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

Under standing order 74(5), I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Sinodinos, as to why the following 29 questions on notice to the CSIRO from the additional estimates remain unanswered: AI-7 to AI-11, AI-112, AI-123 and AI-144 to AI-165.

Arthur Sinodinos (NSW, Liberal Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will seek advice from the minister and get back to you as soon as I can.

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

I move:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will not keep the Senate long, because we do have a program to get through, but it is important, as Senator Carr says, that answers be given. I remember in the previous Labor government I waited for about three years for an answer to a question on notice and never even got it before the Labor Party was so unceremoniously tossed out.

It is important, as Senator Carr says, that answers be given, and I am sure that they are coming. But I just cannot let Senator Carr's rantings go unchallenged. The CSIRO, which is a magnificent scientific organisation, is not sacking staff; it is reallocating staff from one area of its duties to another area. I am pleased to say that the CSIRO is doing a lot of work in northern Australia, and rightly so. It is very good work, and it does provide a scientific base for the work of governments and others.

But what Senator Carr complains about is that the CSIRO is now no longer concentrating a lot of scientific effort on the cause of climate change because, as Senator Carr and his mates in the Greens political party have said, the science of climate change is settled. If I have heard that once from Senator Carr, I have heard it a hundred times. Senator Carr keeps telling us: 'The science is settled.' So why was the CSIRO putting such an effort into the science of climate change? What CSIRO is doing is putting more effort now into the science of resilience and remediation—into dealing with the impacts of a climate which, we all can see, has been changing. And it has been changing, I have to say, for thousands of years. What the CSIRO is—in my view, rightly—doing is saying: 'Let's direct some of our expertise into the area of what we do about the changing climate.' For some reason, Senator Carr does not like that. But to me and, I suggest, to most Australians, that seems to be a reasonable use of the taxpayers' resources in funding scientific effort in the CSIRO.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just add a very brief comment to that. What Senator Macdonald does not seem to understand—and what, had he come along to the committees and listened to the evidence, he would actually understand—is that the modelling and measurement and monitoring work that is being done by the scientists, especially in the Oceans and Atmosphere division, where the jobs are at stake, is being used almost specifically for mitigation and adaptation work. It is not about proving that climate change is in. That was in 2007 with the IPCC international declaration that climate is changing and we need to do something about it. These scientists provide the data that is being used by research institutions, farmers and so many stakeholders right across the country and it is worth billions of dollars to our economy. The CSIRO is not making a decision to get rid of these people; it is a small handful of people within the CSIRO. I suggest the minister's office is very likely to also be on the same page in getting rid of climate scientists. In terms of mitigation and adaption, we have not heard any evidence that CSIRO have any solid plans for ramping mitigation and adaption strategies up, except perhaps for fugitive gases from the coal seam gas industry. That is an area where they see potential for future growth, not for cutting emissions.

I would like to thank Senator Carr for his vigilance and I recognise his contribution in standing up for climate scientists at CSIRO, especially in my home town of Hobart. They expect politicians to be bipartisan or tri-partisan on this issue. They expect all of us to see common sense and make sure that good policy is enacted. The Senate committee inquiry into scrutiny of financial advice that Senator Carr referred to is having another hearing with the CSIRO's Larry Marshall next week. That is why we need this information now. We are running out of time. We only have six days to meet with the CEO, so we need to get this information as soon as possible. The Greens add our support to his call for 100 per cent transparency on this issue.

Question agreed to.