Go8 submission to the Strategic Examination of Research and Development (SERD) issues papers

September 30, 2025

Strategic Examination of Research and Development Secretariat

Group of Eight Universities (Go8) submission to the Strategic Examination of Research and Development (SERD) issues papers open for comment until 30 September 2025

Introduction

The Go8 universities are not just participants in Australia’s innovation system – they are a cornerstone. As research-intensive institutions the Go8 delivers more than 20 percent of the nation’s total R&D investment, contributing $8.5 billion annually to Australia’s knowledge economy. Our universities are deeply embedded in industry, forging partnerships that translate cutting-edge research into real-world impact.

These collaborations aren’t theoretical—they’re transformative. Take Monash University’s five-year partnership with Moderna, which is accelerating breakthroughs in mRNA therapeutics and vaccines. This is the kind of high-impact innovation Australia needs more of.

But the stakes are rising. Without a bold overhaul of our research, development and innovation (RD&I) system, Australia risks locking in a future of low productivity, stagnant wages, rising living costs, and diminished capacity to meet our social, environmental, and sovereign challenges. Strengthening RD&I isn’t optional—it’s the only path to long-term national prosperity.

Go8 recommendations

The Go8 welcomes the SERD’s ambition to revitalise Australia’s research and development system. Our key recommendations in response to the issues papers are as follows:

Back Innovation, But Don’t Undermine Discovery
We support the SERD’s emphasis on R&D for innovation and the acknowledgement that it must not come at the expense of high-quality basic research. Discovery science is the foundation of Australia’s knowledge economy and must remain a national priority.
Think Long-Term, Act at Scale
The Go8 endorses a 10+ year strategic horizon for RD&I, consolidating programs, especially those focussed on translation developing frameworks for investment and evaluation of RD&I investments – to build scale, drive impact, and enable long-term planning. A robust national framework for RD&I investment and evaluation is essential.
Clarify the National Priorities Model—Before It’s Implemented
The proposed model for translational research priorities lacks critical detail. While we support the establishment of national focus areas, they must be flexible, not overly prescriptive, and aligned with existing frameworks – such as the National Science and Research Priorities and other government initiatives. The governance structure, and commercial co-investment mechanisms also require further development to ensure transparency, efficiency and practical implementation.
Modernise the R&D Tax Incentive—Then Leverage It
Simplifying access to the R&DTI is a welcome step. But we urge the government to go further: pair the R&DTI with equity or debt finance incentives from the National Reconstruction Fund to unlock greater private-sector investment.
Use Procurement as a Strategic Lever for Innovation
We support the SERD’s proposal to harness government procurement to drive RD&I. This should be coupled with the creation of a Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) to lift SME ambition, strengthen supply chains, and build economic resilience.
Protect Intellectual Property, Empower Innovators
IP reform must preserve the rights of universities and creators to own and manage their intellectual property. Any changes must not dilute licensing arrangements or weaken the ability of institutions to commercialise research effectively.
Build Entrepreneurial Talent Pipelines
The Go8 supports initiatives to develop entrepreneurial skills among researchers and PhD students, and to increase mobility between academia and industry. These efforts should be scaled through the creation of national doctoral training centres aligned with Australia’s strategic sectors and national priorities.
Unlock Capital, Fuel Growth
The Go8 endorses proposals to expand access to capital for RD&I, including venture capital for startups and scaleups. Removing barriers and creating incentives for superannuation funds to co-invest in innovation is a critical next step.

The attachment provides additional details on our headline responses and recommendations as well as comments on specific elements of the SERD issues papers.

Conclusion

If Australia is to secure a prosperous, high growth future driven by innovation, we must act decisively and:

Revitalise business sector RD&I – the engine room of our economy. Business R&D intensity has been in decline for two decades, and only a minority of Australian businesses are actively innovating. This must change.
Unleash the full potential of Australia’s research-intensive universities by removing the policy and funding barriers that limit their contribution to national RD&I outcomes.
Forge stronger, more strategic cross-sector collaboration – withgovernment, industry and universities working as co-investors and co-creators of RD&I.

