[3] Notable developments by CSIRO have included the invention of atomic absorption spectroscopy, essential components of the early Wi-Fi technology, development of the first commercially successful polymer banknote, the invention of the insect repellent Aerogard and the introduction of a series of biological controls into Australia, such as the introduction of myxomatosis and rabbit calicivirus for the control of rabbit populations.

A precursor to CSIRO, the Advisory Council of Science and Industry, was established in 1916 on the initiative of prime minister Billy Hughes.

In 1920 the council was renamed the Commonwealth Institute of Science and Industry, and was led by George Handley Knibbs (1921–26), but continued to struggle financially.

With encouragement from prime minister Stanley Bruce, strengthened national science leadership and increased research funding, CSIR grew rapidly and achieved significant early successes.

In addition to an improved structure, CSIR benefited from strong bureaucratic management under George Julius, David Rivett, and Arnold Richardson.

Since 1949, CSIRO has expanded its activities to almost every field of primary, secondary and tertiary industry, including the environment, human nutrition, conservation, urban and rural planning, and water.

[13] It works with leading organisations around the world and maintains more than 50 sites across Australia and in France, Chile and the United States of America, employing about 5500 people.

A team led by Paul Wild built and operated (from 1948) the world's first solar radiospectrograph, and from 1967 the 3-kilometre-diameter (1.9 mi) radioheliograph at Culgoora in New South Wales.

They include: Sir George Currie (UNZ 1952–62, Western Australia 1945–52), Paul Wellings CBE (Wollongong 2012–21, Lancaster 2002–12), Michael Barber AO (Flinders 2008–14), Mark Smith CBE (Southampton 2019–ff, Lancaster 2012–19), Annabelle Duncan (UNE 2014–19), Attila Brungs (UNSW 2021–ff, UTS 2014–21), Alex Zelinsky AO (Newcastle (2018–ff), Andrew Parfitt (UTS 2021–ff), Chris Moran (UNE 2023–ff).

[44][45] In the early 1990s, CSIRO radio astronomy scientists John O'Sullivan, Graham Daniels, Terence Percival, Diethelm Ostry and John Deane undertook research directed to finding a way to make wireless networks work as fast as wired networks within confined spaces such as office buildings.

The technique they developed, involving a particular combination of forward error correction, frequency-domain interleaving, and multi-carrier modulation, became the subject of U.S. patent 5,487,069, which was granted on 23 January 1996.

In response to a request from Victor Hayes of Lucent Technologies, who was chair of the 802.11 Working Group, CSIRO confirmed its commitment to make non-exclusive licenses available to implementers of the standard on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

[46] In September 2000, Radiata demonstrated a chip set complying with the recently finalised IEEE 802.11a Wi-Fi standard, and capable of handling transmission rates of up to 54 Mbit/s, at a major international exhibition.

[51] Controversy over the CSIRO patent arose in 2006 after the organisation won an injunction against Buffalo Technology in an infringement suit filed in Federal Court in the Eastern District of Texas.

[53] In 2007, CSIRO declined to provide an assurance to the IEEE that it would not sue companies which refused to take a license for use in 802.11n-compliant devices, while at the same time continuing to defend legal challenges to the validity of the patent brought by Intel, Dell, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Netgear.

[55] This agreement was followed quickly by settlements with Microsoft, Fujitsu and Asus[56] and then Dell, Intel, Nintendo, Toshiba, Netgear, Buffalo, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, and 3Com.

[62][63] Encouraged in part by an announcement by the Australian Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills Science and Research, Senator Chris Evans,[64] an article in Ars Technica portrayed CSIRO as a shadowy organisation responsible for US consumers being compelled to make "a multimillion dollar donation" on the basis of a questionable patent claiming "decades old" technology.

After the debate, the Science Minister, Kim Carr, was forced to release the paper, but when doing so in the Senate he also delivered a letter from the CEO of the CSIRO, Megan Clark, which attacked the report's author and threatened him with unspecified punishment.

[81] In an ABC radio interview, Spash called for a Senate enquiry into the affair and the role played by senior management and the Science Minister.

[82] After these events, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Questions are being raised about the closeness of BHP Billiton and the CSIRO under its chief executive, Megan Clark".

[85] On 11 April 2013, the Sydney Morning Herald ran a story on how CSIRO had "duped" the Swiss-based pharmaceutical giant Novartis into purchasing an anti-counterfeit technology for its vials of injectable Voltaren.

The invention was marketed by a small Australian company called DataTrace DNA as a method of identifying fake vials, on the basis that a unique tracer code developed by CSIRO was embedded in the product.

[91][92] The shadow minister for innovation, industry, science and research, Sophie Mirabella, wrote to the government requesting it establish an inquiry.

On 20 July 2012 Comcare issued CSIRO with an Improvement Notice with regard to handling and management of workplace misconduct/code of conduct type investigations and allegations.

[93] On 24 June 2013 Mirabella advised the Australian House of Representatives that in relation to the worker's compensation claim for psychological injuries of ex-CSIRO employee, Martin Williams, which was vigorously defended by Comcare on the advice of the CSIRO, that CSIRO officers had provided false testimony on no less than 128 occasions under oath when the matter went before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

[99] Post the Pearce Report, CSIRO overhauled its relevant policies and put in place training and whistleblower procedures to address the situation.

They say the decision shows a lack of insight and a misunderstanding of the importance of the depth and significance of Australian contributions to global and regional climate research.