radiofree.asia

Author: James Riley

  • ‘Dangerous future’ in NDIS tech experimentation

    There is a lack of ethics and oversight in the government’s experimentation with new technologies through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) that could lead to significant human rights violations, former NDIS Technology Authority chief Marie Johnson says.

    In a submission to the Joint Standing Committee Inquiry into the Independent Assessments under the NDIS, Ms Johnson, who is now the chief executive of the Centre for Digital Business, pointed to “fundamental defects” in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) technology systems and processes, and raised concerns about the potential to incorporate new technologies into this system.

    Ms Johnson has direct experience of the NDIS on both sides, with her husband, daughter and grandsons accessing the scheme.

    “There would be perhaps few other NDIS applicants or families who would have the insight at the beginning of their journey to make such detailed documentary recordings from the outset,” Ms Johnson said in the submission.

    Marie Johnson
    Marie Johnson: The lack of an ethics framework in the NDIS tech experiments is dangerous

    The committee is examining the new Independent Assessments being used to decide what people’s needs are and how much funding individuals would receive through the NDIS, in the place of using doctors and medical reports.

    There are concerns that this is a cost-cutting measure that may not give the full idea of an individual’s needs.

    Ms Johnson labelled the new assessment process as “utterly flawed, unethical and dangerous on every level”, and that this is the direct result of a lack of an ethics framework at any level of the NDIS.

    Ms Johnson also looked at experimental digital activities being conducted across government, including facial recognition through the digital identity scheme and the application of blockchain for NDIS payments.

    “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 risk that algorithms pose for people with disability in accessing services,” she 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 has been leading a trial of using blockchain technology with the NDIS, along with the Commonwealth Bank.

    The trial combined blockchain technology with the New Payments Platform to create smart money, which was programmed to know who it could be spent by, what it could be spent on and when it could be spent.

    “This enables NDIS participants, service providers and the government to have real-time visibility of service eligibility, with appropriate access controls for privacy,” the DTA said.

    NDIS participants have been invited to trial the initiative through a Smart Money prototype app.

    But Ms Johnson said she is concerned about the on-the-ground use of the technology, associated civil liberties risk, and what happens when something goes wrong.

    “Given the horrendously complex NDIS environment, defective processes and vulnerable people, there needs to be considerable caution in the application of blockchain technology. Blockchain in itself – as with other technology innovations – does not address fundamental design and human rights issues. Ethics is paramount,” she said.

    “The involvement of the Commonwealth Bank itself raises further ethics issues, given the value of participant data, the size of the market, and the yet to be realised market honeypot of data, funds and services.”

    If such a technology was implemented more widely with the NDIS, transparency would be greatly reduced for participants already subject to the new Independent Assessments, she said.

    “So, in a not-too-distant future scenario, a participant would be served a robo-plan, arising from an Independent Assessment, with the robo-plan services transacted using blockchain programmable ‘smart money’,” Ms Johnson said.

    “Far from participant choice and control, there would be no transparency to the Independent Assessment, no transparency to the robo-plan algorithms or rules, and no transparency as to the blockchain algorithms.

    “Whilst there is no transparency or effective appeal rights for the participant, the system would achieve real-time and pre-emptive life-long monitoring and control of NDIS participants by the government.

    “Whether by intention or inadvertence, this is a dangerous future emerging without governance or ethics.”

    The government is also planning to introduce facial verification technology into its digital identity offering, myGovID, with UK tech firm iProov recently awarded a near-$11 million, three-year contract to provide a “liveliness” solution.

    While this is not directly related to the NDIS yet, Ms Johnson said its use has “significant human rights implications for people with disability”.

    “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 risk that algorithms pose for people with disability in accessing services,” she said.

    Invitations were sent to NDIS participants inviting them to take part in the trials of the new Independent Assessments, including language such as “exclusive invitation”.

    This saw participants being “lured” into using the new scheme through similar tactics to identity and financial schemes, Ms Johnson said.

    “It is utterly unethical and verging on maladministration that this type of communication is used at all, let alone in communications targeted at people with disability, and which would include vulnerable people with psychosocial disability,” she said.

    “This is a direct consequence of the lack of an ethics framework and lack of ethics oversight more broadly.”

    Technology should not be used at the expense of people with disabilities, she 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,” Ms Johnson 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.”

    The post ‘Dangerous future’ in NDIS tech experimentation appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Squiz deep dives into the global fast lane

    Home-grown digital experience platform leader Squiz has invested tens of millions of dollars in recent years building out its enterprise transformation products, and restructured in 2020 to put the company on a new growth trajectory.

    Squiz is one of my favourite Australian tech companies. Founded in 1998 during the first dotcom boom, the company boot-strapped its way to $80 million+ revenue, 400-odd employees, and offices all over Australia, as well as the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Singapore and New Zealand.

    Led by founders who are still passionate about the market they operate in – chief executive John-Paul Syriatowicz and executive chairman Steve Barker – the company is the poster child for an Australian business technology success story.

    Squiz John-Paul Syriatowicz
    Global outlook: Squiz chief executive John-Paul Syriatowicz has restructured for the next round of growth

    Squiz has all of the characteristics of the archetypal company that Australian industry policy aims to create.

    It builds software here in Australia. The software it builds is world class. It owns and continues to invest in its intellectual property.

    The company is export focused on a fast-growing global market. It is profitable and it is debt-free.

    And finally, through its acquisition of the FunnelBack search technology from the CSIRO (in addition to the team that developed it), Squiz is experienced in collaborative research, taking institutional IP into turning it into a long-term wealth-creating success for the nation.

    In this episode of the Commercial Disco, I spoke to chief executive John-Paul Syriatowicz (or JP as he is almost universally known) about the company’s product development focus, and a 2020 corporate restructure aimed at delivering a next level of growth in international markets.

    For the first time in its 23-year history, the company has taken an equity partner to fund a new build-phase – building depth and breadth across its product line as well as building its sales infrastructure for the US and other international markets.

    Squiz has been in the game a long time, through many generations of industry policy. The company has a history of getting on with it. Certainly, there is no sense that it has ever waited on government to provide a leg-up.

    But neither is the company is bystander, and Mr Syriatowicz says there are a couple of areas where government could make a big difference.

    The first relates to skills. Like the rest of the software development and digital delivery sector, Squiz is dealing with talent shortages made more difficult by the pandemic. Demand continues to rise, but the ability to import specialist talent from overseas now that closed international borders makes this no longer an option.

    “That makes it hard,” Mr Syriatowicz said. “We fortunately had some [development] infrastructure already overseas and we have been able to use that.”

    “But we are proud of the fact that we develop this software here in Australia, and we are keen to continue to do that. We have no intention of changing that structure, but it is certainly challenging now that it has become so hard to get hold of people.”

    It does not need to be this hard. A program designed to attract top-tier talent to come to Australia to live and work might now be possible. Australia is looking attractive right now in terms of the health response to COVID, as well as its economic recovery.

    “A two-week stay in quarantine doesn’t seem like such a trial if it is set against a long-term work placement. It would be a great way to bring new knowledge and [world-class] skills into the country and would be a real boost to our economy.”

    The preference is always to hire Australians, he said. But there are some roles that are subject to intense international competition and where Australia has not been able to produce home grown talent.

    The second policy area where government could make a difference in building a large scale, viable software development ecosystem is simple. Fix the R&D tax incentive in relation to software.

    Mr Syriatowicz says that “we have invested tens of millions of dollars on product development in recent years” but have benefited from the tax incentive at about 1 per cent of the investment amount.

    “So when it comes to considering how the R&D tax incentive is going to impact on product investment strategy and decisions, it’s really not a meaningful consideration.”

    A stronger incentive in R&D in the software development sector would have a positive impact on the risk profile of investments. If looked at from an industry-wide perspective, it could drive faster development of the software product development eco-system.

    In an industry of weightless exports, this could have tremendous benefits for the economy – where companies developing intellectual property retain that IP within their Australia-based corporate structure.

    “There are a lot of reasons why it doesn’t make sense to develop software in Australia. We do it here because we are proud of it, and we’ve established ourselves and have the infrastructure to do it,” Mr Syriatowicz said.

    “But there are lots of things that work against us. Like the general taxation environment and a range of other aspects – like distance and access to talent – all of these things can make it a challenge.”

    “Anything that could work to make it more attractive to stay here [in relation to product development] and to remain headquartered here would be a great thing,” he said.

    “I am not pushing for lower tax rates or anything else like that specifically. But I am saying [government] needs to look at these things wholistically and say, ‘what can we do to ensure that that talent – that sovereign capability – stays here and is developed here.”

    The post Squiz deep dives into the global fast lane appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • On govt tech outsourcing and tax obligations

    Greater scrutiny of historical tax behaviour of tech giants should be considered by governments when awarding IT contracts, according to corporate tax experts who argue giving the work to local firms would deliver better delivery outcomes and a more sustainable tax system.

    In a submission to the Senate Committee inquiry into the current capability of the Australian Public Service, the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) lashed the ongoing practice of handing the bulk of large-scale IT contracts to multinational tech giants like Amazon, IBM, SAP and Oracle.

    The tech giants continue to receive contracts despite commitments from the government to support local IT companies through federal contracts and the recognised need to build long term capability within the APS, according to the trade union-funded CICTAR.

    “Multinational tax dodging tech giants still dominate federal IT contracts and Australian companies do not seem to be given the same opportunities,” the submission said.

    According to the submission, 28 companies were awarded $4.4 billion in federal contacts for IT services in 2020, but only four of them were Australian. Many of the contracts were handed to multinational technology companies that “extensively used tax haven subsidiaries in global corporate structures”.

    The submission provides case studies looking at IBM, Oracle, Accenture, SAP, Amazon and Dell, and alleges the firms are using deliberately complex corporate structures, tax havens, and profit shifting to avoid taxation in Australia.

    For example, according to the submission:
    IBM’s Australian business is owned through the Netherlands, a notorious tax haven and the company paid no tax in Australia between 2015 and 2018;
    Accenture has reported its Australian business as being half as profitable as its global rate, suggesting ‘profit shifting’ out of Australia;
    Oracle is owned by a “complex web of Irish companies” and continues to receive large federal contracts despite an ongoing $300 million dispute with the ATO;
    SAP paying no corporate income tax in Australia for two years in which it reported more than $2 billion in Australian revenue.
    AWS contracts appear to have been paid to its American parent incorporated in Delaware rather than to the Australian subsidiary;
    Dell’s Irish holding company moving its administrative office in Bermuda.

    The Australian federal IT contracts also include a high level of labour hire and temporary workers, which CITAR says undermines the development of internal capabilities in the APS.

    “The use of external labour is likely to cost more than developing IT capacity within the APS and deepens reliance on future outsourcing contracts with costs escalating further over time. Multinationals can undercut domestic competitors and take losses in order to lock in initial contracts.”

    The group said any future contracts should include a requirement for the multinationals to disclose their tax reporting to the Australian government. Any provider determined to be engaging in aggressive tax minimisation schemes should not receive a contract, according to the CICTAR.

    Local firms should also be used when outsourcing is necessary, the group said.

    “When external contracts are required, preference should be given to companies that make the greatest contribution to the Australian economy through technology transfer to the APS, innovation, high quality jobs and income tax payments,” the submission said.

    The Australian government should also consider adopting a “digital profits tax” as part of reforms to fund the economic recovery from the pandemic.

    “The federal government has a major opportunity to use procurement of IT contracts to increase transparency, encourage responsible corporate behaviour, level the playing field and ensure that tax dodging corporations are not rewarded with federal contracts,” it said.

    “Ensuring that global tech giants pay the taxes they should is the best way to help fund Australia’s economic recovery from the global pandemic. The time for reform is now.”

     

     

    The post On govt tech outsourcing and tax obligations appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • ACCC warning on ‘screen scraping’ and CDR data

    The consumer regulator has warned participants in the new Consumer Data Right (CDR) regime to be both careful and clear with consumers when combining a costumer’s data with information sourced from more controversial “screen scraping” methods.

    Companies must ensure they don’t misrepresent the data collection process to consumers, or what protections will apply to that data, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) warned.

    Any information gained by combining CDR data with other sources, including screen scraping, would be treated as CDR data, the ACCC said, requiring higher standards of consent, privacy and security.

    Screen scraping typically involves using automation to extract data from human readable sources such as bank transactions, often accessed by sharing credentials with a third party. Critics of screen scaping – including Australia’s big banks – say the method creates a security risk.

    Since 2017 Australia has been developing a more advanced way of sharing data using APIs under a Consumer Data Right (CDR) scheme which aims to improve consumer choice and industry innovation.

    The data portability scheme is currently being applied to the banking sector but is to be applied to other sectors, including energy and telecommunications.

