Ed Husic
Chifley · Australian Labor Party · Australia
“The tragedy of that poem has befallen generations from then to now—the fact that we enjoy being in the sun so much. In many respects we have paid for that enjoyment, and in many cases we've paid for it with our lives, with the cancers that have emerged, particularly melanoma.”
“It's been that sacrifice that he made combined with the observation that, in so much of what he did, there was an absence of gravitas and ego. Richard was us. He walked amongst us all, containing that special talent and gift that he had, with desire to save others. That, I think, marks him out.”
“A lot has been said about what Richard Scolyer has done in terms of his professional, scientific and research background. But I want to come back, if I may, to the remarks I just reflected on. When we think of the Australian character we think of our ability to overcome with physical attributes.”
“These things include not just our toughness and not just the fact that so often the Australian character is defined by a very heavy physical element, of being able to survive the elements themselves. One of the big things that's helped this nation survive is our know-how and smarts.”
“When I paid my condolences to Richard's wife, Katie—and Katie, Emily, Matt and Lucy were on the floor of the chamber with us yesterday—I expressed the view to Katie that her husband was a national hero. National heroes don't always attain that description of heroism because they've been successful.”
“I don't think any of us would not have been touched by that final letter that he penned, knowing how hard it would have been to write those words—every single letter in those words, every apostrophe and particularly the full stop.”
The complete record
Every one of 336 lines we hold for Ed Husic, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“It's a bill that strengthens consumer protections in telecommunications by giving the regulator way stronger enforcement powers, making industry standards mandatory, ensuring there are real consequences when providers fail to meet their obligations. Much of what this bill seeks to do collides with the experiences of constituents I'm proud to represent. In December, Colebee experienced a simultaneous fixed line outage and mobile network outage. That combination effectively knocked out almost every single way people connect. Some were left without connectivity for up to four days. Then, just weeks later, residents in Bidwill copped the same thing: outages left households of entire streets without internet or wi-fi for days at a time.”
“Over the last few months, I've spent a lot of time listening to families, small-business owners and workers in my electorate who've asked for something that many Australians have taken for granted: a connection that works when they need it. As I said, those communication networks underpin almost every aspect of modern life—how people work; study; access health care; run home based businesses; connect with government services; stay in touch with families, friends, communities. Reliable communications today is essential infrastructure. It's on par with electricity and water. When that infrastructure fails, people quite reasonably expect accountability and improved service. That is why the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2025 matters.”
“Could you imagine how this place would respond with no phone or internet access for five full days? I relate that experience because that's what the constituents I represent have had to live with not just in one suburb but in a number of suburbs in the electorate of Chifley in Western Sydney. It has brought home to them yet again—and certainly to me, as their representative—how dependent we are on reliable communications. It's not just, as some people might try to dismiss, some sort of luxury. Modern communications are needed by a lot of people to operate businesses, including home based businesses, and for a whole host of other things that they're dependent on, such as accessing government services and doing their shopping, and for whatever else they've become used to. When it's gone, you really feel it.”
“It probably comes as a surprise to people that, during a sitting week, this building will house between 4,000 and 5,000 people. It's a phenomenal number. It's the size of a small suburb. Imagine us turning up on the Monday of budget week and finding out that the wi-fi didn't work. We switch and think, 'Well, that's okay because we've got mobile, and we'll go to mobile broadband, such as its performance is in a building like this.' But, when that doesn't work, we figure we'll go to our desktops and connect up through an ethernet connection. But, when that doesn't work, we figure we'll just have to put up with it—these are first world problems, as the kids say—for 15 minutes. But that turns into half an hour, which turns into an hour, which turns into a day. It turns into four days. It turns into five days in budget week.”
“It means we have a responsibility as a parliament to be across this issue, to prepare the country for this issue and the threats that are posed and, in doing so, to not be framed as Luddites but do what we're meant to do for the Australian public, which is identify risk, mitigate risk, build confidence and get the most out of new technology when it delivers for us and, importantly—I end on this point—where the technology works for us, not the other way round. That is critical.”
