August 6, 2026
Opening statement to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) Public Hearing for the Committee’s Review of the Australia’s Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Amendment Bill 2026, Vicki Thomson, Chief Executive, The Group of Eight
Let me be very clear at the outset. The Go8 supports this Bill. We support strong research security protections. We support robust safeguards against foreign interference. And we support the Government’s efforts to ensure Australia’s regulatory frameworks keep pace with a rapidly changing strategic environment.
As we say in our submission, Australia is facing a rapidly evolving strategic environment and regulatory frameworks must adapt accordingly. This is not a time to be resting on our laurels – the world is moving rapidly and bringing with it a multiplicity of both opportunity and risk and we need to be able to be responsive to that challenge.
The first two things I want to address – some might call them the elephants in the room – are the perception that Australia does not need to collaborate internationally in our research; and the perception that international engagement and national security objectives are inherently in tension.
As Assistant Minister Julian Hill noted earlier this year, Australia generates around three per cent of global knowledge. While that is an extraordinary achievement, it still means that 97 per cent of the world’s knowledge is produced elsewhere. Australia’s prosperity, innovation and research excellence depend on our ability to connect with that global knowledge system. Turning inward would not make us safer or stronger. It would simply isolate Australia from the ideas, talent and partnerships that drive discovery and economic growth.
More fundamentally, the discussion is sometimes framed as a choice between engagement and security. In our view, that is the wrong question. Australia’s challenge is not choosing between openness and security. It is ensuring we achieve both. International engagement should not be viewed primarily as a source of vulnerability to be managed. It is also a source of national strength and strategic advantage.
The second point is that, while I am not claiming that our approach is perfect, Australia has developed one of the world’s most sophisticated research security and foreign interference frameworks.
That does not mean the job is done. Threats are evolving and our frameworks must continue to evolve with them. But it does mean we are building from a position of strength – not from a position of weakness. We should have greater confidence in our ability to navigate these increasingly complex issues.
As outlined in our submission, these protections have been developed through a sustained partnership between government, national security agencies and universities. They include initiatives such as the University Foreign Interference Taskforce (UFIT), the Guidelines to Counter Foreign Interference in the Australian University Sector, and the Australian Research Council’s Research Security Framework.
Australia is increasingly recognised internationally as a leading example of how to balance security and openness in research and innovation.
The amendments as outlined in the Bill further refine our approach and represent an important step in refining and developing this architecture.
The importance of Australia’s approach was reinforced to me during a recent European-Australia Business Council (EABC) delegation to Finland, Brussels, Germany and Italy, where research security featured prominently in discussions. A consistent message was the strong regard in which Australia’s approach is held internationally.
But having the architecture is only one piece of the puzzle. The other is how we leverage the model such that all of the components are treated as a robust, integrated system – rather than the piecemeal way we are doing things now.
One of the lessons from Finland and the Nordic countries is that research security is not treated as a series of discrete policy challenges and managed in silos. Research, skills, industry, national security and capability development are seen as mutually reinforcing components of a broader national ecosystem. Australia has not yet fully adopted this systems-based approach, with responsibilities and investments often fragmented across portfolios and funding mechanisms. Greater alignment across these domains will be critical to building long term sovereign capability and national resilience.
In that respect, one of the most important features of this Bill is to shift from a narrow focus on Australia’s foreign relations to Australia’s broader national interest. That reflects the reality that economic prosperity, national security, sovereign capability, research excellence and international engagement are increasingly interconnected. It encourages the much more coordinated, cross-portfolio, whole of government approach that Australia needs.
We cannot keep approaching these challenges through siloed or reactionary thinking. The strategic environment is too complex for that. We need a more sophisticated and integrated framework that protects Australia’s national interests while preserving the international engagement that underpins our prosperity, capability and resilience This Bill is an important step along that path.
Ultimately, the question before us is not whether Australia should protect its national interests. We must and we do. The question is how Australia remains both secure and internationally connected. In a country that produces just three per cent of the world’s knowledge, our future prosperity, sovereign capability and national resilience depend on getting both right.
**Check against delivery
***Nb. Read by Go8 Deputy Chief Executive Dr Matthew Brown at the Committee Public Hearing, August 6, 2026
