ANTHILL ACTIVISM PART #2: COMMERCIAL READY SCRAPPED
James Tuckerman, Editor-In-Chief, Anthill Magazine
Rumours of my spinal injury have been greatly exaggerated.
Well…. Not really.
When you see the words ‘potential impotence’ among the risks of surgery, you know that things are about to get serious (a state of mind I’ve never been fond of).
Fortunately, the risks have passed. And in my convalescent state, I’ve had plenty of time to brood. It will still be some weeks before I’m no longer home-bound but that won’t prevent me from finishing what we (you and me, my friends) have started.
At the end of this month, the extended period of the Innovation Review will come to its conclusion. That doesn’t leave much time to get a clear and helpful message across.
Below are just some of the interesting comments left in response to my post two weeks ago:
Allan Aaron said:
“It’s imperative that anyone with an interest in seeing this situation redressed makes a strenuous argument to the national innovation review at innovationreview@innovation.gov.au and, of course, to their government representatives.”
Tim said:
“Perhaps James or Chris could offer a place where participants could contribute their thoughts.”
Paul Cheever said:
“I now want to prepare and distribute across the governments and the Panel a profile of active venture interests stories.”
Liesl asked:
“If we want to take an active role in lobbying government, and show quantifiable national benefit of the grants, and the loss to the country of CR dying, where should we make a noise?”
After reading these blog comments, while stuck at the Epworth, I had a number of epiphanies. (Thank the good soul who invented Morphine. Hopefully, not another Commercial Ready casualty). 
Epiphany #1… Hassle the Hasslers
Anthill’s proactive stance would not have take shape unless our readers had hassled us first. Of course, we were naturally dismayed at the scrapping of CR. We have encouraged and promoted many, many CR success stories in our brief history.
But it was not until you, our readers, asked us to take a stand that we began to review our options.
So… it seems sensible to bring this matter to the people and outlets (other media) that can further emphasise the need for CR or a CR alternative to the decision makers and the broader public.
Here’s my first test suggestion…
Text Q&A en masse.
Q&A is an ABC Television program that brings together political leaders and asks viewers to text their questions. We now have over 200 people who have registered to use SMS as a tool for a ‘flash protest’. Why not unleash the power of 200 on the ABC and see what happens?
If successful, I propose that we hit Sunrise (K Rudd has a weekly spot), then talk-back radio. Maybe even The Seven-Thirty Report?
Readers, I’ll need your help.
Please tell me if you think this is a good idea (or have I simply exceeded my prescribed dose of painkillers for the day?). If so, I’ll SMS the number to text and a sample message. (Perhaps you can let me know what you think a helpful question might be?) Also, what radio and television programs feature our political leaders in your neck of the woods? (I hung up my PR hat many moons ago.)
In short…
- Is this a good idea?
- What’s a good message or question?
- What other outlets should we take our message to?
Epiphany #2… Make our anxiety known to the political decision makers
On this issue, many a buck has been passed.
I don’t want to name names, but… Oh heck…
According to various newspaper reports and comments made publicly during speeches (and a virtual sack of email messages to Anthill), the following two political representatives have voiced disappointment at the scrapping of Commercial Ready.
- Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
- Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
However, if you ask who is to ‘blame’, it seems that the trail invariably leads back to a bunch of faceless number-crunchers in Finance (Lindsay Tanner’s portfolio).
- The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP, Minister for Finance and Deregulation.
But! I personally elect my officials to make decisions. Yet, I cannot find an official happy to concede that this decision was made under his/her mandate of responsibility.
Here’s my second test suggestion…
Phone or mail each of the leaders’ branch offices.
Once again, en masse, on a prescribed day (announced by SMS). If you deem this suggestion a good one, we’ll text the numbers. All we’ll need from you is to open the text and hit the call button twice. Most mobile phones will do the rest. We can also send a sample message (or, once again, please make any suggestions you like below).
Unfortunately, this second suggestion requires that we make a pest of ourselves, which can be counter-productive. That’s why I’m suggesting branch offices. Each branch office takes a log of calls, which carry through to the elected representative and their advisers. A call is more powerful than an email (email lost its currency as a political tool when it became too easy to tap and send).
It’s easy to imagine that 200 phone calls in one eight-hour day (that’s 25 calls an hour) would be enough to make an impression without forcing the cogs of political branch-office politics to grind to a halt.
But if anyone has a better idea, we’re all eyes and ears. Maybe a template Letter that can be downloaded and sent via snail mail would be a more effective idea? After all, they say a letter is worth 10,000 constituents.
In short…
- Is this a good idea?
- What’s a good message or question?
- Are there others that we should be contacting as well or instead?
Epiphany #3… Make all this count
The sad truth is that cancelled programs rarely, if ever, get reinstated. They are more likely to be resurrected in a different form or not at all.
This is partly because politicians are extremely reluctant to ‘back-flip’ on a decision (as any opposition will describe a public change in position, no matter how sensible, as just that: a back-flip).
