1 week Ago By Charlotte Grieve, Michael Bachelard
The top scientist who led an inquiry into Australia’s multi-billion dollar carbon market has slammed the carbon watchdog’s interference in his review after it was revealed senior executives repeatedly contacted scientists to alter their submissions. Professor Ian Chubb told this masthead that approaches by Clean Energy Regulator executive Shayleen Thompson to the CSIRO and the Wentworth Group of Scientists during his review of Australian carbon credits were “entirely inappropriate”. Professor Ian Chubb says the Clean Energy Regulator’s contact with CSIRO was ‘entirely inappropriate’.
Credit: Alex Ellinghausen “It’s the wrong thing to do,” Chubb said. “Independent reviews are independent reviews. They’re only really valuable if the people who are making a submission are telling us what they think.
That’s who we were asking for submissions. Not the regulator.” An investigation by this masthead reported last week that the CER has chronic problems with managing conflicts of interest and that it had “intimidated” participants in the Chubb review.
It can now be revealed that the CSIRO submitted a “truncated” version of its submission to the Chubb review, which excluded research about the controversial human-induced regeneration method (HIR), after the contact from the CER. Fresh correspondence obtained under freedom of information by the Australian Conservation Foundation shows a former CER executive made repeated “urgent” requests via text, email and phone to discuss “concerns” about the CSIRO submission. After a meeting of CSIRO staff, the agency drastically cut back its submission to a two-page letter.
Chubb said on Thursday he had not seen that correspondence but recalled CSIRO’s submission was “quite brief”. He contacted CER chief executive David Parker for an explanation of the organisation’s behaviour at the time, as revealed by this masthead earlier this week , but he was dissatisfied with the response. “I sent two emails which were uncharacteristically polite.
I wasn’t happy,” he said. “I’m a type A personality so I got irritated [and] let that be known. “David was basically saying there is a pretty regular exchange of information and views between the organisations and that’s proper but this is a different case.
This was the CSIRO writing a submission to an independent review.” The FOI documents show CSIRO staff described the submission as “nearly complete” before multiple requests for a meeting by the CER executive changed its course. “Could you please give me a call about the submission please? Many thanks.
I should explain the matter is urgent as I gather the submission will be lodged tomorrow,” one text by the CER said on October 6 2022 at 9.17am. Later that morning, emails show a CSIRO employee said the CER executive “approached me to discuss CSIRO’s engagement with the CER on HIR methodologies”.
“We need to actively manage this issue including putting mechanisms in place for more senior level visibility and oversight in this relationship.” That afternoon, the CSIRO team held an internal meeting titled “CSIRO-CER Meeting” and the following morning a “truncated version” of its submission titled “Updated submission” was circulated and ultimately submitted. A subsequent email showed the CSIRO’s research about “over-prediction of abatement” within HIR projects was raised on six separate occasions with the department or carbon companies but they were repeatedly rebuffed.
The CSIRO tried to share this research between June 2021 and October 2022, but it was either “asked not to progress” or had “little opportunity to speak” in meetings and the information was ultimately removed from the Chubb review “so still nothing remains finalised in terms of documenting our concerns in detail”. “Great that we are flagging with the Chubb Review that we are open to further discussion on how our analyses may relate to issues with HIR integrity,” the email says. “Hoping we can eventually ensure our concerns are officially documented (even if not publicly) to avoid criticism of being silent on the public debate around HIR integrity, given .
.. our research does indeed speak to this.
” The Chubb review was launched in 2022 after former Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee chairman Andrew Macintosh published damning research that claimed the majority of carbon credits, particularly HIR projects, were fraudulent and a waste of taxpayer funds. Chubb disagreed with Macintosh and found the industry was “sound”, which green-lit the federal government’s introduction of the revamped safeguard mechanism , a policy that allows the country’s top polluters to achieve all emissions reductions by purchasing carbon credits. Chubb said government agencies were not specifically instructed to avoid discussing submissions with other organisations, and therefore he could not be sure the CER interference was contained to the two science organisations, but he stood by the review.
