AI is revolutionising industries and ushering in a new era of work for users, businesses and more. While some organisations are already using it for small pilot projects, the real opportunity lies in exploring its ability to scale. ��

In June of this year the Australian Government published its discussion paper on AI technology, called . What it revealed is that AI is a critical technology that can help to drive productivity growth in Australia. From hospitals using it to consolidate large amounts of patient data, engineers using it to evaluate and optimise designs, to using AI-enabling improvements and cost savings in the provision of legal services, it’s clear all industries will benefit from AI.��

Australia’s economy is currently experiencing low productivity growth, its lowest for 60 years. We have an opportunity, even an obligation to, embrace this technology at all levels, across all industries to increase our economy’s output.��

At �鶹ԭ��, we’re bringing transformative intelligence to organisations through across both private and public sectors. For example, is using �鶹ԭ�� machine learning capabilities to predict those taxpayers that are at risk of defaulting. This is enabling them to proactively build personalised payment plans and deliver more timely revenue collection to the government. On the other hand, , one of Australia’s largest workplace solutions companies, is using �鶹ԭ�� intelligent robotic process automation to automate repetitive administrative tasks, freeing up its workforce to focus on more strategic and value-added activities.��

The need for AI regulation��

As the adoption of AI accelerates there is a growing discussion, prompted by the government’s recent discussion paper, around what steps must be taken to regulate it.��

While recent discussions suggest the technology industry opposes regulation, while citizens advocate for greater protections, the reality is more nuanced.��

For our part, �鶹ԭ�� does not oppose regulation if there is harm that can be best managed by it. In fact, in most cases existing regulations are suitable for addressing some of the issues raised by AI. For example, a core principle of Australian Consumer Law is that businesses must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct. We do not need new AI specific laws to prohibit the use of generative AI to be used to create misleading images in a consumer protection context.��

Furthermore, while AI is a complex technology, the issues arising from the impacts of AI on intellectual property rights are very different from those related to businesses using AI to determine the suitability of a loan application.��

������’s view is that a broad-based regulatory approach to addressing potential harms is not suitable.��

������’s risk-based approach to AI��

To mitigate and manage the risks associated with AI, �鶹ԭ�� recommends the following:��

1. A risk-based sectoral approach rather than top-down broad-based regulatory intervention: �鶹ԭ�� recommends that regulators or policy makers undertake a risk assessment to determine whether to intervene based on end-user implications. For example, consumer protection policy makers and regulators should assess what the risks are facing a consumer who uses an AI-enabled driverless car.����
2. Establish an AI centre of excellence: AI is a fast-moving technology with impacts across all government portfolios. To avoid overlap, inconsistency, duplication, and conflict, �鶹ԭ�� recommends establishing an AI centre of excellence to advise and coordinate whole of government policy responses and apply a common set of principles to its application. As Ed Santow Professor & co-director, Human Technology Institute, University of Technology Sydney noted “A significant part of the problem in the AI era is not the content of our law, but the fact it is not consistently enforced when it comes to the development and use of AI.”��

Government accountability does not end there. You should not regulate what you do not understand. Government must also be an exemplar in its use of AI, investing in AI across every portfolio and using it to improve its operations and citizen services. ��

At the recent �鶹ԭ�� NOW event in Sydney the former NSW Minister for Customer Service Victor Dominello reinforced this, noting that all agencies must prioritise experimenting and trialling new applications of AI technologies in their operations and policy challenges.��

The path forward requires industry collaboration��

�鶹ԭ�� looks forward to engaging with the Government’s engagement regulatory responses to AI. However, we should not lose sight of the pressing public policy challenge of low productivity facing Australia. We know that AI technologies help us do more with less, so let’s focus on how we can accelerate our economy’s adoption of this technology. ��

For more information, read ������’s response to the Australian Government’s Safe and Responsible AI discussion paper here.��

The post Regulating safe and responsible AI for Australian businesses and government appeared first on �鶹ԭ�� Australia & New Zealand News Center.

These issues, however, can be thwarted if decisions surrounding these projects are supported by data that is open, transparent, verifiable, and comparable. Access to open data can ultimately help unlock greater collaboration opportunities for future government infrastructure projects and result in more productive assets.

