The Federal Government is committed to making innovation a centrepiece of the Australian economy. Policy Hack is an opportunity for industry to develop and pitch innovative solutions to some of Australia’s most pressing policy problems and help foster the growth of innovation industries in Australia.
Along with Assistant Minister for Innovation Hon. Wyatt Roy MP, BlueChilli will bring together representatives from startups, VC funds, accelerators and other components of the innovation ecosystem, with policy experts from departments of Treasury, Industry and Communications to collaborate in a one-day industry policy hackathon in Sydney, Saturday 17 October 2015.
We’ll use the hackathon methodology to nominate, select and work together in mixed teams on new government policy ideas designed to foster the growth of innovation industries including tech startups, biotech, agtech, fintech, renewables and resources.
Funding, taxation, education, migration — everything is on the table.
The champions on the highest voted policies will be invited to Sydney to lead teams on the day to workshop their ideas with government representatives.
The goal is to present a set of creative new ideas to an audience of government officials by the end of the day, to give them the top-line thinking from which full policy can be developed and implemented.
If you have a policy idea or you’d like to see and vote on which policy ideas are collaborated on at Policy Hack, you can get started right now.
Funding, taxation, education, migration — everything is on the table.
This forum is finished. It closed about . You can still look at and comment on existing ideas!
“Australian innovation and invention is world class, but it is let down by a number of factors:-
1. Lack of management understanding of the commercialisation process
2. Lack of funding and advisory support to help with innovation development 3. Risk adverse industry that find it difficult to accept new innovations (unless its come from the USA) 4. Startups and SME's not willing to partner with each other to create an integrated solution. Most go out of their way to compete for the crumbs when the whole meal is on the table and available if only they had the courage. The problem we need to fix in Australia is about having faith in our own abilities and to be proud to stand together and work together. ”
“China is Australia's largest trading partner, eclipsing our second and third largest trading partners, the US and Japan combined. China is rapidly shifting its global role from imitator to innovator and has filed the most domestic patent applications of any country since 2011. China is fast becoming a leading investor in innovation, with leading research universities, modern science and technology parks, and innovative start-ups. Chinese companies, which are investing more and more in R&D, are demonstrating a growing concern for IP rights. In China there are 17 million designers, 15 thousand design organisations, 50 thousand consumer products designed per year with a 10% success rate and 5 million start-ups.
It would be a grave error of the Australian innovation community to underestimate the impact of this swift rise and its scale when other nations sure aren't doing so.
The opportunity for Australia is awesome! We have a tremendous opportunity to develop the Australian innovation ecosystem by getting our engagement with China right but we currently lack the human capital in Australia with the skills, networks and confidence to work collaboratively with China. We have too few China-skilled young innovators and emerging leaders coming through the talent pipeline to fully populate this ecosystem. To develop any ecosystem, one must have a sense of the future conditions it will take place within. China will soon be the world’s largest economy and a leader in innovation and innovation investment. Any discussion of the future of Australia's innovation ecosystem, the policies which underpin it and how we develop entrepreneurs and innovators of the future must involve active mobilisation of the China opportunity. ”
“Tax reform is recommended as the key to support innovation, especially in biotechnology, which has the potential to be a major economic driver for Australia. It can deliver new technologies, high value exports, high- quality jobs and advanced manufacturing, if we can build on our established strengths for our future growth.
