At today’s National Press Club address, CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Doug Hilton AO called for a more focused, collaborative and accountable Australian research system. He argued that stronger cooperation could make investment in, partnership with and support for science “perhaps even irresistible”.
During the speech, Hilton began to paint a picture for Australia. One that CSIRO could help create.
Abundant clean energy, critical minerals processed into valuable technologies onshore, oceans understood as well as we do our land, a DNA library of every Australian plant and animal, and Australian foundational models built with Australian data.
“In a world that can feel like it’s running out of wonder, imagine discovering there’s more of it here – in Australia – than anyone realised,” he said.
Powerful ideas. However, they were not accompanied by a clear account of what CSIRO needs to make that future possible: how many researchers, what level of sustained funding, which facilities, what policy changes.
Investing in Australian science
Hilton acknowledged that CSIRO’s funding has not kept pace with inflation. The organisation’s infrastructure has aged, and the cost of conducting science has risen. More than 80% of CSIRO’s approximately 800 buildings had reached their technical end of life by the end of 2025.
Additional government funding will support much-needed maintenance, equipment and IT systems. However, Hilton stopped short of a clear public ask for support of the broader Australian research system.
It’s worth noting that Australia’s total R&D investment has fallen from a historic high of 2.24% of GDP in 2008–09 to just 1.69% today, compared with an OECD average of around 2.7%.
Asked whether Australia adequately funds research, Hilton said the sector first needed to demonstrate it is making the best use of existing resources. “The answer, I think, is that we can do better with the resources already entrusted to us,” he said.
When does efficiency become fragility?
Hilton’s address raises a difficult question: how resilient is a system that increasingly depends on collaboration while many of its institutions, programs and researchers are under financial strain?
CSIRO rarely delivers impact by itself. “Irrespective of the timeframe, to deliver real benefit, we almost always need to collaborate with partners in industry, in government and in universities,” Hilton said.
That collaboration typically involves co-investment, pooling money, expertise and infrastructure needed to address problems no single organisation could solve by itself.
When working as intended, this model allows Australia to achieve far more than any single institution could independently. But it may also create fragility. When one part of the system loses people, expertise or infrastructure, the effects can ripple through research partnerships, national facilities and long-term programs.
That is the darker side of Hilton’s call for greater collaboration. Hundreds of job cuts and disappearing research programs do not affect CSIRO alone. They can reduce the capability available to every organisation that relies on it as a research partner.
This is particularly important when CSIRO is expected to provide sovereign scientific capability, the expertise Australia needs when international supply chains fail, new diseases emerge or access to strategic technologies is challenged.
What’s next for CSIRO
CSIRO has lasted 100 years so far, and Hilton wants to strengthen it for 100 more. While this will depend on government, business also has a part to play.
Companies working with CSIRO may consider the terms of their research partnerships, how they co-invest in shared expertise and infrastructure, and how they might advocate for the stable national R&D system on which their own innovation may depend.
Overall, Hilton’s message was hopeful for CSIRO and Australian science. “Imagine future generations looking back on this decade, as the moment Australia decided that curiosity, ambition and audacity were our greatest national assets,” he said.
