The federal government has been accused of running a misleading quantum computing EoI that baited information from local players while commercial discussions with PsiQuantum were already well advanced. Current and former politicians have spoken out about the process that led to the $940 million bet on the Californian-based startup, describing the EoI as “disingenuous” and…
The Department of Defence is withholding a review of Australia’s defence innovation system that cost $2.2 million from the Albanese government and the general public, despite its findings being clearly “of the public interest”. The review includes scrutiny of more than $1.5 billion in grants programs and is understood to be critical of the current…
The Department of Defence has funded 345 of university and industry’s cutting edge technology projects with $258 million over the last six years, but none appear to have made it procurement or export level outcome yet. Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price has defended the “forward looking program” after low translation rates and application assessment time…
The Prime Minister’s announcement of a new submarine base at one of three east coast locations is pork barrelling and risks Australia’s national security, according to independent Senator Rex Patrick, who is demanding answers as to why the government has gone against Defence’s previous recommendation for a base in Sydney. None of the three locations…
Less than five per cent of projects funded by federal government’s flagship Defence innovation program have gone on to export success and only seven per cent have been close to acquisition by Australian Defence forces in the last six years. The low translation rates are despite $441 million being poured into the projects by Defence…
The funding and resourcing limitations of Australia’s privacy office has been thrown in the spotlight again, as the wait for the appointment of a standalone FOI Commissioner continues. The federal government provided nearly $1 million per year for the appointment of a new Freedom of Information Commissioner within the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner…
The head of Snowy Hydro and independent Senator Rex Patrick clashed in Senate Estimates Monday over the use of foreign-manufactured steel and a lack of transparency within the “nation building” 2.0 project, after it was revealed much of the material is coming from Italy. @AuManufacturing last week reported that the $5.1 billion Snowy 2.0 scheme…
The Snowy Scheme from 1949 saw 100,000 men and women from over 30 countries define what Australians and Australian industry are capable of. Fast forward to today and the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme now under construction in the Snowy Mountains was meant to be nation building, and part of a plan to reinvigorate local…
The University of Adelaide’s new artificial intelligence centre in Lot Fourteen has officially launched, aiming to train the next generation of machine learning experts and launch new startups. The Centre for Augmented Reasoning launched on Friday and is managed by the university’s Australian Institute for Machine Learning It will be situated in Adelaide’s Lot Fourteen…
The Australian Space Agency is confident its processing time on launch and facility licences will come down after bringing on more staff and completing a full cycle of its regulatory framework. But the agency is still under pressure to justify the controversial launch fees it will charge local space companies for applying. At Senate Estimates…
Labor, the Greens and Independent senator Rex Patrick have called for more enforceable conditions on some of the trillions of dollars in foreign investment in Australia, warning overseas companies are flouting the undertakings they agree to as part of the approval process.
The Labor-chaired Senate Economics Reference Committee on Friday released its final report after its long-running inquiry into foreign Investment proposals. The committee recommended that Australia’s scheme be toughened with enforceable undertakings and a more effective and efficient regulator.
Coalition senators rejected the recommendations, saying the current system did not require fundamental change, after government-led reforms were put in place last year.
Policy problem: Calls to toughen-up the foreign investment regime
The report warned the assessment of foreign investment proposals – conducted by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) and recommended to the Treasurer for final approval – may not be sophisticated enough to satisfy national interest tests and, since 2020, national security tests.
“There remains doubt as to whether the Treasury has the knowledge, experience, and information management systems to appropriately regulate foreign investment in Australia. At the very least, it would seem appropriate that if companies make undertakings they should be expected to follow through on these,” the report said.
“So-called ‘voluntary undertakings’ made at the time an investor is seeking approval for an investment, but which later fail to materialise, make a mockery of Australia’s assessment process against the national interest and undermine community confidence in the foreign investment framework.”
The report recommends changes to regulations to ensure undertakings can be enforced as conditions on an investment approval and that the government consider publishing details relating to these decisions.
