Category: Hot air

Friends by degrees – the ACT story

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Reported is the NSW government is at war with itself, as is some Federal politicians, as is some local government people. The canny troublemaker is the ACT Government. For accepting that showing example is better than doing nothing to support climate science.   For doing what the NSW Government made allowance to do in addressing the future.

It is all a bit odd if you take into account that in war you might say 2 degrees of separation is sufficient to warrant attention. In finance it would take up to 5 degrees to lose sight of the target. A canny businessperson might think there are opportunities at 3 degrees of separation. In terms of climate we have evidence that 4 degree of temperature difference is on track under climate change scenarios and may in all likelihood accelerate into tipping points of no return in a very short time frame. So if we talk of degrees of separation and degrees temperature as similar measures it all becomes most worrisome.

Looking at what is being said (to keep you informed currently NSW and Federal Government is coalition parties):

The Federal Member for Hume – said ‘green policy gone mad. Wholesale prices will triple’. Then states the NSW Government will contribute to that increase by applying to take baseload power out of the system when the wind does not blow. Interesting when you consider the NSW Government is the approving power for its own considerable wind farm precinct building exercise.

The Chief Minister of the ACT and the ACT Minister of Environment and a thousand other things (in a colloquial sense) have said small increases will occur in energy prices, but business confidence will pick up, as the programs will excite business development. Co2Land org has to admit any attempt to encourage a larger private sector in ACT has to be constructive.

The State Member for Monaro’s best was reserved for his own, the NSW Parliamentary Secretary for Renewable Energy were he challenged that NSW had become the ACT’s junkyard! Claiming little or no support from NSW landholders during consultation processes. Co2Land org finds this interesting as the evidence is only or mostly the Landholders that object are the ones that missed out on a financial benefit. We are happy to be proven wrong on that statement.

The State Member for Burrinjuck (also Minister of Department of Primary Industry, and in a stoush over redistribution of her boundary with the State Member for Goulburn) is to have said to ‘be opposed to inappropriately sited windfarms’. This sounds like a parochial comment of who can and who cannot by the tone.

The State Member for Goulburn is quoted as saying ‘opposes wind farms, but is leaving the door open for other renewables’. Does this mean negotiations are possible?

The Yass Valley Mayor claims communities are really angry about these projects.  The Goulburn Mayor was merely concerned at the methods used and took the opportunity to encourage more settlement in the region. The Palerang Mayor said adequate precautions have been taken to ensure appropriate site and location positioning for developments. CO2Land org too agrees that where impacts on local residents are correctly accessed it is more likely that when incentives are offered the local will accept the arrangements. So is that the real issue, who pork barrels who for what?

But the absolute ‘corker’ (Aussie slang for taking the mickey out of things) is recently the question was asked: “Can you explain to me what a Solar wind farm is”!

What are they all talking about? The ACT Government aiming at 90% renewables by 2020 and the initiatives to make it happen at minimal costs.

Where was it being talked about? Reported by John Mitchell in the Bungendore Mirror 2 April 2014. Had it been 1 April it could have been considered a joke!

Transition to LLS – the failure to connect

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , Leave a comment

In Australia the voting turnout was lower than Zimbabwe for the recent LLS elections. When you consider the build up to the elections was enthusiastically promoted by the NSW Government and the DPI you can understand the embarrassment of the turnout. What is difficult to understand the refusal to release the figure and facts of what went wrong?

On two previous occasions CO2Land org posted positive expectations for the process. On December 21, 2013, the story – Transition to LLS – NSW, 1 year on: “From 1 January 2014, the new Local Land Services (LLS) organisation will commence operating under the Local Land Service Act 2013” Source www.lls.nsw.gov.au . Notice of election – LLS Board Members to be conducted early 2014 and mooted to be ballot to close 12 March 2014. Prior to that Transition to LLS – NSW, December 2, 2012: “The theme of the transition is ‘let’s work together’ and it is said that ‘business as usual’ will continue in terms of maintaining commitment to the landholders”. So what went wrong, why is the Shadow Minister for Primary Industries (DPI), Steve Whan, calling for an inquiry into the low voter turnout?

To use what Whan is quoted as saying in a press release is, and published in the Bungendore Mirror 26 March 2014: “From my discussions with land owners, though, the main reason for low voter turnout was they had no confidence whatsoever in the LLS model nor that their voices would matter”, and “These boards are unrepresentative of NSW landowners and importantly they are appallingly unrepresentative of the vital role women play in rural communities”.

