Australia Hates Science: CSIRO Staffers Axed In New Government Cuts

The Abbott government is planning on carving 12,000 jobs out of the Australian Public Service, and unfortunately that means around 1400 CSIRO staffers are facing the chop, in what appears to be an ongoing crusade against science in Australia.

Update: The CSIRO is disputing the numbers reported.

It's called a "jobs freeze", and it sees the Coalition enforce a ban on the hiring of new workers into the public sector, and slashing the amount of non-permanent or "non-ongoing" workers currently employed by government agencies.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the CSIRO will lose 990 term workers and an additional 440 casual staff, taking its 6500-person headcount down to 5070. Lobbyists have raised concerns that the axe is falling disproportionately hard on scientists in this case.

The slashing of national scientific resources comes after a slew of decisions by the new Abbott government that could be considered as harmful to the local knowledge economy.

At the announcement of the new Cabinet, it was revealed that Australia would have no dedicated Science Minister.

Following that, the environmental advisory body, the Climate Commission was scrapped. It has since relaunched as a crowdfunded industry body.

The government then confirmed that it wouldn't be sending our Environment Minister or any stand-ins to a recent global climate summit in Warsaw.

Call us crazy, but we think that a nation hoping to develop a knowledge economy alongside an economy that specialises in pulling things out of the ground can't afford to lose 1400 staffers from the peak booklearnin' body in the nation after the consistent blows already sustained. [SMH]

Image via Shutterstock


Comments

    Pathetic.

      This will give you the big picture: http://qz.com/144817

        Who needs the CSIRO when you can just have lobbyist tell you what the science is?? I wonder how long before coal gets put in the food pyramid as essential for healthy eating??

          Apparently they can just look it up on Wiki, so why pay for knowledge, when it's free.

          I say this is a good thing. Let Abbott trash the country's research and reputation, and make us the world's laughing stock, like Dubya did to USA. Those that voted him in get all they deserve in spades. probably the same hypocrites that laughed at how stupid Bush was and said well we live in Australia, and then knowingly put an avowed religious cook in charge. It's in his DNA to treat science with contempt.

            I appreciate what you're getting at, but nothing about this is good. We're told this is to lessen the bureaucratic red tape, when in reality this is another way to silence anyone who cares, even just a little bit, for the environment and the future of the planet. The Liberals love their coal money, this just cements that fact.

          Need I remind you everything on the food pyramid contains carbon.

    More madness from the mad monk, who the hell voted in this turkey?

      Nobody did. Everyone voted for a party, not the individual.

        Not sure why you got downvoted for that. It's not a nitpick, it's a pretty vital distinction that most of the people campaigning against Abbott or Gillard or Rudd failed to grasp.

    Stupid old people that listen to the Pro Abbot media.

      Moloko, wash your mouth out with soap. I am an old person and I did not vote for that turkey! Indeed I would not give him a job as an organ grinders monkey. You owe me and many other old people an apology . I have no idea why you are blaming us for electing the turkey.

        Alright, keep your pants on! @moloko is referring to AM radio whose major demographic is people over 50! They are essentially brainwashed by the waste of oxygen that is Alan Jones!

          As a general rule the older people get, the more conservative they get. We have an ageing population so it's no wonder that the conservative party gets in.

            No. The older a person gets the more wise they get through knowledge and experience.

              No, people don't "become" anything with age, like some sort of conservative butterfly emerging from a progressive caterpillar. Old and young people simply have different ideas from spending the majority of their lives in different eras.

            With age comes wisdom, this is why labor got voted out and the oldies voted Liberals.

    To be fair its ideological . The Abbott believes in the right of the free market to decide. Whether that is good or bad for the country, as a whole, is beside the point.

      No he doesn't. He doesn't give a crap either way. He's just making obvious cuts to impress the electorate.

    And i thought the NBN changes where bad.
    What a knob.

    This Government just ignores all logic and behaves based on their leaders narrow ill informed views.
    It is worrying as to how much damage will be done over the next 3 years.

    Headline totally wrong! It is not Australians but an ignorant element of the political scene who will eliminate anybody who confronts their stupidity.

