Cybersecurity Sector at Risk: The Need for Insurance in a Strategy-less Landscape and How Insurance Can Fill the Gaps in Cybersecurity Strategy

Navigating Cybersecurity Risks: The Essential Role of Insurance in an Unstructured Industri

With cybersecurity at risk due to a lack of national strategy, businesses need insurance more than ever to secure their data and mitigate potential threats

source :
https://www.insurancenews.com.au/daily/cybersecurity-sector-flying-blind-without-strong-national-strategy

It began, as many things do in the 21st century, with a bold promise. In late 2023, Australia declared its ambition to become the most cybersecure nation by 2030. Not just secure — the most secure. It was the kind of declaration that stirs national pride, grabs headlines, and inspires a flurry of think pieces and LinkedIn posts. The ambition was timely, the urgency real. But as of early 2025, that once-glittering promise is looking more like a case study in how grand visions can buckle under the weight of implementation.

Let’s be clear: Australia’s cybersecurity problem isn’t theoretical. It’s not some abstract threat on the horizon. It’s already here, already inside the house. Over the past few years, the nation has seen a series of massive data breaches — Optus, Medibank, and others — that didn’t just expose personal information, but also exposed a painful truth: Australia wasn’t ready. The breaches were technical failures, yes, but more importantly, they were failures of vision, of investment, and of coordination.

The 2023 cybersecurity strategy was supposed to change that. On paper, it was impressive: layered defenses, whole-of-government coordination, investment in tech and talent. But the execution? Sluggish, fragmented, sometimes even contradictory. The Australian Cyber Network's latest report might as well have been written in red pen: we are dangerously reliant on foreign cybersecurity solutions. The metaphor isn’t hard to grasp — when your digital infrastructure is built overseas, so is your sovereignty.

But let’s take a step back. Because this isn’t just a story about Australia. It’s about a global reckoning with the digital age. Infrastructure, once defined by concrete and steel, now includes lines of code. Software runs our transit systems, controls our power grids, and stores our medical histories. Cyber isn’t a layer on top of infrastructure; it is the infrastructure. And we’re discovering, painfully, just how brittle that infrastructure can be when we treat it like an afterthought.

Australia’s over-reliance on American and Israeli cybersecurity tech isn’t about nationalism — it’s about resilience. When your health system’s firewall depends on software updates from a company based 14,000 kilometers away, you’re not just buying a product. You’re inheriting a geopolitical risk profile. If relations sour, or if that company becomes compromised, your vulnerability becomes systemic.

Now, here’s where the conversation gets interesting. Because this is where cybersecurity starts to bleed into other domains, subtly but powerfully. Take insurance, for example. A few years ago, cyber insurance was a niche offering — something companies might tack on, like glass coverage on a car policy. Today, it’s central to risk strategy. And the growing instability in national cybersecurity postures is giving insurers heartburn.

Let’s say you’re an insurer trying to price a cyber policy for a hospital network in Melbourne. Your underwriters start asking questions: How secure is the hospital’s software? Where is the data stored? Is it encrypted? Who manages the systems? What’s the breach response time? In a world with stable, sovereign cybersecurity infrastructure, those questions have answers. In a world where the answers depend on foreign vendors and inconsistent national policies, pricing risk becomes guesswork.

That’s the thing about insurance. It doesn’t just reflect risk — it reacts to it. As digital threats escalate, cyber insurance premiums go up. Coverage shrinks. Some providers exit the market altogether. It’s eerily reminiscent of the climate insurance crisis: as natural disasters increased, insurers pulled out of regions they could no longer underwrite profitably. Now, it’s not wildfires or floods threatening the actuarial tables — it’s malware, phishing, ransomware, and AI-generated fraud.

And AI — let’s talk about that. In 2025, AI has become a double-edged sword in cybersecurity. On one hand, AI-driven threat detection is getting better, faster, and more predictive. On the other, cybercriminals are using generative AI to automate attacks, craft realistic phishing emails, and deploy deepfake scams that even trained professionals struggle to spot. The arms race is real, and it’s not just happening in the shadows of hacker forums. It’s happening in the offices of reinsurers and boardrooms of multinational firms.

