糖心传媒

The federal education minister, Jason Clare, blocked research funding to 13 projects “for reasons relevant to the security, defence or international relations of Australia”. This is more than double the number that have been vetoed on security grounds for any year since the research council was established in 2001.

Clare didn’t issue a press release about the matter and refused to go into more detail at a a few days later.

This comes as Strider (an AI intelligence company) released a more than 6,000 publications and collaborations between Australian researchers and institutions associated with China’s People’s Liberation Army since 2020.

Much of that research focused on high-risk technologies, like drones, artificial intelligence and radar and communications systems.

What is going on?

Why were the research grants refused?

Clare told reporters the grants were refused “for national interest reasons”. In a to parliament, he added the

decision has been taken to protect the integrity of Commonwealth funded research […]

He has not disclosed the researchers, institutions or risks which saw the projects being axed.

The Australian Research Council Act also the minister to deliver a statement to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security about the cancelled research. This will be classified and we shouldn’t expect any more details.

This has happened before

When the Australian Research Council was established in 2001, the education minister had the power to refuse funding for any reason.

Researchers the “ministerial veto” amid into research.

Following a 2024 , the only way the minister can veto a grant is for national security, defence or international relations reasons.

My 2025 on the ministerial veto found only five applications to the research council have ever refused for national security, all of them lodged in 2021. Those applications were on lasers, communications and energy.

Unsurprisingly, details on those projects were not provided to me under freedom of information requests because they contained “commercial information” and “material obtained in confidence”.

A new framework

Last week, the research council also a new “Research Security Framework”, replacing the “Countering Foreign Interference Framework” released in November 2025. The framework outlines how the council responds to research security risks throughout all stages of a grant.

The new framework says it universities will

avoid the submission of applications posing threats to Australia’s security, defence and international relations.

But it’s difficult to know how universities can meet that expectation if they don’t know what the risks are.

The need to strike a balance

As minister, Clare has to strike a balance between secrecy and transparency.

We don’t want applicants to know precisely how the research council looks at research applications. That might allow them to “game” the system. Researchers might not include certain keywords in their proposals, for instance, or leave out people they later want to work with.

Think of it like a loan application to your bank: if you know what they are looking for, you might alter your income or expenses so you look like a stronger candidate.

We also need to protect the privacy of the researchers involved. Not getting funding is for your research career. Imagine being labelled a “risk to national security”.

Yet without at least some details, we lose the ability to learn and prevent future refusals.

What this means for Australian research

Previously the government has research security mainly as an issue of “foreign interference” – or other countries stealing our sensitive data.

But as , it is much broader than that. We’re seeing deliberate efforts from other countries to insert malicious insiders into research teams and projects, researchers who might have access to classified information and data and cyber vulnerabilities in universities.

Universities in Australia have to for research security. Some countries are than Australia in some technologies – not doing the research could mean lost funding, prestige or rankings. So this may lead to . No wonder Australia has been behind international counterparts in research security measures.

While some academics suggest the risks are and we need to protect international collaboration, the latest developments indicate the government is acknowledging increased risks to Australia’s research.

This means researchers will need to pay much more attention to the national security implications of their work. Can it be militarised or weaponised? Is it being conducted with high-risk foreign entities?

What is needed next?

The recent decisions also highlight the fragmented nature of Australian research security.

A major report on , released by the Department of Industry only two months ago, doesn’t mention security of research at all.

The Australian Research Council has how Australian research security currently “lives” in 11 different laws and policies spread across five different ministers. The sector has every right to be confused.

The United Kingdom is to launch a research security strategy later this year. Experts – – are calling on the Australian government to do the same, so we have proper national coordination on this vitally important issue.

, Associate Professor (Law),

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .