Tag Archive for: Critical & Emerging Technology

Reclaiming leadership: Australia and the global critical minerals race

Climate policy, geopolitics and market forces are coalescing to deliver Australia a global leadership opportunity in critical minerals. To grasp that opportunity, Australia needs both to utilise its domestic mineral endowment and its mining knowledge and technology and to leverage the global footprint of Australian companies to help build a global supply chain network.

How Australia responds will not only determine economic benefits to the nation but will also affect the world’s ability to achieve minerals security and the sustainability required for the global energy transition and inclusive economic growth.

The global energy transition and other high-technology applications have increased demand for critical minerals, particularly in countries that have strong complex manufacturing industries. At the same time, the concentration of production of many critical minerals, the dominance of China in supply chains and its actions to restrict supply and influence markets, are disrupting both minerals production and availability.

In response, developed nations have formulated critical minerals strategies and entered into bilateral and multilateral agreements, involving supplier nations and customer nations, to build alternative supply chains that are more diverse, secure and sustainable. Australia has committed in multiple agreements to work with like-minded nations to achieve this.

This report is intended to provide the government with a road map to ‘step up’ to (re)activate Australia’s global mineral leadership.

What do Australia’s parliamentarians think about cybersecurity and critical technology?

Preface

In 2020, the then Director of ASPI’s International Cyber Policy Centre, Fergus Hanson, approached me to research the views of the 46th Parliament on a range of cybersecurity and critical technology issues. The resulting data collection was then conducted in two parts across 2021 and 2022, with the results analysed and written up in 2022 and 2023. Those parliamentarians who ‘opted in’ completed and provided an initial quantitative study, which I then followed up on with an interview that explored an additional set of qualitative questions. The results, collated and analysed, form the basis of this report.

This research aims to provide a snapshot of what our nation’s policy shapers and policymakers are thinking when it comes to cybersecurity and critical technologies. What are they worried about? Where are their knowledge gaps and interests? What technologies do they think are important to Australia and where do they believe policy attention and investment should focus in the next five years?

This initial study establishes a baseline for future longitudinal assessments that could capture changes or shifts in parliamentarians’ thinking. Australia’s ongoing cybersecurity challenges, the fast-moving pace of artificial intelligence (AI), the creation of AUKUS and the ongoing development of AUKUS Pillar 2—with its focus on advanced capabilities and emerging technologies (including cybertechnologies)—are just a few reasons among many which highlight why it’s more important than ever that the Australian Parliament be both informed and active when engaging with cybersecurity and critical technologies.

We understand that this in-depth study may be a world first and extend our deep and heartfelt thanks to the 24 parliamentarians who took part in it. Parliamentarians are very busy people, and yet many devoted significant time to considering and completing this study.

This was a non-partisan study. Parliamentarians were speaking on condition of strict anonymity, without any identifiers apart from their gender, chamber, electorate profile and backbench or frontbench status. Because of that, the conversations were candid, upfront and insightful and, as a result, this study provides a rich and honest assessment of their views.

Australia’s semiconductor manufacturing moonshot: Securing semiconductor talent

Semiconductors are a critical component in all modern technologies, from personal communication devices and medical devices to weapons systems. Crucial to producing semiconductors is the availability of a highly skilled workforce, managing clean-room facilities and highly specialised equipment to execute the hundreds of unique steps needed to manufacture a single wafer, depending on the complexity of the chip.

ASPI’s 2022 report, Australia’s semiconductor national moonshot, laid out the strategic reasons why Australia must embark on a capacity-building initiative to create a homegrown semiconductor manufacturing ecosystem. Every item on the Australian federal government’s List of Critical Technologies in the National Interest is dependent on semiconductors.

By committing to growing a semiconductor-manufacturing industry from a mature-process-scale baseline, policymakers would position Australia to manufacture chips relevant to the energy, transport, health, IT and defence sectors. Such an industry would enable Australia to execute long-term critical technology strategies in areas such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence, to mitigate supply-chain risk against disruption from conflict or natural disaster, and provide highly skilled jobs in affordable locations, enriching the Australian economy.

It’s important to note that both AUKUS Pillar 2 and the Albanese government’s April 2023 publication of the Defence Strategic Review reflect a shift in Australia’s strategic thinking on defence and national security, and the important correlation and greater cooperation between industry, education and defence priorities, particularly when it comes to technology. Delivering on that shift will be difficult and often costly, but this report provides a series of recommendations of what that correlation and cooperation could look like.

For Canberra, such an endeavour is of the same magnitude as America’s historic ‘moonshots’ during the 1960s and 1970s. It’s a once-in-a-generation challenge that will determine Australia’s place in the world, and human capital is central to ensuring success. Opting out of semiconductor manufacturing for the long term would severely constrain Australia’s growth as a technological nation and consign it to second-tier status.

This report expands on the recommendations made in the 2022 ASPI report for establishing a semiconductor-manufacturing capability in Australia and focuses on the importance of creating a talent pipeline that can support a scaled industry. Achieving a semiconductor moonshot requires stepping up Australia’s very respectable semiconductor device fabrication R&D to industry-compatible prototyping via a dedicated facility, together with attracting (through that capability and by government incentives) a semiconductor manufacturer to locate a mature-process-scale foundry in Australia—which will require support from an upskilled Australian talent pipeline. This is an ambitious move but is an essential step in growing such a capability.

The ability to grow and maintain a high-skilled workforce is a foundational challenge for Australia that can be addressed through close examination of trailblazing public–private partnerships (PPPs) that aim to provide talent-pipeline security in the US, Taiwan and Japan. Australian governments, industry and academia can emulate and engage with the examples highlighted through case studies in this report to attract semiconductor industry investment, boost talent-pipeline development and strengthen industry R&D. Australia’s states and territories all have varied capacity to o›er support to a semiconductor-manufacturing capability.

Developing Australia’s critical minerals and rare earths: Implementing the outcomes from the 2023 Darwin Dialogue

Critical minerals and rare earths are the building blocks for emerging and future technologies, inseparable from the supply chains of manufacturing, clean energy production, medical technology, semiconductors, and the defence and aerospace industries. Despite their criticality, their supply chains are exposed to numerous vulnerabilities – threatening the production and development of vital technologies.

This report—based on closed-door, invitation-only discussions at ASPI’s new Darwin Dialogue, a track 1.5 meeting between Australia, Japan and the US—makes 24 recommendations for government and the private sector to support the development of viable, competitive alternative markets that offer products through supply chains secure from domestic policy disruptions and economic coercion.