    On Thursday the scheme’s regulator, the ACCC, issued new guidance for the use of screen scraping data alongside data obtained through the Consumer Data Right regime.

    While CDR rules do not prohibit the use of alternative methods of data sharing like screen scraping or its combination with CDR data, those doing so must “carefully design your consent flows and consider the impression you create in your interactions with consumers”.

    According to the regulator, screen scrapers that also use CDR data must gain separate consent for each data collection method. Screen scrapers must also not mislead consumers by suggesting data collected that way is subject to the protections of CDR.

    ‘Co-mingling’ CDR data with non-CDR data would not excuse data recipients from applying the high standards of protections that apply to CDR data generally. And any data derived from CDR data, even as a result of combining with non-CDR data, will be considered CDR data by the regulator.

    “This could include data that is a transformation of, processed alongside or pooled with CDR data,” the new guidance said. “You should consider whether you need to be prepared to deal with any such data in accordance with CDR.”

    The post ACCC warning on ‘screen scraping’ and CDR data appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Over-reliance on outsourcing a skills risk – ACS

    The Australian Computer Society (ACS) has warned an increased reliance on outsourcing technology projects to large multinational firms may be hindering the government’s long-term goals for digital capability within the public sector.

    “The danger would be that outsourcing to an extent may be a short-term solution that doesn’t help a longer term problem,” ACS interim chief executive office Rupert Grayson told InnovationAus.

    But just how much the outsourcing decisions have impacted Australia’s broader digital ambitions is difficult to assess, the ACS chief says, because procurement strategy is not currently considered in the government’s APS Digital Professional Stream.

    digital people consultants
    Digital skills: ACS interim chief Rupert Grayson says there is a risk about over reliance on outsourcers

    Mr Grayson said it would be helpful to see more “thought and observation” on the impact of procurement on the sector’s capabilities.

    “If [outsourcing] is part of a broader strategy – and if this is consistent with the government’s plan to develop a strong digital and data profession across the Australian public service – if it’s consistent with that and if this is a holistic plan then it would be good for us to see it.”

    Mr Grayson said good things are happening in the local sector to improve capabilities and develop skills, but Australia remained an “average performer at best” in comparison to peer OECD nations.

    “At the moment the signs are not great, but some good things are being done, and the government aspiration and strategy is a good one,” he said.

    “But government and industry will need to do everything that can be done to bring that into fruition.”

    This includes ensuring local providers can access government contracts and smaller companies get the support they need to grow.

    This week InnovationAus published its first tranche of analysis on the use of large consultant houses by government departments during the pandemic. The findings, based on analysis of 2019 and 2020 tender data, show a significant jump in contracts awarded to five global firms.

    KPMG, Deloitte, EY, PwC and Accenture increased their government business by 23 per cent in 2020 receiving more than a billion dollars between them.

    The overuse of consultants has been criticised as a roadblock to building internal capabilities within the public sector and a potential drag on the government’s plan to make Australia a digital global leader.

    However, the Australian Information Industry Association has argued the extensive use of consultants is not necessarily at odds with internal capabilities.

    Mr Grayson said the large firms have an important role to play in Australia but overuse of them may hurt the APS in the long term.

    “The ACS does see consulting firms having an important role in providing advice, filling gaps in government agencies capabilities,” Mr Grayson said.

    “However, over reliance on consultants may mean that APS can’t develop its own in-house skills, and, if true, that would be at odds with the APS digital professional stream strategy.”

    The post Over-reliance on outsourcing a skills risk – ACS appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • COVIDSafe costs up to $300k per month to run

    COVIDSafe is costing up to $300,000 per month to continue running, with the federal government’s controversial contact tracing app not picking up any new close contacts anywhere in the country this year.

    Appearing at a Senate Estimates hearing on Thursday night, Digital Transformation Agency chief executive Randall Brugeaud revealed that maintenance costs for COVIDSafe, which was launched with much fanfare nearly a year ago, are at $100,000 per month, with up to $200,000 also set aside for any changes needed.

    “COVIDSafe has moved into what we call a business-as-usual state. We apply very small amounts of maintenance – it costs about $100,000 per month to run the infrastructure and we’ve made a provision for about $200,000 per month to allow us to make future changes,” Mr Brugeaud told the Senators.

    DTA chief Randall Brugeaud
    Randall Brugeaud: Looking for frech ideas for the digital transformation refresh

    “That isn’t money that must be spent but we’ve estimated about $200,000 a month for future feature changes that may be required by the Department of Health.”

    This means COVIDSafe will cost at least $1.2 million per year to keep running, and up to $3.6 million annually.

    Mr Brugeaud also confirmed that the app is yet to detect any unique new close contacts since the last figures were revealed in November last year. At the time, COVIDSafe had picked up 17 close contacts of COVID-19 cases in New South Wales that hadn’t already been identified by manual contact tracers.

    That number is still the same now, with COVIDSafe not to identify any new close contacts anywhere in Australia outside of NSW. This is despite significant outbreaks in NSW and Victoria in the time since the last figures were revealed.

    The DTA also said that COVIDSafe has cost $6.745 million as of the end of January this year. But the DTA has entered into contracts worth nearly $10 million for work on the app going into the end of 2021.

    These include a $6 million deal with Canberra-based tech company Delv, $2 million with Shine Solutions, a $1 million contract with Boston Consulting Group which has come to an end, $700,000 to Amazon Web Services for hosting and $1 million for Cevo.

    Labor Senator Nita Green said she was concerned about the effectiveness of the app and the ongoing costs around it.

    “It’s an incredible amount of money that went into the development, and I think the public will really consider whether the amount of money that went into this was money well spent,” Senator Green said at the hearing.

    “When it was rolled out we really were sold this app as if it was a bit of a magic bullet, the thing that was going to make sure we could reopen and avoid lockdowns and get to economic recovery quicker, but it hasn’t really done that.

    “Was this the best way to go forward, was this the best way to spend money? I think I have some concerns, and the numbers are pretty outstanding.”

    In response, Social Services Minister Anne Ruston defended COVIDSafe and the money spent on it.

    “We saw very few cases in Australia in comparison to the rest of the world. The app was designed at a time when we thought there was going to be a lot more cases. Notwithstanding that it was something that was put in place at an unknown time, it has served a purpose,” Senator Ruston said.

    “Whether it has served as much a purpose as it might otherwise but clearly the health officers in NSW and Victoria both indicated that they believe the app has provided a very positive opportunity, a benefit for their states. In hindsight it was a decision that was taken that has provided some value.”

    At the Estimates hearing, Mr Brugeaud also revealed that myGov will soon be linked with the Immunisation Register to assist with the COVID-19 vaccination rollout, but the government is yet to decide whether it will be developing a vaccination record. The DTA boss said that was a matter for Services Australia.

    The post COVIDSafe costs up to $300k per month to run appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • AIIA defends Govt tech spending spike for 2020

    Australian government spending on global consultant companies jumped 23 per cent or $225 million during the 2020 pandemic year compared to 2019. But the increase was not unexpected given the demands of the health crisis, and nor was it incompatible with building public sector tech capability, the industry’s peak body says.

    While critics of government’s reliance on outside consultants say the big increase in spending accelerates the existing trend toward outsourcing technology work – further eroding internal capability – the Australian Information Industry Association (AIIA) said the uptick was the result “extenuating circumstances” created by COVID-19.

    This did not undermine the government’s overall aim of building public sector tech capability.

    “There will always be a need for outsourcing, especially when there’s a need for rapid deployment or [skill] depth that we don’t have readily available internally,” AIIA chief executive Ron Gauci told InnovationAus.

    Canberra Parliament
    Tech spending: The increased use of consultants not incompatible with building internal capability

    “But I do believe that it is the intent of the public sector to build internal and domestic capability and capacity, and we’re supportive of that.”

    Analysis by InnovationAus showed just how much the floodgates opened for global consulting firms last year, now taking more than $1.2 billion dollars a year in government contracts.

    In response to the reports, Mr Gauci said he had not seen evidence the huge amount of taxpayer money going to a small group of consultants for ICT projects had “slowed down or distracted from the other investments” in building domestic capability and capacity.

    “We can tend to get lost in some of the larger outsourcing projects and forget that [it] appears there’s a fair bit of investment at the smaller project end as well, where domestic organisations are winning contracts as well.”

    The AIIA chief also points to the shortage of ICT skills generally in Australia, a challenge affecting both public and private organisations and driving outsourcing.

    “Even our member organisations can’t get enough skills and resources. So, the AIIA itself is working with other associations and other industries to determine what that demand is going to look like.

    “We have a capacity and capability situation across the whole country that needs to be addressed by the entire economy, not just the public sector.”

    Mr Gauci acknowledged, however, the Prime Minister’s goal to grow Australia to a leading digital economy by 2030 is now likely off track.

    An “ambitious” goal when it was set has been pushed further afar by a pandemic and slow progress on understanding even the current digital capabilities and demands, Mr Gaucci said.

    He said digital initiatives would need to be accelerated to have any chance at meeting the mark.

    University of Canberra Law School assistant professor Dr Bruce Arnold agrees that the jump in contracts to large consultants was not surprising and likely necessary in several cases.

    But he warned that the practice was part of an ongoing “hollowing out” of the Australian public sector that is now set to accelerate.

    In that sense, he said, the increased reliance on consultants is “profoundly concerning”.

    “What we’re seeing is basically ongoing erosion of capacity right across the public sector in a range of ways,” Dr Arnold told InnovationAus.

    The recent surge in projects to big providers was not surprising, Dr Arnold said, because the firms offer a “safer” option for public servants and the ministers they report to.

    “Going for a collection of smaller projects [and] smaller providers [creates] perceptions that say you haven’t managed risks and therefore you’ll get into trouble when you get grilled by an estimates committee.”

    The risk now, according to Dr Arnold, is the uptick in consultancy use would reinforce their grip on government agencies and a preference for “mega projects” that only the big firms can deliver. That meant local SMEs would get even less of a look in.

    “There are [more] rationales there for thinking big. And small competitors basically just won’t be competitive.

    “They don’t have scale, they don’t have the track record. So, when you’re going for a big project, you’ll go for a big provider.”

    Government departments, entities and statutory authorities are increasingly reliant on consultants, Dr Arnold said, creating a skills “bleed” from within the public sector. Technology workers in the sector were leaving it in favour of the higher paying and at times less scrutinised jobs offered by the consultants and tech giants.

    According to Dr Arnold, the bleed “is problematic during Black Swan events like the pandemic where domestic capability comes to the fore. But also, when the government ostensibly harbours ambitions to elevate Australia amongst the world’s leading digital economies.

    “We’ve had a lot of rhetoric in the last couple of years about digital leadership, digital transformation and so on. But at the same time, we’re seeing very much a hollowing out of capacity right across government.”

    “We’re in the stage where in some areas where basically you don’t have a choice, you’ve got to go outside.”

    He said the public sector skills bleed, on top of often poor project design, low levels of transparency and accountability is “a recipe for a very expensive mess” that Australia will struggle to get out of.

    “What we see is sort of noise from say the DTA about grand strategies, plans, integration of services, breaking down silos [and] the data transparency and availability regime.

    “But in practice it’s ‘We’re hooked on it’ – hooked on the big service providers.”

    The post AIIA defends Govt tech spending spike for 2020 appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Southern Launch gets first Aussie launch licence

    The first Australian launch facility licence has been granted to Southern Launch, allowing the Adelaide based space tech to launch suborbital satellites from its Koonibba Test Range in regional South Australia.

    Industry Minister Karen Andrews announced the licence on Thursday, saying it marked a major milestone for the Australian space sector.

    “It will contribute to fuelling national capability as the civil space sector rapidly grows and transforms and becomes an even more important economic contributor,” Mrs Andrews said.

    Southern Launch has won the first licence to run a space launch facility in Australia

    “Australia’s geographical location and wide-open spaces makes it optimal for various launch activities and suborbital rocket launches provide an important capability to space-qualify Australian hardware and technology.”

    Space Launch was founded in 2017 and offers infrastructure and support for orbital and suborbital launches of satellites and space payloads.

    A licence from the federal government paves the way for the company to offer commercial launches in the South Australian desert. The company also recently finalised approvals for an Orbital Launch Complex to send small satellites into polar orbit from a Whalers Way complex.

    Access to space is one of seven National Civil Space Priority Areas in the Australian Civil Space Strategy, the federal government’s 10-year plan to grow the domestic space industry.

    “We are committed to providing a supportive environment for industry growth in Australia, including for the innovative space start-up community, while ensuring the safety of space activities,” said Australian Space Agency head Enrico Palermo.

    “Our forthcoming technical roadmap on access to space will further explore launch activities by providing a vision, ambition and aspirational capability targets to grow a globally-respected and thriving industry in Australia.”

