The ‘once-only’ opportunity to expand Australia’s size by almost 50 per cent

The Howard government took a “once-only” opportunity to in effect increase the size of Australia by almost 50 per cent and give itself the chance to develop resources from some of the most inhospitable parts of the planet.

Cabinet documents from 2003 released by the National Archives reveal the Howard government believed it had to move quickly to lock in a claim over huge areas of the seabed across the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans.

In Australia’s case, there were 11 areas where the continental shelf extended beyond the 200 nautical mile definition, including key areas off Australia’s Antarctic territory.

At stake was an extended definition of what a nation could claim as part of its continental shelf that it could exploit or protect. The United Nations convention governing this definition was being debated to enable nations to broaden their claim beyond the traditional 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres).

By 2003, time was running out for nations to submit new claims for a broader definition.

In Australia’s case, there were 11 areas where the continental shelf extended beyond the 200 nautical mile definition, covering an estimated 3.72 million square kilometres or an area the size of NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria combined.

Most of the area lay off the east and west coasts, but there were also key areas off Australia’s Antarctic territory.

In a joint submission from then-foreign minister Alexander Downer, attorney-general Philip Ruddock, environment minister David Kemp and industry minister Ian Macfarlane, the prospect of Australia dramatically increasing its area of economic control was made clear to the rest of cabinet.

“Taking advantage of this once-only opportunity to define an internationally accepted outer limit will protect Australia’s exclusive sovereign rights and interests in possible future exploration and exploitation of the non-living and sedentary living resources of the seabed and subsoil in the area beyond 200 nautical miles,” their submission stated.

“It will also bestow rights to regulate marine scientific research and manage the marine environment.”

In 2008, the government announced the UN had expanded Australia’s jurisdiction over the continental shelf in nine of the 11 areas.

But issues dealing with Antarctica continue to be controversial. The 2003 submission contains several paragraphs blacked out on the grounds that their release could “cause damage to the security, defence or international relations” of Australia.

Australia claims 42 per cent of Antarctica or almost 5.9 million square kilometres. If it were a nation, it would be the seventh largest in the world.

However, the claim itself is only formally recognised by four other countries – New Zealand, Norway, Britain and France. Other nations that signed the 1959 Antarctica Treaty, which governs the whole continent, do not recognise the claims – including South Pole rivals the United States and Russia.

Cabinet noted that some countries might have had concerns about Australia’s submission, particularly concerning how it affected Antarctica, where mining remains banned.

“There could in future be circumstances, however, when Australia would wish to exercise its sovereign rights over the continental shelf,” they said.

“For example, genetic resources might be discovered, the exploitation of which would not constitute mining. Australia may also use its rights to prevent others from exploiting the resources and disturbing the environment, reinforcing the object and purpose of the treaty ban.

“Should the Antarctic Treaty system break down, Antarctic resource issues will again be controversial and it will assist Australia to protect its underlying rights.”

Three years later, then-Nationals backbencher Barnaby Joyce – just returned from a month-long visit to Antarctica – said that given the gold, iron ore, coal and fish resources of the continent, mining should be considered.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.