“That is because there has been a very thorough, strong, complete regulatory framework that has guided the development of that medicine. And yet we continue to have remarkable breakthroughs in medical sciences in spite of the fact that a heavy regulatory framework exists. People are seriously concerned about what AI will do to them. In Australia, nearly 75 per cent of people believe that, even when they use AI, it still poses a threat. In the American context, polling has shown 77 per cent of Americans think AI is not a force for good.”
“There should be a unified, clear set of guardrails that governs the way AI is used in societies. Anyone who thinks that the general public is permissive of the widespread use of AI is woefully mistaken. Australians are genuinely concerned about the impact of artificial intelligence. They do not believe it is a free-for-all. They do believe there should be guardrails. Also, no-one believes that there is a choice between regulation and innovation, that they cannot exist together. As I often remark, anyone who takes a medicine at a time when they are ill puts great trust and faith in that medicine. They have not tested it themselves; they have hoped that somewhere along the line that medicine will be safe to take and use.”
“As I said, this is a completely false argument and should not be allowed to stand. They should pay their way and also recognise that, if compensation is good for them, it is good for authors as well. The other thing is that AI generated content can be produced at a speed and a scale that are not comparable to the output of human creatives. Genuine creative work will often require significant human time investment, and that should be recognised in any future deal. This is but one argument—this is a pinprick—that is now being enlivened as a result of the rapid uptake of Generative AI. Parliaments, governments, the world over are being challenged by the ways in which AI is starting to impose itself on societies. We cannot afford to have a hands-off approach to a technology that will touch every part of our lives.”
“That should not happen. It is not right. It is not fair that that should occur. Big Tech should also not be allowed to get away with the argument that allowing access to copyright material or, in particular, remunerating it will stifle economic growth in innovation. This is wrong. It is a red herring of an argument. The models that are being developed by those firms pay every step of the way. The people that run those companies are very well remunerated. The employees that help develop those models are remunerated as well, both in salary and in shares. They will become wealthy people. They have got their slice. They cannot say that they should do better by taking money off of authors, creatives and publishers and arguing that, by being forced to pay, innovation will be stifled.”
“From my point of view, and certainly from the point of view of many in the public, the work of authors, creators and publishers should be properly, fairly remunerated. This is a commercial transaction, and the hard work put together by creatives should be paid for. It's important to note some of the creators may not even be aware their works are being utilised to train AI models, which is something that we should be alert to. The Copyright Act in this country, in its current form, does not yet contain provisions specifically addressing AI generated content. Understandably, artists and creatives want the government and the parliament to ensure that they are properly remunerated and protected from some of the changes that have been sought by US tech to dilute the Copyright Act in this country to allow them to access those works.”
“That means soaking up data from wherever it may sit. In some cases, it would involve taking up the works of creators and churning them through their systems. There is, rightly, an objection to the way in which that may occur. If that occurs without remuneration, that is fundamentally wrong. It is theft. There should be a mechanism for the remuneration of authors and creators for their work if it's used to train an AI model. The view of those developing the models is that that is too much to ask for, and that is a ridiculous proposition. The reality is these models have had huge amounts of money—billions of dollars—poured into their development, and they will ultimately create a reward, a profit, for the developers of those models.”
“As I indicated earlier, it was in 1974 that Prime Minister Whitlam approved the Public Lending Right Scheme, and it was inherently underpinned by a notion of fairness, recognising the value of that work and the importance of supporting Australian voices. That endures 50 years on. The bill itself is a critical way of modernising something that took a foothold 50 years ago, has been amended from time to time and now needs to be updated. There are, as people would be aware, threats to the ability of authors and publishers to earn what is owed to them and for their work to be respected. The principal threat comes in the form of artificial intelligence. Some of the biggest models on the planet require data—huge amounts of it—processed regularly to refine and improve the operation of those models.”
