Mitchell Bingemann | July 31, 2008
A KEY report detailing the effectiveness of Australia's research and development spend has been delayed by a month but the federal Government is unperturbed.
Innovation Minister Kim Carr says over 700 submissions were received
Innovation Minister Kim Carr has extended today’s delivery deadline of the anxiously anticipated review to August 29.
When the national innovation review was launched in January this year, the panel, led by CSIRO director Terry Cutler, called for industry submissions to help evaluate the role innovation plays in boosting productivity and international competitiveness.
But an overwhelming response has resulted in the green paper's delay.
"The panel has been asked for a month's extension on that review, we've had over 700 submissions and the panel is working through those submissions," Senator Carr said today.
"I've granted that extension for a month."
A spokesman for Senator Carr said once the report is received at the end of August, the government’s response would follow in "due course”.
"Senator Carr is looking forward to the report being released. This extension does not alter the government’s intention to issue a white paper response by Christmas,” he said.
The local R&D fraternity has been waiting with bated breath for the green paper and are especially anxious for funding sources after the federal Government axed the $700 million Commercial Ready initiative.
The scheme, started under the Howard government, offered funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis with private organisations to commercialise products.
Your Comments:
5 Comment(s)
I notice a lot of VCs (venture capital firms) have been whinging about the axing of Commercial Ready. That, in itself, is evidence the program was being rorted. VCs who see potential in enterprises should fund the risk themselves rather than expecting the taxpayer to do so. Instead, frequently significant grants were frittered away in fees to VCs and related entities. This type of cronyism characterises Australia's unsophisticated approach to innovation, and prevents the markets working to select global performers.
The axing of Commercial Ready has caused much distress.
Noting Margaret's comments; Our company had a START (the predecessor program) grant, and we certainly did not line any consultants pockets (we wrote our own application).
And I can assure you that without the grant the R&D wouldn't have happened. The grant aided R&D that is leading to products that have achieved commercialisation. The taxpayer is getting a return via the increase to company tax our company is paying.
There are good arguments against this type of programme (eg. why interfere in a commercial market) and good arguments for it (eg. if it is clear that the market has no stomach for an investment that returns over a time period > 5 years, then don't rely on market mechanisms).
Even if on balance folk decided that the programme was no good and hsould be abolished, it is still inexcusable to simply cancel the programme without any warning. Companies had invested time and money in the fairly lengthy applications process, and all for nothing. What a waste.
The Commercial Ready Grant scheme was highly dysfunctional was a waste of time and money. It mainly funded companies that didn't need help and lined the pockets of consultants. I hope the Cutler review actually provides grant assistance to small start-ups which are a major source of real innovation.
RJ...and the "Research" grants given to fossil fuels companies, already massively profitable, are not a waste? It's a bit like propping up horse-drawn carriages with subsidies to avoid cars from displacing the "essential services" of the horse. Forget carbon trading, just take all carbon subsidies and pour the millions into startup companies for renewable tech that we know works. (texas style solar, PV, Lithium batteries) Industry spin aside, climate change research at least ends up with real science as an output!
It seems to me that as long as you can link research to climate change, research grants are there for the taking. There's a fortune of taxpayers money being spent on useless projects under the disguise of global warming.
Post A Comment
We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide a screen name and suburb/location - these will be published. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. Read our publication guidelines.
Share This Article
From here you can use the Social Web links to save Innovation review green paper delayed to a social bookmarking site.
Email To A Friend