These recommendations are derived from analysis of the challenges embedded in critical minerals supply chains, including the inability for global production to meet projected demand, and dependency upon China and politically unstable nations as at times near singular sources of production.

Australia’s natural endowments of critical minerals and rare earths provide a unique opportunity to achieve intersecting economic, environmental, and strategic objectives. But, as detailed in this report, effective coordination between Australia’s state, territory and federal governments, mining and industry, and international partners will be pivotal to developing this opportunity. Further still, achieving our critical minerals objectives will require a bold new policy approach from all stakeholders.

Australia’s north and space

This report examines opportunities for the development of sovereign space capability in the Northern Territory, Queensland, and Western Australia. Given that those northern jurisdictions are closer to the equator, there’s a natural focus in the report on the potential opportunities offered by sovereign space launch, particularly in the Northern Territory and Queensland. However, I also consider the potential for other aspects of space besides launch, including space domain awareness, the establishment of satellite ground stations, and space industry. I explore the potential for the co-location of space industry—domestic and international—within or close to launch sites, which would result in the development of ‘space hubs’ in strategic locations in Australia.

Benefits are gained by situating space-launch sites as close to the equator as possible, and two sites—Nhulunbuy near Gove in the Northern Territory and Abbot Point near Bowen in Queensland—are now under development. The closer a launch site is to the equator, the greater the benefit in terms of reduced cost per kilogram of payload to orbit, due to velocity gained by a rocket from the Earth’s rotation.

The report then explores the transformation of Australia’s space sector that’s occurred within the past decade, from one solely dependent on foreign-provided satellite services and locally developed ground-segment capabilities, including for space domain awareness, to the growth of sovereign space industry and the establishment of the Australian Space Agency in 2018. I note that, since the establishment of the agency, Australia’s commercial space sector has expanded rapidly, but now faces headwinds, with the recent cancellation of the National Space Mission for Earth Observation being a serious blow to Australia’s space industry. The Australian space industry sector must now fight to sustain funding. In this report, I argue that the best way to achieve success is to emphasise sovereign launch as a focus for Australian space activities and to reinforce the potential opportunities offered by the north, including for defence and national-security requirements in space.

De-risking authoritarian AI

A balanced approach to protecting our digital ecosystems

What’s the problem?

Artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled systems make many invisible decisions affecting our health, safety and wealth. They shape what we see, think, feel and choose, they calculate our access to financial benefits as well as our transgressions, and now they can generate complex text, images and code just as a human can, but much faster.

So it’s unsurprising that moves are afoot across democracies to regulate AI’s impact on our individual rights and economic security, notably in the European Union (EU).

But, if we’re wary about AI, we should be even more circumspect about AI-enabled products and services from authoritarian countries that share neither our values nor our interests. And, for the foreseeable future, that means the People’s Republic of China (PRC)—a revisionist authoritarian power demonstrably hostile to democracy and the rules-based international order, which routinely uses AI to strengthen its own political and social stability at the expense of individual human rights. In contrast to other authoritarian countries such as Russia, Iran and North Korea, China is a technology superpower with global capacity and ambitions and is a major exporter of effective, cost-competitive AI-enabled technology into democracies.

In a technology-enabled world, the threats come at us ‘at a pace, scale and reach that is unprecedented’.1 And, if our reliance on AI is also without precedent, so too is the opportunity—via the magic of the internet and software updates—for remote, large-scale foreign interference, espionage and sabotage through AI-enabled industrial and consumer goods and services inside democracies’ digital ecosystems. AI systems are embedded in our homes, workplaces and essential services. More and more, we trust them to operate as advertised, always be there for us and keep our secrets.

Notwithstanding the honourable intentions of individual vendors of Chinese AI-enabled products and services, they’re subject to direction from PRC security and intelligence agencies, so we in the democracies need to ask ourselves: against the background of growing strategic competition with China, how much risk are we willing to bear?

We should worry about three kinds of Chinese AI-enabled technology:

  1. products and services (often physical infrastructure), where PRC ownership exposes democracies to risks of espionage (notably surveillance and data theft) and sabotage (disruption and denial of products and services)
  2. AI-enabled technology that facilitates foreign interference (malign covert influence on behalf of a foreign power), the most pervasive example being TikTok
  3. ‘Large language model AI’ and other emerging generative AI systems—a future threat that we need to start thinking about now.

While we should address the risks in all three areas, this report focuses more on the first category (and indeed looks at TikTok through the prism of the espionage and sabotage risks that such an app poses).

The underlying dynamic with Chinese AI-enabled products and services is the same as that which prompted concern over Chinese 5G vendors: the PRC Government has the capability to compel its companies to follow its directions, it has the opportunity afforded by the presence of Chinese AI-enabled products and services in our digital ecosystems, and it has demonstrated malign intent towards the democracies.

But this is a more subtle and complex problem than deciding whether to ban Chinese companies from participating in 5G networks. Telecommunications networks are the nervous systems that run down the spine of our digital ecosystems; they’re strategic points of vulnerability for all digital technologies. Protecting them from foreign intelligence agencies is a no-brainer and worth the economic and political costs. And those costs are bounded because 5G is a small group of easily identifiable technologies.

In contrast, AI is a constellation of technologies and techniques embedded in thousands of applications, products and services, so the task is to identify where on the spectrum between national-security threat and moral panic each of these products sits. And then pick the fights that really matter.

What’s the solution?

A general prohibition on all Chinese AI-enabled technology would be extremely costly and disruptive. Many businesses and researchers in the democracies want to continue collaborating on Chinese AI-enabled products because it helps them to innovate, build better products, offer cheaper services and publish scientific breakthroughs. The policy goal here is to take prudent steps to protect our digital ecosystems, not to economically decouple from China.

What’s needed is a new three-step framework to identify, triage and manage the riskiest products and services. The intent is similar to that proposed in the recently introduced draft US RESTRICT Act, which seeks to identify and mitigate foreign threats to information and communications technology (ICT) products and services, although the focus here is on teasing out the most serious threats.

Step 1: Audit. Identify the AI systems whose purpose and functionality concern us most. What’s the potential scale of our exposure to this product or service? How critical is this system to essential services, public health and safety, democratic processes, open markets, freedom of speech and the rule of law? What are the levels of dependency and redundancy should it be compromised or unavailable?