So… while all these activities will demonstrate that a CR alternative is necessary (and that the electorate is unhappy and watching), positive suggestions are required, preferably ideas that are not simply opportunistic (like many of the 630 submissions to the Review already received).
Applications for the Innovation Review officially ended in May, but ‘unofficially’ the Review has indicated that it is prepared to accept late submissions of high importance.
Please do as Allan Aaron suggests above and mail ideas and suggestions to the National Innovation Review at innovationreview@innovation.gov.au and, of course, to your government representatives.
At Anthill, we will be packaging up all your comments from my previous post and submitting them to the PTBs (powers-that-be). We also recommend that you visit the Review website to check out the suggestions of others.
Last words…
If CR is unlikely to get a reprieve, why should we do this?
Firstly, because despite the ‘efforts’ at engagement (Forums, Submissions etc), which were based on genuinely good intentions by a group of smart and well-meaning people, the whole process, nevertheless, still stinks of an innovation system that is no longer innovative (in my humble opinion).
Forums and Submissions attract opportunism of the worst kind. Who else wants to spend hours in a town hall? Or weeks devising a submission except people with something to gain? This is something that I’ve climbed on my old soapbox about before (“Did you get your say at Senator Carr’s Innovation Review?”).
Secondly, while the Panel is made up of some of the smartest innovation experts Australia has produced, the members also only represent representatives of the baby-boom generation.
Yet, the technologies now available to drive real collaboration and engagement are largely created, driven and preferred by the people who have the most vested interest in a nation with robust innovation capabilities – Gen X and Gen Y.
Finally, not everyone has the luxury of being able to lie at home, writing blog posts and making cracks about prescription medicines (or fighting for innovation in Australia). And it would burn my soul not to use this opportunity (the scrapping of CR) to rouse interest in this debate and put innovation in the hands of the innovators.
If you think any suggestions seem too demanding, off-track or unlikely to engender an appropriate response (or your involvement), please let me know. In return, I’ll try to keep things as simple as possible (via SMS).
What say you, Anthillians? Is this the way forward or am I quietly turning into a crack-pot recalcitrant, going insane with only soft-toys, Tremazapan and my laptop for company?
June 11th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
James,
Truly sorry to hear about your accident, I hope you make a speedy and full recovery.
Regarding what we should do next, both of your ideas are very viable and will hopefully make some impact on the PTB.
I think we can all agree that removing CR and CR+ completely is a hugley moronic decision. We could outline and detail the benefits of what it has achieved, however I fear that numbers and statistics are not sexy enough to either-
Attract more supporters, or
Instigate feedback, either from the government or the press.
We as a collective need to sell this problem to the masses, the public, and to do this we need the message to be-
Simple
Uncomplicated
Concrete
Credible
Emotional
Story
In short, I believe we need to pool our talents and resources, create a website with the aim of making the people who decided that this was a good idea look like a bunch of idiots - in the publics eyes!! Politicians are slaves to the public as much as they are dictators, we can capitalise on this.
I hope this email finds you well and I look forward to your feedback.
David
david.wollage@international-inventors.com
June 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Hi James,
Hope you feel better, I have a neck injury and am also on pain killers, but I see I don’t have much room to complain next to you, but if you don’t mind I’ll join the pain killer discussion.
Firstly, and lastly- I think you’ve hit the mark with your last Eureka, yes, CR should not be scrapped. But it should be revisited and revised, to ensure absolute relativity and effectiveness in a changing world. Gen X and Gen Y are full of innovation, they sense that need for an aggressiveness and creativity to commercialisation than their elder collegue counterparts may in the face of a ever changing world (this is just evolution folks, nothing new).
But alas, what do we do. A bombardment of SMS, ok, I’m ready with mobile phone in my pistol holster. But lets not just call for CR, its too late (or is it?), lets call for Climate Ready to be matched by an equally innovative and revised cousin- that can counter balance what Climate Ready (CR II but for the earth- hopefully), won’t cover.
Or perhaps, scratch all of that. Lets push for CR II, and this may be the pain killers talking, with the SMS gun fire, to first put more money into it- lots more, and then to take a broad innovative framework to address ‘any’ innovation, technology etc, that adds ’social, environmental and economic’ value to Australia. There by securing our sustainable future and economy.
I can already hear the “what the”. But its just a thought.
Get well soon.
Michele
June 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Yes to all the above suggestions. For over 6 months, we negotiated and received formal agreements from the world’s major chipset providers to cross-promote our Australian developed product internationally, on the premise that we would receive a 50% contribution under Commercial Ready for integrating our product with their chipsets. The sudden scrapping of Commercial Ready not only jeopardises the opportunities but means that we will not be able to deliver to expectations of new international partners - i.e. our company risks being tarnished thanks to Rudd.
