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

I would like to say a few words about the Select Committee into the Scrutiny of Government Budget Measures, the third interim report into the job cuts recently proposed for the CSIRO. There has been absolutely no doubt that these moves have been contentious. There is no doubt that morale within the CSIRO has hit rock bottom. There is no doubt in my mind or in Labor's mind that this is not just a matter for the CSIRO. The committee has heard extremely concerning evidence about the closed and chaotic decision-making process within CSIRO that has led to this point.

Contrary to the statements that have been made, the committee has had the opportunity to view extensive documentation about the way in which CSIRO has approached the issues concerning these job cuts. We have read CSIRO emails, which suggest 'public good is not good enough' and 'nature papers do not cut it', and even a suggestion that CSIRO should 'eliminate all capability associated with public good and government funded climate research'. I repeat, despite the assertions to the contrary that have now been made, there is no doubt within the CSIRO there has been quite an extensive conversation about how the CSIRO could withdraw from its responsibilities for public good research or minimise its impact or turn the CSIRO into a commercialised consultancy arrangement.

There is no doubt in my mind that the conversation about cultural change within the CSIRO has been aimed at fundamentally shifting the scientific priorities of the CSIRO and using commercial or external revenue as the basis for the allocation of resources rather than the critically important role the CSIRO plays to the national good. One of the questions the committee has been interested in therefore was the extent to which the minister and the board had endorsed these discussions. The evidence on the board's involvement—to put it politely—is inconsistent. However, it is absolutely clear that the board did not sign-off on the job cuts before Dr Marshall sent out his all-staff email on 4 February. It is absolutely clear that the draft all-staff email did not even mention the cuts. It talks about new areas of priority. It makes none of the controversial claims on the state of climate science. And there has been a desperate effort made to retrofit and to obfuscate about the facts in regard to when the board members were taken by surprise when Dr Marshall's email actually appeared.

Many of the board members were new. Four of the current board members, and three who received that email, were appointed either before or after the so-called deep-dive process that was undertaken, which of course followed the release of the 2020 strategy. On the weight of evidence presented to the committee, I contend that the board was not expecting a public announcement of the major cuts to public good research and had not actually signed-off on those cuts. Indeed, it appears that at least one board member replied to the draft email saying, 'I don't think I approve.' But there was no opportunity for further discussion.

This is a failed process. The board should have been fully engaged in the decision—and that was always going to be highly contentious and a major cause of disruption within the organisation. The minister himself should have been fully engaged as well. I believe there is a very strong element of negligence in regard to the minister's role in these matters. Instead, the minister has said nothing except to hide behind the legal fiction of the independence of the CSIRO—because there are limits to independence. The minister sets out a statements of expectation. The minister has the power to direct the board. I certainly acknowledge the responsibility of the board and management to make operational decisions and to prioritise according to available resources. But I also, as minister, had to pay close attention to the decisions that were being made. This is my direct experience in this. In my experience, you work with the board and with the CEO to ensure that the national interest is being served and that they take staff concerns on board and consult properly.

Yesterday, the Senate called on the minister to intervene to stop CSIRO implementing these changes before the election. The Senate's motion has been met with the policy of this government, which is silence. We know that this minister does not care a great deal about science. It follows a pattern of this government—they did not even have a science minister for pretty much the first-half of this parliament. But this is the same minister, I recall, who was willing to hold 1,700 scientists' jobs hostage to his unfair and unnecessary plans on the $100,000 degrees—a plan that has remained central to the government's higher education policies. I believe the minister has the same attitude to the CSIRO. It is a short-sighted attitude. It is not about doing what is best in terms of climate change science. That of course has meant that the anti-climate change scientists dominate Mr Turnbull now—that was the price he had to pay to get the keys to The Lodge. These people have been able to run rampant throughout this government. So it is not an approach that reflects the best interests of this nation's future.

Labor has a very different attitude. We have different priorities. We would not allow the CSIRO to cut these jobs. If I had the privilege to service as science minister in a Shorten Labor government, I would direct the board accordingly. This is not something that I take lightly. In all my time as science minister I never directed the CSIRO board in this way. But in this case the stakes are just too high. CSIRO's globally unique climate science capabilities are world recognised. If they are lost, they will never recover. So I call on the government once again to do the responsible thing and direct CSIRO to cease and desist in implementing these controversial job cuts. To stubbornly proceed in the way the minister seems to be doing despite the manifest evidence of failure in the process and consultations that we have seen during this inquiry is simply wrong. It is not a responsible way to govern.