Defence spending is set to soar to $100 billion a year within a decade, double current levels, as the Albanese government directly identifies China’s unprecedented military build-up as the biggest threat of conflict in the Indo-Pacific.
Pushing back on critics who have attacked the government for failing to boost short-term defence spending, Defence Minister Richard Marles announced the government would pump an extra $5.7 billion into the military over the next four years and an extra $50 billion over the next decade.
To help pay for nuclear-powered submarines, new warships, drones and long-range strike missiles, the government will make cuts to other defence projects, including by hitting pause on plans to add an extra squadron of joint strike fighter aircraft.
Marles described this as the biggest boost to defence spending since the Korean War as he released an unclassified version of the government’s 10-year rolling spending plan, known as the integrated investment program, and a new national defence strategy.
The national defence strategy finds that Australia’s strategic environment has deteriorated over the past year, with a rising risk of conflict in the Indo-Pacific as China rapidly builds up its military capabilities.
Defence spending is projected to rise to 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product in 2033-34 under the government’s plan, up from the previously forecast 2.1 per cent.
The government is projected to spend $100 billion a year on defence by 2034, up from $50 billion a year currently. The Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the Labor government was wrong to “hand billions more to a defence establishment that continually fails to deliver”.
"The Albanese Governemnt has announced a staggering $330 billion spend on Defence over the next decade, the vast majority going into the same white elephant projects such as nuclear submarines and (very) future frigates that have been burning through public funds for years.
Today’s announcement follows multiple other reviews from the Defence Strategic Review, The Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Review and the Defence Industry Development Strategy, now the Integrated Investment Program and the National Defence Strategy.
None of these has challenged a Defence leadership that has overseen failure after failure and each one has promised more public funds into a broken system."
“This is a major missed opportunity to refocus our defence spending to a much more affordable, less aggressive and more achievable direction that is aimed at defending Australia rather than threatening our neighbours,” Senator Shoebridge said.
While the Australian government is undertaking its biggest defence build-up since the Korean war, research partnerships between Australian universities and defence industries raise major ethical concerns, and may be at odds with the principles of academic freedom.
The militarisation of the university system has been going on for years, with institutions such as the University of Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, South Australia, RMIT, Flinders University, and ANU establishing partnerships or receiving funding from arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Raytheon, and Boeing. Universities’ involvement in AUKUS is an extension of this trend.
Across Australia’s universities, the AUKUS military initiative between the U.S., UK and Australia, primarily focused on developing nuclear-powered technology for a new submarine design, has titillated the managerial wonks of the tertiary education sector. In September, the Defence Department announced that 4,000 additional Commonwealth-supported places (CSPs) for undergraduate students would be funded as part of its “Nuclear-Powered Submarine Student Pathways” strategy.
Institutes have sprung up running short courses to rake in the cash, such as the UWA Defence and Security Institute, which proudly claims to have created the ‘essential course for those seeking to gain a greater understanding of AUKUS Pillar 1 (nuclear-powered submarines) and the impacts for Western Australia and beyond’.
The government has turned to higher education to help fulfil its military goals. It needs graduates with the skills to grow and sustain the military and weapons industry, and academic research that contributes to the development of military technologies.
Intensifying ties between universities, the Department of Defence and weapons manufacturers is logical within the government’s wider militarisation efforts. But they may not be ethically justifiable.
In recent times, the University of Melbourne announced a research partnership with Lockheed Martin – the world’s largest weapons manufacturer – through the Defence Science Institute. They established a co-joint research centre adjacent to the University of Melbourne campus.
This was Lockheed Martin’s first research centre outside of the US. The centre “will provide PhD scholarships and internships, while directly funding research projects and co-authoring applications in the future”. Mor recently, the University of Melbourne signed another similar agreement – this time with UK weapons manufacturer BAE Systems.
Victorian universities are not alone. Adelaide University, Flinders University and University of South Australia are all part of a research network funded by BAE Systems. According to a BAE Systems press release, this partnership involves “creation of new defence-focused courses and targeted research and development”.
There are 32 Australian universities participating in the Defence Science Partnerships program, so more research partnerships will likely emerge soon. In addition, Australia’s Department of Defence partnered with the US Department of Defence on the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative. This program provides grant funding to Australian universities willing to produce research on “designated topics” with “potential for significant future defence capability”.
