Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

This feels a bit like Groundhog Day, because I believe we were due to deal with the issue of referring the CSIRO’s role and responsibilities to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee last year. I preface my remarks with one of the concerns that I and others have raised in this place, and that is that there is a perception—and I think the numbers back it—of a diminishing number of references to committees. I guess it reflects a general concern that the committee system in the Senate has not been used in the way that was originally intended in this place. That is, proposals for committee references have been quashed. Certainly that was the case towards the end of last year. I hope the government is prepared to allow and support this committee reference, not only because it is a legitimate committee reference but because this is, I think, the bread-and-butter work of committees and the Senate. Indeed, this is an obvious reference for a committee such as the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee.

The Australian Democrats do support this reference. We believe there is a critical need for the role and the performance of the CSIRO to be referred to the committee for inquiry. As other speakers in this debate have mentioned, the CSIRO’s recently released research priorities for 2006-07 give some indication of the direction that the CSIRO appears to be taking. There are elements of that proposed direction that are cause for concern. I acknowledge that the CSIRO faces the challenge of balancing long-term research that is to the public benefit with the imperatives of commercialisation. The CSIRO’s internal mantra—that notion of ‘partner or perish’—provides us with a telling indication of the impetus for the CSIRO to pursue funding from private sources to augment the inadequate government funding it receives. A consequence of this need for CSIRO to engage with business is that many CSIRO scientists’ expertise is being used for private consultancies, to the detriment of their own research work.

The 2006-07 research priorities signal a change in research focus. The increased focus on advanced materials, including polymeric materials, has been welcomed by scientists. Another new research focus—the development of the water resources observation network, designed to give a national view of our current water situation and predictions for the future, along with ideas on maximising water use—has also been welcomed by scientists. We recognise that some of those research priorities have been warmly received.

Not so welcome, however, is the shift from renewable energy to clean coal technology, with CSIRO explaining, ‘We should reduce our effort in renewable energy restricting our activities to those in which we have a competitive advantage and can have significant impact.’ This dumping of critical research which would be of much public benefit is of great concern—and you have heard comments in this place today from a number of parties reflecting that concern—particularly, and obviously, at a time when we are experiencing the frightening impact of climate change thanks to excessive greenhouse gas emissions.

A recent report from the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Medical Association predicted 8,000 to 15,000 Australian deaths every year by the end of the century as a result of heat related illnesses if greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced. Australia once did have a competitive advantage in renewable energy back in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, Australia’s research into renewable energy was on the international cutting edge—thanks in part, of course, to the CSIRO. I wonder why this critical area of research has been neglected or at least diminished when it is clearly needed now. And, given that Australia has the world’s highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita and that the threat of climate change is already impacting upon us, the CSIRO could have a huge impact in this area with its potentially groundbreaking research. Instead, the CSIRO appears to be bowing to the influence of coal powered energy. CSIRO’s chief executive has been reported as saying that, like it or not, industry and consumers remained heavily dependent on coal to fire electricity and that reality was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. So the CSIRO will shift its focus to low greenhouse emission so-called ‘clean’ coal.

Surely, as the nation’s peak science body, the CSIRO has an obligation to pursue scientific developments, such as renewable energy, that stand to benefit the public good. This has been one of the great factors of the CSIRO as an institution: its recognition that public good is integral to the work that it does. The CSIRO should be leading the way in conducting innovative research to develop renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While some of CSIRO’s research priorities for 2006-07 show innovation and indeed forward thinking and will help the agency to stay ahead of the times, emphasising our reliance on fossil fuels will not. If the CSIRO does not conduct this kind of critical research, we cannot rely on private companies to do it.

We should not be too surprised, however, at the CSIRO’s change in research direction. It is clearly responding to the demands of industry as opposed to research in the interest of the public good. The CSIRO has diminished government investment. For some years, government funds for the CSIRO have been waning in real terms. The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies reported that, over the past six years, the CSIRO’s share of Commonwealth investment in research and development declined from 12.4 per cent to 10.7 per cent. Indeed, government spending on research and development is at its lowest level for 25 years as a percentage of GDP.

This need to scramble for funding has resulted in the flagging of job losses to conserve money. This is a likely outcome of the 2006-07 priorities. I acknowledge that Senator Siewert made reference to job losses or impending job losses, including specific people who have gone from the agency. In the past few years, there has been a dramatic loss from the CSIRO of many highly regarded scientists. These include climate change expert Dr Graeme Pearman, wildlife ecologist Dr Jeff Short and ecologist and feral pest control researcher Dr Roger Pech, who have been made redundant. This loss of experience and knowledge can only further erode the CSIRO’s reputation as a research body, and I think the reasons CSIRO saw fit to make these three redundant warrant investigation.

Meanwhile, the CSIRO strategic plan, including the six research ‘flagships’ launched three years ago, has not been the economic boon that was expected. In fact, the CSIRO had a $9.2 million deficit in its most recent annual report and has a projected deficit of $14.5 million for the 2005-06 financial year. Given that the flagship program attracted a large injection of federal funding and the research priorities for 2006-07 include an increase of funding for the flagship program of 24 per cent from 2005-06, its role in the CSIRO’s budget deficit must be placed under rigorous scrutiny. A Senate inquiry is an opportunity to do that.

CSIRO research is in danger of being compromised by the need for it to ‘partner or perish’—this mantra. The drive to secure external funding to supplement its government funding is threatening the reputation of the CSIRO’s research. Perhaps the same argument could be launched for a number of our key, innovative education institutions. That scramble for funding, that desperate need for funding, in order to make up for government shortfalls does have an impact on quality and on the way the institution is regarded.

The nature of the CSIRO’s role in Australia seems to have been lost in the scramble for funding, be it public or external. The science agency is stuck between a rock and a hard place, trying to maintain its reputation as a source of quality research for the public’s interest, while operating in many instances as a private consulting agency. Some of the CSIRO’s research priorities for 2006-07 add further impetus to the call for an inquiry to examine some of the concerns that have been outlined by people in the chamber today and some of the concerns that I have noted. An inquiry must be conducted before the situation at the CSIRO worsens and its reputation is potentially irreparably damaged. The amount of public investment in the CSIRO over the years and its groundbreaking work, its innovative work, must not be compromised. It must not be lost. This is an excellent opportunity for the Senate to play a role in ensuring that that is not the case—that is, to ensure that there is rigorous scrutiny of some of the decisions that have been made and to look at the funding imperatives for the CSIRO in the present and the future.