Insurers are starting to demand more from their clients. Not just proof of firewalls and backups, but detailed audits of digital supply chains, software dependencies, and human capital strategies. They want to know whether a firm’s CTO understands zero-trust architecture, whether the incident response team has drilled real-time breach simulations, whether cybersecurity is a line item or a strategic pillar.

And here’s where Australia’s national strategy — or lack thereof — becomes a problem for everyone. The ambiguity in policy execution creates uncertainty. And uncertainty is expensive. It forces insurers to hedge, raise premiums, or exit high-risk sectors. It forces companies to self-insure, which usually means under-preparing. It creates a digital house of cards, where one breach can ripple outward across industries, geographies, and supply chains.

To fix this, we need more than funding. We need follow-through. The recent boost to the Australian Signals Directorate is a start, but without a corresponding surge in local talent development, R&D, and cross-sector coordination, it’s just money chasing symptoms. We need a cyber ecosystem — one that nurtures homegrown startups, trains the next generation of cyber defenders, and builds pathways that keep talent in-country.

This is cultural as much as it is technical. Australia’s brightest cybersecurity minds won’t stay for a paycheck alone. They need mentorship, mission, and momentum. They need to feel like they’re building something lasting — not patching holes in a sinking ship.

The parallels to the insurance industry deepen here. Because what is insurance, at its core, if not a bet on the future? A system of trust, underwritten by data and belief in stability? When cyber resilience falters, trust erodes — and with it, the foundations of modern finance. Insurers aren’t just hedging digital risk; they’re hedging societal resilience.

Look globally, and you’ll see similar patterns. The UK’s National Cyber Strategy, Germany’s push for digital sovereignty, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s evolving mandates — all point to the same conclusion: Cyber is now a domain of national security. And if it’s national security, then it’s economic security. And if it’s economic security, then yes, it’s insurance.

We’re at an inflection point. The decisions made in the next two to three years will define how nations, markets, and institutions handle digital risk for decades. Will we double down on prevention, resilience, and local capability-building? Or will we continue to outsource critical infrastructure and cross our fingers?

Back in Australia, the choice is stark but clear. A genuine cybersecurity renaissance would require political will, public-private partnerships, and a narrative that positions cyber not as an IT problem, but a national priority. Imagine if we treated cyber talent like Olympic athletes — scouted them young, trained them rigorously, celebrated their victories.

The payoff? More than just security. We’d build exportable expertise, attract global investment, and stabilize entire industries that depend on trust — from banking to healthcare to, yes, insurance.

The longer we wait, the more we let ambiguity drive up risk. And in a world where insurers are already rethinking what risks they can afford to cover, that’s a gamble we can’t afford to lose.

So here’s to 2025 — not as the year we hesitated, but as the year we decided. To invest in sovereignty, in resilience, and in ourselves. To recognize that cybersecurity isn’t just about stopping hackers. It’s about enabling everything else.

Because in the end, if we can’t trust the systems we rely on — to store our data, to power our cities, to protect our money — then what do we really have?

The clock is ticking. And the insurance premiums are watching.

Australia Really on Track to Become the World’s Most Cybersecure Nation

The timeline is daunting, and the stakes are high. As the world becomes more digitized, securing personal data is no longer just an inconvenience—it’s a matter of economic security. In Australia’s case, this is about more than just protecting the private information of individuals; it’s about protecting the digital fabric of society itself. What’s at risk here isn’t only a loss of privacy; it’s the trust in our digital infrastructure, the trust that underpins everything from online banking to healthcare.

Let’s take a step back, though, and think about what it means for a country to declare itself “cybersecure.” To most of us, that likely conjures up images of encrypted websites, bulletproof firewalls, and tech wizards guarding against cyberattacks. But let’s be honest: that’s the easy part. The challenge is far more systemic.

To reach their goal of becoming the world’s most cybersecure nation, Australia’s leadership needs to weave digital security into every part of its society. This is where things get complicated. It’s not just about government policy or tech innovation; it’s about the workforce, education, and infrastructure. Australia’s government is right to set lofty goals, but the true test will be whether they can follow through with action that goes beyond just talking about cybersecurity. To be clear, “cybersecurity” in this context isn’t just a technical problem—it’s also an economic one.