Step 2: Red Team. Anyone can identify the risk of embedding many PRC-made technologies into sensitive locations, such as government infrastructure, but, in other cases, the level of risk will be unclear. For those instances, you need to set a thief to catch a thief. What could a team of specialists do if they had privileged access to (that is, ‘owned’) a candidate system identified in Step 1—people with experience in intelligence operations, cybersecurity and perhaps military planning, combined with relevant technical subject-matter experts? This is the real-world test because all intelligence operations cost time and money, and some points of presence in a target ecosystem offer more scalable and effective opportunities than others. PRC-made cameras and drones in sensitive locations are a legitimate concern, but crippling supply chains through accessing ship-to-shore cranes would be devastating.

For example, we know that TikTok data can be accessed by PRC agencies and reportedly also reveal a user’s location, so it’s obvious that military and government officials shouldn’t use the app. Journalists should also think carefully about this, too. Beyond that, the merits of a general ban on technical security grounds are a bit murky. Can our Red Team use the app to jump onto connected mobiles and IT systems to plant spying malware? What system mitigations could stop them getting access to data on connected systems? If the team revealed serious vulnerabilities that can’t be mitigated, a general ban might be appropriate.

Step 3: Regulate. Decide what to do about a system identified as ‘high risk’. Treatment measures might range from prohibiting Chinese AI-enabled technology in some parts of the network, a ban on government procurement or use, or a general prohibition. Short of that, governments could insist on measures to mitigate the identified risk or dilute the risk through redundancy arrangements. And, in many cases, public education efforts along the lines of the new UK National Protective Security Authority may be an appropriate alternative to regulation.

The democracies need to think harder about Chinese AI-enabled technology in our digital ecosystems. But we shouldn’t overreact: our approach to regulation should be anxious but selective.

AUKUS and critical minerals: Hedging Beijing’s pervasive, clever and coordinated statecraft

AUKUS has a heavy focus on R&D of military capabilities. A number of departments, including defence, foreign affairs and prime ministerial equivalents are engaged. The science and technology to deliver those capabilities must resolve issues of insecure supply chains. Currently, supply chains for processed critical minerals and their resulting materials aren’t specifically included.

Yet all AUKUS capabilities, and the rules-based order that they uphold, depend heavily on critical minerals. China eclipses not only AUKUS for processing those minerals into usable forms, but the rest of the world combined. Without critical minerals, states are open to economic coercion in various technological industries, and defence manufacturing is particularly exposed to unnecessary supply-chain challenges.

This is where Australia comes in. Australia has the essential minerals, which are more readily exploitable because they’re located in less densely populated or ecologically sensitive areas. Australia also has the right expertise, including universities offering the appropriate advanced geoscience degrees, as well as advanced infrastructure, world-class resources technology and deep industry connections with Asia and Africa, which are also vital global sources of critical minerals.

This paper outlines why Australia offers an unrivalled rallying point to drive secure critical-mineral supply among a wide field of vested nations, using AUKUS but not limited to AUKUS partners, how WA has globally superior reserves and substantial expertise, and why northern Australia more generally has a key role to play. The paper also explains why policy action here must be prioritised by the Australian Government.

Gaming Public Opinion

The CCP’s increasingly sophisticated cyber-enabled influence operations

What’s the problem?

The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) embrace of large-scale online influence operations and spreading of disinformation on Western social-media platforms has escalated since the first major attribution from Silicon Valley companies in 2019. While Chinese public diplomacy may have shifted to a softer tone in 2023 after many years of wolf-warrior online rhetoric, the Chinese Government continues to conduct global covert cyber-enabled influence operations. Those operations are now more frequent, increasingly sophisticated and increasingly effective in supporting the CCP’s strategic goals. They focus on disrupting the domestic, foreign, security and defence policies of foreign countries, and most of all they target democracies.

Currently—in targeted democracies—most political leaders, policymakers, businesses, civil society groups and publics have little understanding of how the CCP currently engages in clandestine activities online in their countries, even though this activity is escalating and evolving quickly. The stakes are high for democracies, given the indispensability of the internet and their reliance on open online spaces, free from interference. Despite years of monitoring covert CCP cyber-enabled influence operations by social-media platforms, governments, and research institutes such as ASPI, definitive public attribution of the actors driving these activities is rare. Covert online operations, by design, are difficult to detect and attribute to state actors. 

Social-media platforms and governments struggle to devote adequate resources to identifying, preventing and deterring increasing levels of malicious activity, and sometimes they don’t want to name and shame the Chinese Government for political, economic and/or commercial reasons. 

But when possible, public attribution can play a larger role in deterring malicious actors. Understanding which Chinese Government entities are conducting such operations, and their underlying doctrine, is essential to constructing adequate counter-interference and deterrence strategies. The value of public attribution also goes beyond deterrence. For example, public attribution helps civil society and businesses, which are often the intended targets of online influence operations, to understand the threat landscape and build resilience against malicious activities. It’s also important that general publics are given basic information so that they’re informed about the contemporary security challenges a country is facing, and public attribution helps to provide that information.

ASPI research in this report—which included specialised data collection spanning Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Sina Weibo and ByteDance products—reveals a previously unreported CCP cyber-enabled influence operation linked to the Spamouflage network, which is using inauthentic accounts to spread claims that the US is irresponsibly conducting cyber-espionage operations against China and other countries. As a part of this research, we geolocated some of the operators of that network to Yancheng in Jiangsu Province, and we show it’s possible that at least some of the operators behind Spamouflage are part of the Yancheng Public Security Bureau.

The CCP’s clandestine efforts to influence international public opinion rely on a very different toolkit today compared to its previous tactics of just a few years ago. CCP cyber-enabled influence operations remain part of a broader strategy to shape global public opinion and enhance China’s ‘international discourse power’. Those efforts have evolved to nudge public opinion towards positions more favourable to the CCP and to interfere in the political decision-making processes of other countries. A greater focus on covert social-media accounts allows the CCP to pursue its interests while providing a plausibly deniable cover. 

Emerging technologies and China’s indigenous cybersecurity industry are also creating new capabilities for the CCP to continue operating clandestinely on Western social platforms.

Left unaddressed, the CCP’s increasing investment in cyber-enabled influence operations threatens to successfully influence the economic decision-making of political elites, destabilise social cohesion during times of crisis, sow distrust of leaders or democratic institutions and processes, fracture alliances and partnerships, and deter journalists, researchers and activists from sharing accurate information about China.

What’s the solution?

This report provides the first public empirical review of the CCP’s clandestine online networks on social-media platforms.

