Chapter 2CSIRO’s funding and decision-making on research directions
2.1This chapter examines evidence related to the role of CSIRO, its current and historical funding, and considers CSIRO decision-making processes, including in relation its strategic research directions and cost-saving measures.
Overview of CSIRO’s purpose and governance arrangements
CSIRO’s legislated remit
2.2The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is Australia’s national science agency. It was established under the Science and Industry Research Act 1949 (Cth) (SIR Act).
2.3CSIRO’s primary purpose and functions, as set out in its establishing legislation, is:
(a)to carry out scientific research for any of the following purposes:
(i)assisting Australian industry;
(ii)furthering the interests of the Australian community;
(iii)contributing to the achievement of Australian national objectives or the performance of the national and international responsibilities of the Commonwealth;
(iv)contributing to giving effect to Australia’s obligations under the Paris Agreement;
(v)any other purpose determined by the Minister;
(b)to encourage or facilitate the application or utilisation of the results of such research.
2.4Secondary functions of CSIRO, as it describes them, include:
…international scientific liaison, training of research workers, publication of research results, technology transfer of other research, provision of scientific services and dissemination of information about science and technology.
Overview of CSIRO governance framework and decision-making
2.5CSIRO is an Australian Government corporate entity, with a Board and Chief Executive. The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and related rules set out the governance, performance and accountability of CSIRO operations, including the use and management of public resources. In addition to prescribing CSIRO’s purpose (as noted above), the SIR Act also prescribes the respective roles and functions of the CSIRO Board and Chief Executive.
2.6CSIRO explained the role of its board as follows:
Under the Act, the CSIRO Board works with management to determine the organisation’s strategy and is accountable to the Australian Government for CSIRO’s overall direction, development, assurance and performance. The Board oversees the delivery of CSIRO’s functions, approves strategic plans, monitors implementation and approves CSIRO’s risk management frameworks and policies. Specifically relevant to [the committee’s inquiry], the Board is legislatively responsible for CSIRO’s annual Corporate Plan and budget and must ensure the proper use and management of public resources including the on-going financial sustainability of the organisation.
2.7The executive team, ‘led by the Chief Executive, leads, directs, coordinates and controls CSIRO’s operations - including resourcing allocation – to deliver the strategy’.
2.8While CSIRO is subject to Ministerial direction, such directions are rare. As CSIRO noted in its submission:
Historically, the responsible minister has not frequently issued formal directions to the CSIRO Board, with only 2 formal directions provided since 2014.
2.9At the same time, the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science may issue a Statement of Expectations, providing CSIRO with ‘clarity on whole-of-government objectives and expectations’. The most recent Statement of Expectations was issued on 10October 2025 by Senator the Hon Tim Ayres, Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science. It outlines priorities for CSIRO’s research, such as supporting Australia’s net zero transformation and building economic advantage in the tech economy. The priorities are to be delivered in accordance with set expectations, including:
Innovation and translation through partnerships and collaboration.
High-impact national science and research infrastructure.
Enduring and sustainable operations.
Effective governance, safety, security and people management.
Maintaining close coordination with the Minister’s office and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.
2.10CSIRO responds to the Minster’s Statement of Expectations with a Statement of Intent, outlining how CSIRO is delivering on identified focus areas. The Statement of Intent also states that CSIRO will demonstrate accountability and report regularly on progress, including through objectives outlined in its Corporate Plans and reported on in its Annual Reports.
2.11The CSIRO Corporate Plan is its key strategic planning document, and outlines how CSIRO will deliver on its purpose over the four-year period. CSIRO’s current Corporate Plan identifies four objectives related to its purpose and role in Australia’s innovation ecosystem:
Drive science and technology for impact: Conduct impact-driven science and research that addresses Australia’s challenges in 6 research areas
Steward research infrastructure: Provide access to fit-for-purpose research infrastructure containing state-of-the-art facilities and equipment
Connect science and innovation to society: Enhance the productivity and long-term competitiveness of Australia’s innovation system by bridging the gap between community, science and industry
Create an enduring and empowered CSIRO: Create a sustainable and adaptable organisation with a vibrant, diverse and safe culture that attracts and retains exceptional people.
