Have Australian authorities publicly investigated or responded to alleged foreign intelligence activities on their soil?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Australian authorities have publicly acknowledged multiple investigations and responses to foreign intelligence activity on Australian soil, including statements that ASIO has disrupted at least 24 “major espionage and foreign interference” operations in recent years and that investigations uncovered plots by foreign services to physically harm people in Australia [1] [2]. Senior officials have warned that foreign actors are actively targeting defence projects such as AUKUS, defence personnel and critical infrastructure, and the government has funded counter‑interference measures [3] [4] [5].
1. Public admissions from ASIO: disruption, murder plots and scale
Australia’s domestic spy agency, ASIO, has publicly said it disrupted dozens of major espionage and foreign‑interference operations and has revealed that investigations identified at least three countries plotting physical attacks against people living in Australia, including efforts to silence dissidents [1] [2]. ASIO’s 2025 threat assessment—referenced in multiple outlets—frames foreign espionage and interference as a high‑priority, escalating problem driven by great‑power competition and technological change [6] [7].
2. Targets named: AUKUS, defence personnel and intellectual property
ASIO and Australia’s defence ministry have specifically warned that foreign intelligence services are targeting Australia’s AUKUS submarine program, defence employees, contractors and sensitive networks, with examples including attempts to compromise restricted Defence networks and recruiting security‑cleared individuals [3] [8] [4]. Officials and reporting also quantify economic impact: law‑enforcement and ASIO‑linked analyses estimate large losses from theft of trade secrets and intellectual property—figures cited include nearly US$2 billion in one year and broader multimillion‑ to billion‑dollar estimates [4] [1].
3. Concrete incidents vs. broad warnings: what authorities have said publicly
Public statements mix concrete incidents (network intrusion attempts, recruitment of cleared employees, disrupted operations, alleged murder plots) with broader strategic warnings about trends—use of proxies, deepfakes, and exploitation of new technologies [6] [3] [8]. Reuters and national reporting quote ASIO leadership describing specific tactics such as surveillance devices hidden in gifts and foreign companies buying land near military sites [3] [4].
4. Interagency response and international cooperation
Australian law enforcement and intelligence bodies are taking an international approach: the AFP, ASIO and other agencies are increasing cooperation with intelligence partners, the Five Eyes alliance and foreign law enforcement to detect and disrupt threats offshore and at source [9] [10]. Reporting also indicates operational cooperation in terrorism and violent‑act investigations, for example in inquiries involving alleged foreign‑state‑linked plots [11] [2].
5. Government policy and funding to counter foreign interference
Home Affairs materials and government messaging set out a national counter‑interference program and recent investments—cited funding of A$71.6 million over 2024–25—to bolster capabilities against foreign interference across institutions, research and industry [5]. ASIO and Defence public communications accompany policy measures with warnings intended to change behaviour among cleared personnel and researchers [7] [4].
6. Sources, narratives and potential agendas to note
Official ASIO statements and government pages present a security‑first narrative stressing disruption successes and the seriousness of the threat [7] [6]. Independent outlets quoting ASIO amplify those claims [3] [4]. Specialist media (The Diplomat, Recorded Future/The Record) highlight the same disclosures and quantify disruptions; these outlets may emphasize geopolitical competition and regional implications [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention any independent judicial findings that publicly name foreign states as criminally culpable in specific cases; reporting relies on intelligence agency assessments and redacted descriptions (not found in current reporting).
7. How to read these public responses: transparency and limits
Australia’s public posture is to disclose threat trends and declassified summaries of disruptive actions while withholding operational detail. That balance explains why reporting contains concrete examples (e.g., recruitment of cleared personnel, network‑breach attempts) alongside high‑level counts (24 major operations disrupted) without full forensic public case files [1] [8]. This approach serves a deterrent and political aim—demonstrating capability and resolve—while preserving methods, sources and international intelligence relationships [6] [10].
8. Bottom line for readers
Yes: Australian authorities have publicly investigated and openly responded to alleged foreign intelligence activity on their soil, citing multiple disrupted operations, targeted campaigns against defence and research sectors, and even plots to harm residents [2] [1] [3]. Reporting is driven by official ASIO and government disclosures; independent verification of every specific allegation is limited in public sources, and official commentary intentionally keeps operational detail classified [7] [6].