Senator David Pocock's Additional Comments

Introduction

1.1This inquiry has heard that decades of underfunding of our national science agency are having a huge impact on the organisation’s ability to conduct the science we need to meet the challenges we face. The case for a permanent uplift in CSIRO’s appropriation is clear and urgent.

1.2As an independent senator for the Australian Capital Territory, I am conscious that CSIRO has one of its largest national footprints in the ACT. More than 1,000 Canberrans work for the organisation and the Black Mountain campus is one of CSIRO’s most significant national research sites. It is home to landmark facilities including the recently completed National Collections Building, which houses 15 million natural history specimens and was jointly funded by NCRIS and CSIRO. As a result, staff cuts and the long-term decline in CSIRO appropriation are felt directly by Canberrans and give rise to significant community concern.

1.3The strength of public feeling on this is reflected in the response to a petition I have been running. The petition calls on the Albanese Government to commit to long-term, sustainable funding that rebuilds our national science capability rather than managing its decline. It has attracted more than 22,000 signatures to date and can be viewed and signed at davidpocock.com.au/save_our_csiro.

1.4The central recommendation of these additional comments is a permanent, ongoing increase in CSIRO’s base appropriation. Six further recommendations sit alongside that basic requirement. But it is first important to understand the context that makes the case for action urgent and compelling.

The CSIRO is in crisis

1.5CSIRO’s funding history over the past four decades is well documented and is outlined in the Chair’s report. Some of the figures are repeated here to underline the severity of the funding crisis.

1.6In the early 1980s, federal appropriation for CSIRO was approximately 0.17 per cent of GDP. Today it is 0.03 per cent a fall of around three-quarters in relative terms. Per capita, federal investment in CSIRO is less than half what it was in the 1980s.[1]

1.7The Australian Academy of Science noted that Australia’s broader investment in research and development has fallen to 1.69 per cent of GDP, well below the OECD average of 2.7 per cent. Government budget allocations for R&D specifically are at 0.36 per cent of GDP, against an OECD average of 0.74 per cent.[2] The Academy estimates the gap, against the OECD average, at around $27 billion a year.[3]

1.8CSIRO’s own submission states that the average indexation of its appropriation over the last 15 years has been 1.3 per cent per annum, against an average inflation rate over the same period of 2.7 per cent.[4] That is real-terms decline, year on year, for a decade and a half. The consequences have been visible in the past 12 months. CSIRO has announced 818 job losses, with a further 300 to 350 redundancies flagged in November 2025.[5]

1.9Of those further losses, the Environment Research Unit is taking a disproportionate share. Professor Nathan Bindoff describes the Unit as 12 per cent of CSIRO’s workforce shouldering 43 per cent of the cuts.[6]Dr Edward Doddridge of the University of Tasmania puts a number on the long-term decline: in real terms, CSIRO funding today is roughly $500 million below what would be required to do as much research as CSIRO did 15 years ago.[7]

1.10This decline is the consequence of a long-term, bipartisan failure to fund Australia’s national science agency at a level commensurate with what Australians want and expect the organisation to do. CSIRO notes that the cost of operating a modern science agency has risen significantly while appropriation has not kept pace.[8]

1.11The Committee heard repeatedly that the gaps left by CSIRO cuts cannot simply be filled by other actors. Ms Su McClusky, Interim Chief Executive of the National Farmers’ Federation, was direct on the point in response to questions, saying “There is no-one to come in and fill the gap.”[9] The Australian Academy of Science was equally clear on the Environment Research Unit specifically, observing that no other country can do this research for Australia.

1.12Cuts to the Environment Research Unit come at a time of acute global instability in the science enterprise. Submissions from Professor Trevor McDougall AC FAA FRS, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering all note that the United States is rapidly retreating from its leadership role in climate research, including significant reductions to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Indo-Pacific capability. Australia must step up, not step back.[10]

The need for a permanent and substantial increase in CSIRO’s appropriation

1.13Many submitters and witnesses identified a declining appropriation in real terms as the core driver in long-term reduction of CSIRO’s ability to conduct the science needed to meet the challenges we face. The CSIRO Staff Association submitted that a $252.3 million lift in the appropriation is required to halt and reverse the announced loss of 1,168 staff.[11]

1.14This proposal is significantly different from the $233 million one-off injection announced in the 2025 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO). That measure was welcome and has eased acute infrastructure pressures, but the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering put the matter clearly: a one-off boost does not arrest the long-term decline.[12] CSIRO has itself confirmed that the MYEFO injection will not be sufficient to halt the announced staff cuts.