These partnerships raise serious ethical concerns. In the past, Lockheed Martin has faced allegations of corruption for political lobbying in the US. In the 1970s, senior officers were found to have coordinated a “program of foreign bribery”. The company still sells its weapons to repressive regimes and governments accused of war crimes, such as Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
BAE Systems has faced allegations of bribery and fraud. Its third largest customer is Saudi Arabia (representing 21% of its sales), and its airplanes were used in Saudi Arabia’s bombardment of Yemen. BAE Systems continue to sell to Saudi Arabia despite protest from non-government organisations, and research showing that one in three air raids have hit civilian sites in Yemen.
Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems are also major manufacturers of nuclear weapons, which are subject to categorical prohibition in the new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. A growing number of financial institutions are divesting from companies that develop these weapons.
Research conducted by the World Peace Foundation and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute show bribery, fraud, sales to repressive regimes and poor environmental practices are endemic to the arms trade.
Universities have downplayed the nature of these companies and the purpose of their research and products. Promotional materials refer to “advanced technology companies” rather than weapons manufacturers. There is no mention of war and surveillance, only “cutting edge technology”.
Another significant ethical concern is military funded research will be expected to demonstrate military value.
In the US, universities are highly reliant on Pentagon funding, particularly for STEM disciplines. US academics have debated the ethics of military-funded research in many fields, most recently neuroscience.
The likelihood of academic research being directed towards military objectives is heightened if military funding begins to crowd out alternative sources. This is a possibility in Australia, given the defence budget increase and the wealth of overseas weapons manufacturers.
As Australian research councils struggle and universities face a funding freeze, academics with limited funding options are driven to seek military funding. This could undermine their control over the direction and use of their research. Academics may be less inclined to speak out against military funding if their department, colleagues, or PhD students rely on it.
Many think of universities as places to learn about the world. So should Australia's largest universities be investing and having partnerships with weapons manufacturing companies?
The universities of Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, South Australia as well as Flinders University are investing, or have partnerships worth, millions of dollars with major arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Honeywell.
"It's deeply disturbing... to know that these institutions with these noble roles and this responsibility to provide opportunities to the next generations are getting into bed with some of the biggest and worst arms companies in the world," said the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons' and Melbourne Uni's Tilman Ruff.
Documents released under freedom of information laws have found Sydney University invests more than $4 million in some of the top weapons manufacturers in the world.
The majority of that money goes to Honeywell International, a company reported to produce parts for nuclear weapons.
The documents show it also invests in Lockheed Martin - the largest weapons manufacturer in the world. Lockheed Martin also has a research partnership with Melbourne University.
Sydney University has also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with French company Thales which is known to build key parts for submarine launched nuclear missiles.
The university said it will result in the university working with the company to develop new technologies.
So why does this matter?
A lot of international organisations have put a blanket ban on investing in these arms companies saying it's unethical.
"There are many financial institutions around the world who have already decided that as responsible investors we shouldn't be investing in companies that make the world's worst weapons," Tillman told Hack.
"The largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, no longer invests in those companies... the largest pension fund in Europe, Dutch fund ABP, has also said they're getting out of [these companies]."
Tillman said investing in these companies goes against the values of universities.
Academics and some students say these investments jeopardise the independence of universities.
Sydney University Education Officer Lara Sonnenschein obtained the documents about her uni's investments and said students should be concerned.
"I think the idea that an institution where you spend most of your time is putting money into companies like this... I think students should be concerned," she told Hack.
"I think the universities should disarm from these companies... we've seen significant achievements with fossil free campaigns so something like that could be in the works."
What do these unis say?
A Sydney University spokeswoman said the returns on these investments allow for research and teaching.
"Investing in these companies has no bearing on the university's academic independence and freedom. There is no relationship between companies the university invests in, via fund managers, and the way we teach our students."
The University of Melbourne says it preferenced research integrity when working with other partners like Lockheed Martin.
"At the University of Melbourne, research integrity and independence when working with external partners are important. Academic freedom is at the heart of what we do," a spokeswoman said.
"All collaborations with external partners are extensively reviewed and subjected to a rigorous and continuous assessment of how they are advancing knowledge and bringing benefits for researchers, students and the wider community."
