¶ Intro / Opening
🎵 Music
¶ SERD Report: Broad Scope and Funding Goals
I'm James Riley. Welcome to the Commercial Disco. Join me on a voyage of commercial discovery where we uncover great ideas in deep tech and research. The Commercial Disco is your window.
Innovation.
Hello and welcome to the commercial disco. I'm James Riley from InnovationOz dot com. Talking today with Ryan Wynn. He's the Chief Executive Officer at Science and Technology Australia. Good day Ryan, how are you?
Great. Thanks for having me.
All right. There's a few big things going on right now. Firstly, the strategic examination of R and D, the CERD report has come out. But we've also got ScienceMeets Parliament coming up next week. We're recording this on a Wednesday. But uh science meets Parliament coming up, so we'll talk through that. But let's start with the third review. Robin Denham was in town, stood up with the minister and uh let fly with something that was pretty interesting, I think.
Oh it's fascinating. It was a really great launch with the minister. It's a report that spans such a large topic and I think from our perspective, the fact that it doesn't cover R and D as just an academic piece, it covers R and D and innovation from uh industry all the way down to discovery and universities. It's a fantastic report and sets the ground for a once in a generational change to our R and D system, which we desperately need for our economy.
Yeah. Okay. So I found it interesting that I mean obviously it's an examination of R and D. But it wasn't just about science, it wasn't just about foundational stuff. You know, it wasn't just about business R and D. It was about many other things, including intergenerational fairness.
It was about government procurement. It was about how you get the different parts of the system working together. So it was interesting. So there was some pretty bold calls in the recommendations, including I think the one that jumped out at me immediately reading it was a call for international competitiveness. in science funding or research funding from government. Now, if you take being internationally competitive, you know, being on an OECD average
then that's a hugely expensive exercise. So, you know, in the context of the budget, in the context of everything that's been said, how do you feel these more expensive things are going to go down?
¶ Implementation, Governance, and Ecosystem Unity
Look, I think it's a really challenging environment and as much as we want to see bags of money to be coming out for the sector and we'd want to see government making a lot of changes, we do appreciate that there is many pressures on the government's budget at the moment. One of the things we should highlight though is
Whilst the OHD average for GDT expenditure as R and D is at two point seven percent, and we're sitting at one point six eight, a big part of it actually is business expenditure of R and D, which is sitting really low comparatively. And a lot of what this report touches on is
How do we activate the system? We have fantastic discovery research and academic publications, but actually how do we turn that into translation, into products, into IP that can then generate activity and A lot of the focus was on around how do we activate the R and D tax incentive, how do we bring in entrepreneurs, how do we train our PhD students and candidates to be
thinking about roles outside of academia and driving things in industry, as well as how do we get the superannuation system to be activating and investing in business. That's the great opportunity in this report is how do we get the business sector to Pick up aspects, be brave and want to do the R and D here. It's not about forcing it, but actually making the environment willing that this is the right thing that they want to be doing here.
Yeah, there did seem to be a pretty decent balance between incentives for business and then funding for the government led programs with foundational research. But I think there were some concerns as it was being prepared that it was going to go one way or the other. People were saying, Oh my god, it's Robin Denham, it must be all about business, not foundational, it must be all about commercial, not the pure research. But that's not what we got.
I think we got something that was actually quite balanced, but appreciated that it takes discovery research to create ideas and ideas become innovation, innovation becomes products and services and translations, something that's usable whether it's a policy setting or a product. And I think it really drew out that well. And I think it goes to the credit of the panel members who are really diverse.
having Robin in, Kate, Fiona, they brought their own perspectives. And I think it gave a genuine view of it wasn't a government panel analysis. It was actually an independent view of what happened. And I think their engagement with the community was good.
What we need now is a conversation about implementation and really making sure that implementation conversation involves all parts of the sector as well and really drives to how do we take the blueprint that this presents and actually create something, the generational change we need.
