The CSIRO agreed to "scientific censorship" of a report into the impact of environmental water flows in the Murray-Darling Basin amid fears the organisation wouldn't get paid, an inquiry has heard.
South Australia's Royal Commission into the river system has been told that some draft findings were changed and some material left out of the final report on the impact of various levels of environmental flows.
The commission heard evidence on Wednesday from former CSIRO research scientist Matthew Colloff who said he regarded the interference from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) as unacceptable.
"I was extremely concerned at the way that the whole process of expressing our results was being manipulated and interfered with," Dr Colloff said.
He said he made his views known to senior CSIRO staff, believing that what his team was being directed to do amounted to censorship.
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
Asked if by that he meant "scientific censorship", Dr Colloff agreed.
But he said he was told the CSIRO had no choice "because if we don't do it, we won't get paid".
"In other words that the completion of the contract could be jeopardised in that MDBA might withhold final payment."
In his written submission ahead of his appearance, Dr Colloff said he was unhappy with the extent of the authority's interference throughout the course of the project.
"In particular, with the way that I felt our scientific integrity was being compromised and independence undermined," he said.
"We were being managed in such a way that our job became effectively a rubber-stamping of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's findings."
Wednesday's commission hearing also heard that some current CSIRO staff had taken a "disappointing" decision to not appear.
Counsel assisting Richard Beasley told commissioner Bret Walker that some CSIRO employees would wait for the outcome of the federal government's High Court challenge to the appearance of Commonwealth employees before agreeing to give evidence.
The employees argued it was out of respect for the High Court process.
But Mr Beasley said it was disappointing that people employed by Australia's national science body were unwilling to give evidence about matters that were "purely science related".
"It's disappointing because it doesn't seem to me, having looked at the act creating the CSIRO, to be particularly consistent with some of the purposes for which the CSIRO was created, including giving advice on matters of scientific debate or controversy," he said.
The royal commission was established in January 2018 to inquire into the operations and effectiveness of the basin plan after widespread reports of water theft.
Its final report is due by February next year.