1.15CSIRO’s own submission states that, separately from the proposed staffing changes, the agency needs to invest at least an additional $80 to $135 million per annum over the next 10 years into essential infrastructure and technology.[13]This is an honest acknowledgement of the gap, and the Government should take it as a floor rather than a ceiling.

1.16The arithmetic of the various proposals points the same way. The Staff Association’s $252.3 million immediate injection plus indexation top-ups; CSIRO’s own $80 to $135 million annual infrastructure ask; and Dr Doddridge’s $500 million target to restore parity with 15 years ago. These figures describe the same problem over different timeframes. The Government should fund the immediate uplift now, commit to indexation reform, and set the medium-term target.

1.17That the Federal Government provide an immediate uplift of $252.3 million to CSIRO’s appropriation in the 2026-27 Budget, ongoing, together with annual indexation top-ups sufficient to halt and progressively reverse the real-terms decline in CSIRO funding.

Australia’s R&D investment must increase to meet the challenges we face

1.18The figures in the submission from the Academy of Science are striking. Australia is at 1.69 per cent gross expenditure on R&D against an OECD average of 2.7 per cent. We currently have 0.36 per cent government budget allocation for R&D against an OECD average of 0.74 per cent. The shortfall is around $27 billion a year.[14]

1.19OECD analysis cited in several submissions shows R&D spending growth slowing across the OECD overall while surging in China, which lifted its R&D investment by 8.7 per cent in 2023 alone, reaching 2.58 per cent of GDP.[15]

1.20The case for treating R&D spending as an investment rather than an expense has been made repeatedly throughout this inquiry.[16]Every dollar invested in CSIRO returns $8.80 to the economy on a conservative estimate, against $3.50 for R&D investment generally.[17]

1.21Increased CSIRO appropriation under Recommendation 1 is the most direct way for the Albanese Government to start closing the gap. But it must be part of a broader, time-bound plan to lift Australia’s R&D performance against the OECD. The Strategic Examination of Research and Development provides the roadmap for this. The Government should adopt its recommendations and publish a 10-year investment plan with measurable milestones and reporting against them.

1.22That the Federal Government act decisively on the recommendations of the Strategic Examination of Research and Development to establish a measurable, time-bound to increase total Australian R&D investment.

Halt proposed Environment Research Unit redundancies

1.23The Environment Research Unit cuts are of particular concern, and require real scrutiny. As noted above, Professor Bindoff, an ARC Laureate Fellow and lead author of multiple IPCC chapters, has identified the disproportionate burden on the Unit: 12 per cent of CSIRO’s workforce, 43 per cent of the proposed cuts.[18]

1.24The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society warned that the cuts threaten the viability of important CSIRO research that informs Australians about the risks of climate and environmental change.[19]The Australian Academy of Science said the proposed cuts to the Environment Research Unit are of particular concern because the research it does cannot be replicated by any other country. Climate scientist Professor Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, told ABC News in March 2026 that the cuts are ‘one of the worst things I’ve seen during my career’.[20]

1.25CSIRO’s response has been to argue that it is shifting its focus toward applied climate adaptation research. I do not find this persuasive. Effective climate adaptation needs accurate climate projections. Accurate projections need fundamental climate science conducted by climate scientists.

1.26That the proposed redundancies in the Environment Research Unit be halted and reconsidered by the CSIRO, given the clear need for climate modelling capabilities within CSIRO to be maintained.

Reform the depreciation appropriation

1.27Fixing the depreciation appropriation is one of the cleanest and simplest reforms available to The Albanese Government in the 2026-27 Budget.

