Grants totalling $3.6 million have been awarded to 12 SMEs under the first round of the Industry Competitive Evaluation Research Agreement (ICERA) initiative.
ICERA was announced last August and budgeted at $36 million over six years. Grants are worth up to $300,000 per proposal and support contributions “to Defence’s innovation agenda” with monetary support coming from Defence’s Next Generation Technologies Fund. Projects run for up to 18 months.
Six of the 22 grants recipients were focussed on “creating innovative cyber security capabilities,” said Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price.
Twelve ICERA program partners are below, and the “remaining ICERA outcomes will be announced as arrangements are finalised.”
“I am particularly pleased to announce that two of these initial ICERA partnerships are with businesses new to Defence,” Minister Price added.
There are three priority tiers for proposals, with cyber security at the top.
The second tier includes Enhanced Human Performance; Integrated Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Medical Countermeasure Products; and Trusted Autonomous Systems. The third tier is made up of Advanced Sensors; Directed Energy Capabilities; Multidisciplinary Material Sciences; Quantum Technologies and Space Capabilities.
ICERA first round grant recipients (source: www.minister.defence.gov.au)
That the tech sector should somehow disengage from industry policy because it is unhappy with Christian Porter’s appointment as the new Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science is a terrible idea.
The sector needs to engage with government more on policy issues, not less. And it must get better at it.
Right now, on any number of policy areas of importance, the industry – on software specifically – is losing the policy debate. Every time you hear the words “gas-led recovery” or even “advanced manufacturing” (without the word software in the same sentence), you know this industry is ‘losing’ the industrial policy discussion.
Testing times: The tech industry must get better in its engagement with government
And what our industry has not done as well as others is to put forward a singular, powerful, professional presence in Canberra, and across the state governments. Think about the Business Council, the Minerals Council, the Property Council, the Bankers Association etc etc etc.
And it shows. The industry is ‘losing’ on setting priorities for the industrial policy agenda. We know this because the local industry is treated like an after-thought.
Women are rightfully angry about the revelations that have come out of the parliament in the past couple of months. A great many men are angry too.
Christian Porter became a flashpoint for that anger for many in our industry when the Prime Minister made the political calculation to keep him in the Cabinet and give him the Industry portfolio, despite a thick air of controversy that surrounds him.
The Prime Minister’s message could not have been clearer. The Industry portfolio is so low profile it can be used to bury such controversy, confirming the relatively low political status of industrial policy in this government, as if anyone needed reminding.
But calls from some in the tech industry to disengage from policy process by cutting off contact with the minister is misplaced and counterproductive.
If you want to be angry with someone, be angry with Scott Morrison. The appointment of Christian Porter to the portfolio is a terrible distraction at a time when industrial policy needs intense focus. And it brings to an end a period of relative stability in the portfolio under Karen Andrews (who served in the role longer than her five predecessors).
The Prime Minister makes these appointments. The industry has to work with the minister in front of them. That is what professionals do.
Stability and continuity is a more important factor than precisely who the minister is. And Scott Morrison chose to break up the continuity of Karen Andrews building time and expertise in the portfolio.
Consider that Christian Porter is the seventh Industry minister to hold the portfolio since the Coalition came to power at the 2013 election.
The chief executive of one government-funded industry body told me last week that internally his team no longer refers to the ministers by their name, such has been the revolving door in ministers that the CEO must ultimately report to. Instead, Karen Andrews was M6, and now Christian Porter is M7.
It’s a grim joke, sad but true.
But the idea that the industry should turn its back on engagement with its portfolio minister is just a terrible idea. It just needs to get better at it.
Some of the senior women in technology I have spoken to in the past week who regularly deal with the Industry minister’s office are just angry. Others are both angry and fearful, particularly those that have relied on funding programs managed through the portfolio. They do not feel like they are safe to voice their anger and fears, literally for fear of losing jobs, losing funding, losing support.
As distressing as this is, it is not the only view. One woman who runs a large and valuable government-funded tech program – a lawyer by training – says she is quite comfortable dealing with Christian Porter as minister. The historical allegations against him are allegations only, she says. They have not been tested via the courts.
Her view is that belief in the rule of law is a binary. You either believe in that system or you don’t. And if you believe in the process, then you should have no issue in dealing with the new minister.
It is a view not commonly expressed publicly. Not by women and certainly not by men. But if you cannot deal with the new minister because of anger at the revelations of terrible behaviour at Parliament House of the past couple of months, then you are probably in the wrong job.
Regardless, Christian Porter is our new Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Minister, and for many, there are likely some uncomfortable moments ahead.
But the anger here should be directed at the Prime Minister at disrupting a portfolio that had finally started to build some continuity.
The federal government continued to recover money from welfare recipients despite admitting its robodebt scheme was “legally insufficient,” in part because its IT systems were not up to scratch, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has found.
In its report into how Services Australia implemented changes to the robodebt scheme in 2019 and 2020, and the refunds process commenced last year, the Ombudsman found the government was not proactive enough in communicating with individuals, or in efforts to assist those who were automatically repaying an unlawful debt.
Ombudsman Michael Manthorpe criticised the department for continuing to recover debts raised unlawfully under roobodebt after it had begun the process of refunding these debts. This was in part because IT systems that was unable to properly organise the process.
Robodebt blues: Ombudsman slams inflexible IT systems in making problems worse
The Online Compliance Intervention system, dubbed robodebt, was launched by the Coalition in 2016 and used an algorithm to average out a welfare recipient’s yearly income using data from the ATO and cross-matching this with income reported to Centrelink.
If a discrepancy was detected, a “please explain” notice was automatically issued to the individual, placing the onus on them to prove that they did not owe any money before a repayment notice was issued.
The system was found regularly to incorrectly match this data and produce inaccurate or non-existent debts.
The Ombudsman’s first report into the scheme in 2017 found systematic issues around fairness, transparency and usability.
In late 2019, the government announced it would no longer use the averaged ATO income data to raise a debt and would freeze repayments of debts issued in this way, admitting that there was “legally insufficient” grounds to do this.
In May last year, the government said it would refund repayments made on debts that were based wholly or partially on average ATO data.
Later that year, the government settled a class action lawsuit over robodebt for $1.2 billion, with $112 million of compensation to be paid to 400,000 victims.
The department undertook a “highly manual and non-prescriptive” approach to determining which debts would have to be refunded, the Ombudsman found, with its IT systems not providing any indicator of how each debt was raised, significantly slowing down the process.
“If Services Australia had recorded reliable system indicators to track what information was relied on to raise the debt, including whether a debt had been raised relying wholly or partially using averaged data, this would have reduced the intensive and manual nature of this process and reduced the adverse impact upon affected individuals,” Mr Manthorpe said.
And because the department did not know which debts should have been frozen and refunded, it continued to recover some debts after admitting many had been issued on “legally insufficient” grounds, the report said.
“We acknowledge that not all debts raised under the [robodebt] program relied wholly or partially on income averaging,” Mr Manthorpe said.
“However, in the absence of knowing which were and were not, we are concerned that Services Australia nevertheless continued to recover income averaged debts despite a high risk that many of those debts were ‘legally insufficient’.”
“There was a period of some months during which debt recovery action was continuing in relation to many debts which Services Australia knew had a high likelihood of being raised on ‘legally insufficient’ grounds.
“We consider this created a high degree of risk for Services Australia and unnecessary hardship for individuals affected, which was compounded by Services Australia’s knowledge that the identification process would be largely manual and therefore take some time to complete.”
A better approach would have been to pause all debt recovery on all income compliance debts, but Services Australia’s IT systems did not allow for this, the Ombudsman found.
The system was unable to isolate an individual’s income compliance debt from other debts that may have been raised, and when a repayment is made it isn’t to a particular debt due to the way the IT system is designed.
“Services Australia advised that because of this, it believed a freeze could not be implemented ‘en masse’ for all income compliance debts, because any individuals with non-income compliance debts would also have these debts frozen,” Mr Manthorpe said.
“If Services Australia wishes to maintain the ability to pause some debts and not others, we consider its systems should be designed to facilitate this approach.
“In our view, not being able to pause debt recovery action on all debts of a particular type, without slow and resource-intensive manual intervention, creates significant risk of inappropriate debt recovery action,” he said.
This process was also “exacerbated” by an absence of communication with people impacted by the changes between the 2019 and 2020 announcements, the report found.
The Ombudsman is also concerned that Services Australia did not have any plans to communicate with individuals who had a debt raised under the robodebt scheme and who were not eligible for a refund.
“We are concerned there may be a large number of individuals who are broadly aware of issues regarding the way Services Australia raised debts under the Income Compliance program, but do not know whether their particular debt is eligible for a refund,” the report said.
The Ombudsman said the department also hasn’t been “sufficiently transparent” that debts frozen or repaid may be raised again in the future.
The Ombudsman made nine recommendations to government, including that it should communicate with people deemed not eligible for a refund, to review the advice offered to staff, and to publish general information that the decision to refund a debt does not mean another debt won’t be raised for the same period using a different method.
The report offered seven further comments about Services Australia’s handling of the issue but that need no remedial action. This included that the agency should have recorded how the debts were raised, that it should have immediately frozen all debts after revealing they were “legally insufficient” and it should have “immediately” communicated with those impacted after the 2019 announcement.
Organisations across the board are slow to recognise that the data that is now fundamental to their operations has also opened them up to huge risks and vulnerabilities.
As a result, companies are failing to factor in basic data protection and cyber security infrastructure into their decision making at the highest levels.
The costly consequences of organisations’ appetite for data without implementing adequate safeguards have been evident in legislative penalties imposed by various governments on some of the world’s biggest corporations for failing to protect customer data and privacy.
Bridging the Cyber Divide: Mike Trovato, James Riley, Thomas Fikentscher
In the Navigating Privacy and Law episode of the Bridging the Cyber Divide series, Mike Trovato, managing director of Information Integrity Solutions and lead security advisor and Internal Consulting Group’s global practice leader for cybersecurity, said the past year had seen Google fined €50m by the French regulator, and the UK regulator fined British Airways £183m and Marriott International £99m.
“It was good to see regulation having some teeth,” he said. “It got everyone’s attention and is getting people to take this more seriously, and to take important actions with respect to privacy and security.”
Meanwhile, competitive pressures and opportunities are driving organisations to gather more and more data. Thomas Fikentscher, regional director ANZ, at CyberArk, said organisations were struggling to put in place the policies and procedures needed to handle the data being collected to serve business initiatives.
“Organisations need to find a way to shift their revenues online, but that comes with risk. They must collect a lot of data, and not just personal data. The problem is that they can only use that data for certain purposes, for example can they share it with their supply chain?
“That part of the equation is not properly set into policies and measured against certain standards around privacy, data security and data access. It’s an area where we need to have a lot more discussion; where there are many more risks that need to be measured and need to be managed.”
Mr Trovato said compliance with data regulations was now one of the biggest challenges facing businesses – the danger has gone beyond simply a failure of compliance to represent an existential threat to organisations.