      The headline reads "Australia Hates Science" non "Australians Hate Science". In this case, it is accurate. The government i.e. Australia is significantly reducing spending on science and that is the message the rest of the world is seeing from this.

      Hm. OK, if not Australia, how about The Australian People? After all, these are the leaders elected by the Australian People in a fucking landslide. Generalizing always catches a few innocents in the crossfire, but in this case, those of us who didn't vote for this lot are apparently in a disturbingly tiny minority.

        I thought that it was a really close election? And that labor had more votes, but something about parties meant that liberals won ...
        Then again, I didn't pay much attention when I found out that creep won, and the more I hear about what he's doing the more I hate his policies and ideals ...

          It's a Coalition government, not a Liberal government. While it's still possible for a party to have the majority of votes and not win, in this case the Coalition parties had more votes than Labor (5,841,399 to 4,311,341). Party alliances are one of the positive things about our political system because it helps small parties that are ideologically similar to others to attract primary votes, in addition to preferential voting.

    Are these actual scientists, or the usual administration staff that we seem to be so top heavy with in so many government departments? Haven't really understood who they are... (Quickly puts on flame proof suit)

      heaven forbid you question any aspect of this topic that you need to ensure you are not flamed to death......

        heaven forbid you question any aspect of this topic that you need to ensure you are not flamed to death......

        I know that feeling well.....

      It will be the actual scientists that CSIRO will lose under the Government's employment freeze. It affects new hires and renewal of contracts. Admin and management staff are generally indefinite employees, so they're not affected. On the other hand, the nature of science means that most mid to low level lab staff and scientists are on contract and thus effected. It generally goes like this- you do a PhD -> 3 year contract, then you might get employed to do a post-doctoral project -> 3 year contract, then maybe this gets renewed -> another 3 year contract. This is the life for the majority of researchers. Similarly, a lot of the lower level support staff are employed on contracts to assist with specific projects. And then there's the casuals employed for grunt work... With the job freeze non of these people can have their contracts renewed and no new positions can be filled. The science is going to suffer.

        The freeze does not apply to specialist staff, research staff would be specialist staff. Bottle washers would be subject to the staff freeze unless it was a specialist process such as cryogenic.
        This is an article from the staff union typically blowing the impact out of all proportion.
        As in any broad brush approach there will be missaplication of the policy and some people will be let go who should not have been. This article makes it more likely as it misrepresents the staff freeze and makes it more likely a low level manager will not present the case for exempting certain people with specialist skills from the freeze.

          I can tell you that researchers, even high level ones are affected by this. My groups supervisor (an assoc. Prof) and 2 post docs may not get their contracts renewed (the post docs are an almost certainty not to)

          Not specialist staff, but business critical staff. The agency still needs to make a case to the APSC if they need to retain/recruit them.

        Almost right. We may get a 3 year grant but in our Dept we only get 12 month contracts, even after a decades service!

        Things are very bad...

      It is a bit silly having fully trained scientists stapling paperwork and answering phones......you kind of need support staff for specialists to do their job efficiently.

        who said there wont be support staff?

          That's how these cuts usually go. See the axe that fell on over 16,000 workers in Qld government - their big claim was that none of it would be 'front-lines' staff, that meaning anyone who is public-facing. Instead, they lost all their support staff. The effects of that are snowballing now.

      These are actual scientists. And now a thousands scientists are going to be moving overseas for employment, and we've just lost a quarter of our brightest minds with this one slash.

        a quarter? you miss the whole correction to the numbers?
        300 people are being sacked not 1400

      Both, most likely.

      It's a recruitment freeze, which means that staff who leave won't be replaced, and staff on contract won't be renewed, be they administrative or scientist. The last CSIRO Annual Report (http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/About-CSIRO/How-we-work/Budget--Performance/Annual-Report/Annual-Report-2012-13.aspx) lists 1229 staff whose roles were administration or management. Even if every single admin or manager was gotten rid of (which wouldn't happen, and wouldn't be good if it did, since some of those scientists would have to become managers and admin staff full-time), you'd still be losing at least 300 scientists.