Government cannot directly fund to the level needed to optimise nation-building innovation impacts. Therefore, we need to look at tax reform, which stimulates innovation and enables Australia to retain what it has build and what it is yet to build, and specifically attract private capital investment. To gain the economic and social benefits, we recommend tax reform to support research-and-development-based innovation is critical in the following areas:
• Introduce a new tax benefit for qualifying ‘advanced’ manufacturers based on intellectual property, the Australian Innovation and Manufacturing Incentive (AIM Incentive). The incentive is based on the UK Patent Box but of course needs to be tailored by Parliament and industry to suit local needs. As CSL described to the Innovation Inquiry, building plant and manufacturing in Australia is less attractive than other jurisdictions. The patent box, or a version of it, is now active in 9 countries with the USA moving toward such a tax change this year. If for no other reason than competition, Australia needs to adopt something comparable. • Introduce a tax incentive to attract investor capital and to encourage long-term investments in start-ups. To attract private capital investments and support entrepreneurship, AusBiotech is advocating for a tax incentive to encourage investors to invest in young innovation-based growth companies and to ‘park’ their capital in pre-revenue, pre-dividend companies for lengthy periods. These so-called ‘patient investors’ are desirable as they provide more stability and certainty to start-up companies. • Preserve R&D Tax Incentive benefits in-tact, which is now seen by our sector as the number 1 policy issue requiring protection. The desire of government to reduce the benefit from 45% to 43.5% is not welcome and will disadvantage more keenly, small unlisted and listed companies who are not yet selling product. This is the category in greatest need of support. International competition is extreme and increasing, with serious investment occurring in many other key countries. Australia now needs to decide the importance of innovation in its economic future – its role in productivity and jobs - and make an appropriately-serious commitment to how best to drive the desired outcomes. ”
“The future of work is changing rapidly. This is a reality that governments, industries and communities are all faced with. To support the growth of Australia's tech ecosystem and to prepare Australians for 21st century jobs, we need a new approach. In this new Digital Age, a career in tech can bring about financial security and independence, therefore reducing long-term welfare dependancy.
Traditionally, jobs in tech have required a computer science degree. This is out of reach for many disadvantaged, unemployed individuals. But many jobs within the tech ecosystem no longer require a Bachelor's degree. Therefore, we should create an intensive, technical training program which prepares unemployed and/or underemployed Australians for in-demand tech jobs. The curriculum should focus on providing participants with the top job skills most-needed, according to key tech trends. Students should also acquire key professional skills and business skills required to help them land a job upon completion.
Wage subsidies could be offered to employers who provide graduates with a job for at least 12 months. This programme could initially be trialled in a single location, and then expanded based on results. Overall, the training programme could provide valuable opportunities for groups of people who would otherwise be at risk of long-term welfare dependancy. At the same time, it could grow our ecosystem within Australia and drive innovation across various industries.”
“I believe that the link between innovation and agriculture is the way to ensure global food security. I would like to see a program established that links farmers with entrepreneurs and start ups. This would allow those with a idea or business proposition access to farmers with first hand knowledge and the possibility to have their product trialed. It would provide farmers with access to new ideas and innovations that could help to increase yields, productivity and profits. Currently, the majority of start ups are based in urban areas, and therefore lack this contact with people in agriculture. This program could overcome vast distance to allow for knowledge transfer to improve food security through innovation. ”
“We punch above our weight in science and tech research in Australia, unfortunately, the commercial returns from this great work have historically been poor. We need to build a system like the Innovation Corps run by the National Science Foundation in the US that works with researchers using lean startup methods to support more successful commercialisation. There are pockets of expertise in doing this sort of thing, but it mostly sits in accelerators that treat this as proprietary knowledge, so it doesn't spread very far. If we run it centrally, with delivery hubs around the country as the NSF does, we can improve our success rate in creating high-growth tech-based startups. By tapping into existing resources and expertise, this can be a light touch program financially, with a very large potential impact.”
“One bright idea that could transform innovation in Australia
Australia lacks a small business industrial research program (SBIR) like the United States, and I would argue it has been a vital ingredient for the innovation success in the US for three decades. My day job is advocating for the Cooperative Research Centres in Australia, but I think the number one thing we need is a system that fires up our Start-up/spinoff sector to a much greater degree.
