{"id":"F2007L00421","name":"Commercialising Emerging Technologies (COMET) Program Directions No. 1 of 2006","slug":"commercialising-emerging-technologies-comet-program-directions-no-1-of-2006","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":63509,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2007L00421-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commercialising Emerging Technologies (COMET) Program Directions No. 1 of 2006","content":"Commonwealth of Australia\n\nIndustry Research and Development Act 1986\n\nCOMET Program Directions No 1 of 2006\n\nI, Ian Elgin Macfarlane, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, acting under subsections 18A(1),19(1) and 20(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, give the following Directions to the Industry Research and Development Board (‘the Board’). These Directions replace the previous Directions No. 1 of 2004. Policies and guidelines issued under the Directions No.1 of 2004 will remain in force until replaced following the commencement of these Directions and will continue to apply to COMET grant funding that was approved by the Program Delegate under the Directions No. 1 of 2004.\n\nDated 15/12/06 I. Macfarlane\n\nMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nPART 1 - PRELIMINARY\n\n1.  Name of Directions\n\nThese Directions are the Commercialising Emerging Technologies (COMET) Program Directions No 1 of 2006.\n\n2. Commencement\n\nThese Directions will come into effect on and from the day on which both the following steps have been completed:\n\na) the Directions have been registered on the Federal Registrar of Legislative Instruments; and\n\nb) the Directions have been published in the Gazette.\n\n3. Object of these Directions\n\nThe object of this instrument is to give Directions to the Board in relation to:\n\na) an additional function of the Board, namely the provision of technical assessment and merit ranking of eligible applications under, the COMET Program; and\n\nb) the policies and practices to be followed by the Board in the performance of the function.\n\n4. Interpretation\n\na) In these Directions, unless the contrary intention applies:\n\nagreement means an agreement between a recipient and the Commonwealth for grant funding under the program, as amended from time to time in accordance with the rules for the program;\n\n> applicant means an entity that makes an eligible application;\n\n> Assistance Plan means the tailored package of support for the recipient designed to increase the commercialisation of the recipient’s innovation;\n\nBusiness Advisers are the private sector consultants to assist in the delivery of the COMET program. The role of the Business Adviser is to provide guidance with COMET applications, make assessment of applications, advise and assist recipients through the commercialisation process and undertake other activities against any operational plan agreed by the Department;\n\nCOMET National Manager oversee the delivery of COMET by the Business Adviser network, assist with the technical assessment of applications under the COMET program and undertake other activities against any operational plan agreed by the Department;\n\n> Department means the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources;\n\n> eligible application means an application for grant funding under the Program, that includes a National Manager recommendation and that the Program Delegate has determined to be eligible to be admitted for technical assessment and merit ranking by the Board;\n\neligible activities means the activities eligible for funding as part of an Assistance Plan. The Assistance Plan is developed in consultation with the Business Adviser and is for activities accessed through third-party service providers. These comprise:\n\n\\- strategic and business planning, including an export strategy if appropriate;\n\n\\- market research;\n\n\\- management development, including participation in approved management skills development courses;\n\n\\- an intellectual property strategy;\n\n\\- engagement of non-executive directors or mentors;\n\n\\- proving technology;\n\n\\- working prototype completion;\n\n\\- market validity focussed on building a credible business proposition; and\n\n\\- for applicants more than 200 kilometres from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth, up to 5 per cent of their grant amount (capped at $3,200) on travel expenses incurred in relation to the project by themselves or a service provider;\n\n> innovation is defined as new or improved, products, processes or services;\n\n> Merit Criteria means the criteria specified in clause 9 of these Directions;\n\n> Minister means the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources;\n\n> Program means the Commercialising Emerging Technology (COMET) Program, a merit-based program that is administered by the Program Delegate and is designed to provide support to enable COMET recipients to maximise their potential for commercialisation of innovation;\n\n> Program Delegate means an employee of the Department who has been empowered by the Minister, or otherwise duly authorised, to administer the program \\[Note: this is distinct from a Delegate of the Board appointed under section 21 of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986\\];\n\n> recipient means an entity that is entitled to receive funding under the program pursuant to an agreement between the entity and the Commonwealth; and\n\nservice providers are entities engaged to provide assistance and services in the implementation of the Assistance Plan. They are identified by the COMET recipient, and their engagement approved by the COMET Business Adviser.\n\n> b) In these Directions, may is permissive and not mandatory.