Good morning. It is a pleasure to join the Public Sector Data Sharing Network.
For those of us who spend much of our time working with data, it is easy to forget that most Australians do not wake up thinking about linkage protocols or metadata standards. They are more likely to wake up wondering if the coffee machine still works or whether the kids remembered their homework. But while people may not think about data integration, they do care deeply about what it makes possible: better schools, safer medicines, smarter infrastructure and more effective social services.
As Assistant Minister for Productivity, I believe that good policy rests on good evidence, and good evidence rests on good data. Data sharing is the invisible plumbing that makes this possible. Like any plumbing, you tend not to notice it when it’s working smoothly, but you really do when it springs a leak. Our challenge is to build the pipes, valves and pumps of the data system so they deliver seamlessly, without Australians having to think twice about it.
Today, I want to reflect on the progress Australia has made, share concrete examples of how data sharing is improving lives, and look at what we can learn from other countries that are pushing the frontier.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics is a world leader in data linkage. Two of its integrated data assets stand out: the Person Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA) and the Business Longitudinal Analysis Data Environment (BLADE). PLIDA safely links 37 datasets spanning the Census, tax returns, welfare payments, migration, health, education, disability, and state‑level data such as crime, courts and corrections. More than 84 additional datasets have been linked for single‑use projects, ranging from NAPLAN to hospital data. BLADE links taxation, trade, intellectual property, employment and insolvency data with ABS survey data, creating a rich resource for understanding business performance and productivity. Since 2017, almost 800 projects and 5,000 researchers have used these assets. Without them, our understanding of entrenched disadvantage, business dynamism, health and skills would be far more fragmented.
Consider some of the ways these datasets have shaped policy. The Life Course Data Initiative is a pilot that links PLIDA with select ACT and South Australian datasets, state birth registries, university and childcare data. It focuses on childhood disadvantage, looking particularly at ages zero to 14. This linked data can help us understand protective and risk factors in the early years, giving policymakers a sharper evidence base for interventions. And because it links so many different strands of a child’s life, it helps policymakers see people not as data points in silos, but as whole humans whose health, education and family experiences intersect.
The Department of Education and the ABS used integrated data to develop a fairer way of allocating non‑government school funding. By linking family income data, government now bases non‑government school funding on the actual median income of families of students at each non‑government school, shaping the distribution of around $18 billion annually. It’s a reminder that sometimes data integration isn’t about adding complexity, but about making policy simpler and fairer.
In another project, Treasury worked with ABS microdata to build Australia’s first economy‑wide merger database. This revealed that there are about 1,500 mergers a year, but only one‑fifth are notified to the ACCC. Most targets are medium‑sized firms, while most acquirers are in the largest one per cent. The data showed that when it comes to mergers, it’s the big end of town doing the buying, and the mid‑tier firms doing the selling. This evidence underpinned reforms to merger laws and thresholds. Without that integrated data, we might still be debating merger reform in the dark. With it, we can see the game as it is being played.
Integrated data has also improved health outcomes. Linking the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme with PLIDA identified 5 previously unrecognised medicines associated with heart failure, leading to regulatory action. During the pandemic, COVID‑19 vaccination data was linked with demographic information to pinpoint communities with low uptake, enabling targeted communications and higher coverage. And linking weather and mortality data revealed who was most at risk during heatwaves, leading to better warnings and potentially saving lives. If data saves even a handful of lives in a heatwave, it’s worth more than all the air conditioners in Harvey Norman.
In education and payments, real‑time sharing of higher education enrolment data with Services Australia has saved students an estimated $40 million annually by preventing ineligible debts from accruing. That’s money that young Australians can now spend on textbooks, groceries and, let’s be honest, probably a fair bit of instant noodles.
Each of these examples shows that safe data sharing does not just satisfy academic curiosity. It changes lives, improves fairness, and boosts efficiency.
The framework matters too. The Data Availability and Transparency Act 2022 was designed to enable safe, transparent sharing of public sector data. The draft findings of a review this year found that while it set a solid foundation, it has not yet simplified access in the way it intended. For some users, the process became more complex. That’s a bit like building a new freeway and then discovering the entrance ramps are harder to find than ever. This is a reminder that legislation must not only set guardrails but also make it easier for practitioners to use data responsibly. Reforming the Act is one part of the task; another is cultural, ensuring agencies see data as a public asset to be shared safely, not guarded jealously.
We can also learn from international leaders. Estonia’s X‑Road connects over 450 public and private organisations, enabling 3,000 digital services. Citizens can file taxes in minutes and access health, education and property records through a single secure system. It has been exported to Finland, Iceland, and Japan proving that good ideas, like good software, can be shared across borders. Singapore’s Smart Nation Initiative uses data sharing across government and business to provide seamless services, from digital IDs to real‑time transport updates. Personal data is verified and shared safely, underpinning products that make daily life smoother.
Canada’s Open government Portal provides free access to thousands of datasets on health, environment and transport. Businesses use it for innovation, journalists for accountability, researchers for policy. Canada also uses linked administrative data to study childhood outcomes. An evaluation of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Winnipeg, using linked health, education and social service data, found participation improved school outcomes and reduced justice system involvement. For Canadian kids, data proved what the club leaders probably already knew: a safe place to play after school can change a life trajectory.
In the United Kingdom, the Digital Economy Act 2017 created legal pathways for data sharing in defined areas such as public services and statistics. Researchers have since used linked health and benefits data in London to study the trajectories of mental health patients on welfare, generating new insights for policy. In Scotland, linked health and birth records have illuminated early‑life inequalities. In Wales, linking family court data with health records revealed vulnerabilities among parents in care proceedings, helping to inform support services. In England, linked electronic health records now cover more than 54 million people, enabling population‑wide studies of COVID‑19 and cardiovascular disease. When you can link the records of almost the entire population, the sample size is big enough to satisfy even the grumpiest statistician.
These examples remind us that data sharing is not abstract. It is about using information we already have to design smarter policies, respond faster to risks, and target support where it matters most.
Trust is central to this work. Australians need confidence that their information is secure, anonymised where appropriate, and used only for the public good. The ABS’s integrated data system already does this through de‑identification, safe facilities and strict researcher accreditation. International best practice shows it can be done at scale. Our goal must be to give Australians confidence that sharing data does not mean surrendering privacy. Instead, it means getting better hospitals, schools, infrastructure and jobs policy.
Looking forward, we need to expand the datasets in PLIDA and BLADE to include aged care, veteran support, disability and not‑for‑profit data. We should streamline access so that once data is safely provided to an accredited authority, it can be reused for multiple purposes without repeated bespoke approvals and resupply. We must continue to invest in the people and skills that allow us to use data effectively. And we should keep learning from the best, whether that is Estonia on interoperability, Singapore on citizen services, Canada on open data, or the UK on legal frameworks.
In the end, the case for data sharing is simple. If Australians can move money across the world in seconds, then government agencies should be able to connect datasets to answer urgent social questions. We owe it to Australians to turn information into insight, and insight into impact. By doing so safely, transparently and creatively, we can deliver policies that are not only evidence‑based but evidence‑rich.
Note: My thanks to officials in Treasury and the Australian Bureau of Statistics for drafting assistance.