Category: CSIRO

Scientist defects as CSIRO is co-opted in controversial deep sea mining venture – Michael West


A defecting CSIRO scientist has labelled the agency an “extravagant consulting company” due to its involvement in a controversial deep sea mining project. Suzanne Arnold reports.

Source: Scientist defects as CSIRO is co-opted in controversial deep sea mining venture – Michael West

“Brazenly co-opted”: experts confront CSIRO for gas industry infiltration, greenwashing fossil fuels – Michael West

Beetaloo basin

The CSIRO’s recent report detailing carbon credits required to offset gas fracking in the Beetaloo Basin is based on faulty assumptions to suit the gas industry, say experts. Callum Foote reports.

Source: “Brazenly co-opted”: experts confront CSIRO for gas industry infiltration, greenwashing fossil fuels – Michael West

Why Malcolm Turnbull should reverse the destructive, clumsy, and dumb CSIRO cuts | Mark Dreyfus | Opinion | The Guardian

The gutting of climate science expertise in one of the world’s premier research organisations is not clever, innovative, or agile. It is destructive, clumsy and dumb

Source: Why Malcolm Turnbull should reverse the destructive, clumsy, and dumb CSIRO cuts | Mark Dreyfus | Opinion | The Guardian

The CSIRO and the missing climate change data : Public data has been removed from the CSIRO website. Is this the new approach to the press iin the PM’s Office?

Image from

Kirsten Tona’s article on – Government ignoring climate change while the planet burns (and published on The AIMN as Canberra fiddles while Australia burns) – contained a number of links to the CSIRO website where climate change data and modelling were available to the public.

Within a week of her article being published the links to the CSIRO website were taken down. These were the following links (that no longer work):

The conspiracy theorist in me jumps on the idea that they may have been removed by the wishes of a government famous for its climate change denial. Perhaps the recent funding cuts to the CSIRO include cutting out information that provides evidence contrary to the government’s stance.

But I’m sure there is a simple explanation. I’ve asked for one:

Dear Sir/Madam.

I draw your attention to this article:

Since the publication of that article a number of the links to the CSIRO’s data and models on the effects of climate change have been removed. I refer to the following:

“Australia’s premier scientific body, the CSIRO, has been quietly beavering away, using proven scientific methodologies to produce realistic models of what climate change may look like in our country.

Global sea levels rose by about 17 centimetres during the twentieth century, and are projected to keep rising . . .

Climate Change In Australia is an initiative of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), in partnership with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, through the Australian Climate Change Science Program”.

Clicking on those links will now give you the following announcement:


This site is currently unavailable

If you are the owner of this site, please contact us at 1-480-505-8855 at your earliest convenience.

As a citizen who is concerned about the effects of climate change in Australia and who relies on the excellent work done by the CSIRO in keeping concerned citizens informed, it was disappointing to find that this information has been removed. Was there a valid reason for this?

Yours sincerely,
Michael Taylor

One AIMN commenter noted that: “The people of Australia have an absolute right to the results of taxpayer-funded scientific research”. Let us see what they say (though I don’t expect a reply something along the lines of “The people of Australia do not have access to the results of taxpayer-funded scientific research because it interferes with the government’s political agenda”).

I’ll keep you posted.

It’s all about the jobs, bout the jobs, no trouble


Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have been at pains to tell us it’s all about “jobs and growth”.  Now that we have “a number” the economies of the world will be saved.  But how do we intend to reach this magical figure of “2% growth above what is expected”?

The government’s action plan has listed five “key commitments” to underpin its pledge.

The first key commitment to expanding economic activity is infrastructure spending, including its “asset recycling initiative” – encouraging state governments to privatise assets and then plough the proceeds into new projects.

Considering we are selling the profitable Medibank Private to invest in railways for dubious Indian coal mining ventures, this seems an avenue to privatising profits and socialising losses.  No doubt some Liberal Party donors will do well out of it.

“Employment welfare reforms” is ranked as the No 2 commitment, and notes that the changes will “strengthen participation and activation strategies”.

By cutting payments entirely to some unemployed and requiring jobseekers to search for more jobs to qualify for payments, the government argues it will spur the unemployed to look for work rather than live on welfare, thereby boosting economic activity.

But that boost can only come if there are jobs for the unemployed to get and there seems little in the way of a plan to create jobs beyond “axe the tax” and “build some roads”.

Anglicare Australia commissioned a report called “Beyond Supply and Demand” which rubbished the Abbott government’s treatment of the long-term unemployed, calling for a “life first” rather than a “work first” approach to end joblessness.