So it seem that the model is the issue for up to 90% of the eligible voters. The other matter was the voter registration process was botched. It might not be appropriate to comment any further on that matter, or at least until it is clarified by the DPI, or through any inquiry that might follow.

Is there any other information that might be relevant for the story? Well, yes get ready for this: The call for new Landcare action, a press release on the 25th anniversary of Landcare’s formation, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), and the National Farmers Federation (NFF) have joined forces. This is not the first time they have teamed up for activities to reverse the degradation of farmland, public land and waterways. What is significant is that this alliance is meant to build relationships, not dictate or prescribe political edicts.

We could also draw the long bow here and say it is an ominous sign for the Green Army policy hopes for the Federal Government. Recently seen is a placard saying it had the answer to our rural woes – a Abbott proof fence! For those readers outside Australia, to help with controlling rabbits a rabbit proof fence was built in the outback. This reference to Abbott Proofing is part of the Australian form of humour. If you don’t get it – that’s OK it will come to you one day!

 

 

Ironic RET – the sum is bigger than the whole.

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The conversation was fluid, and as the Renewable Energy Forum wound down to its closing stages. What was obvious was we all shared a concern that what is policy is not what was understood as the intention of the policy. If we make example of the Renewable Energy Target (RET): After a review of the 2001 target set under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), the Australian Federal Government in August 2009 committed to the RET and it was designed to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply will come from renewable sources by 2020.  Then in June 2010, the Federal Parliament passed legislation to separate the RET into two parts to commence on 1 January 2011 – the Large scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and the Small scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES). These changes are in order to provide greater certainty for households, large-scale renewable energy projects and installers of small-scale renewable energy systems.

What has happened since is the 20% Australian Federal policy changed to GWh available targets.

What is wrong with that you say? Well previously 20% meant 20% no matter how much the demand for electricity grew. In other words the renewable energy requirement will grow to ever-higher numbers as electricity demand grew at approximately 5% per year. This suggested traditional generators would lose market share to new renewable starters. To get accord on the issue, the setting was then addressed as a Gigawatt target that said 20% was desired but was ‘real’ in that it actually reduced the % of the renewable energy production each time total energy demand increased. What now worries the traditional generators that agreed to the accord is that demand is reducing at around 2% pa and that it is trend, ironically because of the policies of the new Australian Government towards manufacturing and innovation. So at the time of change to Gigawatt target until demand actually dropped we saw the actual % of the target drop to about 13% and now it will rise on predictions to have demand reduce we will find the target will again be closer to 20%. It even affects the Energy Retailer in that the risk of being caught ‘short’ or ‘long’ in the market is a much bigger risk.

Another issue is that states and territories always need to do more, and they have set their own targets. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) recently amended its 25% target to reflect 90% by 2020.  ACT have even introduced a 20 cents per kWh feed in tariff (FIT) to encourage large scale renewable to supply business and industrial needs in the region. What they have effectively done is create a capacity market inside a Spot Market for electricity.

So – If you studied my phone records, what would you unearth about me and my intentions, seriously? The irony is metadata collection on individuals might give you the wrong conclusion. Why is that so? I am a collaborator and a competitor, the cluster I might frequent will change according to the clients needs. Imagine this I am at the Renewable Energy Forum, I tell all about the wonderful deal I have done based on coal fired generation, that it was a wonderful outcome – and all agree they needed to know that outcome. They now knew what tactics they needed to counter those arrangements. But as metadata it might read or profile, they are here, they are everywhere, what are they up to – must be no good!

Oh dear, getting paranoid about the RET review are we? No actually feeling very positive. Why? CO2Land org can remember at least 7 reviews of different sorts on the matter. Yes, something will change, and distortion in the market place will be adjusted. Maybe even new models for the industry will be mandated to accommodate change or the transition strategies for the inevitable continued growth will be clearer.

Why be so confident? The Abbott government largely is a carbon copy of the Howard era. Even when Howard introduced the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) it was not his preferred vehicle to protect the environment, but it was a means, through pluralism to remain in power.   In this case to appease the Democrat Party faithful (sorry Green Party faithful but that is a fact). Abbott is a former Howard Minister, as is many of the Abbott cabinet, and the difference is, in Abbott’s case, is the need to appease right wing entity(s). The problem with the right wing groups is they tend to be Elitist and leaning toward returning to feudalistic ideals.  Howard tended to favour Roman times, and you must suspect Abbott does too.