We outline seven key policy recommendations for governments and social-media platforms (further details are on page 39):

  1. Social-media platforms should take advantage of the digital infrastructure, which they control, to more effectively deter cyber-enabled influence operations. To disrupt future influence operations, social-media platforms could remove access to those analytics for suspicious accounts breaching platform policies, making it difficult for identified malicious actors to measure the effectiveness of influence operations.
  2. Social-media platforms should pursue more innovative information-sharing to combat cyber-enabled influence operations. For example, social-media platforms could share more information about the digital infrastructure involved in influence operations, without revealing personally identifiable information.
  3. Governments should change their language in speeches and policy documents to describe social-media platforms as critical infrastructure. This would acknowledge the existing importance of those platforms in democracies and would communicate signals to malicious actors that, like cyber operations on the power grid, efforts to interfere in the information ecosystem will be met with proportionate responses.
  4. Governments should review foreign interference legislation and consider mandating that social-media platforms disclose state-backed influence operations and other transparency reporting to increase the public’s threat awareness.
  5. Public diplomacy should be a pillar of any counter-malign-influence strategy. Government leaders and diplomats should name and shame attributable malign cyber-enabled influence operations, and those entities involved in their operation (state and non-state) to deter those activities.
  6. Partners and allies should strengthen intelligence diplomacy on this emerging security challenge and seek to share more intelligence with one another on such influence operations. Strong open-source intelligence skills and collection capabilities are a crucial part of investigating and attributing these operations, the low classification of which, should making intelligence sharing easier.
  7. Governments should support further research on influence operations and other hybrid threats. To build broader situational awareness of hybrid threats across the region, including malign influence operations, democracies should establish an Indo-Pacific hybrid threats centre.

Key findings

The CCP has developed a sophisticated, persistent capability to sustain coordinated networks of personas on social-media platforms to spread disinformation, wage public-opinion warfare and support its own diplomatic messaging, economic coercion and other levers of state power.

That capability is evolving and has expanded to push a wider range of narratives to a growing international audience with the Indo-Pacific a key target.

The CCP has used these cyber-enabled influence operations to seek to interfere in US politics, Australian politics and national security decisions, undermine the Quad and Japanese defence policies and impose costs on Australian and North American rare-earth mining companies.

  • CCP cyber-enabled influence operations are probably conducted, in parallel if not collectively, by multiple Chinese party-state agencies. Those agencies appear at times to collaborate with private Chinese companies. The most notable actors that are likely to be conducting such operations include the People’s Liberation Army’s Strategic Support Force (PLASSF), which conducts cyber operations as part of the PLA’s political warfare; the Ministry of State Security (MSS), which conducts covert operations for state security; the Central Propaganda Department, which oversees China’s domestic and foreign propaganda efforts; the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), which enforces China’s internet laws; and the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), which regulates China’s internet ecosystem. Chinese state media outlets and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) officials are also running clandestine operations that seek to amplify their own overt propaganda and influence activities.
  • Starting in 2021, a previously unreported CCP cyber-enabled influence operation has been disseminating narratives that the CIA and National Security Agency are ‘irresponsibly conducting cyber-espionage operations against China and other countries’. ASPI isn’t in a position to verify US intelligence agency activities. However, the means used to disseminate the counter-US narrative— this campaign appears to be partly driven by the pro-CCP coordinated inauthentic network known as Spamouflage—strongly suggests an influence operation. ASPI’s research suggests that at least some operators behind the campaign are affiliated with the MPS, or are ‘internet commentators’ hired by the CAC, which may have named this campaign ‘Operation Honey Badger’. The evidence indicates that the Chinese Government probably intended to influence Southeast Asian markets and other countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative to support the expansion of Chinese cybersecurity companies in those regions.
  • Chinese cybersecurity company Qi An Xin (奇安信) appears at times it may be supporting the influence operation. The company has the capacity to seed disinformation about advanced persistent threats to its clients in Southeast Asia and other countries. It’s deeply connected with Chinese intelligence, military and security services and plays an important role in China’s cybersecurity and state security strategies.

ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker

ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker – The global race for future power

The Critical Technology Tracker is a large data-driven project that now covers 64 critical technologies spanning defence, space, energy, the environment, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, robotics, cyber, computing, advanced materials and key quantum technology areas. It provides a leading indicator of a country’s research performance, strategic intent and potential future science and technology capability.

It first launched 1 March 2023 and underwent a major expansion on 28 August 2024 which took the dataset from five years (previously, 2018–2022) to 21 years (2003–2023). Explore the website and the broader project here.

Governments and organisations interested in supporting this ongoing program of work, including further expansions and the addition of new technologies, can contact: criticaltech@aspi.org.au.

What’s the problem?

Western democracies are losing the global technological competition, including the race for scientific and research breakthroughs, and the ability to retain global talent—crucial ingredients that underpin the development and control of the world’s most important technologies, including those that don’t yet exist.

Our research reveals that China has built the foundations to position itself as the world’s leading science and technology superpower, by establishing a sometimes stunning lead in high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains.

China’s global lead extends to 37 out of 44 technologies that ASPI is now tracking, covering a range of crucial technology fields spanning defence, space, robotics, energy, the environment, biotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI), advanced materials and key quantum technology areas.1 The Critical Technology Tracker shows that, for some technologies, all of the world’s top 10 leading research institutions are based in China and are collectively generating nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country (most often the US). Notably, the Chinese Academy of Sciences ranks highly (and often first or second) across many of the 44 technologies included in the Critical Technology Tracker. We also see China’s efforts being bolstered through talent and knowledge import: one-fifth of its high-impact papers are being authored by researchers with postgraduate training in a Five-Eyes country.2 China’s lead is the product of deliberate design and long-term policy planning, as repeatedly outlined by Xi Jinping and his predecessors.3

A key area in which China excels is defence and space-related technologies. China’s strides in nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles reportedly took US intelligence by surprise in August 2021.4

Had a tool such as ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker been collecting and analysing this data two years ago, Beijing’s strong interest and leading research performance in this area would have been more easily identified…

Had a tool such as ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker been collecting and analysing this data two years ago, Beijing’s strong interest and leading research performance in this area would have been more easily identified, and such technological advances would have been less surprising. That’s because, according to our data analysis, over the past five years, China generated 48.49% of the world’s high-impact research papers into advanced aircraft engines, including hypersonics, and it hosts seven of the world’s top 10 research institutions in this topic area.

The US comes second in the majority of the 44 technologies examined in the Critical Technology Tracker. The US currently leads in areas such as high performance computing, quantum computing and vaccines. Our dataset reveals that there’s a large gap between China and the US, as the leading two countries, and everyone else. The data then indicates a small, second-tier group of countries led by India and the UK: other countries that regularly appear in this group—in many technological fields— include South Korea, Germany, Australia, Italy, and less often, Japan.