2.12The Corporate Plan also sets out six research areas that CSIRO will focus on:
Energy and Minerals: Build a sustainable future through clean, affordable and reliable energy and high-value mineral resources
Food and Fibre: Grow productivity and exports of Australia’s agricultural sector with reduced planetary impact.
From Wonder to Discovery: Facilitate curiosity-driven research to lead to discovery and breakthroughs.
Nature: Enhance the resilience and value of our unique natural and built environments in a changing climate.
One Health: Enhance the wellbeing of Australians through an integrated approach that sustainably balances the health of humans, animals and ecosystems.
Tech Economy: Responsibly advance Australian technology and science to drive innovation, boost productivity, and build a resilient, sovereign tech economy.
2.13In its submission, CSIRO summarised its decision-making process as follows:
… the CSIRO Board, with advice from the Executive Team, sets the strategic direction of the organisation and the Executive Team, led by the Chief Executive, leads, directs, coordinates and controls CSIRO’s operations - including resourcing allocation – to deliver the strategy.
2.14In considering its decision-making powers, CSIRO advised that ‘[n]either the SIR Act nor the Statement of Expectations are so prescriptive as to create a list of research programs that CSIRO should deliver.’
2.15CSIRO explained that decisions about any changes to its research portfolio are driven by two major considerations, involving determinations of where CSIRO could have impact and an understanding of available resources:
What research we do is shaped by strategic choices to work at scale on critical national problems where we can have a major impact. How much research we do depends on our budget parameters. These are distinct drivers, though they often intersect.
CSIRO’s Funding
Public funding
2.16Evidence to the committee drew attention to CSIRO’s public funding, noting that despite appropriation increases, funding has not kept pace with inflation and is declining in real terms.
2.17The Australian Academy of Science, for example, submitted:
The 2025-26 Science, Research and Innovation (SRI) Budget tables indicate Commonwealth appropriation funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) of approximately $983million in 2025-26, compared with $916 million in 2024-25.
Appropriation funding has increased by roughly 1.3% per year over the past 15 years, while inflation has averaged around 2.7% per year over the same period.
2.18The Australian Academy of Science further submitted the following figure to illustrate CSIRO’s funding decline:
Figure 2.1Australian government funding for CSIRO in current prices and inflation adjusted (2022-23 prices)
Source: Source: Australian Academy of Science, answer to question taken on notice, 13 March 2026 (received 23 March 2026). (Data from Science, Research and Innovation budget tables, large Government R&D programs and activities valued at over $100m in 2025-26.)
Note 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 are forecasted figures.
COVID-19
2.19CSIRO received a larger-than usual appropriation funding from 2021-2024 intended to offset revenue shortfalls during the COVID-19 pandemic.
2.20The CSIRO Staff Association reflected that the conclusion of that $459.2 million funding in June 2024 has partially contributed to CSIRO’s current budget challenges.
2026-27 MYEFO
2.21Evidence to the committee also noted CSIRO received an additional $252.3million in funding through the 2026-27 Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO).
2.22Ms Susan Tonks, Section Secretary at the CSIRO Staff Association, advised that this one-off funding boost was welcome and essential to ‘stabilise some immediate operational and infrastructure pressures’ but ‘does not address CSIRO’s long-term sustainability’. Ms Tonks expressed hope that additional funding would be available going forward.
2.23Mr Ryan Winn, CEO of Science and Technology Australia similarly advised that there is an ‘infrastructure hole within CSIRO of around $80 to $135 million per annum. He noted that the MYEFO funding provided a ‘stop gap’; however, ongoing funding to fill the gap is required.
CSIRO funding as a proportion of GDP
2.24The committee received evidence that CSIRO’s appropriation funding as a proportion of GDP has been steadily declining. This decline over the course of several decades is indicated in a document tabled during inquiry, at Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2CSIRO appropriation funding as a percentage of GDP
Source: Parliamentary Library, CSIRO Funding trends, tabled 10 October 2025.
2.25Mr Peter Derbyshire, Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering explained:
Analysis of data from the Parliamentary Library shows that since the 1978-79 financial year real funding for the CSIRO has fallen by an average of over $3 million a year. That's over $172 million lost in 2024-25 alone.