So CO2Land org does not believe that Abbott, who previously endorsed Carbon, is doing anything other than adjust the rules to appease concerns and continue with what China is doing – encourage continued renewable uptake.

What if Turnbull takes over as Prime Minister, would it be better? By degrees we suspect rather than radical. We can be encouraged that Turnbull does continue to support the ideals of sustainable business.  In our opinion he had one fault, too honest in his previous stint of party leader. Maybe he did learn that lesson – don’t be too visible in setting your agenda.

Don’t give up on renewables surviving the RET review  is our advice. If you note the style of the current executive it is similar to neurolinguistic programming, that in effect means we just give up trying to comprehend meaning. More proof listen to the language being used; ever changing degrees of view point and you might even notice yourself saying: Did he not say something else yesterday – I give up!

Don’t give up because the Pollyanna moment is to come, suddenly, Abbott will say I always supported the environment, I was waiting for the right moment and mechanism. It is about how a relevant government can govern to maintain a community obligation. NOTE: All weasel words have been carefully chosen so no disclaimer is required!

What is the language of Australia – by example

Posted on Posted in Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , Leave a comment

What is the language of Australia? Are we following OXFORD, WEBSTER or MACQUARIE diction?  And, what about a bit Wikipedia too being quoted to explain words not otherwise existing – maybe being invented?

Until Abbott, and particular reference is made to strict language requirements of the Howard era, we were clearly following the style guide to policy writing that favoured Macquarie.  The a recent Australian Government document named Green Army Programme Draft Statement of Requirements Consultation Process as issued 21 January 2014, and in opening statements says “The Department is releasing this draft Statement of Requirements for the Green Army Programme 2014–2017 for the purpose of obtaining feedback from stakeholders and potential tenderers about the operationalisation of the proposed Programme design, as described in the SOR.  By seeking feedback on the draft SOR, the Australian Government hopes to benefit from industry expertise and ensure that the SOR describes the best way of delivering the Programme.”

Note the repeated use of ‘programme’ (OXFORD) and the use of ‘operationalisation’ (WIKIPEDIA). Does this mean ‘real’ language is just what suits?

Or does it simply reflect we are not capable of original thinking today, we just select ‘off the shelf’ policies from elsewhere, language and all?

What is the mater of concern:

As a Noun: Program or Programme?

  • American English always uses program British English uses programme
  • Australian English recommends program for official usage.

 

Historically, ‘program’ is UK based language, until the 20th century when fashion came to the UK to adopt French flair and words, it was then when the spelling “programme” became more common — yes, the French managed to influence the English and the adopted the French word “programme”.

 

Therefore, assuming our ‘off the self’ policy is direct from England we should assume you can earn ‘brownie’ points by knowing how to use the noun programme and program correctly, examples:

  • We’re still drawing up the programme for the concert.
  • This computer program won’t run on my PC.
  • I missed my favourite television programme last night.

 

What about the Verb: To Program, Programmed, Programming?

Did you not know the word program is also a verb? Time to get a little different here as both American and British English use “to program” and not to programme. But wait we can still confuse you:

In American English it is valid to use –

  • programed
  • programing

 

In Oxford English, the far more widespread usage is –

  • programmed
  • programming

 

In Australia, is –

  • to program.

CO2Land org has a point to this: Just make sure you are consistent, and government should take note of this – lives can depend on it, as sure as a comma in the wrong place can be totally misunderstood. A good place to start is the government’s own style guide or a rule on which form of the word to use.

 

Transition to LLS – NSW, 1year on

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Having time the think, being in the long queue at the newly badged ‘Service NSW centre’. Then after a pleasant ‘sorry about the wait’ – all forgiven at that point. Soon after and reflecting the Service tag it was remembered CO2Land org wrote on 2 December 2012 ‘Transition to LLS – NSW’ and the concern then was the concern as to whether it was an aspirational goal that changes will result in improved services for Landholders. LLS is the acronym for Local Land Services.

So what is happening at LLS? “From 1 January 2014, the new Local Land Services (LLS) organisation will commence operating under the Local Land Service Act 2013” Source www.lls.nsw.gov.au . Notice of election – LLS Board Members to be conducted early 2014 and mooted to be ballot to close 12 March 2014. There are 11 regions of LLS and three members are to be elected for each with exception of Western region where four will be elected. What should be noted is that to be eligible to vote or stand you need to be enrolled under LLS for the region you are enrolled for, and if you were previously enrolled under the former Livestock Health and Pest Authority (LHPA) the enrollment will not be automatically transferred to LLS enrollment. You have to make an effort to do so, and the date to do so is given as by 17 February 2014.