“The compliance issue is multifaceted and complex – it’s difficult to overlay it onto an organisation,” he said. “And there is a broad set of issues around shared risk – where what I do in my organisation can impact your organisation, and so forth. We’re really looking at an entire ecosystem.”
He said consumers had a right to expect businesses to do more to protect their personal data. “We have the expectation of safe vehicles and safe aeroplanes and so forth. But for some reason, in the area of information technology (IT), we expect the consumer to take a significant responsibility in managing the safety of our products. I think the world of IT has to do better.”
Mr Fikentscher said organisations had been slow to implement security commensurate with the risks created by their hunger for data.
“We’re still in catch up mode,” he said. “Organisations want to move ahead, because of the business opportunity.
“Retail organisations, for example, collect a huge amount of data – they’re giving out loyalty cards, trying to understand who you are, what are your preferences, and monitoring your behaviour when they offer you certain things. They’re collecting all this information because it’s all about creating new digital experiences.”
He said that by doing that, and by being more reliant on the technology, they are creating an increasing amount of risk for their businesses, because a single breach – that gives someone access to that data – can severely disrupt them.
According to Mr Fikentscher, the data security and liability should be standing items on every company’s monthly board meeting.
“Security considerations should be part of digital transformation initiatives from the beginning, but it is still not front of mind for most people. Revenue is the driving factor, but revenue could be severely compromised if they don’t get cyber security right.”
Mike Trovato meanwhile said his own investigations had revealed many examples of very poor data security.
“I’ve gone into organisations and tried to see if they are leaking personal information, or if I can obtain it through an attack. Almost every organisation fails both those tests. We need to do a much, much better job to protect information.”
There are some signs of progress, according to Mr Trovato. “We are seeing organisations that are a bit more forward thinking and doing some good privacy-by-design work, leveraging legislation. For example, the legislation around the Commonwealth COVID app is probably the strongest privacy legislation in the world.”
A key pillar to Australia developing a robust cyber security industry is the mechanisms used to rigorously protect citizen data and information, both at a public and private level.
The increased reporting and disclosure of data breaches and identifiable information, locally and globally, has kept a focus on data privacy but there’s a lot more work that needs to be done.
The Bridging the Cyber Divide series is produced as a partnership between InnovationAus and CyberArk.
Australia’s food and agribusiness growth centre has welcomed commitments from both the government and Labor to provide additional support to Australia’s largest single manufacturing sector as it aims to double in value in a decade.
Consecutive disasters in the Black Summer bushfires and then COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges for the huge but fragmented food and agribusiness sector. Production slowed in 2019 following devastating fires, and exports were effectively halted overnight when a global pandemic was declared just weeks later.
Government-funded industry growth centre Food Innovation Australia Limited (FIAL) was established in 2013 to drive industry collaboration and ultimately the share of Australian food in the global market. It is pushing stakeholders to capitalise on what has become a rare moment of unity in the sector coinciding with renewed government support.
Dr Mirjana Prica: The food and beverage manufacturing sector readies for growth
FIAL managing director Dr Mirjana Prica said the consecutive disasters had created a ‘burning platform’ moment for food and beverage manufacturers, forcing them to collaborate to solve challenges they could not overcome individually.
“What this burning platform has done is [created] a perfect storm to be able to do and think differently,” she told InnovationAus.
“We need to start to think not just manufacturing or not just agriculture, but it’s actually pre and post farm gate that they have to come together to address whatever it is that we’re trying to address.”
The overarching goal for the Australian food and beverage manufacturing sector now is to double its value by 2030, according to an industry led government road map released in March.
Smart manufacturing, innovative food and beverage products, and provenance systems could be leveraged alongside traditional strengths of strong research, standards and quality, according to the roadmap.
Already estimated at more than $110 billion, the sector’s new goal was ambitious but achievable, Dr Prica said
“We have access to raw materials, we have access to a really great manufacturing capability across the country footprint, [and] we also have great research,” she said.
“So we have some real assets in this country that we’re not even tapping into. And just imagine what you could do if we brought all that together.”
COVID-19 also sharpened the focus on sovereign capability issues in the sector, bringing with it what Dr Prica says is much needed government support.
Last month, the Coalition government added the food and beverage sector to its Manufacturing Initiative, a $1.3 billion fund shared across six priority sectors to help drive Australia’s COVID-19 recovery.
A week later, Labor upped the ante by pledging to partner with super funds and deliver $15 billion in funding to local manufacturers if it wins government.
The funding was “absolutely critical” for the food and agribusiness sector because it would help build scale is a fragmented sector while also improving its resilience, Dr Prica said.
FIAL was set up by the previous Labor government in 2013 to accelerate commercially driven collaboration and innovation across Australia’s food and beverage sector. But the organisation had its funding frozen by the Abbott government, which eventually migrated FIAL into an Industry Growth Centres program and added agribusiness to its remit.
According to Dr Prica, there are now around 180,000 businesses working across Australia’s food and agribusiness sector. But only a third of them are employers, and almost all of those are SMEs. It means although the sector is large, it is also fragmented and operates in silos with a lot of duplication.
“What we’ve been doing over the last seven years is really trying to build up an ecosystem that is collaborative, that fosters collaboration, and at the heart of it is innovation.”
A 2018 review of FIAL, along with the five other growth centres, raised questions about the food and agribusiness centre’s ultimate sector wide impact but concluded it was difficult to assess because of the sector’s breadth and fragmentation.
The federal government is considering requiring identification checks for the use of social media platforms as part of its broader big tech crackdown, a proposal which has been rejected by a range of experts.
The final report from a government-led parliamentary inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence included a recommendation that government legislate a requirement that for users to open or maintain a social media platform, they must provide 100 points of identification.
The committee said this would be the same as when an individual opens a mobile phone account or buys a mobile SIM card.
“Social media platforms must provide those identifying details when requested by the eSafety Commissioner, law enforcement or as directed by a court,” the report said.
Identification blues: Government may want 100 points to post on social media
“The government should consider regulating to enable law enforcement agencies to access a platform’s end-to-end encrypted data, by warrant, in matters involving a threat to the physical or mental wellbeing of an individual or in cases of national security.”
Several government MPs have recently raised concerns with cyber abuse and trolling, and the anonymity that social media platforms grant their users.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison is reportedly considering tougher rules for big tech firms as part of the May federal budget and has indicated these will include efforts to combat cyber bullying.
“We’re living in a society in which respect is degrading. And if we want to see more respect in our community, we’ve all got to practise it more,” Mr Morrison said.
“We’ve got to build the respect again. And one of the key degraders of respect in our country is social media. I can tell you a big part of my response to this will be ongoing work in the area of e-safety and on social media.”
New Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews has also said she wants to combat online anonymity.
“There’s a level of anonymity in social media that is concerning. People are not making comments under their own name and they can hide. I don’t think that they should be able to hide,” Ms Andrews told ABC RN last week.
But the proposal is misguided and potentially dangerous, and it’s especially disappointing that it has become the main focus from a significant and important report, Electronic Frontiers Australia chair Lyndsey Jackson said.
“It’s certainly problematic that identity and anonymity online comes as a quick fix. It’s come in a climate where politicians are very uncomfortable with how much scrutiny their own backyard is being put under,” Ms Jackson told InnovationAus.
“It’s quite convenient for a lot of people to reduce anonymity online. From a practical position, giving 100 points of identification over to social media platforms, even what is a social media platform and where you draw the line on those, certainly there are a lot of platforms where you would not want them to have all that data on you,” she said.
“It’s not like any of these platforms have systems that people can trust to hand over all of this information.”
The identification proposal is a “red herring”, and attention should instead be focused on the report’s other important recommendations, Ms Jackson said.
“It is worth nothing that this has come from this inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence, and the report makes a range of recommendations that are probably going to shift the needle and create improvements a whole lot more than the social media identification one,” she said.
The Australia Institute’s Centre for Responsible Technology director Peter Lewis said there should be more obligations for users of social media platforms but handing over identification data to Big Tech firms is not the answer.
“Requiring users to provide proof of identity to the online platforms is not the solution – as the latest hack of Facebook illustrates the platforms cannot be trusted with user data,” Mr Lewis said.
“Moreover, giving global corporations that base their business model on extracting and reselling users’ data access to legal users’ identities would be like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank,” he said.
A better approach would be to introduce legislation that would force social media firms to identify users who are engaging in bullying or unsafe behaviour, Mr Lewis said.
“An alternate approach would be to create an equivalent to a social media AVO – where people who are subject to bullying, trolling and other unsafe behaviour could secure a legally enforceable order to the platforms to identify, suspend and delete accounts,” he said.
“While contact on digital media is already covered by AVOs, they only target the user and not the platform. Where a Social Media AVO is granted, the onus would be on the platform to ensure a safe environment for the claimant and taking legal responsibility for any ensuing damage to the applicant.”
The concept of requiring identification to create a social media platform has been regularly proposed, and criticised, around the world.
Labor has returned electric vehicles to the policy fray, unveiling a new strategy to drive uptake by cutting taxes and sending thousands of electric powered cars to the second-hand market.
Experts and industry have welcomed the Opposition’s plan, describing it as a clever way to advance the nation’s EV fleet beyond talk, and going some way to catch up to the rapidly transitioning global market.
But they also warned that the policy barely qualifies as groundwork by global standards, and that much more would need to come from both the Opposition and the government if either are serious about driving uptake.
Electric vehicles: Labor commits to tax cuts and other incentives to catch up to the rest of the world
The Opposition is now committed to cutting taxes and tariffs on non-luxury electric vehicles. The tax cuts, branded as Labor’s Electric Car Discount, would reduce the import tariff on electric vehicles worth less than $77,565 and exempt them from fringe benefits taxes.
“It’s a really great step forward,” Australian Electric Vehicle Council chief executive Behyad Jafari told InnovationAus.
“This is something that every other developed country has had for the better part of the last decade. One of the benefits of being laggard is we know what works.”
The tax exemption would bring the price of electric vehicles down significantly for salary sacrificers and large-scale fleet buyers, the group Labor’s policy is really aimed at.
“The biggest way that you can change behaviour is by changing the fleet make-up,” Opposition leader Anthony Albanese said.
“And that’s why the changes to fringe benefits tax here are so important.”
Fleet buyers are especially receptive to low maintenance and running costs – two standout qualities of electric vehicles – but because of the way Australia’s fringe benefits tax is set up they have tended to favour the lower upfront costs of non-electric vehicles, according to University of Queensland research fellow Dr Jake Whitehead.
“The way the system set up is it leads to a bit of a perverse outcome where it effectively incentivises you to have a car that costs more to operate,” he told InnovationAus. “So that means it’s less efficient and uses more fuel and is generally bigger.
“Electric vehicles struggle because they have a higher capital cost but a really low operating cost. This proposal levels the playing field and that’s why I think it will have a significant impact in fleet [sales].”
Dr Whitehead has advocated for a policy like Labor’s for years because it has the added advantage of pumping up the second-hand market for electric vehicles as fleets are replaced every few years.
And because the current government has also identified fleet buyers as a potential way to drive adoption there is a genuine chance at a unity ticket, according to Dr Whitehead.