FIRB’s capabilities should also be strengthened following an audit of what is required to thoroughly assess applications against the national interest, according to the report, which also recommends the government reviews the “the structure necessary for an effective and efficient foreign investment regulator”.
The inquiry examined several recent foreign investment approvals which have been heavily criticised, including the 2016 approval of Chinese-owned Moon Lake Investments to acquire land and assets of the largest dairy farm in Australia for a reported $280 million.
Then-Treasurer Scott Morrison approved the deal, saying it passed the national interest test because it supported local jobs and he had secured undertakings from the company for additional investment in the farms which would nearly double jobs and generate $100 million in additional investment.
However, in 2020, following several Moon Lake board resignations and a corporate restructure, it was revealed the company was yet to meet several of the commitments, including investing only around one-fifth of the additional investment.
This year, almost all the dairy farms were found to have significant compliance issues and the company received warnings it was damaging nearby waterways.
“There has been nowhere near the $100m invested in the farm and nowhere near the promised doubling of jobs. However, the company was able to find $25,000 to donate to the Tasmanian Liberals in 2017-18,” Greens Senators wrote in additional comments in the Reference Committee report.
The Greens said the report had done a good job in identifying foreign investment issues, but its three recommendations did not go far enough to correct them.
“We should stop pussyfooting around. We have an opportunity, given the current downturn in foreign investment, to get our house in order without being accused of targeting any particular investment or group of investors,” Greens Senators said in the report.
Independent senator Rex Patrick supported the recommendations and added the foreign investment application and approval process needs to be more transparent, including disclosure of investors global tax structures.
In additional comments, Senator Patrick wrote foreign investment “is infected with the secrecy bug” including Australian legislation that allows information to be unjustifiably hidden from the public.
“Other jurisdictions publish information about foreign investment and there is no evidence that this has hindered investment in their countries,” he said.
But government senators dismissed the calls for reform and transparency, saying their 2020 reforms are addressing several of the issues already. A report on those reforms is expected by the end of the year and should inform any incremental changes, according to the government senators.
Companies from the local software and emerging technology sector have previously warned the foreign investment approvals are too opaque but have also criticised them for being too extensive, which they say damages smaller companies. While the new national security test has also been criticised as a potential blocker for certain industries like quantum computing.
The federal government has again blocked the release of documents relating to the robodebt scandal, in an “enormous undermining of public confidence” which could lead to similar failures of public administration in the future, according to a number of senators.
Late last year the federal government agreed to pay $112 million in compensation to 400,000 victims of the robodebt scheme, which saw the use of automated data matching and debt recovery to issue debts to welfare recipients which were often inaccurate.
Government Services Minister Linda Reynolds. Image: U.S. Secretary of Defense.
The Community Affairs References Committee has repeatedly ordered the government to table documents relating to the legal advice received on the robodebt scheme, along with a copy of executive minutes to the social services minister from early 2015.
While the class action has been settled, the government has still refused to answer these 19 questions, which would reveal whether there was any warning that the robodebt scheme may have been unlawful before it was launched or during its operation.
It did so again in an interim report earlier this month, giving the government until this week to table the documents.
But this was blocked by Government Services Minister Linda Reynolds, who told the Senate the government was making a public interest immunity claim to keep them secret.
“The government does not make public interest immunity claims lightly. We never have and we never will, and we certainly don’t do it without the careful consideration of the particular harm to the public interest,” Senator Reynolds said
“I have personally carefully reviewed the claim of public interest immunity and recognise that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information over which the claim is being reiterated in relation to legal advice and also the deliberations of cabinet.”
In blocking the request, the government pointed to what it said was the “very, very long-held” practice of claiming privilege over legal advice, and that it would possibly prejudice the Commonwealth in relation to litigation around the scheme.
“The claim is grounded in the importance of government being able to obtain legal advice in relation to normal decision-making functions without the risk of the advance or the information relating to that advice being disclosed,” Senator Reynold said.
“The availability of frank legal advice to decision-makers within government should and must be protected as a fundamental principle of good government.”
The possibility of future legal action over the robodebt scheme was also given as a reason to not disclose the documents.
