Not on the Panel
Unpacking what works when building in ███ ██████, GovTech, and the █████████ market.
👋 Welcome
This is Not on the Panel, your unofficial guide to building and scaling with government.
Each week, we track activity in Australia's $80B business-to-government market. We report on contract spending and the actual mechanics of selling into the public sector.
This publication exists to make the business-to-government market visible.
Whether you're building sovereign tech, navigating digital marketplaces, or just interested in the most underreported and misunderstood parts of Australia's economy, you're in the right place.
📰 This Week in Gov
Driving Sovereign Capability and Domestic Growth
Last week's most consequential development was the announcement of new global tariffs imposed by the United States. Australia's response was not to retaliate but to advance a broader industrial strategy. The government used the moment to sharpen its focus on sovereign capability (the capacity to produce critical goods, skills, and intellectual property on home soil).
The Albanese government leaned into its domestic agenda, with a renewed emphasis on the Buy Australia mandate, more rigorous anti-dumping enforcement, and targeted public investment. While this response arrives in the lead-up to an election, the measures reflect a longer-term policy shift. External pressure is being reframed as a case for national self-reliance and industry resilience.
Implications for Startups and the B2G Landscape
Government as a preferred customer
As part of the campaign announcement, the Prime Minister announced that Federal procurement will prioritise Australian-made goods and services. Although this has not been reflected in legislation or the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, recently issued guidance from the Department of Finance did provide a more precise definition of what qualifies as an Australian company. We expect further policy annoucements to follow aftre the election.
If applied consistently, this framework may represent a meaningful shift for local software companies, service providers, and manufacturers. At the very least, Australian operations, local content, and transparent supply chains may become a genuine competitive advantages in federal procurement. Founders should consider positioning these strengths clearly and early when engaging with government buyers.
Funding and expansion support
The government has committed $1B in zero-interest loans through the National Reconstruction Fund. These will be targeted at companies seeking to expand or adjust their business model to reach new export markets. The funding will sit alongside a $50M program to support industry bodies assisting firms affected by the tariffs.
This funding may support production scaling, market-entry, or diversification strategies for startups in advanced manufacturing, minerals, clean energy, and adjacent sectors. Government-led trade missions are also planned for priority markets, particularly in Asia and Europe.
Increased focus on strategic sectors
The policy response reinforces the government's intent to grow capability in critical minerals, clean energy, and defence-adjacent manufacturing. Startups working in these areas may benefit from increased visibility, partnership opportunities, and access to strategic procurement channels. However, interventions such as the proposed critical minerals reserve will also reshape market dynamics. For founders, there may be just as much opportunity in the picks and shovels of these sectors, including the tools, services, and infrastructure that support the broader ecosystem to grow and scale
Policy stability and reduced risk
The emphasis on sovereign capability now appears to have bipartisan support, (the language also featured in the NSW Innovation Blueprint 2035.) While the Opposition has been critical of how the government responded to the tariffs, they have has agreed with several key elements, including the need for a critical minerals reserve and increased investment in domestic industries.
For founders building in sectors that intersect with public procurement or national capability, this alignment suggests a degree of policy stability that is not always present in the B2G environment. The settings are shifting, and they are moving in a direction that favours those building in Australia and for Australia
💼 This Week in B2G
Week 14 (ending 4 April)
📄 $922.11M in total reported contract spend
🖥️ $22.9M in software + digital services
Breakdown by Service:
💾 Software: $19.23M
☁️ SaaS (Cloud): $1.08M
🛠️ Software maintenance & support: $1.87M
🧱 Platform SaaS: $0K
⚙️ Software/hardware engineering: $661K
Breakdown by Procurement Method
📢 Open Tender — $17.2M
🗃️ Prequalified Tender — $8.4M
📩 Limited Tender — $3.96M
📣 Are You a Startup Selling to Government, (or want to)?
Each week, more than 1,500 federal contracts are published on AusTender. We track what we can, but we cannot review every supplier to identify which companies are startups.
If you’re:
Tendering for government work
Already delivering to a government customer
Recently awarded a contract
We want to hear from you.
You do not need a press release or a comms team; just leave a comment below or get in touch
We are always looking for stories that help explian what is actually happening in the B2G and GovTech market.