      The problem with recruitment freezes is usually that if the people who aren't being replaced are the ones who can get a job elsewhere, then the people who remain will at least be partly made up of those who can't get another job anywhere.

      Good question. You hear the number of people being laid off but the positions in question are often hidden.

      $5 it is the lower tier workers and scientists while the middle and upper tiers (often populated by overseers and managers) are mostly untouched.

    Hates? maybe not hate, but sees cost savings in down sizing all parts of the Government workforce, including CSIRO

    Whilst 1400 is large number of the work force, out a total 6500 it is not that big.

    But what I want to see is what research or projects are being stopped or not renewed.

    Surely the management have some ability to decide which part of the work force is being sacked, or being made redundant.

    Will this affect climate research, IT research, commercial patent work, plastics, dairy etc.?

    Last edited 08/11/13 10:46 am

      Its 20% of the workforce being sacked for no other reason then to prop up the coffers. $9billion given to the Reserve Bank. Medibank Private being sold off. they could of gave $8.3 billion to the reserve bank and noone would have to lose their job.

      1400 people on average wages means approx $70,000,000 stripped out of the local economy. the flow on effects are enormous, local cafes, speciality shops, infact any shops these people visit lose money. they in turn have to fire people because they cant afford to keep them on any more.

      And before anyone crys on about what the CSIRO has ever done for us, they invented WIFI.

      The money gone from the economy, whilst the government expects us to pay for their NRL tickets because they chatted about politics whilst watching the game

        they invented WIFI. Well part of it. It existed, they made it worth using.

      Cutting 21.5% of a workforce is not large? By you definition, what would qualify as a large cut?

        22% apparently.

          22.5%

            As a scientist, I can tell you not much research will be stopped.

            No matter how bad cuts are, how much work is overloaded. We, in science, tend to just shut up and work. We'll bitch about it at lunch time, or during a conference dinner. But in the end once we work into the office/lab, our brain switches everything off but the scientific question at hand (our individual projects). If the job cuts means we have less support, we'll just end up working later in the night, longer into weekends, and take even less holidays. And after that, we'll go home and even at the dinner table or in bed at night, our minds will continue to think about the science.

            The blessing and equally the curse of a scientific career is that we love it to death....and it seems society is demanding that of us

              Nothing but respect for the hours research scientists put in - my partner has lost her job this year as a result of NHMRC funding being cut (though one can never be sure that it would have made the cut even if the funds weren't taken away by this govt), and the ridiculous hours that get put in with no extra pay is incredible.

              Lose funding one year, then the RAs and TOs go first - then the post docs have to do 4 people's jobs just to get the research done, and bam, 60-70 hours per week but only getting paid for 37.5.

      From the report they dont have a say in who gets layed off. Its all people who are Term or Casual staff. So chances are they are a combination of admin, lab assistants, professional advisor's etc.

      It will probably affect every project they have across the board.

      Another bad decision by the new government (btw im not for any particular party, just the one that makes good decisions)

        im not for any particular party, just the one that makes good decisions

        Good luck with that :(

          Vote for the help end marijuana prohibition(H.E.M.P) party!!!!!!

          They still make the same mistakes but atleast they have an reason

      1400 out of 6500 is not that big a number? Are you kidding? That's over 20% of the workforce! I don't care which department they're from, there's no way losing that number of staff will not affect the CSIRO's output.

    Unfortunately the article title is accurate. I come from a research background and there is clearly a lack of support for research from the private sector i.e. every-day Australians. This makes it very difficult to fund research in this country. The Government has for a long time tried to bring private money into research by structuring research grants a certain way. Monetisation of research is the domain of the the private sector so they should be the ones putting up the money and generating the IP. I don't expect the government to continue funding run-of-the mill research.

      You may want to differentiate between research destined for commercial gain and "blue sky" research. The latter will never be funded by private money and it is this research that should be supported by government funds. Research institutions have also become better at selling their discoveries as well., making return on the initial investment. However you actually need scientists to do the work. I used to be one .