“Disclosing the content or dates of any legal advice would obviously have the very real potential of prejudicing the Commonwealth’s ability to defend the claims,” Senator Reynolds said.
The Committee’s Labor, Greens and crossbench members have already rejected these claims.
“The committee continues to maintain that it is ultimately in the public interest for the Commonwealth government to be transparent about the advice it received in relation to the income compliance program,” the interim report said.
“Ultimately, the Committee is not convinced that the disclosure of such information could result in harm to the public interest.”
Speaking after Senator Reynold, a number of senators slammed the government for concealing the documents, saying it could lead to similar scandals such as robodebt and that a royal commission may now be needed.
Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said the lack of transparency would lead to an “enormous undermining of public confidence”, and rejected the arguments made by the government, saying that the Senate has never accepted that legal professional privilege provides grounds for a refusal of information in a parliamentary forum.
“I put it that they’re actually claiming government interest immunity, because this is about protecting the government and trying to make sure that the community does not get access to the information that the Community Affairs Committee has repeatedly asked for,” Senator Siewert said.
“They are seeking, repeatedly, to hide very, very important details about this whole sorry saga. Unless we actually identify what went wrong, the Australian community has no guarantee that this sort of thing will not happen again.”
A lack of transparency around robodebt could lead to similar failures in the future, Senator Siewert said.
“We have no guarantee that this won’t happen again if the government doesn’t come clean. By seeking to perpetually claim public interest immunity, the government builds further the case for a royal commission on this issue,” she said.
“We don’t want to see that happening again in this country, but we are at risk of seeing that happen again if this government continues to hide behind public interest immunity.”
Labor Senator Deborah O’Neill accused the Coalition of a “gross failure to actually tell the truth”.
“They are continuing to try to hide from … Australians what they did and how they decided to make this historic mistake. They refuse to provide that information,” Senator O’Neill said.
“The litany of failures and the abuse of artificial intelligence against human rights being perpetuated by this government on its own citizens continues. That is why the mistake of robodebt has not yet been acknowledged by this government. Despite the fact they paid $1.8 billion back, they still need to come in here and cough up the documents.”
Crossbench Senator Rex Patrick said the claims used by the government to block the release of the documents are incorrect.
“I’m sick of ministers standing up, as attorneys-general have done repeatedly in this chamber, and saying something that suggests legal professional privilege documents shouldn’t be tabled,” Senator Patrick said.
“It is wrong in law, and it’s wrong for attorneys to make that sort of assertion.”
The Senate has shot down the federal government’s attempt to launch an inquiry into Australia’s sovereign capability and critical infrastructure.
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan moved a motion in the Senate on Thursday morning to establish a Select Committee on Financing Critical Infrastructure and Sovereign Capability, which would look at the role domestic investment has in these issues and potential regulatory reforms to encourage it.
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan was pushing for the inquiry. Credit: APH
But the motion was rejected by the Opposition and crossbench senators and the committee will not be launched. It came just weeks after Labor successfully moved a motion for the Economics References Committee to inquire into Australia’s domestic advanced manufacturing sector.
The government-backed inquiry would have looked at the importance of sovereign capability and critical infrastructure, the role domestic investment plays in enhancing Australia’s sovereign capability and economic growth, efficient means to secure this financing, potential regulatory reforms and any relevant international approaches.
It was not supported by Labor senators, although none spoke on the motion.
Independent Senator Rex Patrick said there are already too many select committees, and launching another would be a waste of money. He pointed out that the chair of a select committee receives $23,000 and the deputy chair receives $11,000, meaning the new committee would have cost at least $34,000.
Senator Patrick said he would support a similar inquiry by a references committee.
One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts said the answers to many of the inquiry’s terms of reference are already known and it would be a waste of money.
Sovereign capability is shaping up to be a key election issue when Australians go to the polls in the near future.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a spotlight on Australia’s sovereign capability, particularly in terms of its manufacturing industry.
The government has positioned its $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy at the centre of its economic recovery efforts, with six priority areas across different sectors.
