On face value, the Australian Industry and Defence Network is the only association that is paying more than lip-service to the representation of local companies on government procurement.
Speaking at the National Press Club this week, the AIDN chief executive Mike Johnson called on Defence to re-write its definition of “sovereign” in its Defence Industry Development Strategy.
Defence’s current definition does not deem “ownership” as critical to sovereign, except in specific and limited circumstances.
This means that projects like the Ghost Bat (Boeing), the Ghost Shark (Anduril) and the celebrated Bushmasters (Thales) are considered sovereign capability. Which is both weird and bonkers.
On procurement, Mr Johnson also called on Defence (and was also talking more broadly about procurement generally) to favour Australian companies unless there was a good reason not to.
In any other market, this would be non-controversial. Government’s all over the world use procurement as a lever for industry development – to help build their own industrial base.
Australia is the outlier here, preferring to torture the English language, changing the definition of words like ‘sovereign’. Go figure.
In the tech sector, there is no-one looking after the interests of local companies.
Readers might recall that earlier this year Finance minister Katy Gallagher announced that the federal government had defined what it is to be an “Australian business” in relation to procurement for the first time.
An Australian company, she said, was majority Australian-owned, had Australian tax residency, and was headquartered in this country.
This would also seem non-controversial but had in fact been the subject of a long-running fight.
The definition was adopted in large part due to the work of a crew of Australian companies within the Australian Information Industry Association, one of the tech lobby groups.
The AIIA had a “Domestic Capability” Policy Action Network – a kind of sub-committee looking at sovereign capability issues. (Note that the PAN was called “Domestic Capability” rather than “sovereign capability” because of the loud objections of multinational tech companies who also wanted to torture the English language.)
Well, after Senator Gallagher announced that government had adopted a definition for what is an Australian company, the AIIA blew-up the “Domestic Capability” PAN. It was scrubbed from the organisation. It ceased to exist.
Because the AIIA is an organisation that works tirelessly in the interests of its large, foreign-owned multinational members – in this case at the expense of its Australian members.
The other great story this week came from the iTnews website about the lifting of the12 year ban on IBM participating in government work in Queensland.
The company was banned from government work after a shocking tech wreck in Queensland’s health portfolio. 12 years!
Which does seem harsh. There are any number of tech wrecks at the federal level that produce no consequences whatsoever for the companies involved.
And if we’re being honest here, a great many of the cost blow-outs are a feature of the business model, not a bug.
Worth a look this week:
Defence urged to overhaul definition of sovereign industry – InnovationAus [Subscriber]
SERD’s impact focus a ‘threat’ to discovery research – InnovationAus [Subscriber]
Qld lifts 12-year ban on IBM after $1.25bn payroll failure – iTnews
‘Horrified’ NDIA’s Salesforce probe drags past 2 years – InnovationAus [Subscriber]
Govt touts US$65m paper gain on PsiQuantum investment – InnovationAus [Subscriber]
The National Reconstruction Fund’s real challenge – InnovationAus
Do you know more? Contact James Riley via Email.