New Agenda for Prosperity (2008)

From AussieInnovation Wiki

This is the speech delivered by the Senator the Hon Kim Carr on 28 Mar 2008, at The Australian / Melbourne Institute 2008 Economic and Social Outlook Conference, University of Melbourne.

It mainly focuses on the Government's approach to innovation in Australia, in relation to Australia's position on the world stage. This is the speech as it was written, some aspects may have changed during delivery.

Contents 1 NEW AGENDA FOR PROSPERITY 1.1 We are not alone 1.2 Public-private collaboration 1.3 Local, national and international collaboration 1.4 Collaboration across disciplines 1.5 The future

NEW AGENDA FOR PROSPERITY

The new agenda for prosperity in Australia is the innovation agenda.

Of course I would say that, but I’m not alone. Every developed country and most developing ones have accepted that this is they way forward.

We all know why.

Innovation drives economic growth, job creation, productivity improvement, new business formation and the regeneration of existing industries. That's why I say in the 21st century innovation policy is industry policy.

It is the best way any country can create competitive advantage in a globalised economy. It’s the only way a country with first-world wages and living standards can stay in the game.

Speaking at this conference yesterday, the prime minister identified innovation as one leg of the tripod that will support future productivity growth in this country. The other two are education and infrastructure.

The PM announced that the government will be setting concrete, quantitative targets for these productivity-building portfolio areas – targets that can be used to guide public investment and track our performance over time.

Kevin Rudd believes, as I do, that innovation is something we have to work at. There is plenty of spontaneous creativity and ad hoc discovery around, but we really can’t leave our social, economic and environmental well-being to chance.

Creating a genuine culture of innovation requires government action.

As the OECD says: “government has a vital role in promoting innovation-driven growth since innovation processes are affected by endemic market and systemic failures which need to be corrected”. (2005)

It’s essential that we back innovation. It’s also essential that we cut wasteful spending and find more efficient ways to do things.

That’s why we are reviewing all government expenditure line by line. Our goal is to get the best possible value for taxpayers’ money.

One way to do that is by making smart investments in innovation capacity.

You know I can’t comment on the budget process, but let me say that we consider CSIRO’s flagship program a very smart investment. It is clearly in the national interest and it has the government’s full support.

We are not alone

It’s hard to find a country that isn’t developing proactive innovation policies.

The EU has its Lisbon declaration, Towards a Europe of Innovation and Knowledge, adopted as long ago as 2000. It has been followed up since with continuous policy development and massive investment.

The UK has the Sainsbury Report, Race to the Top, released in 2007. The Brown government released its response, Innovation Nation, just a fortnight ago.

The US has the Augustine Report, Rising above the Gathering Storm, released in 2006. It is likely to move back onto the front burner whoever wins the election in November.

And then there are emerging giants of the so-called BRIC group – Brazil, Russia, India and China – for whom action tends to speak louder than words.

Forget about them moving into high-tech, high-value activities at some far-off time in the future.

They are doing it now.

India’s software services exports grew from zero to ten billion US dollars in the decade to 2002. (Augustine) China passed the United States as the world’s biggest exporter of ICT goods in 2004. (OECD)

They also understand the value of collaboration.

Brazil has legislated to provide incentives for research cooperation between universities, research institutes and private companies. (www.scidev.net)

Russia is giving small businesses access to intellectual property created by the federation’s vast network of public research organisations. (OECD)

This is the kind of policy activism we need to match if we are to build the future Australians want for themselves and their children.

Public-private collaboration

Australia has its own models for public-private research cooperation.

The review of the national innovation system I launched in January is considering how we can intertwine these sectors even more closely to promote collaboration and knowledge transfer.

Let’s look at three examples that may show the way forward.

The first is the $6 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund.

It was established with Labor’s full support in the dying days of the previous government to pay for capital works and research facilities.

The HEEF advisory board wants to augment the fund by encouraging a culture of philanthropy.

Australian universities get less than 2 per cent of their income from philanthropic donations, compared to 15 per cent for American universities.

This is a worthy objective, but I’ve also asked the board to examine how we can achieve higher levels of commercially-driven co-investment from business in public research infrastructure.

If Brazil can get the public and private sectors sharing research staff, funding and facilities, why can’t we?

The innovation review’s work on the R&D tax concession will have a big bearing on this. Terry Cutler and his colleagues are looking at several options, including a premium concession for public-private research collaborations.

My second example of public-private collaboration is the Cooperative Research Centres program.

It has been widely emulated, including by Chile and Austria – it’s no coincidence that the program has excited particular interest among medium-scale knowledge producers like ourselves.

The NIS review has established a Collaboration and CRC Working Group under Professor Mary O’Kane to look critically at the design and direction of the CRC program, and I’m looking forward to receiving its recommendations.

My third example is Researchers in Business, which forms part of the Enterprise Connect initiative – one of our most important election commitments for industry and innovation.

Researchers in Business will fund the placement of public-sector researchers – whether from universities or research agencies – in SMEs with ideas that stand a good chance of reaching the market with a bit of expert help.

As with every other component of Enterprise Connect, the idea is to accelerate knowledge transfer and the adoption of new ideas and new technologies.

Local, national and international collaboration

Collaboration between sectors is one key to boosting our innovation effort. Collaboration across borders – whether local, national or international – is another.

Support for local and regional collaboration will come from initiatives like Enterprise Connect, with its network of knowledge-creation and knowledge-transfer sites around the country.

There will be five new manufacturing centres, with Queensland’s QMI Solutions also tied in. There will also be five new innovation centres – one each for remote enterprise, creative industries, innovative regions, clean energy and mining.

We have so far determined locations for eight of the ten new centres, and half of them are outside capital cities (Burnie, Geelong, Mackay and Alice Springs).

Likewise, the mission-based funding compacts we are developing for our universities will make them more responsive to the economic and social needs of the communities that sustain them.

A university’s community may be global for some purposes, but it will be local for many others. The compacts will commit institutions to outreach and innovation activities in their own neighbourhood and beyond.

Support for national collaboration will come from initiatives like the hubs and spokes architecture we have proposed for university research.

The idea is to designate one or more departments as national hubs for a particular discipline, and to link researchers elsewhere spoke-wise to colleagues and resources at these centres.

Some people don’t like the term hubs and spokes and I’m not going to die in a ditch over it. What we’re really talking about is research networks and discipline clusters.

Don’t assume the current crop of research-intensive universities will automatically be the hubs in this model. They won’t.

No university will be a hub. It is departments and research centres within universities that will be hubs.

A country of our size will never be able to fund every conceivable research interest at every institution.

Discipline clusters will give us better value for our public research dollars, while ensuring that – no matter where they are located – researchers can access facilities and collaborate with peers around the country.

Support for international collaboration will take many forms.

Earlier this week I announced a radical internationalisation of the Australian Research Council’s programs.

Strategic fellowships and awards will be opened up to international applicants, and restrictions on the use of ARC funds for collaboration-related international travel will be lifted.

I’m determined to give a global dimension to everything my portfolio does, and this is an important first step.

Collaboration across disciplines

There is one more kind of collaboration I want to touch on, and that’s collaboration between disciplines.

Interdisciplinary research within and between the sciences and humanities can give us an entirely new view of things by rising above the sometimes archaic barriers between fields of study.

It is important that we support it.

It’s therefore a pleasure to announce the latest round of ARC grants for Linkage Learned Academies Special Projects.

Six projects will receive a total of $561,272 over two years – an increase in average funding per project of more than 10 per cent on 2007.

Our learned academies have a unique take on what research needs to be done. They are not distracted by narrow institutional or disciplinary allegiances. They are interested in advancing knowledge across a broad front.

The successful projects cover health technologies, nuclear energy, multiculturalism, nanotechnology, language teaching, and national workforce needs.

The future

My aim is to build innovation capacity by bringing sectors, institutions and individuals together.

The process began when I brought some of the best minds in business and the academy – including Professor Glyn Davis from this university – together to review the national innovation system.

This is a watershed inquiry that will shape the innovation agenda for the next decade and beyond. You have until the 30th of April to make a submission.

The process continues as we begin a global search for a full-time chief scientist to succeed Dr Jim Peacock, who has served Australia so well.

Advertisements will be placed in the national and international press this weekend.

We are making the position full-time and expanding the chief scientist’s office so that the next incumbent can be not just an adviser to government, but an advocate for science, an evangelist for science education, and a builder of bridges between industry and the scientific establishment.

One thing that unites this government – and distinguishes us from our opponents – is that we believe the future will be better than the past.

We believe Australia’s children can live better than their parents, just as their parents live better than the generations that preceded them.

Creativity and innovation are the key to translating those beliefs into reality.

They are the key to increasing productivity, achieving sustainable low-inflation growth and creating high-skill, high-wage jobs.

They are the key to tackling climate change, building stronger communities and reinvigorating our culture.

They should be the number one item on any new agenda for prosperity in Australia.

Link to the official webpage