“It is the transmission of that knowledge, that guidance, that know-how, that goes on from one generation to the next in an educational setting, in many instances, that should be recognised and remunerated. Whilst not everyone who writes a book, according to the minister, seeks to be a full-time author, he did point out—I thought this was important to restate for the record—that the average income for an Australian writer in 2021-22 was reportedly just over $16,000, which would surprise a lot of people given what is required to produce those works. There is also an admission that the creativity captured within that work is their property. It should not be, quite frankly, stolen by those who wish to use it for other purposes or to profit from it in a way that is not right, fair or gives an opening to the author or the publisher.”
“They made a mark, and they continue to make a mark today. Hence what has been brought forward to the parliament. I just want to commend the Minister for the Arts for championing this bill in terms of recognising and supporting Australian creators and publishers. It brings the entire scheme into a single contemporary legislative framework, it replaces the Public Lending Right Act 1985, and it also makes sure that it is fit for current purpose, which is incredibly important. I also want to reflect on future challenges in this area. These public and educational lending rights are there for a very straightforward but important reason, and that's to ensure that creators and publishers get the money that they deserve when their books are made freely available, particularly through public and educational libraries.”
“But the important thing is that a lot of what Prime Minister Whitlam undertook survived to this day. In this debate, around these reforms, his moves are important because it was under his administration that we first looked at being able to improve the way in which authors were remunerated for their work—not because we were reducing it to a simple matter of dollars and cents but rather because we put a value on the contribution, the thought and the fact that Australian writers considered the Australian experience, they interpreted it for Australian audiences in a way that resonated for them, and, if they undertook that work, that they were entitled through their labour to a better deal. That reform, as much as people may reflect on how much the Whitlam government did and if it did too much, too soon, endured over that period of 50 years.”
“The election of the Whitlam government was designed to usher in significant change after a period where not much change had occurred whatsoever. What was underpinning a lot of Prime Minister Whitlam's reforms was an inherent belief in something that we rarely reflect on, which is Australian exceptionalism. What Prime Minister Whitlam believed in was the power of the Australian voice. He believed in the power of Australian ideas and refused to take any suggestion that Australians, regardless of their background, should take their place in line or that we were not worthy of making contributions not only in the Australian context but also globally. I am not, by any stretch, suggesting that his administration was perfect. In fact, he later acknowledged, in his own way, some of the shortcomings of what he had done.”
“It is with both an even mix of pleasure and a daunting feeling that I follow the member for Macquarie. She applies a great deal of thought to this area because of a deep passion and a belief in the creativity of her fellow Australians. I want to commend her for the contribution that she just made to the House. There are a lot of elements of what the member for Macquarie touched on that I want to retrace the steps of, not the least of which is that we last year marked 50 years since the dismissal of Gough Whitlam's government. It is a point of major reflection for our side of politics because it goes to a perennial question within the party about how much or how little reform we undertake. Prime Minister Whitlam's administration is seen as having created lessons to learn from in both a positive and negative way. I take a different view.”
“Ivan threw himself into helping the Slovenian diaspora here, energetically promoting Slovenian culture and language and maintaining connection. Beside establishing the Slovenian voice program on community radio, he helped set up the Slovenian Australian club Planica, serving as president for over 40 years. The respect for his work was recognised widely in the Slovenian Australian community and is reflected by the presence today of Minister Plibersek, someone proud of her Slovenian heritage and whose family proudly knew Ivan. To me, I'll remember Ivan for his humour, hard work, love of family and the country that was so good to them. I end with the heartfelt words expressed at his farewell: Ivan Rudolf's life reminds us that Australia's success has been built, brick by brick, by people who asked for little and gave everything.”
“Parliaments should be the place to honour the quiet contributions of our fellow Australians, and Ivan Rudolf deserves such recognition. He sadly left us aged 84. His story speaks to the very best of those folk that made it here to start a life in postwar Australia, leaving behind comfort and security, moving from one side of the planet to the other, building a new life from scratch. He arrived here in 1970, settled down in Wollongong and began a tailoring business, where his hard work and reputation for honesty made him a success. In '74, he returned to Slovenia to marry his wife, Maria. They set up home in Balgownie, in the electorate now represented tremendously by the member for Cunningham, to start their family with the birth of their daughter, Rebeka, and then their son, Robert.”
“Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the contributions to this review by committee members and the entire secretariat. I also want to thank the deputy chair for the collaborative, thoughtful approach he employs in complex examinations such as this. These combined efforts have been instrumental in ensuring that the committee is able to discharge its accountability role effectively and in the public interest.”
“These examples reinforce a fundamental point: banks must be able to demonstrate that customer interests are genuinely embedded in decision-making at every single level. Through the Review of Australia's four major banks , the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics examines not only bank conduct and governance but also the insights banks can offer into the financial wellbeing of households, the pressures facing businesses and the performance and resilience of the Australian economy more broadly. The report reflects evidence received during the committee's hearings with the major banks held on 18 and 19 November 2025. It considers how banks are responding to economic pressures, regulatory expectations and technological change, while remaining focused on customer outcomes and systemic stability.”
“While remediation has begun, the bank has imposed tight eligibility rules and complex refund processes that make it unnecessarily harder for affected customers to recover what they are owed. During the hearing, there was a suggestion that returning this money might be something shareholders object to. Frankly, that should never be a consideration in circumstances where customers have been charged fees that should not have been paid. The bank has profited from what's akin to an ill-gotten gain. If the situation were reversed, there is absolutely little doubt that the bank would recover the money quickly. The CBA is urged in the strongest terms to resolve this promptly—and fairly.”
“While senior management assured the committee that improvements are being made, the committee will monitor this closely to ensure promises match experience, and we will seek further reporting from regulators to ensure those commitments translate into real change. Evidence from the Commonwealth Bank raised different, but equally troubling, concerns. In particular, the bank's treatment of low-income and concession customers highlighted the gap that can exist between technical compliance and community expectations of a 'fair go'. Around 2.2 million low-income customers were wrongly placed in high-fee accounts and charged approximately $280 million in excessive fees by CommBank.”
“That principle of continuous reflection and improvement underpins the committee's work today. Nearly a decade on from the royal commission, the evidence examined in this review shows why sustained scrutiny of the banking sector remains essential. For example, the ANZ was recently subjected to the largest-ever fine, levied against a single entity by ASIC. This follows misconduct linked to a major government bond deal and separate failings affecting tens of thousands of retail customers. Nearly a decade later, considering the behaviour referenced above, we're reminded of Commissioner Hayne's words: 'foolish, and ignorant'. ANZ's $250 million fine follows repeated regulatory interventions against the bank over the past decade. These actions point to deep-seated governance and cultural issues.”
“This recommendation requires all financial services entities to frequently assess their culture and governance, identify problems, address them, and determine whether changes made have been effective. Commissioner Hayne made it clear that to ignore the recommendation would be 'foolish and ignorant because those who will not learn from history will repeat it.' He continued: Above all, it demands recognition that the primary responsibility for misconduct in the financial services industry lies with the entities concerned and with those who manage and control them: their boards and senior management. Crucially, he also made clear that this responsibility is not a one-off exercise—and our committee takes this point very seriously. Banks must apply, reapply and keep reapplying the lessons of the royal commission over time.”
“But when decisions go wrong, the consequences can be serious, and they are often felt by customers and communities first. That is why the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics has maintained its program of annual public hearings with the major banks in this new term of parliament. These hearings ensure that we continue to fix a strong public spotlight on bank conduct, culture and governance. In the aftermath of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, these hearings are one of the few remaining public forums that provide transparency and accountability for the decisions made by the nation's largest financial institutions. A critical recommendation embedded in the heart of the final report of the royal commission was recommendation 5.6.”
“On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Review of Australia's four major banks: First report of the 48th Parliament , together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). by leave—Australia's major banks are central parts of our national economy. They support Australian businesses to invest, innovate and grow, while also helping millions of Australians pursue their personal ambitions—whether that's buying a first home, keeping their finances secure or planning for long-term financial stability. Because of that role, the decisions made by our largest banks matter. When they get it right, households and the broader economy benefit.”