However there is an accelerating drive to incorporate Australian universities into the military apparatus.
The push for institutions to sign lucrative deals with defence contractors is part of the Australian ruling elite’s role in the US-led confrontation with China, which Washington is rapidly intensifying, even as it wages a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
This drive is being deepened under Australia’s Labor government. During its first five weeks in office, Labor threatened Pacific Islands nations against turning to China and sought to line up countries throughout the region behind the US war preparations.
Labor is encouraging universities to playi a key role in developing the AUKUS weapons of war.
Founded in 2014 by the Australian Defence Department’s Defence Science and Technology Group (DST Group), the Defence Science Partnership (DSP) has now been signed by all 37 public universities. The DSP was set up to “provide a uniform model for universities to engage with Defence on research projects.”
Universities are signing agreements with the world’s largest arms manufacturers at a rapid rate.
The Australian government announced a Defence Trailblazer Concept to Sovereign Capability program—a $242 million package aimed at the “commercialisation” of universities through their partnership with military companies.
The program’s focus is researching quantum technologies, hypersonics, cyber warfare, robotics, artificial intelligence and space warfare.
Among the first two universities to join the program in April was the University of Adelaide (UoA). Solidifying South Australia as a hub for Australian military research, the UoA in conjunction with the University of New South Wales (UNSW) will match the government’s $50 million contribution for its military research and development alliance with companies.
The program is chaired by the US-based Northrop Grumman, the world’s fourth largest military weapon company. Northrop Grumman Asia Pacific manager Christine Zeitz said: “The Defence Trailblazer will transform the nature of the relationship between the academic sector, defence industry and the Department of Defence, compelling universities to pivot outwards towards entrepreneurial and commercial outcomes-driven collaboration.”
UNSW Vice Chancellor Attila Brungs boasted: “We have a proud track record at UNSW of quantum, cyber, hypersonics, robotics and space technology research which are supporting Australia’s national capability.”
The UK’s BAE Systems, the seventh largest global arms manufacturer, joined the “trailblazer", pledging its Red Ochre Labs R&D centre, which employs 500 people across Australia, to develop air, land, sea, space and cyber technologies.
The Defence Innovation Partnership—a collaboration between the DST Group and South Australia’s three public universities—granted $150,000 funding each for five research projects linked to military contractors. Among the projects is a one led by Flinders University and electronic warfare company DEWC Systems to address design challenges in war games.
Former Defence Minister Peter Dutton opened a new $14 million purpose-built hypersonic research facility in Brisbane, Queensland. With 60 staff, the centre is yet another joint venture between government, universities and defence companies.
Hypersonic weapons travel up to five times faster than the speed of sound, allowing them to bypass existing missile defence systems, as well as hunt down long-range missiles.
Research on hypersonic flight has been conducted for over a decade, through the Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation program (HIFiRE), established in 2007. It involves the DST Group, the University of Queensland, the US Air Force Research Laboratory and defence contractors BAE Systems and Boeing.
Following from HIFiRE, in 2020 Australia and the US began to test hypersonic cruise missile prototypes under the Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment (SCIFiRE).
The University of Southern Queensland (USQ) was granted membership to the federal government’s Defence Industry Security Program (DISP). The university has already been involved in defence research into hypersonic propulsion systems, rocket fuel development, machine vision and advanced materials.
USQ works with DST Group as well as the US Airforce and Navy, Boeing and BAE Systems. In an Australian article, USQ Deputy Vice-Chancellor John Bell wrote that all three of the university’s campuses “are in close proximity to South East Queensland’s strong defence presence … enabling USQ to work directly with defence end-users and boost Australia’s sovereign space and defence capability.”
German defence company Rheinmetall announced late last year that, in partnership with Queensland University of Technology and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, it had developed a new Autonomous Combat Warrior “Wiesel” craft.
According to the German magazine Europäische Sicherheit & Technik, the vehicle is designed to understand soldier behaviour, recognise terrain and make tactical decisions in combat situations.
At the beginning of 2022, Victoria’s Deakin University signed a $5.13 million contract with the federal government to provide naval firefighting training. “Deakin University has executed more than 165 contracts with the Australian Defence Department, highlighting the important role our region’s institutions can play in driving innovation and generating cutting-edge capability in support of the ADF,” Victorian Liberal senator Sarah Henderson said.