2.26Dr Scott Condie, a CSIRO research scientist appearing in a private capacity, told the committee:
While there has been some commentary on CSIRO funding not keeping pace with inflation, I think we need to look at this in terms of research and development investment as a proportion of our GDP. This is the international standard and is certainly most relevant, in terms of how it supports our economy. On these terms, CSIRO funding has actually fallen by, probably, at least a factor of five since the 1980s. In terms of the broader R&D investment, it's been falling, certainly since 2008, such that our current situation is now that R&D funding within Australia is less than two per cent of GDP, whereas I think most commentators agree that somewhere around three per cent is broadly accepted as the level capable of supporting a competitive and sustainable economy. This all places us somewhat close to the bottom of OECD countries at the moment. Throughout your proceedings, it's come up time and again that innovation is likely to be, more and more, the major driver of our future prosperity, so, obviously, these low levels of investment are a concern.
Concerns regarding current funding model
2.27Witnesses explained to the committee how CSIRO’s current funding model is not suitable to support its work, particularly long-term research, and risks undermining its strategic value.
2.28Ms Susan Tonks, CSIRO Staff Association, contended that CSIRO’s current funding model was not working, with costs continuing to exceed available funding, rising above inflation. Additionally she noted CSIRO faces ‘ageing infrastructure and ongoing capital and depreciation costs, far exceeding current capital funding.’
2.29Ms Tonks argued that further public funding was needed, with funding indexed to reflect real rising costs in research and associated infrastructure:
As a matter of urgency, we are calling on the government to provide additional funding to halt and reverse staff losses and suspend further cuts, pending an independent external review of CSIRO's restructure process. Over the longer term, CSIRO's appropriations must increase at least in line with CPI, indexation arrangements must reflect real research and infrastructure costs and Australia must commit to rebuilding CSIRO's research capacity as a proportion of GDP.
2.30The Australian Academy of Science argued that declines in funding to CSIRO relative to research costs undermined the strategic value of CSIRO and its work as a ‘national asset’:
[T]he cost of doing research has gone up quite significantly with respect to just the CPI. If you go and look at actual investment in CSIRO with respect to inflation itself, it is not keeping up. Particularly the cost of doing research has gone up, but we are not even keeping up with inflation. That means there's a big gap in terms of what CSIRO has asked to do and what it is able to do because of the fact that we are not able to invest appropriate amounts in a strategic way and to see CSIRO as a national asset and science as a national asset for our nation.
2.31Dr Stephen Wilson, appearing in a private capacity, highlighted the challenges of the government approach to funding CSIRO research work on a short-term basis. He noted it is a destructive approach to fund something on a year-to-year basis which has a timescale of decades. Dr Wilson further explained that CSIRO management is ‘under incredible financial pressure to keep cutting and keep cutting’, stating:
But they're faced with an almost impossible situation, and part of that goes to the fact that the government funding is essentially government funding; it comes as a block of money.
2.32Dr Scott Condie, similarly advised that the cyclical nature of research funding made it challenging to sustain research directions:
I would say that, at least in the areas that I know, we've actually somehow managed to do quite a good job of maintaining a lot of very important research directions. A lot of this is because we've established good collaborations and had good support from organisations that are focused on major strategic areas that are very important to the country—even though we do require significant external earnings. In my area at least, a lot of those still come through other parts of government, so that helps us focus on the major areas of national importance. But, having said that, a lot of that funding, too, is quite cyclic, so there are times when it is very challenging to maintain those sorts of efforts.
Other funding sources
2.33Concerns were also raised with the committee about a growing reliance on external funding sources to maintain essential research.
2.34Dr Stephen Rintoul, a delegate from the CSIRO Staff Association, explained that with falling government funding to CSIRO, a growing expectation emerged that an outside partner would provide an increasingly high proportion of CSIRO project funding. Dr Rintoul noted the pressures this model created:
The funding model for CSIRO is broken. Generations of CSIRO leadership have attempted to cope with reduced appropriation in real terms by seeking external funding. First, the appropriation funding was expected to be leveraged to obtain 30 per cent co-investment. Then it was 50 per cent. More recently, it was at least 70 per cent and preferably full cost recovery. Once all the appropriation is fully leveraged, it's the end of the road.
