Petro Georgiou (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, I am pleased to present the committee’s report entitled Pathways to technological innovation, together with the minutes of the proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—The findings of the committee reflect the complexity of measuring innovation success and the multitude of pathways that innovation may take. The committee found that many successful innovators experienced a smooth pathway to developing their product and finding markets. These are the success stories and it was heartening to see the calibre of Australian innovation and the strength of the government’s innovation support framework.

However, this is not the total story. It was apparent that, while some pathways to innovation are well developed and relatively unimpeded for the Australian entrepreneur or innovating business or research organisation, other pathways are less well formed and a number of adjustments to the innovation support framework are possible. The report makes 18 recommendations to target these adjustments and to facilitate the pathways that are less well formed or less well supported, and I will touch on some of them. The recommendations address the need to better promote the assistance that is available from the Australian government and ensure that cross-portfolio cooperation is working effectively and providing a more seamless service to researchers and innovators.

The recommendations also address impediments to innovation and to the commercialisation of innovation in publicly funded research institutes. The committee made recommendations to increase staff mobility across universities, research agencies and businesses so that barriers to collaboration can be addressed and innovative researchers can be better recognised and rewarded.

A key recommendation concerns the establishment of a funded proof of concept scheme for university research projects. This proposed scheme would provide three to one matched Australian government and university funding to stimulate innovation with high potential for commercial outcomes. At this early stage of innovation, there is limited access to angel investment. Lead times and risks make it prohibitive for universities to bear the whole cost. By sharing the risk through a matched funded proof of concept scheme, we can ensure that our good ideas, our scientific breakthroughs and our innovative approaches have greater opportunities to be tested and their feasibility for the marketplace determined.

The inquiry identified the need for government to provide more support for businesses to engage in later stage commercialisation activities, such as market identification. The committee recommended more transparency in reporting on government procurement strategies to boost the government procurement of technological innovation from Australian SMEs. Another important area of concern for Australian businesses and researchers was protection of intellectual property and the proper working of the intellectual property system. The committee advanced a number of recommendations in this area. Fostering a culture of entrepreneurship is a critical step to early innovation and pathways. It is a task that is challenging to government. Formulating a program by which government might foster such a cultural shift and engender a more entrepreneurial culture requires the expertise of educators and a more facile tongue than mine is occasionally. Accordingly, the government has recommended that a whole-of-government task force be established to investigate a suite of appropriate policy and program measures to foster a national culture of entrepreneurship.

Today, innovation is recognised as the multitude of pathways that encompass all types of basic research, new technologies and improvements in business. Through implementation of the recommendations of this report, the committee anticipates that some pathways to innovation will be made easier, thereby strengthening Australia’s growth and global competitiveness.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the many individuals, businesses and organisations who provided evidence to this inquiry. I would like to thank the committee secretariat, in particular Dr Alison Clegg and Dr Anna Dacre, for their work on the report. Members of the committee demonstrated considerable commitment to working together in a non-partisan fashion. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I very much support the presentation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation report Pathways to technological innovation. In the report the committee has attempted to drill down into the underlying issues affecting innovation—in particular, the make-up of an environment conducive to innovation, the culture of support, the development of new ideas in this country and any impediments. The inquiry looked for ways to assist the strengthening of our pathways to make it easier to commercialise innovation. I was very happy to be part of this inquiry. There was very much a genuine and positive effort made by all members, culminating in the unanimous report that the member for Kooyong has just presented to the House.

The inquiry received over 100 submissions and conducted 10 public hearings, receiving evidence from witnesses from industry, technology development, innovation and academia. I congratulate the member for Kooyong. Once more he has demonstrated himself as being a very fair and inclusive committee chair, and I am very proud to be part of the committee. I am speaking today in part on behalf of the member for Franklin, Harry Quick, who is the deputy chair of the committee but who, unfortunately, has taken very ill and has not yet returned to the parliament.

This inquiry received the total cooperation of all members, who participated very fully with a dedication to the cause. It would be remiss of me if I did not join the chair in commending the efforts of the committee secretary, Dr Anna Dacre, and her team, consisting of Dr Alison Clegg, Lea Hill, Rachelle Mitchell, Emma Martin and Daniel Miletic. Their dedication, professionalism and good humour was very much appreciated by the committee members.

I will comment further on the report in the Main Committee later today, but at this stage it is worth while mentioning that this report attempts to identify not only the need to develop an entrepreneurial culture in Australia but also the ways that can occur and the impediments that need to be addressed so those ideas can be developed. Innovation is the development of ideas and technology transfers through to the actual process of commercialisation. Therefore, innovation must be considered a natural development, not simply a lucky strike, if I could use that expression.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Kooyong wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.