“It is connecting two major metro lines, linking the north-west directly to the south. There are also all the jobs that will come with it. Importantly, having Richmond Road upgraded plus the metro will unlock the ability to develop the Marsden Park CBD, which will become the biggest CBD in Blacktown and, dare I say, in our part of Western Sydney. We absolutely need that investment. People are dying to see the extension of the rail line plus the other things that need to occur. They've waited too long. They should not be forced to endure any more.”
“The other good thing has been that we have recently seen that Infrastructure Australia, in their infrastructure priority list, have just acknowledged that extending the metro from Tallawong to St Marys is a nationally significant priority. I don't know why the former Liberal government stopped it at Tallawong. It made no sense and was a bizarre decision. But we've got a chance to fix this up now, and Infrastructure Australia agrees that that should happen. At the moment, people turn up to Tallawong and can't get parking in the commuter car park from Tallawong, The Ponds, Schofields and down to Marsden Park. A huge number of people are trying to get onto that rail network and can't. Infrastructure Australia now saying that this should be upgraded is really important.”
“Despite the fact that we asked federal Liberal and New South Wales Liberal governments for years to get that work done, the only time the NSW Liberal government sought to upgrade the road was when they made an announcement on the eve of the last state election to put money in, which was a complete and utter disgrace. Private transport road upgrades are very important. Public transport is just as important. What we need to see is not all the movement happen by cars but also the movement of people via rail. The biggest missing link in the metro is from Tallawong to St Marys, where we do need to see the extension of the metro and we do need to see both federal and state governments chipping in to make that happen. I've been petitioning residents locally to sign up and show that they support this, and they have in their droves.”
“In our part of north-western Sydney, the infrastructure needs have been underinvested and have not been met for years, despite the fact that we have phenomenal growth, with an expected 200,000 people moving into our part of the world. For example, since 2019, I've been pushing for the upgrade of Richmond Road to be able to better carry the number of cars that need to use that road with huge housing developments plus commercial and industrial developments there. In 2026, we are finally seeing the upgrade of that road following commitments by the Albanese government and the Minns government, with over $500 million going into that massive upgrade.”
“Yes, AI has benefits, but we can't allow AI to reshape our economy or sovereignty on terms the Australian public does not choose or support.”
“They can't always do that onsite. They have to draw supply from elsewhere. That means energy needs to be moved around. Data-centre builders should be required to pay the cost of that, specifically via transmission levies, contributing to the cost of building transmission lines. That's not radical. Canadian provinces have introduced a data-centre levy applied to data centres connected to the grid with electricity capacity of 75 megawatts or more. This means power-hungry facilities pick up a slab of the cost associated with the energy demand that they created, shielding residential and business customers from paying for this through their energy bills. We need to debate AI openly and have a wider public discussion about artificial intelligence and the infrastructure needed to support it. Yes, we have to act fast.”
“If overseas tech firms want to build data centres here, then spell out the benefit for the country. Will their computing power be set aside for Australian industry and researchers to help Australia tackle our challenges? That should be a condition of the Foreign Investment Review Board when they attach approvals on data centres that overseas firms want to build here. Overseas tech should be required to show that, when they build data centres, they're not going to negatively impact on the power and water supplies of our communities. They should demonstrate they won't compete for labour, especially in regional Australia, which is helping build more homes or infrastructure work that's vital to the nation. There's something else that needs to be taken up. Many data-centre builders say they'll build new renewable supply to meet their needs.”
“The demand on our labour force to build this new wave of data centres is also significant at a time we're 90,000 workers short in construction and trying to build 1.2 million homes by 2030 and roll out more renewables and deliver a major infrastructure pipeline. Many of these overseas tech firms want governments to move faster, water down regulations, speed up access to land energy infrastructure, while, in some cases, even threatening not to build data centres if they're forced to pay tax. Those points bring into scope fundamental questions about the social licence of many of these tech firms. I want to be clear: I am not anti data centre, but I am anti hype, and I'm very pro getting our act together to devise a structured approach to infrastructure, energy, workforce, taxation and sovereign capability.”