This project—including some of its more surprising findings—further highlights the gap in our understanding of the critical technology ecosystem, including its current trajectory. It’s important that we seek to fill this gap so we don’t face a future in which one or two countries dominate new and emerging industries (something that recently occurred in 5G technologies) and so countries have ongoing access to trusted and secure critical technology supply chains.

China’s overall research lead, and its dominant concentration of expertise across a range of strategic sectors, has short and long term implications for democratic nations. In the long term, China’s leading research position means that it has set itself up to excel not just in current technological development in almost all sectors, but in future technologies that don’t yet exist. Unchecked, this could shift not just technological development and control but global power and influence to an authoritarian state where the development, testing and application of emerging, critical and military technologies isn’t open and transparent and where it can’t be scrutinised by independent civil society and media.

In the more immediate term, that lead—coupled with successful strategies for translating research breakthroughs to commercial systems and products that are fed into an efficient manufacturing base—could allow China to gain a stranglehold on the global supply of certain critical technologies.

Such risks are exacerbated because of the willingness of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to use coercive techniques5 outside of the global rules-based order to punish governments and businesses, including withholding the supply of critical technologies.6

What’s the solution?

These findings should be a wake-up call for democratic nations, who must rapidly pursue a strategic critical technology step-up.

Governments around the world should work both collaboratively and individually to catch up to China and, more broadly, they must pay greater attention to the world’s centre of technological innovation and strategic competition: the Indo-Pacific. While China is in front, it’s important for democracies to take stock of the power of their potential aggregate lead and the collective strengths of regions and groupings (for example the EU, the Quad and AUKUS, to name just a few examples). But such aggregate leads will only be fully realised through far deeper collaboration between partners and allies, greater investment in areas including R&D, talent and commercialisation, and more focused intelligence strategies. And, finally, governments must make more space for new, bigger and more creative policy ideas – the step-up in performance required demands no less.

Partners and allies need to step up and seriously consider things such as sovereign wealth funds at 0.5%–0.7% of gross national income providing venture capital, research and scale-up funding, with a sizable portion reserved for high-risk, high-reward ‘moonshots’ (big ideas). Governments should plan for:

  • technology visas, ‘friend-shoring’ and R&D grants between allies
  • a revitalisation of the university sector through specialised scholarships for students and technologists working at the forefront of critical technology research
  • restructuring taxation systems to divert private capital towards venture capital and scale-up efforts for promising new technologies
  • new public–private partnerships and centres of excellence to help to foster greater commercialisation opportunities.

Intelligence communities have a pivotal role to play in both informing decision-makers and building capability. One recommendation we make is that Five-Eyes countries, along with Japan, build an intelligence analytical centre focused on China and technology (starting with open-source intelligence).

We outline 23 policy recommendations for partners and allies to act on collaboratively and individually. They span across the four themes of investment and talent; global partnerships; intelligence; and moonshots. While China is in front, it’s important for democracies to take stock of their combined and complementary strengths. When added up, they have the aggregate lead in many technology areas.

  1. Visit the Critical Technology Tracker site for a list and explanation of these 44 technologies: techtracker.aspi.org.au/list-of-technologies. ↩︎
  2. Australian Signals Directorate, ‘Intelligence partnerships’, Australian Government, 2023 ↩︎
  3. See ‘China’s science and technology vision’ on page 14. ↩︎
  4. Demetri Sevastopulo, Kathrin Hille, ‘China tests new space capability with hypersonic missile’, Financial Times, 17 October 2021 ↩︎
  5. Fergus Hunter, Daria Impiombato, Yvonne Lau, Adam Triggs, Albert Zhang, Urmika Deb, ‘Countering China’s coercive diplomacy: prioritising economic security, sovereignty and the rules-based order’, ASPI, Canberra, 22 February 2023 ↩︎
  6. Fergus Hanson, Emilia Currey, Tracy Beattie, The Chinese Communist Party’s coercive diplomacy, ASPI, Canberra, 1 September 2020, online; State Department, China’s coercive tactics abroad, US Government, no date, online; Bonnie S Glaser, Time for collective pushback against China’s economic coercion, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 13 January 2021, online; Marcin Szczepanski, China’s economic coercion: evolution, characteristics and countermeasures, briefing, European Parliament, 15 November 2022, online; Mercy A Kuo, ‘Understanding (and managing) China’s economic coercion’, The Diplomat, 17 October 2022. ↩︎

Australia’s semiconductor national moonshot

Foreword

Australia has recently been forced to cross a Rubicon. Its wholehearted embrace of global free trade and just-in-time supply chains has had to confront the hard reality of geopolitics. In many parts of the world, geopolitics is choking free trade, and China—Australia’s largest trading partner—has shown itself particularly willing to use trade coercively and abrogate its free trade commitments, not just with Australia, but with countries all around the world.

Advanced technologies are at the centre of this geopolitical struggle, because of the risk that withheld supply poses to national economies and security. As Covid-19 disruptions have demonstrated, the risks are not even limited to deliberate coercion.

In this environment, bold action is warranted. Continuing to do what we did before is not an option because it will undermine the national interest. A new approach is needed that’s in part heretical to our old market-based approach but is driven by necessity: government intervention that works in tandem with industry expertise and drive.

In this important policy brief, Alex Capri and Robert Clark lay out a vision for Australia to secure its place in the global semiconductor industry—an industry they describe as ‘the single most important technology underlying leading-edge industries’.

Their proposal is to stimulate A$5 billion of semiconductor manufacturing activity through A$1.5 billion of government investment and financial incentives. Those subsidies and tax concessions would mirror similar initiatives such as the US ‘CHIPS’ and ‘FABS’ Acts, but are focused on Australia’s interests.

They identify a logical niche for Australia that would initially establish a distributed commercial compound semiconductor foundry capability across Australia via a public–private partnership. In the longer term, they propose establishing a commercial silicon complementary metal-oxide semiconductor foundry at mature process scale.

Government intervention in a market shouldn’t be made lightly, but Capri and Clark make a compelling case to do so. If policymakers agree that Australia needs access to semiconductors and that their supply from elsewhere can’t be guaranteed, then intervention is imperative.

This policy brief lays out a ‘moonshot’ to get Australia there.

Fergus Hanson
Director, International Cyber Policy Centre

What’s the problem?

