Innovation comes from entrepreneurs - and rarely from science.

There is a pervasive Australian myth that goes something like this: innovations come from brilliant scientists who pass on their discoveries to grateful businessmen and women and, eventually, the consumer. This linear progression does occur, but is a rarity compared to the real source of Australian innovation - the entrepreneur.

The world's stock of science and technology is increasing at a rapid rate and, in fact, there is already enough of it around to fuel a number of industrial revolutions. What is in short supply are the people who can assemble technologies and ideas into a coherent business plan, raise the finance and assemble the team that can turn all these inputs into something consumers value - in short, into an innovative product or service.

Australia needs a permanent, highly visible and accessible repository for ideas.

In 1988 I wrote to the then Minister for Science, Barry Jones and advocated the concept of a centralised ideas database. I envisaged a system where members of the public could submit ideas for inventions, models for governance, infrastructure improvements, etc. via phone, fax, mail or even the newfangled "email".  

My envisaged model was a system administered by universities who were probably the only bodies at that time with enough computing power to handle the influx of data. Since then, of course, there have been massive advances in internet technologies making such a system not only feasible but, I believe, imperative. It is sad to contemplate that there have doubtless been many creative ideas formulated by ordinary people which have withered and died for want of an avenue for expression.

Summits such as this should be extended beyond Australian shores to include our near neighbours, says Ben McDevitt.

I felt honoured to be part of the 2020 Summit in Canberra.  The opportunity to share ideas with such a diverse array of people from all walks of life on critical issues affecting our nation was fantastic.  My only regret is that the time we had to actually put ideas onto the table was very limited and the opportunity to actually explore those ideas in a meaningful way was virtually non-existent. 

I think the organisers and facilitators did a great job under considerable pressure to identify key ideas emerging from each of the streams in the limited time available and I was pleasantly surprised at the wrap up session on the second day that some really innovative ideas had been generated.  Prior to attending the summit I held the view that the best we could hope for was to create opportunities for further discussion and I sense that will occur.