Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to wholeheartedly support this reference to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee of a full and thorough investigation of the research priorities of the CSIRO, how it is organised, how it is managed and what its management culture is. I have to say that there are many Australians who I am sure feel exactly as the Greens do. The CSIRO used to have a fantastic reputation around the world as a leading research institution, and as one that was independent. When the CSIRO worked on an issue, people felt quite proud of the work that was done. They felt that it was authentic and legitimate and that it was not driven by government policy and not biased in its outcomes.

Progressively, that has changed over the last 15 years as the government has cut back funding to this very important flagship research organisation, to the point where it now has to kowtow to government policy in relation to its response to climate change. We have seen the appalling announcement in the last week or so that the CSIRO is now virtually abandoning its work in renewable energy and cutting-edge technology and is going to focus on the government’s priorities—which are, of course, coal, coal, coal and coal. It is about the export of as much coal as possible to China, India and anywhere else. As long as it can pour fossil fuels into a global energy market, this government is determined to do that and to drive the CSIRO into being complicit in that arrangement.

They have actually put themselves in the position of saying that Australia’s contribution to attending to global warming will be to put as much government money as possible—which is effectively corporate welfare—into the coal industry to see if it can develop carbon capture and storage, otherwise known as geosequestration. It is completely unproven technology. What happens if it does not work? In 20 years time, we will be left with a far worse situation on greenhouse gases and more immediate outcomes in terms of climate change and less capacity to deal with them.

The world wants to get beyond a carbon economy. The world wants to get beyond fossil fuels. Australia had the capacity to do that. We have cutting-edge researchers in this country, particularly in solar energy and photovoltaics. We now have good research and good outcomes on the ground in terms of wind energy. We have seen the renewable sector in Australia start to blossom because of some incentives due to the mandatory renewable energy target, and now that has been left floundering at just two per cent. The investment in the renewable sector is drying up, and everyone in that sector acknowledges that it is because of the government abandoning an increase in the mandatory renewable energy target. That means that we are not attracting the money we need to invest into those technologies.

In the same week as the CSIRO announced that it is warming to coal research, its chief executive said:

... industry and consumers depended heavily on coal to fire electricity and that was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

CSIRO’s deputy chief executive, Ron Sandland, said that we can have more impact by focusing more of our energies on clean coal. What a load of rubbish! They must have felt like washing their mouths out after they had said that because they know as well as I do that the future lies in cutting-edge renewable energy technology.

At the very same time, we have CSIRO scientists, having developed solar technology that they believe could replace coal fired power stations in 20 years, being forced to go overseas to tout for business. There was a UNEP conference in Dubai. They have just been there to tout for business and to seek partnerships with anyone they can get from overseas in order to commercialise the technology and to leapfrog coal. The biggest contribution Australia could make to the world would be to use our scientific expertise to leapfrog coal. That is what China needs, that is what India needs and that is what the whole world needs in order to deal with climate change. Whoever develops that technology will write its own cheques in terms of employment, investment in research, capability and so on. You only have to look at what has happened in Germany. Germany decided to get out of nuclear power. They had a proactive government policy and went straight into solar technology. In the last five years, Germany have had a huge expansion in solar. They are now a world leader in solar technology. They have eclipsed Australia in terms of research in solar and have created 25,000 jobs in solar alone. More jobs have been created in the solar industry in Germany in five years than are in the whole coal industry in Australia. And Japan is following suit.

Here are we, with some of the best research in the world, such as that which happens at the University of New South Wales, but also here at the CSIRO—

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t forget the University of Adelaide.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Adelaide. All round the country there is excellent work being done in solar. As I said, the CSIRO developed the solar turbine technology at the Queensland Centre for Advanced Technology and we are now not going to be able to spend the money in Australia that we need to make sure that we get that technology right and get it commercialised and on the market.

It is about time that the Australian people had an opportunity, through a Senate inquiry, to have a really good look at what is happening with the CSIRO and to see how it has moved from being an organisation for all Australians that was recognised for doing public interest research—and public interest research is the key thing—to being virtually the puppet of government policy, begging industry for partnership money to try and get some of its project work up. As a result, almost all of this work is not in pure research but is designed for industry outcomes, not necessarily for public interest outcomes. That is what Australians will lament.