In that regard, what do you anticipate or what would you like to see? I mean, to me it doesn't seem there's a lot of time between now and and budget day. So not a lot of time for that consultation now, but the whole process in the past year has been about consultation. Would you prefer government just look at the recommendations and dive in?
Look, when I look at the recommendations and there's a there's some great things in there, but I think the devil's always in the detail and how you actually do that nuance. There's comments in there around consolidation of programs, around the governance, around what that looks like.
They are the right blueprint for a good conversation. And the panel makes suggestions around what implementation could look like. But we need to make sure we get it right now. And it needs to be done as a cohesive package. And I think that's what really the panel were focused on is you can't cherry pick these pizzas. You need to really lay it and actually have a QC plan. We can't take too long in that conversation and there are aspects that could be progressed.
now as part of a conversation, but we don't want this to take another twelve, eighteen months of conversation. But equally we appreciate that there's probably some nuance of the conversation that's needed to happen beyond the budget that's in, you know, a month and a half's time. We need to Have a bit more deliberate conversation. But love if government puts some money on the table as part of an early start as this budget.
Yeah, we'll see. What did you make of the governance structures? I I looked at it and thought I mean yeah, National Innovation Council kinda takes over from the Industry Innovation Science Australia. But to be honest, I thought it was pretty convoluted. There was uh lots of pillars, lots of kind of national programmes and different committees Or advisory bodies steering that. I I don't know. I probably was less sold on that than other parts of it.
Look, I think we have a very fragmented sector. And I think one of the things that we see is there are lots of programs that are managed by departments and pieces that the way they sit together They mean well and there's lots of ticking the boxes of how do I align with the national science and research priorities or the future made in Australia agenda. Like there's lots of those words, but no governance that really pulls it together. That is reportable cabinet.
¶ R&D for Australia's Economic Transformation
And that's the important thing and focusing on outcomes as a system. So I think what we need to be clear eyed about is not making sure we have governance for the sake of governance and I think that's one of the risks as part of this, but
We do have a fragmented sector. We need to focus on the strengths. We need to focus on outcomes we're trying to get out of and not just fund lots of programmes. But we also need to not lose the successes of the programs that are there as well. So we need to make sure that governance is adding.
And where possible adds efficiency to what we already have without taking more administration. We know researchers, particularly in the academic sector, spend so much time on filling out paperwork and dealing with governance and reporting. What we want to do is reduce that as much as possible. So they can spend the time and the resources they have from government funding to actually do the research.
So, okay, give me a couple of examples of programs that you think are working, should not be touched, let them go about their business. I don't know, do you want to talk about programs that are not? Maybe maybe leave those alone.
Look, one programme I would call out is a national collaborative research infrastructure strategy and it calls it out particularly around national research infrastructure. The fact that we have an amazing programme that's globally recognized as fantastic, it underpins our
capability around particle accelerators, around supercomputing, around our medical research capabilities. That's a fantastic programme and the report recognised the value of that, that it needs to be underpinning that crosses across all the sector.
But didn't just call out the program, it talked about the research infrastructure and that includes the infrastructure that's sitting in CIRO, in ANSTO, the Antarctic Division, the infrastructure that's funded through the MRFF, the research infrastructure that's funded through the LEAF programme in the ISC. There is a great base there. We can bring those pieces together in a smarter, more cohesive way. And how does that underpin the whole research agenda? And that's a fantastic outcome.
Yeah, that and Chris stuff. I mean it it was amazing how that was called out in a very specific and quite strident way, I thought, in terms of gotta fund it. You know, it's foundational, it's important, needs to be properly funded. Okay, so there's a couple of things I wanted to ask you. Let's talk about the fragmentation. There are any number of areas across Any part of the ecosystem or the system in Australia that you could say is fragmented, atomized, all of those things.
But that would include industry groups like yourself. There are many, many science groups, engineering groups, then you could go to the technology representative bodies, tech council, AAA, ACS, FinTech Australia, Reg Tech Australia, atomized.
