Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Hansard source

It is very exciting to be able to rise in this chamber to have a debate, a contest of ideas, about how we can embrace innovation and entrepreneurship in Australia. But I am somewhat saddened. I am somewhat disappointed. I do not think that the shadow minister for small business has quite got the memo yet: politics is changing for the better in this country.

The Australian people, when they look at this chamber, want us to use this chamber as an opportunity to debate ideas, and I know that there are members and shadow ministers opposite who agree with me. They believe that we should use this chamber as an opportunity to debate and contest ideas about how we can make our country as good as it can be. The shadow minister has just had 10 minutes at the dispatch box. Colleagues, how many ideas were raised in the last 10 minutes? In her 10 minutes at the dispatch box, I do not think we saw a single idea raised in this chamber. The Australian people want to see this change.

Earlier in the year, the Leader of the Opposition made a very bold statement. He said that this would be the year of big ideas. I think the Australian people want to see that. I will give credit where it is due. The Leader of the Opposition wants to see big ideas debated in this chamber. All members should be using this chamber to debate those ideas. But if the only idea that the Labor Party is putting forward is adding more zeros to the government chequebook that is not good enough.

As a first principle, when we talk about our entrepreneurs, when we talk about our small business owners, I have to make a simple admission. I have never met one entrepreneur, I have never met one small business owner, who has said to me, 'If only the government became more involved in my business, if only the government became more involved in my enterprise, it would be more successful.' The first principle when it comes to supporting innovation and entrepreneurship should be: how can the government act as an enabler? How can the government get out of our entrepreneurs' way so that they can get on and do the great things that they are already achieving?

When we look around the world and look at where we are seeing successful innovation, where we are seeing enterprise supported, where we are seeing significant outcomes in research and science, wherever the government acts they act with the private sector in partnership. We should not have an approach where, simply, a cheque from Canberra is the solution to innovation and entrepreneurship. We should always be looking to partner with the private sector.

If we look to the United States, for example, a country that is achieving significant outcomes when it comes to the commercialisation of their ideas, they are achieving significant outcomes when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship. The United States and our country, on a per capita basis, have about the same number of scientists and researchers. But when we compare those that work for the government with those that work for the private sector we actually see inverse proportions. So, even though we have about the same number of scientists and the same number of researchers in the United States as in our country, in the United States we see a far greater proportion working in the private sector. By partnering with government, by using government has an enabler, and not simply just expecting a big cheque from the government without any private sector involvement, the United States has been able to become a world-class leader in innovation, in science and in research.

One of the members opposite mentioned Israel earlier. If we look to Israel, in many ways it is the start-up nation. It is the world leader when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship. On a per capita basis they have more entrepreneurs than any other country on earth—yet it is a country of only eight million people that has no natural resources. When you look at the NASDAQ, after the United States, Israel has more companies listed than any other country on earth and more than the next seven countries combined. Why are they having so much success? It is not because of big cheques from government. It is because the government has got out of the way of the entrepreneurs. It is because the government has partnered with the private sector. In Israel—and the shadow minister is leaving the chamber, but this is a very important point to realise—we are actually seeing declining investment from the government but overall increasing investment because you have private sector engagement when it comes to partnering with the government to achieve these innovation and entrepreneurial outcomes for that country. Surely if in the country that is having the greatest success when it comes to supporting innovators and entrepreneurs they are realising that the government's role is not to get in the way, dictate or pick winners but to act as an enabler then that is something we can achieve.

This is the debate and contest of ideas we should see across this table. I know members on both sides of this chamber want to see a greater embrace of innovation and entrepreneurship. But in order for us to have that discussion members opposite have to actually put some ideas on the table. I challenge the members opposite—there are more speakers on this MPI—to provide some ideas in this discussion.

The reality is the government is spending a great deal when it comes to innovation, entrepreneurship, science and research. We are already investing $9.7 billion in this year alone in science, research and innovation. That puts us above the OECD average. Surely, if we are spending above average OECD figures when it comes to innovation and entrepreneurship, the question has to be asked: why is it that we are not seeing the gains that we need to see when it comes to leading the globe in the commercialisation of our great ideas? This country has an amazing record of fantastic research and great ideas. We are not achieving a global standard to the level that we should when it comes to the commercialisation of those ideas and turning those ideas into the enterprises, businesses and services to change the world for the better.

If the only policy solution that the Labor Party has is to add more zeros to the government chequebook, I do not think that is going to achieve the outcomes that we need to see. The figures speak for themselves. We are not achieving what we need to see, despite spending $9.7 billion in this year alone. The reality that this is where we can have this contest of ideas, this competitive tension when it comes to policy creation, is the main reason we should be having this debate today. If we want to be a more prosperous nation, if we want to be a nation that will continue to see rising living standards, it is incredibly important that we do not allow fear to define our response to a changing world. The shadow minister spent 10 minutes using fear as her political weapon. The Australian people want to see something more than that. If we are going to embrace innovation and entrepreneurship, we need to see a change in culture. We need to embrace entrepreneurial spirit in our collective psyche. Government has a role to play in that. The business sector has a role to play in that. These are the sorts of ideas that we should be embracing.

If we look at our start-up community in this country we will see that start-ups are not crying out for just more money from government. They want to see private sector involvement. Last year Australians spent about $200 million on the Melbourne Cup. We in this country are not afraid of having a punt. We spent $200 million on the Melbourne Cup. But we only invested, through venture capital, about $100 million on our start-ups. If you go out into the start-up community you will find that they are desperate to see a greater investment of capital into their start-ups. What is the government's role? It is not just to add some more zeros to chequebook. The government's role is to create the framework and set the taxation settings that will encourage that investment in our great entrepreneurs. Obviously, if they are involved with the private sector and are finding customers in a growing global marketplace, that is where they are going to achieve the success they so desperately need.

We also—and I think we could have some agreement across the table on this—need to grow our talent pool. We are incredibly lucky that we have so many bright, talented and, I might say, occasionally young people in this country who are prepared to go out there and have a go. They are prepared to develop the skill sets that are needed in STEM and the digital and tech skill sets that we need. We need to be doing everything in our power to grow that talent pool in our country.

The other thing—and we should not be afraid of this—is that we should be a magnet for the best and brightest people across the globe. It is not just how much money the government spends that will attract people. A harsh reality here is that we do not have as much money to spend as many other countries when it comes to attracting the best and brightest, but we have natural advantages, such as our lifestyle. If we get our taxation settings and employment settings right, we can attract the best and brightest people from across the globe.

Finally, we need to see greater cooperation between the government, higher education, science, research and particularly the private sector, because that is where we will see global success. That is how we will achieve greater innovation and entrepreneurship in Australia. (Time expired)

See this speech in context