    Southern Launch chief executive officer Lloyd Damp said the company was thrilled to be granted a licence to launch satellites.

    “The Koonibba Test Range will have a significant benefit to the Koonibba community and the broader regional centre of Ceduna, including the opportunity for ongoing local employment, education and the development of a new space tourism industry,” Mr Damp said.

    “It also positions Australia one step closer to once again being a space faring nation.”

    The post Southern Launch gets first Aussie launch licence appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Sovereign tech capability now critical: TechOne

    Australia must use government purchasing power to build the sovereign capability of its local technology industry to ensure the nation’s critical systems are resilient against the next Black Swan event, according to home-grown enterprise software maker TechnologyOne.

    The company will today issue a call from chief executive Ed Chung to follow the example of US President Joe Biden and formalise a policy that leverages government procurement policy in strategic industries to build domestic capacity.

    Mr Chung will call on the federal government to take the same strong stance in investing in sovereign capability and capacity in relation to local manufacturing of vaccines and to apply it to critical information technology supply chains.

    Sovereign servers
    Sovereign capability: TechOne’s Ed Chung wants procurement dollars put to better use

    President Biden in January signed a ‘Made in America’ executive order directing department and agency chiefs to “whenever possible, procure goods, products, materials, and services from sources that will help American businesses compete in strategic industries and help America’s workers thrive.”

    The executive order creates a Made in America office within the bureaucracy to enforce the policy. Federal departments and agencies must seek a waiver to buy goods or services from non-US companies, and to justify the decision in six-monthly reports back to the President’s Made in America chief.

    Technology One’s chief executive Ed Chung says Australia should similarly be using its government procurement spend on information technology – about $14 billion this year across the Commonwealth and states – to guard against the next disruptive event, whether it is a cybersecurity incident or a pandemic.

    Mr Chung says Australia is exposed to capability gaps and supply chain problems in the critical data management and software sectors and is urging the Australian government to consider this as it decides where to invest its billions of dollars in IT procurement every year.

    “The Federal government has taken a strong stance in investing in local vaccine manufacturing for the protection of all Australians. They’ve taken a strong stance in recognising the value of locally written Australian news content,” Mr Chung said.

    “Now, more than ever, it’s in the nation’s best interests to not only invest in, but also adopt our own, secure and reliable Australian-led technology solutions and industry as well.

    “When TechnologyOne was founded in 1987, the phrase ‘no-one ever got fired for buying IBM’ was a truism in business technology circles. The implication was the imported product was inherently better and investing in the products of local businesses was a risk,” he said.

    “But Australia is now light years ahead of where it was. We now have a healthy and booming tech industry, well paid jobs and great career paths for our best and brightest tech experts and innovators. In the last decade STEM has become high profile and technology stocks make up a significant proportion of our listed companies.”

    TechnologyOne is one of Australia’s most successful business software companies, having successfully reinvented itself several times over the decades as technology has evolved.

    Most recently, the company completed its jump to rebuild its product as a software-as-a-service platform, readying itself for years of growth in the cloud era.

    The company competes in the same enterprise software sector global giants, and has enjoyed only moderate success in selling into the federal government, a market that is dominated by the European company SAP – which enjoys the favourable status of a whole-of-government purchasing agreement through the Digital Transformation Agency.

    Mr Chung argues that Australia is exposed to the same kind of capability and supply chain risks in the tech sector as were exposed elsewhere in the economy by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “As a nation we are still highly dependent on the products and services of foreign multinationals – particularly when it comes to software. This dependency is unnecessary, but it may be risky too,” he said.

    “When you look at the EU’s recent rule change, which allows exports of COVID vaccines to be stopped it there is a local supply shortfall, this ability to stand on our own two feet, or to have strong ‘sovereign capacity and capability’ – has become more important than ever.

    “Indeed, last year, when our Health Minister Hunt announced plans to build the largest flu vaccine manufacturing plant in the southern hemisphere right here in Australia, he said the decision ‘locked in Australia’s sovereign vaccine manufacturing capability for the next two decades …’

    “It’s time to lock in Australia’s sovereign technology capabilities as well – and the role and impact of government procurement is critical,” Mr Chung said.

    The post Sovereign tech capability now critical: TechOne appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • EY’s Health dept revenue triples during COVID

    The value of Ernst & Young’s contracts with the federal Health department tripled during the pandemic, with fellow Big Four consultancy PwC doubling its work for the department in the same time.

    According to an InnovationAus investigation, UK multinational professional services firm Ernst & Young (EY) enjoyed an increase in the value of its federal government contracts by more than 30 per cent in 2020 compared to the previous year.

    This was driven by an increase of 246 per cent in work with the Health department, including on aged care services, Australia’s medical and vaccine stockpile, and financial modelling.

    hospital
    Health boom: EY triples Health department revenue, PwC doubles

    PwC in the meantime doubled revenue from contracts with Health during the pandemic year of 2020, compared with 2019.

    To calculate these figures, InnovationAus analysed all contracts active in 2019 and 2020 as posted to tenders.gov.au. The tenders.gov.au website reports any contract that is active in that period.

    To calculate the calendar year spend, InnovationAus measured the length of each contract, calculated the daily expenditure for that work, and multiplied that figure by the number of days each contract was active during the periods being investigated.

    Last year was shaped by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with the focus and spending of the government centred on the health crisis. There was a significant uptick in the reliance on outsourcing and private consultants across a range of departments and projects, particularly those involved with the direct response to the pandemic.

    Overall, government contracts increased by more than $20 billion or 6 per cent, reaching $331.275 billion in 2020.

    Some of the contracts secured by EY relating to the COVID pandemic include for the development of a demand model for demand and distribution of aged care services, financial modelling, and advice on the onshore manufacturing of vaccines, which netted the firm $440,000.

    EY landed a $1.5 million contract to conduct an audit of Australia’s medical stockpile and was awarded $558,000 to undertake a COVID vaccine system readiness review.

    The firm also signed a contract worth $237,000 to conduct a review into the risks associated with the supply of personal protective equipment for the national medical stockpile.

    The largest contract EY landed with Health last year was for aged care financial management advisory services, which is worth $15.5 million.

    Big Four consulting firm PwC’s revenue for government work remained stable in 2020, but this was mainly due to some significant contracts coming to an end, with the firm still landing a huge amount of federal work during the pandemic.

    This came primarily from the Health department, with the value of this work for PwC more than doubling, from an overall value of $6.6 million in 2019 to more than $14.1 million during the 2020 pandemic year.

    These contracts included an $800,000 job for the provision of IT audit services, a portfolio review of project and program management practices worth $3.5 million and for governance and project management maturity services for $1 million.

    The firm also landed a contract worth $8.1 million for “business advisory services supporting provider viability”, and completed work developing two residential aged care quality indicators.

    PwC’s work with the defence department also nearly doubled in 2020, reaching $127 million. This work makes up nearly 70 per cent of PwC’s overall government contracts.

    The post EY’s Health dept revenue triples during COVID appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • John Brumby on Victoria’s $2b innovation fund

    Victoria’s $2 billion commercialisation fund will lead to a “quantum shift” for the state, according to former Premier John Brumby, who will chair the new fund.

    The Breakthrough Victoria Fund, which will provide funding to local companies for R&D adoption and commercialisation over the next decade, is now up and running with the government establishing a new company and appointing its board and chief executive officer.

    Mr Brumby, who is now Chancellor of La Trobe University and chair of Biocurate after serving as Victorian Premier from 2007 to 2010, is the fund’s first chair. He said the fund is one of the most significant state policies in industry development ever and would drive Victoria’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

    John Brumby
    John Brumby: The former Premier will chair the state’s new innovation fund

    “Our ambitions are big. It’s the biggest investment that the state has ever made in science, technology and innovation, and I think it’s going to drive some big results for the state,” Mr Brumby told InnovationAus.

    “Those results will come through business growth, employment growth, productivity enhancement and als through early-stage investment. We’ll be building on some of the brilliant science that we’ve got here, creating new companies, and hopefully breakthroughs that will change the state,” he said.

    “This is a quantum shift in terms of what any government has ever done in Victoria before.”

    Mr Brumby said that across his career in politics and since, he had witnessed first-hand Australia’s long-standing commercialisation woes, and this was something the fund would help to address.

    “This is the big issue for Australia. We’ve had, and continue to have, a fantastic reputation in terms of research, and what we do in our universities and industries, but in terms of how we translate that into therapeutics, into drugs, into products and into manufactured goods that generate jobs and make a difference in the world, we’ve been pretty poor at that,” he said.

    “That’s been an Australian problem for the best part of the last 30 to 40 years. The movement is all in the right direction, but we’re still in this position where we do well, rank well and perform well in the research space – but far too little of what we do turns into things that make a difference in the world.”

    In September last year the Herald Sun asked every former Victorian Premier for their four big ideas to assist Victoria’s economic recovery. Mr Brumby’s first proposal was for a $1 billion fund.

    Soon after the story was published, current Premier Daniel Andrews called Mr Brumby, saying this was the standout idea from the piece, and something which fitted with what the state was looking to do.

    Two months later, the state budget provided $2 billion over 10 years for the Breakthrough Victoria Fund. A guaranteed $200 million would be deployed annually over the forward estimates.

    The fund’s investments would focus on health, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, agri-food and digital technologies.

    It will fund a range of grants, repayable loans, equity and joint ventures, through partnerships with private investors, superannuation, venture capital and the federal government.

    It will also be centred on Victoria’s innovation and employment precincts, including Parkville, Arden and Macauley, Bundoora, Clayton and Fishermans Bend.

    “An early task will be to identify what’s in scope in those sectors. We’ve identified some precinct areas, which are particularly around the key innovation and employment precincts and universities,” Mr Brumby said.

    “What we do in those five sectors is going to be the key to the new businesses and jobs we will see in the future – it’s exactly the right time and right place.”

    Mr Brumby said the Breakthrough Victoria Fund will have two lines of potential investment opportunities.

    “The first will be projects with strong commercial potential, to accelerate productivity, grow exports, support domestic manufacturing and create jobs across the R&D pathway. The second element is to consider transformational projects that are early-stage projects bringing together the best and brightest from the research community,” Mr Brumby said.

    “We want to be intervening early to get breakthroughs and those proposals that often don’t get funded because of market failures, they’re just too early.”

    The fund’s other board members include former SEEK chief executive Andrew Bassat, former Deakin University vice-chancellor Jane den Hollander and Victorian chief scientist Dr Amanda Caples.

    The fund’s inaugural chief executive will be former Federation Square CEO Xavier Csar.

    A spokesperson for the state government said an investment plan would be finalised by June, with the first round of investments to be made by the end of the year.

    “The coronavirus pandemic highlighted the importance of having a diverse, innovative economy and secure employment. This initiative will increase our economic resilience by unlocking more growth in sectors with strong fundamentals and investing in opportunities that can support the state’s economic performance over the long term,” the spokesperson told InnovationAus.

    “We know Victoria has some of the best minds in the world, producing some of the most advanced research. The fund will cement Victoria’s international reputation as a destination for investment, research and global talent.”

    There are plans to hold industry forums in May and June this year for parties interested in the Breakthrough Victoria Fund.

    Two other venture funds are also being established by the Victorian government for early and later stage firms in Victoria.

    The $61 million Victorian Startup Capital Fund will be providing cash for early-stage startups over three years, while the $25 million Venture Growth Fund will see the state government co-investing into a venture debt facility along with a private investor.

    The recent budget also included a $50 million fund for low-interest loans for eligible companies accessing the federal government’s research and development tax incentive. It will provide for up to 80 percent of a company’s forecast refundable tax offset.

    The post John Brumby on Victoria’s $2b innovation fund appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Accenture wins big via ATO during pandemic year

    Accenture landed a series of prominent contracts with the Australian Taxation Office during 2020, with the Irish-headquartered consulting giant increasing its government work significantly last year.

    The federal government’s overall spend with Accenture reached $358.4 million in the 2020 pandemic year, up nearly 15 per cent from the previous year. But the overall value of contracts awarded to Accenture in 2020 was $786.4 million.

    The bulk of Accenture’s work in 2020 came from the Australian Tax Office (ATO), with a number of large contracts signed late in the year and not properly kicking in until 2021.

    money currency
    Big Nellie: Would sing a song for Accenture over sales numbers in 2020

    To calculate these figures, InnovationAus analysed all contracts active in 2019 and 2020 as posted to tenders.gov.au, in order to investigate the use of contractors and consultants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    For the yearly spend, InnovationAus measured the length of each contract, calculated the daily expenditure for that work, and multiplied that figure by the number of days each contract was active during the periods being investigated.

    Last year was shaped by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the focus and spending of the government centred on the health crisis. There was a significant uptick in the reliance on outsourcing and private consultants across a range of departments and projects, particularly those involved with the direct response to the pandemic.

    Overall, government contracts increased by more than $20 billion or 6 per cent, reaching $331.275 billion in 2020.

    Accenture enjoyed a sharp uptick in work with the ATO in 2020, with the total value of this work in that year increased by just under 40 per cent compared to 2019. Accenture received about $187.5 million from work with the ATO last year alone, making up more than half of its overall government work.

    Contracts that Accenture landed with the ATO included for digital delivery solutions, computer services, Horizon Web Scanning services and the business registries improvement program.

    Of the contracts actually signed during the COVID-19 pandemic, Accenture landed two deals worth more than $40 million each.

    The consulting firm will be paid $40.5 million for a computer services single touch payroll and super program of work, and a further $43.3 million for “ITX / ITAPS performance testing PoW”.

    Both of these contracts were signed late in 2020, with the bulk of the work to be conducted in the following years.

    Accenture also landed a $2.2 million contract for the provision of computer services, and a $3.4 million job offering strategic support services.

    The firm saw a significant decrease in the value of its work with the Department of Defence in 2020, falling from $126.9 million in 2019 to $92.3 million last year, equating to a near 30 percent drop.

    The post Accenture wins big via ATO during pandemic year appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Govt drops ball on data breach penalty reform

    Two years after promising “tough” new penalties for data breaches, the government is still yet to actually introduce the reforms, despite acknowledging at the time that the current scheme “falls short”.

    In March 2019, Attorney-General Christian Porter and then-Communications Minister Mitch Fifield unveiled a new penalty regime under the Privacy Act, in the wake of the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

    The government said it would increase the current maximum penalty for a data breach from $2.1 million to $10 million, or 10 per cent of the company’s annual domestic turnover.

    parliament
    Data breach? The urgency about penalising data breaches has left the building

    The reforms would also see the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) with new infringement notice powers with new penalties of up to $63,000 for companies and $12,600 for individuals who fail to assist to resolve a breach.

    A spokesperson for the Attorney-General’s department said draft legislation for the reforms would be released for consultation in May, after it was initially promised in the second half of 2019.

    In Senate Estimates on Tuesday, representatives from the Attorney-General’s department said this delay was due to the focus on COVIDSafe and “other priorities”.

    This is despite the draft legislation being promised well before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    At the time, the federal government said that the “existing protections and penalties for misuse of Australians’ personal information under the Privacy Act fall short of community expectations”. These protections and penalties are still in place now, two years later.

    Shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity Tim Watts criticised the delay, pointing to the fact the OAIC is still yet to seek a financial penalty for a data breach under the current scheme.

    “In typical Morrison government fashion, despite tough talk and media fanfare these reforms were announced but never delivered,” Mr Watts said.

    “The Attorney-General has acknowledged the problem but two years on has failed to get on with the job of making the necessary changes.”

    At a Senate Estimates hearing on Tuesday night, Attorney-General’s deputy secretary Sarah Chidgey said the legislation had now been “substantially” drafted ahead of its release in the coming months.

    “The team that works on the legislation and the Privacy Act review has also dealt with other priorities, for example the COVIDSafe legislation. That took quite a significant effort to deal with some of those issues,” Ms Chidgey told the Senators.

    The department is undertaking a significant review of the Privacy Act following the competition watchdog’s digital platforms inquiry. The review was launched in late 2019. Submissions to this review have been used to inform the data breach penalties legislation, the department said.

    The final report from this review is expected to be handed to the government by October.

    Australian Information Commissioner Angelene Falk said she would welcome the increase in her powers to match those of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and in the Europe Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

    It’s fair to say that the GDPR does contain additional rights and obligations and it’s to that end that I’ve made a submission to the government’s review of the Privacy Act and made some recommendations that we ought to consider some of those international developments,” Ms Falk said at Estimates.

    “I welcome changes and improvements to the regulatory toolkit that I currently have and I’m looking forward to the legislation that goes to these matters and the progress of the review that more broadly is being conducted by the department.”

    The post Govt drops ball on data breach penalty reform appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Plans approved for Western Sydney Startup Hub

    The NSW Government’s proposed Western Sydney Startup Hub has been given planning approval, paving the way for heritage buildings in North Parramatta to be “sensitively restored” for entrepreneurs.

    Some 1,500 square metres of affordable co-working space is to be built at the new hub, as well as a café and a shared event space to tap into the rapidly growing Western Sydney population and business community.

    The planned tech hub is situated on the historic Parramatta North Heritage Core site on the banks of the Parramatta river. Local residents and conservation groups have objected to the use of the buildings, particularly the nationally-heritage listed Female Factory.

    Western Sydney Startup Hub
    Western Sydney Startup Hub gets the go-ahead

    In early March, the Sydney Central City Planning Panel approved development of the site in a split four to one decision. The panel noted community objections including the hub limiting public use of the historic site and funding for the project being diverted from planned repairs to the heritage site.

    But it said it was satisfied the proposed works are “sympathetic to their location” on the historic site and acknowledged the council had secured approval from Heritage NSW for the proposal.

    On Tuesday the minister for Jobs, Investment, Tourism and Western Sydney Stuart Ayres announced the approval, saying it gave the green light to the project which has been in the works in various forms since 2018.

    “We can activate part of this prized heritage precinct in a way that will not only respect and conserve its past but ensure its viable future as the heart of startup business and innovation in Western Sydney.”

    The state plans to open the Western Sydney Startup Hub by the end of the year but is yet to announce an operator for the facility, having set a timeline to do so by next month.

    The Western Sydney facility follows the establishment of a Sydney Startup Hub in the CBD in 2018. The York Street facility is now home to 2,500 residents from startups and accelerators like Fisburners, The Studio and Stone & Chalk, as well as corporate scaleup programs from the likes of Microsoft, Optus and Westpac.

    Mr Ayers said a similar facility was needed for Western Sydney.

    “We are giving them the space to turn their ideas into commercial realities that will lead to more investment and jobs in the region.

    “We will employ best-practice conservation methods to sensitively reinstate the national heritage-listed buildings for their future use.”

    Member for Parramatta Geoff Lee said the hub will be a transformational project for Parramatta.

    “We cannot wait to start welcoming startups, scaleups, businesses and the local community to the Western Sydney Startup Hub by the end of this year. It will be a transformative place and puts the Central City on the startup and innovation ecosystem map.”

    The post Plans approved for Western Sydney Startup Hub appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Crowdsource talent to cut consultancy ‘fat’

    Australian governments could tap into millions of highly qualified experts and slash consultancy “fat” by opening up their tender process to crowd sourcing, Freelancer chief executive Matt Barrie says.

    The ASX-listed Freelancer platform – home to more than 50 million registered freelancers – last week announced it was working with the US Bureau of Reclamation to help find the experts needed to automate parts of American hydropower plants.

    The partnership is part of a joint US$25 million tender Freelancer won from NASA to deliver a series of innovation “challenges” on behalf of US government departments.

    Matt Barrie
    Matt Barrie: Crowdsourcing talent is an innovation driver that governments can tap

    Matt Barrie told InnovationAus that the crowdsourcing model is more than viable for Australia too, and the company has begun conversations with the federal government on similar initiatives, although he says it is still early days.

    He argues Australian government departments could tap the global talent market for innovation projects when local talent is scarce, or access local skills in a more cost-effective way than the current outsourcing approach.

    “Ultimately, the people who do the work at the end, as you get through a lot of the fat in these consulting firms, are the same people we have on Freelancer,” Mr Barrie said

    “We have all the analysts and the programmers and designers and the researchers that have the same if not better quality than they [consultants] do.”

    Currently the crowdsourcing company is pitching to test the approach in Australia for several “moonshot” projects with agencies like the Digital Transformation Agency, CSIRO and its digital arm Data61.

    In the US, the model is being run as a competition in the hopes of attracting the best and brightest engineers.

    Under the Automated Maintenance of Protection Systems or AMPS Challenge, Freelancer is offering cash prizes for prototypes and whitepapers. According to Mr Barrie, the prize model leads to more innovation than traditional tender process.

    Winners then have the chance to sign a government contract with the US department.

    NASA is bullish on the potential of crowdsourcing generally. A 2018 whitepaper by the US agency on crowdsourcing and micro purchasing concluded the approach can achieve “extraordinary” cost savings of between 80 per cent and 99 per cent compared to traditional methods.

    “Furthermore,” the whitepaper concludes, “NASA implemented a majority of the[crowdsourced] solutions (97 per cent) across a wide range of its federal space programs. By matchmaking needs with skills on-demand in areas where NASA teams did not have the expertise nor resources available, crowds delivered high quality and creative work.”

    According to Mr Barrie, the approach is effectively what leading management consultants already do in Australia, albeit on a large scale that nets the biggest firms hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts each year.

    “How would you build a Deloitte for the future? Well, you can just go to Freelancer, pick out the best talent and build your own little workforce and then go and basically market that up and go sell it to government,” he said.

    “That’s effectively what Deloitte does [already], and BCG and McKinsey do: they find good people in the market and on sell them.”

    The Freelancer chief executive said the crowdsourcing model is gaining steam regardless.

    “The defining characteristic of the 21st century is the competition for intellectual capital,” Mr Barrie said, pointing to declining rates of population across the western world and drops in discretionary spend on education.

    “Intellectual capital is becoming more and more scarce. And if you want niche skill sets, increasingly you need to go online to find them.”

    Freelancer is urging more engineers to sign up to the platform and compete for the US prize, joining the 2.5 million already onboard, including 260,000 who specialize in electrical engineering.

    The post Crowdsource talent to cut consultancy ‘fat’ appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • AMA raises alarm over data sharing plan

    The Australian Medical Association has sounded the alarm over the federal government’s flagship new data-sharing scheme, warning there are no minimum privacy protections and that private health information could be shared with insurance firms.

    The government introduced the Data Availability and Transparency Act to Parliament in December last year, after nearly three years of development and consultation. The legislation facilitates a significant expansion of the sharing of public sector data between agencies and private organisations, sometimes without consent.

    It will provide a “new path” for the sharing of this data that is currently blocked by secrecy provisions or other laws and will see far more identified data be shared among agencies and departments, and for de-identified data be shared with universities and think tanks, among other organisations.

    people
    People: The AMA has concerns about sharing of health data

    There will be no opt-out options from the data-sharing scheme for individuals, and consent will be required unless it is “unreasonable or impracticable to obtain”.

    The legislation was quickly referred to a Senate committee for an inquiry, which is expected to table its report by the end of April.

    In a submission to the inquiry, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) said it is “impossible to overstate” how concerned it is about the new laws.

    The organisation’s primary concern is that the bill does not include minimum privacy protections, with agencies allowed to determine their own privacy settings for sharing data. The legislation merely requires agencies to be satisfied that the sharing principles are being applied in a way that “risks associated with the sharing are appropriately mitigated”.

    These principles are also “inherently subjective”, the AMA said.

    “This means that, unless an agency had no regard to the data sharing principles or failed to comply with other procedural requirements, it would be difficult to ‘second guess’ their decision,” the AMA submission said.

    “This leaves the public with little comfort that they will have redress – or that the officials and agency will be penalised – if decisions are made recklessly or negligently.”

    There is also no power for the Data Commissioner to have to approve of the sharing of data before it happens, or to require changes to this plan.

    The AMA called on the government to make amendments requiring all of the data principles be satisfied before any data is shared, for decisions to share data to be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and for the Commissioner to have more powers to intervene.

    The medical body raised concern that the new powers will see healthcare information, such as from the MBS and PBS, being shared with private health funds for “their own purposes”, which is currently prohibited by law.

    “It makes no sense to preclude My Health Record data from the data sharing scheme, but then permit the same MBS / PBS data to be directly shared with private health insurers. This is not consistent with the public’s expectations and has the potential to undermine the community-rated private health insurance system,” the submission said.

    The data-sharing scheme only requires consent to be obtained from individuals “unless it is unreasonable or impracticable to seek their consent”, and this could lead to very personal information being shared without consent, the AMA said.

    “It is entirely foreseeable that this exception will be used to justify the disclosure of MBS and PBS datasets of identified or identifiable sensitive health information without patient consent,” it said.

    The bill allows agencies and departments to undertake the de-identification of personal data in-house, with them only having to “consider” the use of accredited data service providers.

    “The well-publicised privacy breaches involving Medicare provider numbers and Myki travel information demonstrate well-intentioned officers may not be trained to appropriately anonymise personal information,” the AMA said.

    The medical body said the de-identification of any data should be outsourced by default, and any decision not to do this should be subject to AAT review.

