Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. In an article in this morning's Australian, entitled 'CSIRO slams grant to reef foundation', it is revealed that CSIRO has raised the alarm that the government's half-a-billion-dollar grant to the small private foundation creates 'layers and layers of bureaucracy' and 'made the oversight of scientific funding for the reef more complex'. Why did the government choose to add layers and layers of bureaucracy by bypassing Australia's premier scientific agencies?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Carr for the question. Senator Carr, I completely reject the premise of what you have said. The arrangements to govern scientific advice for the partnership program avoid duplication and ensure linkages and existing arrangements. As you would know, AIMS and CSIRO are involved in the foundation's scientific advisory body, the International Scientific Advisory Committee. They are also on the government's Reef 2050 Plan's Independent Expert Panel, which is providing advice to the foundation. Those on the other side continue to want to play politics with the reef. We on this side of the chamber want to ensure the sustainability of the Great Barrier Reef and, importantly, the 64,000 jobs that rely on and are derived from the great, iconic Great Barrier Reef.

Senator Carr, you would know very well that AIMS and CSIRO, both in the portfolio, do extraordinary work in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. You would also know, I hope, that both AIMS and CSIRO have worked closely with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation for many, many years—and I am very pleased to say, Senator Carr, that they will continue to do so. It is also a fact that AIMS and CSIRO are actually leading the Reef Restoration and Adaptation program, which will inform how the Great Barrier Reef Foundation's funds will be spent. This work will include providing the Great Barrier Reef Foundation with a prioritised list of funding options for its research and development activities. Senator Carr, you would also, I hope, know that the CSIRO has already seconded a scientist to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, a supplementary question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rather than the assumptions I've made, these are the documents that you have tabled in this chamber. The documents further state that the CSIRO is concerned that the foundation would 'burn millions in overheads, duplicating activities of the science agencies and a senior officer to hold the foundation's hand'. Why does Prime Minister Turnbull think that this duplication is a good use of taxpayers' money?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, if you had actually listened to my first answer, in the first instance I completely rejected the premise of your question. But then I advised you that the arrangements to govern scientific advice for the partnership program avoid duplication and ensure linkages with existing arrangements. Again, as we all know, both AIMS and CSIRO are involved in the foundation's scientific advisory body, the International Scientific Advisory Committee. They are also, because they do fantastic work, ensuring that we are able to ensure the sustainability of the Great Barrier Reef. They are also on the government's Reef 2050 Plan Independent Expert Panel, which is providing advice to the foundation.

We on this side of the chamber will continue to invest in the sustainability of the Great Barrier Reef and also ensure the protection of the 64,000 jobs. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, a final supplementary question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When asked yesterday whether CSIRO would have liked to have received almost half a billion dollars in funding for its work, CSIRO Chief Scientist Dr Cathy Foley said, 'Of course, we would.' How can the Prime Minister defend the government's decision to give the grant to a small, private foundation run by his mates over Australia's premier science agencies?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Jobs and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, AIMS and CSIRO work very closely together. They have a very good relationship. They all do extraordinary work in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. They will bring together a set of complementary skills. Both AIMS and CSIRO have worked closely with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation in the past, and they will continue to do so. As I have stated, it is actually AIMS and CSIRO that are leading the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program. This is the program that will actually inform how the Great Barrier Reef Foundation's funds will be spent.

Those on the other side would also know that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has to have some form of credibility—even if they don't want it to—because when Labor were in government they themselves invested $12.5 million in the foundation. (Time expired)