#POLICYHACK

Policy Hack 2018- OUTCOMES -

- 2 -

#POLICYHACK

ABOUT POLICY HACK 2018

Policy Hack 2018 saw 159 startup industry and government participants come together for a full-day startup policy development workshop. Participants included founders of some of Australia’s most successful high-growth tech businesses and representatives from Australia’s leading venture capital firms, corporates and universities. Representatives from some of the world’s biggest technology companies sat side by side with startup community leaders, ecosystem experts, and representatives from a large array of state and federal government agencies. The group included participants from each state and territory, including a number of regional areas.

Ahead of arriving in Brisbane, participants were allocated to one of 11 teams and given briefing materials on the problem they would be trying to solve. The topics were:

• What can we do to boost corporate collaboration with startups?

• How can we develop a local talent pool to support startup growth?

• How can Australia attract more international tech R&D?

• How can we better support Australian startups looking to go global?

• What are the next steps in building a world-class seed funding environment in Australia?

• How can we improve the data we have available on the Australian startup sector?

• Can we make it easier to readily identify which companies qualify for startup programs?

• How can we better connect startup communities nationally?

• What are the key emerging policy challenges posed by artificial intelligence?

• What do we need to do to make the Global Talent Scheme a success for startups?

• What needs to be done to boost Australia’s IP commercialisation rate?

Each team was tasked with identifying clear, actionable proposals to help meet the challenges that their topic identified. Teams spent about five hours discussing possible solutions and putting together proposals, and were then asked to give a three minute pitch outlining and advocating for their ideas.

Additional Policy Hack materials and information can be found on the StartupAUS website at -www.startupaus.org/policy-hack-2018

Policy Hack 2018 was made possible thanks to financial support by all three levels of government, with the federal Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, the Queensland Government, and Brisbane City Council all contributing. Special thanks also to our corporate partners Microsoft, Google and UTS for helping to make the event possible.

ABOUT POLICY HACK 2018

ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT

This outcomes document is a summary of each group’s proposals. It has been put together by StartupAUS using the briefing materials provided to participants, the notes participants took on the day, the presentations made by the teams, follow-up conversations with each of the 11 team leads, and consultation directly with participants.

The document is intended to be a summary of the outcomes of the day for public consumption, a record of the day for participants, and is intended to inform further policy development in these areas.

- 3 -

#POLICYHACK

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

159 PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANTS LOCATIONS

CONFIRMED ATTENDANCE

57 GOVERNMENT102 INDUSTRY

65 FEMALE

94 MALE

46

52

28

119

5

5

2

1 (USA)

Corporate

Coworking/incubator/accelerator

Ecosystem

Founder (Large)

Founder (medium)

Founder (small)

Government (federal)

Government (state/local)

Investors

Rep Groups

Startup

University

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

- 4 -

#POLICYHACK

STARTUPS AND CORPORATESTHE MISSIONSupport more effective startup-corporate collaboration in Australia.

TEAM LEADER Melissa Anderson, Director, Digital, ICT & Professional Services at Entrepreneur’s Programme

TEAM MEMBERS:

Melissa Anderson Aleksandar Pavic Alex Dreiling Jemma Enright Katrina Watson Kurt Wildermuth Lauren Capelin Nick Dunford Peter Bradd Peter Laurie Rebecca Hay Sheona Devin Tamryn Barker Troy Haines

OVERVIEW

A low rate of collaboration between startups and corporates in Australia, driven partly by a lack of experience on both sides of the equation, was identified as one of the ecosystem’s clearest weaknesses. This is a particular problem as the bulk of Australia’s startups tend to be focused on enterprise customers rather than selling direct to consumers, so engagement with corporates is critical. The consequences of limited startup-corporate engagement include fewer onshore growth opportunities for startups, reduced access by corporates to innovative products, lower rates of private sector collaboration on commercialisation, and a flat startup acquisition market (with negative flow-on effects across the ecosystem).

Boosting collaboration rates could help founders stay in Australia, keep Australian corporates globally competitive, drive intrapreneurship within large organisations, help Australian startups compete with international peers for speed to scale, and increase repeat founder rates by boosting exit opportunities. These outcomes would likely have strong positive ramifications across a broad slice of the economy.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Mutual understanding

Risk aversion Market gapCommunication

difficultiesMissed potential

• Implement a tax incentive to encourage corporate investment in startups and startup support structures.

• Extend Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnership (ESVCLP) tax structure to corporate venture funds.

• Establish an endowment to foster innovation and technology education and partnerships, similar to the Nesta initiative in the UK.

- 5 -

#POLICYHACK

USING A TAX INCENTIVE TO HELP DRIVE CORPORATE COLLABORATION

According to Policy Hack participants there remains ‘enormous untapped value’ in missed collaboration opportunities for both startups and enterprises in Australia. A well-aimed nudge, in the form of a tax incentive designed to encourage collaboration, could help begin the process of realising some of this value. There are numerous mechanisms for corporates to engage with startups including through support for incubators and accelerators, secondments and other talent exchanges, direct equity investments, strategic customer relationships, or support for startup ecosystem development initiatives and organisations. In each case corporates bring both financial firepower and non financial resources, including access to global supply chains.

The limited uptake of many of these engagement channels is largely due to a gap in the market - public companies are incentivised to prioritise results over experimental longer-term spend. A tax incentive, in the form of a list of eligible activities which would qualify for an offset, could help address this market gap and substantially boost activity. This would make expenditure on startup-focused programs more attractive to large enterprises, and shift decision making towards collaborative efforts.

BOOSTING THE NUMBER OF CORPORATE VENTURE FUNDS WITH ESVCLP STRUCTURES

Globally, one of the most widely used startup-focused mechanisms available to corporates is corporate venture capital (CVC). Australia already has a small group of established CVCs, but an increase in the number of funds would boost corporate engagement with startups, both by increasing direct investment and by increasing incentives for large enterprises to engage with startups at a strategic level.

The ESVCLP tax incentive structure has been an important driver behind recent growth in the number and size of Australian venture firms. Extending a similar structure to corporate venture funds would likely see an increase in dedicated venture arms being established, increasing capital available to startups and collaboration between young firms and enterprises. Additional incentives for balance sheet investments made by corporates directly into startups would further amplify this.

