August 1997 Newsletter

MORTIMER REPORT MISSES THE POINT

Cooperative Research Centres Association Deputy Chairman, Dr Mark Sceats, has issued a strong statement rebutting the conclusions and recommendations about the CRC Program made recently in the Mortimer Review.

"Mortimer recognises the essential truth - that 50% of growth in OECD economies can be attributed to the uptake by industry of research innovation", said Dr Sceats, "but the detail in the report often fails to live up to the principles enunciated. These flaws will need to be dealt with in the implementation of its recommendations by the Howard Government."

Dr Sceats claimed that the Mortimer Review recommendation for substantial cuts in funding for the Cooperative Research Centres Program will destroy it and the momentum for change that it has successfully fostered in linking researchers from industry, universities and public sector research organisations with the end users of the outcomes of the research activities of the CRCs.

He pointed out that the CRC Program, an Australian initiative, has caught the attention of these successful OECD countries as an effective mechanism for capturing innovation to create new jobs; indeed they are planning to boost their growth further by adopting our model.

He drew attention to the fact that a significant ingredient of the successful high growth OECD economies has been the essential role of government in forging long term partnerships between innovators in the public sectors and high growth companies.

"Each CRC, as part of its charter, is required to act in the broader Australian interest to promote the growth of Australian industry and to establish a broad public good benefit and not just assist the specific partners including companies involved in that CRC. The CRCs are reviewed every two years to ensure this is happening," said Dr Sceats.

"Furthermore, the CRCs have another charter in education and training and the Myers Review of the overall CRC Program in 1995 concluded that the CRCs had been most effective in bringing in different ways of providing education programs and producing graduates highly valued by industry and other research users."

Mortimer suggests that seven years is enough for a CRC to demonstrate benefits and thereafter government support should be slashed or withdrawn altogether. Dr Sceats asked "What is the evidence for this? "In successful OECD countries, government sponsored consortia have been pumping out innovation into industry for decades. The Myers Review of the CRC Program was sufficiently impressed with the potential for the long term value of the program and its success to recommend its continuation," he said.

Technology is the turbo charger of wealth; the CRC Program is one of the best mechanisms Australia has in its armory to boost the uptake of innovation. Dr Sceats urges that rather than cut a successful program, the Government should boost the CRC Program in a long term effort to close the yawning gap between Australia's weak economic growth and the high growth economies with which we compete.

The recommendation affecting the CRC Program is to "terminate, in line with the scheduled date, funding of those CRCs for which there is predominantly a private benefit, and limit funding to $20 million per annum for new CRCs and those CRCs with predominantly 'public good' collaborative scientific programs."

page top | contents | next page