Since 2018 the Australian Government has made serious strides in countering espionage and foreign interference, including introducing policy and legislative reforms aimed at protecting the research and university sector. That was necessary. But seven years on, sophisticated adversaries are no longer simply stealing data or cultivating informal relationships with universities and research institutions.
Today, we're seeing deliberate efforts to insert malicious insiders, target researchers through transnational repression, exploit data and cyber vulnerabilities, and manipulate legal frameworks through lawfare. Those methods are more sophisticated, more targeted and more integrated than ever before. Responding to them therefore requires more than a continuation of current practice – it demands a fundamental shift in mindset. This means security must now be built on persistent adaptation and shared responsibility, not one-off compliance measures. Green
Australian research is vital to our future economic growth and national security –generating innovation, patentable technologies, legitimate technology transfers, and commercial research spin-offs and spin-outs. It's essential that research conducted in Australia benefits Australian society, respects our values and advances our interests and our citizens. That requires collaboration across governments (federal, state and territory), researchers, universities, industry partners, funding bodies and lobby groups. Strengthening the 'research security' ecosystem is therefore vital.
But being clear what research security is, and what it isn't, remains a core obstacle in policy and practice. Australia still lacks a clear, consistent national definition of 'research security' – a gap that has bred confusion, resistance and fatigue across the university and research sectors. For many, security remains synonymous with red tape, rather than resilience. Meanwhile, government controls are fragmented across portfolios and jurisdictions, with no centralised leadership akin to the Counter Foreign Interference Taskforce.
Heavy reliance on ministerial discretion and legislative blunt force undermine the goal of shared, sector-wide ownership. At the same time, we must acknowledge that universities aren't government agencies. They're complex, competitive, globally connected institutions working under immense financial pressure and regulatory complexity. Building sustainable research security means recognising those realities –not as excuses, but as critical inputs into any effective framework. Encouragingly, there is some movement. The Group of Eight has stepped forward with a national security and defence committee, co-chaired by Major General (Ret'd) Paul Symon and Lieutenant General (Ret'd) Rick Burr, to strengthen trust and coordination with government.
But those are early steps. To protect Australia's sovereign research capability into the future, we need more tailored, practical and scalable approaches to research security. They must be clear in purpose, flexible enough to adapt to changing threats, and sensitive to the day-to-day realities of research collaboration. Above all, they must be nationally coherent and built on partnership – not paternalism. The integrity of our research ecosystem isn't just a matter of academic ethics. It's a matter of national security, future capability, and Australia's ability to compete in a world increasingly shaped by strategic technologies and knowledge dominance. This requires a set of consistent, coherent and high-level principles that informs strong applied policy guidance.
ASPI's recent analysis argues that Australia's research security posture must evolve, moving beyond the narrow lens of countering foreign interference and espionage to a broader, more integrated and risk-based framework. It identifies where fragmentation is manifesting, and how that has the potential to limit the extent to which Australia is able to address changes in the threats landscape. That includes securing Australia's knowledge economy without compromising key intellectual and academic freedoms. The 'golden thread' for Australian research security must be the refocusing of existing compliance burdens affecting the intersection of research ecosystems and national-security concerns.
By developing fit-for-purpose solutions and carefully considering available resources, Australia can use its espionage and countering foreign interference policies to leverage the successful elements of research security programs from around the world. For example, the United Kingdom – in its 2025 National Security Strategy – has announced it will publish its first national Research Strategy. Adopting a similar 'best practices' approach offers tremendous benefits of synchronising with our research and trading partners while avoiding the pitfalls and regulatory burdens that have hindered innovation in those other countries.
Ultimately, Australia can't afford to ignore the urgency of research security. Neglecting it puts the country at risk of being sidelined or excluded from important collaborative projects relevant to Australia's national interest and shared interests with allies and international partners. Worse yet, and despite its initial leading position, Australia could quickly become the 'weakest link' among Western democracies striving to contain the ambitions of autocratic and draconian regimes. As a nation with a proud history of competition, that's one trophy Australia shouldn't want to win.
This article is republished from ASPI Strategist . Read the original article .
Dr Brendan Walker-Munro is a Senior Lecturer (Law) with the Faculty of Business, Law and the Arts at Southern Cross University. He authored the ASPI Policy Brief 'Shifting the Needle: Making Australia's Research Security Ecosystem Work Smarter' from which this Strategist piece draws.
ASPI, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute , is an independent, non-partisan think tank based in Canberra.
