The easiest way government can help the development of new ideas is not by doing more but by doing less.

By that I mean

Less bureaucratic bulldust in the form of

Simpler and easier to understand Planning regulations
Simpler and less precious EPA regulations and approvals
Simpler and more flexible OHS interpretations
Simpler tax laws
Maintenance of the previous (Liberal) governments employee relations legislation

No support for inefficient existing old businesses who find the foundation of their investment secured by maintaining the status quo.

No grants for small business which require the government to pre-ordain “winners”, the people who play those games are losers who would not recognize a winning idea even if it bit them.

From all of the above we would see a huge reduction in the costs of employment of professional parasites and flunkies of the bureaucracy, who add nothing to the economy.

This saving would translate into a massive tax saving producing a justifiable reduction in tax rates, leaving more in the pocket of the innovative.

In short, butt out and let the innovators innovate “unhindered” by the do-gooding, opinionated ineffectual whilst simultaneously improving the return for those who actually take the risks

What a disappointing article full of platitudes and regurgitated common sense. You don't have to sell us on the why or the importance of this stuff, what we want is real change...change that fires our own imagination about a future of infinite possibilities to overcome the very real threats we are faced with...peak oil, climate-changed induced drought, ageing population, and turn to new opportunities for invention and innovation.

Tell us the how, the where, the when, and if you don't have the answers, then borrow from the inspired leadership of Barack Obama and source them through a collaborative government, open innovation models and please, with a sense of urgency and an impatience with plodding along in the belief that she'll be right, mate!

Obviously if we don't count the cost of something, anything will seem beneficial.

The fallacy underlying Craig's article is that the government just gets the money from nowhere. But of course it takes the money from people, from society. The assumption is that the use government makes of the money would be more productive than the use society makes of it.

But what evidence or reason is there to support this assumption?

We as a society all benefit from people not freezing to death, but does that mean the government should take over the doona and long-john factories? We as a society benefit from people not starving to death, but does that mean a big government Department of Food should replace supermarkets, cafes and shops?

Better ideas, new ways, rising standards, efficiency and economy come from people being free to choose between competing alternatives, not from unaccountable bureaucracies, and rules and regulations. People who advocate government control of education are actually advocating a worse outcome for our children.

The very idea of a ‘revolution’ led by bureaucracies is laughable. Innovators are precisely the people who don't fit in to bureaucracy. Someone asked why they don't teach innovation in (government-funded) universities. Well if you're such a good innovator, what are you doing selling your labour in a job? Bureaucracies attract time-servers and parasites: the entrepreneurial excellence that government parasitises takes place by people who risk *their own* substance, not people who simply take it from others and spend it without being personally accountable. How facile can you get?

Those calling for more government control of education are groups who gain from government at everyone else’s expense, such as education academics, policy bureaucrats, teachers’ unions and politicians. The more centralised and bureaucratised the decision-making, the worse the outcomes will fit every students’ needs and potential, and the more they will favour vested interests. Some revolution.

Before believing anyone who says we can nurture our children's imagination by extending the control of bureaucracies over every aspect of their lives - check for conflict of interest first!

Col, your post hit the nail on the head!

In a past life, I pioneered an innovative export company, which
won various awards etc, generated millions upon millions in exports,
all based on some good ideas and appying basic science, then
focussing on consumers.

Alot of the time, Govt was more a hindrance then anything else.

On the one hand, there was a whole army of bureaucrats, claiming
to want to help, most of them basically useless, even though
some had good intentions. Some companies with whom we competed,
became experts at sucking them dry for money, grants etc. Hardly
a level playing field.

Then there was another whole level of bureaucrats,both
State and Federal, who wanted to throw their weight around when
it came to compliance, some real little Hitlers, where their power
had gone to their little heads.

I solved alot of those cases by appealing to their bosses, who were
usually far more reasonable and a bit more intelligent too.

In the end it was simply the volume of these people that one had to
deal with, that made me wonder what on earth I was doing, bothering
to be innovative, exporting and employing people.

So I sold the business and have never looked back.

There are heaps of opportunities to be innovative in Australia,
but given the many barriers erected by the many Govt Depts, why
should anyone bother?

We have heard this Ruddspeak from even prior to the election.

Talking about "ideas", getting people to together to give them "ideas" and even suggesting they may have some "ideas" but not actually seeing any ideas arise, just a restating of the problems over and over.

Behind articles such as this I hear the faint cry of Help! we really have no idea.

Yabby “Col, your post hit the nail on the head!”

Thanks Yabby…
I, like you, have seen a lot of it over our careers.

Government is no answer to mediocrity, unless you are looking for a job, in which case it becomes the employer of mediocrity and as you observe, small minded little Hitlers…

I recall a case in the Melbourne magistrates court (only because I required as a witness but not called) where someone made a clerical error and avoided about $3000 in customs duty on a total import of capital equipment to manufacture mobile phones in Australia worth around $7 million… the customs folk made a song and dance and dragged to chairman of the company into court to answer for his “crimes” he simply told the magistrate ‘clerical error’ the magistrate kicked the customs peoples arse for even bothering him.

Telstra managed to get in on the act (the maintainer of their own monopoly), now no mobile phones are made in Aus and that same equipment was shipped to Hong Kong and into a Chinese factory.

Atman “Talking about "ideas", getting people to together to give them "ideas" and even suggesting they may have some "ideas" but not actually seeing any ideas arise, just a restating of the problems over and over.”

It is perception, spin over substance.

The appearance of making a difference whilst doing nothing.

It is the stock in trade of politicians in general and socialist politicians in particular.

“Behind articles such as this I hear the faint cry of Help! we really have no idea.::

And I hear the knock of deathwatch beetles