2016-02-10
Senator RICE: Thank you. Dr Vertessy, I wanted to ask about the announcement last week by the CSIRO CEO, Dr Larry Marshall, about the effective dismantling of the CSIRO climate science program. Was the Bureau of Meteorology consulted before Dr Marshall made that decision?
Dr Vertessy: Iwas contacted 24 hours ahead of it that an announcement was coming.
Senator RICE: That was the level of consultation?
Dr Vertessy: Yes.
Senator RICE: What do you see the impacts are going to be on the Bureau of Meteorology? Let us start with the climate science program, where the proposal is to lose about 100 of their 130 or 140 positions. What will the impacts be on the bureau's work?
Dr Vertessy: That is still unclear. I can tell you where we are connected and what might be an impact, but CSIRO are yet to announce the fine detail of exactly what they are stopping. Our engagement is around understanding the physical basis of climate change, and that has, really, three components to it. The first is making observations in the ocean, on the land, on the ice. The second component is really about the system modelling, so it is building and running climate models that can project out into the future. The third is just the physics involved in actually improving those models—so, scientists that work on the guts of the models, if you will. That is where we are engaged with them. And we have a joint research centre, called the Australian Centre for Climate and Weather Research, which has those scientists involved in collaborative projects. They are working on models. They are making atmospheric observations at Cape Grim in Tasmania and at other locations as well.
Senator RICE: With those joint facilities—in particular, the research centre and at Cape Grim—if, as seems likely, 100 out of the 130 jobs are going, there will be a substantial reduction in CSIRO staff in those joint centres. How do you see that impacting on the bureau's role at those centres?
Dr Vertessy: It is very difficult to me to say. I hesitate to speculate on this. It could be all kinds of things.
Senator RICE: Are they in jeopardy? Is Cape Grim in jeopardy? Is the research centre in jeopardy?
Dr Vertessy: It is unknown. I have asked that question, and the answer is, 'We are not sure; we are still working out the detail.'
Senator RICE: So you have not been told what the detail is other than that—
Dr Vertessy: Correct.
Senator RICE: But you would expect there are likely to be significant impacts, given the scale of the cuts?
Dr Vertessy: I am drawing attention to several areas where we are working together, where we are dependent on CSIRO collaboration. There are many areas, and it will depend on which of those areas are actually changed.
Senator RICE: If CSIRO staff at Cape Grim or at the research centre no longer exist—in that scenario, how would that impact on the work that you do jointly?
CHAIR: Senator Rice, I think that is starting to stray into a hypothetical question. You are asking the officer—
Senator RICE: No. We are in a situation where 100 of the 130 climate science jobs at CSIRO, we have been told, are going to go, which means the vast majority of CSIRO's climate scientists—
CHAIR: That issue was dealt with earlier on, and I think this is very much straying into a hypothetical now, Senator Rice.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Chair, there is a way forward here. Dr Vertessy, do you have the capability to do that yourself, without CSIRO's input?
Dr Vertessy: If CSIRO exited Cape Grim completely, it would create something of the order of a $460,000 per year budget shortfall for what is a jointly funded station.
Senator RICE: And your research centre? If CSIRO exodus did that completely, would you have the capability to continue the level of research you are currently doing?
Dr Vertessy: I would not refer to the research centre per se. What I would refer to is the work being undertaken by the researchers in that research centre. That is chiefly around the development of Australia's ACCESS climate model. CSIRO play a very significant role in the development of that model. If they were to exit, it would leave a hole in the national development capability. It is not isolated to CSIRO, I might add. The Bureau plays a role, the centre of excellence in climate change science plays a role and others in universities also play a role. CSIRO are not doing everything, but they play a very significant role. If they were to exit completely, yes, it would have an impact.
Senator RICE: Do you have any commitments from CSIRO for any further consultation with you in their decision making about which staff are going to go?
Dr Vertessy: Yes, channels of communication are open.
Senator RICE: What is the consultation process that is proposed from here?
Dr Vertessy: A senior executive of the CSIRO and I both sit on the oversight governing board for the CAWCR joint centre. Through that process, we have agreed that CSIRO will provide information about any movements and capability that they might be contemplating from here on.
Senator RICE: They will provide information, but will you have any ability to influence which jobs the CSIRO are proposing to cut?
Dr Vertessy: Naturally I will be attempting to persuade them as best I can, but it is not my decision. It is up to them to determine how they allocate their resources.