“It’s completely in the government’s court as to whether they want to take that opportunity or not,” he says, “I can only say that I would encourage them to do so because it directly aligns with what they’re trying to achieve.”
The policy is Labor’s first electric vehicle pledge since its failed 2019 election campaign, when it committed to an electric vehicle target of 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030 and heavier emissions regulation for car retailers.
The Coalition lampooned Bill Shorten’s 2019 Labor policy as a “war on the weekend” before being returned to government and eventually releasing plans for its own less ambitious electric vehicle strategy.
“If you look back at that conversation there was no one from the automotive industry or the transport world that was backing up any of that scaremongering [by the coalition],” said Jafari, whose association represents the Australian EV industry.
“All of them said, ‘yes, of course this [target] is achievable. This is where all of our investments are going.’”
This time Labor is putting the actions before the targets, according to Jafari, and effectively daring the current government to criticise them at a time when its own backbenchers are pushing for a similar approach.
“If anything, I think there’s an opportunity for the government to come and eat Labor’s lunch by saying ‘we’ll do this tomorrow.’ But we’re not holding our breath.”
While it may not be as ambitious as the 2019 policy, Labor’s early plan can still drive effective change, Jafari says, because Australia is coming from such a low base.
Currently, less than one per cent of new cars sold in Australia are electric. In world leading countries like Norway it is around 75 per cent but in most comparable countries it is around 10 per cent. Even the global average, which includes non-developed countries, is more than four times Australia’s rate.
Jafari said Labor’s plan is enough to catch Australia up to the 10 per cent mark and give the private sector some of the certainty it needs before make large scale investments in infrastructure.
“This is a type of policy that will get us there [to 10 per cent].
“In Australia last year we sold 6,900 electric vehicles. If 10 per cent [of all sales] were electric that would have been 100,000 electric vehicles. It’s a sizable jump but it’s a very achievable one today.”
Labor’s new policy is expected to be a tentative first step rather than a final call on electric vehicles. Should it win government, the party will also develop Australia’s first ever National Electric Vehicle Strategy.
The policy is a “very positive first step” towards inclusion in a global electric vehicle revolution, according to Everty founder and chief executive Carola Jonas.
She agrees targeting fleet buyers will eventually see more electric vehicles enter Australia’s second hand car market, eventually bringing down the cost of ownership.
“I think it’s a good idea,” she told InnovationAus. “It would be an even better idea if it was a broader policy.”
According to Ms Carola, whose company develops the software to manage electric vehicle charging stations, much more government action will be needed. Because the longer Australia stalls electric vehicle policy the more expensive it will be to join the global transition.
Almost all auto manufacturers are transitioning to electric vehicles, Ms Carola said, but the supply is still limited. And without an effective electric vehicle strategy Australia is missing out.
“These cars go to Norway, they go to Germany, to all the other markets. And we don’t allow Australia to have the same great technology. It’s almost like you would tell Australians they could go back to a Nokia phone.”
Ms Carola said it will be interesting to see the coalition government’s response in the run up to the next election. She hopes for more progressive policies from both sides, pointing to countries like Germany where much bigger subsidies are given to consumers and more investment is made in public infrastructure for electric vehicles.
The University of Queensland’s Dr Whitehead says there is no silver bullet for electric vehicles in Australia but the need to do something is now paramount.
“No one’s advocating for 100 per cent electric vehicles tomorrow. What we’re saying is that this transition will take time. We need to get there in less than 20 years if we’re serious about net zero.
“And that’s why we have to start that transition now because it is a slow process, and it needs to be done in a gradual manner so that we don’t have a major economic shock.
“But if we don’t have policy, that’s what governments are setting us up for in the future: a major shock. When all of a sudden the world has moved on and Australia hasn’t prepared for that transition.”
An Uber-commissioned report providing a glowing picture of the treatment of UberEats workers does not match with previous research and ignores many of the negative aspects associated with work in the gig economy, according to the Transport Workers Union and a leading academic.
Uber released a report it commissioned, conducted by Accenture, on Tuesday morning, through a drop to The Australian newspaper. The report praised the benefits of working for UberEats and the apparent positive impact the company had during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
It comes after the deaths of five delivery riders in Australia in the space of two months late last year, intensifying calls for further regulation of the gig economy.
Great stuff: Uber-commissioned report says UberEats is tip-top. Great stuff.
The new Uber-commissioned report found that the average take home pay for a Sydney UberEats delivery worker during meal times is $21.55, well above the minimum wage.
It also said that the gig economy company created 59,000 “work opportunities” in Australia last year, and that the much-publicised flexibility of the gig economy is a key selling point.
The news report said that UberEats delivery workers “typically earned $21.55 an hour” last year but did not include that the statistic relates work in Sydney during peak meal-time hours. That figure also doesn’t take into account the lack of benefits associated with employment, including sick leave, penalty rates and superannuation.
It also claimed that the report showed that Uber is Australia’s second biggest employer, despite the company strenuously denying around the world that any of its drivers and riders are employees.
The report’s findings are in stark contrast to a Transport Workers Union (TWU) survey of UberEats delivery drivers and riders last year, which found that these people earn on average $10.42 per hour after expenses, and that nine out of 10 riders are now making less than before the pandemic.
Uber’s report is an average hourly rate based just on the popular meal-times during the day in Sydney only.
TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said that if the Uber report is true, the company should start paying that as a regular hourly wage for its workers.
“If, as Uber claims, its workforce is earning more than the minimum wage, it should have no problem providing an iron-clad, legally-enforceable commitment to paying that amount to every hour worked,” Mr Kaine said.
“Of course, Uber won’t make that commitment. And that tells you everything you need to know about this company’s conduct and the company-commissioned research making this claim.”
The working conditions in the gig economy are a “moral failure” requiring reform from politicians, Mr Kaine said.
“At least five delivery riders have paid for the reckless practices of gig economy companies with their lives in the last year. The TWU stands by its own survey showing food delivery workers earn almost half the minimum wage after expenses,” he said.
“If a waste disposal company dumps toxic sludge into a river or a property developer bribes a local politician, we rightly see it as a breach of regulation and enforce penalties. But when a gig economy outfit like Uber circumvents the minimum wage, it is somehow celebrated as innovation.
“In truth the working conditions of the gig economy are a moral failure which require brave reform from politicians and regulators.”
Speaking on ABC Radio National on Tuesday, University of Technology Sydney senior lecturer Dr Michael Rawling also said that the figures in the Uber-commissioned report don’t match previous research on how much those working in the gig economy are being paid.
“That’s not consistent with the previous research on the matter, which has put the wage rate as low as $6 to $10 per hour. There have been a number of studies that have found that UberEats riders are earning below the minimum wage,” Dr Rawling said.
The Uber report also includes nine “key principles” for the company and governments to follow, including to keep workers safe, protect them from injury while working, and encourage them to voice their concerns.
The report did admit some faults with the company, including around customer support for delivery workers, the dependability of earnings and the firm’s responsiveness to feedback.
The report was unveiled just days before a NSW government taskforce is expected to release its Industry Action Plan in an effort to improve safety in the sector. But the TWU last week withdrew its support for the taskforce, labelling it an attempt to “divert attention away from the global push for regulation”.
The union said the final action plan does not address the root causes of rider deaths and injuries, including the pressure to work long hours and while fatigued.
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been dumped from a NSW government clean energy board a week after being named as its chair.
The appointment sparked a backlash within segments of the state’s Coalition government as it faces a by-election in a NSW coal region.
Mr Turnbull was appointed to the NSW Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board last week by NSW Energy Minister Matt Kean, who said it was a “privilege” to have the former Prime Minister involved in the state’s emissions reduction plans.
Malcolm Turnbull has been dropped by the NSW government from its Net Zero Board
But today the outspoken state energy minister said Mr Turnbull’s appointment would not proceed over concerns it would distract from the board’s goals.
“The purpose of the Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board is to create jobs in low carbon industries and see the State reduce its emissions in ways that grow the economy,” Mr Kean said in a statement Tuesday morning.
“It is important that the focus is on achieving these outcomes, based on facts, technology, science, and economics.
“The focus should not be on personality.”
Mr Turnbull’s appointment sparked a backbench revolt and a NSW Cabinet feud as the state government faces a critical by-election in the Upper Hunter.
Mr Turnbull lost the Prime Ministership in part because of friction caused when he attempted to implement a National Energy Guarantee that would target emissions reduction and a transition to renewable energy. Since losing Office his advocacy for emissions reduction has continued, including calling for a freeze on new coal mines last week.
Under political pressure, Matt Kean reportedly asked Mr Turnbull to stop talking down coal in his position as chair of the NSW Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board.
Today, Mr Kean suggested the appointment of Mr Turnbull had created too big a distraction.
“Malcolm Turnbull AC has contributed much to our country and I know will contribute more into the future.
“However, no person’s role on the Board should distract from achieving results for the NSW people or from the Government’s work in delivering jobs and opportunities for the people of NSW.
“For this reason, I have decided not to proceed with his appointment as chair.
Mr Kean said a new chair would be appointed in “due course” and until then the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte will act in the role.
New laws that “fundamentally change” the way the federal government handles the personal data of Australians will have “enormous consequences” for individual privacy, civil and digital rights groups have warned.
The data-sharing plan, which expands the sharing of data between public sector agencies and the private organisations, is “fundamentally flawed and violates community expectations”, according to the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, while Digital Rights Watch says the scheme “threatens to further erode” the legislative privacy protections of Australians.
The government introduced the Data Availability and Transparency Act to Parliament in December last year after nearly three years of development and consultations. It is now the subject of a Senate committee inquiry.
Ordinary people: Government data sharing plans will impact individuals’ privacy
The act provides a “new path” for the sharing of data which is currently blocked by secrecy provisions or other laws and would lead to more identifiable data being shared among agencies and departments, and for de-identified data to be shared with universities and think-tanks.
Consent would be required for the sharing of data unless it is “unreasonable or impracticable to obtain”.
The law changes enable “the robodebt scenario in an accelerated form”, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties (NSW CCL) said in a submission to the senate inquiry.
“This bill ignores the real-world experience and gives unjustified priority to a technocratic vision of ‘improved service delivery’. This will have enormous consequences for individuals and is unnecessary to achieve the aims of delivering better government services, informing government programs and research,” the NSW CCL submission said.
“Basic fairness and civil liberties are under threat when personal information we are compelled to disclose to get one outcome from a government agency is then spread silently, behind the scenes, to other agencies or private companies and is able to be used in surprising and unexpected ways when we engage with those other agencies for some other purpose.”
The government needs to make some “fundamental changes” to the legislation, including the exclusion of personal information, the introduction of minimum standards for anonymisation, and improved independence for the Commissioner who will oversee the scheme, the organisation said.
“There must be a purpose exclusion preventing personal information being shared without express consent and preventing it being used to make an administrative decision about a person which harms or disadvantages a person,” the submission said.
In its submission, Digital Rights Watch raised concerns that the legislation was being debated alongside the review of the Privacy Act the government is currently undertaking and said it “threatens to further erode the limited protections enshrined in the existing Privacy Act”.