A PUBLICLY-FUNDED INNOVATION BODY TO BOOST ENGAGEMENT AND UNDERSTANDING

During the discussion, Policy Hack participants noted that boosting engagement is only high impact if the engagement itself is effective. The experience of participants was that, in an Australian context, effectiveness of engagements remained a challenge. Participants described a difficulty in ‘understanding each other’ as a key part of the challenge here. Elsewhere, organisations such as Nesta in the UK have engaged in extensive programmatic and research work to help build two-way understanding in innovation ecosystems and make engagements more effective. Participants referred positively to the work Nesta had done in this area in its 2015 Winning Together report1 and noted there was no similar work being done for Australia, and no obvious organisation to do it. A strong theme of the discussion was that a well-funded organisation with a remit to engage in this sort of work would help enhance corporate-startup collaborations in an Australian context.

DETAIL

1 - www.media.nesta.org.uk/documents/winning-_together-june-2015.pdf

- 6 -

#POLICYHACK

LOCAL SKILLSTHE MISSIONDevelop a strong pipeline of local tech and startup skills.

TEAM LEADER Colin Kinner, CEO, Startup Onramp

TEAM MEMBERS:

Baden Uren Bernie Woodcroft Caitlin Hart Colin Kinner Heidi Holmes James Alexander Jane Carter Jodie Wearne Laura Egan Liz Jackson Mark Gustowski Nick Kaye Ryan Cross Sally-Ann Williams Sarah Moran

OVERVIEW

A world-class startup ecosystem needs world-class talent. In the short term, some of that talent can be imported from elsewhere, but medium term talent growth requires strong local skills development programs.

As the nature of the labour market changes, Australia needs an innovative and creative workforce with the skills and capabilities to secure its future productivity. Talent is now the single biggest challenge facing Australian startups. It is critical to develop local talent to meet the future needs of an emerging digital economy.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Exposure to entrepreneurship

Role models Education Knowledge Capacity building

• Develop a national entrepreneurship education facility, with strong links to formal education, to drive accelerated adoption of entrepreneurship skills.

• Embed entrepreneurs in residence in communities and schools, improving identification of emerging business talent and increasing exposure of students to entrepreneurial role models and concepts.

• Develop a well-funded national innovation and entrepreneurship foundation, with a mandate to produce high quality Australia-focused entrepreneurship case studies for use in Australian business and entrepreneurship curricula.

• Match the Digital Technologies Curriculum with training and assessment programs for teachers to ensure the material is delivered effectively.

- 7 -

#POLICYHACK

A NATIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION FACILITY AND EMBEDDING ENTREPRENEURS IN COMMUNITIES

Policy Hack participants identified that students in the Australian education system receive little or no exposure to entrepreneurship through the course of their formal education. This has ramifications not just for startups, but also for overall workforce flexibility and the prevalence of entrepreneurial thinking within larger organisations. Australian incubator and accelerator programs are being accessed by large numbers of first-time founders with little understanding of entrepreneurship concepts, often limiting the ability of these programs to accelerate companies because they are bringing founders up to speed on basic skills.

Participants noted that entrepreneurship is made up of a set of skills that can be learned. Strong results have been seen internationally with the development of programs like the highly successful Stockholm School of Entrepreneurship. The new Sydney School of Entrepreneurship, supported by the NSW Government, has sought to replicate some of that success on a state level. A national approach would substantially amplify impact. A national entrepreneurship academy could draw lessons from highly successful established national institutions like the National Institute of Dramatic Arts (NIDA), and the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) to help produce best-in-class entrepreneurs in Australia.

To be effective, such an institution would need to find the right balance between broad linkages with formal education systems and strongly independent curriculum and teaching methodology. Developing standard ‘playbooks’ for program managers and educators would help keep content consistent and world-class. Embedding experienced entrepreneurs in communities and schools would help identify entrepreneurial interest and ability, while at the same time increasing exposure of students to entrepreneurial role models. Connectivity with late secondary and early tertiary students would help give aspiring entrepreneurs an established path to developing formal skills in this area.

NATIONAL INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOUNDATION

During the discussion, Policy Hack participants noted that exposure of Australian students to relevant entrepreneurship concepts would be boosted by the development of more Australia-focused business curriculum material. Case studies in Australian courses, from high school through to University, tend to focus on American or European companies, with little formal material being prepared on Australian businesses. Much of the existing entrepreneurship-focused education research emanates from a few leading global institutions - organisations like the Kauffman Foundation based in Kansas City and Nesta in the UK.

An Australian organisation dedicated to the development of educational materials would help boost students’ exposure to Australian entrepreneurship and improve learning outcomes. An Australian version of Kauffman wouldn’t need the huge scale of its US counterpart (Kauffman controls more than US $2bn in assets) but would need a sizeable initial endowment in order to do effective work on an independent basis. A more realistic model might look something like Nesta, the UK’s publicly-funded innovation foundation, which was established in 1998 with a £250 million endowment.

HELPING TEACHERS IMPLEMENT THE DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES CURRICULUM EFFECTIVELY

It’s critical that students are exposed to STEM skills from an early age, and the recent introduction of the Digital Technologies Curriculum is a substantial step forward on the ‘technology’ element of STEM skills. However, as the curriculum is rolled out around Australia, there is some concern that teachers haven’t been given all the tools needed to teach the material effectively. While significant resources are being delivered to help upskill teachers, a sustained focus on teacher training and assessment is required to ensure that the curriculum achieves its goals. An April 2018 report by the Education Council’s STEM Partnerships Forum3 identified similar concerns. In particular, recommendations 3 and 4 of the report support the view identified by Policy Hack participants.

DETAIL

2 - Stem Partnerships Focum (2018), OPTIMISING STEM INDUSTRY-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS: INSPIRING AUSTRALIA’S NEXT GENERATION

- 8 -

#POLICYHACK

ATTRACTING INTERNATIONAL R&DTHE MISSIONAttract Australia-based research and development centres from global technology firms

TEAM LEADER Dave Sharma, Australian Ambassador to Israel 2013-2017

TEAM MEMBERS:

Alex Blauensteiner Andrew Dunbar Anhar Khanbhai Bronwen Clune Dave Sharma Jack Archer Joanne Mulder Lea Diffey Patrick Llewellyn Paul Martyn Peter Rindt Rene Chilton Tom Goerke Tom Robertson

OVERVIEW

Large tech companies are actively scouring the world seeking to establish R&D centres, with product or sector-specific labs springing up on a regular basis. Where these facilities are established, existing local talent pools often flourish and expand. This can have strong positive flow-on effects in burgeoning tech sectors. Success often begets scale, too: countries or cities with strong global brands tend to attract the lion’s share of new projects. Research and development conducted by large multinational tech firms has been a substantial driver for many of the world’s most successful technology ecosystems, including Israel and Singapore.