The Tablelands landholder newsletter, December 2013 edition, says the LLS is a new grass roots model for regional service delivery, and brings together technical and advisory knowledge from the Department of Primary Industries, Livestock Health and Pest Authorities and Catchment Management Authorities. All the assets of the authorities will be handed over to the new bodies by 31 December 2013. Is it to be a new broom? Time will tell, no doubt.

The Bungendore Mirror, 18 December 2013 Edition, wrote of the appointment of Gavin Whiteley as General Manager of the South East region of LLS and the words CO2Land org liked were “I am passionate about growing a thriving, innovative, diverse rural Australia and excited about being able to apply my skills, knowledge and experience”.

 

A ‘true’ reflection of our community thinking

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Alan Kohle – finance presenter on ABC News, said: Abolishing the carbon tax will cost real money – $13.7 billion over four years – because unlike the minerals resource rent tax (MRRT), it would have actually worked. He postulated that the repeal of the MRRT and its associated spending measures produces a net GAIN to the budget over four years of $9.5 billion … and this was supposed to be a tax. This makes interesting reading, the MRRT is a tax that is a net gain to the economy and the repeal of Carbon Pricing is a cost. Now we are starting to understand that the Senate is on about – is expected to vote for costs at a time when someone or something declared ‘budget emergency’.

Jokingly, a near neighbour suggested the best way to tackle the deficient is to remove the cabinet from our executive. It makes some sort of sense if you consider the spin doctors make up the words, the power brokers approve and the Ministers mouth the words with Shakespearean gusto, and possibly cannot answer simple questions outside the script, often saying when asked to do so – I am not the author Ill get the person that wrote it to answer?  It would reduce our deficit would it not?

But far more damaging is what our trading neighbours think…Great conversation with a phone call coming in from …….. yesterday afternoon…have confirmed our first ……… be shipped to us end of January, plus additional projects (really interesting ones) over there. They also provided some friendly political advice that our esteemed PM was doing considerable harm in Asia and needed a bit of “polishing”…… brought gales of laughter and the comment that this is why he was not being taken too seriously at the moment because it was not believed he was a true reflection of our community feeling.

Are our Asian neighbors right? What is so sad about this story is that originally, the project mention above was mooted to be manufactured in Australia – government programs were solicited and proved difficult. It also seems incredulous that the program administrators expect the bankable is sufficient because they approve or disapprove through a program. If you go to the bank with that view they are likely to say government is irrelevant – It is starting to sound like a prophesy, is it not!

Then someone said something ridiculous – I thought they were ‘nomads’ – but they get angry when I TALK TO THEM – The joke is in ‘no mads’ OK!

Hot Air and the Unfair

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

We nearly choked, Malcolm Turnbull – Liberal Front bencher – Minister for Communications, said the loss of Holden’s local manufacturing operations is a watershed event for an Australian economy that must 
commit itself to innovative, high-tech industries. We then lamented, this and previous governments have demonstrated that they have contempt for promoting small innovative firms that demonstrate they can provide globally competitive technology best in its class and fully capable of entering multi billion dollar markets. Proof,

–       Look the number of innovators that go off shore for success.

–       Then look at the procrastination going on about reviews and approvals processes.

–       Then look at the discussion going on about cutting red and green tape etc.

Then CO2Land org thought, maybe we could write a book instead of a post about this and call it – Hot air and the unfair – something like that! Or is it that Mal is planning a new power base in getting a fair deal?

On with the story: Why Malcolm Turnbull saying? Recently the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) wrote The inconvenient truth for the Coalition’s NBN By David Braue Updated Fri 13 Dec 2013, 1:23pm AEDT that the NBN Co of the coalitions model was grossly underestimated in what will cost. Maybe there is cabinet reshuffle of portfolios coming already? It has already been reported that Ian McFarlane is unhappy with Warren Truss’s intervention on Holden. That considerable unrest is around with Government performance to date, and the endless control measures such as Joe Hockey’s handling of money movements. Comments like need to review, measures against etc. All this meaning the excuse to do nothing.

Maybe Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull saying to Sky News on Sunday 15 Dec 2013, Australia has to realise its future is not in “large scale, very low cost manufacturing” where it can’t compete.

“Emotionally this is a big watershed event,” Mr Turnbull told.

“This should be seen as a wake-up call, a reminder that we must recommit ourselves to an economy that is based on innovation and technology, and that is globally competitive.”