The Coalition is also looking to pass new critical infrastructure laws which would impose a positive security obligation on a wide range of operators of critical infrastructure, including data storage and processing providers. These powers would also allow government agencies to take control of their networks in situations such as a serious cyber attack.
Earlier this month, Labor successfully launched an inquiry into Australia’s domestic advanced manufacturing capability, looking into the existing and emerging manufacturing industry and the role of governments in supporting it.
It will also be looking at the role of research and development in supporting the sector, and how developing local supply chains provides strategic benefits.
Labor has also pitched a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund focused on advanced manufacturing if it wins the upcoming federal election.
Legislation handing “extraordinary” new hacking powers to Australian authorities has sailed through Parliament with support from the Opposition, despite the government not implementing some of the recommendations from the national security committee.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) will now be able to access the computers and networks of those suspected of conducting criminal activity online, and even take over their online accounts covertly, under the Identify and Disrupt bill, which was passed by the Senate on Wednesday.
Hackers?: The Australian Federal Police are in line for sweeping new powers to hack.
Three new warrants will be introduced under the legislation, allowing authorities to “disrupt” the data of suspected offenders, access their devices and networks to identify them and take over their accounts.
“Under our changes the AFP will have more tools to pursue organised crime gangs to keep drugs off our street and out of our community, and those who commit the most heinous crimes against children,” Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews said.
The government moved 60 amendments to the legislation in the lower house in response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s (PJCIS) report from earlier this month.
The amendments included enhanced oversight powers, reviews in several years time by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the PJCIS, the sunsetting of the powers after five years, and strengthened protections for third parties and journalists.
The amendments meet 23 of the PJCIS’s 33 recommendations, while the government has agreed to implement several others through a broader reform of intelligence surveillance powers.
But it rejected the national security committee’s call for a higher threshold in the issuing of warrants in terms of the crimes they can be applied for, and for warrants to only be approved by a judge, rather than a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Several Labor members raised concerns with this and echoed others raised by members of the civil and digital rights sector, as did government members of the PJCIS, but all eventually voted to pass the legislation.
The bill was rejected by the Greens, which said the legislation is another step on the “road to a surveillance state”.
The PJCIS had recommended that the type of crimes the warrants could be issued for be narrowed to those relating to offences against the security of the Commonwealth, offences against humanity, serious drug, weapons and criminal association offences, and money laundering and cybercrime.
Currently, the broad new powers can be granted to combat a swathe of crimes, far further than the terrorism and other offences the government has pointed to in order to justify the need for the legislation.
But the government instead raised the threshold for issuing the warrants to them being “reasonably necessary and proportionate”, up from “justifiable and proportionate”.
Labor had wanted this to go even further, calling on changes to require the warrants only be issued for “serious offences”.
Shadow assistant minister for immigration Andrew Giles said the government is “mischaracterising the breadth of the new powers”.
“It is obviously much easier to justify the introduction of such powers by focusing on the most serious types of crime. No-one would argue with that in respect of crimes like child abuse and exploitation, and terrorism,” Mr Giles said.
“But it is important that we engage in the more difficult task of justifying the introduction of extraordinary powers by reference to how the powers could actually be used.”
The amendments “go a long way” to ensuring the powers can only be used to combat serious crime, but don’t go far enough, multiple Labor MPs said.
Shadow assistant minister for cybersecurity Tim Watts said the warrants should only apply to serious offences.
“This would be an important constraint on the use of these new warrant powers and would limit their application to offences that carry at least a maximum of seven years’ jail and other specified offences,” Mr Watts said.
“While these powers do have international precedent, they also carry inherent risks. As currently drafted, the substance of this bill does not match the government’s rhetoric.”
Liberal MP Tim Wilson, a member of the PJCIS, broke ranks to criticise the government in not adopting all of the committee’s recommendations.
“I’ll be frank…and say that my preference would be more consistent with that of the committee. That’s why we made those recommendations,” Mr Wilson said.
“I will not die in a ditch over them, because the purpose of the legislation is more important than the threshold, but I think the threshold test around warrants and their application, particularly with the new powers, is something that we as a Parliament need to review.”
