Senator BACK (Western Australia) (15:35): 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 Herald—and 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— Senator McKim: It's today. Senator BACK: It is indeed today; you are quite right, Senator. It is Dr Marshall saying that he has high hopes that we can transmute commodity mineral sands into unique titanium ink for 3D printing and create a new multibillion dollar industry; turn coal into a cleaner form of diesel fuel to reinvigorate a $43 billion industry; improve yield and prevent waste; make mining more profitable and sustainable; use synthetic biology to engineer precisely the attributes we need; breed new strains of food and agricultural products that are healthier, more sustainable and highly differentiated so that Australia can become a unique source of quality value-added products rather than just a food bowl. This is the level and this is the direction this person is taking the institute. I was in Taiwan only last Sunday week meeting with the equivalent of CSIRO—ITRI—and they were commenting on the excellence internationally of CSIRO. In January last year I was with Mexican Geological Survey. They showed me the most incredible geological mapping of Mexico's metalliferous products, and turned to me to tell me that the software that enabled them to do that was developed by CSIRO and Geoscience Australia. How proud we should be of that institution. It does no good in this place to have people pick up an article from the Sydney Morning Herald and to come in here and actually make these allegations and accusations, and in some way besmirch what I believe to be the excellence of the management of this organisation. It is the case that we now need to know what to do about it. It is the case we now need to be devoting to abatement and mitigation strategies, and that is what CSIRO is doing.