Custom LLM for Canberra's Private Sector

No, and this is the whole reason the page opens the way it does. Yes AI holds no position on a government panel or procurement vehicle, no IRAP assessment by an ASD-endorsed assessor, no security clearances, no cleared personnel, and no environment accredited to hold PROTECTED information. Those are not documents we could produce on request. They are memberships, assessments and vettings we simply do not have. An agency engaging us would fail at its own accreditation gate, and we would rather that be obvious from the first screen than discovered after a procurement. If you are an agency officer who landed here looking for a supplier, we have saved you a meeting, which is the most useful thing we can do for you.

No. We cannot handle classified or PROTECTED material at any point, in any architecture. It is worth being precise about why, because the marketing in this category is slippery: the constraint is not whether a model can technically run inside a secure facility, of course it can, it is that the supplier designing, deploying and supporting it has to be cleared and assessed, and we are neither. "Air-gapped" is a network topology, not an accreditation, and any vendor implying the first delivers the second is hoping you will not ask.

No. We hold no panel position and no standing offer, and we are not pursuing one. That is a deliberate scoping decision rather than a gap we are working to close: we are a small Melbourne consultancy, and the accreditation burden of Commonwealth work is not a fit for our size or how we like to operate. It also means we have no reason to write you an optimistic page about it.

No. No ACT premises, no Canberra staff, no local account manager, no "local engagement capability". We are based in Melbourne and deliver remotely. The honest accounting of what that costs you: for systems review, data assessment, architecture, the build and the evaluation work, essentially nothing, none of it improves because someone caught a flight. Where physical presence genuinely helps is watching your people work during discovery and delivering unwelcome findings in a room. If those matter to your engagement, we will scope the travel in as a visible line item, or tell you a Canberra firm is the better fit.

For most private Canberra organisations, federal law does the heavy lifting: the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles govern personal information, and the Australian Consumer Law applies to anything your AI says to a customer or a member. The ACT layer bites mainly when you touch the territory public sector, the Information Privacy Act 2014 (ACT) sets out privacy principles applying to ACT public sector agencies and can reach private organisations through contracted service arrangements, which catches more not-for-profits and service providers than expect it. The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) is also worth knowing about, since the ACT is one of the few Australian jurisdictions with human rights legislation, and it shapes how territory-funded services are expected to operate. We map which of these actually apply to your use cases rather than reciting all of them. This is general information on how these obligations typically apply, not legal advice.

A fair question to ask of a page like this. Two reasons. The first is that Canberra's private sector is real, sizeable and almost entirely ignored by AI vendors, because every one of them is writing to the agency next door, a peak body with a decade of policy positions and a two-person secretariat has a better AI business case than most of the departments being courted, and nobody is talking to them. The second is that the disclosure is itself worth publishing: if you work in an agency and you have been reading vendor pages promising ISM alignment and accreditation support, it is genuinely useful to see one supplier say plainly that a page is not an accreditation. We would rather be the page that says so.