\n\nPART 2 – CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM\n\n5. Board to have regard to certain policy objectives\n\nThe Board must have regard to the following policy objectives in giving effect to these Directions:\n\na) to increase Australia’s sustainable economic growth through stimulating the successful commercialisation of Australian innovation; and\n\nb) to build sustainable and high-growth firms by increasing prospects for successful commercialisation of innovation through the attraction of capital and partners.\n\n6. Procedure\n\na) Subject to clause 7, the Board will assess eligible applications and provide a merit ranking of those applications to the Program Delegate;\n\nb) The Board must consider eligible applications at least every 60 days.\n\n7. The Board may refuse to provide merit ranking\n\nThe Board may decide to refuse to provide a merit ranking in respect of a particular applicant if it is not satisfied with the level of merit of an eligible application in relation to one or more of the Merit Criteria.\n\nPART 3 – ASSESSMENT AND MERIT RANKING OF APPLICATIONS\n\n8. Assessment of applications\n\nSubject to clause 7, the Board must assess each eligible application on its merit according to the extent to which the application meets the Merit Criteria.\n\n9. Merit Criteria\n\nThe merit of eligible applications must be assessed against the following criteria:\n\na) Actual or potential management capability to commercialise the innovation with appropriate COMET support;\n\nb) Market opportunity and strategy of the innovation;\n\nc) Technical feasibility of the innovation; and\n\nd) Demonstrated need for COMET funding.\n\nPART 4 – ASSESSMENT AND MERIT RANKING OF APPLICATIONS\n\n10. Ad hoc technical assessments\n\nThe Program Delegate may request the Board to provide a technical assessment on any matter arising out of the Assistance Plan.\n\nPART 5 - EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM\n\n11. The Board may advise the Minister, or the Minister may request advice, on non-financial administration matters relating to the program, including program administration and the extent to which the program is meeting its objectives.\n\n12 The Board may collect and analyse data on the performance of the program, provide advice to the Minister on such performance, and will cooperate with any independent evaluation of the program.","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Directions remain tightly focused on their original purpose: establishing the administrative framework for the COMET grants program. The scope covers exactly what one would expect—application assessment procedures, merit criteria, and program evaluation—with no significant expansion into unrelated policy areas or creation of extensive compliance burdens beyond the core grant administration function."},"complexity_factors":["Straightforward structure with only 5 parts and 12 clauses","12 defined terms in the interpretation section, all clearly explained","Minimal cross-referencing (only references to the parent Act in the preamble and one note distinguishing 'Program Delegate' from 'Board Delegate')","Simple conditional logic: mainly 'must' (mandatory) vs 'may' (permissive) distinctions, explicitly clarified in clause 4(b)","No nested exceptions or complex procedural triggers beyond basic commencement conditions (registration + gazettal)","Clear, linear assessment criteria (4 merit criteria in clause 9) without weightings or complex formulas","Single transitional provision (replacement of 2004 Directions) with simple continuity rule for existing grants"],"plain_english_summary":"These Directions tell how the Minister’s COMET grant program must be run to help Australian businesses commercialise new technologies through tailored Assistance Plans. They set roles and processes—applicants, recipients, an independent Board that ranks applications, a Program Delegate, and private Business Advisers—and require merit-based assessment and regular review. The rules govern how taxpayer funds are allocated, promoting transparency, accountability and funding decisions based on commercial potential."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This version explicitly expands the Board’s functions to include provision of technical assessment and provision of merit rankings for eligible COMET applications (clause 3). That is a concrete scope change from merely advising to taking an operational assessment role. The Directions also formalise the Board’s regular consideration timetable (at least every 60 days) and set the Merit Criteria used for ranking (clauses 6(b), 9). The instrument replaces Directions No.1 of 2004 while preserving prior policy guidance until replaced (opening recital), so it both continues legacy rules and adds the new Board assessment/ranking function."},"complexity_factors":["15 defined terms in the Interpretation/definitions section (clause 4)","Cross-instrument references to the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 and to other administrative delegations (opening paragraph; clause 4)","Two-tier decision structure: Program Delegate admits and administers; Board assesses and ranks (clauses 4, 6; definition of Program Delegate)","Conditional logic allowing the Board to refuse to rank applications (clause 7) while otherwise requiring assessment (clauses 6–8)","Clear, short Merit Criteria (4 items) limiting substantive assessment complexity (clause 9)","Operational dependencies on Business Advisers and COMET National Managers (definitions in clause 4) creating practical complexity in implementation","Commencement conditioned on registration and Gazette publication (clause 2)","Preservation of earlier policies until replaced (opening recital) introduces transitional complexity"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this instrument does (mechanically)\n\n- Gives directions to the Industry Research and Development Board (the Board) about how it must participate in running the Commercialising Emerging Technologies (COMET) Program (clause 3).\n- Adds a formal function for the Board: to provide technical assessments and a merit ranking of eligible grant applications (clause 3(a); clauses 6–9). The Board must consider eligible applications at least every 60 days (clause 6(b)).