John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from Senator Parry proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The Rudd government’s censorship of the CSIRO.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Make no mistake: the Rudd government’s censorship of the CSIRO is a matter of public importance. The CSIRO is a very proud institution in this country. It has a great history and it is relied upon by the Australian people to give scientific advice to our community without fear or favour. We on this side of the chamber are particularly proud of the CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, because it was in fact the Stanley Bruce government that started off the CSIRO all those years ago.

The reason the coalition has moved this motion is that there is no doubt that the Rudd government is now censoring the CSIRO. On coming to opposition in December 2007 we became aware of the fact that any press release coming out of the CSIRO, ANSTO and other scientific organisations within the Commonwealth had to go over the desk of one Senator Kim Carr. When exposed in December 2007, he rushed out in January 2008—just before Senate estimates—with a press release ‘Charter to protect scientific debate’. It is a classic example of spin over substance. George Orwell would have been proud of this classic case of doublespeak. Listen to this:

Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, today announced that the integrity and independence of public research institutions, and the right of their researchers to contribute to public debate on their areas of expertise, will be protected by new charters.

‘Australia needs the best scientific advice it can get to tackle the many issues we face as a nation,’ Senator Carr said.

‘Public research institutions, and the dedicated professionals working within them, have a right as well as a responsibility to represent the findings of their work and to actively participate in public debate.

‘The value of scientific endeavour and importance of vigorous and transparent public debate—

And here is the kicker—

unfettered by political interference but subject to peer review, is something I have advocated for my entire public life.

Ask Dr Spash of the CSIRO what has happened to his research paper which just happens to have been subjected to peer review and accepted by peer review. But guess what? It has been fettered by political interference. As a result I had to part with $30 of my hard earned money in a cheque to the Collector of Public Monies seeking a copy of the unaltered report from Dr Spash under an FOI request.

Where are these high sounding principles that Senator Carr espoused on 16 January 2008? Out the window—that is where those principles are. Like with everything this Rudd government does you get the spin and you get the doublespeak, but when you look at the substance and the reality it is so, so different. What is so breathtakingly objectionable is that Senator Carr had the audacity to say in his press release:

The Howard Government was subject to repeated accusations of political interference with scientific research, especially on controversial issues,’ he said.

It is often in matters of contention and sharp debate that the knowledge and expertise of the scientific community is most valuable. This is why it is so important to protect the right of scientists to speak out about their research and discoveries.’

Going back to that topic of—what was it?—matters of contention, guess what? We have a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme being considered by the parliament as we speak—somewhat contentious—and guess what Dr Spash was writing about? The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. So by the very test that Senator Carr puts down, he nevertheless puts the censor’s pen through and says, ‘No, we don’t want to hear in any unfettered way what Dr Spash might have to offer not only the government but also the Australian people to help inform them in their debate.’ We do not get the full and detailed treasury modelling on matters to do with the government’s legislation in recent times; we do not get the whole story out of this government.

When you have an institution as proud as the CSIRO being muzzled in this way in the face of a minister who claims that he has been an advocate his whole public life for ‘vigorous and transparent public debate unfettered by political interference’, when you have a minister who says that but then does the exact opposite, you know why he is a cabinet minister in the Rudd government. He fits the mould. That is what the Labor cabinet ministers do: they say one thing, promise one thing and then do another.

What we have here is the political censorship of some research. I do not know what the research says. I might happen to agree or disagree with it. But that is not the point and that is not the test. This may well be our little mini version of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit scandal.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hurley interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hurley, you can laugh but, given all this evidence has now come out where scientific research has been doctored and manipulated for a particular outcome and other people have been sat upon and told not to include certain things in their report because they do not suit a preconceived conclusion, that is not science, that is not research endeavour and that is not how you develop an innovative country. Australia cannot be up there with the top countries of the world in research if you start muzzling scientists.