“This bill would make it easier for government agencies to share data containing personal information with each other, allowing any government entity to access any and all the information the government holds about an individual,” the Digital Rights Watch submission said.
The organisation is particularly concerned about the potential for much of this data to be shared without the consent of individuals, as it was willingly given to government for another service.
“This completely fails to secure individuals’ control of their data because the overwhelming majority of personal data shared with government agencies is legally mandatory to engage in those services,” Digital Rights Watch said.
“This bill seems to glaze over the right of the individuals to give informed consent any number of times over the course of their lifetimes.”
The new law “threatens to fundamentally alter how personal data is treated and viewed in Australia”, the submission said, which may lead to “ending trust in government services and completely removing the notion of ‘informed’ form consent”.
The Privacy Act review should be completed, and the legislation updated before the new law is passed, and the reliable anonymisation of personal information should be required, the organisation suggested. Consent should also be defined in line with the European Union’s General Data Protection Rule, it said.
Electronic Frontiers Australia warned that the new sharing powers would create a “backdoor” for accessing data that is currently protected, or that was given to government on the assumption it would be protected.
“This bill risks further undermining Australians’ right to privacy and to have their data protected from unauthorised access. In a time of increasing threats to data security and privacy, it is strange that the government would seek to further increase the risks to Australians by proposing a bill such as this,” the Electronic Frontiers Australia submission said.
The legislation is focused on the economic benefits of the increased sharing of data rather than on upholding the privacy of individuals, the organisation said.
“It appears that data about people is viewed as a naturally occurring resource to be exploited rather than as the often sensitive and personal information about individuals that it actually is,” Electronic Frontiers Australia said.
“By treating citizens interacting with their government, often mandatorily, as an opportunity to obtain a valuable commodity for free, the bill converts people into mere passive things from which money – in the form of data – can be extracted, often by threat of force.
“This approach inverts the relationship between the individual and the state so that the individual services the economic needs of the state, rather than the state operating in service of the needs of the populace. Australians’ data should not be used for profit.”
The legislation does not include adequate safeguards and would instead “erode an already weak data protection regime”, the Australian Privacy Foundation said in a separate submission.
“The regime exacerbates ongoing balkanisation of privacy law, something that is of particular concern given the mandatory nature of much data collection, the incapacitation of watchdogs and the unavailability to Australians of specifics regarding what data is being shared,” the group said.
“Civil society has deep and substantive concerns regarding the potential for inappropriate commercialisation as a secondary consequence of gifting researchers with data that is then aggregated for commercial gain.”
It’s not just civil and digital rights groups sounding the alarm on the new data-sharing scheme, with the Australian Medical Association also slamming the legislation for not including minimum privacy protections and for potentially allowing the sharing of sensitive health information with insurance firms.
The Australian Space Agency is set to go on a recruiting drive in order to better meet the demands of the burgeoning local sector, amid concerns over its resourcing and the fact that no launch permits have been issued yet.
Space agency chief Enrico Palermo recently appeared for the first time since he took over the top job from Dr Megan Clark in late March. He faced of questions from senators on whether the agency was doing enough to ensure local companies were able to access launch permits, and if the government offered enough support.
“I am focused on really thoughtfully thinking about how we take the agency forward into the future – the decisions about the agency and its programs that we make now will have a dramatic effect over the next 10 to 15 decades of this,” Mr Palermo said.
Enrico Palermo: The new space agency chief has made launch permits a priority
Gilmour Space Technologies chief executive Adam Gilmour – a pioneer of the local sector – recently told InnovationAus that the government was “behind the eight ball” on space, and this is damaging the ability of companies like his to compete with their international rivals.
The Space agency is yet to grant any launch permits to Australian companies, despite receiving one application in 2019 and seven during 2020.
Crossbench senator Rex Patrick questioned whether the agency has its priorities in order.
“You’re clearly looking at promotion and international engagement. In circumstances where industry is steps ahead of you guys, is it not appropriate at this point in time to focus more resources to support that industry and then come back to some of the other activities that are important?” Senator Patrick said.
“I’ve spoken to launch companies in Queensland who again say, ‘we’ve got the work, but we’re going to lose it because we don’t have the ability to launch here in Australia because of the regulatory brakes’.”
In response, Mr Palermo said the space agency would soon be recruiting to meet the demands of the growing industry.
“We need to take a balanced view of how we allocate funds. Our recruitment round is focused on supporting the launch industry. That’s an indicator that we are investing more,” he said.
Senator Patrick urged the agency to set a deadline for when the first permit will be approved.
“If you don’t have any aim point at all, there’s no ability to track or inquire about performance. You, coming from industry, will know that you always set aim points everywhere, and you try and hit them,” he said.
“You don’t always get there, but if you don’t have the aim point, then actually people don’t proceed to that point as quickly and as diligently as they can. It’s a serious question because industry is sitting there.”
Mr Palermo said he hoped to have a permit issued before the next Senate Estimates hearing in mid-May.
Labor senators raised two primary concerns with the space agency: the level of funding provided by the government, and similar concerns around the launch permits.
Labor Senator Murray Watt questioned whether the $140 million over four years allocated to the space sector under the federal government’s Modern Manufacturing Initiative is adequate.
“Obviously, in Australian terms, it’s an industry maybe not in its infancy but emerging, and we’ve got big international players out there: the US, China, Russia and many other countries who’ve made massive investments over a very long period of time,” Senator Watt said.
“Do we really think that a $140 million investment over four years is going to be enough to see Australia compete?”
Last week Gilmour Space Technologies inked a deal with Fleet Space Technologies to launch six nanosatellites into orbit in 2023. It’s a significant boost for Australia’s sovereign capability in the sector, but has had little support from the federal government, Mr Gilmour said.
“It just makes it harder to get the job done. I’m in the middle of raising my Series C and I’m going to successfully raise a decent amount of money, but at a valuation significantly under my competitors around the world, and the main reason why is because I don’t yet have any kind of deal from the Space Agency or any contract from the Air Force,” Mr Gilmour told InnovationAus.
“And if I look at my competitors that are at the same level as I am around the world, they’ve all got contracts already. That means they can get a much higher valuation and raise a lot more money. We’re continually behind the eight ball in Australia.”
The government’s Modern Manufacturing Initiative is now open to defence manufacturers in conjunction with a 10-year roadmap for the sector released last week.
Defence is the penultimate sector to be added to the Modern Manufacturing Initiative (MMI), a $1.3 billion program set up to fund six priority manufacturing sectors and help Australia’s post COVID-19 economic recovery.
Defence joined medical products, critical minerals, food and beverage, and space as eligible sectors on Wednesday with recycling and clean energy expected to be added soon.
Defence manufacturing projects that meet eligibility under the MMI translation and integration streams can now apply for funding, with a larger collaboration stream to open in the coming months.
Aussie Bushmaster: Manufacturing initiative now wants Defence industry applications
An industry-led defence manufacturing roadmap was also released by the freshly minted Industry Minister Christian Porter.
“The road map identifies opportunities for defence manufacturers to build on existing areas of strength such as military vehicle and aircraft manufacturing, naval shipbuilding and marine hardware production, cutting-edge digital technologies such as 3D printing, and explosives and propellants,” Mr Porter said in a statement.
“The road map also identifies opportunities for Australian manufacturers to build scale and capability in three key areas: investment in the defence sector, defence exports and adapting advanced technologies to the defence sector or for civilian application.”
The road map sets defence manufacturing industry goals for two, five, and 10 years from now.
Under the plan, manufacturers will invest more in defence priority capabilities and improving linkages within the ecosystem within two years. In five years, it is hoped smaller manufacturers will have scaled up and there will be greater participation across the board in defence supply chains.
The decade target is to have more Australian businesses participating in local and global defence supply chains and more local innovation and IP being supplied to the Australian Defence Force.
There are growth opportunities for manufacturers within the defence sector, to international markets and through cross sector applications, according to the roadmap.
The plan identifies a market to support the ADF with more drones and special equipment such as night vision googles. While armoured vehicles, advanced radar systems and patrol boats could be exported by Australian manufacturers.
Cross-sector applications like sensors for space equipment and medical diagnostic tools could also be leveraged by local manufacturers, according to the roadmap.
Defence contractor Raytheon Australia has inaugurated a new Centre for Joint Integration in Adelaide which will include the company’s first major production facility in Australia.
The new facility at Mawson Lakes, billed as one of the world’s most advanced integrated air and missile defence centres, was opened by Prime Minister Scott Morrison and South Australia Premier Steven Marshall.
Raytheon already works with 1,500 supplier companies across Australia on defence programs including a new mobile tactical-level system to protect against air attack and the replacement of Aerospace Test and Evaluation, Research and Experimentation equipment at the Woomera Test Range.
Defence spend: Raytheon’s Adelaide technology centre includes the first local Raytheon production facility
The new 6,500 square metre manufacturing facility will assemble componentry from local suppliers and include light manufacturing capabilities.
More than 200 Raytheon staff already work at the facility with the precinct eventually to be the home of 300 people working in air and missile defence, naval and ranges programs.
Raytheon Australia managing director Michael Ward said: “Raytheon Australia has heavily invested in this new precinct in response to the Australian Defence Force’s increased focus on joint integrated capabilities.
“The facility has been designed to help defence meet its needs of today as well as its greater challenges of tomorrow.”
Ward said the precinct would drive the next phase of Raytheon Australia’s ambitious export strategy.
The centre will also incorporate sophisticated systems integration laboratories, as well as experimentation areas and training rooms.
The NSW government taskforce established to improve the safety of gig economy workers following the deaths of five delivery riders in two months is “farcical” and merely an attempt to “divert attention away from the global push for regulation”, according to the Transport Workers Union.
The union has quit the taskforce just a week before it is set to present the final Industry Action Plan, which it said will do nothing to address the “root causes of high rider deaths and injuries.
The Transport Workers Union (TWU) said concerns around economic pressures, fatigue rate research and potential regulation changes have been removed from the final report, leading the organisation to withdraw its support for the state government taskforce.
The Joint Taskforce on food delivery rider safety, led by SafeWork NSW and Transport for NSW, was established by the NSW government in November last year, following the deaths of five food delivery riders in the space of just two months. Four of these delivery riders died in Sydney.
Gig economy blow-up: Transport Workers Union national secretary Michael Kaine
The taskforce was looking into whether improvements are needed for the safety of riders, exploring the similarities between the recent deaths. The group released draft guidelines for industry consultation in February and is expected to release its final report next week.
But the TWU has labelled the taskforce’s work as “farcical”, saying that its “sustained refusal” to discuss regulation and the causes of the high death rates, such as economic pressures to work dangerously and with fatigue led to its decision to withdraw from it.
“The taskforce has continuously silenced workers’ concerns about exploitation and insisted that regulatory change is ‘beyond scope’. The TWU can only conclude that the taskforce was designed by the NSW government as a front to divert attention away from the global push for regulation,” the TWU said in a statement.
The union said this meant that there would be no delivery riders’ representation at the taskforce’s final roundtable meeting next week ahead of the release of the plan.
