Our universities produce world-class research. Our researchers consistently rank among the best in the world. Our engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs continue to develop technologies with the potential to solve some of society’s most pressing challenges.
Yet for decades, Australia has struggled with a familiar question:
How do we turn more of that research into economic and societal impact?
The Strategic Examination of Research and Development (SERD) seeks to answer that question. Its central premise is difficult to dispute. Australia must improve productivity, create new industries and take a more deliberate approach to converting research into commercial and national outcomes.
That direction is the right one.
However, the challenge is more complex than simply improving research translation.
Much of the public discussion focuses on the gap between research and commercialisation, but there are structural issues throughout Australia’s innovation system that also deserve attention.
For example, Australia is not producing enough Masters and PhD graduates in disciplines aligned with future industry needs. Research effort is often dispersed across too many priorities rather than concentrated in areas where Australia can develop genuine competitive advantage. Funding models also continue to struggle with supporting the full cost and long-term nature of high-quality research.
Addressing these challenges requires more than improving the handover from laboratory to marketplace. It requires strengthening the entire research, development and innovation ecosystem.
One aspect of the SERD report that particularly caught my attention was its treatment of Research, Development and Innovation (RD&I) as a single construct.
As a strategic narrative, this is understandable.
In practice, however, research, development and innovation are distinct activities. They involve different organisations, different funding models, different incentives and different risk profiles. The points where responsibility passes from one stage to the next are often where progress slows or opportunities are lost.
Recognising those differences will be essential if reform is to deliver meaningful outcomes.
The report also introduces the concept of RD&I businesses.
It is a useful term, but one that will benefit from greater precision.
Are we referring to any business undertaking incremental research and development? Or are we describing firms that are building genuinely new capability, creating intellectual property and competing internationally?
The distinction matters because policy settings influence behaviour. If definitions become too broad, incentives risk being spread across activities that deliver very different economic outcomes.
Another important area for consideration is Australia’s longstanding focus on startups.
Supporting new ventures is undoubtedly important. However, Australia’s innovation challenge has arguably been less about creating startups and more about helping successful companies scale.
We have demonstrated an ability to generate innovative ideas and establish new businesses.
Our greater challenge has been growing those businesses into globally competitive companies that continue to invest, employ people and create value from within Australia.
That transition from startup to scale-up deserves at least as much policy attention as company formation itself.
Finally, innovation policy cannot be considered in isolation.
Taxation settings, regulatory complexity, capital availability and the barriers businesses encounter as they grow from small enterprises into medium-sized organisations all influence investment decisions. These broader settings shape whether companies choose to innovate, expand and commercialise their ideas in Australia or elsewhere.
The strength of the SERD report lies in its ambition.
It recognises that Australia’s future prosperity will depend increasingly on knowledge-intensive industries and on our ability to convert research excellence into economic value.
The challenge now lies in implementation.
Success will depend on building a system that is clear in its objectives, targeted in its incentives and capable of supporting research, development and innovation across the full lifecycle. It will require sustained commitment from governments, universities, industry and the broader research community.
Australia has the talent, institutions and technical capability to become a global leader in innovation.
The opportunity before us is to create a system that allows those strengths to translate consistently into national prosperity, globally competitive industries and enduring economic resilience.
The direction is clear.
The real test will be whether we can build a system capable of delivering outcomes at scale.
