In a bold and emotionally charged move, Labor MP Ed Husic has called out his own party, urging them to ‘force open the tight grip of Treasury’ to secure vital funding for Australia’s national scientific agency, CSIRO, after it announced devastating job cuts. But here’s where it gets controversial: Is the government truly prioritizing the nation’s future by slashing scientific roles instead of investing in them? This question is at the heart of a growing debate that demands our attention.
On Wednesday, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) revealed plans to cut between 300 and 350 research positions (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/18/sad-day-for-publicly-funded-science-up-to-350-more-jobs-to-go-at-the-csiro). These cuts are part of a broader strategy to narrow its research focus and address an aging infrastructure desperately in need of modernization. And this is the part most people miss: While the cuts are framed as necessary, they come at a time when CSIRO’s funding as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest since 1978, according to a parliamentary library analysis commissioned by ACT senator David Pocock (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/david-pocock).
Husic, who oversaw job cuts to CSIRO’s administrative and support teams last year as the former science minister (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jun/05/csiro-australia-job-cuts-fears-union-warning-science-agency), didn’t hold back. He criticized ‘some of the driest minds in government, particularly within Treasury and finance,’ for viewing CSIRO’s funding as a budgetary burden rather than a long-term investment. ‘If you truly value science, you must stop treating it as a cost and start seeing it as an investment in the nation’s future, wellbeing, and capability,’ Husic told ABC’s Afternoon Briefing.
He went on to say, ‘The task ahead is clear: we need to roll up our sleeves, summon the courage, and force open the tight grip of Treasury to ensure our national science agency is funded in a way that benefits the country for generations. If we can find $600 million for a football team in Papua New Guinea, surely we can find the funds for our national science agency. That’s an investment in our future, plain and simple.’
Guardian Australia reports that many of the roles on the chopping block are in critical areas like health and biosecurity, agriculture, food, and environmental research. Science Minister Tim Ayres confirmed that nutrition researchers, part of the health and biosecurity unit, are among those deemed no longer essential. Town hall meetings held with staff on Wednesday suggested that up to half of the roles being cut could come from the environment unit.
These cuts add to the already staggering loss of at least 818 positions since July 2024, as confirmed by CSIRO’s chief finance officer, Tom Munyard, during a Senate estimates hearing (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/14/albanese-urged-to-secure-the-future-of-science-as-csiro-reckons-with-ongoing-decline-in-funding). Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the decision, labeling his government a ‘friend of science,’ but critics are quick to draw parallels to the widely condemned job cuts under the Abbott government, which saw CSIRO’s headcount drop by 659 between 2012-13 and 2015-16.
While the Albanese government has increased CSIRO’s headcount from 5,514 in 2022-23 to 6,050 the following year, this financial year is expected to see a reduction of 555 positions, bringing the total to 5,495. Albanese insisted, ‘We support science and the CSIRO, and we’re committed to ensuring every dollar of funding is directed where it’s most needed.’
Here’s the controversial interpretation: Despite these assurances, the declining funding as a percentage of GDP raises questions about the government’s true commitment to scientific advancement. Treasurer Jim Chalmers dismissed suggestions of additional funding in the upcoming mid-year economic and financial outlook, stating, ‘I’m a strong supporter of CSIRO and its role in our science and industrial base. We already provide substantial funding, and we understand the calls for more.’
CSIRO’s chief executive, Doug Hilton, defended the cuts in a statement, saying they are necessary to position the agency for the decades ahead. During an estimates hearing in October, Hilton highlighted the rising costs of scientific research, including cybersecurity and infrastructure upgrades. Approximately 80% of CSIRO’s 800+ buildings are nearing the end of their lifespans, requiring an estimated $80-135 million annually for replacement or renovation.
Thought-provoking question for you: Is cutting scientific roles a necessary evil in times of budgetary constraints, or is it a shortsighted decision that undermines Australia’s long-term potential? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation that could shape the future of Australian science.