In many ways Australia is an attractive market for global technology companies, with most enjoying a significant commercial presence here. Yet we largely lack substantial R&D investment from these firms, with Australian offices typically focused on sales and marketing.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Understanding motivations

Visas Tax incentives Australia’s narrative

Specialisation Cooperation Picking winners

• Implement a fast-track visa stream for high-value R&D projects determined to be in the national interest.

• Identify geographic sectoral strengths to help foster differentiation and specialisation.

• Establish an innovation ambassador tasked with attracting R&D investments in Australia from high value global tech firms, with clear deals-based performance criteria and strong political and regulatory support from both state and federal governments.

- 9 -

#POLICYHACK

AUSTRALIA’S R&D FUNDAMENTALS

While every project has different specific needs, some factors are broadly applicable across almost all R&D proposals. To be attractive to decision-makers in global tech firms, local ecosystems need at least some of the following:

• World-class local talent. Companies find it difficult to invest in places where there isn’t an established talent pool.

• Ability to import additional talent in a frictionless way to get projects staffed up quickly and effectively.

• World class research institutions.

• Existing high-value R&D work already being done.

• Clear local strengths in particular areas, preferably with a proven track record.

• High quality business infrastructure that is affordable and easy to access.

On many of these fundamentals, Australia already performs well. Policy Hack participants suggested areas which still needed particular improvement were visa structures, industry specialisation, and access to world-class internet connectivity.

IMPROVING FUNDAMENTALS: VISA STRUCTURES

For these sorts of projects, importing talent is important even where local talent pools are strong. Companies need to be able to seamlessly transfer staff - even entire teams - from other locations to guide and deliver R&D that clearly matches organisational priorities and integrates with existing projects elsewhere. As it stands, Australia’s visa regime is a significant barrier. A fast-track stream of the TSS visa for multinational R&D projects deemed to be in the national interest (likely at Ministerial discretion) would help. It would also add to the toolbox of incentives available to help attract firms to Australia.

IMPROVING FUNDAMENTALS: SPECIALISATION

Policy Hack participants noted that Australia’s reputation as an R&D centre would be amplified by geographic areas developing clearly articulable sectoral strengths. Australia is beginning to develop some areas of specialisation, but it’s a slow process and there is no central coordination or strategy, leading to duplication of efforts and dilutive competition. Clearer geographic sectoral strengths would help focus efforts and amplify natural strengths.

With strong and improving fundamentals, a focus on improving Australia’s visibility and position in the market, and the right toolkit of incentives, Australia can position itself as a genuine contender for high-value R&D projects. Success in doing so could have far-reaching consequences.

Policy Hack participants identified that attracting R&D projects would require Australia to have or develop:

• Strong fundamentals in areas that are important to global tech firms

• An attractive message and highly skilled advocates delivering it

• The right package of incentives to encourage multinationals to choose to invest here

DETAIL

- 10 -

#POLICYHACK

DELIVERING THE RIGHT MESSAGE: AN INNOVATION AMBASSADOR

Strong fundamentals are only part of the picture. We also need a cohesive narrative about why Australia should be in the mix for decision makers at big tech firms. That involves marketing our existing and emerging strengths. Austrade, which already operates in this space, should be resourced to develop these materials. To be effective, however, this effort should be combined with dedicated and coordinated advocacy targeting global tech firms. The appointment of an ambassador for innovation, with a mandate to attract high value R&D to projects to Australia, would help. The position would need to be empowered and incentivised to source high quality deals offshore, and given license to generate or negotiate favourable local conditions to attract promising businesses.

INCENTIVES TO INVEST

The key tools that governments at all levels would need to be prepared to use to begin to attract these projects at scale include:

• Facilitating access to favourable visa arrangements, as already discussed

• Providing access to state of the art R&D facilities or other physical space on attractive terms

• Providing ready access to world-class infrastructure, including high-velocity internet

• Allocating dedicated case managers empowered to proactively resolve regulatory or administrative challenges associated with establishing each project

• Establishing regulatory ‘sandboxes’ for particular kinds of projects to facilitate testing and development

• Approving tax concessions and other one-off financial incentives

With strong and improving fundamentals, a focus on improving Australia’s visibility and position in the market, and the right toolkit of incentives, Australia can position itself as a genuine contender for high-value R&D projects. Success in doing so could have far-reaching consequences.

- 11 -

#POLICYHACK

• Improve speed and certainty of Export Market Development Grant (EMDG) payments to startups by developing an EMDG stream where young businesses can elect to be paid an immediate, easily calculable, guaranteed rebate at a reduced rate.

• Develop a centralised system for notifying startups when they become eligible for support on a program by program basis.

• Expand export support to include market immersion programs designed to foster deeper market research and due diligence.

GOING GLOBALTHE MISSIONHelp startups and scale-ups enter new global markets more quickly and effectively.

TEAM LEADER Heath Baker, Head of Policy, Export Council of Australia

TEAM MEMBERS:

Aaron Birkby Bede Moore Bridget Loudon Elisa Henderson Heath Baker Ian Nearhos James McGarry Luke Deacon Rachel Roberts Sam Carigliano Samantha Wong Steve Ryan Thea Knill

OVERVIEW

Few businesses are export-ready as quickly and enthusiastically as ‘born global’ startups, yet many startups are unaware of export support programs or find them difficult to access. A lot of startups pursuing customers in overseas markets wouldn’t even think of themselves as exporters.

Better targeting of support programs to help young businesses internationalise early may help transition more startups into scale-ups and drive significant growth in digital exports. If we succeed here, we will see a greater number of Australian startups earning a greater proportion of their revenue from overseas markets.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Visibility Timing Certainty

Unique support National importance Build local, sell global

- 12 -

#POLICYHACK

IMPROVING EMDG FOR STARTUPS: SPEED AND CERTAINTY

One of the most important parts of Australia’s export support architecture is the EMDG, which provides reimbursement for funds spent on developing export markets. EMDG reimburses companies for ‘up to’ 50% of eligible costs incurred, in a split payment system where at the start of the next financial year, 100% of eligible funds are paid up to a payment ceiling, and a second tranche of payments is made later from the residual funds. Rates of reimbursement for second tranche payments are calculated based on the number of applicants and the amount of funding remaining in the pool after the first tranche of payments. Because of changes to the payment ceiling for tranche one payments and the changing rate at which tranche two payments are made, it is impossible for businesses to be confident of their EMDG returns at the time of submitting a claim.