Senator RICE: How about the CSIRO's land and water program? What is your level of collaboration with that program, where we give about 100 jobs for the—
Dr Vertessy: That is very significant as well, but I am had advised that none of the areas in land and water are likely to impact significantly on bureau-CSIRO connections. They are chiefly with other parts of the division's activities—mainly relating to water information.
Senator BACK: No decisions have been made in either of these situation—it is still speculative. Is that right?
Senator RICE: No, we do not know.
CHAIR: Senator Rice, I think the question was for the officer not for you.
Senator BACK: I need to be clear about what you have told us.
Dr Vertessy: First of all, with all due respect, it is not me making the announcements. The way I would characterise things is: there has been a high-level announcement saying there will be changes in these areas, but the details have yet to be ascertained.
Senator Birmingham: As I emphasised this morning, that announcement is about a reprioritisation within the CSIRO. It is not about a net reduction in either funding, staffing or activity. Rather, it is a recognition that over time priorities change. Priorities shift from the extent to which you might measure what is happening with the climate in terms of analysing the science around climate change to investing more in technologies relating to emissions reduction or adaptation.
Senator RICE: In responding to that, can I ask Dr Vertessy—
CHAIR: When you say 'responding', Senator Rice, I note that this is not a debating forum. If you have a further question to ask of the minister or officials—
Senator RICE: Given that the minister has just put that framework around the climate science that CSIRO do, Dr Vertessy, how much of it would you characterise as being climate adaptation research of relevance and necessary to assessing how Australian needs to adapt to climate change?
Dr Vertessy: I do not have a good grasp of the full breadth of CSIRO's work related to climate change. I have a good understanding of the work they do on the physical basis for climate change, which is where we collaborate with them. I am not really qualified to comment on the peripheral stuff.
Senator RICE: But things like the projections of how Australia's climate is going to change—that is a joint bureau and CSIRO product?
Dr Vertessy: Yes, exactly.
Senator RICE: Can that be characterised as just measuring what the climate does or is it relevant to climate adaptations?
Dr Vertessy: Are you referring to the State of the climate report—
Senator RICE: Yes.
Dr Vertessy: or are you talking about the IPCC model projections? There are a whole range of things.
Senator RICE: And the natural resource, NRM, predictions that I understand were a joint CSIRO-bureau product last year.
Dr Vertessy: Those two documents, and to a lesser extent State of the climate—but the model projections that we submit to the IPCC as part of the assessment process and the NRM reports that you have referred to—both come from our joint collaborations. So what they are about is using the models to actually project out into the future as to what the impacts might be.
Senator RICE: It is fair to characterise them as being critical to how we then adapt to climate.
Dr Vertessy: Yes, they are critical.
---
Senator RICE: Chair, I had further questions that I did not get a chance to ask before on the cuts to the regional monitoring stations. There was a mention in media reports that some tasks would still need to occur at the de-staffed stations and that they will be done by local contractors. Is that something you have done before, to employ local contractors where you used to have staff?
Dr Vertessy: Yes.
Dr Barrell: Yes, we employ local contractors to do what we call 'co-operative observations'. They provide supplementary observations that support—in fact, they do it not just at our field stations but also at a number of other stations around the country. The additional thing we will be looking at is just to keep an eye on and to routinely restock some of the equipment at the station. There is a potential for employing local contractors to help with that work as well, under the supervision of Bureau of Meteorology staff.
Senator RICE: What level of expertise do the contractors need to do that work?
Dr Barrell: Generally electrical trade type skills.
Senator RICE: Is there a possibility that former BOM staff may be employed as contractors to do that work?
Dr Barrell: It is a possibility. If, for instance, staff do take a redundancy and stay in town, there is a possibility they may be able to be reused in that role. Let me just clarify. The technical work requires electrical skills. Some of the cooperative observations that currently happen are a much more general skill base, and we train people to do that work.
Senator RICE: Do you think it is likely that some of the current observers would take on those jobs as contractors?
Dr Barrell: It is possible.
Senator RICE: Would it be the same level of work as they are currently doing?
Dr Barrell: No. It would be a very much part-time role.
Senator RICE: What do you see the role being, compared with what the current situation is?
Dr Barrell: I would have to take that on notice. I do not have the detail. But it would certainly be less than a 10th of the role they currently have, so it would be very much a part-time role.