So do you think this idea that we have a National Innovation Council, that it's driven by the Prime Minister and the Industry Minister, that somehow they can create missions of substance enough That you can create a model where all of those atoms have to come together and push towards one thing.
I think so. And I think we have to drive for that. We've seen great successes in what Germany does and what happens in the UK through the UK R. I and those processes where when you bring industry, academia, government and the regulators and others around the table to have A conversation about this is what we're trying to achieve. Where does the funding need to go? What are the processes? What are the things that will make that work?
it leads to better, more effective outcomes and it builds trust in the system as well. You know, we have low levels of business expenditure R and D. We need industry to we want to be here. And that is removing things like the regulations and the processes and make it more efficient and more enticing to do the research here in Australia. What I do like about the governance structure is we have the NIC that sits above it and the then suggested
panels that address each of the missions and that would include, as it's presented, industry, government, other bodies, experts. And that brings the right people around the table to say How do we really address this mission? How do we address the sub goals in this and actually lean into that in a way that has to lead to outcomes and focus on the outcomes?
Rather than just how do we get the most outcomes from this or the outputs from this program and I think we need to move away from that programmatic focus and look at what are we trying to achieve as a goal for the country.
Yeah, okay. And I think the idea that they kind of bolted the CERD review to intergenerational issues was a good way to frame it. We spoke about that yesterday. Just talk us through your thinking on that.
Absolutely. As they say, you know, the probably the best time for a economic reform was thirty five years ago. The other time is now. And we've heard charmers talk about every forty years we need to rebuild the economy.
You know, we are at that forty year point and we're seeing massive disruption around artificial intelligence. We're seeing sort of various job cuts and ours through industry. We're seeing enormous pressures around the aging workforce and the population. We've got pressures around a climate crisis. This is the time to really rethink differently about what we're gonna do. We're not gonna keep digging things up anymore.
And our economy is changing. We need to have the jobs, we need the industries, we need the future of Australia. And this is the right time to have that conversation. And R and D is a critical part of that, no matter what we think about, whether it's the discovery research, all the way through the translation and Having those right settings to allow the next Wi-Fi to come out are to allow that really game-changing opportunity to set us right for the next pandemic.
We saw our preparedness around soap and capability at that time. We have those smarts here. We just don't have the right settings that draw the research all the way through the system and allow us to make great productivity.
Let me ask you this. National Innovation Council will be led by the Prime Minister. I've written lots of columns over my years that have said until you've got the person at the top driving these things, they're not going to happen. Um I got very excited when um Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister because he was walking the walk. And uh you know, in addition to talking to the talk. So I guess that's my long winded way of saying like it didn't go well for Malcolm Turnbull in the end after that.
ideas be them and the NISA. I've just gotta ask. I don't think uh Anthony Albanese is Malcolm Turnbull in this regard. Although I'd probably say that Jim Chalmers really is
¶ Science, AI, and Sustainable Research Investment
What I would say to that is I I think the title of this report is really interesting, Ambitious Australia. that this is not about an innovative Australia. This is about an ambitious Australia, about the economic reform and the productivity Australia has. And I think having a prime minister, having a Minister of Science and in 10 mayors who are very focused on Where industrially productivity wise Australia is heading. And I think the productivity roundtable from last year set the tone.
for we need to talk about productivity, whether it's about new industries, how we address climate change because the natural disasters are putting a massive pressure on inflation and the costs that government's bearing. This is about As a country, how do we change ourselves? And that I think is an amazing conversation to be having around where do we want a country to be?
From a health perspective, from a quality perspective, from our jobs, what do we want to see for our kids? And this is the chance of this report. It's not an innovation report on the label. It's a productivity and ambition label. And I think that's the right setting for this report.
Yeah, look I I guess that's right. And I w suppose I would say around two thousand and fifteen when Malcolm Turnbull did become Prime Minister. He set the expectations incredibly high. So maybe this is a communications change management program in addition to the reforms that they're trying to put in place.