2.35Ms Tonks noted the vulnerability of research when there was an excessive reliance of external partner funding:
Half of all the staff surveyed stated that they were aware of basic or fundamental research conducted by CSIRO that lacked industry funding partners and may be affected by proposed cuts.
2.36A heavy reliance on external funding, Dr Everard Edwards from the CSIRO Staff Association told the committee, was negatively impacting the ability of CSIRO to support nascent and emerging industries through research:
Currently, CSIRO believes that 70 per cent of research across the research unit is externally funded, and that includes the overheads, which typically are around 115 per cent of direct costs. The impact of this is that we actually no longer have the ability to support new, up-and-coming industries or smaller industries in the way that we did in the past.
2.37CSIRO advised the committee that it engages in partnerships for a range of reasons, but that the funding approach here was flexible and not mandated to a particular ratio.
… there is not a uniform mandate that any particular collaborative project needs to have a particular co-investment ratio. We partner for the purpose of achieving impact. As an applied science agency, we certainly ask people to think very carefully about how they go about achieving impact. That ranges from some very fundamental work all the way through to some really quite translational work.
2.38Dr Doug Hilton, Chief Executive of CSIRO emphasised the importance of external revenue to CSIRO’s capacity to undertake the research it does, while noting that it did introduce a degree of volatility to CSIRO’s cost-base and decisions around staffing levels:
I know external revenue has been a topic for discussion today, but fundamentally our ability to take the appropriation and work with partners who also co-fund what we do is the reason that we currently have 4,200 staff. If we were to fund our science just off the appropriation, we would have half that number. So there are some really good consequences from being collegial and collaborative and working with others to leverage the appropriation to drive impact and opportunities for staff, but it makes it extremely difficult to give you an estimate of staff numbers until we know with more certainty what areas might be impacted and how that would then flow on to external revenue.
CSIRO’s decision-making on research directions
2.39The Committee heard a rage of concerns regarding the role and independence of CSIRO’s leadership in making resource-allocation decisions, and the extent to which such decisions took account of the views and expertise of CSIRO’s staff and other key stakeholders.
CSIRO’s review of its research portfolio
2.40CSIRO noted that in 2023, Dr Doug Hilton, the then newly-appointed Chief Executive of CSIRO, had announced a comprehensive review of CSIRO’s entire research portfolio, which commenced in 2024. The review, CSIRO explained, was undertaken in the context of ‘significant budget challenges’, and because CSIRO needed to:
prioritise across its research portfolio that had not, in toto, been reviewed for over a decade
reduce the complexity of research delivery mechanisms to increase transparency, agility, and delivery efficiency
ensure its research was maximising impact for national benefit
increase accountability for delivery of the intended outcomes of research by clearly and transparently articulating the desired outcomes.
2.41Dr Hilton described the work CSIRO had undertaken determining the areas of research priority to focus its resources and efforts on, and the consultations involved:
To ensure CSIRO's research is focused on the areas of highest national priority, we've spent 18 months collectively reviewing our research portfolio. This is the first time, I think, in 10 to 15 years the organisation has looked comprehensively across its research portfolio. We've drawn insights from literally thousands of staff, from hundreds of our science leaders as well as external experts. This process has enabled us to clarify the focus and direction of our programs of research. It has given us, our partners and the public greater transparency of the work CSIRO does every day on behalf of the nation. It's also given CSIRO's leadership a sound, considered basis for the strategic choices we must take.
2.42In its submission, CSIRO noted that its review of its research portfolio was undertaken in the context of ‘significant budget challenges’.CSIRO further explained that ‘considering diverse views and making choices about research direction is a crucial element of CSIRO’s independence’.
Indirect impacts of workforce decisions
2.43Whilst inquiry participants acknowledged the difficult decisions that CSIRO faced due to significant increases in the cost of research and a tightening budget, including regarding the size and focus of its workforce, some also noted the risks of cutting support services.
