_
TREElectric Pty Ltd Home Page _
_
GENERAL SUBMISSION TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE SECRETARIAT FOR THE NATIONAL INNOVATION SUMMIT.

From: Neil Aitchison
Position: Managing Director.
Company: TREElectric Pty Ltd.
Address: 687(D) Brighton Road, Seacliff, SA, 5049.
Telephone: 0410 725792.
Email: mec@adelaide.on.net

Innovation in Australia is in serious trouble if the way the Government has treated my innovative company is typical of the way the Government treats all innovators. Bureaucrats need to realise the extent of how their decisions can severely jeopardise the work and reputation of an innovator. If they do not conduct themselves honestly, fairly and ethically, it is far too risky for innovators to receive any sort of "assistance" from the Government. The disgraceful treatment that TREElectric has received from bureaucrats (as I explain below) has placed my honest, innovative business in a very precarious, damaged and stressful position. The damage bill is already in the tens of millions of dollars. I believe that my situation deserves a parliamentary inquiry and I hope that the National Innovation Summit is a genuine opportunity to have the conduct of bureaucrats thoroughly scrutinised and to devise a practical way for the bureaucracy to help innovators, particularly small business innovators, instead of trying to destroy them.

Justice through the courts is out of reach for many small businesses because the cost of litigation is way beyond what they can afford - especially after they have spent a great deal of their money achieving innovative success. When this happens, justice delayed is justice denied. The Government needs to be using it's resources far better to help small businesses be innovative who, according to the ABS 1996-7 "Innovation in Manufaturing" report, complete 94% of their innovation projects compared to 48% for large businesses. This same report shows that small businesses can achieve nearly as much value in their innovation (in dollar terms) as large businesses, but they only spend about a third as much in venture capital. The government needs to protect the small businesses from corporate sharks who use their corporate muscle to exploit the innovation of small businesses.

Over the past 4 years, I have had a great deal of interaction with the former Energy Research and Development Corporation ("ERDC"), the former Department of Primary Industries and Resources ("DPIE") and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources ("DISR") in regard to the research and development of biomass power gasification technologies.

My companies, TREElectric Pty Ltd and Enervest Pty Ltd, have been severely damaged as a result of a defective decision made on the part of ERDC in 1996. The first problems began when ERDC published a report in February 1995 called the "Biomass in the Energy Cycle Study". Before this report was published, TREElectric informed ERDC of many errors contained in the report - in particular, errors that gave credit to another energy company ("Other Company") for the work that TREElectric was conducting. These errors were not corrected before the report was published and consequently, TREElectric was placed in a position where it's financiers, shareholders and business affiliates became highly suspicious that my company had mislead them about the nature and extent of TREElectric's research and development work.

TREElectric informed ERDC of the errors in the report a second time and after a few months of discussions, ERDC decided to published an "Errata Sheet" that was to be included with the sale of the report. However, only half the people/organisations who had initially purchased the report (that I was able to contact) had been supplied with the "Errata Sheet". I also purchased a copy of the report myself to see if the "Errata Sheet" was included and found that only one volume of the two volume report contained the "Errata Sheet". The "Summary" volume (which is the volume that most people purchased) did not have the "Errata Sheet" included. It is very hard for TREElectric to survive as an innovator and continue being innovative when a government agency gives other people credit for my company's work.

Following the extensive discussions between ERDC and TREElectric through-out 1995 to compile the "Errata Sheet" (which included a letter from the Other Company stating very clearly that they had no involvement in the development work and had no interest in the technologies being developed), ERDC received a proposal from the Other Company in early 1996 to commercialise the biomass power gasification technologies. ERDC mindlessly approved this proposal from the Other Company even though most of details in the proposal contradicted ERDC's prior knowledge of TREElectric's on-going contractual role in commercialising of the technologies.

Since this time, TREElectric has been trying to seek explanations from ERDC and the Government as to how it could have made such a huge error which caused TREElectric to be sidelined from the commercialisation of the technologies. Most of my complaints to the Government were ignored, delayed or trivialised and the Government refused to give any explanations on the conduct of ERDC until late 1997 - and then only after the Australian Democrats made approaches to the Government on my behalf. Even now, I am finding it very expensive and time-consuming to receive information from the Government under the Freedom Of Information Act and the Government is refusing to remedy the problems that it has caused TREElectric. There are many examples in my case of how bureaucrats in ERDC and now DISR have acted unfairly or dishonestly in the way that they have been handling my complaints. This sort of conduct has to stop and changes made to make the Government more caring, compassionate and understanding toward innovators in Australia.

Neil Aitchison.
.....
...