In mid-2021, Deakin University was awarded the Australian War College contract, taking over in January 2023 from the Australian National University (ANU) as the provider of the Australian Command and Staff Course and Defence Strategic Studies Course.
Led by the University of Sydney, nine Sydney universities were last year awarded $2 million to work as part of the Australian-United States Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (AUSMURI).
University of Sydney Deputy Vice-Chancellor Duncan Ivison said the program was one which “the US and the Australian defence departments support and monitor at the highest levels because they are so targeted to our defence priorities.”
AUSMURI has already held talks with defence companies GE, AmericaMakes and world number one arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, as well as the DST Group and the US Department of Defense.
The University of Sydney renewed its partnership with Thales Australia, one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers, in December 2022. Thales first signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with USyd in 2017, sponsoring eight engineering industry placements and providing funding for PhD research. The recently extended deal will further allow Thales to conduct research into high-tech weaponry and military systems on campus. Agreements like this have no place on campus because they only exist to exploit graduates and researchers into growing and sustaining the military and weapons industry. Universities should be for education, not for expanding Australia’s capacity for destruction.
The University’s ties with Thales date back several years, including in the period in which USyd’s Chancellor Belinda Hutchinson was appointed as the chairperson of Thales Australia’s board. It’s not Hutchinson’s only evil act — she and her husband purchased their $20 million Point Piper house in 2018 with funds obtained from involvement in arms manufacturing, climate destruction, gambling, and other unsavoury industries. The University claims that her ties to Thales have nothing to do with their ongoing partnership. Regardless of whether or not this is true, the fact that Hutchinson is now in her third term as Chancellor demonstrates that management has no qualms about the public face of the University being openly linked to militarism.
Thales is complicit in a long list of brutal conflicts around the world and continues to provide arms to major global powers. Their weapons, surveillance systems, and vehicles have been used to wage destruction in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Yemen, Syria, East Timor, and West Papua. And as one of the largest defence contractors in Australia, every person who has stared down the barrel of an Australian Army gun has seen first-hand the products of Thales. In 2021 alone, the Australian government spent around 800 million Euros — over 1.2 billion Australian dollars — on Thales products.
Thales facilitate every stage of warfare, from the tangible weapons used to the technology involved in planning heinous attacks against innocent people. They produce the Australian Army’s standard gun – the F88 Austeyer – as well as a range of munitions and powders. They also produce transports to send troops into other countries to commit atrocities, like those detailed in the Brereton report into Australian war crimes in Afghanistan, described by the Director-General of the ADF as “possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia’s military history.” Reports produced by the World Peace Foundation and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also reveal that fraud, political lobbying, bribery and sales to repressive regimes are inalienable to the weapons trade. These are the exact opposite of the values that an educational institution should impart.
Not satisfied with just creating enormous levels of destruction through their role in weapons production, Thales also helps secure borders. The defence giant produces surveillance drones and operates the Eurodac system, a biometric security database that holds information about every asylum seeker in the European Union. This technology not only denies safety to refugees fleeing from war, climate change, and other disasters, but also dehumanises them by encroaching on their privacy.
Thales wants to increasingly integrate itself into university faculties and research teams, promising an expansion of their insidious presence on campus. University management, not satisfied with last year’s $1 billion surplus, is constantly looking for ways to turn a profit and help gear the University towards what Australian industry, and the military in particular, demand — particularly given rising imperialist tensions. USyd management is clear that increasing the amount of defence research that takes place on campus is a key objective.
“As the collaboration develops,” they note, “both parties intend to embed staff within each other’s organisation to accelerate the translation of research and development into solutions that bring impact to the community, particularly focusing on national security outcomes.”
There are an increasing number of projects on campus explicitly geared towards furthering the ability of the Australian armed forces to wage war. Further, even seemingly harmless coursework, well outside of transparently militaristic projects, may involve training AI or developing some part of a military system for ulterior defence motives.
Just as the local economy has become increasingly militarised, so too has Brisbane’s higher education sector. South East Queensland’s three largest universities — Griffith University, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), and the University of Queensland (UQ) — are also active in projects facilitated by Australian defence and have partnerships with arms companies.
