Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share 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—