This is where the connection to investment and national leadership becomes apparent. Cybersecurity is, in many ways, a national investment. Just as infrastructure needs long-term planning and execution, so too does the nation’s approach to cybersecurity. This will require a consistent, sustained commitment from both the public and private sectors—not a series of quick-fix solutions that only offer temporary relief.

Take the insurance industry, for example. Insurers are on the frontlines of assessing and mitigating risk, and they are facing a massive challenge. As Australia, and the world, become more digitally dependent, cyber threats are quickly becoming the new “black swan” event—an unpredictable yet catastrophic risk that companies must account for. The cost of these attacks is staggering, and it’s not just about individual loss; it’s about how these risks reverberate through the economy. It’s about national stability.

As young Australians, we should care about these risks not only because they threaten our personal data, but because they’re tied to the broader issue of economic security. If our digital systems are vulnerable, then so are our financial systems, our jobs, and our futures. This isn’t an abstract, far-off problem—it’s one that touches every part of our daily lives.

We also need to think about the leadership required to get this right. Just like climate change, cybersecurity demands a long-term view, not a series of reactive measures after the damage is done. A truly cybersecure Australia requires bold leadership that goes beyond soundbites and strategy papers. It requires investment in the next generation of cybersecurity professionals, an overhaul of outdated systems, and a shift in how businesses and governments prioritize digital safety.

Australia’s path to becoming the world’s most cybersecure nation is not just about stopping the next hack; it’s about building a more resilient digital economy, one where we feel secure enough to innovate and grow. If we succeed, the ripple effects will be felt far beyond just the tech industry. It will signal that we’re ready to face the broader, existential challenges ahead—whether that’s digital threats, climate risks, or even the broader question of how we ensure economic stability in an increasingly unpredictable world.

So, to answer the question: Are we on track to become the world’s most cybersecure nation? The ambition is there, and the need is clear. But as the clock ticks toward 2030, we’ll have to see if Australia can put the rhetoric into action and truly secure its digital future. And for young Australians, the outcome will likely shape more than just our digital lives—it will define the future of our economy, our jobs, and our collective security.

 

Australia’s Cybersecurity Boom Needs More Than Hype—It Needs Leadership

By now, we’ve all heard that data is the new oil. But in Australia, it’s more like a refinery without a fire department—booming, valuable, and dangerously exposed.

The latest numbers are impressive: Australia's cybersecurity industry pulled in more than $6 billion in revenue last year, marking a solid 10% uptick. Cyber start-ups alone raised a record $348 million. On paper, it sounds like we're on the brink of becoming a global cybersecurity powerhouse. But scratch beneath the surface, and a different picture starts to emerge—one that reveals a thriving sector lacking the coordinated leadership and strategy it desperately needs to survive, let alone thrive.

This isn’t just a matter of industry squabbles or bureaucratic slowdowns. It’s a national security issue, an economic imperative, and yes, a tech opportunity all rolled into one. But according to the Australian Cyber Network, the country is flying blind. Despite our growing army of 137,000 cyber professionals—and forecasts suggesting that workforce will balloon by 41% by 2029—we're still playing catch-up on the global stage. Why? Because there's no clear captain at the helm.

We’re at a crossroads here: Australia’s cybersecurity industry is primed for success, yet it is undercut by fragmented leadership and a lack of long-term strategy. The country may have a booming industry in the making, but without strong, forward-thinking leadership, it risks squandering that potential. More than ever, we need a national cybersecurity agenda that doesn’t just pay lip service to the problem but takes tangible action. The stakes are high: as we’re seeing around the world, cyberattacks have the power to disrupt everything from supply chains to national security. The question isn’t whether we’ll face a catastrophic breach, but when. And are we prepared?

Now, let’s take a step back and think about how this connects to larger societal challenges, especially those felt by younger Australians—issues like housing affordability, student debt, and the economic stability of the future. At its core, the cybersecurity boom is about economic security. It’s about the capacity of the nation to protect its digital infrastructure and, by extension, the economic assets and opportunities that rely on it. This issue isn’t just for tech geeks or government officials to handle—it's something that affects all of us.

Consider the young professionals trying to build a career in a rapidly evolving landscape. Many of us are working in fields that didn’t exist just a few years ago, trying to stay relevant in the face of AI advancements and an increasingly digital world. But while we’re grappling with the uncertainties of job security, what happens if our personal data or professional work is exposed in a large-scale breach? Could we rely on a system to protect us, and are we preparing to handle such risks at the national level?

