EDWARDS, Dr Everard, Governing Councillor, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Staff Association [by video link] RINTOUL, Dr Stephen, Delegate, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Staff Association [by video link] TONKS, Ms Susan, Section Secretary, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Staff Association [by video link] Committee met at 09:00 CHAIR ( Senator Liddle ): I declare open this hearing of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into funding and resourcing for the CSIRO. I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and I pay respects to their elders, past and present. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people participating today. These are public hearings being videostreamed live via the parliament's website, and a Hansard transcript is being made. I remind all witnesses presenting in Australia that, in giving evidence to the committee, they are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to this committee, and any such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence. Witnesses also have a right to request to be heard in camera. The Senate has resolved that an officer of a department of the Commonwealth or of a state shall not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of the officer to superior officers or to a minister. This resolution does not preclude questions asking for explanations of policies or factual questions about when and how policies were adopted. If a witness objects to answering a question, they should state the ground upon which the objection is made, and the committee will determine whether it will insist on an answer, having regard to the ground which is claimed. If the committee determines to insist on an answer, a witness may request that the answer be given in camera. Commonwealth officers appearing today are also reminded of the Senate order specifying the process by which a claim of public interest immunity should be raised. A copy of the order is available from the secretariat. The extract read as follows— Public interest immunity claims That the Senate— (a) notes that ministers and officers have continued to refuse to provide information to Senate committees without properly raising claims of public interest immunity as required by past resolutions of the Senate; (b) reaffirms the principles of past resolutions of the Senate by this order, to provide ministers and officers with guidance as to the proper process for raising public interest immunity claims and to consolidate those past resolutions of the Senate; (c) orders that the following operate as an order of continuing effect: (1) If: (a) a Senate committee, or a senator in the course of proceedings of a committee, requests information or a document from a Commonwealth department or agency; and (b) an officer of the department or agency to whom the request is directed believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the officer shall state to the committee the ground on which the officer believes that it may not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, and specify the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document. (2) If, after receiving the officer's statement under paragraph (1), the committee or the senator requests the officer to refer the question of the disclosure of the information or document to a responsible minister, the officer shall refer that question to the minister. (3) If a minister, on a reference by an officer under paragraph (2), concludes that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information or document to the committee, the minister shall provide to the committee a statement of the ground for that conclusion, specifying the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document. (4) A minister, in a statement under paragraph (3), shall indicate whether the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee could result only from the publication of the information or document by the committee, or could result, equally or in part, from the disclosure of the information or document to the committee as in camera evidence. (5) If, after considering a statement by a minister provided under paragraph (3), the committee concludes that the statement does not sufficiently justify the withholding of the information or document from the committee, the committee shall report the matter to the Senate. (6) A decision by a committee not to report a matter to the Senate under paragraph (5) does not prevent a senator from raising the matter in the Senate in accordance with other procedures of the Senate. (7) A statement that information or a document is not published, or is confidential, or consists of advice to, or internal deliberations of, government, in the absence of specification of the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure of the information or document, is not a statement that meets the requirements of paragraph (1) or (4). (8) If a minister concludes that a statement under paragraph (3) should more appropriately be made by the head of an agency, by reason of the independence of that agency from ministerial direction or control, the minister shall inform the committee of that conclusion and the reason for that conclusion, and shall refer the matter to the head of the agency, who shall then be required to provide a statement in accordance with paragraph (3). (d) requires the Procedure Committee to review the operation of this order and report to the Senate by 20 August 2009. (13 May 2009 J.1941) (Extract, Senate Standing Orders) CHAIR: I remind senators of their obligations under the Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians to treat witnesses with dignity, courtesy, fairness and respect. I now welcome representatives from the CSIRO Staff Association. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you. Do you have any comments to make on the capacity in which you appear? Dr Rintoul : I'm a climate scientist at CSIRO. Dr Edwards : I'm a research team leader in the agriculture and food research unit. CHAIR: Thank you. If you have one, I now invite you to make a short opening statement. At the conclusion of any remarks, I will invite members of the committee to ask questions. Ms Tonks : Before we begin, I'd also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands on which we all meet and extend that respect to any First Nations people participating today. The CSIRO Staff Association is a section of the Community and Public Sector Union and is the primary union representing employees at the CSIRO. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee as part of its inquiry into the funding and resourcing of CSIRO. There's no denying the desperate circumstances of our appearance here today. Over the past year, CSIRO has lost more than 800 jobs, and now another 350 full-time-equivalent research roles are set to go. The scale of the cuts under the current government are set to surpass those made under the Abbott government. While the government's emergency MYEFO funding is very welcome, it's a one-off measure and does not address the CSIRO's long-term sustainability. Put simply, CSIRO is barely surviving and needs urgent help. Our submission was informed by a survey of more than 400 staff association members, which focused on the impact of recent CSIRO job cuts on research capacity, workforce morale and scientific infrastructure. CSIRO plays an irreplaceable role in delivering world-leading science and innovation that underpins Australia's prosperity, security and wellbeing. Urgent action is needed to protect CSIRO's capacity to deliver public-good science and maintain Australia's global standing. This includes immediate funding to prevent job losses, investment in research capacity, and long-term support to ensure financial sustainability, as well as improved organisational transparency and accountability. CSIRO has been responsible for some of the most important scientific innovations in Australia's history. Public investment in science and research is often what delivers innovation that lays the groundwork for commercial breakthroughs and increased productivity. 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. CSIRO faces rising research costs, above inflation; ageing infrastructure; and ongoing capital and depreciation costs, far exceeding current capital funding. While the 2026-27 MYEFO funding is welcome and will address urgent pressures, again, it is a one-off injection and will not address long-term funding issues. A loss of funding would mean losing independent sovereign capability, making Australia reliant on foreign expertise and risking national interests in areas like water security, climate projection and pandemic preparedness, while weakening our world-leading environmental, mineral and biosecurity research. CSIRO's training and career pathways for early career researchers are valued for nurturing future scientific leaders and maintaining core expertise, ensuring the next generation of scientists can build the knowledge required to manage Australia's unique challenges. However, recent cuts and reduced opportunities are driving talent overseas, risking a brain drain and diminishing Australia's competitiveness in emerging scientific fields. 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. Nearly 25 per cent of survey respondents reported that poor equipment hindered their work, while 40 per cent pointed to inadequate infrastructure as a challenge in the workplace. Significantly, almost 95 per cent of participants identified insufficient staffing as a critical barrier to conducting effective research. These issues have led to project delays, increased stress and reduced research quality. The ongoing and proposed cuts have significantly diminished CSIRO's research capacity. For example, survey participants stated that the loss of a Data61 staff member has already resulted in the termination of key projects, such as flood management research in northern Australia. Losing research capability of that nature is hard to comprehend, particularly when confronted by coverage of widespread flooding in the Northern Territory and Queensland. 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. There will be plenty of evidence before this inquiry in support of the important and unique contribution that CSIRO makes to the Australian economy and community, but there is also a real human impact. For many CSIRO staff, the months ahead will be traumatic and painful. Important research, the product of months and years of dedication and effort, will be abandoned. Lifelong vocations will be questioned and challenged. For some, careers will be ended prematurely on the very worst terms. CSIRO staff, and the Australian community they are dedicated to serving, really deserve better. Immediate and long-term funding, accountable leadership and transparent and consultative decision-making with genuine staff engagement are essential to restore and sustain CSIRO's capacity. Today I'm joined by staff who will also make brief statements of their own. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today. Dr Edwards : Thank you. I want to briefly comment on the impacts of the long-term reduction in real-term funding to CSIRO. I will hit 20 years with CSIRO in a couple of months. During that time, I've gone through at least four episodes like the current one, where either I or the teams that I've been part of or led have been impacted by reductions in staffing and reductions in funding. The first of those was less than two years after I joined CSIRO, when the horticulture site I was at in Victoria was closed down, with a loss of more than half of the positions that were there. The result of that and subsequent reductions was that the number of people committed to horticulture within what is currently the agriculture and food business unit reduced from around 80, as there were when I joined, to around 16 to support that industry. I don't really intend to focus on horticulture in my comments today other than right now, but I think it's a good illustration of how funding has changed our ability to support these industries. Horticulture is an industry that is critical to the nutrition of our nation, and, whilst we've increased horticultural production over the last 20 years, it has not increased as much as the population has increased. Therefore, I would say it's a key area that still needs to be supported. 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. If we look at something like the wine industry, CSIRO had a key role in supporting its success in the 1980s. But, right now, we can't really do that because we commit most of the money that we have to research—to agencies or companies that have significant funding that they can provide to us because of the leveraging that's required. That means that, if we go back to compare it with the mid-1990s, when this really started, we just no longer have the ability to support industries in the same way that we did. This is directly because we no longer have adequate funding to support investment into those industries. Thank you. Dr Rintoul : Hi. I'm an oceanographer and climate scientist at CSIRO, based in Hobart. During my 35 years at CSIRO, I've held many roles, from postdoc to acting chief. I've led many national and international ocean and climate research programs, and I believe this experience gives me a useful perspective on the challenges faced by CSIRO and, in particular, the environment research unit I thank the inquiry for the opportunity to speak as a delegate from the CSIRO Staff Association. I am very concerned about my colleagues losing their jobs. This is a very tough time for many excellent scientists that have dedicated their careers to solving Australia's biggest challenges. However, I am even more concerned about the future of Australian science and what this means for the nation. As many submissions have documented, CSIRO's appropriation has not kept pace with the cost of doing science. In real terms, funding for CSIRO has gone backwards for many years. 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. This brings us to the present, where deep staff cuts have been made or proposed and further cuts seem likely, without a sizeable and immediate increase in funding. What are the consequences of reduced funding for CSIRO? In my own area of climate science, my concern is the following: almost every sector of the Australian economy and society is affected by climate, including water, energy, food security, transport, health, national security and community safety. To respond to the challenges of a variable and changing climate, Australian decision-makers urgently need to know what lies ahead. Cutting research at CSIRO Environment reduces our ability to provide Australians with the information they need to secure a healthy, safe and prosperous future. Proposed cuts in climate change projections, sea level research, atmospheric properties that affect climate, and the drivers of Australian climate in extreme events will reduce CSIRO's ability to enable effective adaptation and enhanced resilience to climate hazards. Government must recognise that funding for science is an investment in the future. CHAIR: Senator Darmanin. Senator DARMANIN: Thank you for all of your opening statements. In your submission, you've called for more transparent decision-making. Ms Tonks, in your opening statement, I think you talked about an independent external review of the consultation process. Could you please talk about what sort of consultation mechanisms you think are most effective and how this inquiry might encourage CSIRO to scale those processes more quickly, given the experience that your members have had. Ms Tonks : 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. There's a lot of PowerPoints but not a lot of detail. We get numbers of staff going; we don't know where they are. It doesn't inform what actual research projects are going. We get that through surveying and through speaking with members and from member feedback coming to us. They just need to slow it down and assess exactly what it is and share that properly. It's a very siloed process currently. 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. So CSIRO really needs to slow this down and have a proper look. 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. Senator DARMANIN: You talked again in your opening statement, as in your submission, about the disconnect between executive management and realities being faced by researchers. I think that's also what you just pointed to then in terms of the disconnect in the consultation process as well. How long do you think this has been the case? And then, just in the interests of time, could you also talk about—despite the comments you've made about the process of consultation—whether there's been a full examination, in the view of your members, of where additional savings could be made, such as labour hire contracts management. Presumably, staff on the ground really know what's going on in an organisation. Ms Tonks : They do. Senator DARMANIN: Do you think that their views in that regard have been adequately considered when it comes to trying to address the challenges around sustainability? Ms Tonks : I don't think, from our experience, that people say, 'How are we going to manage this?' or, 'We could we do this differently.' There were a couple of areas where it was clear that it couldn't just be a cost measure to make the cuts, because there was a clear impact, and that did make some tweaking around some adjustments. But the staffing cuts across the board have been constant and quite significant. It's been like that from the very beginning. When the first announcements were made, in February 2024, we were surprised at the number that were going. We did flag that with the CSIRO executive at that time: 'How will you accurately assess and identify what needs to be done?' Staff, across the board, were really unhappy with that identification process. I think they had about 15 minutes to assess what was needed and what wasn't through an online portal. So that was not an adequate process for how that should have rolled out and for what support services for frontline scientists should be retained. Certainly, their IT area was one of the ones that took the longest, because there were a lot of issues with that area, and I think that is still the case. And it's been like that—at that scale and pace—from the very beginning. Throughout the process, when it began in 2024, we did notify a few disputes because of the pace and some of the corners that were being cut in regard to redundancies. Senator DARMANIN: Finally, what's your members' view of management's approach to budgeting and planning around allocating resources to the facility maintenance and upkeep, specifically with regard to working environments for people and the strategic planning of that over a period of time? Ms Tonks : Yes, there's been great concern around that. Obviously, CSIRO is an incredibly complex and diverse workplace around the facilities that do need maintaining to make sure they're safe, and that's always the priority. You've got fewer people doing that. People are now waiting for maintenance and other things, because some of those staff are simply not there anymore. CHAIR: Senator Pocock. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Thank you, all of you, for being here. I just want to make sure I've got the numbers right about job losses. You said it was over 800, Ms Tonks, but I think your submission said 818 and 350 additional, so a total of 1,168. Is that correct? Ms Tonks : That's correct. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Do you believe there are more possible redundancies ahead? Ms Tonks : I do. Certainly, the CSIRO executive have not ruled out further cuts, and, while that 350 does include some term-contract staff, it's not including all of them. The feedback we are getting on the ground, from across the board, is that these numbers are going to be much higher than 350. We certainly hope they are not, but it's looking like that could potentially be the case. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: What explanation are you getting? You mentioned that the Abbott years saw fewer cuts than we are seeing now. What explanation are you being given for these cuts now, and how does that compare? What do you say to that comparison? What was happening in the Abbott years that is now so different that we see even deeper cuts here? Ms Tonks : Obviously we know that, as I said in my statement, CSIRO is desperate for appropriate funding—future funding. It hasn't kept up for so long. That's why we are where we've arrived at now. The way these cuts have been done—and I'm sure Dr Edwards and Dr Rintoul would confirm this as well—has been at such a scale and pace. It's based on cost, not on what we need going forward, and it doesn't matter what people say. After yesterday's town hall, I had a climate scientist contact me to say that in their particular area—the climate, atmosphere and ocean interactions group—there appear to be up to 12 redundancies that have been flagged, as of yesterday, plus term ends as well. In that area, they're responsible for measuring and modelling atmospheric composition. Within that area itself, it'll be a 21 per cent cut. It is almost like CSIRO are saying, 'Yes, you're seeing this, but you're not really seeing it.' They keep saying, 'Oh yes, we're focused on climate,' but then these announcements come out and counter what is actually happening on the ground. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I wanted to go to a comment that I think you made, Mr Rintoul. Did I hear you say that there is now a requirement that 70 per cent of the funding for research has to be leveraged from a partner outside CSIRO? Is that correct? Dr Rintoul: Yes. That's the general rule of thumb to get a project approved. Higher levels are encouraged. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I've run a social science research centre for 10 years. There's no way you can run a social science research centre with that kind of parameter. You would shut down social science overnight. Increasingly, we do have grants which require it, but there is no way you can do fundamental social science research on those kinds of numbers. Where you have people who are hostile to climate change, for example, and where there are no large for-profit companies to leverage, how do you grow climate science versus growing science around coal and gas, where there are very profitable large companies, presumably with resources they can put in, to leverage up to 100 per cent? How does it pervert and shape the research effort on critical questions? Dr Rintoul: It shapes many aspects of what we do. It affects what contracts we take on, and there's a potential to turn the focus from the national benefit to the benefit of particular clients or stakeholders that are able to pay. Our ability to determine the research direction that is of most benefit to the nation is hindered because the budget numbers don't add up, and the organisation desperately needs additional funding. So it does affect what we do. It affects the projects that we do and it affects how we do them because, as the budget has decreased in real terms over many, many years, staffing levels have decreased and we've lost some of the people we need to actually deliver that national benefit. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I want to ask any of you who want to talk about it: what is the human cost of these changes? I've worked a lot with early career, mid-career and senior career researchers. What is this doing to morale for researchers across our scientific community? Ms Tonks : I must say— Dr Rintoul : I guess I— Ms Tonks : Sorry, Steve. You go. Dr Rintoul : In my own area—we had our townhall yesterday afternoon—there are many devastated staff. Australia loves, values and respects the CSIRO as an independent source of advice that gives them the information they need, and the people that work for CSIRO are deeply committed to the place. To be told that your role is no longer required, often with little explanation or with explanations that don't hold up—like, 'Others in the innovation system can do the work you're doing.' We know that's not true, but those are the reasons given for letting some staff go. It is devastating and it's deep-reaching. For my small group alone, we've had three resignations in recent months, as people have seen the writing on the wall and decided that their careers would be better off somewhere else. Dr Edwards : I would add that I think it's across the organisation. There's a real gallows humour around the place these days. People don't expect to finish their career, necessarily, in CSIRO anymore. The number of people you talk to that are towards the end of their careers that are happy to take a redundancy, rather than stay, is really disheartening for those of us that have been here a long time and really value the organisation. For younger scientists, we had this 'impossible without you' system recently, which we used some of the COVID money for, and brought in a very large number of early career scientists who came in with a lot of hope and did a lot of really good work. They were hoping they would potentially get a job at the end of it. Almost all of those have exited the organisation, and exited the organisation in a much more bitter way than they joined it. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Ms Tonks, is there anything you want to add on morale and the human cost? Ms Tonks : Yes. We've seen this borne out in the staff survey, their culture survey. I think they're coming up to the third one now where morale is, clearly, incredibly low. As I said earlier, with the scale and pace of these cuts, the way that people are told is quite scripted. As Dr Rintoul has said, it's the way that you're told that you're no longer required. I had someone this week say to me—the four of us went to a meeting, and we were told that all of our capabilities were no longer required. There's very careful scripting around that, so that it looks like pre-decision consultation, but the proposal's already been—the writing's on the wall. These people have been waiting since before Christmas, when first announcements came out. As someone said to Senator Pocock not long ago, the way that this is being done and the scale and pace that it's going at is dehumanising. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: I have a last question. You've talked about consultation. There's a big difference between being told and being consulted. You are being told that there are an umbrella number, an envelope number, of job losses, not even knowing where they are coming from. It's so critical for scientific bodies of researchers to get to critical mass, be retained and do their work. You are being told, not consulted. That's what I'm hearing. You're not even being told the detail of what the decision is. That is not consultation, in my experience as a researcher or as someone who has looked at work for decades. That is a big step away from consultation, is it not? Ms Tonks : Yes, it is. 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. That was a devastating loss. The majority of those people were in South Australia. There were a few elsewhere, but they were largely there. There were also 30 out of agriculture and food. I think there were around five out of manufacturing in that round. It's our constant cry to say, 'You're not giving us relevant information.' Data61 is another example of poor consultation. 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 do know one of them, of course, was the engineer who was working on the northern Australia water assessment resource project. 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; finding out the actual work that they do is always a challenge. Senator BARBARA POCOCK: Has management changed? Why is such an appalling practice of nonconsultation now the dominant way of working? What's shifted in management to make that happen? Ms Tonks : I might refer to Dr Edwards on this, having been across the previous management and now the new one, and on what the differences are. I've certainly seen them. I certainly know that he has as well. CHAIR: Can I please ask as the chair that the answer be brief, because we do have to go to Senator David Pocock after this. Dr Edwards : To be honest, I'm not sure I can answer that. Obviously, CSIRO changes at the top every five years or just over on average, and there tend to be shifts throughout the structure and the way it's managed as a result of that. But I don't think I can really answer the question. Ms Tonks : Just to close it off, it seems to me, from what people have said to me about what it was and what it is now, 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. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Thank you very much for your time this morning. I'll just start by asking Dr Rintoul a question. I'm interested in your reaction to reports last night that 102 full-time equivalent positions will be cut from the Environment Research Unit. Did you know of that in advance? Do you know if staff were provided an opportunity for feedback? What is your reaction? Dr Rintoul : 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. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Was an explanation at least given as to why details are so general and why there's a lack of detail available? Dr Rintoul : One reason given is privacy of affected staff. They suggest that, to protect the privacy of staff that are being made redundant, they can't provide information in a way that would be individually identifiable. Whether that's the genuine reason or a convenient reason I'm not sure. It does make it more difficult to respond to the proposal during this present period of three weeks of consultation, because we don't know on what basis that proposal is made. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Do you get the sense that CSIRO's staff accept these reasons? From where I sit, they seem fairly unsatisfactory. Dr Rintoul : 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. For example, I spoke to a staff member yesterday evening who was told that their work was no longer required. He asked why. They said, 'We don't really need to do that sort of modelling anymore.' The staff member asked the leader, 'Do you know what I do?' and he said, 'Well, no, not really.' 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. Senator DAVID POCOCK: I find that very shocking. I appreciate you sharing that anecdote. We have CSIRO later today. Climate scientist Professor Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, president of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, has described the cuts as 'one of the worst things I've seen during my career'. I'm wondering if you agree with that. Dr Rintoul : I do despair a bit at these cuts, but, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I despair for the future of science in this country not just at CSIRO but also more broadly. In 2022 the Senate, I believe, set the ambition of funding science R&D in Australia at three per cent of GDP. We're about half that and going backwards. We as a country need to decide what sort of future we want: if we want a future that's informed by the best possible science or if we're just going to take our chances. Senator DAVID POCOCK: Do you know if we'll be able to continue the Australian climate model after these cuts? Dr Rintoul : As the reasons for some of the cuts have not really been explained to us with any detail, it's a little difficult to know. My impression is that there's an assumption that others in the Australian innovation system will fill that gap—that CSIRO doesn't need to do it. That's something you might explore with Andy Hogg from ACCESS-NRI, for example, who will come up later today. There's a perception that we need deployable solutions, and that's a laudable aim. But what is missing is an appreciation for what those deployable solutions—to use CSIRO's term—are really based on, which is a foundation of foundational science that we are cutting our effort in. Senator DAVID POCOCK: I have one final question, if that's alright, Chair, to close. It touches on the funding of science in this country. The federal government appropriation for the CSIRO has fallen, as a share of GDP, from 0.17 per cent in the early 1980s to between 0.03 per cent and 0.04 per cent today—a 75 per cent reduction over those decades. Per capita investment in CSIRO is now less than half of what it was in the eighties. There's a call for an extra $250 million in the upcoming budget. I'm not sure if this is for you, Ms Tonks: could you expand on that and speak about the need to increase the appropriation and make it sustainable? Ms Tonks : As far as the funding goes, obviously, we came up with the figure of $252.3 million, which was derived from the 2026-27 salary cost data. That was, based on 500 staff, costs of around $108 million. There certainly needs to be a review to ascertain more detail in funding needs. That $252.3 million in the 2026-27 financial year is as a baseline going in. To funding for the future, using CPI projections in the 2025-26 budget, an additional $68.4 million in 2026-27, $79.7 million in 2027-28 and $90.8 million in 2028-29 would be needed to make sure that there is no real decrease in the funding minimum for CSIRO. As we said earlier, the $252.3 million additional funding through MYEFO is incredibly welcome and was desperately needed to help stabilise some immediate operational and infrastructure pressures, but, again, it's a one-off, and we still don't know yet how that's going to be spent. Hopefully, there will be additional funding going forward. CHAIR: We've got one quick question from Senator Whish-Wilson, who's online. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Sorry, Chair, I have two very quick questions. I chaired the select committee, nearly 10 years ago, into attempts to cut jobs in oceans and atmosphere, and it seems to me that while external circumstances might have changed the priorities are very similar. It's public-good science that's in the national interest. That's hard to monetise. My first question is: is there any evidence, in terms of this consultation process that staff have been going through, that this issue about how much they're able to monetise the work they do has been raised? Has it been obvious? Dr Rintoul : No, I don't think it's been obvious. I think the reality is it's not that CSIRO does not believe in the value of public-good science and the need for it—I think they genuinely believe in that—but the budget situation is simply desperate. They've essentially tried everything: labour hire, cutting staff, restricting travel—we no longer subscribe to the same journals we used to, because we can't afford it. These are simply desperate times. So, in an attempt to make the budget work, they push harder and harder on external funding, and as a result public-good science has suffered. That's in part because the funders for public-good science, which are often government departments, have also been budget constrained and are no longer willing to go invest in the same way that they once were. Senator WHISH-WILSON: My second question is this: yesterday, AI company Anthropic released their modelling of which industries or professions would be most impacted by the emergence of AI. I noted with interest that mathematics modelling through to social sciences were going to be very heavily impacted and replaced by AI. Has that come up in discussions at all—that some of the modelling capacity we've heard is being targeted in oceans and atmospheres is going to be impacted by AI? Dr Rintoul : Not that I'm aware of. AI has been part of the conversation in the sense that they feel one of the priorities for future work by CSIRO is work on AI and its applications in Australia. But there's been no explicit discussion that I'm aware of that the cuts in staff at the present time will be compensated by AI doing more of that work. Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you. CHAIR: Thank you to the panel. We appreciate you appearing today..