    I really, really hope people see this twit for what he is... A religiously biased, misogynistic, troglodyte...! Let's make this one a single term government peoples...!! :)

      That's not an argument. That's a bigoted ad hominem attack.

        No... pretty sure that's my argument..! And bigoted against whom exactly..?

          Against religiously biased, misogynistic, troglodytes I guess?

        Ad hominem maybe (though it is Abbott who's driving this, so I'd see him as fair game), but there doesn't seem much bigotry in his attack -
        - religiously biased - perhaps it isn't apparent to those who share his religious view, but there's no doubt he is (he's even said so himself)
        - misogynistic - yep, pretty accurate
        - twit and troglodyte - mildly insulting certainly, though in itself not exactly a red flag for bigotry

      misogynistic

      Don't you start. That term was often used by Gillard to shut down any protest from the opposition. It was not correct then and still is not now.

        Yes, that's a pet peeve of mine. Stop diluting the meaning of the word 'misogynist'. It doesn't mean 'sexist against women', it has a much stronger and much more specific meaning, and the more it gets misused, the weaker its impact becomes. It's like The Boy Who Cried Wolf - you don't want want the word to be meaningless in the situations where you really want to use it for its true meaning.

      Everyone is biased, it's not a bad thing unless you disagree with their views. btw I love the word troglodyte not used enough - thankyou

    Hey, don't blame the government. We are a nation that loves our sportsmen and women, and despises academia. We worship people who throw kick or hit balls and denigrate those who want to do science. We think footballers who earn $1m a year are underpaid, and scientists who barely manage to survive financially are undeserving of our money. Sport or entertainment brings in the big corporate sponsorships while medical research depends on charity.

    So don't blame the government, look in the mirror.

      AMEN to that. I've been preaching that a long time, to now avail. Sports people are role models, heroes, icons... and several pages of most daily and weekly print publications are dedicated to it, not to mention a big part of the 10 minutes of TV news programs. Scientists are called nerds, geeks, eggheads, squints, and boffins. And yet EVERYTHING around us today, including those things that might be seen as human RIGHTS such as health care, communication, food, access to the internet etc.. and ALL the conveniences such as clothing, transport, accommodation, EVERYTHING and ALL of that is a direct result of the efforts of scientist, hundreds and thousands of them collectively working to improve the lot of humanity. Hell, we wouldn't even KNOW about the doings of all those sportsmen if it weren't for that fact that scientists made it possible to print and broadcast and "webbify" the information!

      Of course there are also those those who come up with new ways of poisoning or blowing us up too. Boo to them, but even they help keep economies going.

      Then it's settled - We'll turn science and academia into a sport. Place your bets, have bar fights over which team will cure cancer first, large sporting billboards in the labs showing the number of research papers submitted and phrases such as "The problem with CSIRO, is that they're always trying to extrapolate from incomplete data, what a ludicrous display!

      "Sweet Clive, laugh derisively at them"
      "Ah ha ha ha; ah ha ha haa"

      Tall poppy syndrome and anti-intellectualism thrive in this nation.

    Funny, how in hindsight Abbott's shortcomings become so perfectly clear. Yet before the election, it was all about how Labor had screwed the country.

    Well, yes, they did, but that didn't necessarily make Abbott the better choice! The goal of Liberal governments in Australia seems to be to make sure that the financial bottom line balances out, come what may. John Howard did that too, and very well, but at great cost to a lot of programs and people, and yet, the Australian people seem to like that since they kept him on for such a long time. Go figure.

      Well, yes, they did, but that didn't necessarily make Abbott the better choice!

      In a way you are right. When the 2013 election came, it was not a case of the Coalition winning the election they simply didn't lose it.

      What it came down to was who was the lesser of the two evils. And this time around it turned out to be the Coalition.

      John Howard did that too, and very well, but at great cost to a lot of programs and people, and yet, the Australian people seem to like that since they kept him on for such a long time. Go figure.

      True, the Howard government did keep the coffers up. But then the patience of the Australian people ran out. But rather than listen, he kept going. The real kicker (above all other issues) was the introduction of work choices. Some people I knew were better off but due to the implementation of the Work Choice framework, most others were not.

