CSIRO oversteps remit with ‘clarion call’ for future

The pointless and political report seems to have assumed a change of government.

Through the years, the CSIRO has made an important contribution to the development of the Australian economy by assisting industry through its scientific research. But there have been times when the CSIRO has lost its focus by wandering into areas in which the ­organisation has no expertise. The end result has been highly political and unconvincing output.

This week we saw another example of this loss of focus with the release of a particularly pointless and political report entitled Australian National Outlook 2019.

Here’s the blurb. “More than 50 leaders from over 20 organisations contributed to a new landmark ­report. The report, which looks out to 2060, signals Australia may face a Slow Decline (capitals in original) if it takes no action on the most significant economic, social and environmental challenges. But, if these challenges are tackled head on, then Australia could look forward to a positive Outlook ­Vision (again capitals in original).” Gosh, you could almost set it to music.

Now you know I always want to be helpful to my readers, so here’s a tip: don’t bother reading the ­report, which is mercifully short at less than 100 pages.

Mind you, it’s not just the CSIRO that has lost the plot with the production of this rent-seeking bilge. The National Australia Bank was the lead private sector sponsor and some members of its senior management team are among the 50 leaders consulted. Why the board of the NAB thought it was appropriate to use shareholders’ funds ($240,000 in cash, plus a multiple of that in in-kind assistance) to sponsor this sort of kite-flying piffle is anyone’s guess.

I did, however, learn that the CSIRO has a futures director — where do we all apply? — who thinks that ANO 2019 should serve as a “clarion call for Australia”. Given the report seems to have died almost without trace since its release, his statement could be on the hopeful side. ­According to this chap, “we believe the positive outcomes in this report are all achievable, but they will require bold, concerted action and long-term thinking”.

He also had some positive comments to make. He is the “chief customer officer business and private banking” — how this makes him suitable to prognosticate on Australia’s future across the next 40 years is also anyone’s guess — and he says “a key outcome of the ANO 2019 must be leadership and action. NAB will be making commitments to drive positive change that helps customers take advantage of new opportunities and encourages growth in Australia.”

You are probably getting the drift already. If we don’t do things the report’s way, it’s big trouble, misery and doom. But do things the report’s way and all will be swell. And what are these preferred things? Lots of high-rise buildings, lots of low-emissions energy (which also can be exported), lots of investment to prepare for jobs for the future (more money for education and the CSIRO), lots of building resilience to climate change and, the one I love the most, a culture shift that restores the trust in institutions, companies and politics.

It turns out the CSIRO has a futures team and the report included more than 20 researchers from across the organisation. Then there was the motley collection of organisations, in addition to the NAB, whose leaders were asked to nominate their pet projects.

These included three universities only (Australian National University, Monash University and University of Technology Sydney), Australian Unity, Australian Securities Exchange, Baker McKenzie, Gilbert + Tobin, ClimateWorks Australia, Shell Australia, Australian Red Cross, PricewaterhouseCoopers, UnitingCare Australia and Birchip Cropping Group (of course). To say this methodology is unscientific is to understate the point, something NAB chairman Ken Henry (who was a former Treasury secretary) would fully understand.

This group of organisations does not represent the Australian economy or the Australian community. But you will be pleased to know that “it was a highly collaborative process over two years” with the penultimate meeting of the group focusing on “narrative ­development”.

Of course, the message that unless productivity can grow strongly we won’t be as well-off down the track is completely obvious. We didn’t need this report to make this point. We already have the Productivity Commission, which does credible research on the topic. And there are also the intergenerational reports regularly put out by the Treasury.

But according to the wise leaders who took part in the ANO 2019 exercise, it’s going to be great in 2060 as we all pile into our cities because our population will be heading to 41 million based on ongoing high rates of immigration. (People living in the regions should be barred from reading this report because there is no future for them.)

Our living standards are going to be more than one-third higher with the Outlook Vision (stop here for drum roll) compared with the Slow Decline (stop here for sad music). Average real wages will be 90 per cent higher. We won’t be driving cars much ­because passenger vehicle travel per capita will have declined by 45 per cent as we all live around the corner from work, school, services and recreation (admittedly in dog boxes in cracking buildings, flammable cladding hopefully removed). It sounds a bit like living in Moscow in the 1960s.

And here’s a prediction worth bottling: household spending on electricity relative to incomes could decrease by 64 per cent by 2060 and greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced to “net zero” by 2050. The CSIRO is very taken with the opportunities associated with the commercial development of hydrogen as a means of generating electricity and heating as well as powering transport.

Now there is nothing wrong with the CSIRO researching ways of capturing hydrogen in novel and cost-effective ways. Other countries, including Japan, are also looking into this topic. But to oversell the scope for hydrogen to replace our existing resource exports is to call into question the credibility of the CSIRO.

Even on the best estimates, ­hydrogen exports from Australia might amount to less than $10 billion by 2030 and this is assuming that Australia can establish a comparative advantage in producing and transporting hydrogen, which is by no means certain. But this is small beer given that coal is currently earning Australia close to $90bn and resources in total bring in about $160bn.

Hydrogen is an interesting play, but it would be foolhardy to base a large part of Australia’s economic fortunes on hydrogen alone. But note the report’s picking of winners — with necessary support, of course — also includes “agriculture (although everyone will be living in the cities), healthcare, cyber security, food manufacturing, mining and metals, construction and education”. Note the overlap with the list of experts consulted.

As with so many government reports these days, the ANO 2019 report uses highly simplified charts and cartoon pictures to convey its key messages. The trouble is these puerile portrayals make it difficult to take the report seriously. You just have to wonder whether there was an implicit ­assumption on the part of the project participants that there would be a change of government when the report was released and its deep green, interventionist messaging would be eagerly lapped up by a Labor government. My guess is this report will now quickly gather dust.

The CSIRO should get back to doing useful basic and applied scientific research.