Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Cabinet Secretary (Senator Sinodinos) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Singh and Ketter today relating to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and to the goods and services tax.

At the recent Paris Climate Change Conference, many global leaders came together to raise the importance of acting on climate change, of acting on greenhouse gas emissions. Commitments were made, targets were put in place and the like. Our own Prime Minister at that Paris Climate Change Conference made very clear statements about the importance of research and innovation as keys to dealing with global warming. In fact, I quoted him in the question I put to Senator Sinodinos. 'We do not doubt the implications of the science, or the scale of the challenge,' the Prime Minister said. You would think that at this time, with climate being such an important national research issue, you would not be seeing one of our key government institutions, the CSIRO, slashing 300 or more positions over the next two years.

That is why I put those questions today to Senator Sinodinos: to specifically ask him why, when the Prime Minister is making these statements that clearly show that he understands the implications of the science and the scale of the challenge when we are talking about climate change—as he said at the Paris conference—he is facilitating, in a sense, the cut to so many Australian climate scientists. I heard the answer by Senator Sinodinos and a similar answer by Senator Brandis. Senator Sinodinos gets 10 points for sticking to his brief, because I think his answer in each part certainly did that. It was a brief which kept reiterating that there would be not job losses but realigning. Well, he knows very well, as does Senator Brandis, that the CSIRO chief executive, Larry Marshall, himself said:

As our business unit leaders work through the process of realigning their teams for the new strategy it is inevitable that there will be job losses.

So there will be job losses, as the chief executive has told us, and those job losses are catastrophic, because those people have the expertise that we need in this country to ensure that we are doing our research in climate science and predicting future climate risk. Climate research is needed now more than ever. These cuts to environmental science are at a time when scientists need to be doing this work so much more than at any other time. It is just ridiculous that this is taking place. Obviously it is not just me saying this. There are so many experts in the field that have come out very strongly today. One of them, for example, is Professor Holmes from the Australian Academy of Science, who said very clearly:

Our climate and environmental scientists are some of the best in the world. We wouldn't stop supporting our elite Olympic athletes just as they're winning gold medals. Nor should we pull the rug out from under our elite scientists.

So here you have an incredible amount of expertise in climate research coming up and doing some incredible work that is needed, getting very good support from government in doing that and getting great outcomes in doing that. And, at that pinnacle moment that they are doing that important research work, they then are cut. The rug is pulled from under them, and government is facilitating that. This research and innovation that apparently highlights what it supposedly thinks is important is no longer going to be needed. That is simply not good enough. We are losing our role and our responsibility to the global community if we do this.

We need these climate scientists to continue to do their climate research. We need them more now than ever. In doing this we are gutting a great Australian institution—the CSIRO—that has done such incredible work in the past and needs to be there for our future and our children's future to continue to do such important and credible work, especially in the oceans and atmosphere division—one division on its own where 110 jobs will be cut. It is simply not good enough to lose these jobs and lose these scientists' minds. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Singh and other members of the Labor Party and the Greens political party were interested in this subject seriously, I could urge them to have a look at the letter written by Dr Larry Marshall to his colleagues in CSIRO. First of all, I re-emphasise that CSIRO is an independent agency and the decision made was an operational decision by CSIRO. Senator Singh, you would do well to read that letter. It is four pages. Perhaps it might test your concentration, but it really explains the position and explains exactly what Dr Marshall was talking about. I will just give you one quote from this letter—Senator Singh, if you were interested in this you would have stayed and listened to it—and it says this:

CSIRO pioneered climate research, the same way we saved the cotton and wool industries for our nation. But we cannot rest on our laurels as that is the path to mediocrity. Our climate models are amongst the best in the world, and our measurement honed these models to prove global climate change. That question has been answered, and the new question is what do we do about it, and how can we find solutions for the climate we will be living with?

