An independent judiciary, a strong civil society and an effective bureaucracy are far more important to social stability and economic development than the application of Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian or Westminster principles.

In substance, I abide by the traditional formulation of the role of the state, which is to provide peace, order and good government. Governments should do what they do best - in Paul Ormerod's words, "Governments should do much less...detailed short-term intervention...and [spend more time] thinking about the overall framework." They should shun ideology and focus on making the environment right for us to go about our business, while being mindful of the consequences of allowing too much freedom.

Strangely enough, to allow citizens and business the freedom they crave, good government must contain an element of regulation, it must, in some cases, in some ways, restrict freedom. This is because regulation is an essential ingredient of governance and, in turn, governance is fundamental to the success of the modern state and of modern economies. Maslow developed a "hierarchy of needs" for individuals. The higher needs in this hierarchy become relevant as a motivator of behaviour only when the lower needs are satisfied. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be a priority. I think this model is applicable at the societal level as well. I think a similar pyramid or hierarchy of needs can be constructed for society as a whole.

Working with business, rather than over the top of them, reduces costs to government, encourages private sector expertise and contributes to economic growth.

Regulatory reform is becoming a common project of governments across the world. As economies and businesses become more sophisticated in their operations, governments have recognised they must become more selective and innovative in the ways they regulate.

It is hard to describe the historical situation in Australia as one of more or less regulation. Relative to Europe there is a less regulated and rigid business environment. On the one hand, the number of pages of regulation has increased substantially; on the other hand governments have deregulated entire industries over the past few decades.

What we are seeing is change in the favoured style of regulation: these days, the focus is on setting the basic (enforceable) rules of the game and letting the market find its own solutions when this is possible. For example, where possible we expect regulation to be expressed in terms of an outcome to be achieved rather than a process for achieving it. This rewards productivity and innovation as firms seek the most efficient ways to comply.

We need a set of legislative changes and incentives to encourage investments into R&D and early stage start-ups, so that Australia too can claim a multinational like Nokia, CheckPoint or Google.

There's definitely something to be said for finally having a minister dedicated to the areas or research development and innovation in the Federal Government. And certainly when I met with Senator Kim Carr together with a group of IT industry representatives a few months ago, he's making the right noises regarding the sorts of approaches which would lead to a more innovative economy.

What we need to see now is some action. Specifically we need the government to adopt legislation which encourages what might be termed a "virtuous circle of innovation" within the Australian economy.

We don't need a hand out, and we don't need any extra money. We need a series of approaches which encourage investors to put their money into enterprises which lead to the creation of intellectual property, which can go on to make money in the global economy.

If we're going to cultivate innovation, originality and creativity, then we need less governance, not more.

What on earth are managers up to these days? Here I write of the rise and rise of robotic, one dimensional, management-by-formula, and question if it is throttling innovation.

In linguistics, there is a rhetorical fondness of the imaginary “Martian Linguist” who, according to Chomskian thinking, on a visit to Earth would deduce from the evidence that all humans speak the one language, with only minor local variants. Well, I’m thinking that if management theorists from Mars were to watch the goings on at most board rooms today, they could be forgiven for thinking that all human enterprises are actually engaged in the same activity – compliance!

It might not be politically correct to question governance in these risk averse times, but here goes. Can we dare to ask, what is “governance”? In effect, as practiced, it is meta-management; that is, management of management.