“Sixty-five per cent of Australians believe that, overall, AI creates more problems than it solves. That's up eight percentage points since 2023, according to Roy Morgan Research. Linked to this mad rush around AI is a frenzy to build data centres. There are now more than 250 data centres operating in Australia. We attracted $10 billion in data centre investment in a single year. But this expansion is not without consequence. Data centres are extraordinarily energy intensive. Their impact on carbon emissions doubled over five years. They could represent 11 per cent of Australia's electricity consumption by 2035, up from one per cent today.”
“Governments can't just be cheerleaders for novel uses of AI; they must prepare and dilute the associated risks. We can't be scared to act because we're worried about the reaction of the Trump administration. We can't have a hands-off, laissez-faire approach to AI or respond in a knee-jerk, spasmodic way to the AI risks that only threaten the loudest or most powerful voices in society. Saying we want overseas generated AI models to bake in Australian values is a terrific rhetorical sweetener, but, without any legal or enforcement power, it simply melts in the heat of big tech obstinacy. We need a comprehensive, national, economy-wide AI act that identifies risks and sets out our expectations on how to manage them and build sorely needed confidence in AI.”
“In the last few months, we've seen thousands upon thousands of tech workers retrenched due to AI—workers who were right to believe and who had been made to believe that they'd have a job for life. AI has busted open the sanctuary gates. If those jobs are no longer sacred in an AI future, then what about the rest of our workforce? Because, while a serious danger before us is that a lot of jobs will profoundly change or disappear due to AI, the greatest danger is that, as Professor Toby Walsh has put it, we will sleepwalk into an AI future not shaped by us at all. It's a question of power, of control, of sovereignty. Governments have a responsibility to think ahead, step up and act in the national and local interest, looking out for communities that might be impacted.”
“I look forward to these developments, but, more importantly, I look forward to Australian procurement backing Australian business.”
“Are we systematically assessing the long-term strategic implications of vendor concentration in critical digital services? When we appropriate billions of dollars in procurement, we're not simply paying invoices. We're shaping markets. We're signalling priorities. We're determining which firms will grow, which technologies will dominate and where the next generation of innovators will build their careers. The Finance Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2025-26 state that Finance 'will advance regulatory reforms and the procurement integrity agenda and focus on enhancing our data and digital capabilities internally.' There's also been a focus on the application of artificial intelligence as we strengthen and implement AI for the Australian Public Service.”
“We do need to create space in procurement for alternative providers, particularly Australian firms, creating opportunities for local tech. We anchor capability. We give our researchers and engineers commercialisation pathways in this nation. It doesn't mean excluding international firms. We're an open trading nation, but we want to benefit from global innovation and investment fairly and in a way that does not lock us in to being completely dependent on global supply chains that can reduce our independence as a result. We should be asking: Are our procurement frameworks adequately weighting considerations of digital and tech sovereignty? Are we lowering barriers for innovative Australian SMEs to compete for government contracts?”
“We also have to acknowledge that technology markets are evolving at extraordinary speed. Artificial intelligence is a classic example of what's happening there. The platforms and standards being locked in today will shape productivity, security and economic growth for decades. But we can't afford to treat that as business as usual. We also need to make sure that, when it comes to procurement, Australian firms are not disadvantaged when competing against firms that have aggressive tax-minimisation strategies. If there are firms that refuse or minimise the amount of Australian tax they pay, those firms should not be entitled to reap the Australian revenue that flows to them through procurement, and we should take a much stronger stand on that.”
“Too often in the past, procurement processes have favoured those with the resources to navigate complex tenders rather than those with the best ideas or the most innovative solutions. In October last year, the updated Commonwealth Procurement Rules gave that definition practical effect. From 17 November 2025, non-corporate Commonwealth entities have to prioritise Australian businesses for procurement below the relevant procurement thresholds. This update, amongst others, will provide Australian businesses with access to approximately 31,000 Australian government contracts valued at almost $2 billion. Changes that sit within the broader Future Made in Australia framework, taken together, will show a procurement framework that's way more structured, more transparent and strategically stronger than it was years before.”
