Billion-dollar tech founders turn investors with new $50m fund

A group of Australian technology entrepreneurs who have built billion-dollar start-ups have joined forces to invest in a new $50 million venture capital fund, to back the next wave of local founders.
More than 15 founders of so-called 'unicorn' start-ups, including Go1 co-founder Andrew Barnes, A Cloud Guru co-founder Sam Kroonenburg and former Aconex chief executive Leigh Jasper, have invested in Glitch Capital.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Advertiser

35 minutes ago

• The Advertiser

Long way to go to stop lending for deforestation

Australian banks have been slow to trim exposure to deforestation, with big agribusiness players still found to be lending to bush-bulldozing businesses. Two years on from the Australian Conservation Foundation's first foray into the financing of destructive land clearing, a follow-up report points to sluggish progress. Destruction of bushland for grazing, real estate and other development contributes to climate change and threatens species, such as the endangered pink cockatoo, as well as undermining Australia's international commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Deforestation also poses material risks to banks, ACF corporate responsibility policy analyst Audrey van Herwaarden told AAP. Mature trees are important for soil integrity, she said, as well as protection from extreme weather. Landowners with poorer soil and less productive land are more likely to miss repayments, manifesting as a credit risk to the bank. Reputational risk are also at play, with landowners caught land clearing illegally forced to pay steep remediation costs. The five big agribusiness players, ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Rabobank, were linked to cases of deforestation via mortgages over land titles in the 12 months from July 2023. Bank loans through securities on title are a common method for financing deforestation but the environmental group stressed it could not be certain the loans were used for bulldozing. Several mortgages were issued or reissued during or after the destructive landclearing had taken place, raising "serious questions about due diligence or, worse, wilful ignorance". Nearly half the cases might have been in breach of federal nature laws and the environment group had reported them to the relevant department. "Our analysis shows banks still have a long way to go to mitigate the risks - and seize the opportunities - associated with their impacts and dependence on nature," Ms van Herwaarden said. NAB, a major agribusiness lender, was twice as exposed as its peers across the 100 cases of deforestation from around the country. A spokesperson said the bank was addressing many of the report's recommendations, including doing more to engage stakeholders and investing in geospatial tools. "NAB is Australia's largest lender to agriculture and we understand deforestation is a complex issue that requires collaboration across government, industry and landholders," the spokesperson said. As well as calling on banks to commit to eliminating deforestation from their lending portfolios - a move already taken by Westpac - the environmental group also wants government to step up. A national strategy to end deforestation by 2030 is a key request, as well as executing on long-delayed reforms to broken nature laws. Both Commonwealth Bank and ANZ pointed to their social and environmental policies that dictate how they support their customers to manage deforestation risks. Australian banks have been slow to trim exposure to deforestation, with big agribusiness players still found to be lending to bush-bulldozing businesses. Two years on from the Australian Conservation Foundation's first foray into the financing of destructive land clearing, a follow-up report points to sluggish progress. Destruction of bushland for grazing, real estate and other development contributes to climate change and threatens species, such as the endangered pink cockatoo, as well as undermining Australia's international commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Deforestation also poses material risks to banks, ACF corporate responsibility policy analyst Audrey van Herwaarden told AAP. Mature trees are important for soil integrity, she said, as well as protection from extreme weather. Landowners with poorer soil and less productive land are more likely to miss repayments, manifesting as a credit risk to the bank. Reputational risk are also at play, with landowners caught land clearing illegally forced to pay steep remediation costs. The five big agribusiness players, ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Rabobank, were linked to cases of deforestation via mortgages over land titles in the 12 months from July 2023. Bank loans through securities on title are a common method for financing deforestation but the environmental group stressed it could not be certain the loans were used for bulldozing. Several mortgages were issued or reissued during or after the destructive landclearing had taken place, raising "serious questions about due diligence or, worse, wilful ignorance". Nearly half the cases might have been in breach of federal nature laws and the environment group had reported them to the relevant department. "Our analysis shows banks still have a long way to go to mitigate the risks - and seize the opportunities - associated with their impacts and dependence on nature," Ms van Herwaarden said. NAB, a major agribusiness lender, was twice as exposed as its peers across the 100 cases of deforestation from around the country. A spokesperson said the bank was addressing many of the report's recommendations, including doing more to engage stakeholders and investing in geospatial tools. "NAB is Australia's largest lender to agriculture and we understand deforestation is a complex issue that requires collaboration across government, industry and landholders," the spokesperson said. As well as calling on banks to commit to eliminating deforestation from their lending portfolios - a move already taken by Westpac - the environmental group also wants government to step up. A national strategy to end deforestation by 2030 is a key request, as well as executing on long-delayed reforms to broken nature laws. Both Commonwealth Bank and ANZ pointed to their social and environmental policies that dictate how they support their customers to manage deforestation risks. Australian banks have been slow to trim exposure to deforestation, with big agribusiness players still found to be lending to bush-bulldozing businesses. Two years on from the Australian Conservation Foundation's first foray into the financing of destructive land clearing, a follow-up report points to sluggish progress. Destruction of bushland for grazing, real estate and other development contributes to climate change and threatens species, such as the endangered pink cockatoo, as well as undermining Australia's international commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Deforestation also poses material risks to banks, ACF corporate responsibility policy analyst Audrey van Herwaarden told AAP. Mature trees are important for soil integrity, she said, as well as protection from extreme weather. Landowners with poorer soil and less productive land are more likely to miss repayments, manifesting as a credit risk to the bank. Reputational risk are also at play, with landowners caught land clearing illegally forced to pay steep remediation costs. The five big agribusiness players, ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Rabobank, were linked to cases of deforestation via mortgages over land titles in the 12 months from July 2023. Bank loans through securities on title are a common method for financing deforestation but the environmental group stressed it could not be certain the loans were used for bulldozing. Several mortgages were issued or reissued during or after the destructive landclearing had taken place, raising "serious questions about due diligence or, worse, wilful ignorance". Nearly half the cases might have been in breach of federal nature laws and the environment group had reported them to the relevant department. "Our analysis shows banks still have a long way to go to mitigate the risks - and seize the opportunities - associated with their impacts and dependence on nature," Ms van Herwaarden said. NAB, a major agribusiness lender, was twice as exposed as its peers across the 100 cases of deforestation from around the country. A spokesperson said the bank was addressing many of the report's recommendations, including doing more to engage stakeholders and investing in geospatial tools. "NAB is Australia's largest lender to agriculture and we understand deforestation is a complex issue that requires collaboration across government, industry and landholders," the spokesperson said. As well as calling on banks to commit to eliminating deforestation from their lending portfolios - a move already taken by Westpac - the environmental group also wants government to step up. A national strategy to end deforestation by 2030 is a key request, as well as executing on long-delayed reforms to broken nature laws. Both Commonwealth Bank and ANZ pointed to their social and environmental policies that dictate how they support their customers to manage deforestation risks. Australian banks have been slow to trim exposure to deforestation, with big agribusiness players still found to be lending to bush-bulldozing businesses. Two years on from the Australian Conservation Foundation's first foray into the financing of destructive land clearing, a follow-up report points to sluggish progress. Destruction of bushland for grazing, real estate and other development contributes to climate change and threatens species, such as the endangered pink cockatoo, as well as undermining Australia's international commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Deforestation also poses material risks to banks, ACF corporate responsibility policy analyst Audrey van Herwaarden told AAP. Mature trees are important for soil integrity, she said, as well as protection from extreme weather. Landowners with poorer soil and less productive land are more likely to miss repayments, manifesting as a credit risk to the bank. Reputational risk are also at play, with landowners caught land clearing illegally forced to pay steep remediation costs. The five big agribusiness players, ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Rabobank, were linked to cases of deforestation via mortgages over land titles in the 12 months from July 2023. Bank loans through securities on title are a common method for financing deforestation but the environmental group stressed it could not be certain the loans were used for bulldozing. Several mortgages were issued or reissued during or after the destructive landclearing had taken place, raising "serious questions about due diligence or, worse, wilful ignorance". Nearly half the cases might have been in breach of federal nature laws and the environment group had reported them to the relevant department. "Our analysis shows banks still have a long way to go to mitigate the risks - and seize the opportunities - associated with their impacts and dependence on nature," Ms van Herwaarden said. NAB, a major agribusiness lender, was twice as exposed as its peers across the 100 cases of deforestation from around the country. A spokesperson said the bank was addressing many of the report's recommendations, including doing more to engage stakeholders and investing in geospatial tools. "NAB is Australia's largest lender to agriculture and we understand deforestation is a complex issue that requires collaboration across government, industry and landholders," the spokesperson said. As well as calling on banks to commit to eliminating deforestation from their lending portfolios - a move already taken by Westpac - the environmental group also wants government to step up. A national strategy to end deforestation by 2030 is a key request, as well as executing on long-delayed reforms to broken nature laws. Both Commonwealth Bank and ANZ pointed to their social and environmental policies that dictate how they support their customers to manage deforestation risks.