It might make good sense to have certain protocols in place in relation to public research. I have never condemned that, but what I do condemn is the gross hypocrisy here. The Howard government is condemned for what it did. We then saw a high and mighty charter of rights for these scientific people. Then, at the very first hurdle when the government thinks there might be a report that may be critical of one of its policy areas, in goes the fix, in goes the censor’s pen, in go on Senator Carr and the Labor government. I am sure those opposite will tell us the minister had nothing to do with the censorship. It was that nasty CEO of CSIRO, undoubtedly, who made the decision. I do not think she is nasty. I think she does a very wonderful job. But they will try and blame somebody else. The problem is this government has created the culture in which the CSIRO believes it has to behave in this way. A charter, like the charter of rights currently being discussed, is worth nothing unless the culture is right, and the culture with this government is wrong. That is why the CSIRO is being censored and that is why we seek to condemn the government.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very disappointing that the opposition would attempt to discredit the government with such flimsy allegations of censorship. Senator Abetz in his speech did not provide anything to support his claim. But what is even more disappointing is the willingness of those opposite, in the process of trying to slur the government, to bring into disrepute one of Australia’s most credible and internationally acclaimed research agencies in a vain attempt to score political points. CSIRO is Australia’s national science agency and one of the largest and most diverse research agencies in the world. It is an Australian government statutory authority constituted and operating under the provisions of the Science and Industry Research Act. CSIRO’s primary functions are to carry out scientific research to benefit Australian industry and the community and to contribute to the achievement of national objectives. The CSIRO is accountable to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and is part of the Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio. The CSIRO Board is responsible to the Australian government for the overall governance, strategy and performance of the organisation.

The CSIRO has longstanding guidelines that its scientists and researchers do not talk about policy matters. The CSIRO chief executive, Dr Megan Clark, spoke in an interview for The World Today on 2 November this year and said:

I’m encouraging our scientists to speak to the public. We’re training our scientists to do that and they have my personal backing. With it … comes responsibility … to make sure that we adhere to one of the most fundamental values of the organisation, which is the integrity of our excellent science. That’s what the Australian people trust us for and we absolutely must always respect that value and never cross the line into commenting on policies.

It is the line between scientific opinion and policy commentary that has led to the recent dispute over the publishing of Dr Spash’s paper on the economic benefits of carbon trading versus other means of cutting greenhouse emissions. The Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Kim Carr, has stated repeatedly that the government has not said that the paper must not be published. In an interview on 5 November he said:

At no point have I actually seen this paper, at no point has the Government said we don’t want it published. I frankly take the view it’s important to have a range of views in the public arena.

Senator Abetz has clearly said that he does not believe the minister but produces no evidence to refute him. Senator Carr has been adamant in his view. He is adamant that the government has played absolutely no role in the discussions between CSIRO and Dr Spash. The government has said it is entirely a matter for the CSIRO management and, in the interests of research freedom, it is completely inappropriate for the government to intervene. The CSIRO is reviewing the paper in line with standard internal processes which will determine whether it can be published.

The notion of peer review is central to the research enterprise. Researchers test the quality and validity of their work by submitting it for critical assessment by their peers. The CSIRO has its own internal peer review processes, which have been established to maintain the standards of excellence which have made the CSIRO an international research icon. They have been established to ensure that researchers work collaboratively and collectively to achieve the best possible results. Certainly these processes should be allowed to be progressed without the interference of the government. That is the minister’s view and that is the government’s view.

It is interesting to note that this is not the first time the issue of the line between scientific research and policy commentary at CSIRO has been explored and the term ‘censorship’ has been tossed around. Not surprisingly, one issue around which this censorship controversy previously centred was also climate change. What may have escaped the attention of those opposite—certainly, they did not refer to it—was that the allegations of CSIRO censorship were in 2006 being pointed directly at the Howard government. Indeed, the 2006 controversy developed over claims by Dr Graeme Pearman, a former CSIRO climate director, that he had been censored by the Howard government when talking about the need to dramatically reduce emissions. In an interview with Four Corners on 13 February 2006 he claimed to have been censored over half-a-dozen times in one year and he directly related that to government intervention. The whole television program was devoted to government intervention in scientific work. The CSIRO on that occasion also rejected this claim and at the time, in much the same terms, as now they argued that the scientists were free to speak on scientific evidence from their research, but needed to be cautious of crossing the line into criticism or advocacy of policy positions. So, exactly the same circumstances about exactly the same issue, despite Senator Abetz trying to make some conspiracy link about it being climate change, but different government and the same response from the CSIRO. Senator Abetz’s argument is a house of cards.

