Bureaucrats in charge of innovation, ho ho har har hee hee, that's a good one. They will empty the treasury on their good ideas.

There's just that ole economic calculation problem in demonstrating any net benefit claimed, isn't there?

Take away the double standard by which the government exempts itself from its own definition of criminality, and what we have is felonious criminality, folks, not net social benefis from innovation policy.

Politicians the world over seem to share the same affliction an ability to supplant anything remotely resembling positive progressive action action with flapping jaws; rambling, blame shifting and endless innovative excuses, or indeed lie so big, no right thinking person is ever going to think they are being lied to!
Rhrosty.

Here's not a bad commentary on Jakarta issues http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/12/04/This-week-in-Jakarta-Boats-votes-and-bad-jokes.aspx

The Author wrote

“Now some insightful readers may query the basis of a government issuing an innovation statement. Is this the equivalent of Canberra bureaucrats giving lessons in spontaneity?”
and
“When we consider the backgrounds of the responsible ministers, Christopher Pyne and Wyatt Roy, their combined years of experience in business is precisely zero. Arguably, neither would recognise an innovative proposition with commercial potential if it hit them in the face”.
and
“Something that is often mentioned in the context of promoting innovation is the law related to bankruptcy. Should we move to US Chapter 11 bankruptcy-style arrangements in which creditors quickly lose their money but the company can continue to operate?
Irrespective of your take on this argument, the real problem in Australia is how we could move from the present arrangements in which directors are penalised for overseeing an insolvent company and creditors are repaid in a strictly controlled order. Overturning the predetermined privileges of current creditors overnight would create havoc.
Whether a separate bankruptcy provision along US lines could apply only to innovative start-ups is not clear. At least the creditors would go into this arrangement with their eyes wide open. The danger is that a separate provision could lead to a series of unintended consequences”.

A good article, raising many questions, after all $1.1B of taxpayer’s funds will be used for this scheme.

It will be interesting to follow Government’s guidelines - for National Innovation Agenda - regarding the current Bankruptcy Rules pertaining to Part X (Personal Insolvency Agreement) and Part 9 Debt Agreements.

Will we have two Bankruptcy Act Rules (mk 2) – one relative to Articles under the National Innovation Agenda, plus the current Bankruptcy Act Rules (mk 1).

continued -

I have heard/read somewhere – so unsure if factual – under new idea – a person who becomes a bankrupt need only be a bankrupt for 12 months. After 12 months such person can be a director of another company. If this is true, is said person able to re-apply for a further grant of funds for another “new idea”?

One hopes the Innovation Statement released is a “think tank” statement only.

Before our taxpayer funds $1.1B is spent on the National Innovation Agenda the Bankruptcy Act Rules – as a first – must be addressed. If I can see the obvious conflictions, we all can, and I’m not a lawyer.