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

Many Tasmanians as well as me and many Australians who care about climate change, and, in fact, thousands in the international community and science institutions everywhere have been watching the CSIRO's recent decision to restructure and lay off 350 scientists—many of them, potentially, from your home town of Hobart, Mr President—unfurl like a train wreck.

We heard at the recent estimates that CSIRO science partners, like the Bureau of Meteorology, the Australian Antarctic Division, the Department of the Environment itself and even the Chief Scientist, got next to no notice of these cuts. But in a media release shortly afterwards, in defending his decision Larry Marshall said the decision was made with 'deep consultation and research'. These partners are not simple stakeholders with a passing interest in what CSIRO does, especially in the area of climate and environmental science; they are long-term partners and collaborators with shared facilities and shared projects. They form part of the science community. Each organisation plays to its strengths in terms of the type of funding cycle, expertise and infrastructure it has. They collaborate on long-term integrated global projects.

This is especially the case in Tasmania, in terms of the Hobart Antarctic and Southern Ocean climate community, where I have met some of my best friends over recent years. We have multiple institutions such as IMAS at the University of Tasmania, the ACE CRC, CSIRO and the Australian Antarctic Division working on collaborative projects in the Southern Ocean and on the highest possible priority projects relating to climate change research that have decade-long time frames. The capability we have in Tasmania is world class. Our closeness to Antarctica and our decades of experience in the field gives us global competitive advantages. As the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, Professor Peter Rathjen, said recently, once you have earned a global reputation, you don't throw it away lightly.

I have been disappointed in the response from the state and federal Liberal governments to this supposed operational decision by CSIRO management. We heard in question time yesterday that perhaps Minister Pyne is going to do something to reverse this reprioritisation within CSIRO, and I certainly hope that is the case. The community in Tasmania—let alone the science community internationally and in Australia—cannot afford to lose some of the best ocean and atmosphere modellers and researchers that we have. As far as the state Liberals go, the Premier, Will Hodgman, said that he left a message on Mr Pyne's mobile phone a few weeks ago. I hope they have now had some active discussions and some fruitful conversations. Given that Antarctic and climate science is supposedly one of the prime economic strategies for our state of Tasmania, I would expect that we would be seeing more pressure brought to bear on CSIRO for this ridiculous decision.

The head of CSIRO, Dr Larry Marshall has, in the eyes of many in the science community, displayed a fundamental ignorance about the role these climate and environmental scientists have played and the value of their work. He seems to place low importance on the need to examine how the climate is changing and how those changes translate at a local level. He also seems to think that we do not need to keep improving our understanding of climate science over time. In other words, he puts little economic value on this information. I want to highlight one very clear example tonight of why I think Dr Marshall is wrong.

Tasmania is currently in an energy and water crisis. An incredibly dry period has meant average water levels have dropped to 16.8 per cent of capacity and the levels are still falling—although my wife did tell me tonight that they have had some rain in the last 24 hours. A fault with Basslink and an inability to increase local renewable energy capacity has meant the state faces power shortages. Plans are underway to shut down major industrials and to run massive diesel generators at an estimated cost of $11 million a month. I want to point out how Hydro Tasmania introduced this problem in their latest update:

The combination of a strong El Nino and a positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) event in Spring 2015 led to extremely low rainfall in Hydro Tasmania’s catchments since September 2015…

The onset of the positive IOD was both extremely strong and very sudden, and this severity was not predicted—

The record dry in Spring 2015 saw inflows of less than half the previously worst result in the past 30 years on record for that period.

So this massive social and economic problem in Tasmania, which is costing the state millions, was not predicted.

Hydro Tasmania incorporates CSIRO modelling and seasonal forecasts into its water level predictions. CSIRO modelling has already been used to downgrade the long-term energy generating capacity of Tasmania's dams due to climate change because of CSIRO's climate models.    But, in this case, the event was worse than the models predicted. This is exactly why we need to keep investing in developing these models and the science that is forthcoming from these models. I know that some of the people involved in the oceans and atmospheres work are working to improve these models. To cut these researchers is to put Tasmania's economic future at risk.

The clear impression that a number of stakeholders got, perhaps from some very simplistic statements by Dr Marshall, was that we now know climate change exists and, because we know it exists, we need to focus more on mitigation and adaption. We absolutely do need to focus on mitigation and adaption. But as became very clear, I hope, to Dr Marshall during recent estimates, you cannot mitigate and adapt successfully unless you monitor, observe and model what is going on in the climate. The two are the same thing. This example with Hydro Tasmania is a classic case study of why we need to keep enhancing our scientific understanding. We do not know everything about climate change. We know it is a risk, but those risks still need to be researched and managed.

In Tasmania at the moment we have a beekeeping industry, which is saying that the loss of over 100,000 hectares of working forests, native forests, national parks and other categories is potentially going to be devastating to the industry. We have a wine industry that is very nervous, especially in the Tamar Valley, about smoke taint. Smoke is still hanging around after weeks as we go into veraison and get ready for harvest. Some of the small vineyards in the north of Tasmania would not recover from the loss of an entire crop.

We have an oyster industry which, for the first time ever, is facing the warmest temperatures on record at this time of the year. It is potentially going to lose 90 per cent of its capacity in the next 10 years if this virus gets a hold—and, sadly, it looks like it is. We have a salmon industry that is expanding on the east coast of Tasmania, which is the most at-risk industry in warming waters off the east coast. Of course, we have tourism and the issue of cancelled bookings associated with the potential damage to some of our world-beating World Heritage areas, which we know people come to Tasmania for. It is what they want from our state.

Recently, someone I know quite well, who has been a climate campaigner, sent me an email in which he said: 'I'm an optimistic person, but I'm actually scared for the first time ever. My friends and I always used to joke that, if the proverbial hit the fan, we'd all move to Tassie.' But if you look at what is going on in Tasmania at the moment, there are extreme weather events, with half the state flooding and half the state burning. These are the kinds of things that we are going to deal with more in the future, if you believe the research that CSIRO and other scientific institutions have been providing.

Now is not the time to be cutting research into climate science. It is going to be devastating for the community in Hobart, which relies on these scientists. Some of these scientists have moved from all around the world and chosen Tasmania to be their home. Many hundreds of them, and their families, are part of communities and are an important part of the economy. The work they do is absolutely crucial for industries right across the state. The economic value that their work creates is going to be difficult to measure. Dr Marshall needs to understand that and not put that at risk.

I hope that, very soon, I be will be able to take a select committee down to Hobart and Melbourne to further examine the cuts that are planned for CSIRO and call witnesses to give evidence on why this work is important and why this decision should be reversed. We are hoping to do that in the first week of March.

Senate adjourned at 19 : 45