A spokesperson for SafeWork NSW said the organisation would continue to work with willing stakeholders.
“As the NSW regulator of workplace health and safety, SafeWork NSW will continue to work with all stakeholders who are willing to assist in continuing to improve safety outcomes for riders in the food delivery industry,” the spokesperson told InnovationAus.
TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said this final report intends to “absolve companies from addressing serious risk hazards and the government from addressing legislative gaps”.
“A taskforce set up to tackle the tragic deaths of riders that has continuously silenced workers’ key concerns for their safety is not worthy of our support,” Mr Kaine said.
“The NSW government’s intention is to distract from and undermine the push for regulatory change happening around the world, letting the government off the hook and giving a free pass to food delivery companies.
“It is deeply unsettling how little the NSW government cares that riders are being slaughtered on our roads. This is just a PR hazard that they want put to bed. The TWU will not support their quest to shut out riders’ concerns or solutions.”
In a letter to Minister for Better Regulation and Innovation Kevin Anderson, the TWU said that three core issues of worker have been removed from the final draft of the report: the mention of regulatory change, fatigue rate statistics which were included in earlier drafts and research around the impact of low earnings on dangerous risk-taking behaviour.
“There is no justifiable reason why these systemic economic pressures which are central to poor safety outcomes would be purposefully excluded from the taskforce’s scope,” the TWU said in the letter.
“It has become clear that the true intention of this taskforce is to divert attention away from the global push for regulation to address sham business models that pay below minimum wage and force riders to work fatigued under unrealistic delivery schedules and without safety equipment or workers’ compensation insurance.
“Instead, the taskforce and its Industry Action Plan has created a set of weak recommendations which absolve companies from addressing serious risk hazards and the government from addressing legislative gaps. This is an appalling response to the tragic deaths.”
Transparency in government must become an election issue to bring about meaningful change, according to experts, who expressed concern about an ongoing trend towards opacity and consequence free political scandals.
Former AFP counter terrorism officer turned political commentator Carrick Ryan, Centre for Public Integrity executive director Han Aulby and Centre for Digital Business chief executive Marie Johnson were guest experts on InnovationAus Public Interest Series webinar discussing transparency in government.
They said there was an urgent need to galvanise voters on the issues of accountability and transparency following a raft of political scandals amid increased opacity.
“Last year with the COVID pandemic, there was a big upward trend in the hiding of information and [more] opaque processes,” said Centre for Public Integrity executive director Han Aulby.
“And an increase in executive power, leading to limits on parliamentary scrutiny and public scrutiny of decisions and spending.”
Aulby’s independent think tank is monitoring the increased executive power and lack of scrutiny including how it relates to an increased “scale and regularity” of political scandals and allegations of corruption.
“Unfortunately, none of them have been investigated or had consequence to the point that we’d like to see,” Aulby said.
Last year saw various pork-barrelling scandals, an explosion in unaddressed FOI requests, higher than ever management consultancy fees, the continued lack of availability of real-time data on corporate donations to political parties – with the notion of federal Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) kicked further down the road.
Such issues of integrity and accountability often do not get the ballot box attention they warrant, however, and advocates are struggling to get cut-through.
But the growing momentum against the culture towards women in Parliament House shows how quickly the public can be engaged and, potentially, swing votes.
“The hard part is getting in touch with those people that only think about politics, 30 seconds before they are actually voting,” Carrick Ryan said.
“We need [those voters] to really be aware of why it’s important, why transparency and accountability is important.”
Mr Ryan told the webinar the recent furore about the disrespect of women in politics could become a flashpoint for voters and demonstrated a potential path for the transparency issue.
“We need that [engagement] to spread to our other issues. Some people that would in the past go ‘ordinarily I would have voted for the LNP but based on this one issue: the fact that they’re not doing a federal ICAC, the fact that they’re not transparent, that’s going to change my vote.’
“They’re the people that we need to convince to think that way.”
The Centre for Digital Business’ Marie Johnson agreed transparency needed to become an election issue. She also warned of a concurrent and related problem further eroding trust in government: a degradation of capabilities in the public sector.
She argued a hollowing out of the public sector – particularly through the outsourcing to large consulting firms and tech giants – has reduced not only the sector’s internal capabilities on the sector but also the public’s trust in it to deliver safe, effective services.
“One of the pillars of our democracy is a strong, independent and appropriately skilled public sector for the decades ahead,” Ms Johnson said.
“Now, we have got this massive, massive gap [between public expectations and internal capabilities].”
Ms Johnson said more transparency and accountability in government would help re-establish both the capability and perception of the public sector.
“Not everything is corruption, some things are just unacceptable practices. Unacceptable in terms of over reliance on consultants and the hollowing out of capability in the APS. That gets a certain perception around trust.
“It’s not necessarily corruption but it plays into the public’s lack of trust, when they see these things happen.”
A NSW parliamentary inquiry has recommended an overhaul of the state government’s cybersecurity strategy and a review of its cyber policies in the wake of a serious data breach that resulted from cyber risks being ignored.
Nearly a year after a cyberattack on Service NSW that allowed hackers to access millions of internal documents, the incident is yet to be fully addressed.
Risky data practices have continued and thousands of NSW citizens whose data was involved were not notified. The breach is expected to cost the service agency at least $30 million.
The incident may have been prevented had the agency addressed the cyber risks it identified a year earlier, according to a NSW Upper House inquiry that has now called for structural changes.
NSW Parliament: An inquiry has made recommendations about cyber defences
Recommendations include strengthening the mandate and resourcing of Cybersecurity NSW, including moving the function from the Department of Customer Service to the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
Doing so would provide much needed independence from the state’s service providers, the inquiry found.
Of “urgent” importance is the establishment of a mandatory data breach notification scheme applicable to all NSW agencies and its contracted service providers, and a formal process for assisting people affected by a data breach, the committee said.
Currently neither measure exists in the state, an absence that contributed to enablement and poor handling of the Service NSW data breach that sparked the inquiry.
“The committee found that this attack was enabled by practices and systems within Service NSW that did not accord with best practice cyber security measures,” Committee Chair Tara Moriarty wrote in the report foreword.
“Compounding this incident, Service NSW was aware of the risks that led to the attack some 12 months earlier but had not acted sufficiently to address them.”
A targeted phishing attack on the service agency in March and April last year compromised data of more than 100,000 people when attackers gained access to Service NSW employee email accounts.
It took Service NSW three weeks to verify the incident and notify the minister. It took months more to notify users of Service NSW whose data had been exposed. And nearly a year after the incident, 20 per cent to 30 per cent of those affected had still not been notified.
A review of the incident by the NSW Auditor General in December found it was “unclear” why Service NSW had not effectively mitigated the risk prior to the breach.
Service NSW identified risks including a lack of multifactor authentication a year prior to the breach and had committed to addressing them in 2019 but failed to do so until after major incident in 2020.
“Service NSW is not effectively handling personal customer and business information to ensure its privacy,” the Auditor General concluded. “It continues to use business processes that pose a risk to the privacy of personal information.”
Service NSW chief executive Damon Rees told the parliamentary inquiry in February the agency has continued to use at least one high risk practice – sending personal information via email – as it worked on more secure alternative. But he insisted many of the risks have now been mitigated.
Other recommendations from the inquiry include a review of the “responsibility and resourcing” of the NSW privacy watchdog; more work from the government with industry to develop a cybersecurity skills framework; more clarity on cyber standards including mandatory ones for government agencies; investigating ways to improve the security of IoT devices; a strategy for improving the cyber safety of citizens; and more support to local councils to enhance their cyber capabilities.
The Committee also recommended the NSW government develop a strategy to enhance sovereign cyber security capability by building the local industry and establishing principles for procuring services onshore.
Labor will again push for an increased uptake of electric vehicles at the upcoming election with a range of tax cuts, while the government has turned its attention to Australia’s sovereign capability in missile manufacturing.
With a federal election expected within a year, both major parties are beginning to roll out a number of new policies, signalling areas of focus for the upcoming campaign.
At the Labor national conference on Wednesday Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese announced a series of tax concessions for the purchasing of electric vehicles worth less than $77,565. These included a cut to the import tariff on these vehicles and a fringe benefits tax exemption.
Electric dream: Labor is planning incentives policies to get more electric cars on the road
It’s the first new policy focused on electric vehicles from Labor since the 2019 election campaign, which saw the Opposition pledge a national electric vehicles target of 50 percent of new car sales by 2030 and a pollution regulation target.
This policy was met with heightened hyperbole from the government, which claimed such a policy would somehow ruin the weekend for every day Australians.
It’s unclear whether Labor is still committed to these targets, with the party also announcing it would work with the local sector to develop a National Electric Vehicle Strategy.
“A majority of Australians say they would consider buying an electric model as their next car, but because of scaremongering and the policy vacuum under the Morrison government, electric vehicles remain unaffordable for most Australians,” Mr Albanese said.
“By reducing upfront costs, this policy will encourage uptake, cutting fuel and transport costs for households and reducing emissions at the same time.”
Labor also announced another $200 million program that would see 400 community batteries installed, allowing up to 100,000 high rise or rental households to draw from renewable energy.
Also on Wednesday morning, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced plans to invest $1 billion in Australia’s local missile manufacturing in an effort to shore up military sovereign capability.
The funding will fast-track the development of a local missile manufacturing industry, with a foreign defence company to be selected in consultation with the US government, to build the missiles in Australia. This company may be Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE Systems and Kongsberg.
“Creating our own sovereign capability on Australian soil is essential to keep Australians safe, while also providing thousands of local jobs in businesses right across the defence supply chain,” Mr Morrison said.
“As the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, having the ability for self-reliance, be it vaccine development or the defence of Australia, is vital to meeting our own requirements in a changing global environment.
“It is imperative we now proceed with the creation of a sovereign guided weapons capability as a priority, accelerating this process following the idea first being explored in the Force Structure Plan.”
The federal government is “behind the eight ball” on the fast-growing space sector, with homegrown companies teaming up to build sovereign capability in the absence of Commonwealth funding support.
Two of Australia’s largest and most successful space companies, rocket manufacturer and launch company Gilmour Space Technologies and nanosatellites maker Fleet Space Technologies, have partnered to launch six nanosatellites into space in 2023.
The deal is another major boost in improving Australia’s sovereign capability in space, with the launch to be from an Australian site, with an Australian-built rocket carrying Australian-built satellites.
Australian Made: We’re going to space with Adam Gilmour (centre) and Fleet’s Flavia Tata Nardini
But despite the private success, government support for the sector lagging.
“It’s a great demonstration of two of the leading space pioneers that are VC-backed working together, and that we see value in working with each other,” Gilmour Space Technologies chief executive Adam Gilmour told InnovationAus.
“It’s a pristine example of sovereign capability in the absence of government intervention. These are two companies that have raised venture capital, have been financed through venture capital, working together on space capability in Australia.”
While the local space sector is growing at a rapid pace, the government is lagging behind and not offering the support that is needed, Mr Gilmour said.
Mr Gilmour, who is on the space taskforce for the federal Modern Manufacturing Initiative, said his company has not received a dollar from the Australian Space Agency, and is yet to sign any deals with the Defence Department.