    The scheme does not allow individuals to make complaints about the sharing of their data, with the only avenues being the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. And as the AMA points out, the agencies and departments only have to comply with the new legislation to prove there has not been an interference with privacy.

    “This means that they will have no grounds for complaint and no right to seek compensation, regardless of how poor the agencies’ processes were or the inadequacies of their risk assessment processes,” the AMA said.

    The government should amend the legislation to make the complaints process less legalistic and to empower individuals to make complaints to the Data Commissioner, and to allow these complaints to be anonymous.

    The Data Commissioner also came under question in the AMA submission for its conflict of interest.

    As the explanatory memorandum sets out, the Commissioner will “provide advice, advocacy and guidance to ensure the scheme operates as intended”, while it will also “work with data scheme entities to build data capability, promote best practice data sharing and use and address cultural barriers to sharing”.

    This dual role of advocating for the sharing of data while also regulating the sharing of data is troublesome, the AMA said.

    “If an agency seeks advice from the Data Commissioner prior to entering into a data sharing agreement, there is a potential conflict at the point of providing advice between the Data Commissioner’s role of promoting safety and their role of promoting sharing,” it said.

    “Moreover, if the data is subsequently re-identified or a complaint is made, the Data Commissioner will be investigating a data sharing agreement that they advised on.”

    The Privacy Commissioner should be given a greater role to combat this conflict of interest, the AMA recommended.

    A bipartisan group of senators have also questioned the data-sharing legislation, specifically raising concerns over a lack of detail in the legislation and the absence of privacy safeguards.

    The post AMA raises alarm over data sharing plan appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • If you want a patent, it helps to be human

    Earlier this year IP Australia rejected a patent application from Dabus. The problem: Dabus is not human, it is artificial artificial intelligence software that had come up with something the man behind it, Dr Stephen Thaler, considered patentable. But in Australia, only a real person can hold a patent.

    Dr Thaler also filed patents the US, EU and UK on behalf of Dabus. All were rejected. So why did Dr Thaler not file the patent in his own name?

    To claim credit for an invention that is not your own is a breach of intellectual property law, and in some countries, including the US, can render a patent invalid or unenforceable.

    data artificial intelligence
    It helps to be human: Artificial intelligence is complicated

    Similar issues arise if copyright is claimed on behalf of a creation of AI, for example a portrait that could well have been by Rembrandt, but was in fact produced by an AI system that had been fed with a great deal of data about Rembrandt’s paintings and his technique.

    These thorny issues were discussed at length by Ryan Abbott and Paul Nolan in a webinar AI, Dabus and the Future of IP Law, hosted by the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPSANZ) and Macquarie Law School, supported by Australian society for computers and law.

    Professor Abbott is Professor of Law and Health Sciences at the University of Surrey School of Law, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, and author of The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law.

    Mr Nolan is an Australian solicitor and barrister and author of an article, Artificial Intelligence: Inventorship and Patent Ownership – Are the Planets Lining Up? In the September 2020 edition of IPSANZ’s IP Forum journal.

    AI’s inventors don’t invent its output

    Professor Abbott said it would likely not be possible to attribute the patent for an AI generated invention to any of the people involved for the purposes of patenting that invention.

    “You could have a team of 1000s of programmers making an AI with some level of general problem-solving ability, you can have another team using it, you could have another team training it on data, you could have it producing output that is obviously valuable and patentable. But it’s not clear you could list those people as inventors under current legal standards.”

    In the case of copyright, Professor Abbott said the UK, back in 1988, had amended copyright law so that, for an AI-generated work lacking a traditional human author, the person who undertook to have the work created was deemed to be the author.

    Only a human can hold copyright

    However, US law requires a human author for copyright, but “That’s not a statute. That’s a copyright office policy that’s never been challenged in court,” Professor Abbott said.

    He has initiated patent applications for AI-generated inventions in a number of jurisdictions and these have been rejected by the US, the UK, the EU and Australia, but still under appeal in others.

    He argues that some resolution is needed, or technological progress will be stymied.

    “As we continue to see advances in AI, and AI contributing to research and development in increasingly autonomous ways, this use of AI is going to have substantial social benefits. We want AI that can design better self-driving cars and can find cures for COVID and can do all sorts of wonderful things.

    “And if we believe in the patent system as a means of incentivising innovation, then this provides that incentive. It makes the output of the AI more valuable; it encourages the use and development of AI.”

    Court decisions

    Mr Nolan described in detail attempts in the UK and Australia to secure a patent in the name of Dabus, which went to appeal in the UK. The court rejected the idea that either Dabus or its inventor, Dr Stephen Thaler could gain a patent for a Dabus invention.

    The court ruled that Dabus could not be an inventor because it is not a person, and furthermore, because it is a thing, it could not hold property, such as a patent, let alone transfer it. Nor could Thaler file for a patent for a Dabus invention simply by being the owner of Dabus.

    However Nixon then flagged a postscript to the judgement, which left open the possibility that the owner or operator of AI could claim ownership of its invention.

    In his postscript the judge did not regard the argument that the owner/controller of AI invention to be wrong, saying only it was not a question to be considered in the appeal and “it would be wrong to regard this judgment as discouraging an applicant from at least advancing the contention if so advised.”

    AI makes a passable author

    Professor Abbott said it would likely take years to resolve the issue of AI and patents. Meanwhile, the implications of AI for copyright law is a much more immediate problem.

    “AI is getting to the point where it can produce mediocre work. For things like short journal articles, people can’t tell the difference between things written by an AI and things written by a person. And I suspect, in the not too distant future, AI is going to be able to generate a massive amount of mediocre work at no marginal cost.”

    The post If you want a patent, it helps to be human appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Floodgates open for consultants in pandemic year

    Multinational management consulting firms have enjoyed an extraordinarily good year in Canberra. Federal government spending on advice and services from the global outfits soared by hundreds of millions of dollars during the 2020 pandemic compared to virus-free 2019.

    Spending with the global consulting houses jumped by 23 per cent in 2020, a sharp increase of more than $225 million for the calendar year, from $991 million in 2019 to more than $1.21 billion in 2020.

    An investigation of federal government tenders’ data by InnovationAus.com found virtually all of the consulting giants enjoyed a bumper year during the pandemic.

    tenders
    The good paddock: Global consultants enjoying a pandemic boom in Canberra

    KPMG’s federal government revenue swelled by $43.5 million during 2020, up 21 per cent from $203.3 million in 2019 to $247.9 million.

    This included a 261 per cent increase in work with the Health department and a $50.4 million increase in spending with the company by the Department of Defence, a growth rate of 35 per cent for 2020 over 2019.

    KPMG’s stellar performance is by no means a stand-out.

    Deloitte grew its federal government business by 36 per cent for the year, growing revenues by a staggering $57.5 million, from $156.7 million in 2019 to more than $214.2 million in the 2020 COVID year.

    Deloitte’s numbers included a 106 per cent increase in revenue from the Industry department for the year from $8.1 million to $16.6 million, and a more than ten times increase in revenue derived from the Digital Transformation Agency, from $2.3 million to $29 million.

    The InnovationAus investigation started from a simple hypothesis: That federal spending on management consultants increased during the pandemic. Looking at the government’s own data at tenders.gov.au, we compared spending during the 2019 pre-pandemic calendar year with government spending during the COVID year 2020.

    The calendar year data is somewhat confused by the publishing of all contracts – including multi-year contracts – that were active for a least part of the reporting year.

    Our investigated took into account the length of each contract, calculated the per-day value of each contract, then calculated the number of days the contract was active during a particular calendar year and the specific value of the contract that could be applied to that year.

    It is not a perfect methodology but gives a far clearer picture of year-on-year growth in spending than the raw data provided by the tenders.gov.au website. If anything, the methodology underestimates the growth in spending with the consultants for the year.

    Of all the global consulting giants, only PwC’s revenues derived from government remained flat at about $189 million for both 2019 and 2020. This is understood to have been the result in part of a drop-off in work at Services Australia.

    But the company enjoyed stellar revenue growth in other parts of government. Revenue from the Health department jumped by more than 110 per cent from $6.6 million to $14.2 million, while revenue from the Defence department climbed by $60.8 million to $127 million in 2020, an increase of more than 90 per cent.

    In the coming days, InnovationAus will publish detailed breakdowns of individual departments and agencies with the global consulting houses.

    The post Floodgates open for consultants in pandemic year appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • BCG and McKinsey govt contracts double in 2020

    The dollar value in government contracts awarded to Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey doubled in 2020, with both large US management consultant firms enjoying a sharp increase in federal work during the pandemic.

    The value of contracts awarded to Boston Consulting Group (BCG) increased by 105 per cent year-on-year in 2020, rising from a total spend in 2019 of $15.1 million to $31 million last year, according to an InnovationAus investigation.

    The total value of contracts held by BCG that were either awarded last year or that were still active during 2020 was $60.3 million. This included an increase of more than 200 per cent in the dollar value of contracts awarded to BCG by the Industry department for work specifically related to the pandemic or Australia’s economic recovery from it.

    For fellow American management consultancy McKinsey, the value of government contracts jumped by 173 per cent, or nearly tripled. The total spend in 2019 on McKinsey work for the government was $18.5 million, which soared to $50.6 million in 2020.

    This included a more than 1000 per cent increase in work from the Digital Transformation Agency across a range of projects.

    To calculate these figures, InnovationAus analysed all contracts active in those years as posted to tenders.gov.au, to compare 2019 to the pandemic year of 2020. The reporting structure involves the reporting of any contract that is active in that period.

    For the yearly spend, InnovationAus measured the length of each contract, calculated the daily expenditure for that work, and multiplied that figure by the number of days each contract was active during the periods being investigated.

    Last year was shaped by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with the focus and spending of the government focusing on the health crisis. There was an increased reliance on outsourcing and private consultants across a range of departments and projects.

    Overall, government contracts increased by more than $20 billion or 6 per cent, reaching $331.275 billion in 2020.

    The InnovationAus analysis revealed that BCG’s growth largely stemmed from increased demand for the company’s services from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources and from the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA), both key departments and agencies during the COVID-19 response.

    The DTA did not award any contracts to BCG in 2019, but handed the firm $2.232 million during 2020 across a range of projects, including the development of the much-maligned COVIDSafe contact tracing app.

    BCG earned $1 million for its work on COVIDSafe, providing an advisory role in the early phase of its development. The firm was also contracted for whole-of-government ICT policy and governance and a funding options analysis worth $875,000.

    DTA chief executive Randall Brugeaud worked briefly at BCG from 2008 to 2010, while former DTA chief strategy officer Anthony Vlasic left the agency in February 2020 to join BCG.

    BCG’s work with the Industry department jumped sharply by 234 pe cent in 2020 compared with the previous year, from $684,000 to $2.2 million during the pandemic.

    These contracts included a first pass report on the supply chain resilience initiative, worth $330,000 for one months’ work, and a new $5.5 million contract for “model delivery, consultancy services and reports” for the industry department.

    The firm was also awarded an $80,000 contract to provide advice on integrating gas modelling for the department, a key facet of the government’s COVID-19 economic recovery plan.

    McKinsey’s increase in government contracts came largely from Services Australia and the DTA.

    The firm enjoyed a near-1000 percent increase in the dollar value of its contracts with the DTA last year, from just $186,000 in 2019 to $1.9 million in 2020.

    McKinsey won a $1 million contract in May last year to develop a business case for a revamped version of the myGov platform which Deloitte is building. It also was awarded $1 million to work on a new visa processing platform.

    The firm’s work with Services Australia increased by 281 per cent, from just under $6 million to $22.9 million in 2020. This comes after McKinsey helped to design Services Australia itself in late 2019 under a near-$1 million contract.

    Services Australia now accounts for 45 per cent of McKinsey’s government work, while the DTA accounts for 3 per cent.

    McKinsey’s three contracts with Services Australia in 2020 were all for “business advisory services”, with one of these contracts worth $8.6 million over eight months.

    The public sector union last week raised concerns that Services Australia had been “run down” by a reliance on outsourcing and private contractors which has led to “substandard” IT delivery.

    “Services Australia has lost sights of the benefits of in-house ICT development. A lack of career paths for ICT professionals and the government’s bargaining approach have impacted the agency’s ability to attract and retain ICT talent,” the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) said in a submission to government.

    “The CPSU has been vocal about the phenomenal increase in consultancy expenditure both in Services Australia, and the APS more broadly in the past five years.”

    Photo Credit: Shutterstock – canyalcin; mariakray

    The post BCG and McKinsey govt contracts double in 2020 appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Deloitte’s federal work jumps 35% in pandemic

    The value of consulting giant Deloitte’s contracts with the Digital Transformation Agency increased by more than 1,000 percent in 2020 over the previous year, with the company’s overall government pay-cheque up by more than a third during the pandemic year.

