This is a tale of everyone in government saying they agree that something should be done, but no-one actually doing it.
It is a tale of economic mis-management by a Government that prides itself on economic good management.
It is a tale of buck-passing and putting something into the “too-hard” basket.
And it is the tale of not looking after about $7 billion dollars worth of taxpayers’ assets.
It starts in 2003 when the Australian National Audit Office began looking at how agencies handle their intellectual property. This is the intangible property created by intellectual effort – things like computer software, photographs, recordings, inventions (medical and scientific), documents, logos, designs, drawings, diagrams, music and the like.
The value of these things can be seen in Commonwealth accounts. Total intangibles were $7.7 billion, $3.8 billion of that was computer software – all intellectual property and much of the rest would be intellectual property of one sort or another.
The Audit Office quite reasonably asked: “Who is looking after these assets? Who is making sure they are not stolen or lost? How can we be sure that the Commonwealth is making best use of these assets?”
You wouldn’t leave your car or house or other assets lying around for anyone to knock off or be left unused when they could be made profitable or useful. Why do this with your intellectual property?
Early in 2004 the Audit Office reported to Parliament. Less than a third of Commonwealth agencies had policies on managing intellectual property. The Commonwealth had no coherent whole-of-government approach.
After lots of work with more than half a dozen agencies, the Audit office made a series of recommendations to ensure the best use of these assets. If you assume a conservative five per return we are talking $350 million a year. Sure, some of the assets are probably being used wisely in any event, but, as the Audit Office pointed out we have no real way of knowing.
It recommended that “the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and Intellectual Property Australia [the old Patents Office] (along with other relevant agencies), work together to develop a whole-of-government approach and guidance for the management of the Commonwealth’s intellectual property”.
The Government agencies’ responses to the 2004 report were all very reasonable and sensible. They agreed. That was three years ago.
In 2005 the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquired into intellectual property. In November 2005 it recommended: “The Attorney-General’s Department commence development of a whole-of-government approach and guidance for the management of the Commonwealth’s intellectual property, for completion by May 2006. The Attorney-General’s Department should consult widely with Commonwealth agencies, particularly those which are major generators of intellectual property.”
The Government agencies’ responses were all very reasonable and sensible. They agreed.
The May 2006 deadline came and went. Nothing happened. Of course, while AG’s sat on its hands, other agencies had a convenient out: we are waiting for the AG’s statement on a whole-of-government approach.
The traditional “whole-of-government” approach was adopted: why do anything if you have an excuse to do nothing?
This week the Audit Office tabled another report. The language was measured and reasonable in the circumstances – so measured and reasonable it needs translating into plain language.
“By December 2006, the overarching approach and guidance on IP management was not finalised. . . . It is still not clear when either the IP Principles or the IP Manual can be expected to be finalised or released.” Read: the Government has done nothing and is not likely to do anything.
The Audit Office noted key agencies’ responses.
Attorney-General’s says it “supports both the recommendations” contained in the 2004 report. Read: But after three years has not done the job.
The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts “suggests that where an ANAO report recommends that a whole-of-government approach be undertaken on a particular issue there should be specific recognition of the need for the approach to be lead by an agency with whole-of-government responsibilities”. Read: The buck stops somewhere else.
Department of Finance and Administration says it “will continue to work with relevant agencies, including the Attorney-General’s Department, and others including those represented on the interdepartmental committee”. Read: We have put it in the too-hard basket.
Only IP Australia did its job, but that was a support role not a leadership one.
Meanwhile, $7 billion worth of assets are floating around the Commonwealth and no-one has a clear idea whether they are being used well, stolen, misused, properly identified or ignored.
The Audit Office recognises the difficulties with public-sector management of intellectual property and recognises that some agencies have policies to deal with it.
A critical point is that private-sector owners of intellectual property seek to make as much money as possible out of it. That is not the case for public-sector owners. It might be in the national economic interest for Commonwealth-owned intellectual property to be made freely available – for example, a vaccine against human or animal disease or collections of economic data. Indeed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics does release economic data for free.
But the government as a whole should have a policy. Instead it has sat on its hands.
Maybe that is its policy — not to have a policy. That way it can make ad-hoc decisions in a politically expedient way as they arise. It enables the Government to suppress some intellectual property, for example when the CSIRO discovers some inconvenient truth (as was revealed by this newspaper this week). Or it can hand out intellectual property free or subsidized to its cronies and the electorally sensitive, for example patents and other rights in agriculture.
But it is not good economic management from a government that prides itself on economic management.
The latest Audit report on intellectual property should not disappear into another three year black hole.