Semiconductors (also known as ‘microchips’ or ‘chips’) are the single most important technology underpinning leading-edge industries. They’re essential for the proper functioning of everything from smartphones to nuclear submarines and from medical equipment to wireless communications.

Australia’s notable lack of participation in the global semiconductor ecosystem has put it at a geopolitical disadvantage. As a nation, with some niche exceptions, it’s almost entirely dependent on foreign-controlled microchip technology, making it increasingly vulnerable to global supply-chain shortages, shutdowns and disruptions. Such occurrences have become all too common, either because of events such as the Covid-19 pandemic or because of other governments’ attempts to weaponise supply chains for geopolitical reasons.

Having unfettered access to microchips is a matter of economic and national security, and, more generally, of Australia’s day-to-day wellbeing as a nation. In an increasingly digitised world, policymakers must treat semiconductors as a vital public good, almost on par with other basic necessities such as food and water supplies and reliable electricity—a reality that would become immediately apparent in a time of international crisis resulting from, for example, wars or natural disasters.

What’s the solution?

Australia must conceive, develop and execute a national plan that will enable capacity building in the semiconductor space. To do this, leadership must embrace bold thinking and adopt its own version of a 21st-century ‘moonshot’. Instead of landing astronauts on the Moon, however, as the Americans did in their own original moonshot in a Cold War space race against the Soviet Union, Australia faces an equally daunting task: from a low base, breaking into the world’s most complex, expensive and strategic technology ecosystem.

To achieve that, the Australian Government must do four overarching things.

First, it must embark on an epic technology-transfer initiative. To be successful, Australia must attract and absorb leading-edge technology, human capital (talent) and investment through a range of strategic partnerships with world-class companies, universities and friendly governments. The good news is that Australia already has a wealth of resources and building blocks to which it can turn to bring this to fruition.

Second, it must leverage its security partnerships and alliances with the US, Britain, Japan and others to tether the development of its semiconductor capabilities to evolving mutual defence needs and related innovation. Security alliances such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad), AUKUS and the Five Eyes network must double up as enablers of Australia’s semiconductor sector (and other critical technology) advancement. The spillover to Australia’s commercial sector will be immense.

Third, Australia’s firms and local talent must become enmeshed in global value chains. Not just any value chains, however. Australia’s strategic industries must seek to secure supply-chain arrangements via bilateral, minilateral and multilateral agreements, and government should continue to participate in high-quality multilateral free trade agreements, assuming those agreements actually enforce rules and standards reflective of Australia’s core values.

Countries such as the US, the UK, Japan and South Korea, along with various EU nations, India, Taiwan and Singapore, show good potential for ‘friend-shoring’, meaning that they could provide safe havens for the ring-fencing of Australia’s strategic value chains. For example, Australia could join Washington’s ‘secure’ (‘China-free’) supply-chain arrangements with Taiwan, Japan and South Korea as part of the US Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors and Science Act (CHIPS Act) or pursue similar agreements with the EU’s nascent supply-chain security agreements as part of the EU’s European Chips Act. Bilateral and minilateral agreements are preferred. Such an outcome would be mutually advantageous to all parties, given the benefits of rationalised global value chains for the world’s most complex sector.

Highly specialised slices of the semiconductor value chain require a dizzying range of materials, processes, equipment and technologies from trading partners that must be relied upon to deliver the goods without the risk of sanctions, blacklists and export bans—or any other geopolitically motivated weaponisation of supply chains. Every niche player in Australia’s microchip ecosystem, therefore, must keep its critical production activities ring-fenced within ‘friendly’ geopolitical and geographical value chains.

Strategic friend-shoring and home-shoring must cover everything from localised rare-earth and critical-materials processing at the bottom of supply chains to the production of specialised microchips at the top end.

Fourth, Australia’s public sector must step up to facilitate the right kinds of public–private partnerships (PPPs), provide targeted funding for semiconductor R&D and education, and create commercial incentives for foreign and local investments. This will require adept ‘techno-diplomacy’ with foreign partners, as well as a deft touch regarding the local technology landscape, as too much government interference could impede Australia’s tremendous entrepreneurial spirit. This is a moonshot: big and bold actions and expenditures are needed, not overly cautious gradualism.

Executive summary

In this report, we set out to make specific recommendations underpinning an Australian semiconductor national plan. This is an urgent task, which is presented in a global context, with special emphasis given to the geopolitical complexity of semiconductor supply-chain issues and Australia’s important strategic alliances and partnerships.

Our analysis emphasises the centrality of a commercial semiconductor chip manufacturing capability, which is nearly absent in Australia. Developing other aspects of the semiconductor ecosystem is important, including critical minerals and microchip design, but those areas must be addressed concurrently, as part of a larger, decisive plan, not through a gradualist approach. Opting out of semiconductor manufacturing will severely constrain Australia’s growth as a technological nation and consign it to second-tier status.

International examples, and recent substantial incentives formalised by governments worldwide for this critical industry, such as the US and European ‘Chips’ Acts, are highlighted and provide guidance.

Australia has an R&D semiconductor fabrication foothold upon which it can build its new capabilities. Viable investment streams via the Australian National Fabrication Facility (ANFF) network under the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme must be increased substantially.

A sufficiently funded ANFF, with capability increased to pilot production in key nodes, could underpin closely located foundries via public–private partnerships (PPPs) with commercial manufacturing firms. As is the case for PPP developments in the US and UK, it’s proposed that Australia attract appropriately tailored foundry capability in compound semiconductors, and also in complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (silicon CMOS) at mature process scale. The endgame is to address these key markets with a sovereign talent pipeline.

We provide a dollar amount estimate for that outcome, indicating a pathway to some A$5 billion of semiconductor manufacturing activity, stimulated by A$1.5 billion of government investment and financial incentives, including direct subsidies and tax offsets, which are part of that total.

As well as financial estimates, we address the issue of focus and the scale of an Australian semiconductor ‘moonshot’. We also map the four overarching actions that we’ve outlined under ‘What’s the solution?’ to quite specific recommendations. That mapping considers the current Australian semiconductor status quo to outline an existing foothold that Australia can sensibly build on. We also take note of significant US and UK government incentive schemes recently announced to strategically define and boost those countries’ semiconductor industries and supply chains, which Australia could proportionately finetune to its comparative stage of development.

In a geopolitical context, we focus on the task of creating and executing an Australian national semiconductor plan. At its heart, and notwithstanding the importance of microchip design and marketing, the central and most complex issue that will define such a plan is building a sustainable, appropriately scaled, strategic market-penetrating, trusted commercial semiconductor fabrication capacity across Australia. With this focus, in laying out an analysis of the semiconductor landscape, we highlight topics that should be at the forefront of the national discussion.

