¡°Team Australia¡± risks degenerating into ¡°fortress Australia¡±, as fears about collaboration put an end to research in the global interest, a Canberra symposium has heard.

Chief defence scientist Tanya Monro told the Universities Australia conference that changing global circumstances had increased the appetite for ¡°enhanced mutual reliance¡± among allies. ¡°If we don¡¯t make that come alive in research, we¡¯ve lost a huge opportunity for our nation,¡± said Professor Monro, a member of the University Foreign Interference Taskforce (UFIT) steering group.

¡°We need to¡­make it easier for our academics to work with allied nations, especially in critical and sensitive tech areas. It is a team Australia approach, not a fortress Australia approach.¡±

The?UFIT guidelines?are being updated this year. La Trobe University vice-chancellor John Dewar, who is also on the steering group, cited concerns that the government¡¯s focus on university research arrangements was having a ¡°chilling effect¡± on ¡°low-risk¡± collaborations. ¡°How do we balance security concerns with preserving free and open collaboration?¡± he asked.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

University of Newcastle vice-chancellor Alex Zelinsky, a former chief defence scientist and fellow UFIT steering group member, warned against disengaging with countries like China in areas such as climate change. ¡°Some areas we work with [them]; other areas we don¡¯t,¡± he said. ¡°That¡¯s being strategic. There are just certain areas which are sensitive, and we should try to avoid them.¡±

Bronwyn Harch, deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland, said UFIT had not affected the ¡°vast majority¡± of its research activity. ¡°There¡¯s a small number of activities that require some extra due diligence,¡± she told the conference. ¡°And there¡¯s a very small number of areas that we have decided to not pursue based on UFIT guidelines.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Professor Harch stressed the need to evaluate research risks on a ¡°case by case¡± basis, and for university administrators to manage risks so that researchers did not ¡°self-censor by default¡±. She said that international partners were avoiding lengthy agreement renewals as they adopted a wait-and-see approach.

¡°They¡¯re watching the geopolitical landscape,¡± she said. ¡°Some of our partners are interested in our supervisors¡¯ citizenship and residency status as well, particularly when they¡¯re working in areas of sensitive research.¡±

Patrick Hallinan, deputy to UFIT steering group chair Chris Teal, said there would be ¡°fulsome consultation¡± with universities on the ¡°refresh¡± of the guidelines. ¡°We need to¡­get reactions to the areas of different emphasis that we might seek to pursue,¡± said Mr Hallinan, who is acting deputy counter foreign interference coordinator with the Department of ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Affairs.

¡°When borders reopen and researchers are engaging more directly once again with their international counterparts, I don¡¯t think it will only be Australian researchers who are talking and thinking about these issues. This is part of a broader shift in the research community. How do we best balance the risks and benefits associated with international collaboration so it¡¯s not about precluding such collaboration?¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Mr Hallinan said that the UFIT guidelines were not the only thing under review, with a?parliamentary joint committee?also looking at intelligence and security issues, while a bill before parliament seeks to bring universities under the purview of the?Security of Critical Infrastructure Act.

¡°The act was only passed into law in 2018,¡± he said. ¡°It is telling that it¡¯s necessary to revisit that now¡­if you need to be convinced that the world is changing rapidly.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com