But, in fact, the one issue where there was found to be government interference also involved the former government. That was a scandalous situation that occurred in 2004 and 2005 when the then minister for education, Brendan Nelson, secretly vetoed 10 research proposals which had been judged worthy of support by independent peer reviews. These proposals were torpedoed by the direct intervention of a government minister. That was in another department. We are dealing with the CSIRO. Their response to allegations of Howard government involvement was precisely the same as the allegations raised by Senator Abetz to Rudd government involvement at this stage. They were both refuted on the same grounds with the same reason. Nothing that Senator Abetz said contradicted that, there was no evidence in this case that the government minister had directly interfered or that anyone else in the Rudd government had interfered. I do not believe that the scientist involved, Dr Spash, has made any statement about government interference in contrast to Dr Graeme Pearman’s former allegation.

That leaves us with the incontrovertible fact that the CSIRO have maintained a consistent line. The CSIRO are our primary scientific research organisation. They provide advice and information to the government, to parliamentarians across the political spectrum and to the broader Australian community. It is important that they can be frank and fearless in the public disclosure of the scientific findings of their research. However, it is equally important that the CSIRO and the important work that they undertake are not seen in any way to be politically partisan as this would irrefutably damage their reputation for integrity and independence.

The CSIRO have a glowing reputation to maintain both domestically and internationally. A couple of testimonials demonstrate how important maintaining this reputation is for the Australia brand and the CSIRO brand. The Western Australian Water Corporation said:

The benefit is we’ve got access to a huge body of very well experienced scientific knowledge and there is an independence about CSIRO and a credibility with Australians that is very important.

Similarly, Professor Bernard Bowden, Chair of the Marine and Atmospheric Research Panel said:

The Panel was impressed by the quality of the scientific staff and the importance of the work being undertaken for both international and domestic outcome orientated research.

Dr Mary E. Clutter, former Assistant Director of the United States National Science Foundation said:

I was tremendously impressed both by the science that was world class and with facilities we visited, also world class. In addition I found the science management and leadership … comparable with strategic planning anywhere in the world.

Again, I say it is deeply disappointing and frankly irresponsible for those opposite to make these unfounded allegations against the government but more importantly to question the integrity of the CSIRO, given their own experience with exactly the same issue. To question the integrity of the CSIRO’s handling of these issues is to do exactly that—to drag the CSIRO into an ugly political argument.

Rather than applying censorship to research agencies, the government have acted in a number of ways to safeguard research freedom. We have restored the autonomy of the Australian Research Council by appointing an expert stakeholder group to advise it on strategy and policy and by making the process for the ARC’s grant approval process more transparent—no more ministers coming in and making arbitrary decisions. We have also cancelled the previous government’s ill-conceived Research Quality Framework, which was also open to political manipulation, and revised the ARC guidelines to ensure that the minister cannot intervene in ARC recommendations. We have ensured also in the event that the minister declines a recommendation from the ARC, that he must make that decision public and describe why it was taken, and we have also introduced charters for our public research agencies including the CSIRO.

So, contrary to the allegations of this particular matter of public importance, the Rudd Labor government are working to ensure that our research agencies continue their outstanding contribution to the domestic and international scientific community. CSIRO are delivering the full spectrum of research Australia needs to tackle climate change through programs such as its Climate Adaptation, Energy Transformed, Water for a Healthy Country and Wealth from Oceans flagships, as well as its divisions of Land and Water, Marine and Atmospheric Research and Sustainable Ecosystems.

Forty-four per cent of the CSIRO’s total research effort is directed towards achieving an environmentally sustainable Australia. The CSIRO’s views on climate change were quoted in the media over 3,000 times last year, so their efforts are fundamental to public understanding and debate on the science of climate change. Eighteen CSIRO researchers contributed to the 2007 assessment report of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eight of them as lead authors. So perhaps it is the contribution to and recognition of climate change by the CSIRO that is really the major problem for those opposite. In trying to run that agenda, they have chosen to try and denigrate not only the government and government ministers but also Australia’s premier scientific research organisation, which the opposition have many times lauded and congratulated—but they are willing to drag its reputation down in a grubby political attempt to denigrate the government.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s political interference.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a political matter by the opposition and one that is not supported by anyone on this side, because this government has been the one that has supported the CSIRO and its research efforts. Indeed, in the last budget the government increased funding to CSIRO by $43 million, or 6.4 per cent, and allocated more money to the national research vessel—$120 million. It provided $30 million for an expanded Atlas of Living Australia, $80 million for a new Square Kilometre Array science centre, $36 million for the Australian Synchrotron and so on. The government has demonstrated time and time again its support for the CSIRO and its determination to see it as an independent research organisation.