These are questions that reach beyond the tech industry. They are fundamental to the kind of future Australia is building for its young adults. And this is where the lack of leadership becomes especially concerning. It’s not just about creating jobs within cybersecurity—although that’s crucial, too. It’s about ensuring that we have a framework that supports innovation, protects economic stability, and addresses the kinds of threats that could disrupt entire sectors, including finance, healthcare, and government services.

Furthermore, the rise of cyber threats highlights a larger need for investment in national infrastructure and long-term leadership. If we can’t safeguard our digital infrastructure, how can we expect to create the stable, secure environment needed for things like affordable housing or sustainable healthcare? These broader goals are interlinked—economic security in the digital age requires strong leadership and investment in systems that protect the nation’s economic backbone.

Without this leadership, the booming cybersecurity industry, like a house of cards, could collapse when it faces its first major test. And without the right investment, both financial and intellectual, Australia could find itself trailing behind other nations that have learned the importance of foresight in tech infrastructure. Australia is still playing catch-up in the global race for cybersecurity excellence, and unless we start connecting the dots between technology, investment, and national security, we’ll continue to be one step behind, no matter how much our industry grows.

In the end, the rise of cybersecurity in Australia isn't just a business opportunity—it’s a national responsibility. To truly protect our future, we need more than just smart start-ups and growing revenue. We need a strategy that integrates cybersecurity into the very fabric of our economic and national security strategy. And that requires leadership—bold, informed, and above all, forward-thinking.

 

Australia’s Cybersecurity Boom Needs More Than Hype—It Needs Leadership

This isn’t just a matter of industry squabbles or bureaucratic slowdowns. It’s a national security issue, an economic imperative, and yes, a tech opportunity all rolled into one. But according to the Australian Cyber Network, the country is flying blind. Despite our growing army of 137,000 cyber professionals—and forecasts suggesting that workforce will balloon by 41% by 2029—we're still playing catch-up on the global stage. Why? Because there's no clear captain at the helm.

Jason Murrell, the chair of the Australian Cyber Network, doesn’t mince words. “We’ve got the capability. We’ve got the people,” he said in the report released this week. “What we now need is action, coordination, and leadership.”

Let’s be honest: it’s hard not to agree with him. You don’t need to be a cybersecurity expert to know that we’ve got a problem. Just ask anyone who’s had their personal data leaked, their emails locked by ransomware, or their credit card cloned after shopping online. Australia saw a jaw-dropping 47 million data breaches in the last year alone—making us the 11th most affected country globally. We also ranked fourth in the world for cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure. Think hospitals, power grids, water systems. That’s not just inconvenient—it’s terrifying.

And if you think this is someone else’s problem, consider this: 69% of Australian businesses were hit by ransomware attacks in 2024. That’s more than two-thirds. Whether you run a small e-commerce site or manage IT for a massive corporation, the chances are you’ve either been targeted or will be. And while business leaders are increasingly aware of the threat, there’s still a lack of strategic direction coming from the top—from the government, from regulators, and yes, from parts of the tech industry itself.

The truth is, cybercrime has evolved faster than our systems to deal with it. Attackers are no longer lone hackers in hoodies—they’re well-funded criminal organizations and even nation-states. The scale and sophistication of these attacks have outpaced not just our defenses but our policies. And the market alone can’t fix that.

What we’re witnessing is a textbook example of why public-private coordination matters. The private sector can innovate and move fast—just look at the explosion in cyber startups. But without a cohesive national strategy, that innovation risks becoming fragmented, duplicative, or worse, irrelevant. Innovation without direction is just noise.

The Australian Cyber Network’s report puts a spotlight on one particularly sore point: the lack of sustained investment in sovereign research and development. In other words, we’re relying too heavily on imported solutions—foreign technologies, foreign firms, and foreign frameworks. While global collaboration is obviously essential in a borderless cyber world, over-reliance on others makes us vulnerable. It hampers our ability to create solutions tailored to our unique needs, weakens our resilience, and leaves us playing by someone else’s rules.