2.44The committee was advised that CSIRO decisions to cut enterprise services and essential support functions created flow on effects that have not been fully considered including internal contests and detracting from the value of the research. For example, Dr David Newth, a Principal Research Scientist at CSIRO who made a written submission in a private capacity, submitted:
CSIRO leaders are responsible for very broad areas of science. When budgets tighten, they are forced to cut or shrink programs that are connected and mutually supporting. That turns resource decisions into internal contests, where teams spend time defending their existence instead of doing the work—and where short-term survivability can outweigh long-term national need.
2.45Dr Newth further noted that if research teams did not have sufficient and stable funding, this made it harder to deliver science that was shareable and transparent:
If teams can’t reliably pay for essential things like publishing, data access, field upkeep, or sharing results, the science becomes less visible and less open to scrutiny. Over time, that makes it harder for CSIRO to act as an independent, trusted source of evidence—because good science needs stable support for transparency, not just funding for deliverables.
The importance of independent decision-making by CSIRO
2.46Evidence to the committee emphasised the need for CSIRO to make decisions regarding the allocation of resources in a way that was both independent and strategic. For example, the Australian Academy of Science told the committee that it was:
…important that the CSIRO leadership team are empowered to make strategic and operational decisions in line with CSIRO's objectives and Australia's national needs.
2.47Similarly, the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes (AAMRI), advised that the independence of CSIRO leadership in resource allocation decisions was essential to maintaining scientific integrity. Dr Saraid Billiards, Chief Executive Officer of the AAMRI, further noted CSIRO needs to be strategic when making changes to resource allocation and resulting workforce changes, particularly to enable research to keep up with the contemporary environment. Dr Billiards explained:
Most researchers are very talented in terms of being able to pivot, so it's not a matter of losing those skill sets; it's more about transferring those skill sets into other areas where the need is required. Being able to make those strategic decisions is critical not only for CSIRO but more broadly for the entire sector.
2.48AAMRI submitted, however, that CSIRO’s capacity to make such strategic decisions was negatively impacted by existing funding settings:
Adequate baseline funding is a prerequisite for genuine strategic decision making. Without it, leadership is forced into reactive cost cutting measures that prioritise short term financial viability over long term national interest.
2.49The committee was also advised that the independence of resourcing decisions by CSIRO leadership was essential to respond to the ‘dynamic and unpredictable’ nature of scientific work and for ‘creating the right environment to produce high-quality science.’ One submission, made on a ‘name withheld’ basis by a scientist with 15 years research experience, noted ‘[w]hen processes and bureaucracy get in the way, many critical and time-sensitive decisions can be missed.’
2.50Similarly, the committee was told that political influences on CSIRO funding allocation endangers a tradition of ‘good independent science’. Dr Amanda Wilson, a retired research scientist, pointed to the United States as an example of the long-term damage that research cuts could have:
The defunding and destruction of environmental and medical science currently going on in the USA is a vivid example of this. It is estimated that it will take generations to repair the damage already done, and in the meantime significant numbers of lives could be lost.
Consultation and the decision-making of CSIRO’s leadership
2.51As noted above, CSIRO advised the committee that its review of its research priorities had been based on extensive consultation with staff and other stakeholders, which provided CSIRO leadership with ‘a sound, considered basis’ for its strategic choices. However, some inquiry participants questioned whether proper consideration had been given to the impacts of those choices. For example, Dr Stephen Rintoul argued that cuts made by CSIRO leadership did not properly consider whether this work would be taken up elsewhere:
The reduction in CSIRO’s appropriation in real terms has put CSIRO’s past and present leadership in a difficult position. The funding situation has become so grim that cuts are needed. CSIRO’s leadership has the responsibility to make resource allocation decisions. But they also have the responsibility to verify the assumptions made in making those cuts. For example, if areas of climate science are cut because the leadership believes universities can do the job, this assumption needs to be tested by asking the university sector what they can and can’t do. To date, there is no evidence that CSIRO leadership has consulted with stakeholders about the impact of the planned cuts and the implications for Australia’s national research effort.