What Malcolm said is precisely our point. Thank you.

Does Australia have “globally competitive technology best in its class and fully capable of entering multi billion dollar markets”? Well if you consider China as a desirable trading party, then as you should, take notice of this invitation for a ‘little aussie battler’: The 4th Annual World Congress of Bioenergy

Theme: Roadmap toward 2020  Time: September 21~23, 2014     Venue: Qingdao, China.   Website: http://www.bitcongress.com/WCBE2014/default.asp

“Dear Peter Davies,

On behalf of the Executive Committee Office, it’s our great honor to announce the most influential bioenergy event in Asia – The 4th Annual World Congress of Bioenergy (WCBE-2014) will hold in Qingdao, China during September 21~23, 2014. In view of the fact that your enthusiasm for biological applications and outstanding achievements in the field of bioenergy. The organization committee cordially invites you to be a speaker in our program and give a presentation at Pipeline 315: Integrated Biochemical Conversion Processing and Bioreactors for Scale-up. 

Main Characters of Annual World Congress of Bioenergy

Comprehensive agendas: With the bioenergy steady economic growth and biomass technology is improving by the day. This congress will discuss on biotechnology development and bioenergy sustainable development. The agendas cover Bioenergy Economy and Sustainability, Applications, Commercialization, Biofineries of Bioenergy, Biomass Conversion Technologies, Feedstock Landscape. This congress with the “Roadmap toward 2020 “as the theme to focus on bioenergy and look forward to the new era.”

Well what is there wrong about our posturing? What is wrong with having a front bencher of the cabinet having the courage to make statements that make sense, that is very close to what the ‘real’ world takes notice of! CO2Land org is saying it goes to say to make government relevant again it must have Headship – the current Leadership talk is exactly that – talk.

Then Mungo MacCallum said 16 Dec 2013, “And if Tony Abbott would rather spend the money on building lots of roads around our choking cities and restoring tax rorts for those who get part of their salary in cars to drive on them, so be it. Perhaps we can pretend that the cars are Holdens. That would make us feel better, wouldn’t it?”

Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator. View his full profile here.

Over to you Mal – show yourself, please.

But, have we lost something here!

The elasticity of renewable demand and controversity

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , Leave a comment

Newly-elected federal Liberal MP for Hume, Angus Taylor, is a committed anti-wind campaigner and is reported to be against the NSW government decision to allow the “controversial” Collector Wind Farm decision. In the reported post it was said he hinted policy and that the Renewable Energy Target (RET) review would likely prove the undoing of the wind farm industry in Australia –

“Projects like this seem set to continue unabated until a national review – which the new federal government has committed to in 2014 – can reveal the true economics behind the industry,” he said. “The RET review will look into the massive subsidies for wind farms, which are forcing up electricity prices and propping up an economically unviable industry.”

Source:  Hamish Boland-Rudder, Reporter at The Canberra Times | December 5, 2013 | www.canberratimes.com.au .

Unfortunately, in this country, we have again simply decided that ‘a review’ will do, to ignore that real innovators will suffer. The statement may be best viewed if you dissect the last quote above. In particular: subsidies – the go against the traditional models for supply; forcing up – obviously painful to the traditional models; propping up – this is the corker, as it suggests unless it is the traditional supply model the demand balance cannot be effective. If you think even harder you can also come of the view energy efficiency will be discouraged as decreased demand for energy will threaten the ‘viable’ industry. The most interesting part of all this politicking is that it ignores that what is driving all this angst is that technology is quickly overtaking the industry. Technology that is outmoding conventional supply systems. Like all technology advances it takes courage to move forward, to encourage the uptake and reward the innovators. But, alias my dear for that we need a review and force unreasonable cost to those with the shallow pockets.

However, is the secret deal as simple as reducing subsidies and reducing prices? Unfortunately economics is not that simple it also involves elasticity.

To Promote – Expertise – Resilience

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , 1 Comment

Sitting in Wodonga VIC, with friends of course, the discussion was about enabling to promote resource opportunities. Then joining the table was an impressive thinker, in fact a scientist that could add she was part of a group focused toward the development of sustainable, resilient regional communities. Part of the aim of that group is to build on the region’s competitive attributes – Now sitting with us was an inspiration, someone to be seen as a critical enabling agent.

CO2Land org is familiar with computer terms and if you carry over that same meaning you could describe that agent as: Part of an enabling proxy of the objective that is to allow this agent on other management packs.