I have to say that is the approach that the late Professor Bob Carter, who was pilloried high and low by the Labor Party and the Greens political party. That is the view Professor Carter has been espousing for a long time. He and I have always said, 'Of course the climate is changing.' As I often say—giving an extreme example—once upon a time Australia was covered in snow. It is not now, so clearly the climate has changed since aeons ago. What the CSIRO are now doing is saying, 'Right, we accept the climate has changed.' CSIRO scientists did a lot of work on this. And, as he says, their models are amongst the best in the world.' But he said, 'We've got to move on now. We've got to accept the climate is changing.' And I have always accepted that. What we have to do is to say, 'What do we do about it now that we know it's changing?' As Senator Brandis said in his answer, we now have to look at mitigation and adaptation research.

The letter from Dr Marshall to his colleagues in the CSIRO goes through that very carefully and it is instructive. I would urge everyone to have a look at this letter. I think it is a public letter now. He goes on to say, 'Our investment in precision agriculture combines unique sensors with predictive analytics to help our farming community respond to climate change and to grow their prosperity.' He further goes on to talk about the Great Barrier Reef being at risk. But we do not need to prove that the climate is changing anymore. What we need to do, and what CSIRO are going to do, is to actually do something about it and to divert their very outstanding research capabilities to finding out what we can do about a climate which we have all known has for centuries been changing. That is what is happening at CSIRO. There will not be any job losses. The Labor Party can keep saying that for as long as they like, but it is typical of the Labor Party and the Greens just making up any lie to support their argument.

Here are the facts from the guy. Read the letter from the guy who actually runs the CSIRO and who is doing the rearrangement. He says, 'There won't be any job losses at CSIRO.' What he is doing is diverting researchers from a science where there were too many people all around the world living in their universities getting research grants to prove something we all know, and he is going to divert that to other scientists and researchers and professionals who are actually going to do something about it to tell us how we can adapt and respond to and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

I agree with the late Professor Bob Carter. That is what we should have been doing years ago. That is what Professor Carter had been calling to do, and I am pleased to see even a few weeks after his death that now the CSIRO are actually taking that advice and looking towards that new research— (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of questions put to Minister Cormann. Sadly, the answers did not come.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I just interrupt you there. I understand the motion before the chair is about questions asked by Senators Singh and Ketter. If you are going to change the subject, I will have to put that question. So just resume your seat for a moment, Senator Sterle. Does anyone else want to speak on the motion moved by Senator Singh?

Opposition senators interjecting—

I beg your pardon. I have just been advised that one of the responses was a response from Senator Cormann. So my apologies; you have the call, Senator Sterle.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No worries; thanks, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The motion clearly was that the Senate take note of the questions asked by Senator Singh and Senator Ketter.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Senator. But the advice I have received is that one of those questions was indeed to Senator Cormann. So Senator Sterle is responding to the motion in respect to that.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. I was so relaxed sitting here because I knew you would get it. As I said, I want to take note of questions put to Senator Cormann. Sadly, there was no answer. It is so tough to go back out to the electorates and defend the institute of the parliament when I myself am completely embarrassed by question time. I think question time is an absolute disgrace—and I do not hold back on this. I would love to be able to go back and say that it is question and answer time. That is probably our fault, because that is where we have got it wrong.

I do not care which minister and which topic; I just think that if questions are asked and the ministers cannot be truthful, they should come out and say straightaway to us and the people who are watching, 'I'm just not going to tell you the truth.' To watch Minister Cormann's pathetic effort to do everything he could to avoid questions from Senator Ketter about the GST was an absolute disgraceful waste of time. It is shameful that someone can be paid nearly $300,000 to get up and do that. I do not know if anyone is going to argue with me, because it is not the first time that I have talked about my absolute hatred of question time. It is a complete and utter waste of not only the finances of the taxpayers but also the time of the Senate.

Today Minister Cormann was asked a clear question. There was modelling done by Treasury, and there were figures brought out around if a 15 per cent GST were applied to a number of things—health, education, sewerage or services—and he was asked whether he could confirm that these were the figures that Treasury modelling showed. And all he wanted to do was absolutely avoid even telling the tiniest piece of truth—to say, yes, they were, or come out as a man who is paid nearly $300,000 and say, 'No, Senator, you are wrong,' and say it is this much or that much.

