Introduction
gemaker welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Strategic Examination of Research and Development to help maximise R&D investment, boost business engagement, and leverage Australia’s scientific strengths to build new industries and meet national priorities.
We specialise in research-industry engagement, R&D commercialisation, and technology transfer, with a senior team averaging over 20 years’ experience. Since 2011, we’ve supported more than 51 research organisations and 100+ innovative businesses – from startups to ASX-listed firms – in taking new technologies to global markets.
In support of this submission, gemaker drew on the deep expertise of our team and conducted a targeted survey of industry clients to understand key drivers and barriers to research collaboration. Highlights of this survey are provided below.
While Australia has world-class research capability, structural challenges continue to limit the commercialisation and impact of R&D. Addressing these barriers is essential to unlocking the full value of national investment in innovation.
gemaker industry survey feedback
We surveyed 22 companies – mostly small and medium enterprises, with 82% employing fewer than 50 people – to gather insights from those actively involved in R&D. All respondents had invested in R&D previously, and 95% are continuing to do so. Their feedback highlighted key, on-the-ground challenges that need to be addressed to strengthen Australia’s R&D system. The survey feedback is incorporated into our observations and recommendations in this submission.
Further details on the survey feedback are included in Appendix 1.
Our feedback and recommendations
After reviewing the SERD Consultation Paper, we have consolidated recommendations below into the key categories the scope identified as critical to improving Australian R&D outcomes.
1) Increasing the value from investment in research across universities, industry and government
The SERD discussion paper states:
“Australia is a high performer in research. We produce 3.5% of the world’s publications and 5.8% of the world’s citations, and 15% of Australian publications are in the top 10% of global publications. But much of this research rarely addresses the needs of the main users of research and innovation in Australia – industry, government and the community.”
Whilst we agree with the findings of the high level of research performance of Australian researchers, we believe that the lack of collaboration on key challenges, adoption and testing of Australian research outputs by the government in particular and industry are major barriers to generating significant investment value in R&D undertaken in Australia.
Australian universities excel in research but often fall short in translating IP into market-ready innovations, largely due to structural priorities that place innovation behind teaching and research.
The reduced value achieved from Australian R&D is also due to a lack of consistent and sufficient support in technology translation resources at universities.
Insufficient Funding for technology translation
Australia’s world-class researchers are supported by skilled Technology Transfer Professionals (TTPs), who play a vital but often overlooked role in turning research into real-world impact. Despite their importance, TTPs are underfunded and undervalued, creating a bottleneck in the commercialisation pipeline. Over the past seven years, the Survey of Commercialisation Outcomes from Public Research Organisations (SCOPR) show staffing levels in tech transfer offices have remained low, failing to keep pace with rising R&D investment and limiting research support.
The US Chips Act committed $1m (per year for at least 3 years) per tech transfer office in recognition of their underfunding and to turbocharge their commercialisation activities at all universities. Smaller universities in Australia with no tech transfer office or a small office would benefit greatly from this type of investment. Consistency and stability in delivering government policy and national priorities is important to industry investing in R&D.
The UK’s Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) program has supported innovation brokers in research organisations for two decades, taking “a long view on changing the dial on outcomes in R&D.”
To improve the translation of research into real world use, we recommend:
- Ensuring stable ongoing funding for university Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) to strengthen on-the-ground commercialisation capability. Allocate dedicated funding from the research grant programs to retain and grow skilled TTO professionals in the university sector.
- Reforming research funding models to include specific funding allocation for successful translation of research innovations.
- Instead of creating a centralised national body to deliver commercialisation activities. Better outcomes can be achieved by:
- Providing block-style translation funding directly to universities, where on the ground TTO staff can identify and develop broader translation opportunities.
- Establishing a government-endorsed panel of commercialisation experts. Smaller or regional universities could use their funding to engage these experts, reducing duplication and delivering targeted support where needed.
- Simplify and accelerate the contracting process between research organisations and industry through TTO access to dedicated commercial lawyers working to commercial deadlines.
Further information on the operation of TTOs are outlined in more detail in gemaker’s Capability paper on InnovationAus called ‘It’s time to call in the technology transfer professionals’.
2) Harness and grow business investment in R&D
While grants and R&D tax incentives currently exist at a low level compared to international equivalents, industry needs more than funding to support its R&D efforts – it needs customers. Securing a first customer is often the biggest hurdle, and government can play a key role by adopting local innovation and driving impact. There are a range of international models that harness support business R&D, some of the more successful of which are listed in Appendix 2.