Despite these concerns, Labor offered support for the legislation in both houses, ensuring its quick passage.
Mr Giles said the new warrants give “extraordinary” powers to authorities, and appropriate safeguards need to be in place.
“Labor supports this bill. It’s an important bill which addresses very significant and worrying gaps in the legislative framework so as to better enable the AFP and the [Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission] to collect intelligence, conduct investigations, and disrupt and prosecute the most serious of crimes in an evolving environment,” Mr Giles said.
“The process of the Parliament here has produced a bill that meets the very serious challenges required to respond to, with appropriate safeguards in place, some of which will require all of us to maintain our attention on their operation and adequacy.”
Mr Watts blasted the government’s handling of the legislation.
“It’s indicative of this government’s record in this place to rush through legislation on national security matters with little regard for process, particularly with national security legislation or even with more technical legislation,” he said.
“While we support the bill, Labor members of the PJCIS do think … safeguards in this bill could go further, particularly in relation to the offences this bill applies to.”
The Greens voted against the legislation in both houses, with Senator Lidia Thorpe unsuccessfully moving a number of amendments.
“Really disappointed to see Labor and Liberal both vote in favour to increase police powers of online surveillance. We tried to make this bill better and include human rights protections for innocent people, but the Greens were outvoted by the major parties,” Senator Thorpe tweeted.
“New warrants allow police to monitor online activity without accusing us of a crime. Take over our accounts and edit our data…making the AFP judge, jury and executioner is not how we deliver justice in this country.”
Crossbench senator Rex Patrick also attempted to amend the legislation, raising concerns that the bill had been “dropped on the Senate in the very last minutes”.
The federal government knocked back a pitch from an Adelaide company to protect digital COVID-19 vaccination certificates from fraud last year, after a senator revealed this week that the certificate could be forged within weeks.
Australians who have received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine can now access a digital certificate to prove this through the myGov platform. This can then be printed off or stored on a smartphone through the wallet functions on Apple and Google phones.
The certificates are not currently used to access any services, but may in the future be used to attend sporting events or travel internationally, for example.
Soon after accessing his vaccination certificate following receiving two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, independent Senator Rex Patrick had made a forged version of it in 15 minutes.
Currently, Australia’s digital vaccine does not have any technology, such as a QR code, to prevent an individual from simply using editing software to change the personal details on the certificate.
“Within 15 minutes of receiving that certificate it was able to be forged very easily with basic computer tools and programs. Right now, the certificates aren’t in use, but they will be and we need to be prepared,” Senator Patrick told InnovationAus.
“Yet the government hasn’t done the necessary work. It’s another embarrassing failure, all the more so after the COVIDSafe app shambles. There are very easy technical solutions to this problem, the government just has to have the will to do it early and do it right.”
South Australian tech company TraxPrint offers document and identity protection, including through QR codes. It has been contracted by governments in the UK, Netherlands and Aruba to protect their own digital certifications but, despite approaching the federal government last year about the issue, has had no luck in providing the protection in Australia.
TraxPrint co-founder and chief technology officer Robert Ablinger said the company first approached the Australian government last year to validate and verify COVID-19 testing certificates, and has more recently pitched its software to shore up the vaccination certifications, but has only received generic rejection letters.
“We started pitching this to them at the start of the pandemic. We offered services for nothing to the government literally to help them get along with what they needed for testing certificates,” Mr Ablinger told InnovationAus.
“What we look at is how documents are being fraudulently created or modified, and one of the easiest ones we’ve found is the certificate for vaccination in Australia. It literally takes about a minute to change the name on a document, which is wrong. And that’s not with anything special, it’s just with a normal photoshop app you can change anything on it. It’s scary how easy it is. To just leave it without any protection whatsoever is fraught with danger.”
TraxPrint’s solution would insert a QR code to the certification which prevents it from being modified. It also offers a service where a certificate can be checked to see if any pixels have been modified before it is validated.
The Nine newspapers reported on Wednesday that the government is now planning to introduce QR codes to the digital vaccine certification, using technology promoted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the Visible Digital Seal.