“Alternatively, we can treat procurement as a tool—one that deliberately nurtures domestic capability, de-risks world-class Aussie innovation, supports scaling Australian firms and embeds resilience into national tech and digital infrastructure—not as a cost but as a genuine investment to stimulate demand for new tech to support growth. I'm proud of the progress that has been made; for example, the changes to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules that came into effect at the end of last year. Those things matter. For the first time, we've got a clear definition of what counts as an Australian business for procurement purposes. This is huge. This gives transparency to the system and confidence to Australian firms that when we say we're backing Australian business, we mean it.”
“Here's what Vaxxas CEO David Peacock had to say: We have funding from the US and Europe for pandemic preparedness, but we do not have any funding from the federal government here. Vaxxas doesn't want to see their homegrown invention head offshore. They've told us that their tech could be integral to our sovereign capability for pandemic preparedness. Yet there's a strong likelihood they'll have to move their headquarters overseas, because they've been backed by Europe faster than they've been backed by their own country. Our ecosystem has let them down. There is a choice before us. We can accept that Australian-built know-how will be governed elsewhere, with economic benefits flowing out of this country.”
“At the University of Queensland, Vaxxas developed a high-density microarray patch, which is effectively a needle-free vaccine patch the size of a 20c coin, pioneering future self-administered vaccine delivery. Not only can this biotech development achieve stronger immune protection with smaller doses, it can also eliminate the need for vaccine refrigeration during storage and transportation—all developed in this country. The implications for reducing the resource and logistics burden of maintaining this strict vaccine cold chain can't be understated, nor can the possibility of mailing these patches out for self-administration in the event of another global pandemic, rapidly reducing disease spread.”
“Yet, too often, we invent here and commercialise elsewhere. I'm tired of seeing an idea that began in an Australian mind being completed in a company in another country. The issue is not that we're short on ideas or talent. It's the structural and cultural barriers that stop us from scaling innovation. It's got to be called out. There is a complete lack of support and faith in the corridors of Treasury and Finance, whose mindset is stuck in the nineties. They believe the best thing Australia can be is the customer of someone else's idea or product. Look no further than Vaxxas as an example. Vaxxas is a Brisbane based Australian company that's commercialising novel tech to enhance the performance of existing next-generation vaccines.”
“Without deliberate counterweights, smaller domestic firms struggle to compete for large public contracts, regardless of their innovation or quality. Procurement is one of the few levers governments possess to rebalance those dynamics. The government has rightly spoken about, and acted on, building a Future Made in Australia. We've invested in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, critical minerals processing and value-adding industries. But technology has to sit at the centre of that ambition. Australia's research base is world class. Our research institutions consistently rank among the best globally and produce a disproportionately high share of global research. We produce exceptional research in quantum computing, in medical technology, in cybersecurity, in fintech and in artificial intelligence.”
“They're as critical to national resilience as traditional industrial assets. If we default to the largest global incumbents in every single category, Australian firms are denied the anchor customer they often need to grow. Venture capital will then flow offshore. Intellectual property will migrate. Our brightest engineers, for example, will build foreign platforms rather than nurture domestic ecosystems. Conversely, when government deliberately creates space for local providers—through clearer pathways into procurement panels, proportionate contract requirements and genuine consideration of sovereign capability—that catalyses growth. Technology markets tend towards concentration, which has been seen time and again. Network effects and scale advantages reinforce incumbency.”
“The European Union recognised this explicitly through its Cloud Sovereignty Framework, introduced late last year, where procurement decisions are weighted to consider strategic sovereignty, legal and jurisdictional sovereignty, data and AI sovereignty, technological sovereignty and more. Australia does this in some sectors; that's the good news. For example, defence procurement is explicitly linked to sovereign industrial capability priorities. We recognise that certain capabilities must be sustained domestically for reasons of national security and strategic autonomy. The question is: why would digital capability more broadly be treated any differently? Digital systems underpin our energy grids, our health records, our financial transactions, our education systems and our defence platforms.”