So, what would actual leadership look like here? First off, a cohesive national cybersecurity strategy that’s not just a glossy PDF buried on a government website. One that’s actionable, forward-thinking, and developed with the cybersecurity experts doing the work—not just consultants and political advisors.

We also need to see investment that goes beyond crisis response. Right now, we tend to throw money at the problem after the fact—post-breach. But the real value lies in prevention, in research, in long-term planning. That means funding local R&D, supporting university programs that train cyber professionals, and fostering collaborations between industry and academia that don’t just produce white papers but real, deployable solutions.

We’ve already seen some steps in the right direction. In early 2025, the Australian government pledged increased funding to its national cyber defense initiatives, including the expansion of the Australian Signals Directorate’s capabilities. But funding alone isn’t enough—it needs to be smart funding, directed with purpose, and aligned with a broader national vision.

And we can’t overlook talent. While the projected growth in cyber jobs is encouraging, attracting and retaining that talent is another story. Cybersecurity professionals are in global demand. If Australia doesn’t offer them the environment, support, and career pathways they need, they’ll go elsewhere. Creating that kind of ecosystem requires more than just salaries. It demands investment in education, clear career progression, and a culture that values their expertise.

There’s also a cultural shift needed—from treating cybersecurity as a tech issue to seeing it as a core pillar of modern society. In a world where your fridge can be hacked, where a ransomware attack can shut down a hospital, where deepfakes and AI-driven scams are redefining the limits of deception, cyber isn’t just about protecting data anymore—it’s about protecting people.

Young Australians in particular—digital natives who’ve grown up online—should be part of this conversation. They understand the stakes in ways policymakers sometimes don’t. Empowering them, involving them in the solution, and giving them the tools to build and defend the digital future isn't just good policy—it’s common sense.

The good news? We’re not starting from scratch. We have the tech talent, the entrepreneurial energy, and the urgency. What’s missing is the glue: the national coordination, the long-term vision, and the leadership that understands this isn’t just an economic opportunity—it’s a national priority.

So the question is no longer “Can we?” It’s “Will we?”

And that answer, for better or worse, is still up in the air.

Is Australia Really on Track to Become the World’s Most Cybersecure Nation? Let’s Talk About It.

By now, most of us have either had our data leaked, know someone who has, or we’re nervously waiting for the inevitable email saying, “Your information may have been compromised.” It’s not just paranoia—Australia has had a rough run with cyberattacks over the past few years. From the massive Optus breach to the Medibank fiasco, digital security has become less of a tech issue and more of a national one.

So when the Australian government boldly announced in late 2023 that it planned to become the “most cybersecure nation by 2030”, it sounded… ambitious. Admirable, for sure. Necessary, absolutely. But 15 months later, the big question being whispered in tech circles and shouted by cybersecurity professionals is: Are we actually making progress, or are we just good at writing strategies?

The Cybersecurity Strategy: A Plan With Promise, but Progress?

Let’s rewind. The 2023 cybersecurity strategy was built around some big-ticket ideas: better defenses, smarter coordination between public and private sectors, and stronger policies to reduce dependency on foreign technologies. On paper, it looked good. Australia would not only protect its own digital borders but become a leader in cyber resilience globally.

But fast-forward to 2025, and things feel… underwhelming. A new report from independent experts suggests that while the goals are lofty, the execution hasn’t kept up. “We are 15 months in,” the report states, “and left wondering what progress has been made against the action plan and whether the government met its own first-year milestones.”

That’s the kind of politely scathing remark you expect from insiders who are trying to keep the conversation constructive, but can’t hide their frustration anymore.

Local Tech or Foreign Fixes?

One of the biggest criticisms coming from industry leaders is that government procurement still leans heavily on international cybersecurity tools—think American and Israeli tech companies dominating our security stack. This might not sound like a problem at first glance. After all, if the tool works, who cares where it’s made?

But here’s the catch: sovereignty matters in cybersecurity. When you rely on foreign-developed technologies to protect critical infrastructure—power grids, hospitals, transportation systems—you open up vulnerabilities that extend beyond just hacking. There’s a geopolitical layer to all of this. What happens if diplomatic tensions rise? Or if foreign vendors become compromised themselves?

