Insights and Updates

“To be, or not to be.” 

Shakespeare framed it as the ultimate choice between action and inaction. 

Today, Australia stands at a similar inflection point. However, the question is not poetic. It is practical and urgent. To build or not to build sovereign capability. That is the question.

We rely on global technology providers today. That is reality. But the deeper challenge is what we deliberately construct for ourselves: the infrastructure, the skills, and the frameworks that reduce dependency and give Australia control over its own future.

This is not an abstract policy debate. It is the difference between shaping our destiny and outsourcing it.

Back to first principles

Everyone has an interpretation of sovereign capability. Some of it is insightful. Much of it is noise. And the more it is repeated, in our opinion, the more the meaning gets blurred. So let us bring it back to basics.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary:

• Sovereignty is “supreme power or authority” and, in a national context, “the authority of a state to govern itself.”
• Capability is “the power or ability to do something.”

Put them together and sovereign capability means this: the ability of a nation to deliver outcomes under its own authority, with its own control, on its own terms.

Simple. But when you apply this test to the way the phrase is used today, the gaps are obvious.

The ABN problem

The notion that an ABN makes you sovereign boggles the mind. An ABN is paperwork. It proves you can trade in Australia, not that you operate in Australia. If your delivery pipeline takes a detour offshore, you lose control. Data leaves our borders. Decisions shift elsewhere. Dependencies are created outside our national authority.

That is the opposite of sovereign capability. 

The hyperscaler debate

At the other extreme, some argue that multinational hyperscalers can never be sovereign because their headquarters sit offshore. That line makes for good theatre, but it fails the reality test.

If a hyperscaler operates here in Australia, invests in Australian infrastructure, and conducts itself within Australian legislation with contractual boundaries that keep data and decision rights onshore, then what it delivers, in practice, is sovereign.

This is not about excluding global players. It is about understanding the value they bring to the equation, how we can learn from their experience, and how we form lasting relationships grounded in trust. The pitch should never be “let’s do it alone”, that path is destined to fail.

It is about transparency and working toward a shared vision. Simply put, Australian companies are building toward strengthening our national resilience. To do this at scale, and without wasting precious time reinventing the wheel, we need the support of our global partners to build home-grown capability, and we should not hide from that truth. 

However, Australia must govern the end-to-end process to ensure our sovereignty stays intact, capability is built in the national interest, and the outcome strengthens our national resilience.

It is future generations of Australians who will either flourish or falter based on the decisions we make today.

A first principles test

So instead of arguing lenses, let us apply first principles. If you want to call something sovereign capability, it should be able to pass the following:

• Jurisdiction: contracts, data, and decision rights under Australian law.
• Data control: data stays in Australia with auditable controls.
• Operational autonomy: no offshore choke points for run, change, or incident response.
• Assurance: independent verification against recognised frameworks.
• Workforce: cleared, onshore personnel for sensitive functions.
• Supply chain: transparency and sovereign substitutes for critical links.
• Continuity: ability to keep operating if an offshore parent changes posture.
• Governance: enforceable decision-making authority exercised in Australia. 

If the action being taken fails this test, then stop calling it sovereign capability. Either fix the model or fix the language.

If we keep debating definitions and delaying action, then when we finally move it may be too little, too late, or aimed at the wrong target. The cost of hesitation is national resilience.

From fragmentation to force multiplication

Australia has people, technology, and infrastructure. What we lack in is coordination. 

This is why CAN.B Group architected a framework built in the national interest, focused on building national capability and strengthening national resilience.

• The AUSOVRN™ Capability Stack is a seven layer blueprint for end to end sovereign services. It is vendor agnostic by design and embeds assurance throughout.
• The AUSOVRN™ Network is the curated set of industry partners validated to deliver within that framework. Hyperscalers, data centre operators, AI pioneers, and security leaders all have a role aligned with sovereign-first guardrails.
• The AUSOVRN™ Ecosystem is the whole play: Stack plus Network, governed and delivered as a national model.

This is how we move from isolated projects to repeatable national patterns. This is how we harness global reach today without locking ourselves into it forever. This is how we build the sovereign capability we will need tomorrow.

The real question

So the question is not whether hyperscalers are in or out. They are here, and we rely on them. The real question is this: to build or not to build?

What do we deliberately construct for ourselves, under our own authority, to reduce dependency and increase resilience? That is the sovereign capability challenge that matters.

Australia does not have a capability problem. Australia has a coordination problem. 

Until we solve this, we will keep arming ourselves with wooden swords in an age of digital firepower.

Be the best you CAN.B^TM