Australia’s former treasurer Joe Hockey has weighed into the debate about cuts to climate research at CSIRO, by writing a letter to the New York Times.



In February, CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall announced the agency would halve its commitment to climate change modelling and measurement.

In his new role as Australia’s ambassador to the US, Hockey took umbrage at an editorial the newspaper published, titled “Australia turns its back on climate science”.

But in defending Australia’s role, he appears to shine a light on budget cuts he made while treasurer, which are now considered partly to blame for the cuts CSIRO’s chief executive has made.



His first line of defence in the letter is to point out that there continues to be funding for climate science under the National Environmental Science Program, commonly referred to as Nesp.

Hockey created Nesp in his now notorious 2014-2015 budget. But rather than boosting climate science, it was a budget-saving measure. Nesp was created by amalgamating two other programs and cutting $21.7m in the process.

This fact was raised in a recent Senate inquiry, which examined the cuts.

World-leading CSIRO climate scientist John Church told the Senate in most research programs CSIRO is required to match the funding they receive with revenue from external “clients”. But often that client is the government, with money coming from funding programs.

Church said that since CSIRO relied on external funding streams, and the government had shrunk those streams for climate science, it was predictable that CSIRO would move away from conducting climate science research.

“Effectively, at this time we were in a weak position in terms of external earnings,” he said.

In his letter, Hockey also said the Australian Antarctic Division and the Bureau of Meteorology would continue to conduct the sort of work that was being cut at CSIRO.

Let’s look at the Australian Antarctic Division first. The chief scientist of the Australian Antarctic Division, Gwen Fenton, told a Senate inquiry that about a quarter of their programs rely on the CSIRO in some capacity, and that if CSIRO programs were cut, that would affect their research.

Fenton couldn’t quantify the effect, since no details of the cuts have yet been announced. “It is hard to know exactly,” she said. “It is hard to conclude that reducing the number of people overall would not reduce the total capability. It is the capability we need in the program.”

Then Hockey mentioned the Bureau of Meteorology. That’s the bureau that was not told about the cuts more than 24 hours before they were publicly announced. In that hearing, head of the BoM, Rob Vertessy, said there were several joint programs between the two programs and it wasn’t clear yet which would be affected. “I am drawing attention to several areas where we are working together, where we are dependent on CSIRO collaboration, and which could be impacted. There are many areas, and it will depend on which of those areas are actually changed.”

Hockey’s next line was to point out that Australia is “renowned in international climate change forums for contributing a uniquely southern hemisphere perspective”. It is the loss of that very reputation – and indeed capability – that has troubled climate scientists in Australia and abroad.

The CSIRO has revealed it is trying to strike a deal with the UK’s Met Office to move its unique and highly regarded climate model there, where it is unlikely to get the continued focus on southern hemisphere climate science.

In terms of international reputation, Church told the Senate inquiry it was “already trashed”.

Finally, Hockey says “Australia will continue to meet its international climate change obligations and commitments, including those made in the Paris agreement”. Indeed, Australia’s Climate Council – the reincarnation of the formerly government-run Climate Commission, which Hockey and his government axed – declared in a report that the cuts to climate research at the CSIRO were already in breach of that agreement.