Backing Australia's intellectual content

This can only happen, however, if there is a sound intellectual property regime in place.

One which lets the creator get the credit (and the profit) and allows the solution – the IP – to be sold and used.

This is where there is more to do. The government’s aim to simply increase awareness of IP is in itself no solution.

Tony Blair, the British PM, faced the same challenges that this country does. His strategy was to put more money into content. On the proviso that they delivered to the knowledge economy, the UK government invested heavily in the BBC and the British Library. Along with online initiatives like the University for Industry.

The limitation of the Australian innovation package is in its definition of research. As if it is something undertaken exclusively in science and technology departments of universities. As if those working in the new economy don’t do it.

Yet there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There are countless researchers throughout the workforce - and within the creative industries. So many people researching, developing and commercialising intellectual property as software, entertainment, and learning products. The ABC, for example, has a long list of researchers who are helping to transform good ideas into IP. In digital format. So why is this potential knowledge institution not part of the package?

By way of explanation, the PM declared that he had to make the shift from his humanities background to that of science and technology – before he could appreciate the role they played in knowledge generation. With all due respect PM, it might be a good idea to look again.

For the new economy is based on ideas, on the ability of knowledge workers right across the board to think laterally and to come up with solutions. To generate new content.

In short, success in the knowledge economy and our future prosperity depend on the creative industries.

Ironically, innovation doesn’t seem to apply to them.