Innovation and the Role of the First Customer – SBIR Programs
Australia can boost local innovation by expanding Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)-style programs that help startups and SMEs prove their technologies with funding and secure early customers. These programs, highly successful in the US for decades, address a major barrier: the lack of a first customer.
Federal and state governments must lead by adopting local innovations and allocating dedicated budgets to support finding solutions to the challenges these departments consistently face. Federal and state programs were implemented pre-COVID and showed strong potential but lacked sustained and sufficient funding.
To scale impact, innovation requirements could be built into major government contracts – for example, mandating 10% of projects over $20 million to include local innovative solutions. This would connect SMEs and university innovations to larger industry players and supply chains and ensure government access to emerging technologies with minimal extra cost.
Improving R&D programs
Early insights highlight the need for faster program decisions – a quick “no” response to a submission helps SMEs move on and avoid stalled, self-funded research. A standard two-stage application process
for grant programmes and tenders would reduce costs for SMEs and ease the burden on government, allowing support to be focused where it adds the most value: at deployment.
While many respondents have engaged with government R&D programs, slow, uncommercial partnering and negotiation processes have deterred future participation – undermining efforts to build Australia’s sovereign capability through SME-led innovation.
Government Procurement: A Missed Opportunity for Innovation
Government procurement processes remain largely inaccessible to SMEs, limiting their ability to scale innovation. Despite being key drivers of R&D, SMEs are often excluded due to complex tenders, high compliance costs, and rigid risk assessments.
41% of surveyed businesses identified “Government as a customer” as critical to supporting their innovation efforts. Respondents called for simplified tender processes, SME set-asides, shared risk models, and clearer procurement pathways, such as innovation challenge programs, to improve access. Addressing hidden costs, like legal and insurance fees, is also essential to enabling SME participation in key sectors.
Indigenous Innovation and Social Enterprise
Our survey highlighted concerns from an Indigenous business about the lack of meaningful support in innovation programs. Despite strong rhetoric, being Indigenous or a social enterprise often hinders rather than helps funding prospects.
This points to a critical gap: the need to recognise innovation that delivers social and cultural value; not just economic return. Addressing this requires dedicated program streams, broader assessment criteria, and tailored support for Indigenous and social enterprises.
3) Leverage our scientific strengths to help address national priorities and foster new industries.
Early-stage grants are already well aligned with national science priorities, supporting clearer pathways to translation. Continued investment in emerging fields – like quantum computing, where early funding positioned Australia as a global leader – is essential.
To maximise impact, government and industry leaders should
- Meet with researchers more regularly to outline their challenges through workshops and roundtables to increase researchers understanding of what they need and their understanding of researcher capabilities to help.
- Collaborate with researchers to identify future challenges and opportunities. Requiring departments/organisations to allocate modest innovation budgets
Appendix 1: Industry Survey
Our industry survey revealed the following key challenges industry have collaborating with research organisations:
- 59% of businesses struggle to find suitable research partners
- Common barriers include long delays (3-6+ months to establish agreements), complex processes, and rigid IP terms
- Despite 86% collaborating with research institutions, many found the experience costly and inefficient
As one respondent put it: “Academe continues to be very expensive compared to the value they produce – so ROI often doesn’t work.”
100% of respondent businesses view R&D as part of their growth strategy, only 41% feel that available R&D programs support their company’s growth through innovation. This stark gap demonstrates the misalignment between government programs and business needs.
When asked what support (beyond grants) would allow them to expand R&D and innovation focus, businesses prioritized:
- Investment/equity/easier access to funding (68%)
- Easy access for research collaboration (50%)
- Government innovation programs/challenges (45%)
- Government as a customer through procurement (41%)
This clearly indicates that businesses need more than just the R&D Tax Incentive, which was the most commonly used program among respondents (77%).
Appendix 2: International R&D Models Worth Considering
Survey respondents identified several international models that could inform Australia’s approach:
- UK’s Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF): this program funds “innovation brokers in Research organisations” and “has been available for 2 decades. It takes a long view on changing the dial on outcomes in R&D.”
- UK Aerospace Technology Institute: an example of substantial government investment (£975M) matched by industry to reach approximately £2B, building on £3.2B invested to date.
- Japanese New Energy & Development Organization: Cited as investing US$341M in a public-private partnership to develop hydrogen-powered aircraft.
- US models: DARPA, SBIR programs, and NASA’s EPFD program (US$250M) alongside the FAA FAST program (US$290M) for sustainable aviation technologies.
- European Union programs: “The EU has many programs for supporting startups and emerging tech at various stages in the innovation lifecycle.”