Those topics include:

  • concentrating on different business models and capacity-building scenarios, including the medium-term consideration of ‘pure play’ manufacturing of compound semiconductors as well as connected ‘fabless’ activities in research, design and innovation
  • over the long term, exploring the merits of the ‘integrated device manufacturing’ model and silicon chip fabrication at an appropriate entry point
  • focusing on specialised chip production for a growing range of sectors, including the automotive, medical, communications, energy and defence sectors
  • recognising the importance of so-called ‘trailing-edge’, ‘mature’ chip technologies and why they’re as important as ‘leading-edge’ semiconductors, in an economic and geopolitical context
  • understanding the enabling role of trusted PPPs involving Australian and other leading universities and public-sector technology agencies, semiconductor companies and governments
  • understanding the importance of technology transfer via defence-related alliances such as AUKUS and the Five Eyes and the role of government-funded research agencies in that transfer.

Tag Archive for: Critical & Emerging Technology

ASPI DC hosts quantum computing dialogue series with PsiQuantum

On March 1st and May 5th, ASPI DC partnered with PsiQuantum to host ‘The State and Future of Quantum Computing’ dialogue series. The ‘closed door’ sessions were attended by senior members from across the US and Australian government and department of defense, industry representatives, venture capital, and academia.

Discussion centered around the themes of quantum computing in the context of AUKUS and global security, and underwiring dual use industries of the future in the context of quantum computing, semiconductors and advanced material.

Attendees identified opportunities for partnership and collaboration between participants, and Australia and the US more broadly in pursuit of shared strategic and technology goals.

Presenting Critical Technology Tracker at The Sydney Dialogue

This session explored ASPI’s landmark Critical Technology Tracker which reveals where countries, universities, national labs, and companies have a competitive advantage across critical technology areas. The discussion explored the methodology behind the research, the companies dominating in areas like artificial intelligence, and how Australia’s performance compared to other nations.  

Speakers in this session included: Danielle Cave, Director, Executive, Strategy and Research, ASPI and Dr Jamie Gaida, Former Senior Analyst, ASPI.

Master of Ceremonies: Nina Walsh.

ASPI DC host Western Australian Government Delegation

On March 10th, ASPI DC hosted a delegation led by the Hon. Bill Johnston MLA, Western Australia’s Minister for Mines and Petroleum, Energy, to discuss critical minerals strategy. The discussion was key in highlighting the importance of WA to Australia’s critical mineral supply chains and potential for strong collaboration with US industry and government, and informed thinking around ASPI DC’s broader project on paradiplomacy project.

ASPI DC partnered with AmCham

On January 19th ASPI DC partnered with AmCham to convene a roundtable on ‘How Australia and the United States can Secure Semiconductor Supply Chains’, which focused on the recommendations of ASPI’s 2022 report Australia’s National Semiconductor Moonshot. The event was hosted in Washington DC with a virtual element for Australian participants, and attended by Australian Ambassador, Arthur Sinodinos.

Alex Capri, author of the ASPI 2022 report, moderated the two-part discussion with assistance from co-author, Robert Clark. The roundtable was attended by senior government officials from Australia and the US, industry and academia, and produced insights into the importance of a skilled workforce for the semiconductor supply chain. These findings have informed a subsequent report on talent pipeline development in aid of the national semiconductor moonshot, which will be published by ASPI in late 2023.

The Sydney Dialogue to return in April

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute is pleased to announce that the second Sydney Dialogue for emerging, critical, cyber and space technologies will be held on 4-5 April 2023.

The Sydney Dialogue, established to meet the need for a flagship international forum on cyber and critical technologies, has quickly built a reputation for bringing together the top thinkers and decision-makers from governments, industry, academia and civil society for strategic discussion and debates which continue to shape the global policy environment.

First held in 2021, the Dialogue recognises that technology is reshaping societies and economies in every part of the world, and nowhere is that more acute than in the Indo-Pacific region. It is being developed and applied so quickly, within an increasingly intense geopolitical landscape, that neither laws nor international consensus on rules and norms are keeping up.

The rapid innovation in areas such as cyber, artificial intelligence, big data, biotechnology, space and quantum computing create enormous opportunities for solving urgent, real-world problems and for establishing sectors of the economy not previously imagined. However, the pace of growth and innovation carries risks, such as the misuse of technology by rogue and authoritarian states and criminal organisations.

The safe and stable advance of technology requires a coordinated international effort. No government, company or civil society organisation can meet the vast array of challenges alone. This is why The Sydney Dialogue is once again bringing together leading players to discuss the opportunities and risks, foster ideas and initiatives, and ultimately find solutions that ensure technology is used for the benefit of all people, consistent with universal human rights.

ASPI is very pleased to have the strong support of the Australian Government for The Sydney Dialogue 2023. Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, the Honourable Richard Marles MP acknowledged that: “Technology is a growing pillar of Australia’s global partnerships and a critical part of ensuring our defence capabilities are fit for purpose. As we face the most challenging strategic circumstances in decades, this cooperation is increasingly vital to maintaining our national security.

“It is essential for like-minded nations and actors to come together to harness the best of technology for the benefit of all, which is why I am pleased to see Australia host The Sydney Dialogue in 2023, and I congratulate ASPI on convening it.”

Australia’s Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security, the Honourable Clare O’Neil MP noted: “Critical and emerging technologies can help address some of the greatest shared challenges the world faces – including climate change, energy security and pandemics. However, there are also inherent risks.

“Hostile and authoritarian states are using technological developments to gain advantage and further their political agendas. The Sydney Dialogue will play an important role in bringing together leaders from government, industry, and academia to ensure critical technologies make the lives of our citizens more secure, prosperous and rewarding.”

The inaugural Dialogue was held virtually in 2021 because of global Covid-19 restrictions. It featured keynote addresses from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The 2023 Dialogue will be held in-person and will be invitation-only. It will feature leading decision-makers and experts who are willing to break new ground in discussing technologies that will shape the future. The Dialogue will stimulate frank conversations about the roles for governments, industry and society in shifting away from the business-as-usual international mindset on technology.

On the agenda is cyber and digital governance, space and the geopolitical implications of expanding human activity off-earth, technology game-changers, technologies that shape war, technological competition and strategic advantage, and the role of technology and innovation in advancing human rights, climate action and human security.