“At the end of the day, even if you say to people, ‘No collusion’, you have to trust the fact they won’t collude,” Chubb said. “I don’t think that we saw any indication that there were groups of people who colluded to give us the same story.” He said CSIRO was “one of well over 150 submissions” and while the panel would have given more weight to information provided by the national science agency, Chubb said a longer submission would not have changed his conclusions.
”It’s easy to look backwards and say, ‘What would you do differently?’. Not a lot. I think we wrote a pretty good report, entirely consistent with our terms of reference.
Overall, I would stand by that report today.” ACT independent senator David Pocock wants drafts of the CSIRO submissions to the Chubb review prior to the CER’s intervention. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen Senator David Pocock met with CSIRO to discuss the correspondence and has since issued a notice to produce the four draft submissions detailed in the FOI documents.
Pocock said he was “deeply concerned” by allegations of CER influence. “I am seeking to use the Senate’s powers to find out more about what actually happened and what changes were made through the tabling of relevant documents,” he said. Pocock said he “didn’t want to jump to conclusions” about the CER’s approach but that he wanted answers.
“I’m not satisfied with what I’ve heard from the CSIRO, their explanation. It seems like there was a flurry of activity after this phone call and I find it hard to believe it was simply a phone call to check if they were making a submission,” Pocock said. Pocock said it was “outrageous” the CER “feels like they have the right to meddle in that process by contacting people who are making submissions” during a review into the industry it regulates.
“That shouldn’t even be happening in the first place,” Pocock said. “Science works because it has inbuilt self-correcting mechanisms, where you have scientists being able to put forward their view and then that can be contested. It doesn’t work if you have people trying to influence what is put forward.
” CER chief executive David Parker had previously admitted to “robust” conversations between Thompson and the Wentworth Group scientists, who did not change their submission after the approach When contacted for comment by this masthead, Thompson declined to say whether the CER’s communication with the CSIRO was appropriate. “I have no comment to make on any of those issues,” said Thompson, who no longer works at CER, before hanging up. CSIRO declined a request for an interview.
A spokesperson confirmed research was removed but said this was “overly technical detail” and they wanted to ensure the submission was “clear, concise and fit for purpose” and that CSIRO would “strongly reject the assertion that our submission was edited due to external influence”. “We have rigorous practices in place to maintain our reputation for integrity, scientific impartiality and independence. CSIRO regularly communicates with all its stakeholders at multiple levels,” it said.
The spokesperson said changes made to its submission were “entirely CSIRO’s editorial decision to ensure clarity and accuracy” and a decision was made that “extensive supplementary material” was not required. “CSIRO did not share its submission, or any portion of it, with the CER prior to the submission being made or its publication.” The CER did not respond to Chubb’s criticism or specific questions about the correspondence or whether any staff were disciplined.
” A spokesperson said the CSIRO initiated contact with the CER over a “technical matter” and the CER did not see the submission prior to its being submitted. “Ms Thompson retired in mid-2023 following an almost 30-year career of service to the people of Australia in climate change policy and implementation. Ms Thompson’s retirement was for personal reasons and was not related to this matter.
“The CER stands by Mr Parker’s comments in relation to these matters.” Deakin University professor of wildlife ecology and conservation Euan Ritchie said the repeated CER approaches were “concerning”. “Scientists should be collecting data and producing submissions and reports without influence from others.
If someone is writing to you, that’s going to put you under pressure. That shouldn’t be the case,” he said. “The fact that it was not just one event but multiple attempts to express concern about what CSIRO was doing, that’s a worry.
It’s a repeated attempt to engage in the process of them preparing their submission.” Ritchie published a survey in 2020 that found almost half of scientists working in government departments had experienced some form of influence. “There is concern that scientists are being leant on by different parties for different reasons.
We should always protect scientific freedom and academic freedom because we need that information to be available to decision-makers without influence.” He said the alleged CER interference “definitely needs to be investigated.” Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen declined to answer specific questions but his spokesperson said the offsets scheme “has already been subject to multiple reviews and has been found to be sound”.
.
