Matter of Public Importance

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Senate · Wednesday 26 November 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated a matter of public importance regarding significant job losses at the CSIRO, with critics arguing that ongoing cuts have weakened national science capabilities. Government ministers defended the changes as necessary organisational realignment rather than funding reductions, citing past mismanagement and the need to focus on national priorities. Opposition and independent senators contended that the cuts disproportionately affect public-good science and exceed previous reductions. The debate concluded with the motion being agreed to.

Outcome

The motion was agreed to.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

David Pocock (ACT) (Independent) Ind

Pocock argued that the CSIRO faced devastating uncertainty with up to 350 jobs at risk, adding to 800 lost in the previous 18 months. Pocock stated that per capita investment in science had fallen significantly since the 1980s and that current job losses would surpass those under the Abbott government. Pocock criticised the government for prioritising manufacturing projects in Whyalla and Tomago over scientific research. Pocock called for long-term investment to address future challenges such as climate change and artificial intelligence.

Government response

Tim Ayres (Minister for Industry and Innovation; Minister for Science) ALP NSW

Ayres stated that there were no funding cuts from the government, which continued to provide approximately one billion dollars annually. Ayres attributed the job losses to management decisions aimed at aligning research with national priorities, including clean energy transition and biosecurity. Ayres argued that the previous Coalition government had initiated the problems through ideological cuts to science. Ayres emphasised that the CSIRO needed to be fit for purpose to meet future challenges.

Opposition response

Paul Scarr (Shadow Minister for Immigration; Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs; Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Liberal QLD

Scarr criticised the government for defending the job cuts and blamed the Morrison government for previous funding that led to recruitment. Scarr cited the CSIRO Staff Association of the CPSU, which stated that the current cuts exceeded those of the Abbott government. Scarr argued that the government was failing to support public science and referenced historical arguments for the importance of national research. Scarr urged the government to reconsider the impact of these cuts on families and industries.

Dave Sharma (NSW) (Liberal Party) Liberal support

Sharma introduced the motion, noting that it had been submitted by Senators Chandler, Pocock and Whish-Wilson. Sharma stated that the proposal highlighted the need for a world-class national science agency. Sharma indicated that the ongoing cuts had weakened Australia's ability to diversify its economy.
Claire Chandler (TAS) (Liberal Party) Liberal oppose

Chandler argued that the government failed to provide clarity on where the job cuts would come from or their impact on research capabilities. Chandler noted that over 1,000 jobs had been lost in the past 18 months, with another 300 to 350 roles targeted. Chandler expressed concern that cuts to environment, health and agriculture sectors would undermine national sovereignty and food security.
Peter Whish-Wilson (TAS) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Whish-Wilson highlighted that public-good science was being disproportionately affected by the restructuring. Whish-Wilson noted that 150 of the 350 targeted jobs were from the Environment Research Unit, impacting Tasmania significantly. Whish-Wilson argued that science should not be monetised and called for an inquiry into how the CSIRO reached this financial position.
Michelle Ananda-Rajah (VIC) (Australian Labor Party) ALP support

Ananda-Rajah attributed the job losses to mismanagement and a funding cliff following pandemic-era injections. Ananda-Rajah stated that the CSIRO workforce had grown by almost 1,400 employees from 2020 to 2024. Ananda-Rajah argued that the new management was conducting necessary housekeeping to align with national priorities. Ananda-Rajah noted that displaced workers could find opportunities in new statutory bodies like the Centre for Disease Control.
Steph Hodgins-May (VIC) (Australian Greens) Greens oppose

Hodgins-May argued that the government was failing science by ignoring warnings and sidelining experts. Hodgins-May emphasised the importance of protecting scientific legacy and addressing gender inequity in STEM leadership. Hodgins-May stated that scientists were essential for tackling climate disasters and pandemics. Hodgins-May called for investment in science rather than slashing it.

Opened by

David Pocock (ACT) (Independent)

Ind

Speeches

8 speeches, 5 other contributors

Topics

Jobs & Employment

Debate Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Fair Super for Young Workers) Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 20 Aug 2026 · Shared topic: Jobs & Employment
Debate Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2026; Second Reading Bill Debate, 2 Jul 2026 · Shared topic: Jobs & Employment
Question Time Senate Question Time 19 Aug 2026 · Shared topic: Jobs & Employment
Question Time House Question Time 17 Aug 2026 · Shared topic: Jobs & Employment

About Senate debates

The Senate debates bills, motions, matters of public importance and the answers given in Question Time. Senators from all parties and the crossbench take part, and a minister or the minister representing them usually replies for the government. Summaries are in reported speech, not transcripts; always check the official record before quoting.