Justin Bassi, the Executive Director of ASPI, said: “ASPI is proud to host what might be our most ambitious project yet, The Sydney Dialogue 2023, and attempt to bridge the gaps that have opened up. Importantly, as the leading annual global forum for technology policy, we will focus on opportunities as much as risks. We look forward to welcoming delegates from around the world to Sydney in early April to lead coordinated global policy responses to the challenges we face now, and those ahead.”

More information and updates on The Sydney Dialogue can be found at tsd.aspi.org.au.

The 2021 ASPI Sydney Dialogue

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s The Sydney Dialogue is a world-first summit for emerging, critical and cyber technologies.

The inaugural dialogue will be hosted virtually from Australia and will begin on 17–19 November 2021.

The Sydney Dialogue will have an Indo-Pacific focus and will bring business, government and technology leaders together with the world’s best strategic thinkers, to debate, generate ideas and work towards common understandings of the challenges posed by new technologies.

The program will commence with an opening address from Australian Prime Minister the Hon Scott Morrison MP.

The Prime Minister of India – Narendra Modi – will also be giving a keynote address at the inaugural Sydney Dialogue.

Conversations about technology are currently taking place in silos – for example, on artificial intelligence, the use of surveillance technologies, quantum, space and biotechnology, disinformation and cyber-enabled interference, supply chain resilience and the future of cyberspace. The Sydney Dialogue provides a forum for the world to anticipate and respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by increasingly complex advances in technology.

The dialogue will span both public and private activities, including keynotes, panels, roundtables, podcasts, an annual publication and more. While the dialogue will start in November, the conversation will extend into early 2022 as we continue to launch new events.

Invitations will be issued to select delegates from around the world, with priority given to those in the Indo-Pacific region. This year, most plenary sessions will be broadcast live to the general public, others will be publicly available at a later stage and a small number will be closed-door.

Please see the Sydney Dialogue website for more information. 

‘The Sydney Dialogue’ – ASPI’s new global technology initiative

We are pleased to announce that ASPI will host The Sydney Dialogue – which we aim to make the world’s premier policy summit for emerging, critical and cyber technologies – in the second half of 2021.

Today, the Foreign Minister Senator the Hon. Marise Payne announced that the Australian Government will support, and partially fund, The Sydney Dialogue. 

The Sydney Dialogue fills a critical gap globally in public discourse and policy making. ASPI will aim to bring together the world’s political leaders, heads of government, business and civil society leaders to focus on technology including artificial intelligence, quantum, biotechnology, space and the future of cyberspace.

Emerging, critical and cyber technologies have a material impact on our lives and work. They reshape our societies, economies and the future of our planet. There is a pressing need to join-up the conversations taking place within government, multilateral institutions, business and civil society to enable more informed and deliberate decision making.

ASPI has undertaken policy-relevant research on issues relating to cyberspace and technology for eight years. This work is agenda-setting, and pushes new, often unexplored areas. The Sydney Dialogue will adopt this characteristic and drive global policy debates on technology. Maria MacNamara, the former CEO of Advance.org, joins ASPI this month as a Senior Fellow to help us create and deliver the inaugural Sydney Dialogue in 2021.

This new initiative will take a natural focus on the Indo-Pacific, while highlighting developments from across the world. We look forward to working with governments, business and civil society to make The Sydney Dialogue the home of global strategic and policy debates. A place where the world can anticipate and respond to the complicated challenges and immense opportunities presented by the increasingly complex advances in technology.

For more information about The Sydney Dialogue visit ASPI’s Strategist site. 

US-China tension can give way to India-Australia partnerships on critical technology – opinion piece

Read an opinion piece written by ASPI’s Danielle Cave, Jocelinn Kang and Aakriti Bachhawat and co-authored with colleagues from India’s Observer Research Foundation Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan and Trisha Ray in Indian newspaper ThePrint. This article is based on the ASPI-ORF report: Critical technologies and the Indo-Pacific: A new India-Australia partnership:

“While the Covid-19 pandemic has damaged economies and profoundly affected people’s health and wellbeing, it has also highlighted our dependence on technology and the extent to which we’ll rely on the next wave of technologies to drive future prosperity.

Covid-19 has also accelerated strategic competition between nations, particularly the US and China. Much of that competition centres on technology and data: Who owns and controls it? How is it being used? What rules, norms and standards are different countries abiding by?

This competition is quickly spilling over into international forums, including standards-setting bodies, and it’s throwing up new challenges to global technology companies. It’s also leading to new partnerships and presenting opportunities to deepen existing partnerships, as countries find more commonalities in the multitude of technological challenges they face. More opportunities are arising—and arising quickly—for practical cooperation to help deal with these challenges.

One such opportunity—and partnership—is the India–Australia relationship, which is rapidly becoming one of the most important pillars of the Indo-Pacific.”

Read the article here.

Indo-Pacific cooperation on critical technologies – launch of ASPI-ORF report

On 15 October 2020 India’s Observer Research Foundation (ORF) hosted the launch of the ASPI-ORF report: Critical technologies and the Indo-Pacific: A new India-Australia partnership as a part of its CyFy2020 conference.

The report argues that as the India-Australia bilateral relationship continues to grow and evolve, both governments should invest in the construction of a new India–Australia partnership on technology. The foundation for such a partnership already exists, and further investment areas of complementary interests could stimulate regional momentum in a range of key critical and emerging technology areas including in 5G, Artificial Intelligence, quantum technologies, space technologies and in critical minerals. The report contains 14 policy recommendations that will help build this new technology partnership.

Australia’s High Commissioner to India, Barry O’Farrell, joined a number of the report co-authors including Aakriti Bachhawat, Danielle Cave, Dr Rajeswari Pilla Rajagopalan and Trisha Ray to discuss the current India-Australia relationship, how it continues to evolve and expand and how the two countries can better leverage their competitive advantages in the technology sector.

Watch the launch event here.

The new space age – Four Corners

The new space age: The race to colonise outer space

“It’s not just a boom. It’s a frenzy. Suddenly every government department is a space department in one way or another. All industry sectors somehow are dabbling in space…It truly has become a frenzy.” Space academic

Sixty years ago, the world watched in wonder at the dawning of the space age. Humankind’s first flights into space and the landing on the moon showed the seemingly impossible was achievable.

Now we are on the brink of a new space revolution.

ASPI’s Dr Malcolm Davis is interviewed for the ABC’s Four Corners special; The new space age.

You can watch the program here: https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/the-new-space-age/12613242.

Tag Archive for: Critical & Emerging Technology

Nothing Found

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria