Lexicon legend and communications extraordinaire Malcolm Turnbull has done well from his recent ‘innovation’ agenda. It’s a lovely sounding word for one thing – just sings of economic progress. The soothing effects of news headlines about an ‘innovative economy’ almost outweigh the panic effects of headlines about Australia’s $37 billion deficit. Turnbull has appointed Christopher Pyne as the Innovation Minister, while 25 year old Wyatt Roy is his assistant; a young face to sell a fresh idea. Unfortunately, neither have had careers outside politics, so private sector experience is a collective nil. But both were significant innovators in the Liberal’s leadership spill last year, showing absolute commitment to this cause. I must say, as a young STEM university student, I feel vastly more confident about my future, knowing that we will simply innovate our way out of this enormous debt. Hooray!

The innovation agenda is classic Malcolm; it sounds brilliant on the surface. You have debt, I’ll give you innovation, he says. Delivered with a charming smile and confident wink. If you ignore the fact it’s another billion added to the deficit, the policies seem reasonable; tax offsets on investments in more risky start-ups, exemptions on capital gains tax for shares in those companies, relaxed laws around bankruptcy to reduce the fear of failure, importing talent with the new ‘entrepreneur’s visa’, and increased research funding for universities and the CSIRO. There needs to be an answer to an economy where inflation is stubbornly low even though money is cheaper than ever, and there needs to be an answer before our population becomes much more elderly. Debts will balloon as tax bases decrease, so the government is casting bets that technological innovation will spur some economic growth.

The question is, will an innovation agenda work? There’s historical evidence that it will; Britain grew out of a mountain of debt during the ‘railway mania’ of the Industrial Revolution, as historian Niall Ferguson points out in his 2013 book The Great Degeneration. But can we innovate so spectacularly to cure our debts again? Ferguson is doubtful; he sees the rate of technological advancement as slowing, as described in a section aptly titled, ‘Against Techoptimism’.

‘The achievements of the last twenty-five years were not especially impressive compared with what we did in the preceding twenty-five years, 1961-86 (for example, landing men on the moon). And the technological milestones of the twenty-five years before that, 1935-60, were even more remarkable (such as splitting the atom).’

However, his view may be pessimistic. While technological breakthroughs are not as monumental, the pace with which tech improvements transform our lives has certainly shot up a gear. Think the iPhone, first sold only eight years ago. Apple stores in the inner city are now large to the point of industrial. Think Facebook; it’s under twelve years old. Google is under twenty.

No one really knows how much innovation will drive growth in the future. What’s more uncertain still, is how much sway a government policy will have over the process. Wyatt Roy scored more than an own goal in an interview with ABC radio, when he said that ‘Israel leads on every metric when it comes to driving innovation, yet its government investment is one of the lowest investments.’ If there was ever evidence that innovation lies outside the realm of government, that it is in the hands of private business run by individuals, Israel is it.

Worse, at a recent Policy Hack, a panel including Roy awarded ‘lemonade stalls’ as the best policy promoting an innovative, entrepreneurial spirit in schools. They missed the irony that the lemonade stall is the most clichéd and least innovative business idea in the history of enterprise. Perhaps a few kids will develop a fleeting interest in business, but if governments think they can nurture innovation and entrepreneurialism, they are wrong. It’s real world engagement and workforce experience that does that for young people.

Although Roy’s lemonade stalls miss the point entirely, it would nonetheless be a big shame if the innovation agenda didn’t target tertiary education. At present, the innovation policy has limited its dealings with universities to increasing funding for research departments. Minister Pyne and his young assistant must seize the opportunity to address the divide between education and the workforce; a divide that is widening rapidly into a chasm, swallowing many graduates, even STEM ones. Roy’s excitement at the prospect of teaching students some business skills with lemonade is an admission that education does not give the skills required for productive employment in the real world. As Nick Cater writes in The Lucky Culture, ‘the consistent verdict of employers is that, in so far as the academies dispense practical skills, they do so badly.’

Mark Steyn calls it the ‘credentialised age’, the imagined necessity of degrees and qualifications, which don’t necessarily help young people navigate the workforce. The drawn-out nature of tertiary study means that students emerge from academia aged 23 or 24, with lovely credentials but without a sense of business practise, which is vital for innovation and entrepreneurialism. We can’t help but feel that if got out of study earlier, we’d be better off.

As Education Minister, Christopher Pyne sailed turbulent waters of higher education reform, and got shipwrecked. But an Innovation Minister that will not go to war with the credentialised age is not serious. There are scores of undergraduate students who would be doing better, both financially and personally, if they’d been given an entry level job instead. Many students are energised at the prospect of working, and frustrated by degrees often riddled with irrelevance. The obsession with credentials is a formidable opponent to a dynamic, robust, agile economy. Yes, tertiary education can be empowering and inspiring, but frequently locks up talent and energy, the very things we need for innovation. It’s doubtful we’ll overcome the debt burden by ‘techoptimism’ alone, but there’s more to innovation than gadgets. It’s not just about kick starting the newest, trendiest industries; it’s about setting existing ones free, starting with the education sector. As Roy points out, ‘innovation is the new black, everyone’s talking about it.’ Let’s hope this government can properly bring it into fashion, where it’s needed.