian Government’s longer term strategic priorities for Christmas Island, but also for sustaining the local economy and wellbeing of residents. The Australian Government should consider medium and long term solutions for upgrade of these facilities as a matter of priority.
4.79
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consult with relevant stakeholders including Australian Government agencies, Christmas Island businesses and the local community in developing medium and long term solutions for the Christmas Island wharf to ensure that strategic, economic and social objectives can be met.
Telecommunications issues
4.80
Evidence to the Committee highlighted the deficiencies of telecommunications infrastructure in the Indian Ocean Territories. The remote nature of the islands means that reliable telecommunications infrastructure is required to service both Australian Government operations and civilian needs, however, this is challenging to achieve.
4.81
Inquiry participants highlighted that since the private satellite internet provider ceased operations early in 2017, Indian Ocean communities have been reliant on services provided by the National Broadband Network. The Committee was informed of a proposal by a private provider to include Australia’s Indian Ocean Territories in a project that would provide more stable internet provision to the islands. While the Committee understands the attraction of this proposal, the proposed costs and timeframe may not allow the Australian Government to engage fully with the proposal.
4.82
Nevertheless, the Committee encourages the Australian Government to consider options available to improve the reliability of the existing National Broadband Network internet services. The Australian Government should consult with all affected stakeholders to develop acceptable, cost-effective improvements.
Future of Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre
4.83
The Committee notes the Australian Government’s future plans for the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre, which is expected to close in early 2018. The Committee understands the importance of this facility to the local community, particularly relating to the employment that it generates and the flow-on effects for the local economy.
4.84
It has been suggested that the Australian Government will place the facility in a ‘contingency mode’ so that it may be available for future border protection activities.
4.85
The Committee accepts that the Australian Government may also need to reassess its requirements for this facility on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that the Australian Government should outline its plans for the facility in a timely manner, particularly so that it has minimal impact on current locally engaged staff and affected businesses.