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

I am afraid I have to quote Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet: ‘A plague on both your houses.’ The fact of the matter is that the CSIRO is nothing like the research organisation that it used to be. It has been cowed by successive federal governments, with the Howard government being an absolute champion at turning the organisation into one too afraid to say anything about climate change because of the attitude of the Howard government. It has continued under the Rudd government.

It is a disgrace, and I have to say that I totally agree with what Graeme Pearman had to say about the CSIRO’s censorship under the Howard government. Why would I be surprised when the then management at CSIRO, Dr Garrett, employed Donna Staunton, a tobacco industry lobbyist, to be the Communications Officer for the CSIRO? This is a person who had told the Senate Community Affairs References Committee:

I do not think smoking is addictive on any reasonable definition … If it means that tobacco smokers would become physically dependent, like heroin users, then tobacco smokers are not addicted.

That is the person who went ahead and was appointed by Dr Geoff Garrett to be the head of communications, and she has been on the board of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, which also defended smoking and opposed the Kyoto Protocol. She was also on the board of the Global Foundation, which recruited the CSIRO as a member and Dr Garrett as its representative. So let us get real here about the extent to which, over the last decade if not 15 years, the CSIRO has become a shadow of its former self. It has now become an organisation in which management manages the science. There is not fearless recognition of the science. Science is managed out of that organisation, and this most recent example with Dr Spash is absolutely classic.

So let us not hear from the coalition that they are suddenly outraged by censorship of the CSIRO. It was made perfectly clear to the CSIRO over all those last 15 years that it had better self-censor, and that is why the organisation is unable to debate the merits of government policy, and the merits of government policy have become enshrined in the charter that Minister Carr has now given the CSIRO, such that the CSIRO scientists know that managers interpret the charter so narrowly that it is practically impossible to publish anything critical of the government.

The problem for the government here is that climate change and the financial mechanisms that one might apply to reducing greenhouse gas emissions are a matter of public interest, and a huge amount of science is being done around the world on issues of reducing emissions, talking about what the science demands and talking about how to actually achieve it. The issue here before us today is that Dr Clive Spash presented a paper, ‘The brave new world of carbon trading’, at the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics in Darwin, Australia. At the time he said that the full written version of his paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer reviewed. So tick that: it had been peer reviewed. But a letter was sent by the CSIRO management to the editor of New Political Economy demanding that it not be published. I quote Dr Spash:

The CSIRO is currently maintaining they have the right to ban the written version of this paper from publication by myself as a representative of the organisation and by myself as a private citizen.

So he cannot publish either as part of the CSIRO or as a private citizen. It has been contested since June 2009 and is now awaiting a response from the CEO. So from June this scientist has been harassed by the management and told he cannot publish his work because it is on emissions trading.

Emissions trading is something on which there are hundreds of papers written from one end of the planet to the other. Carbon trading is a mega-issue, a multibillion-dollar affair these days. People are looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the ETS in the European Union and at what is happening in the US. We are looking at the Australian scheme. But the CSIRO cannot publish on it in case that is interpreted to be a criticism of the government’s ETS. So this is censorship by the CSIRO.