At Griffith University's Centre for Integrated and Intelligent Systems, researchers are at the forefront of new approaches to cyber security and cryptography. They are working to protect critical infrastructure and prevent cyber attacks. Their work also focuses on developing advanced robotics, data analytics and AI technologies that can be used for a range of defence and security applications. Griffith’s Advanced Design Prototyping Technology Institute distinctively positions the university to support defence material innovation. Advanced micro, nano and multifunctional materials with innovative additive manufacturing processes rapidly create complex and high-precision components. Likewise, the Centre for Quantum Dynamics is researching world-leading next-generation quantum communications technologies. The Institute for Glycomics, Institute for Drug Discovery and Menzies Health Institute Queensland lead national human factors research.
Universities in Brisbane and across Australia are becoming channels to the defence industry. The top three Brisbane universities — Griffith, UQ and QUT — boast multiple partnerships and research grants tied to defence industry firms, turning our higher education system into a glorified feeder for weapons manufacturers and developers. Brisbane universities are active participants in projects facilitated by partnerships with Australian defence or arms companies. These companies range from autonomous capabilities to bulldozing machines that have been used to flatten parts of the Palestinian Occupied Territories.
The biggest player in the research-defence nexus is The University of Queensland, which boasts a rogue’s gallery of military partnerships — vaunting ties with the Australian Defence Force, BAE Systems (British multinational arms, security and aerospace company), Black Sky Aerospace (Australia’s only sovereign manufacturer of solid rocket fuel, motors, launch vehicles, services, and common tactical boosters), Defence Science and Technology (DTSG), Defence Materials Technology Centre, Hypersonix Launch Systems (Hypersonix is an aerospace engineering, design and build company, specialising in hypersonic technology and scramjet engines), Lockheed Martin Australia (aerospace, arms, defence, information security, and technology corporation), MBDA Systems (a European missile manufacturer), Stryder Defence, Thales Australia, Trusted Autonomous Systems, and Boeing.
UQ’s ties with Boeing have sparked protests in recent years, after Boeing Research and Technology Australia moved its Brisbane-based team in 2017 to the University of Queensland’s St Lucia campus. This represented the “first time in the Asia-Pacific region that Boeing has co-located research within a university.”
Boeing is the world’s third largest weapons corporation, and is running a hypersonic missile program at the Boeing Institute on the St Lucia campus. According to Amnesty International, Boeing, among other corporations like BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, have been integral to the coalition effort, “arming a fleet of combat aircraft that has repeatedly struck civilian objects, including homes, schools, hospitals and marketplaces” in Yemen. Amnesty also flagged the risk of Boeing “making millions from supplying arms and services to the Saudi Arabia/UAE-led coalition.”
In 2018 under the auspices of the US Department of Defence Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) Griffith University was chosen, along with a select group of universities, to conduct joint research with US universities on priority defence projects. Through this initiative, Griffith’s Centre for Quantum Dynamics which does “extensive reach in the quantum research community”, also boasts key partnerships with the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, Lockheed Martin.
Griffith’s Centre for Integrated and Intelligent Systems work, “focuses on developing advanced robotics, data analytics, and AI technologies that can be used for a range of defence and security applications. Griffith’s Advanced Design Prototyping Technology Institute distinctively positions the university to support defence material innovation,” according to Professor Adam Findlay, AO, the founding director of Griffith University Defence Network.
One controversial partner that has also worked with Griffith’s Centre for Integrated and Intelligent Systems is Raytheon, a massive missile, weapons, and commercial electronics company. Amongst its arsenal, Raytheon sells the AIM-9 Sidewinder supersonic heat seeking air-to-air missile, Maverick air-to-ground missiles, Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles. Raytheon also provides the Pentagon with futuristic-sounding weapons like the “Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptors“, as well as a wide range of electronic components used in contemporary warfare. Raytheon has attracted criticism for producing the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW), which was used to deliver cluster bombs and was widely denounced for its destructive effect on civilians. Raytheon also has two corporate offices in Brisbane, with their glossy Instagram account stating that they are “the nation’s leading provider of whole-of-life capabilities for the Australian Defence Force.”