Look at the response from the agricultural community seeing the cutbacks in research to the agricultural sector. That, of course, was part of it. The CSIRO chiefs are trying to defend it by saying that they had consultation with industry groups when in fact the NFF and others are saying that they had virtually no consultation in relation to the strategic decisions about research in agriculture. So I think this is an extremely timely opportunity for this Senate committee to have a really good look at what is happening with the CSIRO. I certainly welcome that and I think people around Australia would certainly welcome that. It must be so demoralising for the scientists working in the CSIRO when they recognise that suddenly there are going to be substantial job losses from the current workforce and that the shift in research priorities is going to take us back and lock us into a future based on coal and not on innovation.

The government’s absolute pact with the coal industry means that it is actually costing Australia jobs in the long term. Whether Australia likes it or not, staying out of the Kyoto protocol will not make an iota of difference to the rest of the world community. They will move on. Carbon will have a price and when it does have a price all the externalities from fossil fuel generated energy and fossil fuel mining will come home to roost and the competitiveness of modern technologies will outstrip coal. Meanwhile, Australia will have locked itself in and hitched its wagon to an industrial age instead of getting beyond that into the tertiary industries sector that can take us into the future. The CSIRO moved into the Newcastle area to start looking at transitions into a green energy future. It has all come to nought as there is this concession that the CSIRO has to go to partnerships, that it has to go to industry for its money because it lacks funding from government.

We have seen the demolition, if you like, of the reputation of the CSIRO. I think it is incumbent on this parliament to restore the image of the CSIRO, to inject back into it the support of the parliament for increased funding for its futuristic objectives in climate change research. There should be an injection of support for the notion that the CSIRO belongs to all Australians and that it should undertake public interest research funded through the Commonwealth. We must stop this huge concession in our universities and in the CSIRO where we are losing some of our brightest young people to overseas research institutions where they can do public interest research, where they can pursue pure research for the sake of it instead of having to be locked into the priorities that industry set, which may or may not be the priorities for the future, the priorities for the country or the priorities for public interest. I am very passionate about seeing this research organisation put back on its feet to achieve the objectives people in Australia expect of the CSIRO. I congratulate the committee on bringing forward this motion.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this reference of a matter to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee proposed by Senator Marshall. I believe that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO, is an important institution that has played a critical role in developing and maintaining a culture of excellence in research and technological development in Australia. It has been central to the advancement of Australian industry and plays a fundamental role in ensuring the innovation that is critical to developing a place for Australia in the emerging knowledge economy.

If we are concerned about the future of our nation, if we want to look at developing beyond our economic reliance on exploiting our infinite primary resources and develop a more sustainable and value added economy, and if we want to maintain an international competitiveness then we need to take the issue of science and technology policy seriously and ensure that we are investing in both research and innovation and also fostering a culture of private investment in its development and application. We need both—public and private. The degree of excellence and expertise contained within CSIRO in research leadership makes it an essential and cost-effective part of our efforts to invest in national R&D.

If we are concerned about the long-term sustainability of Australia we need to be investing more in R&D and education and encouraging the development of new industries that make the most of Australia’s unique resources, expertise and position in the world. If we are concerned about the long-term sustainability of our environment we need to continue to back CSIRO’s world-leading research in environmental, ecological and agricultural science. CSIRO as a research institution has punched, in the past, well beyond its weight on the international stage. It is ranked in the top one per cent of world scientific institutions in 12 of the 22 research fields. For example, it is ranked sixth worldwide in plant and animal science and in agricultural science. It is ranked eighth in environmental and ecological science. It is a partner in international research activities in more than 85 countries in over 740 ongoing international collaborative research projects. At present it is the largest employer of scientists in Australia and the role that it plays in supporting professional development is critical in maintaining our R&D capacity and in keeping our technological edge. Through a pivotal role CSIRO plays in industry partnerships such as the cooperative research programs, commonly known as CRCs, it plays a catalytic role in the development of new industries and technologies.