1.28CSIRO’s depreciation appropriation has been fixed at $80 million since 1999–2000. It has not been indexed in 26 years. Over that same period, CSIRO’s annual depreciation expense has increased by approximately 129 per cent, or $91 million.[21] The unfunded depreciation gap is now $91 million per annum and growing, and has been self-funded by CSIRO largely through one-off property sales and CSIRO itself acknowledges that this strategy is close to exhausted.[22]

1.29The consequences show up across the organisation. CSIRO’s submission states that 83 per cent of its buildings are beyond technical end of life.[23]The backlog of operational repair and maintenance has increased from $175 million in 2010-11 to over $280 million in 2025-26[24] and Property maintenance costs have risen 17 per cent in five years.[25]

1.30CSIRO needs a one-off uplift to bring the depreciation appropriation in line with actual depreciation expense and ongoing indexation to ensure it does not fall behind again. As Science and Technology Australia’s recommendations, the Federal Government must develop a new indexation rate for research-related appropriations that accurately reflects the true rising cost of doing research.

1.31That the Federal Government index CSIRO’s depreciation appropriation, beginning in the 2026-27 Budget, and undertake a one-off reset to bring the depreciation appropriation into line with current capital and depreciation costs.

Reform co-investment expectations and promote public-good research

1.32Over recent decades, there has been a shift of CSIRO’s portfolio away from fundamental science and toward applied work that can attract external funding. ACCESS-NRI points to a CSIRO directive to recover more than 70 per cent of research costs is one of the key drivers of this.[26] As ACCESS-NRI put it, the consequence is that CSIRO appropriation is being used to subsidise cut-price consultancies in areas tangential to national benefit, while public-good science in areas like climate research is starved of resources.[27]

1.33The 70 per cent target is not a defensible policy, particularly when applied uniformly across research areas with very different commercialisation prospects. Climate observation, atmospheric monitoring, ocean science, biodiversity research and biosecurity preparedness are not consultancy markets. They are public goods and treating them as if they should hit the same revenue benchmarks as applied minerals or manufacturing research distorts CSIRO’s portfolio at the cost of public good research.

1.34The Minister’s Statement of Expectations should be updated to recognise this, to identify the categories of research where co-investment expectations should not apply, and to direct the CSIRO Board to set differentiated cost-recovery targets accordingly.

1.35That the Federal Government update the Minister’s Statement of Expectations to the CSIRO, to substantially reduce the need for cost-recovery targets in research areas designated as public-good or as protected sovereign capabilities, and that this Statement of Expectations explicitly recognise the legitimate public-good purpose of certain research that cannot reasonably be commercialised.

Transparency and value for money on consultancy spend

1.36The McKinsey contracts raised during the hearing and in previous Estimates hearings, deserve particular scrutiny. On the evidence currently available, they can't be defended. In 2022, CSIRO commissioned McKinsey & Company at a cost of $742,500, close to $30,000 per day, for less than a month of work, with no written report required.

1.37A Freedom of Information request, reported in The Mandarin in December 2025,[28] established that the procurement provided no evidence other suppliers had been approached. The outputs were primarily PowerPoint presentations and talking points for the CSIRO Executive and there was no report provided. This was confirmed in a response to a Question on Notice I put to the CSIRO during 2025-26 Estimates.[29]

1.38This kind of spending is concerning in its own right, but it is even more damaging to public confidence in the agency because it occurred not long before the recent cuts to staff.

1.39The documents and presentations associated with both McKinsey engagements should be released in full. There is no reasonable basis on which the public, the staff, or this Parliament should be expected to accept that nearly $2 million in consultancy spend is shielded from scrutiny on commercial-in-confidence grounds.

1.40The procurement and oversight settings that allowed those contracts to occur in the first place also need fixing. CSIRO is a corporate Commonwealth entity and is not bound by the Commonwealth Procurement Rules in the same manner as non-corporate entities.

1.41That the CSIRO immediately release in full all documents, presentations and other outputs produced by McKinsey & Company under the 2022 Future Ways of Working engagement and the prior 2021-22 engagement. And that CSIRO contracts above $200,000 require open and competitive tendering on the Commonwealth tender model.