Anglicare executive director Roland Manderson said

“It’s a problem if the public debate hinges on an assumption that people can just try harder and get work, that’s not true.  What is true is that people can get work and develop really great work but you need to put that investment in at the front end.  The problem with the ‘earn or learn’ (budget measure) is it makes the assumption that any training will do the trick. It’s disempowering to train people who might find work for a short time, but then are out of work again because they haven’t worked through their life barriers.”

Labor assistant treasury spokesman Andrew Leigh said cuts to welfare payments such as   the unemployment benefit, family tax benefits and the pension would act to suppress economic growth.

“If you produce a budget that reduces the income of the poor, it has an impact on consumer demand because they spend everything they’ve got,” he said.  “That will detract from economic growth.”

The other key commitments are “cutting red tape”, “contributing to global trade liberalisation” and “creating self-reliant industries”.

If one thing came out of the many millions spent on inquiries into the Home Insulation Program, it was to underline the dangers of “cutting red tape” and oversight.

The most obvious result of this commitment is to fast track development and mining approvals without regard to environmental impacts, and to remove rights of appeal.

The detail of the China Free Trade Agreement, or Memorandum of Understanding to be more accurate, is yet to be released so it is difficult to assess its impact but one concession we made was to allow Chinese companies to bring in their own workers.  I’m not sure how selling our assets to foreign companies who send their profits back home and who employ foreign workers will actually boost our economy.

Andrew Robb also admitted that Treasury has not done modelling on the overall impact of this agreement and he does not know how it will affect our balance of trade.

The commitment to “create self-reliant industries” seems to fly in the face of Abbott’s staunch resistance to reducing fossil fuel subsidies.  And how does Newman’s Galilee railway and Hunt’s Emissions Reduction Fund fit into that plan?

As was forcibly pointed out over the weekend, renewable energy is an industry of the future, but rather than taking advantage of the billions available for investment in this area, Abbott seems determined to kill off this industry and the tens of thousands of jobs that go with it, presumably because it offers competition to those humanitarian coal producers and users.

Which seems strange as the Coalition’s plan for more jobs is based on improving productivity and competitiveness.

Across the globe, mining productivity has declined by 20 per cent over the past seven years, despite the push for increased output, and declining market conditions.

Efficiency in the Australian mining industry has received a stern rebuke from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), rated as one of the least productive regions in the world.

The damning report ‘Mining for Efficiency’ states that Australia is the second least productive mining region in the world, with Africa taking the wooden spoon, and North America beating Australia on all classes of equipment.

The report claims there is an inherent conflict between the productivity plans of the mining boom which were based on increased volumes, and plans based on cost reduction which are now coming to the fore of business strategy.

Despite claims by industry lobby groups that high wages in Australia will impact on our competitiveness, results actually show “significant divergences” between mines in close proximity chasing the same minerals under the same industrial relations conditions.

Equipment and the way it is used is a key focus of the report, which shows that productivity differences between the best and worst performing mines are stark, with some of the best practice outputs coming in at more than 100 per cent greater than the median performers.

“The popular tagline of the mining sector is that the miners are serious about productivity,” PwC states.

“We suggest that most are reducing costs and increasing volumes but there are precious few with legitimate claims to improving core productivity in their open cut operations.”

Comments in the report echoed the new fashion for cost reduction employed by the major miners who continue to sell off ‘non-core’ assets, such as BHP Billiton had done earlier this year with Nickelwest operations.

“Miners are banking the first available dividend, selling or segregating mines deemed too hard to fix and tempering expectations of further productivity gains by citing a combination of labour laws, high costs, regulatory hold ups and mine configuration constraints,” Lumley said.

And then this morning, we are hit with the news that the axe has fallen again at Australia’s research agency, the CSIRO, with another 75 researchers retrenched across the organisation’s future manufacturing, agriculture and digital productivity programs.

All three affected areas belong to the CSIRO’s flagship “impact science” division, set up in 2003, which aims to partner with universities and the private sector to bring “large scale and mission directed science” to bear on major national priorities.

Future manufacturing research will be hardest hit, losing up to 45 full-time positions, including in advanced fibres, biomedical manufacturing and high-performance metals.

Among the work to which future manufacturing research scientists have contributed is state-of-the-art ceramic body armour for Australian soldiers, the southern hemisphere’s first Arcam additive manufacturing facility, which enables 3D printing of metals, and a spray-on topcoat for aircraft.

But this shouldn’t surprise us from a government who thinks coal is the industry of the future and a Treasurer who thinks that climate change is “absolutely not” an impediment to economic growth