    While last year saw Deloitte at one stage cut pay for all employees by 20 per cent and lay off 700 people from its 10,000-strong Australian workforce, the firm has enjoyed bumper growth during the pandemic, including from numerous contracts with the federal government.

    According to an InnovationAus investigation, Deloitte’s total earnings from government work in 2020 was $214 million, up from $156.7 million in the previous year.

    The total value of all contracts and ongoing contracts awarded to Deloitte that were active in 2020 was $508 million.

    Deloitte: Big revenue boost from government through the pandemic. Photo: B-E/Shutterstock.com

    A big chunk of this work came from Services Australia and the Digital Transformation Agency, key departments and agencies for the government during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with Deloitte also working on the redevelopment of myGov and a new visa processing platform, among other projects.

    The government’s spending and focus last year was dominated by the pandemic, with departments and agencies increasing their reliance on outsourcing and private contractors.

    InnovationAus analysed all contracts worth $100,000 or more posted to tenders.gov.au that were active during 2019 and 2020. Our goal was to compare spending during a pandemic year – 2020 – and compare it to 2019, before the pandemic.

    to compare 2019 to the pandemic year of 2020. The reporting structure involves the reporting of any contract that is active in that period. The analysis calculated the value-per-day of multi-year contracts and applied only the number of days the contracts were active during in each year.

    The methodology has its short-comings but provides a far clearer picture of calendar-year spending than is available through tenders.gov.au.

    The total spending by the federal government with Deloitte using this methodology climbed from $156 million in 2019 to more than $214 million in 2020, an increase of more than $57.5 million – or 36 per cent during the pandemic year.

    The total value of contracts awarded to Deloitte that were active in 2019 was $344.5 million, ballooning to $508.1 million worth of contracts with Deloitte that were active during 2020.

    Deloitte’s work with the DTA increased by a staggering 1,189 per cent, from $2.3 million in 2019 to $27.6 million last year. The bulk of this funding came from Deloitte’s dominance over the myGov redevelopment project being led by the DTA and which remains in its early stages.

    Deloitte was initially awarded a near-$1 million contract at the start of 2020 to develop a prototype of a revamped myGov platform as part of a “90-day sprint”. It was subsequently awarded a contract first worth $9.5 million to turn this prototype into a working beta.

    The value of this contract ballooned throughout 2020 across a series of unexplained amendments to the original contract, worth a total of $27 million by the end of the year. Deloitte has continued working on the project through contracts with Services Australia worth more than $5 million.

    The DTA also handed Deloitte $400,000 over three weeks last year for “online portal design, development, testing and implementation”.

    The value of Deloitte’s work with the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources more than doubled last year from $8.1 million in 2019 to $16.6 million in 2020.

    This work included a new platform to deliver the research and development tax incentive, now worth $2.2 million and expected to be launched within months.

    A number of Deloitte’s contracts with the Industry department were for the purchase of IT services, professional advice and project management services. Its work on the small business digital champions project also earned Deloitte about $2.4 million in 2020.

    The department also awarded Deloitte a contract worth $33.7 million over three years for “business facilitation services” thought to be associated with its Entrepreneurs Programme.

    Deloitte’s work with the Department of Defence also increased by more than 25 per cent during the pandemic year, jumping by nearly $19 million, mostly for management advisory services and computer services.

    Deloitte’s performance during has been so strong that the firm recently opted to repay its entire staff the pay reduction it implemented in April last year at the onset of COVID-19.

    The post Deloitte’s federal work jumps 35% in pandemic appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Let’s formalise a ‘Made in Australia’ Office

    Australian companies might be concerned about an increasingly protectionist United States and the spectre of a newly issued Made in America presidential executive order, but the Australian Government is not.

    In Canberra, our government is confident that Australian companies will be treated as if they were American in their procurement dealings with US federal departments and agencies.

    This is despite the creation of a Made in America Office within the powerful Office of Management and Budget of the US federal government, and which is designed specifically to institutionalise Trumpian ‘America First’ rhetoric.

    The Made in America Office will oversee a formalised ‘Buy American’ program. US departments and agencies that want to buy products or services that are not made in the US will need to apply to the office for a special waiver do so.

    Sydney Harbour Bridge
    Iconic: But let’s build it using Australian steel next time

    The expressed aim of the President Joe Biden’s January Made in America executive order is to use government procurement dollars to “help American businesses compete in strategic industries and help America’s workers thrive”.

    The US government is using its procurement muscle to build strategic capability and reap economic benefit. The executive order is a straight-forward and unequivocal document.

    It is designed to send a very clear message to all agency heads, who must report back every six months to declare just how well they are adhering to the executive order.

    In fact, each agency head must report on the amount of spending their agency has made as a result of waivers related to trade agreements, and to also put forward recommendations as to how their agency will improve their Made in America compliance in this regard.

    This sends a powerful message for compliance. It would be a brave agency head that deviated in any way from either the spirit or the letter of this presidential order.

    Even supposing that these heads of US agencies were familiar with the detailed innards of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, the pressure to put a thumb on the scale of local US suppliers is plain for all to see.

    The Australian Government says the Made in America executive order will have no impact on the ability of Australian companies to sell into the US. The Free Trade Agreement means that under the executive order, Australian companies will be treated as if they were American.

    Which frankly does not sound convincing, given that Australian companies will still need a waiver, even if it is considered straight-forward under our FTA arrangements.

    “Australia is confident the United States will meet its international trade obligations – including under the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) – to treat Australian companies the same as American companies, subject to listed exceptions. This includes Australia’s steel producers,” according to a Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman.

    It is understood that the Biden administration has confirmed that the Made in America executive order would be implemented in a way that was consistent with US trade obligations.

    The Department of Finance, which sets federal procurement policy, says the Commonwealth Procurement Framework requires non-discrimination, allowing all suppliers, regardless of origin to compete on their merits.

    “In doing so, this opens up comparable access to overseas markets for Australian businesses,” a Finance spokesman told InnovationAus.

    “Australian businesses are exempt from President Biden’s Made in America Executive Order and under the Australia-US FTA (AUSFTA) and WTO Government Procurement Agreement, the United States is required to treat Australian companies the same as American companies,” the spokesman said.

    Which makes you wonder why the Australian government doesn’t set up its own Made In Australia Office and require all departmental secretaries to report every six months on how they have improved their own agency’s procurement of local good and services – and to explain in detail their own recommendations for how they will continue to improve their performance in sourcing local goods and services.

    If the US is able to easily maintain fidelity to both its trade agreement obligations and to a Made in America policy that aims to improve federal procurement outcomes for American companies and American workers, then sure Australia could do the same.

    Right now, the Australian government’s record of buying Australian products and services in the technology sector is dismal, despite the clear national security spill-over benefits of building sovereign capability in this strategically important sector.

    It’s not easy getting direct quotes on this issue. But Labor’s Industry and Innovation spokesman Ed Husic gives it a go, saying that while Australia is obsessed with dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s on our agreements, our trading partners don’t do the same.

    “They manage to find a way to prioritise trade and the creation of economic benefit. Why can’t we?”

    “We’ve really got to test the commitment of the Coalition to truly supporting local manufacturing,” Mr Husic told InnovationAus.

    “And if we can’t use a pandemic as a good reason to sort out our supply chain issues around sovereign capability, then what would we use? And when would we do it?”

    The post Let’s formalise a ‘Made in Australia’ Office appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • eSignatures are at risk as law update stalls

    Australia’s corporate sector faces uncertainty and increased risk this week after the federal government failed to pass amendments that would confirm companies’ right to hold virtual-only meetings and to execute documents electronically.

    Temporary relief through determinations made at the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic and extended midway through last year allowed companies to use alternative technologies like eSignatures and virtual meetings in situations that had previously required ‘wet ink’ or face to face meetings to fully satisfy corporate laws.

    While some companies were engaging in the practices before the pandemic, the determination provided certainty around the rules and the validity of the virtual meetings and electronic documents.

    eSignatures
    Bit of a stuff-up: eSignatures and virtual meetings put at risk

    But that relief expired on Sunday after the government could not get its planned extension through the Senate, which does not plan to debate the Bill until August. And the government’s permanent reforms will come no earlier than September, according to the current schedule.

    The delay comes despite widespread support for the public health measure now seen as a way of improving efficiency and removing regulatory burdens. Technology vendors also see permanent reforms as potential greenfields for their software applications.

    According to legal experts, the failure to either extend or permanently legislate the changes means that as of Monday, any reading of the Corporations Act can no longer consider the temporary rules that allow the use of virtual meetings and electronic document execution.

    Law firms are now advising corporate clients to revert to “pre-COVID” practice. Typically, that means meetings can no longer be held only virtually and physical signatures are a safer option for executing contracts due to pre-existing uncertainty about the validity of electronic execution under the Corporations Act.

    “Because of that uncertainty people typically require signings to be done in physical form,” Gilbert + Tobin partner Andrew Hii told InnovationAus.

    “Now that all changed during COVID, and the government introduced emergency legislation which gave the Treasurer the power to make determinations. And one of the determinations the Treasurer made was to expressly allow for electronic execution,” he said.

    “Because that’s now lapsed we moved back into this pre-COVID uncertain world. Which means that in practice a lot of entities will be moving back towards physical signing.”

    Mr Hii, a partner in the law firm’s technology and digital group, said in the absence of legislated reform or temporary relief there is potential that some contracts signed will not be enforceable but notes electronic execution is not necessarily invalid.

    Corporations can also rely on other laws to structure contracts in a way that allows electronic execution. But doing so removes the protections afforded by the Corporations act.

    “The question I ask is why would you risk it? And particularly for high value transactions. Are you willing to risk it on the fact that someone hasn’t signed properly?”

    Mr Hii said COVID-19 accelerated the already underway move to electronic document execution and it was disappointing the government could not extend its relief even with bipartisan support.

    “Both sides [of politics] are in support of it, it’s just unfortunate that the bill wasn’t able to be passed last week for other reasons.”

    Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar’s office has been contacted for comment on the status of the laws but a response was not provided.

    Plans to permanently reform the laws are also underway.

    In last year’s federal budget, the government proposed to make the temporary changes permanent by legislating amendments to the Corporations Act. Treasury distributed an exposure draft for review in October and the consultation process concluded in early November.

    But the department has not published any of the submissions.

    A spokesperson for Treasury declined to say how many submissions had been received and said non-confidential submissions “will be made available in due course”.

    Several organisations have self-published their submissions, mostly in support of permanently reform. Government MPs have also told the parliament there has been “positive feedback” on the consultation and they are committed to permanent reforms.

    On Wednesday, Amendments to Treasury Laws that extend the temporary measures and make small changes passed the House of Representatives, to push back the deadline for using alternative technology to run meetings and execute documents.

    The temporary measures had already been extended once before and the goal was to do so again, creating a new deadline in September and allowing more time to introduce permanent reforms.

    Labor and the Greens opposed the amendments because they were bundled with what Labor says is a watering down of continuous disclosure laws for companies. The changes passed the House but remain before the Senate.

    Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar told Parliament last week permanent changes would be in place by the time the temporary extension ends in September when an opt-in pilot will also run to test hybrid AGMs.

    “The government will continue to work to ensure that regulatory settings are fit-for-purpose as we continue to deal with, and emerge from, the COVID-19 pandemic as part of Australia’s Economic Recovery Plan to create jobs, rebuild our economy and secure Australia’s future,” Mr Sukkar said.

    The post eSignatures are at risk as law update stalls appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Push for second vaccine maker too late?

    Pharmaceutical manufacturer IDT Australia is undertaking a feasibility study to assess the possibility of supplementing production of the COVID-19 vaccine in Australia.

    IDT will assess the possibility of using its sterile production facilities to supplement local supplies, following a Department of Health request.

    This comes as the federal government is being criticised for a slow and poorly planned rollout of vaccination.

    IDT vaccine manufacturer
    Vaccines: IDT a second option for vaccine manufacturing

    The Therapeutic Goods Administration gave approval for CSL to manufacture the AstraZeneca vaccine in Melbourne in a statement released on Sunday. See separate story here.

    Less than one per cent of the Australian population has been vaccinated, while some countries such as Israel are already at 109 per cent, the UK is at 43 and the United States at 36.

    Only 240,000 Australians have been vaccinated – 1.0 per cent of the population, about the same level as Cambodia and Senegal.

    The federal Department of Health’s Australian vaccine agreements webpage updated in February said there would be “10 million doses available from early 2021.”

    This is simply not the case, and only partly because the European Union has restricted 250,000 doses from being exported to Australia.

    Australia is now, apparently, solely reliant on manufacture of the Astea/Zeneca vaccine at CSL in Melbourne.