This is why many experts are pushing for government contracts to prioritize Australian-developed solutions. Not out of nationalism, but out of practical resilience. As of 2025, only a small fraction of cybersecurity contracts awarded by the federal government go to local firms, according to data from AustCyber.

The Executive Cyber Council: A Seat at the Table… for Whom?

If there’s one area of particular concern flagged in the report, it’s the Executive Cyber Council—the advisory group meant to guide the government on big-picture cyber strategy. The intention behind the council was solid: bring together experts, industry voices, and government leaders to make collaborative decisions.

But what’s happened instead, according to critics, is that the council has become more symbolic than strategic. The report calls it a “significant low point,” accusing it of excluding the very people who deal with threats every single day—cybersecurity professionals on the ground.

It’s a classic case of the boardroom being disconnected from the battlefield. As one industry insider put it, “We have CEOs and executives talking cyber strategy, while the actual incident responders and analysts are left out of the room.” If you want effective policy, you need both perspectives. Right now, there’s a gap that’s hard to ignore.

Cyber Fatigue and a Disengaged Public

But this isn’t just a government problem—it’s a societal one. The report highlights an uncomfortable truth: cybersecurity messaging is not landing with the public, especially with small businesses and older Australians.

After years of high-profile data breaches, there’s a growing sense of helplessness. People are tuning out. A kind of cyber fatigue has set in, where the average person sees these attacks as inevitable. And when something feels inevitable, we stop trying to stop it.

This is dangerous, because everyday decisions still matter. A business that fails to update its software, an individual who reuses weak passwords—these are the weak links that attackers exploit. And right now, our national awareness campaigns aren’t resonating with the groups that need it most.

CyberCX, one of Australia’s largest cybersecurity firms, reported in early 2025 that 68% of small businesses still don’t have a dedicated cybersecurity policy in place. That’s not just a blind spot; it’s a gaping hole.

So What Needs to Change?

Here’s the tough love moment: good intentions and government PDFs aren’t enough. If Australia is serious about becoming the most cybersecure country by 2030, then the approach needs to shift—from strategy to execution, from exclusivity to inclusivity, and from top-down to grassroots.

1. Prioritize Australian innovation. The local cybersecurity ecosystem is growing, but it needs funding, support, and, most importantly, trust. Procurement policies should reflect that.
2. Listen to the people on the frontlines. Policy shaped without practitioner insight is like building a fortress with no doors—you might think it's secure, but you're missing something crucial.
3. Rethink public engagement. It's not enough to say "cybersecurity is everyone’s responsibility" if we don’t give people the tools and language to actually engage with it. Tailor messages for different audiences. Partner with influencers, community groups, local councils—anyone who can help shift the conversation away from fear and toward empowerment.
4. Be transparent. Let the public know what’s working and what’s not. People lose faith in government initiatives when there’s no visible progress or accountability.

Cybersecurity in 2025 isn’t just about locking down systems. It’s about building trust—in institutions, in technology, and in each other. Australia has the talent, the resources, and the ambition to lead the world in cyber resilience. But ambition without clarity becomes noise. And as we’ve seen, when the message doesn’t land, the public tunes out.

The clock’s ticking toward 2030. Let’s make sure we’re not just talking about being the most secure—we’re actually becoming it.

 Behind Closed Doors: Australia’s Cybersecurity Strategy Needs a Reality Check

Let’s talk cybersecurity. Not the sci-fi kind with glowing green code and trench coat-wearing hackers — I’m talking about the very real, very now challenge of protecting a nation’s digital backbone in 2025. And let’s be honest: Australia’s not exactly winning gold medals in that arena.

At least, not yet.

While the Australian government has been loud about its commitment to making the country "cybersecure," recent criticism suggests that what’s actually happening behind the scenes might be a lot murkier — and frankly, a little concerning.

A new report has pulled back the curtain on Australia’s Cyber Security Strategy and, spoiler alert: it’s not pretty. The so-called Cyber Security Council, which was supposed to be the heart of Australia’s digital defense coordination, seems to be made up primarily of big business representatives and government-aligned stakeholders. You know, the suits. The polished types who might understand budgets and bureaucracy but probably haven’t spent a day battling ransomware in the trenches.

