Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: 10th report of 2007: CSIRO collocation with the Queensland Government...[in] eco-sciences and health and food sciences precincts, Brisbane, Queensland.

I rise to make a few comments about the Standing Committee’s report on CSIRO’s plans to consolidate and re-locate its research facilities in Brisbane.

This proposal continues CSIRO’s longer-term plans to consolidate its research facilities and exploit collocation possibilities with state-based research agencies and with universities.

If properly executed, such a strategy can have much to commend it.

How does one judge such projects?

Collocation with other researchers and other agencies is one criteria—and it is pleasing to note the emergence of a number of important research precincts around the country.

But the obvious, and most important, criteria is this—does the process of consolidation provide better facilities in which important research can be undertaken?

Does the relocation improve CSIRO’s capacity to undertake its research mandate?

In recent days it has been suggested by some within CSIRO that this might not be the case.

It has been suggested that members of the Standing Committee on Public Works might not have been given the full story by CSIRO witnesses.

I do not seek to judge this matter, but the concerns that have been expressed do appear to me to be significantly important to warrant further consideration.

Those expressing these concerns are not opposed to CSIRO’s strategy of collaboration and co-location—they, like so many others can see its potential advantages.

As I have suggested, their concern is otherwise.

It is a pity that the Staff’s submission on this project was submitted late and not received by the Committee but their concerns warrant consideration for all that.

What the staff question is a process that fails to deliver improved research facilities and potentially compromises their research effort.

They strongly dispute, expressed one CSIRO witness before the committee, that the absence of car parking and the need to use public transport is “the sole area of staff concern.”

Contrary to the evidence provided to the Committee, their concerns are more fundamental, and go to the heart of their research practice.

One of the sites to be sold is the CSIRO waterfront facility at Cleveland. It provides the Division of Marine and Atmospheric research with the facilities to undertake practical experimental research in seawater and in a marine environment.

The facility provides direct access on a daily basis to aquaculture facilities, boatsheds and seagoing equipment as well as providing saltwater of sufficient quality and quantity to enure the continuity and validity of marine research.

CSIRO now proposes to move that research to Boggo Road—an inner-city, inland site.

It obviously lacks direct water access and it does not appear to have adequate on-site facilities for this Division’s practical research.

To compound matters, early last month staff were told that the small scale saltwater facilities planned for the Boggo Road facility had been dropped.

What is the option?

Staff have now been told that the options now under consideration for experimental marine research include a site on Bribie Island (a four hour round trip ) or the AIMS facilities south of Townsville.

Neither is a satisfactory alternative.

South east Queensland is undergoing acute growing pains and the pressure on its marine environment requires sustained, dedicated research.

Once gone, the waterfront facilities at Cleveland will be irreplaceable—the move has every potential to undermine CSIRO’s research capacity.

It must be all the more galling to watch irreplaceable research assets sold to provide land for further residential or commercial development!

There are other legitimate concerns.

Does this new facility have sufficient private workspaces for writing up research?

At Cooper’s Plains, what provision has been made for staff from Food Science Australia who will be losing their existing slaughterhouse and meat processing facilities?

Is it still the case that no effective options to replace these have yet been developed?

Underlying all these concerns is the complaint of staff that their representatives in the project management process are not being listened to and that their legitimate concerns are being ignored.

I understand that these, and other concerns have now been conveyed to CSIRO’s most senior managers.

I hope that these concerns are adequately resolved before it becomes impossible to address them properly.

In particular, I hope to see a satisfactory resolution to the Marine Science Division’s need for adequate access to saltwater close to their research facilities.

What we must ensure is that any process of consolidation opens up options for improved research, rather than detracting from them.

Question agreed to.