I would say also that the last couple of budgets seem to be moving towards some of the structures that were outlined in this report. So we'll wait and see. Let's talk about science meets parliament. That's your big thing for the year.
Yeah, it's our annual event and this year is our twenty sixth annual science means parliament and it's looking like it's probably potentially going to be the biggest one ever. We've got more scientists in their house ever before, over four hundred per year. But equally we've had More parliamentarians say they will be involved through meetings and conversations than we've had for many, many, many years. And to me that gives me a bit of in inspiration and hope.
for where our country is going, the parliamentarians are deeply interested in this because they see it as an economic conversation. They see it as R and D is part of the conversation and they want to listen to the scientists come to the House.
Okay. I've been to a few ScienceMates Parliament over the years and sometimes it's very sciencey and sometimes it's science plus business, I guess. The commercial realities. How do you think the CERD review? And the fact that it's just landed will influence the conversations next week.
Look, I think it's going to be an underlying tone for the whole conversation, which I think's great. The fact that we're not talking about science because it's scientists. We're talking about scientists who are talking about the economy and the climate and the environment that
This is about how do we change the world? How do we make a better Australia? And it's not because scientists care about it, but actually as a society we all need to care about it and scientists provide invaluable insights and evidence that help us make better decisions about where we want to be.
All right. What about I mean, AI is in every conversation we ever have, so we've started to see some quite significant job cuts. across the Australian economy now, we're starting to see employment numbers among graduates and youth that are starting to look if not alarming, then certainly trending in the wrong way. So how does that change the conversations that you're having now and the conversations that should be had around the cert objectives?
Look, AI is changing our world and in in challenging ways, but also fantastic ways. Like it's making from a research perspective, it makes us better at getting through the data, it helps us unpack the questions, it helps us communicate better. It also just helps us to think smarter and better and digest the information at hand. It will fundamentally change the research sector.
But someone said to me the other day on on a similar conversation from a health perspective, will AI get rid of doctors? His response was, Yes, it will get rid of doctors who don't use AI. And I think it's the same in the research sector.
AI will challenge researchers who don't use AI, but it's not gonna change the world for researchers who use AI. It's gonna make us better, smarter, more productive. And as an economy, we need to think about how AI is an enabler for us to be better humans and better thinkers. And for me, I'd look at that and go, this can put a rocket underneath our research sector and really drive productivity, drive innovation and really drive the economy we want.
And all of those things will take bipartisan support and long term funding commitments. And it's not just funding, long term energy commitments from parliamentarians as well as scientists. So of your army of scientists who are coming up here next week, you'll be talking to all sides of politics.
Absolutely. Everyone. number of our conversations actually deliberately bring independents, backbenches, crossbench to our parliamentary forum on the Thursday morning where we bring everyone and get them to be speaking to our scientists about how they think. What I would add to the long term funding is sustainable funding. We need a
indexation rate that is relevant to research. We know that the cost of research in all the different parts of what that looks like from gloves to power, to fuel for boats, to everything, is going up much quicker than indexation and we need to make sure it's sustainable, not just long term.
All right, I'm gonna finish with this. You've got Tim Ayers at the press club next week on Wednesday. So if you had the opportunity to write a speech for him, what would you put at the top?
Wow, great question. Look, I would want him to be mapping out his vision for what he thinks the research and innovation system would look like. I think we need to look to him and go, now you've got the report, what is your aspiration for it and what does that look like? And help us drive the vision that you want to achieve.
All right. Ryan Wynn, Chief Executive at Science and Technology Australia, thanks for joining us on the commercial disco.
Great. Thanks, James.
🎵 Music
Thanks for tuning in to the Commercial Disco, a podcast from Italy. Produced by Corey McLeod and Natasha David. Engineers. Freeman. Don't forget to subscribe, leave us a review, and join us next time as we explore more. Shaping Australia's innovation economy.
🎵 Music