I am concerned that funding for Australian R&D in general, and for CSIRO in particular, is not keeping up with the needs for the development of our future economy. I am concerned that the need to balance restricted funding is forcing CSIRO to make bad decisions as it attempts to balance the need for ongoing R&D programs and areas of excellence with the need to develop into new areas of innovation. With limited resources and increasing demands, something has to give. The need to balance these tensions and the culture of research leadership was clearly demonstrated by the recent strategic planning process that CSIRO has undergone. This has led, on one hand, to the identification of six national research flagships and a four-stage plan to take CSIRO up to 2012. On the other hand, the need to develop new areas on limited and diminishing resources has meant some difficult decisions have had to be made, including the announcement of significant job cuts in some established areas.

The budgetary problems were highlighted during estimates, with indications that CSIRO has sought permission to run a $14.5 million budget deficit in 2005-06. Then we heard late last year the announcement of 200 jobs being cut in research support areas with the potential for up to 400 positions going. We have heard talk of a brain drain, with a number of brilliant researchers recently being made redundant on very short notice. These include international climate expert Dr Graeme Pearman, leading wildlife ecologist Dr Jeff Short and federal pest control expert Dr Roger Pech. All are leaders in their field, undertaking high-quality research of truly national significance.

Now we have just had the release of the research investment direction paper. We are hearing more signals of job losses and funding cuts to agriculture, manufacturing and renewable energy. There have been rumblings from a number of areas that increased emphasis on external earnings has meant that more time is being spent chasing money than undertaking research and there is a move from doing public good research to being a client-driven research consultancy. The research investment direction paper confirms the real impact that the need to chase external funding is having. Quite simply, the philosophy of ‘partner or perish’ means in practice going where the money is rather than pursuing Australian innovation.

CSIRO no longer has the luxury of being able to think strategically or to plan for the long term because of the imperative to chase external funding to make up for the shortfall in government appropriations. Despite the rhetoric about the Australian economy being in transition from extractive industries towards those based on knowledge, technology and innovation, the new focus in the new paper is on mining, mineral resource development and clean coal. We are going back to Australia as the international mine. At a time when we should be building our future and making the most of our diminishing technological edge, CSIRO is being forced by the short-sightedness of government priorities to hitch its wagon to the fate of 20th-century energy dinosaurs, abandoning its lead in renewable energy. Once again, as reported just recently in the Canberra Times, the developers of the next innovation in solar energy are having to go overseas for funding. How many times has Australia lost major innovations and the major leading edge in industry because we have not been able to find finance in this country?

Make no mistake: as we are all aware, our neighbours know that the future is in building technology and are investing heavily in building knowledge based industries. Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea and China are all focusing heavily on building their capacity and producing science and engineering graduates. Our government’s inability to provide a supportive and nurturing environment for science and scientists in our universities and premier research institutions paints an unenticing picture for our school leavers contemplating a career in science or in engineering. CSIRO’s latest transformation has all the hallmarks of an inability to listen to the scientific community and a failure to take a long-term visionary approach to Australia’s research and development strategies. It is based on a naive belief that a growing reliance on private sector funding will not have adverse impacts on our research capacities. At the very same time CSIRO’s value as rated by its external investors has decreased steadily over the past year. The very people it is chasing for more money are saying that they feel that they are getting fewer bangs for their buck.

Government expenditure levels on R&D are at their lowest levels for 25 years as a percentage of GDP. There is no sign of a nation that is powering forward. Not only are our government’s social policies taking us back to the 1950s; their science policies are heading back that way too. Science once had a world-class institution in climate change research. According to climate experts it is now falling so far behind that it is not even on the international radar. Management is so caught up with lapping up the propaganda of the coal industry about how good the new clean coal is going to be that it has all but abandoned its vision for a new national energy model based on distributed renewable energies and sources. Energy efficiency technologies and demand reduction strategies have dropped off the scope just like our climate change commitments. Rather than pursuing, as has been reported extensively in the past, big hairy audacious goals—as CSIRO’s then new chief executive urged a few years back—researchers are now being urged to follow the big hairy mining industry and coal executives to hit them up for a few extra bucks.