      I can't remember who told me this but the expression is spot on. You let Labor in for a while to start the projects albeit while trashing the place, then you let the Coalition in for a while to clean up the place and get the books right, rinse and repeat.

    Why am I reminded of the show Yes Minister..?
    Oh yes - the episode where they had a hospital full of admin staff, but no actual patients. Attempts to close the hospital were met with howls of protest.

    They ended up using the hospital to house refugees. Could the CSIRO employees get jobs looking after boat people?

      Lateral thinking - I and Tony Abbott like your suggestion.
      I wish to subscribe to your newsletter sir :)

      "Could the CSIRO employees get jobs looking after boat people?"

      What boat people? :P

        The ones that just came in, when Abbott did his Origami impression (fold under pressure).

    Let's not forget that this is all because Abbot is a god bothering priest school dropout. He was known as the mad monk because of his bizarrely extreme views on religious matters. who doesn't believe in science - at all, He think's it's heracey. The man believes that the world, the climate, the universe are all manipulated at gods whim.

      That's not an argument but a bigoted ad hominem attack.

        Calling someone out on their faults isn't bigoted. And it is an argument when those whack-job values are dictating the direction of our nation.

        Did you just copy and paste your earlier reply?
        or least restructure it

    It will be actual scientists that CSIRO will lose under the Government's employment freeze. It affects new hires and renewal of contracts. Admin and management staff are generally indefinite employees, so they're not affected. On the other hand, the nature of science means that most mid to low level lab staff and scientists are on contract and thus effected. It generally goes like this- you do a PhD -> 3 year contract, then you might get employed to do a post-doctoral project -> 3 year contract, then maybe this gets renewed -> another 3 year contract. This is the life for the majority of researchers. Similarly, a lot of the lower level support staff are employed on contracts to assist with specific projects. And then there's the casuals employed for grunt work... With the job freeze non of these people can have their contracts renewed and no new positions can be filled. The science is going to suffer.

    From Andrew Bolt's reasoned discourse...

    "The problems with CSIRO were already occurring before the change in government. One third of CSIRO budget is obtained from external sources and that is down, so either staff will be cut or the federal government will need to put in more money. Nowhere is there any statement that the funding by the federal government has been reduced."

    There's only so much money to go round and after Labor's profligate waste the national debt MUST be reduced. And whoever gets cut screams in pain.

    Most of the "arguments" in these comments are screeching, bigoted ad hominem attacks on a man the majority of Australians voted for as the Prime Minister of their country. Argue the facts people not the man making the hard decisions in the face of a serious financial position.

    Oh, and climate "science" is often as far away from science as you can get. Try researching, "97% of scientists believe we're all gonna die of global warming so give me your money".

    Sanity and science is returning to the debate not leaving it.

    The world hasn't warmed in 17 years.

      Gotta love criticizing people for ad hominem attacks while producing a gigantic strawman. Not all scientists are working in climate change. According to their annual report, of the 19 research divisions in CSIRO, only one is on climate - "Climate adaptation", to be precise.

      As for the "world hasn't warmed in 17 years" thing - Mr Bolt isn't a scientist, isn't a journalist, and isn't a researcher - he's a failed Arts student. By his own standards, he has no authority or credibility to make any claims about whether or not the earth has warmed.

      [deleted]

      Last edited 25/06/15 10:08 pm

        That doesn't make him wrong - or right. He does, however, provide an alternative viewpoint.
        I just wish there was some way to reference all these claims and counter-claims.

        There must be a googleplex of them...

      Did you seriously just quote Andrew freaking Bolt as a source of valid information?

      Quoting Andrew Bolt in discussions about science? haha, good one :)

      Oh, and climate "science" is often as far away from science as you can get. Try researching, "97% of scientists believe we're all gonna die of global warming so give me your money".

      Well the IPCC report certainly believes in climate "science"... but I guess you and Andrew Bolt know more about this "science" than the 1000's of "scientists" who authored the report or and those who wrote the odd 10,000 peer reviewed papers it was based on.

