Australia’s Higher Education Sector Takes Action, Closing Chinese Government-Linked Institutes

Half of Australia’s Confucius Institutes Closed as Tensions Over Foreign Influence Rise

Amid increased scrutiny by the Australian government, six Australian universities have decided to close Confucius Institutes (CIs) linked to the Chinese government on their campuses. These institutes, which were originally intended to promote cultural exchange and strengthen global connections, have faced criticism and concerns regarding their alleged role in disseminating propaganda and monitoring Chinese international students. Consequently, this move signals a shift in Australia’s approach to safeguarding educational spaces from potential foreign influence.

While China maintains that Confucius Institutes aim to foster cultural exchange, growing apprehension has emerged globally regarding their potential influence. This has led institutions in countries like the United States and several European nations to shut down some of their own Confucius Institutes. In Australia, the closures reportedly account for almost half of the country’s CI locations, leaving seven institutes still operational. Universities that have taken this step include the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland (UQ), the University of Western Australia (UWA), the University of New South Wales (UNSW), and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT).

Several universities have attributed their decisions to disruptions caused by the Covid pandemic, which led to the non-renewal of CI contracts. For instance, UNSW is now developing its own Chinese studies program to foster open dialogue within the China-Australia relationship. Additionally, the Australian federal government had previously announced that no new Confucius Institutes would be approved, requiring institutions to register the existing ones under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme.

Confirming the closure, a spokesperson for UQ noted that its CI ceased operations after the contract expired in December 2024 without any direct intervention from the government. Similarly, the University of Melbourne closed its CI in August 2024, citing existing programs in Chinese language and Asia studies as sufficient reasons not to renew the agreement. Although the University of Adelaide did not explicitly confirm a closure, it emphasised its commitment to fostering educational collaboration with China through other partnerships.

Human Rights Watch had earlier expressed concerns about Confucius Institutes, arguing that they acted as extensions of the Chinese government and censored politically sensitive topics. In 2019, ABC reported that candidates for teaching positions in these institutes were required to show political loyalty to Beijing, further intensifying scrutiny. Dr. Jeffrey Gill from Flinders University, who has researched CIs, stated that the closures were unsurprising and likely influenced by concerns over foreign interference. Nevertheless, he also suggested that CIs had a limited impact on public perceptions of China in Australia and the Western world. The closures of Confucius Institutes in Australia reflect a growing effort to address foreign influence in academic institutions, marking a significant step in safeguarding the integrity of higher education.

Editor’s Note:

The closure of Confucius Institutes at several Australian universities marks a significant shift in the country’s approach to addressing foreign influence in its higher education sector. While these institutes were originally established to promote cultural exchange, growing concerns about their potential political and surveillance roles have led to increased scrutiny. As universities globally, including in the US and Europe, make similar moves, Australia’s decision highlights the importance of ensuring that academic spaces remain free from external pressures.

Skoobuzz highlights that this change also reflects broader international concerns over the influence of state-backed educational programs and their impact on academic freedom and transparency.