\n- Leaves day-to-day administration and final eligibility decisions with the Program Delegate (an authorised employee of the Department) who admits applications for the Board to assess and administers grant agreements (definition of Program Delegate; clauses 4 and 6(a)).\n- Lists what activities grant money may be used for (the Assistance Plan and eligible activities such as strategic/business planning, market research, management development, IP strategy, prototypes, market validation, and a small capped travel allowance for remote applicants) (definition of eligible activities in clause 4).\n- Sets the Merit Criteria the Board must use when assessing applications: management capability, market opportunity/strategy, technical feasibility, and demonstrated need for COMET funding (clause 9).\n- Allows the Board to refuse to provide a merit ranking where an application is unsatisfactory against the Merit Criteria (clause 7).\n- Allows the Program Delegate to request ad hoc technical assessments from the Board about matters arising from an Assistance Plan (clause 10).\n- Permits the Board to analyse program performance and advise the Minister; it must cooperate with independent evaluation (clauses 11–12).\n- Specifies that the Directions commence only when registered and gazetted (clause 2) and confirms that previously-issued policies under the 2004 Directions remain in force until replaced (opening recital).\n\nWho this affects\n\n- Applicants and recipients: businesses or other entities that apply for and receive COMET grants. They must have an eligible application (which needs a National Manager recommendation) before the Board assesses it (definition of eligible application, clause 4; clauses 6–9).\n- The Board: now has an explicit assessment and ranking role and performance-advice responsibilities (clauses 3, 6–9, 11–12).\n- The Program Delegate and the Department: continue to determine eligibility, administer grants, request ad hoc assessments, and manage operational policy (clause 6(a); clause 10; definitions in clause 4).\n- Business Advisers and COMET National Managers: private-sector advisers who guide applicants, assess and assist recipients, and help with technical assessment (definitions in clause 4).\n- Service providers: third parties engaged by recipients to deliver the Assistance Plan, with their engagement approved by the Business Adviser (definition of service providers, clause 4).\n\nWho pays and who decides\n\n- The Commonwealth funds COMET grants under agreements with recipients (definition of agreement and recipient, clause 4).\n- The Program Delegate decides eligibility and administers grants; the Board assesses and ranks eligible applications and may advise the Minister (clauses 4, 6, 8, 11).\n\nWhy it matters (stated purpose and practical implications)\n\n- Stated purpose: to improve commercialisation of Australian innovation by providing targeted support and by using merit-based assessment to select recipients (clause 3; clause 5).\n\nPractical implications, trade-offs and operational risks (testing the purpose against costs and incentives)\n\n- Incentives set by the instrument: merit criteria emphasise management capability, market strategy, technical feasibility and demonstrable need—this shapes who wins grants (clause 9).\n- Concentrated benefits vs diffuse costs: selected recipients gain grant funding and tailored Assistance Plans (clauses 4, eligible activities); the financial cost is borne by the Commonwealth budget.\n- Administrative and compliance burden: recipients must develop Assistance Plans, obtain Business Adviser approval of service providers, and satisfy eligibility and merit processes (definitions and clauses 6–9). The Department and Board incur processing and oversight costs (clauses 6, 11–12).\n- Bureaucratic discretion and delegation: the Program Delegate controls admission to technical assessment and administers agreements, while the Board provides merit rankings and advice—this requires coordination and creates multiple decision points (clauses 4, 6, 10).\n- Implementation risks: the assessment role relies on Business Advisers and National Managers (private consultants) to guide and assess applicants; that dual advisory/assessor role and the approval of service providers by Business Advisers creates an overlap of functions that should be managed to avoid conflicts of interest (definitions in clause 4).\n- Opportunity cost: public funds directed to selected commercialisation projects cannot be spent elsewhere; choice of projects is shaped by the Merit Criteria and the Board/Delegate processes (clause 9).\n\nOperational notes and constraints\n\n- The Directions take effect only after registration and gazettal (clause 2).\n- The instrument preserves prior policy documents issued under the earlier 2004 Directions until they are replaced (opening recital).\n- The Directions make clear that the word \"may\" is permissive, not mandatory (clause 4(b)), giving some operational flexibility in how duties are carried out.\n\nSources within the instrument: see clause references above for the Board’s roles (clauses 3, 6–10), merit criteria (clause 9), eligible activities and definitions (clause 4), and evaluation/monitoring roles (clauses 11–12)."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/commercialising-emerging-technologies-comet-program-directions-no-1-of-2006","history":"/api/acts/commercialising-emerging-technologies-comet-program-directions-no-1-of-2006/history","analysis":"/api/acts/commercialising-emerging-technologies-comet-program-directions-no-1-of-2006/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/commercialising-emerging-technologies-comet-program-directions-no-1-of-2006/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/commercialising-emerging-technologies-comet-program-directions-no-1-of-2006/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/commercialising-emerging-technologies-comet-program-directions-no-1-of-2006/documents"}}