The SBIR scheme in the States serves two purposes: (!) it encourages spin off and start up companies (over half of all spinoffs in the States are spun out to access the scheme) and (2) it is a procurement scheme for government, so the company has the first customer for its product or service lined up. I've written about the scheme in more detail here: http://theconversation.com/one-bright-idea-that-could-transform-innovation-in-australia-43622 The other important aspect of the SBIR scheme in the US is that it is big. Between it and the STTR scheme, they fund nearly 60% of early seed capital, leaving the private VC sector to concentrate on its areas of interest. SBIR achieves many of the things we need in Australia: a bigger VC pool; a more entrepreneurial culture at the university level to move ideas out; start-ups with a customer locked in and ventures that are addressing the national needs (because it forces government departments to articulate their innovation needs). ”
“There is a strong imperative for existing industry to become more innovative, and yet most of our industry organisations remain poor innovators. We also want our start-ups to be successful, but numbers are grim with a 90% failure, half of which fail because they don’t have a market for their products and services.
A start-up is an idea or IP searching for a viable business model. An existing industry organisation, on the other hand, is a business looking for ways to stop being commoditised and irrelevant.
Start-ups and existing industry have complementary desires in order to succeed. We need to find novel ways in which they can find each other.
This idea is to establish an innovation industry mechanism (digital platform) where our existing industry organisations can specify needs and challenges and where start-ups, universities and other research organisations can use sophisticated methods to quickly link their technology, IP, business models and knowhow to improve innovation impact on both sides. ”
“Most Seed Stage Start-up raises are under $500k.
Not the ones that will be the "next Facebook"
All the rest from major cities to regional towns.
We need to empower these brave supporters and innovators in their early days. They move forward tranche by tranche as goals are achieved until ready for a Series A. However ... the centralised regulatory and cost structure does not empower this area of funding. Including proposed Online CSEF regs. In the U.S. nearly 60 billion of funding is in this class roughly equal to 58 billion by VC, Angel and Bank finance to the same space. Lets firstly legitimise it, lower the cost and then empower it. Lets have: 1) Investment legitimisation at the "small end" that is seen as primarily funding not as an asset class play. 2) An open, shared, fully transparent, zero cost, trust based transactional recording and reporting environment where all Stakeholders including ASIC play. Why should everyone have separate ledgers for the same information and costly external trust guardians when the transaction should be the trust identifier. Goal would be that eventually this would be blockchain powered. This would remove annual cost of keeping filing info up to date with ASIC, accountants costs for duplicate share registries, real time deal reporting with continual visibility on transaction volume so abnormalities can be addressed by regulator and stakeholders, standarised templates to lower costs, transactions permanently stored with full transparent history, clear unambiguous risk warnings time stamped accepted and recorded as part of the open, shared, fully transparent, zero cost, trust based transactional recording and reporting environment. You wont need big buildings, bank vaults and floors of filing cabinets in the future to evidence a trust based funding transaction. Lets get a lead in the world and empower these brave passionate supporters and innovators now. ”
“Let's launch a national home energy retrofit campaign to help households across Australia reduce their energy bills.
Most people aren't aware that energy efficiency is typically one of the most lucrative investment opportunities available to households, easily out-performing both property and shares by providing higher returns and lower risks. However households largely under-invest in energy efficiency owing to a lack of information, finance, and other barriers.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation in partnership with the major banks currently fund a range of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects across Australia. However so far they've struggled to invest in residential energy efficiency projects, despite representing one of the largest and highest return clean energy investments in Australia. The under-financing of residential energy efficiency arises from two key challenges. Firstly, although residential energy efficiency represents a very large pool of potential investment, each project is individually very small, making transaction costs a challenge. Secondly, the costs of auditing homes to identify and estimate the energy savings has historically been an obstacle. Our small startup (www.getecologic.com) recently developed a free app and cloud-based simulation platform capable of rapidly auditing how energy is used around the home and providing individually tailored business cases for home energy efficiency and solar retrofits. We have also developed an electronic marketplace to connect households to energy efficiency and solar providers, financial institutions, and incentive programs, enabling bulk purchasing and financing of energy efficiency and solar PV projects. With modest policy support our small startup and other clean technology businesses could help drive a step change in the uptake of energy efficiency and solar PV, and reduce energy bills across Australia.”