All these factors are raising very real concerns in the R&D sphere and in the public arena about management and culture within CSIRO. CSIRO is an important national institution which has played a critical role in developing and maintaining a culture of excellence in research and technology development within Australia. I believe that there are very good reasons for us as a Senate to look at the evolving role of CSIRO, its place in the wider issues of competition and collaboration in the research sector, the challenges of R&D commercialisation, the management and exploitation of intellectual property and the wider culture of research and development within Australia. If Australia is to maintain its leading edge in technological development and innovation, it is critical that we have a strong CSIRO. That is not the way, unfortunately, that our national research organisation is heading. It is a tragedy for this country, one that I believe needs to be averted and one that this Senate needs to take a careful and close look at so that we can reverse this unfortunate trend.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If no other senators are seeking the call, I will close the debate and make a few brief comments. I thank Senators Carr and Stephens for their contribution in supporting this reference last year. The debate has been interrupted by the Christmas break. I thank Senators Milne, Siewert and Stott Despoja for their contributions today in support of the reference. All the senators have made different contributions. Each one of them has in fact made the case for this reference, this inquiry into the CSIRO. Collectively the case has been well made and it is worthy of support.

Senator Troeth’s was the only opposing voice to this reference. I want to briefly respond to the reasons Senator Troeth gave on behalf of the government for not allowing this reference or for voting against it. The reference will clearly be blocked without government support, the government having the numbers in the Senate. I will quote from Hansard. Senator Troeth said:

The government, in relation to CSIRO’s performance, as Senator Marshall well knows, has absolutely nothing to hide. The government believes that anything that the opposition would want to know about the achievements and performance of CSIRO can be achieved through the estimates proceedings.

Senator Troeth then went on to talk about what an important institution CSIRO is to Australia. I generally agree with all those following comments that Senator Troeth made. But, clearly, Senator Troeth does not understand the scope of the proposed inquiry that the opposition have put before the Senate. I should go through that, just for the record. I will not go through all the arguments that I made in my previous contribution. I will not delay the Senate in that respect. But, to put it into some perspective, we seek to inquire into the following:

The role and performance of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in the light of current Government policy, and the organisation’s attempts at refocusing its research endeavours, taking into account the following:

(a)

the evolving role of CSIRO as a public research institution, and the ability of CSIRO to initiate and manage change;

(b)

the challenge of commercialisation, enhancement of the CSIRO ‘brand’, and the dilemma of choosing a national or global approach to research development;

(c)

intellectual property concerns, including the rewarding of researchers;

(d)

managing competition in the research sector, including competition between public research bodies, between the CSIRO and the private research sector, and the obligation of CSIRO to cover the research spectrum; and

(e)

management culture within the CSIRO, including its corporate profile, communication performance and community engagement, and its capacity to instil a modern research culture and to recruit and retain research personnel.

Those terms of reference cannot be adequately covered in any meaningful way through the estimates questioning process. We cannot get a proper inquiry and answers to all those questions or do any sort of serious inquiry when we are questioning the hand-picked executives and the minister before an estimates committee. We would not be able to hear from the end users of the CSIRO institution; nor would we hear from the people who participate in the development of those roles. As I have just outlined, the terms of reference go well beyond the scope of anything that we would be able to uncover in estimates.

In conclusion, I say that the case has been well made. I am surprised that the government will not seek to assist the Senate in doing the very job that the Senate should do, and that is to inquire on a regular basis into Australia’s very important scientific institution. My understanding is that there has not been such an inquiry in the past. There should be one. It should be held accountable to the parliament. Simply because the executive arm of the government does not want an inquiry into those matters that I previously raised is no good reason for the government to use its numbers to stop such an inquiry.

The opposition will pursue the issues before us in various forms. Given the contributions of the minor parties today, it is obvious that they hold the issues to be very important and will also pursue them. The issues will not go away. We hope the government has a change of heart. I will continue to negotiate with the deputy chair of the references committee, Senator Troeth, to see if there is some ability in the future to conduct an amended form of inquiry that might meet with the satisfaction of the government. We believe it is necessary and, as I said, it is something we will continue to pursue. I certainly urge the Senate at this late stage to support the reference.

Question put:

That the motion (That the motion () be agreed to.