Perth Now

an hour ago

• Perth Now

Long way to go to stop lending for deforestation

Australian banks have been slow to trim exposure to deforestation, with big agribusiness players still found to be lending to bush-bulldozing businesses. Two years on from the Australian Conservation Foundation's first foray into the financing of destructive land clearing, a follow-up report points to sluggish progress. Destruction of bushland for grazing, real estate and other development contributes to climate change and threatens species, such as the endangered pink cockatoo, as well as undermining Australia's international commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Deforestation also poses material risks to banks, ACF corporate responsibility policy analyst Audrey van Herwaarden told AAP. Mature trees are important for soil integrity, she said, as well as protection from extreme weather. Landowners with poorer soil and less productive land are more likely to miss repayments, manifesting as a credit risk to the bank. Reputational risk are also at play, with landowners caught land clearing illegally forced to pay steep remediation costs. The five big agribusiness players, ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank and Rabobank, were linked to cases of deforestation via mortgages over land titles in the 12 months from July 2023. Bank loans through securities on title are a common method for financing deforestation but the environmental group stressed it could not be certain the loans were used for bulldozing. Several mortgages were issued or reissued during or after the destructive landclearing had taken place, raising "serious questions about due diligence or, worse, wilful ignorance". Nearly half the cases might have been in breach of federal nature laws and the environment group had reported them to the relevant department. "Our analysis shows banks still have a long way to go to mitigate the risks - and seize the opportunities - associated with their impacts and dependence on nature," Ms van Herwaarden said. NAB, a major agribusiness lender, was twice as exposed as its peers across the 100 cases of deforestation from around the country. A spokesperson said the bank was addressing many of the report's recommendations, including doing more to engage stakeholders and investing in geospatial tools. "NAB is Australia's largest lender to agriculture and we understand deforestation is a complex issue that requires collaboration across government, industry and landholders," the spokesperson said. As well as calling on banks to commit to eliminating deforestation from their lending portfolios - a move already taken by Westpac - the environmental group also wants government to step up. A national strategy to end deforestation by 2030 is a key request, as well as executing on long-delayed reforms to broken nature laws. Both Commonwealth Bank and ANZ pointed to their social and environmental policies that dictate how they support their customers to manage deforestation risks.

7NEWS

6 hours ago

• 7NEWS

Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East

The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now