Therefore a group like the Regional Centre of Expertise – Murray-Darling, RCE-MD) through this enabling proxy could import their management pack, and that management pack would discover like minded entities and assign them to other organizations.

The down side of this thinking is that some wanting to be influencers have the potential to dupe you into running a framework with a less safe agenda. With that agenda they could introduce a subtle internal social engineering attack that is counter to your stated intention. Such distractions are then not easy to skip over, and take up much of your valuable time to get around this problem and getting the priority message delivered.

In the realization that now, at this time, the political environment encourages such counter tactics: WINTELBOFF (www.wintelboff.com), Carbon Training International (www.co2ti.com), Y ME Solutions (www.ymesolutions.com) are likely to form an agreement to promote and project environmental health. In this context and in recognition the future will not function adequately or at all if we fail to counter the increasingly sophisticated ways less safe solutions are promoted, they propose they will share the need to inform, educate sustainable systems and engage the community – if not a fail could cost the earth! We can only wait to see if this management pact creates a roll-up of the uptake of being much more responsible and enable trust with absolute certainty.

What is the Regional Centre of Expertise? For a start it is acknowledged by the United Nations University. The complete name is the Regional Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development.  This discussion started around the consortium of the Murray- Darling region (www.rcemurraydarling.com.au), and it is noteworthy that the wording of who they are is ‘a creative re-combination’ in enabling activities and initiatives through collaborative partnerships, networks and resource-sharing as well as the obvious – opportunities.

CO2Land org as a general rule does not promote membership to company entities. However, there is always room for an exception where it is formed solely for being a centre of expertise with a purpose to add meaning to sustainable outcomes and being resilient.  Looking at the members the lead organisations are: Charles Sturt University, Wodonga Institute of TAFE, La Trobe University. Others are with research, schools, business, community, and government in each of the tiers. The suggestion is if you need a contact try Dr Alison Mitchell amitchell@csu.edu.au .

And, there is more – other centres – it is spreading organically.

 

 

Australia – so little support for idea leaders

Posted on Posted in Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , Leave a comment

It started with one line: Without a culture that makes big, bold bets on new ideas, its difficult to see how Australia can move from being an idea cemetery to an idea launcher -Source Ben McNeil.

All this came from a story in the Australian 28 August 2013. The story called “Big Ideas Buried in Innovation Graveyard”. It touched a nerve because as is the case of so much excellent ideas we generate in Australia, there is so little support for the commercialisation of the ideas. But, wait there is more! – We do not care about the innovation.  What you say, don’t care.  It is true – think about this line: Commercialisation Australia doesn’t support the company but the Commercialisation of the technology. Where does this leave the innovator? Up the creek without a paddle – your ideas can be superb, you business case well founded: But the graveyard – the valley of death for your invention is that place you go to because you cannot find support in our country, the country an with excellence for invention and a fail for innovation efficiency. In short we force our good ideas offshore if we want success as a company. The idea leaders cannot be rewarded for helping our industry to be part of our country.

If you doubt this, then this is what Ian Chubb, Australian Chief Scientist, said in the 28 August article: “Australia ranks 107th out of 141 nations in innovation efficiency”

In a ‘real’ world example: You ask please help me protect my IP, I need help because I have a lot of interest in my product after considerable R&D. What I do not have is the confidence of my buyers to outlay the dollars to place an order. When I place an application for help to move on my trade secrets, I am then faced with a number of questions that directly relate to my IP. Then the ridiculous come to light – the question: Why don’t you fund your own IP Protection? The answer creates a circular argument along the lines of a song from Harry Bellefonte some years ago: There is a hole in my bucket and it goes on rhyme well fix it to the point where to fix it requires the bucket to carry water – but there is a hole in my bucket. Unfortunately that pretty well sums up the Australia attitude of support for our ideas.

If it were to change would the Small man with big ideas be treated better?   Actually, in another perverse twist it is a tendency of this country to promote institutions with generous awards of cash and incentives. We can only suspect that is because it is a highly visible way to make big numbers look ‘real’ big deals. The short-term photo opportunity is seen a tick in the outcome box, yet often proves a less than optimum result.

The risk of failure will still be a major problem for the small innovator, even if they have the big bold new ideas that could drive our nation into prosperity and diversity of our GDP collection points. Because your ideas could not be protected while you seek markets, you fail you cannot protect your secrets – your ideas are ‘stolen’ and you will not attract investment.

CO2Land org noted that recently the Prime Minister announced the think small concept – what did he really mean?