Mr Ablinger said this technology would not protect the digital and printed certificates as effectively as TraxPrint’s does. “Especially how we can detect if one pixel has changed on a PDF document. That is a very powerful ability,” hesaid.
It’s unclear whether the government has selected a provider to integrate this technology or if any further protections against fraud will be in place.
Senator Patrick said the government should be enlisting a local company such as TraxPrint to do this work.
“There is no reason the government needs to go overseas to find a solution for this. We have companies right here in Australia that are ready and willing to do the work,” Senator Patrick said.
Mr Ablinger said it’s disappointing that the federal government isn’t considering solutions from homegrown companies.
“All they seem to want to do is support overseas companies. They get consultants like Deloitte and big companies to talk and investigate things but they never do anything,” he said.
“The government just doesn’t seem to think that a small startup company in Australia can actually compete with the big boys. But we could do it in an extremely short period of time. We’re API-driven, we can literally set up and go. We’ve got clients integrated into it within a couple of days.
“It’s not pie in the sky, we don’t have to create something out of the blue. This is a proven technology that is currently working, and we have sold in countries overseas. We’re an accepted technology.”
A Liberal Senator has failed in his second attempt to launch an inquiry into the influence of Big Tech in Australia, after the motion was blocked by Labor and the crossbench.
South Australian senator Alex Antic moved a motion on Tuesday for the establishment of a Select Committee on Big Tech Influence in Australia, which would look into disinformation, “de-platforming”, fake accounts and the extent that the likes of Facebook and Google comply with local laws.
But the attempt was dismissed by Labor, who said there are already too many select committees, and the Greens, who took issue with the language of the motion, which they said was used “overwhelmingly by the far right”.
Big Tech: The senate has declined to establish a new select committee to investigate
Senator Antic had originally planned to move the motion last month, but put this on hold. This was the same day that the government announced it had reached an agreement with Facebook over its media bargaining code, with news allowed back on the social media platform.
He tried again on Tuesday, attempting to launch a select committee that would investigate and report on the activity of major international and domestic tech firms, specifically looking at disinformation, misinformation, shadow banning, de-platform and monetisation, fake accounts and bots, the companies’ terms of service and their compliance with Australian law.
The motion was voted down with Senators drawn at 32 votes for and against.
Labor voted down the motion due to the amount of Select Committees already operating.
“We were advised by the government that they are concerned at the number of Select Committees that are currently operating in the Senate and at the level of work references committees have – that Select Committees are perhaps filling part of the role that references committees had in the past – only to be given this motion on the Notice Paper,” Labor Senator Katy Gallagher said.
“So we won’t be supporting this today, based on the government’s own advice that there are too many Select Committees at this point in time.”
Crossbench Senator Rex Patrick also voted against the motion for this reason, saying it would mean there are 10 Select Committees, even though it is recommended there should only be three at any one time.
Senator Patrick said he would have supported an inquiry by a references committee into Big Tech.
The Greens voted against the motion due to the language used in it.
“There is no doubt that we do need an inquiry into the influence of Big Tech in this country, particularly its impact on our democracy and our media and the way that Big Tech has allowed for the proliferation of far-right extremism on digital platforms in Australia,” Greens Senator Nick McKim said.
“However, this motion contains language which concerns the Greens. It is language which is used overwhelmingly by the far right, including terms like shadow-banning and deplatforming.
“While we won’t be supporting this motion today, we do remain open minded and of the view that we need to have a look at some of the impacts of the Big Tech sector on those areas I mentioned earlier.”
Shadow industry minister Ed Husic last month labelled the attempted motion a “joke”.
“On so many levels this was a joke and a poor one at that. There are countless reports gathering dust now on what needs to be done to combat some of the excesses in technology that this government has ignored,” Mr Husic told InnovationAus in February.
“On top of that did anyone seriously think that this government that had pulled the handbrake on implementing Royal Commission recommendations against big banks was serious about a Big Tech inquiry that would produce a report that would go nowhere?”