      Just out of interest how many peer reviewed papers have authored on the topic of "The world hasn't warmed in 17 years"? I would love to read it!

      "Andrew Bolt's reasoned discourse" - WTF?

      " One third of CSIRO budget is obtained from external sources and that is down, so either staff will be cut or the federal government will need to put in more money" - no, you are wrong. This has nothing to do with the CSIRO budget. This is all to do with the commitment to axe 12,000 public service jobs through natural attrition. Today an interim directive from the APSC was put out to achieve that goal - these rules are blanket across the public service, it is just that the CSIRO is very heavily hit because of the project nature of the work. It is more flexible to hire staff on contract for projects/tasks than to have a multi-skilled monolithic workforce.

      "Nowhere is there any statement that the funding by the federal government has been reduced." - the budgets are handed down at the beginning of each financial year and are more or less set. This argument is irrelevant in the light of my previous comment.

      "There's only so much money to go round and after Labor's profligate waste the national debt MUST be reduced." - not true. The main two ways that government can 'get cash' are either through cutting back services or by raising revenue i.e. raising taxes. Cutting back services is stupid as it further reduces the revenue base, particularly with places like CSIRO.

      "Argue the facts people not the man making the hard decisions in the face of a serious financial position." - Australia is actually doing very, very well. Get your head out of the sand and realise that. Maybe, now here's an idea, read something other than a column written by an arsehole.

      "The world hasn't warmed in 17 years." - Yeah, ok. With a timescale like that I might as well say that because the temperature inside my house hasn't increased by more than a degree in the past 5 minutes that the temperature won't rise. Far out.

      To summarise: You argue, using Andrew Bolt of all people, that how the CSIRO is/isn't funded is directly related to the staffing cuts that are being made, despite the fact that the cuts are being made because a direct directive coming out of the Prime Minister's office. You fail to understand how the tax system works. You don't read anything like the Financial Times and you fail to understand even the basics of science.

      Congratulations on possibly one of the worst posts made on a forum I have read in a while.

      You used 'Andrew Bolt' and leveled the suggestion that he was somehow reasonable about something. You should start wearing a hat when you go outside, because you're obviously delirious.

      That's a big, fat Insta-fail for you.

    Giz, this shows me you pull your articles from Fairfax media sources who are ridiculously bias and left leaning.
    Can we have some factual specifics please?

    The problems with CSIRO were already occurring before the change in government. One third of CSIRO budget is obtained from external sources and that is down, so either staff will be cut or the federal government will need to put in more money. Nowhere is there any statement that the funding by the federal government has been reduced.

    The CSIRO has confirmed about 300 non-ongoing jobs will go this financial year under the Federal Government’s freeze on hiring or renewing contracts.
    CSIRO deputy chief executive Craig Roy says reports in Fairfax newspapers that 1,400 non-ongoing jobs will be shed are grossly inaccurate.

    “Before we enter any new recruitment at all we will look very carefully at the job to see is it needed and do we have the people and the skills internally to fill it,” he said.

    “We aren’t freezing or stopping the recruitment of young scientists in the forms of post doctorates coming out. We’ve just approved another round of post doctorate recruitments. It’s a very prudent approach we’re taking.”

    And now Ill be flamed and down voted for stating the facts.

      Your facts aren't the problem. It's the assumption that anything from the left is left bias (not saying that personally but it's inferred with this particular piece of writing) and also the assumption with your last line that the left runs around with pitchforks destroying factual evidence for no reason. Remove the obvious attitude and people would take your criticism maturely.

      I gave you a downvote coz you asked me to - but not because of your reasoning.

      To be honest, your statement that Fairfax is ridiculously biased is rather ludicrous. Let me guess, you think The Australian is balanced? And when you watch Fox News snippets, you like that it is 'fair and balanced'?

      What's really disturbing is that Fairfax could be considered 'left'. This shows that the centre has skewed so far right that it's difficult to really get clarity on where the right ends and the centre begins.