Across the Brisbane river, QUT’s military partnership rap sheet includes the likes of Rheinmetall Defence Australia, a joint venture partner of NIOA. Rheinmetall produces 155mm artillery rounds for the Australian Defence Force; however, the company’s website primarily mentions their ammunition manufacturing and export for the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project. In 2021, at the Rheinmetall NIOA Munitions plant in Maryborough, then-PM Scott Morrison, resplendent in the mandatory hi-vis vest, was also seen with a large artillery shell in his hands.
QUT also has a partnership with US-based equipment manufacturer Caterpillar. Caterpillar has been a supplier of heavy machinery to Israel for several decades. Notably, the Caterpillar D9 armoured bulldozer has come under scrutiny due to allegations that it was utilised to infringe upon human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Whilst it may seem strange to call out a company known for its heavy machinery, Caterpillar machines are often weaponised and retrofitted with “gunner positions” and a “bulletproof driver cabin” to be used for “battle” by the Israeli military. These are then used by Israeli forces in attacks against Palestinians as well as in the destruction of homes and the building of border fences, infrastructure for illegal settlements, and military checkpoints. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both released several reports since the early 2000s calling out Caterpillar for complicity in these violations in the Territories and to cease providing machinery to Israel, to no avail. On July 3, 2023, Caterpillar D9 bulldozers were seen wreaking significant damage during the Israeli military assault on the Jenin Refugee Camp. The D9 bulldozers were used to remove roadways, causing damage to all of the refugee camp’s electrical and water networks. On July 24, 2023, D9 were recorded in a military attack on the Nur Shams refugee camp near Tulkarem.
The economics of war also extend to the finance system, with UniSuper — the preferred superannuation fund of all three universities — having recently come under fire for investing in arms manufacturers with a questionable track record on human rights. UniSuper is Griffith, UQ and QUT’s preferred super fund. It has been called out for its holdings in military companies that are currently supplying weapons and technology to support the war in Gaza, as well as weapons companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the most egregious being Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, General Dynamics, Boeing and Elbit.
Elbit Systems is Israel’s biggest privately held weaponry and security firm, producing 85 per cent of the Israeli military’s drones and land-based equipment. It is a significant arms exporter that has marketed its weapons as “field tested,” referring to the Israeli Defence Force’s widespread usage of Elbit weapons in Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza.
Sydney university has strong ties with the global arms industry, the full extent of which needs to be mapped.
Given Australia’s recent commitment to significantly increase its share of global arms exports and its membership of the AUKUS alliance, these ties are only set to increase.
The university’s most recently announced partnership, dating from November 2023, is with the global weapons and military hardware manufacturer Safran, which collaborates with the Israeli weapons company Rafael.
The US Office of Naval Research, the US Army Research Office Laboratory for Physical Sciences, the US Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, and Lockheed Martin all fund research in chemistry and physics.
A Linkage project is currently underway with the “defence” contractor L3Harris and the Defence Science Technology Group.
The university has received millions of dollars in grant funding from the Australia-US International Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (AUSMURI) — a partnership between the US Department of Defense and Australia’s Department of Defence.
AUSMURI funds the university’s research into additive manufacturing (3D printing) and nano-architectured materials. Disturbingly, the Australian government’s own website makes it clear that any research receiving AUSMURI grants must be directly on a topic designated by the military.
Other collaborations are likely to exist.
University management has a longstanding association with the multinational weapons systems manufacturer Thales, which describes itself as doing “whatever it takes” to help its customers “achieve and maintain security, tactical superiority and strategic independence in the face of any type of threat”.
Thales collaborates in drone production with Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems; its stock price rose sharply following the start of the Israeli genocide in October.
In Australia, Thales is involved in the development and production of munitions, missiles, rocket motors, propellant and military explosives.
Thales directly funds PhD programs at the university in the areas of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, and Electrical and Information Engineering. It sponsors eight Engineering Sydney Industry placements. An extension to the university’s existing collaboration was signed in 2022: it allows the university and Thales to “embed” staff in each other’s organisations.
Thales also collaborates with researchers at the university’s Australian Robotic Inspection and Asset Management Hub (ARIAM) and at other organisations in which the university is a partner, like the Trusted Autonomous Systems Defence Cooperative Research Centre.
The university’s connections with Thales go to the highest level.
Belinda Hutchinson, the university’s chancellor, is a board member of Thales and was head of the Australian arm of the organisation from 2015 to 2023. Another university appointee, a former federal parliamentarian and now a Visiting Fellow at the United States Studies Centre, is chair of Thales’ advisory board.
