The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Whether Einstein actually said this or not, the aphorism should ring alarm bells when governments instigate reviews without first looking back.

The Department of Industry, Science and Resources is conducting consultations for a “strategic examination” of Australia’s research and development system. While the discussion paper does say the panel will “consider recent and ongoing reviews commissioned by Australian governments relating to Australia’s research, innovation and productivity performance”, the bibliography suggests the last decade was too far back to delve into. Short-termism is anything but strategic.

The discussion paper identifies problems in the system and suggests what is needed. The list is familiar. Inter alia:

• We need to rebuild R&D investment by business (it’s never been enough) and get SMEs more involved;
• Stronger manufacturing is critical to improved R&D performance; and
• Research collaboration and alignment across sectors is weak.

One misalignment is the perpetual lack of integration between the university and vocational education and training sectors. Yet, not even TAFE, in which the Labor Government has been proudly investing, gets a mention in the discussion paper. VET rarely does when talking about R&D. Back in 2015, the then Office of Science and Innovation recognised the possibility that VET was a missing link in the innovation agenda. While little came of that, it’s a point the expert panel should consider.

We need diversification in our R&D system. That requires a greater tolerance of risk: more acceptance of failure and the willingness to back early success by going beyond the pilots. We also need innovative thinking in policy circles that is informed by all the knowledge accumulated from earlier inquiries and experience, and the imagination to do something different. For example, to take a bet on the practical wisdom that infuses the best-performing parts of the VET-trained workforce.

The discussion paper cites the OECD’s three categories of research: basic research, applied research and experimental development. The VET sector could play a greater role in the second and third areas. Many VET professionals have the educational basis on which to develop an applied research capability in their organisations — some are engaged in research already — but few are well supported by the system. Were scholarship, reflective practice, experimentation and knowledge brokerage better recognised, TAFEs and others might have a chance to become constructive partners in the innovation system and, more significantly, to build R&D bridges to SMEs, including in manufacturing.

As we grapple with the Trump Event, which is compelling us finally to reconsider Australia’s place in the world, we also need to look afresh at international collaborations, including with Chinese researchers and innovators. Not so long ago, this was happening. One example I wanted to use to illustrate this point was the Smart Grid Smart City project (2010–2014), jointly funded by the Australian Government and an industry consortium led by Ausgrid to the tune of $500 million. Researchers from the University of Sydney collaborated with Gridlink, a Chinese high-tech company. The project was a commercial-scale demonstration of smart grids and the associated technologies needed to create “smart” homes. It showed that clever deployment of the Internet of Things significantly reduced electricity consumption for customers.

As governments struggle to find ways to reduce the cost of living, especially power bills, this research still seems relevant. But when you click on the link provided by data.gov.au to the archived Department of Industry, Innovation and Science website what you get is ERROR 404 Not Found.

Did the complexity of the idea outweigh the potential energy savings? Did all this work just sink without trace? Did the collaboration with China continue? Or did it fall victim to heightened wariness, sometimes hysteria, about the China threat? If so, we are missing out, as the president of the International Science Council, Sir Peter Gluckman has recently pointed out:

It’s a mistake for the West to think that China does not do world-class science – it does, and at scale. China’s building an infrastructure of young people in the workforce and very good universities. They’ve always had great depth in some areas, but it’s expanding remarkably [especially in sustainability, the digital space and the life sciences].

The discussion paper notes the rise in the rankings of Chinese research, but offers no commentary about the potential to rekindle positive, productive relations with China as one way to boost outcomes from R&D.

There is also potential to harness some of the $12.6 billion invested by the Australian Government in the current National Skills Agreement (2024 to 2029). A total of $325 million is being used to establish nationally networked TAFE Centres of Excellence and to strengthen collaboration between TAFEs, universities and industry. Another $214 million is for Closing the Gap initiatives to be designed in partnership with First Nations people and led by them. (Elevating First Nations knowledge and knowledge systems is a priority for the review.) Interweaving the R&D agenda into this expenditure could encourage industry and community partnerships to solve real-world problems. It could also get more out of the network of TAFE’s physical infrastructure across the nation, improve teaching and learning and produce graduates who are already part of the nation’s innovation system. That’d be doing things differently.

Francesca Beddie has written about the role of VET in the innovation system on numerous occasions. She is still hoping for a different result.