You can't ask that (but we did): Is it time Australia considered a new ag R&D model?
evokeAG. 2025 closed with a bang, as sector leaders tackled the questions no one’s dared to ask. In this four-part series, we unpack their honest, unscripted responses to some of the hardest.
Bren Smith, Andrew Bate and Olympia Yarger in the 'You can't ask that' panel session at evokeAG. 2025.
This one? A big one: Has Australia’s R&D system lost its way – and is it time to hand the reins to the private sector?
It’s late on day 2 of the biggest evokeᴬᴳ⋅ ever. A packed house has gathered for the final plenary session. On stage:
- Cathy McGowan (Chair, AgriFutures Australia)
- David Jochinke (President, National Farmers Federation)
- Olympia Yarger (Founder & CEO, GoTerra)
- Bren Smith (Co-Executive Director, GreenWave and Owner, Thimble Island Ocean Farmand)
- Andrew Bate (Co-Founder, SwarmFarm Robotics)
Hosted by Oli Le Lievre (Humans of Agriculture)
The question:
“When it comes to commercialisation of research, Australia is in a really bad place. We’re the lowest OECD nation for commercialisation. We’re seeing enormous amounts of money going into the university sector and delivering very little value back to growers. Should we completely change the way R&D is done in Australia – and move any applied research into the private sector?”
Spoiler: it sparked one of the most urgent and animated exchanges of the session.
The university sector: money machine or innovation engine?
Swarmfarm’s Andrew Bate wasn’t backward in coming forward. “Our university sector is a massive money-making machine,” he said. “A $48 billion export industry. Just let that sink in for a minute. That’s the fourth biggest export in this country, and the biggest one we have that’s not dug out of the ground.”
But Andrew argued size doesn’t equal impact. “Our sector has got to think really hard about how we are aligned with it. Are we seeing outcomes? Or are we being used as a pawn for research funding?”
The problem, he suggested, is that university success is measured by citations and rankings – not by real-world results. “The better the ratings, the better the publications, the more international students, the more cash feeds that machine.”
While conceding that universities are great at ag research, he argued they may not be the best place for development – the ‘D’ in R&D.
“I think we should just by default go straight to universities and say we need to do more R and D with the and in the middle. We’ve got to separate out development and think about how applied research can benefit industry. And where is the best place to get it done?
“If by default go straight to universities to solve our problems, then I don’t think we’re getting the outcomes that we need in agriculture.”
Our risk appetite doesn’t match our innovation potential
Founder of Goterra, Olympia Yarger is no stranger to working with our research sector – and battling the barriers to commercialisation. But for her, the root problem isn’t structural. It’s cultural.
“We don’t back ourselves,” she said to emphatic nods from the audience.
“In comparison to commercialisation, the research side feels safe. You give a research problem to CSIRO, and you know you’re going to get empirical evidence, excellent scientists… somehow that feels like it de-risks development.”
“But it doesn’t. It stagnates development.”
Olympia was quick to point out she values CSIRO as a research partner. But she said the system disproportionately funds research validation – and fails to support the messy, risky, real-world job of scaling new tech.
“Research grants will fund a PhD student to do check box research, and from a venture perspective, [VCs] want to see those university logos on the bottom of our pitch decks.”
But where’s the commercial test, she asked?
“Where is the influence from industry to say whether or not that research is actually valid to develop?”
Confidence, culture, and commercialisation
Olympia framed the issue as a disconnect between capability and confidence.
“I’ll keep saying it until I’m blue in the face: our risk appetite is not commensurate with our innovation excellence,” she said. “Until those two things are at parity, we will continue to circle the drain on this. No argument.”
R&D does deliver – when it’s allowed to
Chair of AgriFutures Australia, Cathy McGowan offered a counterbalance. “It’s not that I disagree with that perspective,” she said. “But of course I’m going to stand up for our research and development system. It’s sort of my job.”
She pointed to the rice industry as an example of what publicly funded R&D can achieve when it’s given the time and mandate to deliver. “In the last ten years, we’ve doubled rice efficiency. And whether or not you agree we should be growing rice is not the point –no one else would have done that research.”
“We’ve done it really well. We’ve got the extension. And we deliver it.”
What if the next Wi-Fi is in the room?
We couldn’t have a discussion on commercialisation of Australian research without someone mentioning Wi-Fi, our most infamous missed opportunity. “Wi-Fi? We made so little money from that, it’s almost unconscionable. Because we’re great at ideas – and really crap at backing ourselves to develop them,” argued Olympia.
“Where’s the next Wi-Fi coming from?”
And more importantly, she asked, would Australia back it?
“I submit that the next Wi-Fi would be sitting in this room, and Australian venture wouldn’t back it. And most of our industry bodies would be too afraid of it.”
Andrew agreed. “Australia invented Wi-FI, but it took another country to commercialise it. And we’re proud that we sued them for it? Where was the value created?”
“That’s not a proud moment.”
So what now?
Australia has research excellence in spades. We’ve got the brains, the ideas, the rural research and development system set up specifically to fund it. And for agriculture, R&D has delivered standout solutions that keep our industries at the top of their game, globally.
“What I really want to talk about is the way forward here,” concluded Cathy. “What I think we want is more of what we’ve had over these two days at evokeᴬᴳ⋅ – when you bring the private and public sector together.”
She quoted evokeᴬᴳ⋅ co-host, Liz Brennan: “We have strong views, which we hold gently.” “That’s what I’ve loved about evokeᴬᴳ⋅,” said Cathy. “Everybody’s here in this tent, and enormous conversations have happened. But it’s what we do with that that matters.”
To catch up on the full evokeAG. 2025 session, click here to watch session recording.