CRCs and Budget confusion

There has been some confusion surrounding the impact of the 2016–17 Budget on the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Programme. Some described the program as being a winner on the night, while others lamented the fact that it received a $20 million cut. So which version of events is correct?

As explained by the CRC Association’s Tony Peacock, a $20 million efficiency saving has indeed been noted in the Industry portfolio from the Entrepreneurs’ Programme and the CRC Programme. The association understands this represents $6 million of unspent funds in the current year from the CRC Programme. The suspension of the funding round in 2014 and the delayed start in 2015 due to the Miles Review has led to a saving.

However, the 2016–17 and the 2017–18 forward estimates for the CRC Programme have been boosted by more than the 2015–16 savings; so overall, there has been a small boost in the total CRC Programme budget. Furthermore, more funding will progressively become available for new CRCs and CRC-Ps. Peacock estimated this to be around $20 million, $43 million, $67 million then $144 million as the forward estimates go out.

According to Peacock, the National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) announced in December will have a bigger impact on the CRC Programme than the Budget. The changes to the university block grant arrangements announced in the NISA will encourage university-based researchers to embrace industry-oriented research, which has a major impact on CRCs’ ability to access the best researchers in the country.

Peacock has also expressed the association’s support for the National Carp Control Plan, to be co-funded between the Industry, Environment and Agriculture portfolios through the Invasive Animals CRC. According to Peacock, the $15 million plan shows that other departments can join with the Industry Department to take unfinished business of a CRC forward. He hopes to see this type of cooperation continue coming from Environment, which received a boost in Antarctic science funding, and Defence, where innovation with industry is playing a stronger role.

“The future of the CRC Programme is now clear and positive from a financial perspective,” said Peacock, who noted that both the government and Opposition have pledged their support for the program. The key to maximising the benefit of the program, he said, is for both parties to set out their timetable for future CRC and CRC-Ps funding rounds.

“Experience tells us time and time again that policy certainty is vital for innovation programs, especially programs involving collaboration,” Peacock said. “It takes years to plan some CRCs and it is complex to have multiple companies and research providers line up their resources to collaborate on the scale of a CRC. Setting out the time frame and processes for future rounds costs nothing but delivers impact.”