      As a conservative Christian, pro-lifer I have always considered myself right leaning. However many of my views are now being labelled 'leftist'. I voted for Abbott (well, I voted for my local Liberal candidate) and at the time of the election my only real concern was the coalition's NBN plan. Now this new government is reminding me of the worst excesses in the final term of the Howard government, when they had control of both houses of parliament.

      This maintained assault on science and research is really concerning me. We have an economy that is in transition from the mining investment boom. Our manufacturing industry is in steady decline. R&D and new, commercial, patentable technology is what we should be focusing on. We need new research, we should be leading the world in solar and geothermal energy capture - we should be researching, commercialising, patenting and licencing technology as a new income source for this nation. And here we have the capitalist (conservative is misleading) coalition government ignoring this emerging market because of ideology.

      The recent decisions by the government have worried me - shutting down the climate commission, not sending a minister to the global climate summit... it reminds me of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. Don't think climate change is real? Don't cancel funding - pay to have the research done to prove it - the risk that it IS real should be enough to persuade anyone that it's at least worth investing in that.

      I honestly don't understand how people can say that climate change is not real because the earth has not heated up over the last 17 years. Get it through your heads - CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT JUST WARMING. Climate change is changing climate not global warming. Some places get hotter, some get cooler. Some places get more rain, others get less. Look at the average and nothing seems amiss. However, while you reassure yourself, the climate is shifting around you.

        upvoted for rational argument
        your whole 5th paragraph is spot on

      Firstly, I have no idea why anyone would try and sell Andrew Bolts ideas as their own.
      Secondly, claiming a Fairfax media bias and then quoting Andrew Bolt? You must be trolling right?

      "The problems with CSIRO were already occurring before the change in government." - no. It is a government directive to cut back jobs and there are rules on how to do it. It has nothing to do with the budget - the cuts are government wide.

      "The CSIRO has confirmed about 300 non-ongoing jobs will go this financial year under the Federal Government’s freeze on hiring or renewing contracts.
      CSIRO deputy chief executive Craig Roy says reports in Fairfax newspapers that 1,400 non-ongoing jobs will be shed are grossly inaccurate." - neither of those numbers are correct. It is likely to be in the order of 600 to 1000. Everyone needs to stop quoting the media.

      "“Before we enter any new recruitment at all we will look very carefully at the job to see is it needed and do we have the people and the skills internally to fill it,” he said." - this is a simplification of the rules that are being enforced. What this means is that no-one will be getting into the public service from the outside and the agencies will have to rob Peter to pay Paul to fill the positions.

      "“We aren’t freezing or stopping the recruitment of young scientists in the forms of post doctorates coming out. We’ve just approved another round of post doctorate recruitments. It’s a very prudent approach we’re taking.”" - all recruitment processes that have been completed to the point where an offer has been made will be honoured. Again another directive from the APSC.

      Not flaming you dude, just that some facts are misconstrued.

      Last edited 08/11/13 10:41 pm

        You know that post docs are paid a pittance? It's like 457 visas for science. Even worse, post docs need the help and direction of experienced scientists. Sack these and who teaches the post docs the ropes?

    Can we get a correction to the article please?
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-08/csiro-jobs-to-go/5078474
    300 jobs, not 1400
    "CSIRO deputy chief executive Craig Roy says reports in Fairfax newspapers that 1,400 non-ongoing jobs will be shed are grossly inaccurate. "

      but please don't let this stop the Abbott bashing, it will continue as it always does here

        Not saying you're wrong but labeling anything "Abbot bashing" does not help you sway people to the line of factuality as it infers that it's a "typical" act with usual little-to-no merit. As we know, politicians (all of them, not just those ignorant left-wingers) are subject to not just scrutiny but situations that require scrutiny. If you go around labeling every article that criticizes a right-wing politician as "bashing", people will take you less seriously because it makes you look like the one with bias. Labeling doesn't help, appropriate and relevant discourse does.

          Nah I didn't label the article Abbott bashing, I was talking about comments in this blog, sorry.
          Such as:
          A religiously biased, misogynistic, troglodyte...!
          More madness from the mad monk,
          What a knob.