The most recent federal budget announced $127 million in funding and additional places for 4000 students in AUKUS-related courses and programs.
The first batch of students in these courses is scheduled to commence next year. The Group of Eight asserts that this funding in STEM disciplines “will help generate that workforce; especially, to support Defence priorities”, and help ensure that “Australia’s required sovereign capability can be realised and on time”.
In addition to these student places, universities have made AUKUS a top priority, with the Go8 emphasising research and education in the field of nuclear energy, while directing graduates towards military careers and a war-oriented agenda. Course offerings at universities across the country are rapidly declining, with less and less choice being given to students. Now, however, they are deciding to create new courses specifically designed to contribute to the AUKUS workforce.
While other departments are losing staff, ANU’s submission to the Government’s defence Strategic Review declared that “the current academic workforce is too small to meet the increasing demands for formal training and education that will be required by AUKUS”.
The Australian National University is introducing a new major in nuclear engineering, focusing on defence capabilities, after cutting other engineering majors such as biomedical engineering. The University of Adelaide is adapting its masters program in marine engineering and radiation management course, catering to the specific requirements of a nuclear submarine capability. A new partnership between Flinders University, the University of Manchester and the University of Rhode Island in the US is designed to bolster its nuclear masters program.
Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead has also confirmed that Royal Australian Navy officers are currently undergoing nuclear reactor training in the US and are concurrently enrolled in programs at UNSW and ANU.
Non-military Aligened Universities Losing International Students
Australia’s education providers continue to grapple with a significant spike in visa rejections. As many as 1 in 5 international students had their visa applications rejected in the last two quarters of 2023, with rejection rates trending even higher for students from key South Asian sending markets such as India, Pakistan, and Nepal.
Over the same time frame, visa grants for the ELICOS sector were down by a third or more, marking the highest rejection rates recorded over the last two decades.
Education providers in all sectors have raised the alarm over those rising rejection rates, but also over a lack of transparency in visa processing under Australia's new migration settings. The end result is considerable confusion and frustration for institutions, agents, and students alike.
In a recent open letter to Ministers Claire O’Neil from Home Affairs and Jason Clare from Education, 16 Vice Chancellors warned that that confusion and disruption in visa processing could cost the 16 signatory universities a combined AUS$310 million.
"Given the ongoing recovery from the impacts of COVID-19, this situation is particularly alarming,” said the Vice Chancellors. “The 16 institutions endorsing this letter conservatively estimate a collective revenue downturn of approximately AUS$310 million in 2024 alone, akin to the impact of the pandemic.”
Speaking to The Sydney Morning Herald, CQ University Vice Chancellor Nick Klomp said that good universities were being "caught in the crossfire" of the new migration settings. “The situation is now urgent, he added. "With university semesters about to commence and thousands of genuine student visa applications – and an AUS$29 billion export industry – hanging in the balance."
The Australian government is somewhat more transparent with respect to the risk levels that are assessed for Australian institutions. The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) relies on a system in which institutions are categorised into one of three "evidence levels", where Level 1 is least risk, Level 2 is medium risk, and Level 3 is high risk, and where "risk" refers to the likelihood of accepting non-genuine students based on (recent) historical data.
DHA explains, "The evidence level of the education provider for the 12-month period (ending 31 December) will be used to determine the education provider’s evidence level in the following March. Similarly, the evidence level for the 12-month period (ending 30 June) will determine the education provider’s evidence level in the following September." In other words, those evidence levels (risk levels) are reset twice a year, and the next assessment will happen in March 2024.
The evidence level assessed to each institution bears on the visa processing time and rejection rates that will result for student applicants. And, with that in mind, some Australian providers have recently suspended student applications and/or rescinded admissions offers for students from countries with higher rejection rates. Others have also reportedly suspended applications from onshore applicants already in Australia on temporary visas.
Those extreme measures make more sense when we consider that the evidence level assessed to each institution relies on an established formula that weighs out the following factors:
- rate of visa cancellations (25% weighting)
- rate of refusals due to a fraud reason (40% weighting)
- rate of refusals (excluding fraud) (10% weighting)
- rate of student visa holders becoming unlawful non-citizens (15% weighting)
- rate of Subsequent Protection Visa applications (10% weighting)
Institutions are sliding to higher risk ratings.