What is interesting is that the CEO, Dr Megan Clark, said that she wanted only tiny changes, but Dr Spash has since come out and said that the demand was that he cut out 11 per cent of the text of his paper, delete half the conclusions and change the meaning of some passages. Well, that is not tiny changes; that is censorship of Dr Spash’s paper. Science minister Kim Carr has said himself that he does not approve of that, that he thinks that peer reviewed science ought to be published, even if it is critical of government policy. But the weasel words here are all around the charter. The CEO, Dr Clark, is interpreting the charter narrowly so that anything CSIRO does that could be interpreted as being critical of the government has to be changed. Thank goodness we have got some scientists with integrity who are saying, ‘No, you will not change half my conclusions. No, you will not rewrite it to make it mean what you want it to mean. Either you publish it as it is written and peer reviewed or you don’t publish it but admit to the fact that you are trying to fiddle the conclusions to fit with government policy,’ and that is not because Dr Clark would have one particular view or another. But she has got one eye on the charter that Minister Carr has given them and they know the bounds in which they can work. It was just like the situation with Dr Martin Schaaper. He was driven out of the organisation under Dr Geoff Garrett because he knew full well that in the CSIRO there was no political support for natural agricultural systems, which is the area he was working in, and he was driven out because there was a particular focus on genetic modification and different kinds of agricultural research being supported by the agricultural chemical companies in particular. I am glad to say that Dr Schaaper is doing a fantastic job in rural communities around Australia and his work is still very much appreciated on the ground. He was driven out of that organisation, as several other scientists have been.

What I did here in the Senate was to ask this minister, who said he believes that peer reviewed science should be published—even if it is critical of government policy—to table the unadulterated version of Dr Spash’s work. He is now saying he will defy the Senate and not do that. That is why I have today put in a return to order for that document, because I will bet anything that it is simply, as with Dr Spash’s presentation at the conference, a critique of emissions trading, outlining why emissions trading is not necessarily the most efficient and cost-effective way of reducing emissions. It is an analysis of the economics of this particular process. In the paper that he presented, The brave new world of carbon trading, he makes it clear that ‘mainstream economics currently provides an inadequate account of institutions, theory of the firm, political economy, human behaviour, ethical pluralism and non-efficiency goals’. He says that efficiency claims cannot be substantiated and appear unjustified. He is talking about emissions trading and pointing out the problems with it as a mechanism. He is comparing it around the world and comparing it with regulatory instruments but he is saying that they are not neutral either, politically or identically, but that they play to specific groups within society. He is calling for a much more open debate of many of the problems associated with emissions trading. That is the role of scientists—to give us their view on what the situation is as far as the science is concerned and as far as the economics is concerned, and to give us their critique. That is what this community deserves to have, not a charter that tells the CSIRO that it cannot bring out any paper which debates the merits of government policy. Government policy in responding to climate change is going to be totally inadequate in virtually any developed economy around the world, so any scientist is going to be bringing out a paper which would immediately be seen to be critical of governments, because ipso facto it would be because they are so inadequate.

I want to say here that it is time the community understood that the CSIRO is not free to publish, that it has got a managerial ethos which puts absolute pressure on its scientists to self-censor if they want to get on, if they want to maintain research grants, if they want to have promotion. (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important issue. The Labor government have lately gone into a path of censorship, whether it is censorship of what people can say when they are sending letters out to their community, the ridiculous proposition that we have some sort of propaganda unit that all letters have to be sent to before they can go out to constituents, or the overarching arm of Mr Rudd in every corner of people’s lives. A classic example of this is the situation with Dr Clive Spash. Dr Spash, who works for the CSIRO, had the gall to write a paper, which was peer reviewed, which disagreed with the Labor Party’s position. So what happens? He cannot publish his conclusions—not as a member of the CSIRO, not even as a private citizen. This is the world that we have evolved into with the pro ETS Labor Party.  If you dissent, not only in this chamber but in your public life or in your private life, the Labor Party will go after you. The Labor Party cannot abide the idea that someone has a different view to them. The Labor Party and the micromanaging of Mr Rudd are to make sure that every mechanism of the ventilation of an issue is controlled from the Prime Minister’s office. It is very peculiar and it falls in line with what we have seen with the curtailing of other views.

At the moment we are seeing Kevin Trenberth’s expose of the overseas emails. We are seeing the weight that has been put on the scientific community against those who dissent. Phil Jones, one of the leading IPCC scientists, was sent an email. He said that he was cheered by the death of John L. Daly in Launceston in 2004. This is the sort of culture that is present not only overseas but in Australia. This culture is present within the department. We have a clear example here of how the Labor Party have become arrogant, disconnected and belligerent in the pursuit of their goal of delivering this massive new tax to the Australian people.