But look closely and often these potentially useful data sets can be unstructured, siloed, unsecure, unreliable, repetitive, managed through analogue processes or inaccessible by other government agencies. This can be the case as there is typically a focus of efforts on the physical assets and not the data, besides collating and using it to meet legal, reporting, procedural, and records keeping requirements.

When data is managed properly, it can deliver immense value to government agencies. Data can be used to support more informed decision-making, navigate the journey of resource allocation, improve the performance of existing infrastructure assets, and enable a step change in overall productivity and the delivery of future infrastructure projects. At the same time, it will ensure there is a timely handover of quality information to set operators up for success.

Neglecting to take advantage of valuable insights could negatively impact future efforts to adopt new technologies and the sector’s overall ability to procure, manage, exchange, and re-use data. Governments will also miss out on being able to strategically drive success of future high-value projects.

The responsibility for structured data collection and management cannot fall solely on a single entity, such as the government agency overseeing the infrastructure project. Rather, governments – across all levels – must collaborate collectively with industry and academia to understand the critical importance of valuing and managing data as an asset.

Developing and implementing a national data standard across all infrastructure assets will help foster a collaborative and unified approach to better data interoperability, as well as support the lifecycle of digital assets and digital twins for public infrastructure. The standard would also focus on uplifting data awareness, data literacy, data custodianship, data specification and data management.

Defining best practice for the Australian infrastructure sector on how to handle and organise data in the future will also eventually create a complete digital ecosystem, built on trusted and reliable data, that connects infrastructure agencies with their suppliers, stakeholders, and customers. It will also promote cross-agency cooperation, by actively supporting data sharing and digital collaboration, to re-invent how government agencies partner together to plan, deliver and operate public infrastructure.

The body of work of establishing a national data standard needs to be a led by a central government body, made up of members from all levels of government and other relevant stakeholders. This will require a concerted effort to identify opportunities to formalise the standards.

Without a national standard, the public infrastructure sector will continue to be challenged in data sharing, and eventually see Australia fall behind on a global scale. Working with relevant stakeholders and technology providers, such as �鶹ԭ��, to co-design and trial digital solutions, governments can directly address the challenge of current systems and support effective data management over the digital asset lifecycle.

Learn more in our that you can download for free.

The post How Leveraging Open Data Can Drive Collaboration On Major Public Infrastructure Projects appeared first on �鶹ԭ�� Australia & New Zealand News Center.

A suggests cloud spending will exceed $10 billion in Australia this year. But the government’s cloud security guidelines need to go further in overcoming barriers and drive further uptake of cloud technologies. Advancing our digital economy is a central focus of the 2021-22 federal budget, so the government has a huge opportunity to demystify cloud services.

The Australian Cyber Security Centre and the Digital Transformation Agency released last year. Their purpose is to better inform organisations, cloud service providers (CSPs) and Information Security Registered Assessors Program assessors about carrying out comprehensive risk-based assessments of CSPs and services.

The federal government is also piloting cyber hubs to share cyber services and security expertise across Home Affairs, Defence and Services Australia. This is a real step forward and something we need to see more of, as a successful pilot would create a blueprint for wider adoption. It’s pleasing to see from the Australian Signals Directorate and Digital Transformation Agency suggesting an extension to non-corporate Commonwealth entities.

The guidelines and cyber hubs are an important step in improving engagement with cloud services, but there is still much to be done in educating its agencies and the broader community about the advantages of cloud technologies. There are several critical issues with the existing guidelines – assessment is expensive and slow, contractual controls for risk mitigation can be improved, as can overall agency understanding of and consequent adoption of Software as a Service (SaaS) cloud solutions.

Change is needed to overcome these issues, including a shift to continuous risk management underpinned by a whole-of-government risk management framework, the management of certifications across agencies, and encouraging government and community take-up of SaaS to improve cybersecurity defences.

Read more from Ramah Sakul in The Mandarin

To explore this topic in more detail download the Cloud Control paper from the Cybersecurity Research Co-Operative Centre and �鶹ԭ�� .

The post Opinion: Time for government to put its foot on the cloud accelerator appeared first on �鶹ԭ�� Australia & New Zealand News Center.