A SENATE committee has released a list of recommendations following a five-month inquiry into funding and resourcing for CSIRO.
The inquiry commenced in November last year after the announcement of 818 job losses within the national science agency, and a further 350 positions flagged for redundancy.
In the agriculture and food division, about 30 roles were cut before November, with CSIRO indicating a further 45-55 full-time equivalent positions could go.
This would represent a 7-8.5 percent cut to the workforce, based on a current full-time equivalent of 644.
The inquiry received 88 submissions and held its only public hearing on March 13, which revealed in addition to job losses, research has been cut into areas including high-amylose wheat and allergen-free egg white products.
Other programs of research CSIRO is not progressing include: increasing healthy years of life; carbon-management technologies; climate intelligence and advice; unlocking net zero; waste; and valuing and restoring biodiversity, nature and healthy ecosystems.
Report recommendations
The six recommendations focus on supporting CSIRO staff, while reassuring the community the organisation’s remit would not change, despite staffing cuts.
These included recommending CSIRO continue engaging with staff “who have provided evidence that they feel there is a lack of consultation and dialogue around job losses or when programs are to be discontinued or redirected”, and clarify whether further cuts are expected.
The report called on the government to engage with CSIRO about its “financial sustainability” and its “strategic direction”.
It also recommended the government “publicly advise how Australia’s sovereign, public research capability will be protected in the face of funding cuts and jobs losses at CSIRO”.
The Economics References Committee report was signed by chair LNP Senator for South Australia Kerrynne Little.
Several dissenting reports and notes were attached, including from Greens senators calling for an immediate funding increase for the CSIRO, Labor senators rejecting claims of “ongoing funding cuts”, and Senator David Pocock urging additional long-term funding.
GRDC impact
The final report, CSIRO Staff Association and several individual submissions discussed the impact of co-investment on programs and staffing levels.
“Fundamental research lacking industry partners is particularly vulnerable to cuts,” the CSIRO Staff Association wrote.
According to the report, the appropriation funding was expected to be leveraged to obtain 30pc co-investment, then it was 50pc, and more recently, it was at least 70pc and preferably full cost recovery.
This was presented as both a strength and a weakness of the CSIRO, namely its ability to collaborate with industry, but also its reliance on external funding, which can limit work in niche or emerging areas without co-investment.
Dr Everard Edwards, a team leader in the agriculture and food business unit, raised the issue in his submission to the inquiry, including discussion of the impact of the Grains Research and Development Corporation.
“The end result of this is that CSIRO chases larger providers of research funding,” Dr Edwards wrote.
“For example, in my own field of agriculture, we have a significant income from the Grains Research and Development Corporation, who have a very large annual income.
“In contrast, if I was to look to work with a small developing agricultural industry, it would typically not be possible as neither an industry body, nor a producer would be likely to have enough funds to co-invest with CSIRO to fund a viable project.
“In this way, CSIRO has started to largely support only major industries and does not have the capacity to support small industries that may grow to be large industries should they have such support.”
According to its 2025 research, development and extension contracts list, the GRDC has awarded CSIRO 14 contracts, most of them multi-year, worth more than $41.78 million in total.
While Dr Edwards saw this as limiting the scope of CSIRO’s work, the National Farmers’ Federation saw this collaboration as a positive, but also pointed out issues with the organisation being over-reliant on RDC funds.
NFF senior policy officer Zac Rayson told the committee that even if the RDC’s have the capacity to co-invest, CSIRO still needs to find matching investment and have the required scientists and support staff to do the work.
“Because of CSIRO’s decreasing willingness or financial capability to co-invest in these projects, many projects aren’t happening,” Mr Rayson said.
“There’s a similar thing happening in some areas where CSIRO is operating as the research provider and is no longer offering competitive quotes for the provision of some research services.”
He said the NFF was concerned that CSIRO was no longer a breeding ground for sciences across agricultural fields.
“We are concerned, more broadly, at the potential for a brain drain from Australia, the loss of a generation of promising young scientists.
“With any job losses, and particularly to early and mid-career researchers, you risk losing them to the ag innovation ecosystem.”
Grain Central: Get our free news straight to your inbox – Click here
CSIRO has too many Research Directors in Ag Food division and a few roles cross over and should combine to one. Seems too many directors and not enough actual output.