Think Tank ASPI Marks 25 Years of Shaping Australia's National Security Policy

"It was 25 years ago that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute opened its doors, an event that both of us believed in." — John Howard and Kim Beazley

Creation with bipartisan backing and institutional independence

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) was established with explicit bipartisan support. When the Coalition government led by one of the authors, John Howard, set up ASPI, it received full support from the Labor opposition led by the other, Kim Beazley. The institute was intentionally created as an entity separate from the Department of Defence: the founders made it independent rather than an office inside the department. With substantial government funding, ASPI was given freedom to form its own judgments, to publish research publicly and to disagree with government policy when the evidence suggested it should.

Early trials: opening days, 2001 shocks, and a high‑profile first director

ASPI opened in Canberra on 22 August 2001. Three weeks later, "al‑Qaeda terrorists struck at the heart of our ally, the United States," a shock that the authors say changed the strategic landscape and underscored the value of outside analysis. ASPI’s first head, Hugh White — selected to hold the national security system to account and keep the public informed — quickly drew attention by questioning Australia’s decision to join the United States and Britain in the 2003 military operation to remove Saddam Hussein. That early public critique illustrates the role the founders intended: to provide alternative, evidence‑based advice even when it creates political discomfort.

Policy impact: Solomon Islands, foreign‑interference laws, and 5G advice

ASPI has asserted influence on several concrete policy areas. The institute “played a key role in Australia’s foreign policy towards Solomon Islands” following ethnic violence and economic collapse in 2003; an ASPI report argued for a hands‑on approach and helped pave the way for an Australia‑led coalition that restored law and order. ASPI’s research also exposed what the authors call Beijing’s "opaque methods" of influence in Australia, helping provide public support for laws to tackle foreign interference and influence. Analysts at ASPI warned early against allowing Chinese companies to equip Australian 5G networks, arguing those networks could be used to collect information in Australia and for disruption in a crisis; Australia subsequently led the Western world in implementing a ban.

The Strategist, budget analysis and public accountability

ASPI broadened its public reach in 2012 by launching a digital magazine, The Strategist, which the authors note "daily publishes expert and easily digestible commentary and analysis on national security." The Strategist "imposes no particular editorial line" and provides a platform for ideas that can be uncomfortable for governments. The institute’s annual defence‑budget analysis, The Cost of Defence, is described by the authors as a seminal document. These outputs reflect the founders’ design: a funded but independent research body expected to subject orthodoxies to evidence‑based testing.

Current strategic pressures: China, diplomatic pushback, wars and AI

The authors argue Australia faces a "broader and deeper level of threat" now than in 2001, pointing to terrorism, cyberattacks and renewed state‑on‑state conflict, all "turbocharged by technology." The article notes that ASPI was established before 9/11, before social media, and before "China’s admission to the World Trade Organization." Recent conflicts, the authors say, are already highlighting the need to change force structures, war stocks, operational art and strategy — citing "wars in Ukraine and the Persian Gulf" as illustrations — and ASPI is tracking the upcoming influence of artificial intelligence on Australia’s security "as far beyond the horizon as possible." The authors also highlight a concrete example of diplomatic pushback: in 2020 the Chinese embassy demanded that the Australian government cease funding ASPI.

How policymakers and regulators, technologists and security teams, and the Australian public are affected

• Policymakers and regulators: The institute’s independent analyses — from foreign‑interference research to The Cost of Defence — provide evidence policymakers can use to justify legislative or procurement choices, and to shape responses to state‑level risks.
• Technologists and security teams: ASPI’s early warnings about 5G supply choices and its work on cyber and AI trends are presented as inputs that technical communities and procurement leaders can use when assessing national systems and supplier risk.
• The Australian public: Through The Strategist and public reports, ASPI gives citizens and commentators material to test official narratives and to hold policy decisions to public account, fulfilling the founders’ expectation that the institute would inform debate even when it created political discomfort.

The authors conclude that the more severe the threats to Australia’s security, the greater the value of an independent, evidence‑based research body. They write plainly that ASPI’s role "is more important than ever" and note that governments "have much to consider" as the security environment evolves. Whether in analyses that shaped responses in the Solomon Islands, warnings about network suppliers, or work on defence spending and emerging AI risks, the institute’s founders argue ASPI has been doing the hard work the public needs to test orthodoxies and inform policy.

Source: ASPI at 25 – After 25 years, ASPI’s role is more important than ever