    Yet, as @AuManufacturing reported in August, IDT Australia responded back then to federal government appeals.

    IDT said in August it was capable and prepared to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines.

    Chief executive officer David Sparling said then: “IDT has already been involved in the government’s response during the initial phase of the COVID-19 crisis.

    “IDT has made a submission to (the federal government’s) request for information because we want to continue to play a role in Australia’s COVID-19 response.”

    Seven months ago the Health Department asked for and was offered additional vaccine manufacturing facilities.

    Apparently it did nothing.

    Australian manufacturing is often criticised. But in the case of the COVID-19 vaccine it was capable, it had the facilities, it was ready to respond, but it was simply not given the chance until this past week.

    Manufacturing was simply not given a go.

    The post Push for second vaccine maker too late? appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Why the rush? Online Safety Bill still not passed

    The Online Safety Bill will not be passed by Parliament until May at the earliest, despite the rushed process behind the federal government’s controversial legislation.

    The Online Safety Bill, which extends the eSafety Commissioner’s takedown scheme to Australian adults and allows for the issuing or removal notices for content deemed to be R18+ or higher and the ordering for sites or apps to be blocked if they fail to comply, was introduced to the Senate last week.

    There are significant concerns around the legislation, including the discretion it hands the eSafety Commissioner, its potential impact on sex workers and activists and the potential to further undermine encryption.

    data online safety bill
    The eyes have it? The Online Safety Bill is still before parliament

    The government revealed a number of amendments to the legislation following negotiations with the Opposition, centred around improved transparency and reviews of the sweeping new powers.

    But the bill wasn’t brought on for debate and was not passed before Parliament rose for the sitting week. With Senate Estimates this week and the Easter break, Parliament does not return for a full sitting week until the end of May, presenting the next opportunity for the Online Safety Bill to be passed into law.

    Shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity Tim Watts said the Opposition would continue to work with the government on the proposed amendments during this delay.

    “Despite significant delays and much media spruiking the government still hasn’t been able to deliver legislation that adequately addresses serious stakeholder concerns,” Mr Watts told InnovationAus.

    “It’s been two and a half years since the Briggs Review recommended a new Online Safety Act. Instead of getting on and delivering it, the government has been spruiking the Bill in the media as if it were already law for two years.”

    The government could have used this extra time to consult on the legislation and address the issues around it, Electronic Frontiers Australia board member Justin Warren said.

    “It is disturbing that the government plans to hand a large amount of largely unchecked power to a single person when it hasn’t even figured out how to safely use that power,” Mr Warren told InnovationAus.

    “The current Commissioner told the Senate that ‘this is the sausage being made right now’. ‘Move fast and break things’ is what got us in this mess in the first place,” Mr Warren said.

    “These are not new issues, so it is entirely reasonable for us to expect the government to have figured out these details before asking for more power. It’s just another example of the government not doing its homework and then rushing to turn in something, anything, at the last moment. Australians deserve better.”

    The short process from revealing draft legislation to introducing it into Parliament has led to a number of issues, Mr Warren said.

    “EFA is very disappointed that the government has ignored the detailed and constructive feedback on the bill from a broad and diverse cross-section of Australian society. When this many people, who frequently disagree with each other, are all telling you you’ve got it wrong, you should pay attention,” he said.

    “The hasty drafting of the legislation has removed a variety of oversight mechanisms and safeguards that already exist, while extending Australia’s outdated censorship regime to cover private, person-to-person messages.”

    The two-month delay comes after a rushed process where the government only provided three working days for stakeholders to make submissions to a senate committee inquiry into the bill.

    A draft version of the Online Safety Bill was unveiled in December last year, with a consultation process running over the Summer break to 14 February.

    Despite receiving nearly 400 submissions, the government introduced the bill to the lower house just 10 days later.

    The submissions also weren’t made public until after the legislation was introduced to Parliament.

    The bill was quickly referred to a Senate committee, with further submissions due just three working days later.

    The committee soon gave the legislation the green light, and it was passed by the House of Representatives last week with bipartisan support.

    Labor voted in favour of the bill but raised a number of concerns and flagged further amendments in the upper house.

    The government announced it would be amending its own legislation in the Senate, requiring the reporting on the use of the powers by the eSafety Commissioner, and for the formulation of a reviews scheme within the office.

    Tim Watts said the timeframe around the legislation “undermined confidence” in it.

    “It is disappointing that the government has proved incapable of conducting a process that satisfies stakeholders in terms of process and substance,” Mr Watts said in Parliament.

    The Greens will be voting against the legislation because it is “poorly drafted and could lead to widespread, unintended consequences”.

    The post Why the rush? Online Safety Bill still not passed appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • A cyber-savvy nation through reskilling

    So great is the shortage of cybersecurity skills in Australia that organisations have no hope of recruiting the people they need and must instead resort to casting a wider net and training suitable candidates with the skills needed to combat the growing threats they now face.

    That’s the view of Professor Richard Buckland, professor in cybercrime cyberwar and cyberterror at the School of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and director of SECedu, the Australian Cybersecurity Education Network.

    In Scaling Cyber Skills, an episode of the Bridging the Cyber Divide video series produced as a partnership between InnovationAus and CyberArk, Prof Buckland said there were 600 students undertaking cybersecurity training at UNSW – a twelvefold increase in five years – and all already had jobs to go to.

    CyberArk
    Nationwide reskilling: Bruce Nixon, James Riley and Richard Buckland on cyber skills

    “I get people all the time saying, ‘Can you give me your best students, I’ve got buckets of money,’ and I have to say, ‘I can’t even give you my worst students – they’re already gobbled up even before they graduate’,” he said.

    A report published last month by RMIT and Deloitte Access Economics estimated that 87 per cent of jobs in Australia required digital skills, and the country needed 156,000 new technology workers to keep pace with the rapid transformation of businesses.

    An even greater shortage was identified by AlphaBeta in a study commissioned by AWS. It estimated Australia would need an additional 6.5 million newly skilled and reskilled digital workers by 2025, a 79 per cent increase.

    A more precise measure of the shortage of cybersecurity skills, by both skill and location, is provided by CyberSeek, a tool created by cybersecurity company CyberCX and the Australian Cyber Security Growth Network, AustCyber. It has developed a heatmap that show cybersecurity job openings in Australia by location and specialisation.

    It says from October 2019 to September 2020 there were 4,500 openings for IT security specialists, but only 4,100 workers currently employed in those positions, “an annual talent shortfall of 400 workers for cybersecurity’s largest job”, and that there were “11,700 additional openings requesting cybersecurity-related skills, and employers struggling to find workers who possess them”.

    Train up to fill cyber positions

    Prof Buckland recommended employers should seek to meet their cybersecurity skill needs by training up suitable employees. He said graduates from cybersecurity courses were not necessarily ideal cybersecurity employees: “There is a lot we can teach them theoretically, but cybersecurity is a discipline, a profession. There is no better way of becoming finished than being trained by someone who is an expert in the field under a sort of apprenticeship model.”

    Bruce Nixon, partner manager lead, Australia and New Zealand with privileged access management company CyberArk, agreed. He said organisations had to resort to identifying and training suitable candidates, and technology could enable those people to become more effective quicker.

    “You have to think outside the square in terms of how you’re going to actually establish the skill set,” he said.

    “You need to incorporate a training mentality – you might not necessarily find that perfect person in the industry – and we can provide enablement tools that will make it easier to find someone with domain expertise and evolve them into having those very specialist skills.”

    Subsidy for cyber training proposed

    However, Mr Nixon acknowledged that this approach would not work for smaller enterprises that did not have the domain expertise, the budget, or the need for full-time IT people. He canvassed the idea of the government “providing cybersecurity training free-of-charge to the mid-market and to small enterprises to allow them to consume high-quality training”.

    He is not alone. The Australian Government recently announced the Cyber Security Skills Partnership Innovation Fund, with grants of between A$250,000 and $3 million, “to improve the quality and availability of cyber security professionals through training”.

    This prompted a call for a program that would subsidise training for SMEs, which would raise the general level of cybersecurity understanding among the wider workforce.

    Prof Buckland said digital technology was now so pervasive that everyone needed some level of competence in cybersecurity, and UNSW had several initiatives towards this goal.

    “We’re teaching our law students cyber, and lawyers are teaching some of our cyber students about cyber law,” he said. “We’ve created our courses so that everyone can take them, and insert them into their degrees within UNSW. We also run free courses in basic cyber literacy.”

    The speed with which the cyber security landscape is changing has put constant pressure on the availability of skilled cyber professionals. With borders now closed to skilled migration and any boost to the experienced employees not likely to come from overseas in the next 12 months at least, how does Australia find the skills required for the future of work and addressing the current shortage of skills?

    The Bridging the Cyber Divide series is produced as a partnership between InnovationAus and CyberArk.

    The post A cyber-savvy nation through reskilling appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • The Big Gig: McGowan’s new innovation chief

    The newly re-elected Premier of Western Australian Mark McGowan has appointed the member for Bunbury Don Punch as the state’s new Minister for Innovation and ICT.

    Mr Punch, the member for the regional seat of Bunbury, also gets the portfolios of Disability Services, Fisheries, and Seniors and Ageing as part of the McGowan government’s second ministry.

    Mr Punch is a first time minister and a former social worker and public servant, whose pre-politics career included 17 years at the WA Department of Community Services.

    Mark McGowan and Don Punch
    Innovation lead: Mark McGowan has appointed first-time minister Don Punch to the Innovation and ICT portfolio

    The office of federal Digital Economy minister Jane Hume has received a major boost this year with the appointment of Caity McLouglin as a senior advisor and deputy chief of staff.

    The new Digital Economy portfolio is considered a key as the Morrison government builds towards a May budget expected to include a “centerpiece” digital initiative.

    The well-regarded Ms McLoughlin was a heavy lifter within the NSW government in the development of state’s digital strategy. Most recently Ms McLoughlin was principal adviser of technology and road safety inside NSW Transport Minister Andrew Constance’ office.

    Ms McLoughlin has a legal background and worked as an associate director for Optus business between 2017 and 2019.

    Another advisor on the move is Valeria Cheglov, a former federal and state ministerial communications apparatchik who has been appointed to software giant Xero to head up the company’s strategic communications.

    Ms Cheglov, who was most recently media director at the Digital Transformation Agency, has also worked as a senior media adviser to the Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education Andrew Gee and a senior media adviser to Industry Minister Karen Andrews.

    American tech giant AWS has bolstered its Canberra-based government relations with the appointment of Zoe Jay Hawkins as Public Policy Manager for Australia and New Zealand.

    Ms Hawkins heads to the private sector after nearly three years in the Australian Government, most recently as an adviser to Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts Paul Fletcher. She previously worked as a cyber affairs diplomat for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    Public Service powerhouse Dr Martin Parkinson has been appointed the Sir Roland Wilson Foundation at The Australian National University to lead the development of research-informed public policy.

    The former secretary of the Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet said Australia needs public policy informed by the best thinking and research “now more than ever”.

    Dr Parkinson replaces Dr Ken Henry, who served as chair of the Wilson Foundation from 2013 to 2021.

    Meanwhile in state politics, the Queensland government lost longstanding Director-General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet Dave Stewart this week, who is moving overseas after six years in the role.

    Mr Stewart will now promote Queensland trade, investment and tourism as the next Agent-General for the United Kingdom and Trade and Investment Commissioner Europe.

    “Dave Stewart is one of the best – he is widely respected as one of the most experienced public officials in this country having worked for governments of all persuasions,” said Premiere Palaszczuk.

    Replacing Mr Stewart is Rachel Hunter, who moves to the Premier department after being Director-General in three others: Justice and Attorney General, Education Training and the Arts, and State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning.

    “Ms Hunter has demonstrated her outstanding leadership capability as Under Treasurer and continues to shine as one of the best senior leaders in government,” the Queensland Premier said

    Ms Hunter was Queensland Public Service Commissioner from 2000 to 2003 and also holds the position of Deputy Chancellor of Griffith University.

    In NSW Dr Ian Oppermann will lead a new artificial advisory committee to advise NSW government on its use of the controversial technology. Oppermann told InnovationAus this week the group will take a “deliberate but cautious” approach as it develops world first assurance frameworks for government use of AI.

    In the consultancy world, Capgemini has pried Deloitte managing partner Kaylene O’Brien away from the rival after nearly a quarter of a century with the company. Ms O’Brien will lead Capgemini as ANZ managing director.

    She leaves after more than 24 years at Deloitte, rising through the ranks from a technology consultant after joining from Anderson Consulting (now Accenture) in the late 1996.

    The open banking lead at the Commonwealth Bank, Gavin Leon, has left the bank to join Australian software powerhouse Atlassian as group program manager.