Times Higher Education reports that more Australian universities slid into that Level 2 risk setting "after the former government’s removal of international students’ working restrictions, resulting in an employment-fuelled boom in student visa applications."
Eleven Australian universities have had their immigration risk levels downgraded, as soaring visa rejections undermine their future overseas enrolments.
Nine universities that previously bore the most trustworthy level 1 risk assessment were downgraded to level 2, when the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) updated the ratings on 2 April. Two other universities have been demoted from level 2 to the lowest possible level 3 category, with over 100 other colleges also understood to have had their risk ratings lowered.
The ratings reflect “evidence levels” based on the proportion of each institution’s would-be students whose visas are rejected or cancelled, or who seek asylum or overstay illegally.
The rate of visa refusals for reasons other than fraud counts for just 10 per cent of each university’s score. Rejections of this type have skyrocketed in recent months, as officials rule that the applicants lack sufficient incentive to leave Australia after studying.
Overseas-based people applying for visas to undertake Australian degrees now have a one-in-five chance of being knocked back. Newly released DHA statistics show that grant rates have slumped to the lowest level on record, suggesting that visa refusals have contributed significantly to the decline in universities’ risk ratings.
Most universities now have level 2 or 3 ratings, with just 16 maintaining their level 1 assessments – mostly large, wealthy institutions.
The risk setting for a given provider is usually not publicly reported (while it is disclosed to each institution), but recent media reports indicate that of Australia's 40 universities, 24 were previously assessed at Level 1, 15 at Level 2, and 1 at Level 3. Now as at 2 April 2024:
16 universities are assessment level 1
23 universities are assessment level 2
There are now 3 universities in assessment level 3, up from 1 previously. These institutions will find it extremely difficult in market over the next SSVF period.
All but two of the Level 1 institutions are in the three largest states and all but four have annual earnings exceeding A$1 billion, suggesting that significant resources are needed to weather rapidly changing migration policies.
Poor risk ratings harm universities’ international recruitment, because visa applicants from countries that are also considered moderate or high risk must supply additional evidence about their English skills and personal finances. Their applications are also processed less quickly than those from students enrolled with level 1 institutions where processing can be as quikly as two days. Since Ministerial Direction 107 was implemented in mid-December 2023, higher assessment-level institutions are potentially disadvantaged in processing time.
The risk rating system is part of the simplified student visa framework (SSVF), which was introduced in 2016 to make visa applications easier for students and to reduce red tape for colleges. Mike Ferguson, pro vice-chancellor international at Charles Sturt University, said the SSVF had “reached its use-by date” and should be replaced.
Mr Ferguson, who led the framework’s design and implementation as a former DHA director of international education policy, said recent policy changes had led to visa delays and occasionally “nonsensical” refusals. “It is time to move away from a provider-risk based model,” he declared in a LinkedIn post.
Peter Hughes, former deputy secretary of the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship, said Australia’s recent immigration history had been “littered” with “clever initiatives” designed to make it harder for foreigners to be in the country unlawfully. “They usually leave a minefield which explodes under another government years later,” he writes in the public policy journal Pearls and Irritations.
“The practice of governments is now that when they get into a political hole, they just instinctively dig a deeper one.”
Mr Ferguson said he favoured a system where all applicants were required to provide information about their financial capacity and language skills, irrespective of where they were enrolled.
“This would help to address some of the quality issues that are currently being faced, as well as potential issues such as the targeting of lower risk providers, market distortion and – to a degree – course hopping.”
Looking at the list at this site there appears to be a very close correlation between Level 1 (least risk) universities and those which have close associations with military/defence partnerships and/or reseach. It seems that their enrolment of full-fee paying international students - massively boosting the bottom lines of those campuses - has no limit. The non-military aligned campuses at the "riskier" Levels 2 or 3 will see minimal - if any - money from international students as their visas are refused/rejected.
A co-incidence?
Ethical?
By turning such institutions of instruction into supply lines for research and development in armaments, they can be assured of secrecy conditions the envy of most intelligence agencies. Consulting, viewing and gaining access to relevant agreements, documentation and projects for reasons of public discussion is virtually impossible. These are always seen as “commercial” and “in confidence”.
Comments
Post a Comment