The SERD’s initial four papers set a promising direction. However, key elements – particularly proposed national priorities model for translational research – require greater clarity and practical detail to ensure they deliver real impact.

In this submission, we have outlined additional reforms to strengthen and sharpen the SERD’s proposals.

We look forward to contributing further through our upcoming submission to the final two SERD issues papers, covering foundational research and government as an exemplar. The reforms the SERD intends to propose in these areas will be critical if Australia is to have universities, government and industry all strongly contributing to RD&I.

Attachment: Additional comments on specific elements of the SERD issues papers

Issues Paper – National coordination for research and development and innovation (RD&I) impact

The SERD’s proposal for a more coordinated national approach to translational research includes several promising elements. However, critical aspects require further development to ensure the model delivers real world impact without compromising the broader RD&I ecosystem.

What the Go8 Supports:

A decadal horizon to Australia’s RD&I system:
- We strongly support a 10+ year planning horizon. Long-term thinking is essential given the time lag between research investment and the outcomes of that research effort. This aligns with our call for a decadal national research strategy and reform roadmap to reverse Australia’s declining R&D intensity.
Towards a more coherent system for RD&I:
- While the SERD model stops short of establishing a dedicated National RD&I Agency as proposed by the Go8, it does take a constructive step by recommending a Commonwealth-level governance board. This could provide much needed coordination and oversight.
- The Go8 supports aligning research – particularly translational research – with coherent national priorities, recognising the vital role of research-intensive universities in delivering tangible benefits to the Australian community through research.
Program consolidation to build scale and impact:
- The Go8 supports rationalising the current patchwork of public RD&I programs, particularly those focused on translation. Consolidation is essential to achieve scale and impact.
- The challenge is how to implement this component of the SERD’s model in a way that achieves rationalisation and consolidation, while preserving and supporting the ongoing benefits of existing programs that are working well.
Investment and evaluation frameworks:
- The Go8 endorses the development of robust frameworks for RD&I investment and evaluation. These will improve consistency, transparency and accountability – key to building public and investor confidence in the system.
- This component of the model is also consistent with the Go8 recommendation for the Australian Government to invest in improved measurement of the outcomes of publicly funded R&D.
Protecting the foundations of research:
- The Go8 supports safeguarding the core foundations of Australia’s R&D system as outlined in the SERD proposed model, including the funding of broad-based fundamental research; maintaining and upgrading research infrastructure; supporting public research agencies; and investing in skills development and workforce mobility.

Where Clarity is Still Needed:

The Five or Fewer Focus Areas: We support the establishment of national priority focus areas for translational research but for these to be effective over a 10+ year horizon, they must strike the right balance – flexible enough to adapt to emerging opportunities yet focussed enough to drive meaningful outcomes. These priority areas must align with existing frameworks, including the National Science and Research priorities, and avoid being either too narrow – risking rigidity and misalignment with industry and societal needs – or too broad, which could dilute their purpose and impact. The supporting governance structure and co-investment mechanisms also require greater clarity and transparency to ensure practical implementation.
Alignment with Business Investment: With more than half of Australia’s R&D investment coming from the business sector, there is no guarantee business investment will align with proposed national focus areas.
Aligning Focus Areas with Broader Government priorities:
- How will these focus areas integrate with existing and emerging government priorities?
  Australia already has established National Science and Research Priorities, as well as new strategic directions under initiatives like A Future Made in Australia, which include pre-commercial innovation in renewable energy and low-emissions technologies. It is unclear whether the SERD model’s focus areas are intended to supersede these, or how they will be reconciled.
- What is the relationship with State and Territory priorities?
  States and Territories also set their own translational research agendas. Without a clear mechanism for coordination, there is a risk of duplication, misalignment, or fragmentation across jurisdictions.
Consolidation without disruption: The SERD model proposes consolidating existing translation-focused programs while maintaining investment in foundational RD&I. This ambition is sound—but the implementation pathway is unclear:
- How will consolidation work across institutions with dual mandates?
  Many public funding bodies, such as the Australian Research Council (ARC), support both foundational and translational research. For example, the ARC’s Linkage Program already facilitates industry collaboration. How will such programs be integrated or aligned with the new model without undermining their effectiveness?
- How will the system preserve what is working?
  Rationalisation must not come at the cost of successful programs. A clear framework is needed to assess which initiatives are consolidated, which are retained, and how overlaps are managed.
Achieving a robust governance structure that is not overly complicated. While the SERD model aims to strengthen national coordination, two key areas require further refinement to ensure the system is both effective and workable:
- A robust governance structure is essential—but it must not become a bureaucratic burden. The proposed model includes a central governance board, up to five focus area boards, and coordination with Commonwealth agency leads, all reporting to the relevant Minister. This layered structure risks becoming overly complex and slow-moving. To be effective, governance must be:
  - Streamlined, with clear lines of accountability.
  - Transparent, with decision-making processes that are open, and evidence based.
  - Efficient, avoiding duplication and unnecessary administrative overhead.

Without careful design, the governance model could hinder rather than enable the agility and responsiveness needed in a dynamic RD&I environment.
Intellectual property, equity and revenue sharing arrangements of commercialisation outcomes:
- The proposed co-investment model – requiring at least 50 per cent of funding from a tri-sector partnership (industry, State/Territory government, and research partners) – raises important questions about how commercial outcomes will be managed.

Specifically:

How will intellectual property be owned and governed?
- What equity arrangements will apply to public-private partnerships?
- How will revenue from commercialisation be shared among partners?

These are not minor details—they are foundational to attracting investment, protecting public value, and ensuring fair returns for all contributors. The model must provide a clear, principles-based framework for IP ownership, equity participation, and revenue distribution to avoid uncertainty and misalignment.

Issues paper – Scaling the system: a proactive approach to scaling the RD&I system

The SERD’s paper on scaling the RD&I system rightly recognises the need for bold interventions to translate research into high-growth ventures. The Go8 supports this ambition and offers the following recommendations to strengthen and operationalise the proposals.

Supercharging the Research and Development Tax Incentive (R&DTI):

We support the SERD’s call to simplify access to the R&D Tax Incentive (R&DTI). However simplification alone is not enough. We propose leveraging the R&DTI as a gateway to additional equity or debt finance from the National Reconstruction Fund (NRF)—available to businesses that:

Qualify for the R&DTI; and
Enter into formal R&D collaborations with Australian research institutions.

This approach targets R&D at the commercialisation end of the spectrum – well aligned with the NRF’s mandate to deliver a return of 2–3 per cent above the 5-year Australian Government bond rate over the medium to long term. Importantly, the existing R&DTI administration (via the Department of Industry, Science and Resources/ATO) could assess both R&D eligibility and research collaboration, ensuring minimal additional red tape.

Using the Australian Government procurement system:

We recommend that the Australian Government introduce a Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) linked to its procurement system to:

Lift SME ambition and capability,
Build sovereign supply chains, and
Translate early-stage ideas into commercial products and services.

Under this model:

A STTR program would provide grants to small businesses to enable them to work with a university to turn their early-stage concept into a product or service that is commercially viable.
Funding would come from government agencies’ procurement and R&D budgets. In the case of procurement, funding would be provided for the development of a commercial product or service for a specific government procurement need.
The program would support “technology pull-through,” incentivise collaboration, and strengthen Australia’s innovation supply chain.

This would complement existing initiatives like the Trailblazer Universities Program and align with SERD’s goal of challenge-based funding.