Conclusion

1.42CSIRO is one of the most successful research organisations anywhere in the world. It has invented Wi-Fi, the polymer banknote, Aerogard, the Hendra vaccine, and biological controls for rabbits and weeds that have delivered tens of billions of dollars.

1.43It has built, and continues to maintain, sovereign capabilities such as climate modelling, atmospheric monitoring, animal health diagnostics and ocean observation that no other Australian institution can replicate and no other country will do for us.

1.44The evidence to this inquiry is that we are now allowing those capabilities to erode through chronic underinvestment, then explaining the consequence as a result rather than a choice we have made.

1.45The workforce cuts are a direct consequence of 15 years of real-terms funding decline. The aging infrastructure is the result of a depreciation appropriation that hasn't moved in a quarter-century. Public-good research has narrowed because internal cost-recovery targets were imposed in place of adequate appropriation.

1.46These are fixable problems and the 2026-27 Budget is the opportunity for the Albanese Government to act, and to begin the long work of restoring CSIRO to a level of resourcing commensurate with what we ask it to do.

A note of thanks

1.47We would like to thank the Committee Secretariat for all of the work put into this inquiry, and to all of the submitters and those who gave evidence to the Committee.

1.48Thank you also to all of the incredible scientists and those who work with them at CSIRO. I know from your correspondence that things have been very difficult for you for far too long. I will continue to work hard to advocate for national investment in research and development and real support for our national science agency

Senator David Pocock

Member

Independent Senator for the Australian Capital Territory

Footnotes

[1]Parliamentary Library, CSIRO Funding Trends, https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/Estimates/economics/supp2526/TabledDocument10_CSIRO_Funding_Trends_Research_Paper.pdf (accessed 28 April 2026).

[2]Australian Academy of Science (AAS), Submission 33, p. 2.

[3]AAS, Submission 33, p. 2.

[4]CSIRO, Submission 30, p. 8.

[5]CSIRO Staff Association, Submission 42, p. 2.

[6]Professor Nathan Bindoff, Submission 73, p. 2.

[7]Dr Edward Doddridge, Submission 75, p. 1.

[8]Dr Doug Hilton, Chief Executive, CSIRO, Committee Hansard, 13 March 2026, p. 60.

[9]Ms Su McClusky, Interim Chief Executive, National Farmers Federation (NFF), Committee Hansard, 13 March 2026, p. 52.

[10]Professor Trevor McDougall AC, Submission 19; Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS), Submission 38; Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE), Submission 39.

[11]CSIRO Staff Association, Submission 42.

[12]AATSE, Submission 39, p. 1.

[13]CSIRO, Submission 30, p. 10.

[14]AAS, Submission 33, p. 2.

[15]AATSE, Submission 39, p. 4.

[16]Research Australia, Submission 34; AAS, Submission 33; The Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences, Submission 86; Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes, Submission 60.

[17]AATSE, Submission 39, p. 2.

[18]Professor Nathan Bindhoff, Submission 73, p. 2.

[19]AMOS, Submission 38.

[20]Bianca Hall, ‘Worst thing I’ve ever seen: CSIRO slashes climate modelling jobs’, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 March 2026 https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/worst-thing-i-ve-ever-seen-csiro-slashes-climate-modelling-jobs-20260310-p5o97a.html (accessed 28 April 2026).

[21]CSIRO, Submission 30, p. 13.

[22]CSIRO, Submission 30.

[23]CSIRO, Submission 30, p. 45.

[24]CSIRO, Submission 30, p. 45.

[25]CSIRO Staff Association, Submission 42, p. 5.

[26]ACCESS-NRI, Submission 29.

[27]ACCESS-NRI, Submission 29.

[28]Conner Pearce, ‘CSIRO pays McKinsey $742,500 for ‘advice’, no report required’, The Mandarin, 12 December 2025, https://www.themandarin.com.au/304845-csiro-pays-mckinsey-742500-for-advice-no-report-required/ (accessed 28 April 2026).

[29]CSIRO, answers to questions taken on notice no. 394, Senate Economics Committee Supplementary Budget Estimates 2025-26, 9 December 2026 (available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloadestimatesquestions/EstimatesQuestion-CommitteeId3-EstimatesRoundId28-PortfolioId44-QuestionNumber394)/.