How can people have faith in this system that we have in front of them at the moment? It is damn disgraceful. Maybe I am getting a little bit cranky because of the years I have been here, but it just irks me. Why couldn't Minister Cormann answer the question? I will tell you why I think he could not answer the question. It is because it resonates through that side of the chamber's thoughts every time this side of the chamber, the opposition, ask questions about the GST—a 15 per cent increase from 10 per cent, or 15 per cent on stuff that is not taxed at the moment in fresh food and health and all that sort of stuff—that it is a massive scare campaign by Labor.

Today has proved to me that there might be a little truth to that massive scare campaign tag—and I will tell you who it is scaring. It is that lot over there. Last night I saw on the news that 20-odd backbenchers have absolutely fizzed out. These are the reports coming out of the party room. There are politicians on that side, some senators, who are absolute conviction senators. You do not have to guess what they are thinking. Your good self, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, are one. You do not hide your thoughts. You are a conviction politician. So is Senator Heffernan. Senator Back does not back down. If he believes in something he will fight for it 100 per cent. You have 20 of the backbenchers now saying, 'Crying out loud; it is a scare campaign. It is frightening the living daylights out of us.'

If it is frightening the living daylights out of you, is there going to be a GST increase? Has Treasury modelling shown that the average household with an income of $86,000 has to pay an extra $6,200 a year in GST if it is increased to 15 per cent? Does the modelling on fresh food show that an average family with a household income of $86,000 will cop an extra $1,100 a year increase? Does it also show that the average healthcare costs will go up by $1,000 a year? Does it also show that education will increase by an extra $700 a year for an average family with a household income of $86,000? Does it also show that costs for water and sewerage will go up an extra $200? Does the modelling also show that households will pay an extra $3,200 a year if the GST is increased to 15 per cent without a change to the base? To the good folks out there who had the misfortune of having to sit through and listen to question time, I do not think they are unfair questions to ask. I do not think it is unfair of Her Majesty's opposition to put those questions to $300,000-a-year ministers. When we do not get an answer, what message does that send out to the people of Australia?

It is a scare campaign. They cannot tell the truth. They cannot correct the figures if they are wrong. I would be scared, too, if I were that lot over there.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the comments on the CSIRO made by Senator Singh in her questions to Senator Sinodinos and indeed to our leader, Senator Brandis, in relation to a further question. I would suggest one thing to Senator Singh—and Mr Bandt, who was quoted in the Sydney Morning Heraldand that is to not take too much notice when you get these sorts of scare statements made by people from an outfit like the Sydney Morning Herald.

I know it is going to be disputed and it has been already, but the simple fact of the matter, as explained by Senator Sinodinos, is that there are not 220 jobs being axed in the way that the question was put by Senator Singh. These are the relevant points to be made. First of all, it is the role of the CSIRO to determine how it manages itself. It has made a decision to reorganise its programs to better fulfil the mission of the CSIRO, as outlined in the CSIRO's strategic plan. That is the role of the management of the organisation. Advice to government and to the community is that the CSIRO will realign over a two-year period and that there will be no net losses of jobs—no net losses of jobs—as a result of that. Statements about changes to the CSIRO budget are also wrong. It is not the role of the Prime Minister, the minister for science, the Minister for the Environment or the minister for anybody else to sign off on staffing changes of an independent agency of the government.

So I come to the question then of their climate change division, and, indeed, Senator Macdonald is quite right in the summary he has given us in the last few minutes. CSIRO have come to the conclusion that they now have to be devoting their time and their funding and their attention more on abatement and mitigation strategies. They employ some 300 people in the area of climate change research and in the oceans and atmosphere division of the CSIRO, and will continue to employ some 300 people. The focus, as stated by the CEO, Dr Larry Marshall, is:

We have spent probably a decade trying to answer the question is the climate changing.

After Paris that question has been answered. The next question now is what do we do about it.

Indeed, I urge colleagues to read the letter, which I believe is dated 4 February, by Dr Larry Marshall. In there he speaks about the high hopes—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's today.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed today; you are quite right, Senator. It is Dr Marshall saying that he has high hopes that we can transmute commodity mineral sands into unique titanium ink for 3D printing and create a new multibillion dollar industry; turn coal into a cleaner form of diesel fuel to reinvigorate a $43 billion industry; improve yield and prevent waste; make mining more profitable and sustainable; use synthetic biology to engineer precisely the attributes we need; breed new strains of food and agricultural products that are healthier, more sustainable and highly differentiated so that Australia can become a unique source of quality value-added products rather than just a food bowl. This is the level and this is the direction this person is taking the institute.

