Indolent Australia's high-level R&D review will miss the target

Running 2024-25, this high-level R&D review is typical of how Australia works. In other wealthy nations, it might have had a higher profile, attracted political scrutiny and sterner debate.

Not Down Under, where our top-20% stakeholders ideate almost as one beehive. Despite its international purview, the review rather risks "talking among itself".

Fortuitously kept afloat by humungous iron (Fe) and coal-gas hydrocarbon (CH) exports, the "lucky" (seat 11-A) country mistreats its own people to an immigration-led labour-growth economy – not business-led investment-growth. Bank-lending is siphoned off to the real-estate bubble not business innovation. Top companies are dominated by banks and miners not tech.

How do you kick-start R&D, against that kind of indolence?

The review originates, 2024

The review materialised in May 2024 in the Portfolio Budget Statements for Science, seeking to "maximise the impact" from our R&D. The Academy of Science saw this as a generational opportunity for R&D to "maximise its contribution". Said the Financial Review ,business "spends bugger all".

Last December, terms-of-reference finally appeared . Review-panel leader is former Australian accountant, risen meteorically to Chair of Tesla Inc, Robyn Denholm . She was ticket 37 among 146 Treasury-anointed stakeholders at Labor's gloriously consensual (but totally dishonest ) jobs and skills summit.

Supporting Denholm are education-supremo Ian Chubb, rebounding from his carbon-credits fiasco, plus WA science-surgery icon Fiona Stanley, and startup-whiz Kate Cornick .

Science and Education Ministers immediately linked the review to Treasury's Future Made in Australia (FMIA) concept, built on UN fairy-dust of a "net-zero transformation-stream".

The quick-sticks discussion paper

Just two months later, the panel's discussion paper emerged, for two months' consultation.

Industry Group submission thought commercialisation was central. Academy of Social Sciences thought social-sciences were central. Group of Eight universities wanted 3% of GDP for R&D, fully funded research-grants, more "skilled" migrants. All talking their own books.