          I am all for criticism, it actually seemed justified from the original article - which gave little to no information on what is actually happening. That was why I asked who and what is getting cut or stopped.

          But that SMH article has been addressed and corrected by the CSIRO themselves as being untrue - but it also has not been updated on here, ahem, @lukehopewell ?

          EDIT: I stand corrected, it has received a slight update, kinda half arsed really, without any details, just a short descriptive link - the original, inaccurate numbers still remain.

          Last edited 08/11/13 2:14 pm

      From what I have also read is that the Government funding for the CSIRO has not changed, but private enterprise donations have dried up. So either the government needs to throw more money in, or private enterprise need to chip in more. drweirdo said the same thing, but no one seemed to notice.

      Next big question: how is it physically possible to have the number off by 1100?

        Well this is Gizmodo.

      Those figures are based on job cuts - there are an additional 500-600 jobs to go as contracts aren't renewed (they're not "cuts" - though the have pretty much the same effect). The recruitment freeze will likely account for the remaining 600-700 jobs as people leave - through retirement, resignation and transfer - and aren't replaced:

      "Before we enter any new recruitment at all we will look very carefully at the job to see is it needed and do we have the people and the skills internally to fill it," he said.

      Mr Roy did point out that:

      "We aren't freezing or stopping the recruitment of young scientists in the forms of post doctorates coming out. We've just approved another round of post doctorate recruitments.

      But that's one form of recruitment for one aspect of work, which appear to account for about 180 jobs a year.

    Why let facts get in the way of another AbbottAbbottAbbott article eh Luke?

    "The CSIRO has confirmed about 300 non-ongoing jobs will go this financial year under the Federal Government’s freeze on hiring or renewing contracts.

    CSIRO deputy chief executive Craig Roy says reports in Fairfax newspapers that 1,400 non-ongoing jobs will be shed are grossly inaccurate.

    “Before we enter any new recruitment at all we will look very carefully at the job to see is it needed and do we have the people and the skills internally to fill it,” he said.

    “We aren’t freezing or stopping the recruitment of young scientists in the forms of post doctorates coming out. We’ve just approved another round of post doctorate recruitments. It’s a very prudent approach we’re taking.” "

      to Luke's defence he did only quote the Abbott hating Fairfax media outlet...........
      *wink wink*

    Please replace your headlind "Australia Hates Science". Australia does not hate science, our ignorant, conservative and very incompetent government does.

    Did you miss this little fact Giz? Or does it not fit your Abbott bashing narrative?

    "The problems with CSIRO were already occurring before the change in government. One third of CSIRO budget is obtained from external sources and that is down, so either staff will be cut or the federal government will need to put in more money. Nowhere is there any statement that the funding by the federal government has been reduced."

      [deleted]

      Last edited 25/06/15 10:08 pm

        Knock it off! You're comments are inappropriate.

        If you cannot talk about the topic and instead make sickening comments then keep those ideas within your head.

        Last edited 08/11/13 2:53 pm

      Wrong. This is because of a directive coming out of the PM's office through the APSC and affects the entire public service. It is not because of the budget.

    Geez, how will we ever have science without Canberra paying for it ?!

    biased and uninformed article as always, if the government is making 12k cuts, then obviously a lot of different departments will be affected. According to the CSIRO the number is more like 300 than 1400. And even if the number is 1400, that's what? slightly more than 10%? Which isn't disproportionate in any way. What were you expecting? 0%?

    btw I find it incredibly funny how all these people who claim to be "logical" and "scientific" and "informed" are anything but. Just like how Labor was all "Abbott's a racist and a mysogynist" and then Labor's own people started racially abusing their former national president because he's actually smart enough to think for himself and form his own opinions about people instead of listening to Labor propaganda

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/warren-mundine-abused-on-twitter-because-he-voted-liberal/story-e6frfro0-1226715546699

      Yeah, that moment was gold! Showed Labor for what they really are.

      Amazing how all these comments supporting Abbott and the Libs seem to be coming from 'guests' and not regular members; Kinda like it's all coming from the same person who is hell bent on legitimising his own stance through dodgy means.

      Hmmm...

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now