2.52Submitters also raised significant concerns about the adequacy of CSIRO leadership’s consultation with staff in relation to workforce changes and other cost-saving measures. In particular, the committee was advised that historical and current staff consultation mechanisms have not been adequate to develop a deep understanding of the nature of much of the research taking place and its overarching importance. Appearing before the committee as part of the CSIRO Staff Association, DrRintoul expanded on his reasoning:
My impression is that the decisions are being made at a level where people do not always appreciate exactly what work is being done and why it's important that CSIRO does that work rather than others. […]That’s the concern: CSIRO leadership, like the leadership of any organisation or business, has the responsibility to prioritise work, but it also has the responsibility to base those decisions on sound information and consultation with both staff and stakeholders who are affected by the cuts to CSIRO.
2.53The CSIRO Staff Association also commented that its survey of CSIRO staff suggested that decisions about new programs of research and cuts were not being made in a way that properly took account of the views of the staff undertaking research:
The survey respondents described a disconnect between executive management and the realities faced by researchers, with decisions often prioritising short-term fiscal metrics over long-term scientific capability. Over 66 per cent of our survey respondents said they do not believe CSIRO leadership understands the importance of specific scientific work when allocating resources, while over 80 per cent don't believe staff are genuinely consulted about priorities before decisions are made.
2.54Addressing such concerns, Dr Doug Hilton, CSIRO Chief Executive, advised that:
While changes to our program of research are necessary, I have to say they are incredibly difficult, particularly for our talented staff and their families. CSIRO is such a connected workplace that a change that impacts one staff member impacts our whole CSIRO family. We're deeply aware of this impact and are committed to meaningful, ongoing consultation with staff as we work through the process. We'll also continue to collaborate and consult with the research sector, industry and our many partners in government.
2.55Dr Hilton also emphasised that consultations would be at the centre of any decisions made about necessary job cuts, and provided the committee with an update on proposed cuts to staff numbers in CSIRO’s Environment Research Unit:
We entered consultation, for example, with the environment research unit staff yesterday, and we take that consultation seriously. So we don't have final numbers, but we do have the estimate that we put out to consultation.
2.56Professor Elanor Huntington, CSIRO Deputy Chief Executive, also advised that consultations with the Data61 team, the Manufacturing Research unit and the Agriculture and Food Unit had commenced the week before the committee’s public hearing (held 13 March 2026). At the time of the hearing, consultation with the Health and Biosecurity Unit and the Australian Animal Health Laboratory were due to commence soon.
2.57Dr Hilton emphasised that CSIRO’s executive took such consultations very seriously, explaining that previous rounds of job losses had included consultation processes which had resulted in changes to the executive’s proposals.
2.58He further explained that consultation processes often take a long time, with timelines included in the enterprise agreements followed very carefully. Prior to going into formal consultation, CSIRO takes part in ‘early engagement’, which includes discussions with staff about the challenges facing the organisation and getting feedback on how to deal with those challenges.
2.59In contrast to the evidence from CSIRO, the CSIRO Staff Association suggested staff were confused about how cuts would be made, for example, in the Environment Research Unit:
We knew that staff were going. Obviously, we were told that 130 to 150 people would go from environment. There are [inaudible] people being made redundant, which was announced yesterday, and the extra loss of headcount will be made up of resignations or retirements that will be factored in. We will apparently lose 130 to 150 staff. We didn't know anything about where those cuts would be made until a town hall yesterday. The information that's been provided to date is very general. For example, 12 positions were lost from a group of 60, and there was a very brief, few-word description of the areas in which they would be cut. But it's still hard at this point to know exactly who is going. Those who have been told that they've been made redundant have not really been told why. CSIRO have listed a number of criteria they would use to determine who should be made redundant, but individual staff are not being told how those criteria were applied to them.
2.60More broadly, the CSIRO Staff Association advised that consultation with staff around resourcing decisions has been and continues to be inadequate. Ms Tonks told the committee:
…. it's a much more corporatised approach now. We have a lot of meetings. There are a lot of emails—thousands of emails coming through with information. But, of course, trying to have a genuine collaborative one-on-one conversation is very difficult at that level.
2.61The committee also heard concerns about the significant scale and pace of job cuts at CSIRO and resulting negative consequences on staff morale.