I was in Taiwan only last Sunday week meeting with the equivalent of CSIRO—ITRI—and they were commenting on the excellence internationally of CSIRO. In January last year I was with Mexican Geological Survey. They showed me the most incredible geological mapping of Mexico's metalliferous products, and turned to me to tell me that the software that enabled them to do that was developed by CSIRO and Geoscience Australia. How proud we should be of that institution.

It does no good in this place to have people pick up an article from the Sydney Morning Herald and to come in here and actually make these allegations and accusations, and in some way besmirch what I believe to be the excellence of the management of this organisation. It is the case that we now need to know what to do about it. It is the case we now need to be devoting to abatement and mitigation strategies, and that is what CSIRO is doing.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann's responses today to the questions I asked in question time reveal that this is a government that is running scared on tax reform, and it is hopelessly divided on this issue of increasing the GST. We know from Senator Cormann's responses today that the government is seeking to hide behind the states and territories on this issue. It is saying that the modelling that it has now admitted that it is doing is being done at the behest of the states and territories. So this is a government that is not prepared to indicate that it has the courage of its convictions on this issue. It is basically saying it is the states and territories that made it do it.

We know that the states and territories are being manoeuvred by this government into a situation where they are having their economic base attacked. Of course we do not need to go back much further than the infamous 2014 Abbott budget, which has been so roundly criticised in recent times. It is not only this side of politics that condemned the cuts to health and education, which were inherent in that catastrophic budget; it was also its own side, at the state level, which understood what was happening. In fact, it is now just over 12 months since the demise of the Campbell Newman LNP government in Queensland, and even Premier Newman at the time understood what was happening, that there was a manoeuvre underway. Mr Newman said in May 2014:

This whole thing—

and he was referring to the budget cuts—

seems like a wedge to get the states to ask for the GST to be raised - that's not the issue …

The issue is that a fair share of the income tax that Queensland families pay should come back to pay for their hospitals and schools.

So we know the states and territories are being attacked by this government in terms of the health of education funding.

But this is a government that is hopelessly divided on this issue of a GST increase, as you well know, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. The Turnbull government's proposal to increase the GST has got to be the crudest instrument ever devised to solve the problems of one of the most complex tax systems in the world. Instead of doing the hard work to close the loopholes and make multinational corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share of tax, this government's only idea is to slap a 50 per cent increase on the tax that ordinary Australians pay on every single purchase they make. Instead of looking at how to support jobs growth, address the decline of Australian manufacturing, the exit of the car industry and support the growth of the economy, the government plans to hit every single Australian, no matter how poor, to help pay for its mismanagement of the economy.

The independent Parliamentary Budget Office confirms that a 15 per cent GST on everything will make families pay at least $10 billion every year extra for fresh food, $7.4 billion every year extra for school fees and education, and at least $9.6 billion every year extra for health care and visiting the doctor. Not only will the GST push up the price of everything, it will also punish the Australian economy. At a time when global commodity prices are plummeting and economic growth forecasts are being downgraded, the Treasurer tells us that he expects that an increase in household consumption will underpin our economic growth and see us through the headwinds of 2016.

I would ask: can anyone explain to us how increasing prices for every man, woman and child in this country is going to increase our household consumption? It is going to be the reverse. Low-income families, pensioners, the unemployed and single mums are going to have to cut their spending to pay for this great big tax hit. This is fairly simple to understand. If you raise the cost of goods and services for people who are already juggling their budgets to make ends meet, their natural response has to be to adjust downwards their weekly household expenditure.

It is no wonder that this government is divided. It is no wonder that backbenchers on the other side are in fear and are in rebellion. I wonder how these cuts to household budgets are going to help our economy. They know that this is not going to play well with the Australian people. The Australian people are already expressing their view about this. They are definitely opposed to it, and I call on the government to focus on this issue. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.