Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide an explanation.

My office did contact the minister's office before I rose to present this request under standing order 74(5), so I am surprised that the minister representing the minister is not able to give us an explanation here. This is a failure on the part of the government because there are some 29 questions to which the CSIRO should have provided answers to the Senate by 1 April. It is nearly three weeks after that date and no responses have been received.

I do not need to remind senators that Australia's largest publicly funded research agency is in the midst of a many-layered crisis. It is a crisis of purpose and direction; a crisis of staffing and resources; a crisis of morale and global reputation. The questions placed on notice sought clarification of decisions that had given rise to this crisis, yet the government has not seen fit to respond to those questions, despite having ample time to do so. Whether or not this reflects disdain on the part of the minister for science or simply a lack of interest in the issue, I cannot say. But there is, whatever you say here, a question about ministerial responsibility to ensure that questions are answered. I believe the minister has failed in his duty. I think it is his responsibility to ensure that the department provides answers on time. If it is somewhat extraordinary circumstances that have prevented the answer being supplied by the due date, then an explanation for what those circumstances might be is appropriate to be given in this chamber—particularly given that we did provide notice that this matter was being pursued today. There is no explanation. To date, we have not heard one. We have not heard anything from the minister's office or departmental officers. I think we are entitled to answers.

I am particularly concerned that CSIRO and other government agencies do not go into limbo because the government might contrive to seek a double dissolution election. We have seen, sometimes, bizarre behaviour by this government since the last sitting of the parliament concluded. The Prime Minister and some of his senior ministers, including the Treasurer, have not been able to stay on the same message about what the government actually intends to do. That alone makes it clear that the government itself remains dysfunctional. The dysfunctionality obviously goes much deeper if a minister cannot even ensure that his department or its agencies get their questions in on time.

This is not just a matter, however, of process. When the crisis to which I refer occurred—when the chief executive officer of the CSIRO, Dr Larry Marshall, sent out an email to all staff on 4 February—it became quite clear that there had not been adequate discussion within the CSIRO, and that the board itself, and not just this parliament, has been treated with contempt in the manner in which the management of the CSIRO is proceeding on these matters. Therefore, it is appropriate that we do get clarifications.

There are unanswered questions. They do not all directly concern, in particular, this email, but they do go to the question of the strategic vision that is being pursued by Dr Marshall, which of course was set out in that email on 2 February. The strategic vision apparently also reflects, in my view, the government's priorities as to its approach to the questions of public benefit research and its approach to cutting the budget for the CSIRO.

The questions go to the specifics of staffing, they go to questions of funding and they go to organisational matters. These are questions on which I believe the Senate is entitled to answers, and the organisation should be made to answer and provide information to this chamber—particularly given that we have further hearings of another committee with the manager of the CSIRO next week.

If this goes on, I think we are entitled to ask: 'Why is it that the government has sought to hide this information from the chamber? Why is it that this government has not faced up to its responsibilities?' I am deeply concerned at the extent to which the minister is complicit in the direct strategy being pursued by the CSIRO's management. From the papers that I have seen, one can only draw the conclusion that he has been negligent in not holding the CSIRO to account, because the briefings that have been presented and now released publicly demonstrate just how misleading the CSIRO's management has been in terms of its claim. Dr Marshall's statements to the minister, if I had been the minister, would have been rejected. They would have been sent back because they were grossly inadequate. I think we need to understand precisely what is going on in the CSIRO, and that is why I think it is entirely appropriate that the government respond to these legitimate questions and make sure that answers are provided in a proper manner.