2.62The CSIRO Staff Association reported staff advising that information being provided about potential staff and research cuts was at once overwhelming and lacking in appropriate detail. As a result, as Ms Tonks explained, staff were often left unable to provide considered, meaningful feedback on potential cuts:
From the first round of science support staff cuts, through to these research cuts, what we've seen is that it's been done not only at scale but at a rapid pace. It probably doesn't feel like that to the staff, because they feel like they're in an ongoing change management process constantly. There's a lot of paperwork and a lot of PowerPoint presentations provided, but hugely lacking is relevant real detail for the people who are directly affected to be able to give genuine feedback and to have responses to that feedback. Dr Edwards and I were recently in a consultation forum trying to get information about changes to programs of research. Other than getting the name of the program of research, there wasn't much other detail provided, no matter how many times the question was asked.
The people who are doing this work are not the ones that get involved directly, other than through a tick-and-flick process. There are a lot of town halls. They're very moderated and very controlled. Feedback is given. It's rather homogenised and put into themes. But the people who are literally at the coalface and will be directly impacted—research scientists—are not the ones that are giving the input and setting the direction and strategy for what needs to happen, where any kind of change is required to improve things. I'm sure Dr Edwards would concur that that has been our experience the whole time. We spend a lot of time in meetings, but there's not a lot of relevant detail that's provided to staff.
2.63Ms Tonks pointed to cuts to Data61, CSIRO’s data and digital arm, as an example of ‘poor consultation’ by CSIRO leadership:
We are still asking where the 120 positions that have been reduced came from. It was only just before CSIRO executive's appearance in Senate estimates that we got finally got admission that there were 120 positions that were gone, and it was a 20 per cent reduction. We'd been asking: 'Where were those positions? What were they? What does this mean for the work they were doing?'
…
We don't know where they are. We have to do a lot of work to try and find out where all these people are. We know the number. We know the research unit they're going from, but not much else.
2.64Elsewhere, Ms Tonks pointed to several examples of staff cuts being made in 2024 where staff had very little time to provide feedback on staffing cuts:
Mid-2024, we did raise consultation disputes around the loss of researchers in health and biosecurity in human health because it was just done with, pretty much, two days notice. They were getting rid of 43 of those positions.
2.65The CSIRO Staff Association called for the process of any staff cuts to be slowed to allow for greater shared consideration of future impacts of those cuts, however Ms Tonks stated:
I don't know that they can, which is why we have called for an independent look at how this is being done and what the actual future impacts of this are going to be.
2.66The committee was also advised that consultation processes to date have been very siloed. The CSIRO Staff Association, for example, noted:
When all the support services went for frontline scientists, the scientists weren't involved in the consultation process for that. They were considered separate. Because it wasn't their area, they didn't get to know. It was the people that supported the work that they did, which was going to increase their workload or in some cases stop them being able to do project work. They weren't part of that process.
2.67The committee also received evidence that industry partners and research clients were not adequately involved in consultation about proposed changes to CSIRO’s research direction or resource cuts.
2.68The committee heard concerns that CSIRO’s decision making appears to be based on a false assumption that private sector or university sectors will pick up research that CSIRO excises from its research program. For example, Professor Andy Hogg, Director of ACCESS-NRI explained that CSIRO staff had been given the false impression that some modelling activities currently undertaken by CSIRO would be fulfilled by ACCESS-NRI instead of CSIRO. Professor Hogg noted his is a research infrastructure organisation and to do research is contrary to his funding guidelines. The committee heard partners like Mr Hogg had not been consulted in the lead up to CSIRO’s staffing cuts decisions about any expanded role, only asked to provide comment after the cuts were announced.
2.69The CSIRO Staff Association also noted staff concerns regarding the transparency and accountability of CSIRO decision-making process, including in regard to the use of external contractors engaged in relation to workforce planning:
For example, McKinsey Consulting was commissioned in 2022 at a cost of $742,500 (nearly $30,000 a day), for less than a month of work with no report required, to advise on the ‘Future Ways of Working’ program to streamline organisational processes. McKinsey Consulting was previously engaged by CSIRO at a cost of $1.2m between October 2021 and March 2022. An FOI request related to the project contract provided no evidence that other suppliers were approached and that the outputs primarily consisted of PowerPoint presentations and talking points for the CSIRO Executive about ‘Ways of Working’.
Next chapter
2.70The next chapter in this report further considers the challenges for CSIRO leadership in addressing funding constraints, and impacts of recent resourcing decisions.