    Mr Leon was appointed the chief product owner (CPO) for open banking in January 2020 to pilot CBA’s role in the data portability scheme. He has also helped deliver several of the bank’s digital channels, including its award winning app.

    He announced his move on LinkedIn earlier this month after 18 years at CBA.

    The post The Big Gig: McGowan’s new innovation chief appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • NSW net zero plan can be a ‘nation building’ win

    The NSW government’s latest tilt at reducing the state’s emissions to net zero has the potential to become a grand scale nation building program. But without appropriate oversight, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars could simply “perpetuate business as usual”.

    Innovation system expert and UTS emeritus professor Roy Green said the state’s latest proposal – $750 million over 10 years to help high emitting industries transition to cleaner technologies – is comprehensive and credible.

    “I would even go so far as to call it nation leading as well as nation building,” Professor Green told InnovationAus. But he argues that success will depend on the effective management of grants and co-investments.

    Roy Green
    Opportunity: Roy Green says if handled right, the NSW net zero policy is a winner

    In the absence of a national emissions trading scheme, the states’ have been left with little option but to incentivise heavy emitters to clean up their operations, according to Professor Green.

    NSW in particular will need heavy industries like mining and manufacturing on board if it is to reach its 2050 net zero target. In those two industries, the top 55 emitting facilities account for more than 29 per cent of NSW emissions.

    Energy Minister Matt Kean this month unveiled a $750 million program to lower emissions, with most of the money going to subsidise heavy emitters’ transition to lower emission plant and equipment.

    “The advice to government here is that very strict enforcement provisions need to be provided around the provision of those resources so that those companies and industries truly do transform,” Professor Green said.

    “And the funding is not allowed to perpetuate business as usual.”

    The NSW government’s program received early support from industry, but details on exactly how the program is to be delivered are yet to be developed. The state government said it would consult widely on “detailed delivery plans” for the program.

    The NSW Net Zero Industry and Innovation Program has three key focus areas: developing new clean technologies in NSW; building infrastructure for low emission industries and strengthening their local supply chains; and deploying low emissions technologies and infrastructure to reduce the emissions associated with existing, high emitting industrial facilities in NSW.

    It is the latter that would get the lion’s share of taxpayer money – $380 million worth of grants and government co-investments. But there are millions more earmarked for the development of new technologies and low emission infrastructure, as well as support for low carbon industries like green hydrogen.

    “We have to hope the government can take as comprehensive a view as it seems to in the positioning that the paper provides,” said Professor Green.

    He says NSW’s approach could lead to lasting change, but it must avoid any “set and forget” mindset in the distribution of grants and conditions of co-investment.

    “You’ve got to have a very strong coordination principle operating around the disbursement of these grants,” Professor Green told InnovationAus.

    “Those grants have to be based on conditionality that those emitters, the high emitters, can commit to low and zero emissions within given timescales, and the resources available to them to do that are invested in those low emissions technologies or the capability building that enables that transformation.”

    The inclusion of stakeholders outside government and industry would be welcome, Prof Green said, adding that the NSW government should also leverage innovation hubs and partners like the CSIRO and universities as much as possible.

    The NSW approach also makes an important acknowledgement, he says: “Post COVID recovery is not consistent with tackling climate change.”

    “It’s for too long been seen as a binary choice, but it’s not a binary choice. The two are not just complimentary but increasingly integrated. If we want jobs and sustainable growth, we also have to invest in low emissions and zero emissions technologies.

    “And that’s what this [NSW government] paper proposes with some funding streams attached to promote new industries as well as transforming existing.”

    The NSW government plan lays a groundwork for Australia’s most populous state that many would have expected was in place years ago. And with countries around the world moving to scrutinise and even penalise the carbon footprint of any imports, Australia – the number 19 exporter in the world ¬– needs to get moving.

    “The rest of the world is going to move in the direction of non-tariff barriers to exports that are carbon intensive, and maybe even tariff barriers as well.

    “And so we can complain to the [World Trade Organisation] all we like. But the fact is, every other country in the world is going to do it. And so our complaint may well go unrecognised.

    “It’s much better, therefore, to position ourselves in advance to take advantage of the new trading regime and ensure that our exports from low emitting zero carbon industries. And that we can also develop new technologies that will drive the world’s attempt to tackle climate change and global warming.”

    The post NSW net zero plan can be a ‘nation building’ win appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Ian Oppermann on govt AI assurance frameworks

    Artificial intelligence experts will advise the NSW government on how the technology should be used by the state through an AI advisory committee revealed Wednesday. Initially the group will develop a world first AI assurance framework for government projects.

    The eleven member NSW Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee is chaired by NSW chief data scientist Dr Ian Oppermann and includes academics, Big Tech executives and human rights representatives.

    The committee is dominated by data and AI ethicists and independent experts. Its chair has said it will advocate for a “cautious but deliberate” approach to the use of the technology as NSW accelerates its own AI strategy.

    Ian Oppermann
    Ian Oppermann: Leading efforts to create the world’s first AI assurance frameworks

    “We will not do the move fast and break things approach,” Dr Oppermann told InnovationAus.

    “We are trying to do the exact opposite. We will deliberately keep moving forward but we will do it in a way that is cautious but deliberate.”

    Dr Opperman said the committee has a depth and breadth of expertise covering both the technical “bits” of AI technology, as well as the guiding principles and ethics to ensure it does no harm. Most of the committee members were also involved in earlier stages of the NSW strategy.

    “We sought most folks on the committee for their diversity of experience, and depth of understanding of data driven issues,” said Dr Opperman, noting each holds strong views on the technology.

    The group’s primary focus will be to develop an assurance framework for AI use to be applied to current and potential AI projects. The framework will continuously evolve, according to Dr Oppermann, to ensure AI is “colouring in within the lines”.

    “Since, to some extent, we’re relying on a machine to generate insights, we want to make sure that as and when we need to the assurance framework can help us see how those decisions are made so we can unpack the decisions.

    “But also, to ensure that the policy outcomes are actually what we expect them to be as opposed to things just happening.”

    Currently, there is no generic assurance framework for AI anywhere in the world.

    The inaugural appointees of the NSW Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee are:

    • Theresa Anderson – School of Illinois, data & AI ethicist, research fellow, member of International Council Committee on Data (CODATA), Sydney ambassador for Women in Data Science Network
    • Fang Chen – UTS executive director data science/distinguished professor
    • Lee Hickin – Microsoft Australia national technology officer
    • Aurelie Jacquet – Innovations Accelerated chief legal and data ethics officer, Chair of the committee representing Australia at the International standard on AI (AI ISO)
    • Peter Leonard – Data Synergies principal and NSW Business School professor of practice
    • Maria Milosavljevic – Services Australia inaugural Chief Data Officer
    • Dr Ian Oppermann – NSW chief data scientist
    • Edward Santow – Australian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Commissioner
    • Bill Simpson Young – Gradient Institute co-founder and chief executive
    • Neil Soderlund – Quantium Health & Government chief executive
    • Martin Stewart-Weeks  – Public Purpose Pty Ltd, principal

    Additional experts with knowledge in a particular area may be invited to contribute to the committee.

    The NSW government released an AI strategy late last year as part of its ongoing push to make the state the “digital capital of the Southern Hemisphere” also laying out policies for IoT and smart infrastructure.

    The state government insists any of its use of AI would be guided by three pillars of privacy, transparency and security.

    Customer Service Minister Victor Dominello, who has led the push for an AI strategy, has also said the controversial technology would not be used to make unilateral decisions that impact NSW citizens or their human rights, and decisions made using AI will be reviewable.

    But there is also an urgency from NSW Government to capture the value from the technology, widely regarded to be transformational.

    “AI is becoming more prevalent in our day-to-day life and the NSW Government is determined to lead the way in its use and to drive improvements wherever possible, while ensuring it’s done in an ethical way,” said Minister Dominello on Wednesday.

    Dr Opperman is confident the government would be responsive to its advice because of the years of work on the NSW AI policy, including industry summits and several AI “masterclasses” on specific use cases ¬– a process that was “not all roses”.

    He says the committee would issue friendly but fearless advice on potential uses of AI by the NSW government as well as reviewing current AI programs

    “The issue, of course, is who is listening,” Dr Oppermann told InnovationAus. “That’s always the weakness of advisory committees of any description.”

    “Minister Dominello is directly going to be involved, and there will be a role… [of] providing solid advice about new projects before they are initiated. We’ll see how well that mechanism works, but I’m pretty confident with the support of Minister Dominello that mechanism will actually be effective.”

    Already the state government is using AI for things like identifying endangered plant species and predictive maintenance of public transport. But higher risk projects like analyzing deidentified patient records are also underway.

    The post Ian Oppermann on govt AI assurance frameworks appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Wearables maker gets a Qld govt boost

    Brisbane-based MedTech manufacturer WearOptimo, which is backed by the Australian National University (ANU), will produce devices in Australia after getting support from the Queensland government.

    The company makes small sticker like devices that can detect dehydration in patients. According to the WearOptimo, the ‘microwearables’ provide accurate results in real time and may become a substitute for frequent blood testing for various diseases.

    A new facility will be constructed in Queensland to manufacture the devices following support through the state government’s Essential Goods and Supply Chain Program.

    Brisbane
    Brisbane calling: Wearables manufacturing upgrading to global manufacturing in Queensland

    The Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet has been contacted to confirm how much funding the project received, but a response was not provided.

    The Queensland Essential Goods and Supply Chain Program was stood up in May last year to support local manufacturers and businesses impacted by COVID-19 through. So far funding through the $50 million program has gone to manufacturers of PPE, COVID-19 tests, and bio tech but individual amounts have not been disclosed.

    Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development Steven Miles said the new WearOptimo facility would be “one of a kind” and produce devices for global distribution.

    “It’s exciting that such a revolutionary medical technology will be manufactured and distributed globally from Queensland,’ said Mr Miles in a statement Tuesday.

    “WearOptimo expects more than 90 direct new high-value jobs created over the next five years with the potential for many more in the future.”

    WearOptimo was established in 2018 by Professor Mark Kendal with support from the ANU. The company received state government grants to establish a laboratory and a prototype of the microwearable devices.

    More government support means the company will now be able to move to the manufacturing phase, and WearOptimo intends to engage with local industry partners for the electronic components used in the production of devices and software, including printed circuit boards, plastic parts, packaging and app software.

    “The Microwearables we’re working on will empower individuals and their health care providers, said Prof Kendal.

    “For example, some of our sensors will detect and alert you to dehydration while people are on the job, or to dehydration in the elderly. Another type of our sensors will help with the early detection of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease, which is responsible for 20 million deaths per year.

    “We’re working on tackling some of the biggest killers on the planet, so it is a real thrill to receive this important support for our important work.”

    The Queensland government says the WearOptimo project aligns with its ongoing biomedical action plan. The decade long roadmap released in 2017 aims to make the state a regionally integrated and globally competitive Asia-Pacific biomedical industry hub and includes a $4 million program to support and attract biomedical enterprises.

    The post Wearables maker gets a Qld govt boost appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.

  • Govt won’t reveal other myGov panel contractors

    The government has declined to name the companies that were selected for a panel last year to work on the myGov redevelopment project, while responsibility for contracting for the project has shifted between agencies.

    The government is working on developing a new version of myGov to initially run alongside the existing platform, before eventually replacing it. The new platform aims to replace the user experience of private sector offerings, with the bulk of the work so far contracted out to consulting giant Deloitte.

    While the initial work and contracts was handled by the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA), its parent department Services Australia is now issuing the contracts for work, and handling requests about its progression.

    Parliament House
    Clear as mud: Transparency issues cloud the already opaque MyGov redevelopment

    These contracts are now being posted publicly under broad and general titles after previously being labelled with GovDXP, making them more difficult to identity.

    The government has also ditched the use of ‘horizons’ to designate the different phases of work on the revamped myGov, but a department spokesperson said the previous timeline is still in use.

    Late last year Services Australia established a Systems Integrator Panel, filled by a number of companies that will be offered work on the myGov project. Deloitte was awarded a $4.5 million contract through this panel in last month.

    But the government has continually refused to reveal which other companies are members of this panel and would be working on the project, even to other companies looking to tender for work on it.

    “The Systems Integrator Panel was established through open request for tender via the Digital Marketplace panel. Information about companies selected to join the Systems Integrator Panel will be published once all aspects of the procurement process are completed,” a Services Australia spokesperson told InnovationAus.

    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”, related to the myGov project.

    These capabilities include content management, experience delivery and experience analytics.

    A number of applicants for this tender requested to know the other members of the Systems Integrator Panel, the companies they would be working with on the project, but the department opted to keep them secret.

    The post Govt won’t reveal other myGov panel contractors appeared first on InnovationAus.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.