The high-paid bureaucrat tasked with slashing hundreds of jobs at the national science agency says he is in talks about getting rid of his performance bonus, but does not feel guilty about his near $1 million salary package.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) chief executive Doug Hilton revealed he was talking to the CSIRO board about restructuring his remuneration package, acknowledging it was a bad look for him to receive a bonus while axing staff.
But he defended the quantum of his salary package, saying: “I’m not somebody who’s wealthy.”
“I feel the emotion around staff, not because of some guilt about my salary, because it’s difficult for staff. These are people I genuinely like and admire,” Dr Hilton told a Senate inquiry into the CSIRO’s resourcing – while defending the agency’s handling of its latest round of job cuts – on Friday.
He dismissed criticism from CSIRO staff that the agency – which is looking to cull 350 roles on top of 818 already gone – was not undertaking genuine consultation, saying this was “not a fair characterisation” and that the lack of detail was because decisions had not yet been made.
“We take consultation seriously,” Dr Hilton said at the hearing on Friday. “We respect our staff and we respect their ideas.”
CSIRO Staff Association secretary Susan Tonks said the consultation seemed to be a “tick and flick process.”
“There’s a lot of paperwork, a lot of PowerPoints provided, but actual, relevant, real detail for people who are directly affected to be able to give genuine feedback and have responses to that feedback, is hugely lacking,” Ms Tonks told the committee.
She said town halls held with staff were moderated and controlled with “homogenised” feedback.
Dr Steve Rintoul, a CSIRO team leader and oceanographer, said morale had taken a hit among staff.
“Australia loves, values and respects 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,” he told the hearing.
“To be told that your role is no longer required, and often with little explanation or explanations that don’t hold up … it is devastating.”
The research units the agency has started consulting with are environmental, manufacturing, agriculture and food and the Data61 business unit, while talks with health and biosecurity and the Australian animal health laboratory are about to start.
The CSIRO’s most recent annual report shows that Dr Hilton, a former academic researcher, was paid $965,253 in 2024-2025.
This was made up of a $762,807 base salary, $139,474 performance bonus (known as an “at-risk” payment) and $26,106 worth of other benefits and allowances, plus superannuation and long service leave. A 2.4 per cent Remuneration Tribunal increase kicks in this year.
“I feel very fortunate to be paid well,” Dr Hilton told the committee.
“I live in an environmental cooperative in a mud brick house. I don’t own any property … I’m not somebody who, you know, is sitting on huge assets.
“My salary is important to me, but I would be also very happy to have a negotiation with the board around how to roll that [performance bonus] component into a base salary.”
He said there were “some complications of working out what the right level would be if I was to give that up” and that it was ultimately “a Remuneration Tribunal issue,” noting that he had accepted the salary package offer made when he was appointed in 2023 without negotiating any further benefits.
Dr Rintoul said scientists at the CSIRO were expected to secure external funding to cover at least 70 per cent of research project costs.
“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,” he said.
“Our ability to determine our research direction that is of most benefit to the nation is hindered … the organisation desperately needs additional funding.”
But the chief executive defended this approach, saying the agency’s ability to secure external revenue by working with co-funders “is the reason that we currently have 4200 staff”.
“If we were to fund a science just off the [federal budget] appropriation, we would have half that number,” Dr Hilton said.
“The overriding consideration we have with whoever we partner with is to generate impact for Australian industry or the community or in response to national objectives.”
Most external funding came from governments, he said, so the idea that the agency was prioritising corporate benefit over the public good “just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny”.
Greens finance and public sector spokesperson Barbara Pocock urged the Albanese government to “properly resource CSIRO to ensure the long-term critical science and knowledge we need to keep our nation safe and prosperous”.
“Once lost, it will be difficult if not impossible to rebuild these research capabilities,” Senator Pocock said.
The government has said it is “determined that CSIRO continues to deliver world-class science” and working with the agency through the budget process “to make sure it’s fit for purpose” but that the strategic review of its research portfolio, which led to the job cuts, has been “the board and management’s decision”.
The CSIRO received a $233 million top-up in the December budget update, but this will not save any jobs.
The agency frames the cuts in the context of its budgetary pressures, including the cost of urgent repairs and maintenance to its facilities.
This article by Dana Daniel was originally published by the Canberra Times.