CRCs are to find solutions to the major challenges facing Australia, with the emphasis on industry led research and innovation.  While the rhetoric recognizes broad economic benefits, the CRC program is predicated on commerce implementing research results for a financial benefit. Reviews have found that the program has been very successful at delivering these benefits to Australia.    

The Bushfire CRC is different, as here the CRC model has been applied not to a commercial issue, but to an Australian “public good” problem. Showing the benefits of public good research is much more difficult than measuring commercial returns. In a public good CRC success depends on research results finding their way into public policy.  However, scientific evidence is only one component of policy change, and research evidence can be sidelined by a major event, budget cuts, or a change in leadership. In any case, a CRC may have other achievements which are just as important, such as promoting a cultural shift towards evidence based practice, or creating research and development capacity.  It is often asserted that researchers have a major responsibility to help ensure research uptake, but this raises issues about their role and the quality and independence of their work.

Assessing whether the Bushfire CRC has made a difference is not straightforward.  I argue that it has, but it depends on who we ask, and how we assess its contribution in space and time.  There is scope to increase the impact of public good CRCs.  How this can best occur and be measured should be added to their research agendas.