This had put his company at a disadvantage compared to its global competitors, he said.
“The industry is moving faster than even the government thinks. It just makes it harder to get the job done,” Mr Gilmour said.
“I’m in the middle of raising my Series C and I’m going to successfully raise a decent amount of money, but at a valuation significantly under my competitors around the world, and the main reason why is because I don’t yet have any kind of deal from the Space Agency or any contract from the Air Force.
“And if I look at my competitors that are at the same level as I am around the world, they’ve all got contracts already. That means they can get a much higher valuation and raise a lot more money. We’re continually behind the eight ball in Australia.”
This government backing is the “last missing piece” of the Australian space puzzle, Mr Gilmour said.
“It’s fantastic the Modern Manufacturing Initiative has space as one of the six priority sectors – that is a positive sign the government is realising this, but it’s beyond the Department of Industry,” he said.
“The Space Agency and Defence department have to step up and start putting more money on the plate for contracts.
“What’s going to happen if they don’t do that soon is we’re just going to do it anyway. It’s just making it that much harder.”
Fleet Space Technologies chief executive Flavia Tata Nardini said the new partnership is an important step in the push for sovereign capability in space and satellites.
“Today’s announcement is the beginning of an ongoing launch service relationship as we work towards our planned constellation of 140 satellites. We are building a strong portfolio of launch service partners, and we are very excited to have Gilmour Space as one of them,” Ms Tata Nardini said.
“As a country we are highly reliant on space technologies from other nations and it’s time to realise that we can have critical sovereign capabilities in satellite development and launch here in Australia.”
Late last year Gilmour Space Technologies signed on its first local customer for its Eris rocket, to be launched next year. This will see the company deliver a 35kg spacecraft into orbit, the largest payload by an Australian company, and the first time a local payload will be launched from an Australian rocket from Australia.
The Fleet satellites will be launched on the third flight of Gilmour’s Eris rocket in 2023.
Earlier this year, Gilmour also announced that it had partnered with Space Machines Company and Fireball.International to send orbital transport Optimus-1 into space in March next year, launching a bushfire detection satellite into orbit.
It was either fortuitous timing or smart politics that led to Labor to unveil its flagship industry policy less than 24 hours after the Prime Minister buried his most under siege minister in the Industry portfolio.
The plan for $15 billion national reconstruction fund by Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese this week blew the government’s own manufacturing policies out of the water, with 10 times more funding on offer.
It also signalled a willingness and ability of the Opposition to capitalise on the government’s neglect of the tech and manufacturing sectors, which was made starkly more evident in this week’s reshuffle.
The manufacturing policy is the most significant so far announced by Labor and will be a key plank of its election campaign going into 2022.
Labor’s plan for a $15 billion reconstruction fund shows renewed interest in industrial policy
At this point, the next election likely pits one of the most personable and media-savvy politicians in shadow industry minister Ed Husic against the government’s now invisible man Christian Porter, who will be kept out of the public view.
Mr Porter is currently on mental health leave after strenuously denying historical rape allegations made against him. He has also launched defamation proceedings against the ABC over its airing of the allegations, a move which made his position as the country’s Attorney-General untenable and forced the reshuffle.
In a clear message to the sector about the emphasis – or lack of it – that the government places on Industry policy, Mr Morrison shifted Mr Porter into the portfolio where he will be able to dodge the spotlight and take a step back while he continues his legal fight.
Mr Porter was sworn in as industry minister – the fifth in five years and the seventh since the Coalition won government in 2013 – on Tuesday afternoon while still on leave. He was expected to return to work on Wednesday.
But whichever way the election swings next year, it’s hard to imagine that Mr Porter will remain in the role, creating a level of uncertainty for the sector.
Much has and will be said about Mr Porter’s character and his decision to launch legal proceedings against the ABC, and that commentary is valid and important.
From a policy perspective, his appointment is something Labor can and will take advantage of – and offers a chance for the Opposition to make ground in an area where it is historically very strong.
With this week’s announcement of 10 times more funding than the government’s Modern Manufacturing Strategy (which it has been re-announcing every other week) it raises the question of whether the government will look to provide more support for the sector in the May budget.
But this would mean a significant announcement that would thrust Mr Porter back into the spotlight. Whether it will be willing to do this remains unclear.
And if it does choose to compete with Labor on industry policy, Mr Husic and the Opposition have a lot of ammunition up their sleeves.
The Coalition heralded its own manufacturing funding as an important aspect of Australia’s economic recovery from COVID-19, and now-former Industry Minister Karen Andrews had offered some much-needed stability to the space over the last two years.
She has now been promoted by Scott Morrison, being given the Home Affairs super-portfolio.
While Ms Andrews is a trained engineer with a bulk of experience in the sector and the respect of most in it, Mr Porter is a trained lawyer with experience as a prosecutor. He has shown no vocal interest in or support for industry policy or tech.
There are valid concerns already being raised by women in the industry that a man who is facing historical rape allegations – which he has strenuously denied – will now be leading the government agenda in relation to encouraging women into the STEM sector, and supporting female founders and entrepreneurs.
Mr Husic took on the shadow Industry role earlier this year and will be a vocal presence in the lead up to the next election.
Labor has already signalled it will be on the front foot in the portfolio.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese has unveiled plans for a $15 billion fund to support Australia’s manufacturing sector, promising to partner with the private sector – including superannuation funds – to commercialise innovation and help existing industries bring manufacturing back onshore.
In the run up to the next election, Labor will argue that its fund will rebuild Australia’s sovereign capability while creating secure jobs, driving regional development, and diversifying the economy.
Should Labor win government, a National Reconstruction Fund would be established and target key sectors including resources, food processing, heavy manufacturing, renewable energy and defence.
Anthony Albanese: Doubles-down on industrial policy with a $15 billion fund
The $15 billion fund will use a combination of loans, equity injections, co-investment and lending guarantees to back companies committed to domestic manufacturing.
“We shouldn’t have to rely on other countries when it comes to protecting and providing for our people,” Mr Albanese told Labor’s national conference, held online for the first time this year.
“We are going to invest in Australia. We are going to invest in Australian workers and Australian skills. A new era of national reconstruction to achieve our potential: a country that makes things and creates better jobs to go with them.”
The current government’s centrepiece manufacturing policy is a $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative, which provides targeted funding to six priority areas: resources technology and critical minerals processing; food and beverage; medical products; recycling and clean energy; Defence; and space.
In contrast, Labor’s policy offers a much bigger pool of money through the promised partnership with the private sector, particularly superannuation funds. While targeted at four industries, support would also be available under Labor to “sectors across the board” and would be guided by companies’ potential to create secure jobs.
The Opposition’s alternative also proposes onshoring entire supply chains rather than optimising current exports. For example, Australia has all the necessary resources to manufacture lithium batteries and the sell them to the world, but has traditionally focused on bulk lithium exports.
“It will be an important tool going forward to build confidence in our economy,” Mr Albanese explained on Tuesday.
“We know that investment is actually going backwards, that we’re not seeing enough business investment in this country.
“And we also know that Australia has been fantastic at research and innovation, everything from new solar energy technology through to wine casks, through to Wi-Fi,” he said.
“Australia hasn’t always, though, commercialised the benefit for our inventions and for our expertise. We need to be a smart country going forward.”
Deputy opposition leader Richard Marles said the policy would help reverse the “biggest deindustrialisation in our nation’s history” over the last eight years.
“We need to restore all of that [industrial sovereign capability],” Mr Marles said.
“And that’s what the National Reconstruction Fund will do. We’ll be focusing on building companies which provide long-term, well-paid secure jobs. Companies that innovate, companies that commercialise science, which turns science into jobs, which has been a national weakness.”
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will chair a new emissions reduction and clean energy advisory board to be established by the NSW Government.
The Net Zero Emissions and Clean Economy Board will provide strategic advice to the NSW government on the first phase of its Net Zero Plan, a $1 billion push which will start with subsidising heavy emitting industries’ switch to cleaner technology.
“The world’s move to net zero emissions by 2050 will create huge economic opportunities for Australia and I intend to make sure NSW realises them,” Mr Turnbull said in a statement.
Malcolm Turnbull: will chair the NSW Net Zero Emissions Board
NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer Professor Hugh Durrant-Whyte has been appointed deputy chair, which will be established by regulation.
Further board appointments will come from representatives from the electricity, power-fuels, transport, manufacturing and primary industries sectors as well as climate science, technology and innovation, public policy and finance representatives.
NSW Energy Minister Matt Kean confirmed the appointment of the former Prime Minister late on Monday after the proposal had earlier been leaked to the media before NSW Cabinet approval.
“The Board will help us to drive a clean industrial revolution for NSW – providing advice on opportunities to grow the economy, create jobs of the future, support industry to develop low emissions technologies and modernise industrial processes,” Mr Kean said.
“The Board will bring cross-sector experts together to ensure we have the right policies and initiatives to give industry the confidence they need to invest, innovate and build a low-carbon future – right here in NSW.”
Mr Kean said the Board will help to deliver “low-carbon jobs” to help diversify the economies of traditional coal regions like the Hunter and Illawarra.
“It is a privilege to have Mr Turnbull leading the Board. As a former Prime Minister, Commonwealth Environment Minister and head of Goldman Sachs Australia, Mr Turnbull is ideally placed to help NSW reduce its emissions in ways that grow the economy,” Mr Kean said.
An Australian business lobby is pushing for a new government online platform that would match employers with skilled migrants before they arrive in Australia to help alleviate a skills “mismatch” that will slow Australia’s economic recovery.
The Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) released research based on analysis of Department of Home Affairs and Seek survey data that found 23 per cent of permanent skilled migrants in Australia are working in a job beneath their skill level.
This is a massive hit to productivity. The report estimates the underutilisation cost workers at least $1.25 billion in foregone wages between 2013 and 2018, and will continue to act as a drag on the economy.
The business group said the findings were evidence Australia’s migration system needed “structural” changes, including a way to adapt to new demands for skills as Australia enters its first period of negative net migration since World War II because of COVID-19.
Melinda Celinto: Getting serious about matching skilled migrants to local companies
The CEDA report proposes a new online platform that would connect potential migrants with employers and their vacancies before the skilled migrant lands in Australia, among other responses.
Following an “appropriate procurement process” an existing job search provider should operate the online platform, according to the CEDA report.
“Having an established online job search provider operate the platform should reduce initial and ongoing participation costs for employers as they are likely to be familiar with such providers.
“In this way, the process of posting a vacancy seeking foreign workers would be virtually identical to posting one targeting Australian workers.”
The platform would alleviate the current skills mismatch and create “dynamism” in the domestic job market, according to the business group which says the results would justify the setup costs of the platform.
As the proposed platform matured, it would use data and algorithms to “nudge” migrants to apply for relevant jobs and alert employers of new workers with required skill sets joining the platform. A mature platform would also provide a more current data source on skills needs and supply than the government’s current approach, which the group argues suffers from opacity.
To ensure Australian workers are not disadvantaged by cheap overseas labour, CEDA suggests restricting the platform to certain industries and “broad occupation skill levels”.