Three Australian space companies will unite to launch a bushfire detection satellite into orbit in a major milestone for building sovereignty capability in the local space sector.
In-space transportation provider Space Machines Company has signed a deal with Fireball.International to launch a bushfire detection satellite into final orbit next year. The South Australian startup last year announced a launch agreement with Gilmour Space Technologies to send its orbital transport Optimus-1 into space in 2021.
This rocket will now carry the fire detection satellite, which will provide automated bushfire detection and tracking.
Space taxi: Australians delivering Australians in space
Fireball.International can detect a bushfire within minutes by analysing images from satellites and sensors in real-time, and sends notifications and maps to emergency responders when it does detect a fire.
A report by the Australian National University last year found that the detection of bushfires within 30 minutes could lead to a total benefit of $8.2 billion.
The announcement is a significant development for the local space sector and a demonstration of what’s possible for Australian companies, Fireball.International chief executive Christopher Tylor said.
“This is an Australian-built taxi, which will bring an Australian-built satellite which looks for fires and has national interest, which is launched by an Australian-built rocket and from an Australian spaceport in Queensland. This story is amazing,” Mr Tylor told InnovationAus.
The federal government has been urged to pursue greater sovereign capability in space, and this is a key aim of the Australian Space Agency.
The launch next year will showcase the potential of the local sector, Space Machines Company chief executive Rajat Kulshrestha said.
“It’s a pretty big milestone. The ability for us to have a satellite which addresses a key national interest issue, going on top of a space transportation platform, on top of an Australian-built and launched rocket shows our space industry to a global market,” Mr Kulshrestha told InnovationAus.
“Success will mean that some of the targets the government has for growing this industry are well on their way. All this capability will eventually help support Australian companies for years to come.”
In September last year Space Machines Company inked the deal with Gilmour to become a customer on its first Eris rocket launch next year, with the startup to launch a 35kg spacecraft to orbit. This will be the largest payload sent into orbit by an Australian company to date.
Having local launch companies and space taxis allows for the specific deployment and positioning of satellites at a cheaper price, Mr Tylor said.
“With this technology we can be delivered into orbit where we want to be, and where we need to be. The problem with launching something there is it is very expensive,” he said.
“With the technology Space Machines Company can offer us, the price of launching a satellite comes down. That is a big advantage”
Fireball.International currently relies on Japanese satellites launched by the Japan Space Agency to monitor bushfires in Australia.
The ability to launch satellites locally will be pivotal for the development of the Australian space sector, Mr Kulshrestha said.
“The ability for Australia to have responsiveness to put satellites into exactly the right place and especially satellite capabilities of national interest, is a key part of the sovereign capability we need to develop,” he said.
A government inquiry into the development of the space sector has heard concerns that the federal government’s plans to charge companies to apply for a launch permit will jeopardise the growth of the sector, which is hoping to launch up to 2500 satellites in the next five years.
Late last year independent senator Rex Patrick said the space sector is at risk of “shutting down before it starts”, with no launch permits issued yet.
But Mr Tylor said the agency is still young, and the local industry needs to work with it to overcome initial issues.
“What the Australian Space Agency here has achieved in this short period of time is amazing. It’s young and we have to work with them and they are very open and helpful if you approach them,” he said.
“Support is needed to help the companies there to develop and produce products which are competing in an international market. Our fire satellites are an example of that. It may only cover Australia for now but when we have a full constellation we will cover the whole planet.”
Mr Kulshrestha said the company has been working directly with the space agency to iron out issues in applying for permits.
“There are a lot of problems to solve. Our approach has been to collaboratively work together with government and the agency to get the outcomes that Australia needs,” he said.
Google’s incendiary threat to shut its internet search services in Australia is simply the latest expression – albeit the nuclear option – of a campaign against a proposed law that the company simply does not like.
The appearance of Google Australia managing director Mel Silva before a public hearing of the Senate economics committee on Friday was extraordinary for its velvet glove demonstration of awesome market power.
In threatening to pull search services from Australia, a move that would lead to unknowable but likely dramatic short-term damage to businesses, to the economy and to the government, Google has put a spotlight on the concentrated power its own market dominance.