Here’s the kicker: there’s a glaring lack of actual cybersecurity experts involved. You’d think, in a strategy meant to ward off cyberattacks, it might make sense to include — oh, I don’t know — people who actually work in cybersecurity?

But instead, there’s this vacuum where the real voices — the ethical hackers, the startup founders working 16-hour days building threat detection tools, the penetration testers who live and breathe network vulnerabilities — should be.

This isn’t just a bad look. It’s a potentially fatal flaw in a national security strategy that’s already operating in one of the most hostile digital environments on the planet. According to the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), ransomware attacks rose by 23% in 2024, and phishing scams — especially those powered by AI-generated deepfakes — are becoming so convincing that even trained professionals are getting duped.

The report warns that this top-down, opaque approach is already undermining the strategy’s effectiveness. And it’s not just experts sounding the alarm — even private sector stakeholders, who the government claims to be "engaging," are starting to feel alienated. In other words, the people who are actually on the front lines — the ones fighting off cyberattacks, plugging vulnerabilities, and safeguarding your data — are being kept out of the room where the decisions are made.

You wouldn’t build a fire department without asking a firefighter how to put out a blaze. So why is Australia trying to secure its digital future without input from those who know the enemy best?

Let’s be clear: Australia isn’t alone in struggling with this. Across the globe, cybersecurity policymaking often lags behind the actual pace of technological change. In the U.S., similar complaints have been raised about outdated frameworks and government overreach. In the U.K., budget constraints have forced delays in key infrastructure protections. But the problem with Australia’s strategy isn’t just inefficiency — it’s opacity.

The current system, critics argue, lacks transparency. There are no publicly available metrics to measure whether the strategy is working. There are no clear benchmarks for success. Even progress reports — basic stuff, like what’s been done each year — are reportedly kept behind closed doors. That’s not just frustrating; it’s a trust issue.

And in 2025, trust is currency.

Public trust in institutions is already fragile. According to the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, only 44% of Australians say they trust their government to handle technology issues responsibly. That number drops even lower among younger demographics, many of whom feel disillusioned by a system that seems reactive at best and negligent at worst.

The network behind the report has called for some reasonable, honestly quite basic, changes: annual progress updates, a transparent breakdown of funding, and concrete metrics to gauge success. But most importantly, they want more meaningful engagement with cybersecurity professionals and business owners — the people who actually live with these risks every day.

This isn’t just about professional ego or turf wars. It’s about recognizing that cybersecurity, more than almost any other modern challenge, is a team sport. You can’t secure a nation’s infrastructure — hospitals, banks, transportation systems, critical supply chains — if your strategy is being cooked up in isolation.

What’s needed is a hybrid model: one that combines the organizational muscle of government with the technical agility and ground-level insights of the private sector. Startups, in particular, are often ahead of the curve. They’re lean, experimental, and motivated — not to mention often staffed with the kind of obsessive problem-solvers you want in your corner when your systems are under siege.

And let’s not ignore the broader context here. In the past 12 months, Australia has faced several high-profile breaches. In January, a data leak at a major telecommunications company exposed personal details of nearly two million customers. In March, a critical energy grid narrowly avoided a catastrophic ransomware lockdown thanks to a privately-developed detection tool that flagged the attack just in time. These aren’t hypotheticals. This is real life — and real risk.

Yet, despite the urgency, the government continues to operate in what feels like an echo chamber. And in the absence of transparency, speculation fills the gap. Are decisions being made for political reasons? Is funding going to outdated projects instead of innovative solutions? Are businesses being looped in only when it's convenient, or worse, after the fact?

We don’t know. And that’s the problem.

There’s an opportunity here, though. Australia has a chance to lead by example — to show that digital defense can be both robust and inclusive. The tools exist. The talent is there. The private sector is eager to collaborate. What’s missing is the will to break down the silos and let in the people who can actually get the job done.

So what does a better approach look like? Start with the basics. Publish annual scorecards that show what’s been done and what hasn’t. Create advisory boards that include ethical hackers, small business owners, and security engineers. Allocate funding not just to “safe” legacy players, but to emerging innovators who are willing to challenge the status quo.

And maybe — just maybe — treat the cybersecurity community not as a resource to be managed, but as a partner to be respected.

Because at the end of the day, the threats are evolving. So must the response.

And that starts with letting the right people in the room.