This complexity means there are a substantial number of moving parts in assessing claims under EMDG. Even companies that receive their full grant entitlement regularly wait 12-18 months after incurring costs before claims are paid in full, particularly when those costs are incurred early in a financial year. Cash is critical for startups, and waiting more than a year to be reimbursed for eligible costs often radically diminishes the benefit provided by EMDG.

In many cases, it may be strongly preferable for startups to elect to claim a smaller capped rebate that is paid immediately and can be reliably built into the business bottom line. An EMDG stream that allowed young businesses to make this choice would reduce the overall cost of the scheme while increasing its utility for startups.

BOOSTING VISIBILITY OF EXPORT PROGRAMS

Visibility support mechanisms for businesses seeking to internationalise remains low among most startups. Participants noted that state and federal governments were already compiling passive information about their startup support programs, but early-stage companies rarely had the resources to invest in researching relevant grants on government databases. It was suggested that a mechanism to proactively reach out to companies was required. Participants suggested that for founders to become aware of support mechanisms they needed to have information pushed to them - to be ‘slapped in the face’ by it - preferably in a way that brought each scheme to the attention of founders only when and if their businesses became eligible.

A central register where startups could identify their interest in receiving pertinent information from government agencies about support programs could help ‘push’ the information into companies at the right time, as well as providing valuable business information to program operators. A challenge here would be to design a system that was smart enough to be aware of business stage without regular input from companies.

SUPPORT FOR PRE-EXPANSION MARKET ASSESSMENT MISSIONS

Current support mechanisms could also be enhanced by a stronger focus on startup immersion in prospective overseas markets. Existing support programs don’t currently allow businesses to claim rebates or deductions for market research / due diligence missions overseas, although structured international missions are increasingly seen as highly valuable to the eventual success of startup expansions. Expanding direct and indirect support programs to cover market immersion missions would be a boost to the prospects of startups successfully going global. Landing pads could provide a high value avenue for supporting such missions, and governments could look to include market immersion missions as eligible expenses in rebate schemes for international market development.

DETAIL

- 13 -

#POLICYHACK

• Improve speed and certainty of Export Market Development Grant (EMDG) payments to startups by developing an EMDG stream where young businesses can elect to be paid an immediate, easily calculable, guaranteed rebate at a reduced rate.

• Develop a centralised system for notifying startups when they become eligible for support on a program by program basis.

• Expand export support to include market immersion programs designed to foster deeper market research and due diligence.

SEED FUNDINGTHE MISSIONIdentify the next steps in building a world-class seed investment landscape for Australia.

TEAM LEADER Christian Gergis, Head of Policy, Australian Institute of Company Directors

TEAM MEMBERS:

Brett Yeomans Chelsea Newell Christian Gergis Jim Kalokerinos Joachim Schoen Jordan Green Kerri Lee Sinclair Luke Anear Paul Russell Stefan Knight Tara Baker

OVERVIEW

Ready access to high quality early stage funding is critical to the success of startups and scale-ups. Seed funding often sets the tone for a company’s trajectory, ideally unlocking strong positive growth potential. If done poorly, however, early stage funding can inhibit the growth of businesses in the medium term by making them unattractive to future investors.

It’s therefore critical to get seed funding right. Encouraging the growth of the sector helps drive volume, opening funding avenues for more companies and a broader spread of ideas. Angel investor expertise can also play a big role in the success of early stage businesses, so a plurality of high-quality angels is critical to ensuring startups of all stripes are given the best opportunity to succeed.

Across Australia, early stage investment sectors remain fragmented and largely opaque. Data is scarce, and two-way visibility between angels and founders is poor. Without much aggregation, industry best practice is fragmented and term sheets remain highly variable (and too often harmful to the future growth of businesses). Growth in the quantum of investible early stage funds in recent years has helped expand overall access to funds, but more can be done here too.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Access Visibility Data Best practice AggregationQuality

term sheets

- 14 -

#POLICYHACK

A NATIONAL SEED INVESTOR REPRESENTATIVE BODY

Data, visibility, aggregation and establishing industry best practice were all themes that emerged from the Policy Hack discussion. Each of these could be addressed by the creation of a national representative body for angel investors. A public face for the angel investment community would make it easier to identify and implement best practice, provide an avenue for founders to approach investors, and could collect and publish data about the angel sector.

Similar organisations have previously been attempted, most recently with the Australian Association of Angel Investors (AAAI) which is no longer operational. Participants noted that AAAI had not had any operational support from government, and that the angel investment sector was particularly difficult to establish a new, properly-funded, representative industry organisation.

Support from the Federal Government, possibly in partnership with states, would help change this picture. In return, a national angel investment organisation could help guide and sharpen policy focused on encouraging early stage investment and growth in early stage startups. In particular, Policy Hack participants suggested government financial support for the first five years of operation would allow a representative angel group to deliver ‘priority insights and drive effective policy and programmes’.

TWEAKING TAX INCENTIVES FOR ANGEL INVESTMENT

One of the most relevant policy initiatives in this space is the Early Stage Innovation Company (ESIC) tax incentive which was introduced in the 2015 National Innovation and Science Agenda. Participants noted that ESIC had seen some uptake by the sector but could be improved in a number of ways to make it more impactful.

A review of the definition of ‘innovation company’ in the points test could both improve access for a range of genuine startups who currently found it difficult to qualify, and help reduce the number of illegitimate applications. Broadening the points test would also allow more companies to self-assess, making access to the scheme faster, easier, and cheaper for companies. Extending eligibility beyond the current three year cap would make sense, too. It was noted a process of updating the definition of an ‘innovation company’ was envisaged when the points test was first being established. Expanding the incentives on offer under the scheme (including the rate of rebate), in line with the UK’s Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) would help attract more angels, too.

ADDRESSING UNFAIR TERM SHEETS: STANDARD TERMS AND INVESTOR EDUCATION

One area where Policy Hack participants agreed there could be more work done by the sector, rather than governments, was on term sheets. The industry was still seeing too many unfair term sheets, which were bad for investors and startups across the board. Promising companies were too often burdened with bad terms by seed investors, making later fundraising rounds much more difficult or impossible. Onerous term sheets often involved ratchet clauses or tranches with unrealistic milestones, unreasonably low valuations, or governance arrangements weighted too heavily in favour of early investors.

Participants identified that education was a factor here. There was a wide mix of skill and experience levels in the angel and seed funding community. Raising the knowledge and skill base of angel investors would drive better awareness and higher quality outcomes for both investors and founders. Education programs delivered by industry experts and supported by federal or state governments could help address this gap. An industry group could play a role here too.

For venture capital firms, an industry standard had begun to emerge around the open source seed financing documents produced by AVCAL, the venture capital sector’s industry body. These were not necessarily appropriate for earlier-stage investors, however. Participants pointed out that many startup and scale-up investors were not VC firms and operated outside the influence of that community. An industry push to establish broad-based understanding of well shaped terms for early stage investments outside of VC would be highly valuable. Such a push could be led by an angel-focused industry group, such as the one outlined above.

DETAIL

- 15 -

#POLICYHACK

DATA AND IMPACTTHE MISSIONDevelop a clear data picture of the Australian startup ecosystem.

TEAM LEADER Alex Lynch, Public Policy and Government Relations Manager, Google Australia

TEAM MEMBERS:

Alex Lynch Chad Renando Colin Griffith Emily Close Francesco Tornatore Gaminda Ganewatta Joe Thorpe Kenneth Sauer Kosta Sinelnikov Monica Wulff Peter Van Bruchem Raj Gupta Retha Scheepers Stan Bucifal

OVERVIEW

A number of current efforts to collect and aggregate data on Australia’s startup landscape exist, but a lack of integration with existing programs (both public and private) limits comprehensiveness. A detailed national data set aimed at tracking the progress and impact of the startup sector would help tailor both private sector programs and public policy more effectively.

Fragmentation of data sources remains a key concern, with only limited support currently being provided for any aggregation initiatives. Data collected by government agencies through grants and public programs remains largely inaccessible, too, further limiting the connectivity of data sources. And, without a clear definition of a startup, outdated standards and classifications make official datasets unreliable when seeking to draw insights about the startup sector.

To address the problem, we need to get the foundation right - participants in the process speaking the same language, open access to government data sources, and a commitment from governments to evidence-based policy evaluation and design.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Measuring impact Definitions Funding Data ownership

Comprehensiveness Connectivity Centralisation

• Federal government to allocate a dedicated $2m pool of funding to commission work on an open tender basis to collect and aggregate startup ecosystem data.

• Standardise Government data reporting format, and increase availability of data, for publicly-funded grants and programs.

• Remove cost barriers to accessing key public data sources relevant to startup community measurement, particularly the ASIC registry’s company data paywall.

• Update industry, occupation, and skills classifications (such as ANZCO and ANZSIC codes) to reflect the needs of the current economy.

• Continue to pursue a common startup definition, engaging with the startup community on the creation of a minimum standard definition of what constitutes a startup or scale-up for measurement purposes.

- 16 -

#POLICYHACK

A POOL OF PUBLIC FUNDING TO DEVELOP BETTER DATA ON THE STARTUP SECTOR

A number of organisations are currently engaged in collecting data on various parts of Australia’s startup ecosystem. Due to a lack of national strategy, many existing datasets overlap, are not integrated and/or do not measure key industry metrics. A dedicated pool of federal government funds, backed by a strategic approach, would help overcome these issues.

The funds pool would not need to be large - participants recommended an annual $2m allocation with an open tender process to allow organisations to bid for segments of the data gathering, integration and reporting work. A centralised strategy, developed in partnership with the sector, could shape the priorities of the funding. Reports built with data collected from these programs should be published, with public and private organisations then able to use this data to improve programs. Where data is collected with public funding by private organisations, adequate safeguards ensuring ongoing public access to that data should be put in place. Better reporting on the size, shape, and growth of the sector would also provide data to support startup-focused policy initiatives at a political level.

MAKE BETTER USE OF, AND REDUCE COSTS OF ACCESSING, PUBLIC DATA

At the same time, Policy Hack participants identified a range of existing data sources that could be put to better use. Large volumes of data were being collected by government agencies in the administration of startup-focused programs, but very little of it was made public or, where it was made public, was often incomplete. For maximum effect, the Federal Government could lead an initiative to standardise data collection and reporting on startups across government, and undertake to increase the public accessibility of that data.

Some relatively comprehensive data sources, such as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) registry could provide highly valuable data to organisations seeking to measure the ecosystem, but were difficult or (in ASIC’s case) costly to access at the scale required for meaningful collective data analysis. ASIC data that is currently publicly available for a fee should be made freely available online. Access to the ASIC database should also be opened up (perhaps by adding to the data.gov.au initiative). Removing these barriers would help data-gatherers access and use public information to build a more comprehensive picture. Open access to company data would also improve transparency and efficiency for investors, incubators, accelerators and public programs managers that support startups.

UPDATING DATA SETS TO REFLECT MODERN BUSINESSES

Other government data sources and collection mechanisms were identified as being in urgent need of updating. Both the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) and Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) code sets were severely out of date, with very real implications for the sector across a range of areas. Updating these and other occupations / skills lists to include new areas of work emerging out of the development of digital products was a critical step in building a better data picture.

DEFINING STARTUPS

Participants agreed that a central issue for data collection is that identifying startups was difficult at least in part because there was no common definition of a startup. A startup ‘status’ or other standardised mechanism for identifying young high-growth companies would help data gathering efforts substantially. This concept was discussed in detail by numerous Policy Hack teams, in particular the ‘startup status’ team, and the need for coordination on a startup definition remains a strong theme for the event overall.

DETAIL

- 17 -

#POLICYHACK

• Federal Treasury to expand the existing definition of an Early Stage Innovation Company (ESIC) in consultation with industry to cover a more complete range of companies.

• Federal government to develop a certification mechanism using the expanded ESIC definition to pre-approve startups for access to government programs.

• State governments to adopt the same centralised certification for state-based programs.

STARTUP ‘STATUS’THE MISSIONDevelop a clear, centralised mechanism for identifying startups.

TEAM LEADER Matthew Proft, Startup Client Engagement Manager, Jobs for NSW

TEAM MEMBERS:

Cass Mao Chris Macphillamy Gillian Treloar Judy Anderson Matthew Proft Murray Hurps Paula Pownall Petr Adamek Steve Baxter Sue-Ellen Luke Wayne Gerard

OVERVIEW

There is no current centralised definition of a ‘startup’ in Australia. Competing definitions exist across existing programs, requiring startups to requalify for each scheme. As startup-focused programs proliferate, this regulatory burden is likely to increase.

This is a problem for actors right across the sector, including creators, startups, investors, and government agencies.

Developing a startup ‘status’ presents an opportunity to help accelerate the growth of startups, create a sandpit to experiment with novel policy approaches, and maximise the impact of programs by limiting their application to genuine startups (and excluding other types of businesses).

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Centralisation Coordination Identification

Data Access Red tape

- 18 -

#POLICYHACK

Tailoring programs and policies to help startups is particularly difficult when there’s no clear definition of which kinds of businesses qualify as startups, and which do not. Policy proposals that should only apply to a very select group of genuine startups are often discarded because their is no way to effectively limit their application (and, when modeled across a broader cohort, cost projections start to skyrocket).

USE AND IMPROVE WHAT WE’VE ALREADY GOT: ESIC

Policy Hack participants identified that the Federal Government had already taken important steps towards solving this problem. The ESIC definition used for the early stage investor incentives introduced in mid-2016 provided a solid foundation for developing a comprehensive startup definition. Its dual-stream approach to testing ‘innovativeness’ (through a points test initially or, where companies couldn’t meet the points test, through a principles-based test) was reasonable, and in general the ESIC criteria made sense.

A CENTRALISED CERTIFICATION MECHANISM FOR STARTUP ‘STATUS’

Expanding the ESIC points test to cover a broader range of startups would provide the basis for a sensible startup ‘status’ that could then be used to develop targeted startup-focused policy. (It’s worth noting here that expanding ESIC was also recommended by the Policy Hack seed funding team, and is something that would not require legislative change.) This expansion should be done in consultation with the sector.

DETAIL

Education Ideation MVP Early RevenueProduct

Market FitScale

0 YRS 10 YRS

ESIC STARTUP STATUS

- 19 -

#POLICYHACK

USING THE NEW STARTUP DEFINITION ACROSS A RANGE OF PROGRAMS, BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE

Centralising the innovativeness test into a startup ‘status’ would bring the core components of a startup into one definition, allowing program design at both federal and state level to focus on a cohort of pre-vetted companies. Additional criteria (age, size, or location, for example) could then be used to further limit the pool of target companies on a program by program basis if required. ESIC already does this by including a set of gateway criteria around age and size before applying the innovativeness test.

Policy Hack participants identified a series of startup-focused proposals that might be made possible or simplified if a startup ‘status’ were introduced, including: improved access to EMDG for startups, the startup stream of the Global Talent Scheme, and quarterly payment of the R&D Tax Incentive for startups.

CREATORS STARTUPS INVESTORS GOVERNMENT

• Access to programs during ideation

• Enables prequalification to access programs

• Reduces cost and time of accessing programs

• Extends support across lifecycle - daisy chain of programs

• Attract new and more investors into the ecosystem at different stages

• Streamline policy and program development

• Ability to share between levels of Government

• Maximise impact of programs

• Enable program delivery efficiency

- 20 -

#POLICYHACK

• Federal government to play a more active role in connecting a national network of startup hubs, incubators, and startup communities by expanding the existing entrepreneurs in residence (EIR) program and developing a hub and spoke model for sharing EIR expertise between hubs.

• Federal government to further expand the EIR program by providing funding for schools to access EIRs, enabling schools to connect with existing local innovation ecosystems.

• State governments to provide financial support for communities looking to develop areas of technical specialisation, allowing aligned communities to form strong organic networks based on subject-matter expertise.

• Federal government to fund the development of a national startup community platform as a central portal for managing startup ecosystem activity, including a directory of expertise and companies and a national calendar of events.

CONNECTING COMMUNITIESTHE MISSIONImprove connectedness across the national startup ecosystem.

TEAM LEADER Brad Twynham, Regional Incubator Facilitator, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science

TEAM MEMBERS:

Brad Twynham David Masefield Duncan Jones Elize Hattin Felicity Ross Imogen Baxter Jaimee O’Brien James Riggall Joe Allen Kay Strong Kylie Hickling Lucas Patchett Maggie McGowan Mark Phillips Michael Watson Scott Handsaker Simone Henderson-Smart Steve Wilson

OVERVIEW

In recent years, substantial progress has been made in developing and growing startup communities around Australia. But those communities largely remain fragmented and disconnected. State, federal and local governments have not had a cohesive approach to bringing communities together, and the startups remain disconnected from the broader population.

A more tightly-connected national startup ecosystem would be better able to connect meaningfully internationally, and would help create high value companies that are globally relevant and competitive.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Specialisation Networks Centralisation

Access Schools Shared expertise

- 21 -

#POLICYHACK

Better-connected national startup ecosystems could have a range of benefits, including:

• Increasing utilisation of high-cost central physical assets by sharing access with disparate communities;

• Better leveraging ecosystem expertise by increasing availability to a broader range of startups;

• Spreading benefits of thriving startup ecosystems and dense startup environments;

• Creating stronger networks within the ecosystem that allow startups to smoothly transition between support structures that are tailored to their relevant life stage; and

• Increasing investors’ visibility of and access to regional startups.

As large centralised hubs continue to flourish and mature, the benefits of connectivity become even clearer. But as more actors enter the sector, developing tightly-connected networks also becomes more difficult. Understanding the challenges and acting to meet them early will help reduce cost and complexity down the track.

USING SHARED EIRS TO GROW CAPACITY AND CONNECTEDNESS BETWEEN COMMUNITIES

Policy Hack participants focused on existing federal government support programs that, if expanded, could help connect communities more effectively. In particular, the Incubator Support Initiative (ISI) was identified as a high-value program that provided support for new incubators. In particular, support under the ISI for EIRs was identified as something that would be valuable to a range of other startup community organisations. Using ISI-supported EIRs as shared resources in lower-volume regions would help develop meaningful connections and provide a mechanism for cross-pollination of expertise between communities.

DETAIL

- 22 -

#POLICYHACK

EIRS IN SCHOOLS

Participants also noted that connecting schools into innovation ecosystems would provide a significant boost in many areas. Getting experienced entrepreneurs onto school campuses through an expanded EIR support program could help bring entrepreneurial role models into schools, highlight local innovation expertise to students, develop students’ entrepreneurship skills, and identify emerging talent earlier. This would be particularly effective if aligned with a region’s core industry strengths.

SUPPORT REGIONAL SPECIALISATION TO BOOST ORGANIC NATIONAL NETWORKS

Identifying industry strengths and encouraging regions to specialise was an important theme of the Policy Hack discussion. Participants noted that regions and communities with industry-specific expertise would naturally form connections with like-minded communities nationally (and, likely, internationally). Specialisation was thus a powerful organic connecting force. These subject-matter networks would likely be particularly durable and meaningful as collaboration and information-sharing would be two way and high value. Participants felt that encouraging and supporting communities to specialise was therefore a key to success in building genuine ecosystem connections. State government financial support for ecosystems seeking to deepen expertise in industry verticals would help drive this process.

A NATIONAL STARTUP COMMUNITY PLATFORM

Participants identified a lack of visibility of ecosystem expertise as a blockage to increasing connectedness, and proposed the development of a national startup community portal. The portal would act as a directory of expertise, investors, companies, and support facilities, and could provide a central reference point for ecosystem events. Resources for startups, including information about both private and public support programs, should also be included. Such a project would be a significant undertaking and would require federal government funding, but should be led by the sector in order to remain authentic and relevant.

- 23 -

#POLICYHACK

• Develop a national AI strategy which sets out a vision for Australia’s approach in consultation with industry and researchers.

• Enhance Australia’s participation in international AI standards fora.

• Develop an ethical framework for AI engagement.

• Tackle data issues by making more data available but also identifying how data can be used.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCETHE MISSIONIdentify early actions necessary to allow for an informed debate and considered policy-making around AI activity.

TEAM LEADER Belinda Dennett, Corporate Affairs Director, Microsoft Australia

TEAM MEMBERS:

Alison Howe Angela Hughes Belinda Dennett Brad Parsons Elizabeth Kelly Elliot Smith Emily Rich Emmanuel Njuguna Fleur Brown Maria MacNamara Nick Abrahams Nicole Kelly Tom Daemen

OVERVIEW

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasing in power and application at a rapid pace and has the potential to bring great benefit to Australia. But AI will also bring a range of challenges which policy makers need to address, including in areas such as data ownership, privacy, and automation-led worker displacement.

The conversation at Policy Hack came just a week after the 2018 Federal Budget, where the Government earmarked $29.9m over four years to strengthen Australia’s capability in AI and machine learning (ML). Those funds will support the development of a ‘technology roadmap’ and ‘standards framework’ for AI, identify opportunities for the technology, support responsible development of opportunities, and provide funding for Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs), PhDs and school-related learning about AI and ML.

Significant recent developments in Europe, in particular the ‘AI for Europe’ initiative, also formed part of the backdrop for the discussion and helped crystallise the global efforts underway by governments around the world to tackle these important emerging issues.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Cultural context Personal rights Privacy

Jobs Ethical framework Data bias

- 24 -

#POLICYHACK

TAKING A DELIBERATE APPROACH - A NATIONAL AI STRATEGY

To take advantage of the emerging opportunities presented by AI, and deal with its challenges, Australia will need to engage with AI deliberately and purposefully. As a nation, we should establish an ambition to identify the areas where AI can boost productivity outcomes, and help overcome social and environmental challenges. At the same time, focus is important; Australia should look to be a global leader in at least one specific area of strength.

PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL CONVERSATIONS ON AI

Defining AI presents a potential stumbling block, and will remain an ongoing challenge for policy makers. The discussion at Policy Hack coalesced around a definition of AI as ‘a set of technologies that enable computers to perceive, learn and assist in decision-making to solve problems in ways that are similar to what people do.’ More active engagement with international standards work currently focusing on AI would help here, and would help put Australia’s voice in the frame at a global level.

AI AND ETHICS

Regardless of the granular detail, it is clear that by its nature AI is a horizontal technology, likely to affect both businesses and policymaking in many industries. Partly as a result of this breadth, cultural context is critical. Australia’s cultural settings and values will play a significant role in determining our most effective approach to AI. Developing an ethical framework that aligns with our cultural context would help guide both our domestic policy making and international engagement. Policy Hack participants identified six key elements of an ethical framework: fairness, reliability and safety, privacy and security, inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability. More work needs to be done to build consensus around the ethical framework and the mode of governance to support it.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Data is at the core of AI, and any move to enhance Australia’s AI capability should be accompanied by a commitment to make more government data available. At the same time, much clearer guidelines will need to be developed around data usage - whether public or private - in the AI era. Consideration also needs to be given to what constitutes good data and how to eliminate bias from data.

With AI already promising to help transform major social infrastructure including healthcare, governments could take a more active role in helping articulate the benefits. Governments should also play a role in convening forward-looking conversations with representatives from startups, established corporates, research groups, civic society and other areas of the economy to ensure we bring the public with us and policy-makers remain aware of the key challenges and opportunities associated with this rapidly developing technology area. 

DETAIL

- 25 -

#POLICYHACK

OVERVIEW

Access to talent is a critical component of a thriving business environment, and access to world-class startup talent is particularly important for emerging startup ecosystems. Young Australian companies looking to compete globally need to be able to access the best talent possible. For some time, difficulty accessing high quality visas for promising international candidates has been the single biggest factor holding Australian startups back.

In response to industry concerns, the Federal Government announced a new visa stream for startups under a pilot program called the Global Talent Scheme (GTS). Policy Hack participants were asked to help shape the new visa arrangements and provide insight on where the particular pain points were for startups.

• The scheme’s ‘startup authority’ to be an organisation with deep industry connections and strong grass-roots credibility.

• Ensure the scheme’s application process is low-friction, low-effort, and high-transparency.

• Ensure flexibility in the scheme around role definitions to allow new and emerging talent needs to be met.

GLOBAL TALENT SCHEMETHE MISSIONProvide input to develop a credible and workable startup streamwithin the Global Talent Scheme.

TEAM LEADER Rachael Neumann, Chair, StartupAUS

TEAM MEMBERS:

Alex Gruszka Anthony Sochan Andrew Lanigan Cliff Obrecht Craig Cowdrey David Haley Donald MacKenzie Gary Elphick Holly Cardew John Henderson Lana Hopkins Michael Willard Peter Daley Rachael Neumann Richelle McNae

THEMES

PROPOSALS

TalentGlobal

competitivenessSpeed

FlexibilityCommunity engagement

Self-regulation

- 26 -

#POLICYHACK

Solving access to global talent for startups is critical to the success of Australia’s burgeoning tech sector. Participants identified particular current pain points around current immigration processes being hard to navigate, resource intensive, and opaque. Rules and frameworks weren’t aligned to how startups were built, how they hired talent, or how they operated. Long processing times were deeply problematic for startups, where speed was everything.

Getting GTS right for startups was therefore extremely important, and the fact that this was to be a pilot program meant that we needed to make sure we got it right from the outset to give it every opportunity of being confirmed long-term. Success would be measured by:

• A clear increase in growth in jobs for Australians as a result of better access to visas for high-growth companies;

• Evidence that GTS visa recipients had transferred skills to local employees; and

• A positive public reception for the program.