Even more extraordinary has been the way the threat galvanised senators. On how many issues would South Australian independent Rex Patrick and Liberal firebrand Andrew Bragg be so tightly aligned? Not many I would think.
Digging in: The federal government showing no sign of moving
It has been clear for some time that the political class in Australia is increasingly frustrated with the market power of the Big Tech platforms, and with growing anger at the way that power is exercised.
Mel Silva’s threats to withdraw Google search services has brought that frustration out into the open.
Scott Morrison’s “we don’t respond to threats” entry into the discussion late on Friday was as ironic as it was dramatic. Certainly, it is an escalation. It is not every day that a company can provoke so instant and an angry a response from a Prime Minister as Google managed on Friday.
The Prime Minister is quite right. Australians get to decide how Australia is run.
“That’s done by our parliament, that’s done by our government, and that’s how things work in Australia,” Mr Morrison said. “And people who want to work with that in Australia are very welcome. But we don’t respond to threats.”
No arguments there.
As a private company, Google is equally within its rights to withdraw services from a jurisdiction where it can’t make a business case to successfully operate within the laws of the land. It would leave behind many billions of dollars in revenue on which is pays only a razor thin level of tax, but it can exercise that right if it cannot find a way to make it work.
It is quite a stand-off. The relationship between Big Tech and the federal government is on the brink.
The release on Thursday of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Advertising Services Inquiry will test the relationship further.
What is happening in Australia, and the process that culminated in last week’s dramatic testimony has been underway for several years, is being closely watched around the world.
Scott Morrison is not exactly the Lone Ranger when it comes to world leaders who are concerned about the threat that Big Tech’s concentrated market power poses.
But the media bargaining code just seems an odd issue for the government to have dug in so deep.
Of all the things that are objectionable about the vertically and horizontally integrated systems of data collection and exploitation, is this the best way to confront that market power?
If the problem is competition and Google and Facebook’s monopoly-like power, how does the forced extraction of revenue derived from that broken system to be handed to traditional media companies help?
If the problem is the impact on journalism, is handing new revenue streams to the concentrated interests of Australia’s big media companies the best way to enable a flourishing public interest journalism sector in Australia?
In the system of the world created by Google and others, it has never been easier or cheaper to launch a publishing company and reach audiences. Deep niche publishing has proliferated, but sustainable commercial models are elusive.
The simple proposition that mainstream Australia will have to bear the aggravation and considerable damage of Google closing search in order that money can be stripped from Google and given to News Corp and Nine does not pass the pub test.
While Australians are supportive of greater regulation of Big Tech – and there is widespread concern about the negative impact of the platforms companies on our institutions – it is far from clear that media and aspect of journalism this Big Tech issue captures the imagination of a wide enough spectrum of the public.
This is especially the case when it’s held up against the concentrated ownership and market power of Australia’s media giants. Are there any Australians outside of the political class who want to die in a ditch in a fight to guarantee revenue for News Corp and Nine? Hmm?
The findings of the ACCC’s Digital Advertising Services Inquiry will likely shine a brighter light the structural integration in the supply chain that is hindering the operation of the market and potentially hindering innovation and ultimately hurting the consumer. This would provide a more explainable route to confronting concentrated market power.
Google has built a system of the world over the past couple of decades that is fundamentally integrated into the way our economy works.
The removal of Google search would be a hammer blow for many businesses. It would spark an unprecedented reorganisation of the digital economy in this country, with winners and losers emerging from the system that replaces it.
There is no denying that many thousands of businesses are extremely concerned – to an existential degree – about the impact.
The unknowable level of drama and damage such a withdrawal of Google search would prompt would be devastating for government. It is a supreme communications challenge to sell the benefits of holding the line.
But if Google were to make good on its threat and withdraw search services from Australia, the supply chains would quickly reorganise. For all the difficulty, it would be replaced with something else.
This government has shown itself capable of maintaining a policy line in the face of extreme pressure from commercial partners. It seems committed to its current course in relation to the media bargaining code.