“But we must be careful not to make the lists too restrictive, to avoid replicating current problems with the system,” the report said.
CEDA chief executive Melinda Cilento said Australia would need more skilled migrants as it emerges from COVID-19 and the access system needs to be “nimble and responsive” to an evolving economy.
“In addition to many migrants working beneath their skill level, the system is slow to respond to rapidly emerging skills needs, such as digital and data.
“This is where we can least afford to lag in the competition for talent. A system that does not enable access to critical skills in a timely fashion means we will be unable to keep up with global competition.”
In addition to the platform, the CEDA report proposes updating the Australian Bureau of Statistics classifications of occupations to bring them in line with modern jobs, more transparency from the government with the data and methods used to determine which occupations are in demand and slashing the waiting period for unemployment support for permanent skilled migrants to give them a better chance at finding appropriate employment.
“We are already hearing consistent concerns from our members about skills shortages while international borders remain closed, and the inability to access the skills needed to drive growth and investment, including digital and data opportunities,” Ms Cilento said.
The public sector union has slammed government secrecy in relation to the redevelopment of the myGov platform, saying the public has the right to know who is completing this work, and there was no valid reason for not disclosing it.
The federal government has been working on a new version of myGov since early last year. The new service will initially run alongside the existing platform before eventually replacing it and is meant to offer a user experience more in-line with private sector services such as Facebook or Netflix.
Much of the work has been outsourced, with Deloitte picking up the bulk of the contracts. Deloitte has so far been paid more than $30 million since early last year for work on the new myGov, which is still in a beta phase.
Next level: Secrecy over who is developing the next generation of myGov is unsettling
Late last year Services Australia, which has taken over contracting responsibilities from the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA), established a Systems Integrator Panel for companies that would be contracted to work on the final stage of the new myGov – or myGovDXP as it has been known.
But Services Australia is yet to disclose publicly which companies are on the panel. Earlier this year Deloitte was awarded a $4.5 million contract through this panel, making the Big Four firm the first to be revealed.
But Services Australia has refused to disclose the other companies on the panel, saying it would do so “once all aspects of the procurement process are complete”.
Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) assistant national secretary Michael Tull said there was no excuse for the government not saying what companies had been selected to work on the myGov project.
“The public has the right to know who the government is contracting to do what work and at what price. We all suspect that ‘commercial in confidence’ is used to hide many sins. But refusing to even reveal who has been chosen for a panel is a whole new level of concern,” Mr Tull told InnovationAus.
“It is hard to see a valid reason for keeping this secret. The government’s justification – that the procurement process is not yet complete – doesn’t stack up and isn’t based on any provision of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules that I can see.
“And given the type of procurement being done here – a panel of providers to work on systems integration – there’s a pretty good argument that potential tenderers would benefit from knowing who else is on the panel.”
In February Services Australia went to the market for contractors to “provide suitable software capabilities to enable any of the prescribed bundles of the core customer experience capabilities”, including content management, experience delivery and experience analytics.
The entire myGov rebuild project is now shrouded in secrecy, with the government declining to disclose any further information on the systems integrator panel, the timeline for the project, or the roles of Services Australia and the DTA.
InnovationAus asked Services Australia when it expects to finalise the contracts under the panel and to disclose its members, for an outline of the project timeline and its various stages, and what roles Services Australia and the DTA would play in the project.
In response, a Services Australia spokesperson said to refer to previous answers, which did not elaborate on any of these questions.
A spokesperson for the DTA also pointed to “recent response” on the project, despite not providing an answer to InnovationAus on the matter for several months.
The increasing use of similar panel-type arrangements for procurement is troubling, Mr Tull said.
“CPSU has long held concerns about transparency and competition in government procurement, and in particular about the use of panels,” he said.
“In our experience, panels make it harder to keep track of who has won what, while on the competition front the ANAO found in 2018 that panel use was increasing, and that most panels had a small proportion of suppliers being awarded the majority of contract value.
“A lack of transparency and declining competition among tenders is not a recipe for the best use of taxpayer dollars.”
The federal government is preparing to launch an NDIS app within months, amid concerns raised by former NDIS Technology Authority chief Marie Johnson that experimentations with new technologies through the scheme could lead to a “dangerous future”.
National Disability Insurance Agency chief executive Martin Hoffman told a Senate Estimates hearing last week that Services Australia has been developing the My NDIS app since late 2019, with plans to launch it widely in the next quarter.
The app provides a version of what is currently available to NDIS participants through the web browser on smart phones, including viewing budgets, current plan timelines and to make and manage claims.
People: The AMA has concerns about sharing of health data
Services Australia ran a pilot of the app from July last year with 422 participants, which was “very popular and well received”, Mr Hoffman said.
“Currently access to information about participants’ plans and the ability to make claims and so forth is only available through a full web browser. We think it will enhance the participant experience if it is also available through a mobile app,” Mr Hoffman told the hearing.
“I think it’s a great app but it’s not exactly a radical thing these days to provide services and information via an app. It’s something we should do.”
Five private suppliers have worked on the NDIS app in recent months. This work was not put out through public tender, with the suppliers selected from a Digital Transformation Agency-maintained panel.
The most prominent contractor is Melbourne-based digital consultancy DB Results, which has received $1.393 million, while Optus has been paid $112,000 for penetration performance testing, while law firm Clayton Utz has also landed $11,000.
Ms Johnson, who is the chief executive of the Canberra-based Centre for Digital Business said that NDIS participants are saying they feel like “guinea pigs” in the government’s wider digital strategy, with a trial of blockchain technology also recently completed.
Ms Johnson said she is also troubled by the potential for these technologies to be combined, with Labor senators at the Estimates hearing questioning whether myGov will be linked with the new NDIS app.
In response, Mr Hoffman said the current version of the app does not do this, but it will likely be linked in the future.
This is the ultimate end goal of the government’s digital strategy, Department of Social Services secretary Kathryn Campbell said.
“We’re hoping for one app to be for all Commonwealth government services. One to rule the world. It would come up and tell you each of those, it’d make life a lot easier,” Ms Campbell said at the hearing.
“It’d be able to tell people when they have appointments coming up and obligations. That is our long-term plan for government digital.”
The NDIS app will also soon allow participants to track their cases, Mr Hoffman said.
“We are investing in our IT systems such that being able to case-track where your particular claim or particular inquiry or review matter might be up to through the process. I really want this to be a leading app in terms of accessibility for people with a disability,” he said.
The app will be launched in the coming months pending final bug testing, accessibility enhancements and improved API data flows with Services Australia.
“A lot depends on those three factors. We don’t want to be going out and be slow in terms of getting data – people have expectations about how apps should work,” Mr Hoffman said.
In a recent submission to an inquiry into the NDIS Independent Assessments, Ms Johnson warned about a “dangerous future” as a result of the government’s tech experimentations through the NDIS which could lead to significant human rights violations.
“The committee needs to be alerted to the linkages between future blockchain and facial recognition applications as a means to control and monitor NDIS participants, and the risks that algorithms pose for people with disability in accessing services,” Ms Johnson said in the submission.
“The absence of an ethics and co-design framework exposes NDIS participants to potential human rights violations from these experimental whole-of-government digital activities.”
The Digital Transformation Agency recently trialled the use of blockchain technology to make payments through the NDIS, in partnership with the Commonwealth Bank. This was done through another app, called Smart Money, which allowed for payments for specific uses by specific people through the NDIS.
Technology shouldn’t be used at the expense of people with disabilities, Ms Johnson said.
“Australian civil society must not tolerate the actions of government that forcibly and arbitrarily subject people with disability to lifelong examination, study and monitoring. History is a reminder of where these actions can lead,” she said.
“That this control of people with disability will be effected through technologies such as biometrics, algorithms and blockchain is anathema to a harmonious and inclusive civil society and the human rights of all people.”
Industry and professional groups are confident the local technology sector will not be lost in Monday’s cabinet reshuffle, which saw Karen Andrews elevated from the Industry portfolio to Home Affairs and embattled coalition ministers moved to technology portfolios.
The Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) is confident government departments responsible for technology and digital services can withstand the turnover at the top because of established agendas, personnel and budgets.
“From our point of view, what we’re seeing is a continued prioritisation of technology,” AIIA chief executive Ron Gauci told InnovationAus.
Ron Gauci: We’re seeing is a continued prioritisation of technology
“We’re seeing that our industry still operates within quite a number of ministerial portfolios, including ongoing support with Stuart Robert with workforce and skills and small business.
“I just see that all this [reshuffle] does is add to the depth of exposure we have across the industries.”
Attorney-General Christian Porter will become the new Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, the fifth person to hold the position in the five years and the seventh since the Coalition won government in 2013.
Linda Reynolds has been moved from the Defence portfolio to take over as Minister for Government Services, replacing Stuart Robert who moves to the Employment, Workforce and Skills portfolio.
Mr Gauci said the AIIA looks forward to speaking with new Industry Minister Christian Porter and new Government Services Minister Lynda Reynolds. He also welcomed the retention of the Digital Economy portfolio by Senator Jane Hume.
The Australian Computer Society has also welcomed the new leadership.
“With technology critical to Australia’s economic growth as the nation recovers from the effects of COVID-19, we look forward to working with Minister Porter and his team in developing government policies to boost the ICT sector,” said ACS chief executive Rupert Grayston in a statement.
Mr Grayston also thanked outgoing Minister Karen Andrews for her support and efforts over the past two and a half years.
The AIIA expects responsibility for the DTA to remain in the Social Services portfolio with its new minister Ms Reynolds. Again, Mr Gauci is confident in the agency’s “well and truly entrenched” budget, processes, agenda will provide stability amid new leadership.
“We don’t see that that change in minister will change what the DTA does and how it does it,” he said.
“Given that the budgets and the strategic plan are well and truly in place and in motion we look forward to continuing working with the DTA in the execution of that.”
The AIIA has been collaborating with the DTA officially since 2018 and signed a new three-year memorandum of understanding in March this year to “achieve better outcomes for people and businesses using government digital services” including improving skills in the ICT industry.
Applications are now open for grants for blockchain projects that demonstrate how the technology can reduce compliance costs for business.
The Industry department will administer funding of up to $3 million each for two pilot projects that explore the potential of the ‘immutable record technology’ in the critical minerals and the food and beverage sectors.
The pilots were first revealed in last year’s budget as part of the government’s million Digital Business Plan.
The first pilot aims to demonstrate how blockchain technology can help critical minerals businesses get more of their products to international markets by improving supply chain integrity.
Blockchain: Grant money on offer for proof of concept compliance solutions
The project will need to demonstrate how blockchain could contribute to the Critical Minerals National Ethical Certification Scheme currently being developed by the Department of Industry.
The second pilot will test blockchain’s potential to improve food and beverage provenance. The pilot should demonstrate how blockchain can reduce the compliance burdens of excise tax regulations throughout spirit production and supply.
According to the application form, the objectives of the program are to reduce compliance costs, ensure buy in from regulators, improve blockchain literacy, develop solutions for government and support the inclusion of blockchain in broader policy work.
