Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's great to see that members of the government are allowed to use the word 'innovation' again because, for quite some time, it was clearly banned on that side of the parliament. But it's a shame, really, that the debate about innovation seems to be held in a vacuum of understanding what it really is, and against a backdrop of, according to the Global Innovation Index, Australia having fallen three places since 2018, from 20 to 23. That's because the government doesn't understand innovation. Much of the debate about commercialisation that we see coming from the government falls back on some sort of linear model of innovation and doesn't appreciate what the evidence says. It would be worthwhile, members of this chamber, looking to innovation economists like Keith Smith and Jonathan West who make the point that perhaps the most important result of modern innovation research is the rejection of the so-called linear model of innovation—namely, the idea that the innovation process is essentially based on processes of scientific or technological discovery and that the innovation process consists of translating research into new products.

We have a government that is now trying to talk about research commercialisation, but doing so against a backdrop of the massive economic impact on our universities of not just COVID but this government's ongoing attack on higher education: its failure to support universities through COVID; its so-called 'reforms', which will actually lead to fewer students studying the sorts of subjects that are needed to be innovative researchers and scientists and, most importantly, innovative thinkers. So, no matter how many times this government and members of the government start to use the word 'innovation', we know that universities are really going to struggle to provide graduates with the skills relevant to today's and tomorrow's labour market under the conditions that this government sets.

This government, as the member for Chifley pointed out, has had a number of reviews of the R & D tax incentive—in addition to trying to get rid of the entire thing, mind you—including the Industry Innovation and Science Australia review and the review by John Fraser, Alan Finkel and Bill Ferris. These reviews pointed to what, really, the world has been arguing for some time: Australia has an imbalance between its direct funding for innovation and indirect tax incentives. The independent reviews that the government itself asked for proposed a new agenda that was rejected, which is really modus operandi for this government, isn't it? 'Got a problem, got an area you don't know what to do with?', which is most areas. 'Ask for an independent review and then ignore the recommendations.' The government now has chopped and changed all over the place, when it comes to innovation policy, and pretended it didn't exist for a while post Turnbull. And it's now possibly even going in the opposite direction. There should be more collaboration between research and industry, but this government hasn't done anything to make that happen.

Since the cuts to the innovation programs in the 2014 budget—when the industry innovation precincts were cut and rebranded 'Industry Growth Centres', when successful commercialisation programs were cut and rebranded 'Accelerating Commercialisation', when Enterprise Connect, which supported the mass of SMEs to innovate and adopt, was abolished—there has been a total absence of a coherent industry and innovation policy for this country. Whilst I admire the intent of the member who put this motion forward, to include this government's support for CSIRO is, quite frankly, mind-boggling. This is a government that sought to destroy the credibility of our national science agency not just with budget cuts but with longstanding denial of the important work of mitigating climate change. To suggest that this government is a friend of the CSIRO is unbelievable. Other countries invest serious resources in industry and innovation ecosystems, but we aren't doing it properly in Australia. The government is not dealing with the big structural economic shifts to skills and technology, to the clean economy, to the caring economy. We need to do this in order to have an economy that is innovative, sustainable and inclusive. That's the economy that will provide Australians with opportunities in the years ahead, not the economy that this government is working on.

I want to end my contribution with a shout-out to a local innovator and entrepreneur, Nat Stratos, whose jewellery I am wearing today, who uses 3D patterning, zero-waste design, compostable and upgradable materials and a closed-loop program to ensure artefacts, beautiful jewellery, can be reinvented, recycled and regenerated. Her mission is to create circular, responsible and ethical design by innovative technique and a commitment to renewable products—and it's beautiful jewellery as well. That's what manufacturing locally looks like in my community.

See this speech in context