Universities required to declare CCP links

Via the AFR:

Under sweeping new rules, universities will have to fully disclose who they’re working with on research projects and all financial dealings with other countries and donors, as the federal government demands action against “corrupting” foreign interference.

Amid concern about China’s influence in universities that have become heavily financially dependent on foreign students, research projects will be scrutinised for the political affiliations of collaborators, the objectives of foreign governments and the end purpose of research technology.

Financial gifts and donations will be scrutinised and sponsored staff travel as well as the use of titles like “adjunct” or “honorary” will be subject to foreign-interference tests.

It’s a start. Sunshine will bring a lot of pressure to vice-chancellor sell-outs.  That is, so long as they adhere to the regime. So far they’ve all refused to declare under the existing foreign influence register.

The G8 helped draft these rules so maybe they’ll work better.

Or not at all!

David Llewellyn-Smith


  1. We still have building’s on campus designed like a Trojan Horse with Chinese writing on them…what could they be??

  2. They will all disclose roughly the same thing. They will be in a pack. Therefore there will be no pressure on any one of them to change. They will be safe.

    That’s how it works in a Peachystan.

  3. Universities is a start.
    How about MP’s at a state and local level declaring CCP links? Mayors and city councils should also declare CCP developer money.

  4. wow, finally we can stop our real estate, plumbing and carpentry secrets and research from being stolen by the foreigners

  5. None of this makes sense. If you have permitted foreign students entry to domestic universities and provided a pathway to residency and citizenship any half smart intelligence agency has long since placed its recruits in the system. This is as standard as using consular and diplomatic postings for industrial espionage. What is planned here is a case of closing the sable door after the horse has bolted.

    The immigration-tertiary education-residency-citizenship pathway coupled to the endless ranting of those on the Left and Right who prattle on about “racism” has given cover to a permanent undermining of Australian security interests. It has undermined the basis for citizenship being a marker of a commitment to Australian interests.

    It did not have to be this way. There were other ways to do this where national interests could have been protected – but they would have been less profitable for the VCs and empire builders after the rivers of gold.

    You want to see real racism? Check out Chinese policy towards various ethnic groups or take a close look at the caste system in India.

    Does anyone seriously think that the Chinese will give a high level position to an Australian duel national just because they attended a Chinese university? In fact, you are marked out if you have duel nationality in China.

    Do the people who designed this system have rocks in their heads or have been living under a rock for the last 30 years? Have they bothered to find out what has been going on? Seems not.

  6. Luca BiasonMEMBER

    The problem is that they are not binding and Unis in their governance structures are too conflicted to ensure an objective assessment.

    The government should invest in the establishment of national office of research integrity, and integrity offices on campuses should be staffed with non-university employees. That’s the only way to ensure that the purposes of the guidelines are met.

  7. Luca BiasonMEMBER


    There are two levels of due diligence:
    1) who you collaborate with; and
    2) who you involve in specific research areas.

    You can apply due diligence metrics to 1) but cannot control undue transfer of knowledge if in the second scenario you have unvetted personnel working in sensitive areas/projects, regardless of who the partners of the collaboration are.

    All it takes is a pen-drive, a personal laptop, a gmail address and some cloud space, and the information is transferred.

    With that in mind, IP provisions, non disclosure agreements and confidentiality deeds serve no purpose whatsoever.

  8. Luca BiasonMEMBER

    The conclusion in particular…


    Which is why collaborating in the development of high tech mass surveillance tools is a matter that universities should take extremely seriously, and they don’t.

    Why relevant? Forced donations come from detainees. Uyghurs are being detained in their millions. AI is a critical tool to pursue mass incarceration strategies. Universities are full of people working on those tools and publishing (i.e. collaborating) exclusively with Chinese institutions.

    Guidelines are pointless in the absence of vetting protocols on individuals, what is actually required.