Projects need to include a pro and con comparison of the emerging technology against non-blockchain options and demonstrate how blockchain adds value “beyond merely being a process of digitisation”.
Applications are now being accepted from either businesses or a publicly funded research organisations. Applicants must also include at least one project partner.
In 2020 the government released a blockchain roadmap outlining how it planned to capitalise on the opportunities presented by the technology. However, pats of the local industry criticised the roadmap as “disappointing” and lacking vision.
Last year the government included nearly $5 million for the blockchain pilots in its $574 million Digital Business Plan.
The maximum project period for the blockchain pilots is 9 months and must be completed by April 30, 2022.
Applications close at 5pm on April 29, 2021. Successful applicants will be chosen by a manager within the Department of Industry’s AusIndustry division.
What does it say about this government’s attitude to science and technology that the Prime Minister ‘buries’ his two most controversial Cabinet members by giving them tech-heavy portfolios, regardless of their suitability for the roles?
Controversies surrounding two of the government’s most senior Cabinet ministers – Attorney-General Christian Porter and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds – prompted an unscheduled Cabinet reshuffle. Both are currently on medical leave from the Parliament.
Short of grabbing a shovel and digging an actual hole, where would you bury such controversy and the ministers attached to it?
Really? The industry will look at the reshuffle and say thanks for nothing
If you are Scott Morrison, a Prime Minister who has de-emphasised technology in the national consciousness, you put them into two of Cabinet’s tech-heavy portfolios.
It’s not quite a hole in the ground, but it will do the job.
It’s a shame that tech and innovation are really not a part of this government’s internal conversations. The tech industry will not be happy about these personnel changes. As if the industry needed to be told, the changes send a clear signal about the low-priority of tech.
Formerly high-flying Attorney-General Christian Porter is facing historical rape allegations – which he has denied – and is fighting a related defamation case against the ABC. He has been a lightening rod for anger among women the past month.
So naturally he has been moved to the Industry, Science and Technology portfolio, where he can take advantage of the low-profile the portfolio enjoys in the Morrison Government.
Outgoing Industry Minister Karen Andrews brought some much-needed stability to the Industry portfolios. When she was appointed as Minister in 2018, she was the sixth minister in the portfolio since the Coalition won government in 2013. Christian Porter is now the seventh.
The Industry portfolio is low-profile in this government. That is the reality. It is not the fault of Mrs Andrews (who got a massive promotion in the reshuffle to lead the Home Affairs mega-portfolio) it has simply been a low priority for this government.
If it were not a low-priority, Scott Morrison would not have given the portfolio to Christian Porter. The tech industry will not welcome this at all. And for all the companies that have invited Mrs Andrews to tour their offices or cut ribbons or launch products, you will not get to enjoy Mr Porters’ company.
Linda Reynolds has been given the nerd portfolio as Minister for Government Services and the NDIS, taking over from Stuart Robert (the new Employment, Workplace and Skills Minister).
The Government Services portfolio is all about digital service delivery in government. It is not so much low-profile as opaque. It is a primary driver of digital transformation in government and a re-imagining of how government works.
Senator Reynolds, who is currently on medical leave from the Parliament because of a heart condition, can quietly disappear into this portfolio.
It is far from clear what qualifies her for the role. She has never made any obvious displays of affection for the subject matter.
Maybe the local tech industry can look forward to her applying the same kind of keen eye for sovereign capability as is found in the Defence portfolio.
The tech industry will look at this reshuffle and say thanks for nothing.
Embattled Attorney-General Christian Porter is set to become the new Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, the fifth person to hold the position in the five years as part of a significant cabinet reshuffle by Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
Mr Porter, who is currently on mental health leave after historical rape allegations were made against him – which he has denied – will be the government’s new Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, taking over from Karen Andrews, who has been promoted as the new Home Affairs minister.
Linda Reynolds, who is also on medical leave due to a heart condition, has been moved from the Defence portfolio to take over as Minister for Government Services and the NDIS with responsibility for the government’s digital strategy.
Christian Porter: Australia’s newest Minister for Industry, Science and Technology
The two ministers had been expected to be shifted from their portfolios due to ongoing controversies and who are on medical leave – Mr Porter and Ms Reynolds – have been moved into two of the most prominent tech and innovation-focused roles.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the cabinet reshuffle on Monday after a tumultuous month for the government.
Mr Porter will be the fifth Industry minister in the Coalition government in the last five years, and the seventh Industry minister since the Coalition won government in 2013.
Ms Andrews had brought some much-needed stability to the role, having served as Industry minister since late 2018, and has taken on a significant plank of the government’s planned economic recovery from COVID-19 in the advanced manufacturing strategy and manufacturing modernisation fund.
While Ms Andrews is a trained engineer, Mr Porter has worked primarily as a lawyer before entering politics, including for commercial firm Clayton Utz and as a senior prosecutor at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Western Australia.
Mr Porter is in the midst of legal action against the ABC over its reporting of the historical rape allegations made against him.
Ms Reynolds will take on the Government Services portfolio, taking the myGov rebuild, digital identity program, Digital Transformation Agency and the government’s wider digital strategy under her remit.
Ms Reynolds has been on health leave since February due to a heart condition and has recently faced criticism over her handling of the alleged rape in Parliament House of a former member of her staff.
Ms Reynolds was forced to apologise after it was revealed she had called Ms Higgans a “lying cow”.
Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has been moved to the Defence portfolio, to be replaced by Mrs Andrews, who will now also have responsibility for the government’s cybersecurity policies.
The reshuffle marks a significant promotion for Ms Andrews, who will now reside over the super-ministry of Home Affairs. She will be only the second Home Affairs Minister, with Mr Dutton having held the reins since it was created in late 2017.
Among other roles, Ms Andrews will now be responsible for the roll-out of the government’s 2020 Cyber Security Strategy and other policies in the space, with the absence of a standalone cyber minister.
Government Services minister Stuart Robert had been widely tipped to take Home Affairs, but has instead been handed the Employment, Workforce and Skills portfolio.
Current Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business Michaelia Cash will be replacing Mr Porter in the role of Attorney-General.
Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy Jane Hume will have women’s economic security added to her role, while defence industry minister Melissa Price will be promoted to Cabinet.
Minister for Women Marise Payne will be leading a new cabinet taskforce looking at key issues involving women’s equality, safety, security and wellbeing, which will feature all of the female members of the ministry. Ms Payne will be “effectively the Prime Minister for Women”, Mr Morrison told the media.
The $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative (MMI) is now open to food and beverage projects as the government attempts to double the value of the Australian sector by 2031.
The manufacturing fund was announced in October as the centrepiece of the government’s Modern Manufacturing Strategy. It was developed to aid Australia’s economic recovery from COVID-19 by helping manufacturers in six priority areas to scale-up, collaborate and commercialise their projects.
Companies involved in food and beverage manufacturing can now apply for the fund’s translation and integration streams, with applications for the larger collaboration stream to follow.
The real Australia: Food and beverage sector now open to the Modern Manufacturing Fund
Industry minister Karen Andrews said the food and beverage manufacturing grants would unlock further investment and growth in what is already the biggest manufacturing sector in Australia.
“Investing in our food and beverage manufacturers will ensure they remain on the front foot and maximise every opportunity to tap into global markets and create jobs here at home,” Mrs Andrews said.
“To strengthen our economy, we need to make the most of our natural advantages in agriculture, and that means adding as much value as we can to raw materials through manufacturing.”
The first MMI program aimed at the space sector kicked off the fund in February, with programs for medical products, critical minerals, and now food and beverage following.
Programs for the remaining two priority areas areas – Defence, and Recycling and Clean Energy – are expected to be announced soon.
An industry led 10-year road map for the food and beverage sector was also released Monday, setting a goal to double the value of the local sector by 2031. According to the roadmap, this can be achieved by focusing smart food and beverage manufacturing; innovative foods and beverages; and food safety, origin and traceability systems.
The road map includes a two-year goal to increase the use of smart manufacturing, and onshore commercialisation and manufacturing.
Within five years, Australian manufacturers will be working together and using smart manufacturing to respond to emerging opportunities, consumer trends and market demands, under the plan.
By 2031, Australia’s food and beverage manufacturing value will have doubled under the plan, “cementing Australia’s reputation as ‘world-best’ supplier and manufacturer of premium, safe and authentic food”.
Agriculture minister David Littleproud said improving outcomes for Australian food and beverage manufacturers will also help the local agriculture industry.
“Australia already makes world class value-added products from fruit and vegetables, grain mill and cereals, dairy products and meat,” Mr Littleproud said.
“This funding will open up further opportunities for the development of new products and the expansion of existing product lines beyond the farm gate.
“That’s good for our farmers, our transport industry and the regional communities they all support.”
In an era where technology and the proliferation of data is creating valuable insights for businesses and consumers to understand the world around them, our visibility of government remains stubbornly opaque.
Certainly, there is a role for the application of technology and data analytics to better understand patterns of behaviour and to more quickly identify where problems exist. But the promise of technology has fallen well short in relation to government.
In fact, the danger is that uncertain data governance and the application of black-box algorithms is making visibility in government decision-making more opaque.
InnovationAus.com will host a special Transparency in Government webinar on Tuesday March 30 from 1pm to 2pm that will look at the opportunities presented by data analytic technology, the challenges of its use in public view, and the political realities that act as a handbrake on its use.
Blue sky: Transparency in Government is a vexed issue, depite the information era. Credit: Linda_K/Shutterstock.com
Hosted by InnovationAus publisher Corrie McLeod, our discussion guests are former AFP officer Carrick Ryan, who spent years on the NSW Joint Counter Terrorism team and is now an active political commentator; the outspoken former chief of the NDIS Technology Authority Marie Johnson, who is now chief executive of the Canberra-based Centre for Digital Business; and Han Aulby, the executive director at Centre for Public Integrity, an outspoken advocate on transparency issues in government.
Governments share data across agencies and departments to determine how to improve citizen outcomes in the delivery of services, or in identifying fraudulent or criminal activity, and to disrupt potential national security threats to our society.
But we have not seen the same amount of ‘data intelligence’ applied in the operation of the public sector – both in executive government and the bureaucracy that implements its policies.
Pork-barrelling scandals, an exploding number of unaddressed FOI requests, higher than ever management consultancy fees, and the lack of availability of real-time data on corporate donations to political parties with a federal election due in the next year.
There is a growing gap between the use of technology by government to understand and manage citizens, and the use of technology applied to the public service itself to hold it to the same standards as the wider business community.
Australia has a well-regarded government. Its relative success in responding to crises like the global financial crisis and COVID-19 is evidence it can perform.
But like all organisations, the new era of data has made it harder, not easier, for an interested public to clearly understand government transactions and communications.
Areas for discussion include:
How RegTech is being used across various industries to identify patterns of problematic behaviour, and the lack of appetite within government to apply this same process to its own operation
The role that technology can and should play in identifying government behaviour that goes against community expectations
How the public sector can continue to function and thrive when it is being swamped by data, like every other industry.
Transparency in Government is an InnovationAus.com public interest webinar. The event is open. You can register to attend here.
