The independent senator David Pocock has criticised a senior government official’s conduct as “troubling and inappropriate” after parliament heard she was involved in a “robust” conversation with a scientific group about its evidence to an independent inquiry into Australia’s carbon credit scheme.
Shayleen Thompson, the executive general manager of government agency the Clean Energy Regulator, told Senate estimates she contacted the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists to raise what she considered “factual issues” with its submission to the Chubb review into the carbon credit system.
The regulator’s governance of the scheme is part of the focus of the review.
David Parker, the chair of the regulator, told the hearing on Monday that the exchange between Thompson and the Wentworth Group’s director, Dr Celine Steinfeld, became robust and the regulator later apologised.
Carbon credits are issued for projects that use government-approved methods to store or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. One carbon credit is meant to represent one tonne of carbon dioxide. Credits can then be sold to the government or polluting businesses, which use them to offset their onsite emissions.
The Wentworth Group’s submission said it supported carbon markets, but believed it was not possible to assess whether some carbon credit projects had satisfied offset integrity standards as the evidence was not made publicly available, and there was a risk forest regeneration projects in arid and semi-arid country were overestimating the role of management practices given re-growth rates were closely linked to rainfall.
Pocock told Guardian Australia the Wentworth Group was made up of some of Australia’s most eminent scientists and the regulator should have been grateful that the scientists had given careful consideration to some of the work it has done.
He said he was concerned that “a senior official from a major agency contacted the Wentworth Group about a submission to an independent review of methods developed by that same regulator”.
“The conduct strikes me as troubling and inappropriate,” Pocock said.
The regulator declined to respond directly. Thompson had told the hearing she had thought it was important that the group, which she described as “a very esteemed bunch of scientists with a very significant reputation in this policy landscape”, should be aware that “there were aspects of their submission that were, in my view, incorrect”.
Responding to Pocock, who asked about the exchange in estimates, she said: “I would add, senator, that I have a very longstanding involvement and expertise on these matters.”
Thompson said she initially contacted a senior scientist at the Wentworth Group who she had a 30-year professional relationship with and considered a “friend and a mentor”. She said the scientist suggested she have a conversation with Steinfeld.
Pocock put to Thompson she may have asked the Wentworth Group to withdraw its submission. Thompson replied she did not suggest the submission should be withdrawn or changed.
Parker told Senate estimates he was comfortable with Thompson’s actions. He said he had a conversation with the chair of the Wentworth Group, Dr Ian Pollard, “in the context that an apology was made about the robustness of that conversation”.
“He and I agreed that all parties were satisfied, so to speak, and he regarded the matter as being closed, and he has authorised me to say that publicly, and he has said that he is happy to talk to anyone about that as well,” Parker said.
The Guardian asked Pollard if this was correct. He declined to comment.
Steinfeld said as an independent scientific body the Wentworth Group would always consider the best available evidence. She said it did not comment publicly on engagement with third parties. “We continue to stand by our submission and it has remained unchanged since it was submitted to the Chubb review,” she said.
Thompson’s call to the Wentworth Group took place during what has become a bruising argument over the integrity of the multibillion-dollar carbon credit scheme, which is central to the Albanese government’s emissions reduction plans.
The review is considering claims by a group of academics led by Prof Andrew Macintosh, a former head of the government emissions reduction assurance committee who had responsibility for carbon credit method integrity, that most credits issued in Australia do not represent genuine emissions cuts. Their evidence has been rejected outright by the regulator and some, but not all, companies that generate credits.
Prof Ian Chubb, the former chief scientist and ex-Australian National University vice-chancellor heading the review, said the interaction over the Wentworth Group submission would have no bearing on the inquiry, and noted its evidence was unchanged. Asked about the conversation at the centre of the Senate estimates exchange, he said: “I wouldn’t have done it.”
The review is due to report to the government before Christmas.