It is vitally important that the Australian people understand that it is the Labor Party senators who are going to vote for this. It is of vital importance that the Australian people know that the Labor Party senators are going to bring this massive new tax in. Dr Clive Spash had the audacity to say there might be a better way. Whether he is right or wrong, I thought he had the liberty to express that, as we in this parliament do. We have found that the arms of this parliament and the arms of the Prime Minister’s office, with the complicit agreement of such people as the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr, have now reached out and are affecting the engagement of a private citizen in expressing their views to the public in a paper.

Where did this culture evolve from? It was always the Labor Party that made the accusation about our side of parliament being arrogant and disconnected when we were in government. How quickly they have changed. Within two years we have the censorship of open public debate under the auspices of the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, and Minister Carr because they will not abide dissenting views. The Australian people are rightly suspicious. While they drive up and down the highway listening to this on broadcast, they must know that this Labor government does not want them to hear the alternative view. They do not want them to hear the alternative view on the climate debate and now they do not want them to hear the alternative view on the economic debate. They are covering for the bankers and brokers who are going to make billions in commission from the implementation of this ETS. Those billions of dollars in commission will come out of the wallets of working families in the western suburbs, farmers, graziers and pensioners.

Dr Clive Spash had the audacity to say there might be a better way and that we might be able to reduce the costs for working families. But no, you cannot have that view out there. There is only one way: you must have the bankers, brokers and bureaucrats. Minister Wong and Minister Carr, under the guidance of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, will ensure that there will be not just a micromanaging of everything that happens but now a micromanaging of public opinion.

Recently we celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the expression of liberty that was so well espoused by those people. The thing that they hated was the lack of capacity to present their private views. We celebrated that event, but at exactly the same time we were celebrating that event we in our nation are experiencing censorship of opinion by the Labor government. For what purpose? Why is the Labor Party censoring it? It is censoring it because it knows an open and transparent debate of all the facts would work against it. The Labor Party does not want people to see the exact cost of this on households and the complete abhorrence of pensioners who are at the edge at the moment, who are dealing with the fact that power prices have gone through the roof and are trying to work out how to find the money for that. They know and they are absolutely furious that prices are about to go up again.

One of the benefactors of those price increases, by a factor of billions of dollars, will be bankers, brokers and bureaucrats, who will collect the largesse of working families. The people whose jobs will be under threat in the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra will know that those jobs are under threat, but the benefactors will be people pushing permits around broker firms in Sydney and Melbourne. That is supposed to be a worthwhile outcome, a just outcome. It is not just, and the Australian people have a right to know the Labor senators who are going to vote for this. They have a right to know that their Labor senators in a matter of days will put their name to this legislation as it goes through, and that cost will go back to their working families—but I do not think they are their working families anymore. I think working families are a wake-up to the Labor Party. Working families are aware of the fact that the way that the Labor Party are going to ease the squeeze on working families is to put the price of everything in their lives up, from food to transport to power. Every corner of their lives will be affected by a tax they cannot do anything about. When Dr Clive Spash had the audacity to bell the cat, what do the government do? They come out and completely curtail debate. They put his job under threat.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an amazing contribution from Senator Joyce on this matter of public importance. He has just put forward in the Senate, which is being broadcast at the moment, the proposition that there is a huge conspiracy by the Rudd government to censor debate in this country. He has just acknowledged that proposition. That claim is contained in the matter of public importance today: ‘The Rudd government’s censorship of the CSIRO.’  That claim only has to be stated by Senator Joyce to be refuted. It really does not deserve an argument or a debate. If there is one person in this country and in this parliament who has not drawn breath or shut up for months and months on the issue of climate change, the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or the emissions trading scheme, it is Senator Joyce himself. He is now claiming that the Rudd government is censoring him and everybody else. What a ridiculous proposition to advance.

If you want to see some examples of censorship by government in the recent history of this country, go back and have a look at what happened during the ‘children overboard’ inquiry when ministerial advisers, in a special unit established by the then Prime Minister John Howard, were intimately involved—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With Defence.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

with Defence, as Senator Collins, who did such a sterling job on that committee, reminds me, in some of the misleading statements and downright lies that were told to the Australian public at that time. The then Howard government refused to allow those ministerial advisers to give evidence before a committee. That is what I call censorship.