Senator RICE: The other area I wanted to talk about was relating to your initial opening statement, Dr Vertessy, about the extreme weather events and the fire situation. Can you comment on the severity of the fire season this year, compared with previous El Nino years?
Dr Vertessy: I might throw to Rob Webb, who heads up our hazards, forecasts and warnings division.
Mr Webb: Certainly what has been remarkable about this particular fire season so far is the house losses so early in the season. We saw El Nino prime the landscape, through limited rainfall through the winter and springtime, so that meant that, any time the wind blew and there was warm weather around, we saw these quite catastrophic fires develop across the landscape. El Nino years are typically the years that we see the major fire events, but this one, even for an El Nino year, has been, I would say, earlier than normal in terms of the house losses, particularly through WA early, and South Australia, then Victoria and back to WA—and even today we are seeing emergency warnings as well. While El Nino has primed the landscape, we are at the whim now, over the next couple of months, while the temperatures are still warm, of those individual weather systems that come through.
Senator RICE: How has it tracked compared with your prediction? Has it been more extreme than you would have thought, given that it was an El Nino year that was developing?
Mr Webb: I would not say it would be any more extreme. You always take pause when you see any house losses, because of the impact on the community, but it was certainly part of the dialogue, as we were preparing the community and emergency services in the lead-in to the summer, that it was going to be a difficult season, an above-normal season, and that is certainly what has played out so far.
Dr Vertessy: In fact, Senator, you may recall that in my opening statement at the last Senate estimates hearing I drew attention to an extraordinary reissue of the seasonal outlook that we did around this time, drawing attention to the rapidly deteriorating drying condition associated with this El Nino. In fact that was borne out. I think September and October were acutely dry months. So our seasonal outlook proved to be really quite on the money at that time.
Senator RICE: Given what we have experienced so far, what can you say about Australia's fire risk for the rest of this season? We have still got some time to go.
Mr Webb: Certainly there is still some time to go, and we are in the heart of that season, particularly across the south. Typically our fire season shifts south over the course of the summer. At this time of the year, there is still traditionally not a lot of rain around across the southern parts of Australia, and then it really comes down to the individual weather systems—a couple of days of wind in a row, ignitions and the like. So people would still be on high alert, because, although there has been useful rain around in some areas, it was not enough to put out some fires, and it is really waiting for that wind to blow again.
Senator RICE: How well do you feel you are able to make those seasonal predictions, with the knowledge of El Nino? I am thinking of the climate change signal added to El Nino and how that is affecting your ability to make a seasonal prediction.
Mr Webb: Seasonal predictions, as you get further and further out in time, become broader, so you are not picking individual fire events; you are trying to pick the cascading number of elements that line up that might increase fire risk. That includes aligning ourselves with fire agencies in terms of the fuel state, which is a critical part of it, but then it is also trying to pick the propensity for above-normal temperature conditions and belownormal rainfall conditions. And then you have got the individual wind speed and humidity. You are never getting to the point that you are trying to pick those individual fire events, but it becomes, leading into a season, about preparing communities for when they need to be extra vigilant. Likewise, in our tropical cyclone service, we do the same thing. You cannot pick the individual event, but you are trying to give a flavour of what might come.
Senator RICE: In terms of the climate change signal, added on to El Nino, how is that affecting your ability to make those seasonal predictions?
Dr Vertessy: One of the very clear climate change signals that we are seeing is the drying of southern Australia. Rainfall has reduced, and that is predisposing the landscape to greater fire risk. That is very, very clear from the data. Our seasonal climate outlooks look out only three months. We update those every month. That modelling is useful, but it has a long way to go compared to our weather forecasts, which have far greater skill. But we do have an active program of research now—supported, I am proud to say, by the Australian government under the Agricultural competitiveness white paper—to improve the resolution of our seasonal forecast model. It currently runs at 250-kilometre grid cells. We are going to push it all the way down to 60 kilometres. We know that that will be far more skilful. So, in the years ahead, we will have a better ability, but it is an area of very active technical development and research until we get it up to the skill level—
Senator RICE: Is there CSIRO research that is involved that is relevant to that as well?
Dr Vertessy: Yes. CSIRO work with us on the access modelling suite, which is the one that is used to develop the seasonal forecasting models.
Senator RICE: About equal amounts, or do they do more or do you do more?
Dr Vertessy: No, they are far more skewed towards the long-range climate projections. We are more skewed towards the seasonal outlooks and weather predictions