The pilot introduced the concept of a ‘startup authority’ to vet appropriate companies to take part in the scheme’s startup stream. Participants noted that, to be effective and credible, the organisation selected to act as the startup authority would need to have deep roots in the national startup ecosystem.

Key elements that participants noted would be important for startups participating in the pilot revolved around simplicity and speed of the application process, and flexibility of the scheme overall. A low-friction, low-effort application process would align with startups’ expectations, and a clear focus on allowing the scheme cater to a wide (and changing) array of roles would meet the fast-changing needs of a growing tech sector.

Participants noted that, from a startup perspective, a high-quality pilot should include:

• A qualified body within the ecosystem to assess eligibility of startups (based on startup-appropriate criteria, frequently revisited)

• An application process, and possibly custom tool, that reduces friction, effort by applicants, and increases transparency

• Flexibility around role definitions for visa applicants

• If a limit is to be imposed, cap the program at 200 startups, with around 1000 visas issued

• A maximum 30 day decision turnaround time for visa processing

Participants also noted key risks for the scheme included the prospect that it would be exploited by bad actors and lead to poor public reception of the program based on anti-immigration sentiment. The sector would need to be conscious of these risks particularly during the pilot phase, and tight self-regulation would be required to ensure the scheme was a success.

DETAIL

DETAILNOTE: The Global Talent Scheme discussion at Policy Hack formed part of the Department of Home Affairs consultation process in developing the program. It was treated as input to the development of the GTS, alongside a range of other stakeholder discussions conducted by the Department in the leadup to the pilot’s launch on 1 July 2018

- 27 -

#POLICYHACK

• Federal government to fund the development of a live-updating national registry of applied research expertise (‘commercialisation registry’) in line with Data61’s ExpertConnect beta.

• Federal government and universities to develop a set of standard terms on which university IP can be accessed by those seeking to commercialise it.

• Federal government to work with universities to further modify academic incentives to encourage industry engagement and commercialisation activity by researchers.

• Federal government to provide financial support for increasing permeability of staff between industry and research, including through industry sabbaticals for academics and researchers in residence in the private sector.

COMMERCIALISING IPTHE MISSIONDrive increased commercial collaboration with research organisations.

TEAM LEADER Judy Halliday, Director of Industry Development, TechInSA

TEAM MEMBERS:

Alan Noble Alfred Lo Ann-Kerstin Schoefer Ben Hensman Christine Williams David Burt David Martin Dean Dorrell Elaine Stead Esther Ng Judy Halliday Lynn Bloomfield Martin Hosking Rohan McDougall

OVERVIEW

Australia has some of the world’s leading research institutions, and produces more than its share of high-value research as a result. But a gap between industry and researchers has meant that much of that highly valuable intellectual property (IP) is not being commercialised. Solving Australia’s weakness in commercialisation is critical to the performance of the innovation system across the board.

THEMES

PROPOSALS

Collaboration Incentives Alignment

Cultural change Visibility Permeability

- 28 -

#POLICYHACK

Overcoming the gap between Australia’s obvious research strengths and equally obvious commercialisation weakness is a big and complex task. Policy Hack participants identified two major streams of activity that needed to be undertaken to address this problem: improving access to researchers and IP, and shifting cultural approaches to commercialisation (particularly within research institutions).

A COMMERCIALISATION REGISTRY

A major identified weakness in the system was a lack of visibility by industry over what applied research expertise existed in Australian institutions. There was no consistent approach between research institutions to reporting internal expertise, and no centralised database where that expertise was recorded. Developing a smart platform that scraped publicly-available information from university websites, collated applied research expertise, and made it available to industry in a searchable format would go a long way to addressing this problem. Designed well, it would not need manual updating (data would be periodically refreshed from source materials automatically), allowing it to stay current at minimal cost and without needing buy-in from a broad range of stakeholders. A ‘set and forget’ resource such as this could substantially increase the ability of industry to find highly skilled applied researchers from Australian universities.

Participants noted that Data61, a branch of CSIRO, had identified a similar gap and was working on a tool to attempt to address the issue called ExpertConnect3. The program was currently in Beta.

STANDARD TERMS FOR ACCESSING UNIVERSITY IP

Access to university IP was also difficult for industry participants. In the worst cases, this was either because universities were not realistic about commercially viable terms, or because industry was not realistic about the value of IP. In all cases, a lack of consistency of approach meant that each negotiation was different, and outcomes were highly variable, making the process of trying to access IP difficult, lengthy, and uncertain. A standard set of terms for access to publicly-funded research would help set the baseline for many of these conversations and could significantly improve both the likelihood of a successful deal being struck and the volume of engagements. Given the priority on commercialising, such terms should aim to be “industry friendly”.

Participants identified that some work had already been done to try to standardise access to university research through the IP Toolkit4 program, but noted that the initiative had seen relatively low uptake. Low uptake could either be seen a sign that the program needs more work, or that this is an avenue with inherently limited effectiveness.

ACADEMIC INCENTIVES TO COMMERCIALISE

Policy Hack participants noted that often the most effective commercialisation efforts were undertaken by researchers themselves, but that traditional academic incentives encouraged researchers to publish rather than commercialise. Some positive changes had been made in this area in recent years (and were slowly starting to have the desired effect) but there was room for more work to be done to shift incentives towards industry collaboration, commercialisation, and impact. Research institutions also need a cultural shift in how they thought about IP commercialisation, from patents through to commercially viable products and startup spin-outs.

BOOSTING COLLABORATION BY INCREASING STAFF MOVEMENT BETWEEN RESEARCH AND INDUSTRY

Participants suggested that collaboration could also be encouraged by increasing organisational permeability, allowing (and encouraging) staff to flow between academia and industry more easily. In this regard, a cultural barrier existed in Australian institutions - researchers typically saw stints in industry as impediments to their academic careers and were often not welcoming of non-academics within their institutions. Increasing the number of researchers spending time in industry would be highly impactful, as would allowing more industry experts to spend time in academia. Funding industry placements through a researcher-in-residence arrangement could help move the needle, as could better support for entrepreneurial leave/sabbaticals for researchers. Ultimately, institutions would also need to substantially shift their approach to researchers participating in commercialisation efforts.

DETAIL

3 - www.expertconnect.global/results?query=near%20field%20communications 4 - www.ipaustralia.gov.au/tools-resources/ip-toolkit

- 29 -

#POLICYHACK

THANK YOU