🧱Build Better
You may have seen the short posts we’ve been sharing on LinkedIn — observations about why startups stay away from government and why so little changes. Here on Not on the Panel, we are taking those ideas further. Each week, we will unpack one of those assumptions in detail. We will look at what sits underneath the narrative, how the system actually works, and why the rules are rarely the main barrier.
This is the longer, quieter version of the same project. If we want more founders building for government, we need to give them something to build from.
For years, we've heard the same lines about why startups avoid selling to government.
Compliance locks them out. The process is too complex. You have to be on a panel. Sales cycles are too slow. It's easier to win overseas.
These explanations are treated as facts. They are repeated in post-pitch meetings, founder meetups, and investment committees. But most have never been adequately tested. They persist because they are convenient, feel right, and rarely get challenged.
What if these are not truths but myths?
Government procurement in Australia consistently favours the familiar. Small businesses make up 97% of all firms yet receive only around 11% of federal procurement by value. SME's (which can include startups but the data is too complex to dissagregate) win, on average, around 13.5% of Commonwealth contracts. Despite billions invested in innovation initiatives, the structural conditions of public procurement have barely shifted.
Startups describe the process as opaque, rigid, and exclusionary. Founders routinely report feeling shut out or overlooked, not for lack of capability, but because they are not part of the "in-crowd." In practice, contract pathways exist on paper, but the system overwhelmingly rewards large incumbent suppliers.
Government agencies and Departments are risk-averse, and sadly, sometimes choosing a startup means backing an unproven vendor, currently, in a public system where reputational risk is everything, safety, credibility, and well-known matters more than innovation
We have talked to founders and investors and read all the submissions to government enquires about improving procurement, and we keep hearing the same things:
📑 Requirements are complex
🧾 Evaluation criteria favour previous government experience
📚 Paperwork is extensive
🧷 Compliance burdens are high
⏳ Timelines stretch months, sometimes longer
💸 Early-stage companies often lack the runway to wait or compete
🔍 Visibility is limited
🌐 Opportunities are fragmented and complex to find
🕵️ Procurement leads are difficult to identify
Startups often do not know what is available or where to begin. Agencies, for their part, admit they find it difficult to even identify new or suitable suppliers. This gap in access and awareness locks early-stage companies out of the running before they even start.
These challenges are not theoretical. They also shape how investors view the market. Government sales are seen as slow, unpredictable, and expensive to pursue. Many startups are encouraged to focus elsewhere. Some find it easier to win contracts overseas than at home.
In the end, the problem is not that startups are incapable of delivering to the government. Most early-stage companies do not have the skills, knowledge, or investor support to operate in a complex and opaque system. Even with the right pathways and policy intentions, the structure and culture of procurement still favour the known, the established, and the safe.
This series is not just about Visibility. It is about changing how this $80B annual market is understood, valued, and backed. It is not to complain or fix the system but to understand it. It is not to wait for permission but to build around it. If you are investing in this space or building something for it and want to go deeper, we are here to help.
📄 Method and Scope
Each week, we track reported contract data from AusTender, the Commonwealth government’s procurement reporting system. Our focus is on contracts classified under software, SaaS, and digital services, as these categories are most relevant to technology founders building with or for government.
AusTender publishes thousands of contract notices each week across a wide range of categories. While we rely on this data as our primary source, we cannot guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of individual listings.
We do not attempt to cover every sector or supplier. However, if a startup is awarded a contract and we can verify it, we will include it, regardless of classification. These stories help surface where momentum exists and where future opportunity may lie.
✍️Meet the Editor
Hi, I'm Mat. Startup advisor, former bureaucrat, investor, and lifelong procurement tragic.
Across my career, I’ve worked on four of the most significant non-defence contracts in the Commonwealth. I’m still frustrated that early-stage companies are largely shut out of the government market.
This Substack is part of how I’m building in public. I work with founders and investors who see the $80 billion business-to-government opportunity in Australia. We also support teams with the essential but often overlooked areas like governance, risk, and strategy.
If you’re a founder trying to break into government, or an investor who sees the chance to back generational companies in this space, feel free to reach out. I’m always up for a coffee.