If you are going to make a claim about censorship, you have to have some hard evidence. I have not heard one skerrick of evidence today that the Rudd government has, according to this supposed matter of public importance, engaged in censorship. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. I must note also that Senator Abetz in his opening speech, with all his usual flourish, hyperbole and exaggeration, did actually note that the CSIRO was established by the Bruce government in 1926. I do pay credit to Prime Minister Stanley Bruce. It was a significant thing that he did. The other significant thing he did, of course, was lose his seat, just as the previous Prime Minister did in the election two years ago.

I am very pleased to be able to participate in this debate today, and I wish I had more time because over the years I have had a fair amount of contact with the CSIRO. In my years working as an official of the Australian Workers Union, and eventually as general secretary of that union, I had, on a number of occasions, reason to consult the CSIRO. I did so because our union had significant coverage in the agricultural and mining sectors, and I always found them to be first-class people, scientists and researchers. They provided independent advice to us and certainly, I am sure, to the National Farmers Federation, on important issues to do with those industries.

I also had the great privilege—but only for about four months, I think—of serving on the board of the CSIRO. I was appointed in January 1994 as the board’s ACTU representative. I had to resign before I took up my seat in the Senate in May 1994 to fill a casual vacancy. During that short time I had the great privilege to meet people such as Professor Adrienne Clarke, who was the chair of the CSIRO, and that eminent internationally recognised medical expert Dr Gus Nossal, a man who has done so much for this country. I believe the independence of the CSIRO board that I saw in action at the time still remains today, and I actually believe it has been enhanced by current minister Kim Carr and the Rudd government.

I have also had the opportunity to see the work being performed over many years at the facilities the CSIRO has at Lucas Heights. A lot of people do not realise that Lucas Heights is not just a nuclear reactor. It has a significant CSIRO presence. So that is another connection. Finally, I invite people to Google the name Joseph M. Forshaw. They might find something interesting about the CSIRO there. That is not me; it is another Forshaw.

But I want to get on to this debate—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it was a scientific paper, it wouldn’t be you, Michael!

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you Google it, you will find something about the world-class researchers and specialists that the CSIRO has produced. My colleague Senator Hurley referred to how the current government has acted to safeguard research freedom in many ways, particularly in restoring the autonomy of the Australian Research Council by appointing an expert stakeholder group to advise it on strategy and policy. We have improved the whole process of Australian Research Council grants. We do not interfere and stand over and reject grant applications and then not publish the reasons why, as did former minister and opposition leader Brendan Nelson. In 2004 and 2005, for instance, he secretly vetoed 10 research proposals which had been judged worthy of support by independent peer reviewers. That was the record of that government. Dr Nelson did not publish the reasons why. Minister Carr has made it absolutely abundantly clear that we will have an open policy when it comes to the awarding of research grants.

Getting on particularly to the CSIRO, the government has introduced charters for our public research agencies, including the CSIRO. These charters guarantee the agencies’ right to pursue lines of inquiry, publish results and participate in public debate without political interference. These charters provide a framework for the civic engagement that we consider one of the research community’s core responsibilities. They set out not only the rights but also the responsibilities of the agencies and agency researchers. And each of these charters, including that of the CSIRO, affirms the contestability of ideas, supports open communication of research findings, encourages debate on research issues of public interest, recognises the role of individual researchers in the conversation, honours the independence of public research agencies in their research activities and acknowledges the government’s responsibility for formulating and implementing policy.

When it comes to the specific issue of Dr Clive Spash, I reiterate that the government has played absolutely no role in the discussions between the CSIRO and Dr Clive Splash. This is entirely a matter for CSIRO management.

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

Senator Milne interjecting—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne is interjecting, but most of Senator Milne’s contribution was actually directed at her complaints about CSIRO management. I remind the Senate that the issue of public importance before us is this allegation of censorship by the Rudd government, and I repeat what I just said: the government has played absolutely no role in the discussions between the CSIRO and Dr Clive Spash.

