Greg Bunt is Co-Founder and Director of Insicon Cyber, and a practising Fractional CISO working with organisations across ANZ. He advises technology and operational leaders on adopting emerging technology, including artificial intelligence, without inheriting risk they cannot govern.
His focus is the practical reality facing providers: how to move quickly on tools that ease workforce pressure while meeting the assurance that regulators, boards and families now expect. He works at the intersection of AI governance, data sovereignty and the obligations set out under the Aged Care Act 2024, the Privacy Act, and equivalent New Zealand frameworks.
Greg helps organisations separate genuine AI use cases from vendor marketing, and build the ongoing oversight that keeps a system safe well past launch.
He is known for a grounded, implementation-first approach, turning abstract technology risk into decisions leaders can defend, and for saying yes to innovation on terms that hold up.
Adopting AI in Aged Care Without Adopting the Risk: A Practical Path for Providers
Aged care providers across Australia and New Zealand are moving quickly on artificial intelligence. Rostering optimisation, clinical documentation, fall detection, care note summarisation, chatbots for family enquiries. The efficiency case is real and the workforce pressure driving it is real. But most providers are deploying these tools faster than they can govern them, and the risk is accumulating quietly.
The problem is not the technology. It is that AI introduces a category of risk that existing IT and privacy controls were never built to handle. A model that summarises clinical notes can hallucinate. A vendor tool can train on resident data in ways the provider never agreed to. A system that works in a pilot can drift in production. Under the Aged Care Act 2024, the Privacy Act, and equivalent New Zealand obligations, the provider carries accountability regardless of who built the tool.
This session gives technology and operational leaders a practical way through. It is not a warning against AI. It is a framework for adopting it with the assurance that regulators, boards, and families will expect.
The presentation covers: how to distinguish genuine AI use cases from vendor marketing; the questions to ask before a tool touches resident data; why data sovereignty matters when older Australians’ health records are involved, and how to verify where that data actually lives; how to test an AI system for reliability and bias before it reaches the floor, not after; and how to build ongoing oversight rather than treating deployment as a one-off decision.
Central to this is a simple discipline that applies to any AI a provider adopts: test it, certify it, maintain it. Prove the system does what the vendor claims. Establish that its governance meets a recognised standard. Then keep checking, because a model that was safe at launch does not stay safe on its own.
Attendees will leave with a repeatable assessment approach for evaluating AI tools, a clear view of where accountability sits between provider and vendor, and the confidence to say yes to AI on terms they can defend.
The opportunity in aged care AI is significant. So is the exposure. The difference is governance.