Furthermore, as a small Australian company with business plans including employment of hundreds of new staff in the next 3 to 5 years, Rudd has jeopardised employment opportunities for skilled Australians and also wasted time spent preparing our Commercial Ready submission.
At the very least, Commercial Ready should be reinstated with a phase out period for those companies who had already met with a Commercial Ready representative and begun preparing their submission.
How can government expect companies to have business plans as part of their submission while pulling the plug on them ?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Just a short update…
One of our readers, a constituent of Griffith, was so incensed by the scrapping of Commercial Ready that he demanded to meet with his elected member, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
It seems that he has scored a meeting and, even better, he has offered to table the concerns of other disgruntled innovators. He wants to remain nameless, for obvious reasons.
However, we will be preparing a pack of materials for him to present. So, keep the commentary coming and we’ll push them forward.
June 12th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
James
Great effort. Our company Vaxine was an original Biotechnology Innovation Fund creation as a Uni spin-off then went on to win a Start grant and finally a Commercial Ready. On the back of this support we have gone from strength to strength and are now funded under contracts with US government which is bringing in millions of dollars of funds being spent in Australia. Having supported the new government I am now of the opinion that they are in fact brain dead. They have kept many outrageously expensive and unproductive Howard initiatives and scrapped the one modest program that generated real outcomes. Someone please get Kevin Rudd to take 101 in how to stimulate innovation. It is almost enough to want Howard back (not quite)!
Nikolai
June 13th, 2008 at 11:57 am
James
On your suggestions:
1. - YES to texting Q&A en mass, when Rudd is live on ABC.
Message - how the hell do we fund risky innovation now, without leaving our land girt by sea?
2. - YES to all calling and posting letters to the officials who opposed and are responsible for the CR disaster
3. - Will try send an email to Carr’s Innovation review, but not holding my breath on that one.
When I first read your story on this, I imagined hundreds of us turning up in the Sydney and Melbourne CBD sporting white lab coats, laptops, some sort of martian headgear (like those antennae with balls on springs), and empty lunchboxes; and getting ourselves on the 6 o’clock news.
So in comparison, these suggestions you have made have a low impact on our work lives.
What I would suggest, given we are now all even more busy working on cash needs, and don’t all have a lot of headspace, is that YOU make a decision. We trust you.
Then send us a simple SMS saying “TEXT TO THIS NUMBER NOW, Rudd is live on ABC….”
or “call this minister xyz today ON THIS NUMBER….”
And if you need some geeks in labcoats with an empty lunchboxes and martian antennae to turn up in the CBD, hopefully dragging a camera crew; I’ll be there, with my team ……..
June 13th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Thanks Liesl. That’s exactly the sort of feedback I was looking for. And in the absence of any comments showing fault with these suggestions, expect some simple instructions via text, of the “TEXT THIS NUMBER NOW…” variety, next week.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
James,
Am hoping with a chronic shaggers back you have the memories to get you through the treatment.
Some thoughts on some questions for your man in Griffith.
Q1. Banks, VC etc will not touch companies working in construction technology, environmental systems etc, particularly in regional areas, so, if we don’t want to live in an Australia that doesn’t manufacture anything, how do start up companies working outside the sphere of IT/communications or biotechnology get early R&D assistance for prototyping, proof of concept etc.
Q2. Why is the policy framework and competitive grant funding for innovation and R&D and incentives for investment geared to large corporates, existing industies etc (like the car industry) when SME employ many more people.
Q3. Government spending by Ausindustry etc appears to more and more directed towards more business consultants, small busines advisory bodies, enterprise connect initiatives etc. SME are encouraged to participate in these under the notion that this will increase their exposure to private funding sources and success in grant applications. What comparative review processes have been carried out to determine the effectiveness of this expenditure (other than attendance numbers etc) versus straight out investment in R&D/ innovation etc.
I think the SMS campaign is also a good one.
As an aside, possibly a link with a network like GETUP may be of use?
Good to see you hanging in with this and good luck with the recovery.
Chrs
June 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Another update…
One… Anthill reader Wayne Fitzsimmons has managed to get his views about the scrapping of CR published in a story in The Age today. It’s definitely worth a read: http://business.theage.com.au/its-up-to-it-to-take-back-lost-ground-on-new-ventures-20080617-2s8j.html
Importantly, your traffic might open the eyes of The Age to this issue.
Two… I’ve been invited to talk on the topic on ABC Radio National’s Breakfast Show, tomorrow or on Friday. Wish me luck, tune in and call in. Keep the dialogue happening.
Three… As promised, it’s time to start this flash process and ‘Target the Toe-Cutters’. The decision to cut the program was met in reference to a report completed by the Productivity Commission. Essentially, it was the been-counters under Lindsay Tanner that made the call (an appropriate place to start ROUND#1). For future reference, Senator Tanner’s Parliamentary Office phone number is: (02) 6277 7400.
I will send two text messages with instructions in the next 24-hours.