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

Senator Milne interjecting—

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Ryan, I listened to the other speakers in silence. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

The notion of peer review is central to the research enterprise. Researchers test the quality and validity of their work by submitting it for critical assessment by their peers. The CSIRO has its own internal peer review processes. These processes have been established to maintain the standards of excellence that have made the CSIRO an international research icon, and they have been established to protect the CSIRO board. In conclusion, Dr Spash’s paper is one of many produced by CSIRO researchers on the pros and cons of emissions trading. There is nothing unusual about it. And it is hardly surprising when you remember that the CSIRO leads the world in the science of climate change, as it does in so many other areas.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start my contribution on this matter of public importance by, strangely enough, agreeing with just one thing that Senator Forshaw said—that is, what a fantastic organisation the CSIRO is and has been for a long period of time since it was set up by a Liberal government in years gone by. They do some very good scientific work. It is pretty clear, and many of my colleagues from all sides in this debate have pointed this out, how under this government a lot of scientific work has become subject to either direct or indirect censorship. The indirect censorship is of course the wink and the nod from a minister in charge, like Senator Carr, who is often humourously called ‘Red Kim’ from the politburo. He is known for his very extreme left-wing views. The thought going around, as my colleagues have mentioned, is that Senator Carr, the relevant minister, makes it clear that if any researcher wants money then they had better make sure that they are toeing the government line.

The instance that has been raised of Dr Clive Spash is a case in point. Perhaps Senator Forshaw was correct when he said there was no directive issued by the minister, but any bureaucrat, any administrator of CSIRO, would know that promoting someone who has a different view to that of the government, whether it is a view I agree with or not, means that research funds might dry up and means that, in one way or another, the organisation may be penalised. Any of those who have followed Senator Carr’s history, and I could perhaps talk about the Victorian Right in the old days, would know that when Senator Carr wants to get into bullying mode he is a pretty formidable opponent. I guess that is why the Right in Victoria have now folded in with him—rather than trying to bully each other they have got together.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Collins, it is a different right in Victoria, is it? You would know what it is all about. This debate is about censorship, specifically of the CSIRO. As my colleagues have quite clearly pointed out, this government make censorship one of its platforms. We know that in the Labor Party—and this is a case of no names, no pack drill—there are one or two senators who are totally opposed to an emissions trading scheme. But dare they so much as mumble a word in this chamber about their opposition to the emissions trading scheme and they will be kicked out of the Labor Party.

We know that the last person who chose to disagree with the Labor Party was then Senator Shayne Murphy. He had a different view. He did not like what the Labor Party was doing in his home state of Tasmania, and he said so. He voted against something that was particularly contrary to his beliefs and against what he thought was right for his constituency. As a result of that he was expelled from the Labor Party, because the Labor Party is all about control and censorship. You cannot say what you like; you have to say what the view of the heavies at the top is—in this case Mr Rudd. And if you are brave enough to have a view that is not to Mr Rudd’s liking then you will not be in the Labor Party for very long. That is what this is all about. As one of my colleagues mentioned, this has come through in the recent directive from Mr Rudd, administered I think somewhat reluctantly by Minister Ludwig, to try and say that if anyone in this chamber wants to write something in a newsletter or in a dispatch or wants to send material to a constituent then they have to run it by the ALP censorship regime. If you do not allow your material to be censored then you could be in a lot of trouble. According to the Labor Party, I could not, for example, send out to my constituents a copy of the speech that I am giving now because it would be treated as being critical of the government. I cannot post material out with a postage stamp provided as part of my means of operating if it is deemed by the government censor to be electioneering or a political campaign.

We all know the Labor Party cannot manage money but it is also becoming increasingly obvious—with this example in CSIRO that we are talking about, in relation to communication between members of parliament and their constituents, and in relation to holding back their own members from having a view contrary to that of Mr Rudd—that the Labor Party is all about control. It is all about censorship. It is all about keeping the thoughts of all of us pure, and that means in line with Mr Rudd’s view of the world. The debate before us at the moment on the Rudd government’s censorship of CSIRO is just the latest example of how Mr Rudd tries to manipulate public opinion and indeed the opinion of scientists and politicians.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance has concluded.