As inspiring as all this sounds, and potentially is, haven't we heard much of it before, with proposals for "An Australian Silicon Valley", and the "Multi-function Polis", and so on.

The real question is why hasn't it happened?

There is no doubt that we do punch above our weight in many respects in university and other research, in originating ideas and technologies, and in the excellence of our research and technology.

But we have a very poor record in developing and, most importantly, commercialising innovation to our national benefit.

Australia can claim inventions such as Wi-Fi technology, solar PV panels, the black-box flight recorder, the bionic ear, the pacemaker, Google Maps, polymer bank notes, the electric drill, the ultrasound scanner, permanent-crease clothing, and many more.

But, how much of the benefit of these has actually flowed back to Australia, and to Australians?

We simply don't have, or encourage, an entrepreneurial environment, institutionally, financially, or in terms of recognition and attitudes.

We are over-bureaucratised; our approval processes are slow and cumbersome; our finance sector is dominated by banks focused much more on home loans and credit cards than on business lending, and especially start ups; our super and other funds mostly hug the major stock indices, rather than venture investments; and we have only a rudimentary, unimaginative, venture capital industry.

We underrate scientists, engineers and innovators; we underfund and, to some extent, misdirect education at all levels, but particularly in universities and research; we have a very limited core of experienced managers; and so on.

But, perhaps most importantly, we need a shift in culture and attitudes.

By comparison with the US, for example, we don't really encourage or back individuals and ideas.

For example, researchers spend a considerable amount of their time filling in forms, and meeting other requirements just to get a mediocre research grant.

Then spend another considerable batch of their time filling in forms, and meeting other requirements, to explain how they spent the money, rather than being much freer to simply get on with the research.

Similarly, we don't laud scientists and innovators, and their achievements anywhere as much as we do so many others in sport, the arts, business, and even politics.

Recognition of too many Kardashians, and not enough recognition of those who innovate, achieve, and make significant contributions to our society.

This shift in attitude then needs to be reflected throughout our education and training systems, in support for science and research, in finance, and so on.

While Turnbull may have the best of intensions, there are many, key people, in government that resist change, the sort of change Turnbull would think of as essential.

To cite just one, but most telling, example, the government has authorized an executive search for someone to lead his Innovation and Science Australia, an institution that is fundamental to his promised "ideas boom".

However, control of this search process has been usurped by the industry bureaucrats, who have discarded a short list of globally outstanding candidates, in favour of one of their own, someone with experience as a departmental secretary - not necessarily rich in new ideas, or experienced in the commercialisation of innovations.

In my experience, in government, if you want to develop and implement a genuine reform or initiative, then somebody needs to "own" it, live and breath it, and accept responsibility for controlling and driving it, so as to ensure that it happens.

Turnbull's "ideas boom" has to be managed.

It can, and should, happen, but won't happen if the vested interests against change are left to have their sway.

Turnbull should go back to basics to inform about the opportunities and challenges, to do his best to ensure sensible and defensible outcomes.

He has a unique opportunity to drive the public debate, and votes, and to make a genuine difference.

Innovation and technology is the key to validate his mantra of "Jobs and Growth".