Incentivising intellectual property (IP) dissemination:

The Go8 welcomes SERD’s focus on incentivising IP dissemination. However, we caution against reforms that dilute university or researcher ownership.

The SERD paper calls for embedding incentives for universities to identify and disseminate IP and innovation to end-users.
There is no lack of willingness by Go8 universities to share their IP. Each of our members has expertise in negotiating and establishing meaningful collaborations with industry, whether for research contracting, research commercialisation or other research-based engagement.
The Go8 acknowledges that an increase in research commercialisation outcomes in Australia relies on effective, but appropriate, intellectual property arrangements that foster sensible, fair and collaborative sharing of IP with industry and other stakeholders.
IP reforms must continue to support university institutions’ and creators’ rights to own IP and not diminish the controls that the university creators have through a reduction of licensing arrangements.

Inadequate skills base and lack of local commercialisation of R&D:

We support the SERD proposal for entrepreneurial skills development for interested research staff and PhD students as well as greater mobility between industry and academia through industry PhDs and pairing researchers with entrepreneurs and investors.
In addition to these proposals, we recommend the establishment of national doctoral training centres that align with all key sectors of Australian economy and society and in areas of national priority.
These centres could leverage existing expertise within various universities and from across the private and public sector to provide critical mass and the necessary infrastructure for a high-quality student experience.
Existing schemes such as the National Industry PhD program could be aligned with these centres and industry invited to partner with them in a range of ways which would assist with growing talent mobility between industry and academia.

Issues paper – RD&I incentives: incentivising breakthrough innovation and ambitious R&D

We support the SERD’s aim for a more targeted, streamlined, and ambitious approach to RD&I incentives in Australia, with differentiated support for startups, SMEs, and large enterprises. As previously discussed, our recommendation for the introduction of a Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR) would provide differentiated support for SMEs.

Under a STTR program, SMEs would receive feasibility grants to explore solutions to government-identified challenges, followed by proof-of-concept grants to develop prototypes towards commercialisation. The program would complement existing programs such as the Trailblazer Universities Program.

The additional benefit of the STTR program is that it would assist with the SERD’s objective to encourage challenge-based funding mechanisms because procurement funding would be provided to SMEs for the development of a commercial product or service for a specific Australian Government procurement need.

Issues paper – Investment and capital

Australia’s innovation system is undercapitalised. We agree with the SERD’s assessment: attracting significantly more investment—both domestic and international—is essential if we are to scale breakthrough research into globally competitive ventures.

Venture Capital: Fuel for High-Growth Innovation

We strongly support the SERD’s intent to expand the availability of venture capital for startups and scaleups. A thriving venture capital ecosystem is critical to sustaining high-impact RD&I, particularly in emerging technologies and deep tech.

The SERD’s proposal to establish pooled investment vehicles—such as a ‘fund of funds’ —to enable superannuation funds to invest in high-growth startups via specialised early-stage venture capital funds is a step in the right direction.

Models like Tin Alley Ventures at the University of Melbourne demonstrate how university innovation ecosystems can successfully partner with venture capital to accelerate the development of high-potential ventures. This approach should be scaled nationally to unlock the full commercial potential of university-initiated research.

Superannuation: Unlocking Australia’s $3.5 Trillion Innovation Engine

We support SERD’s proposals to reduce barriers and create incentives for superannuation funds to co-invest in RD&I. This includes:

Updating the APRA performance test to allow greater flexibility for funds to invest in Australian private equity and venture capital.
Establishing clear pathways for superannuation funds to participate in early-stage innovation without compromising fiduciary obligations.

To further strengthen this effort, we recommend the Australian Government:

Facilitate the emergence of intermediaries and aggregators to bridge the gap between superannuation funds and early-stage enterprises.
Ensure these entities are aligned with national innovation priorities and capable of managing risk while delivering strategic returns.

Australia has the capital. We now need the mechanisms, incentives, and confidence to deploy it where it matters most—into the ideas, ventures, and technologies that will define our future.