Australia’s research partnership with China is a significant component of its scientific output, particularly in engineering, technology and applied sciences.

Collaborative work supports a large share of Australia’s high-impact publications, helping sustain competitiveness despite the country’s modest research scale.

In recent years, however, Chinese postgraduate students and scholars have reported increasing uncertainty in securing visas to undertake study or research in Australia. To examine these experiences empirically, the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney conducted a survey between August and September 2025 of 371 Chinese nationals who had applied or were applying for postgraduate or research-related visas. The findings were published on 23 October, in the UTS:ACRI report In Transit: Australia-China Research Mobility and the Visa Experience.

Most respondents came from engineering, technology and science disciplines. Two-thirds were in engineering and technology fields (66%), followed by the fundamental sciences (12%) and life or medical sciences (12%). Smaller proportions were in the humanities, social sciences, economics and business disciplines (10% combined).

Respondents’ intended destinations were concentrated among a small group of metropolitan, research-intensive universities. The five most frequently nominated institutions were the University of Technology Sydney (13%), the University of Queensland (12%), the University of New South Wales (10%), the University of Sydney (8%) and RMIT University (6%). Together, these accounted for nearly half of all stated preferences. The relatively high proportion of UTS nominations may reflect that UTS academics played a larger role in distributing the survey.

Funding sources were primarily institutional. Forty-two percent of respondents were supported by the China Scholarship Council and 38% by Australian host universities, underscoring the structured and co-ordinated nature of bilateral research mobility.

At the time of the survey, 78% of applicants were still awaiting a decision. Among approved cases, the median processing time was six months, with roughly one in six applicants waiting more than a year. Pending applicants had already been waiting a median of six months, suggesting further delays were likely.

When compared with the Department of Home Affairs’ indicative processing guidance, where 90% of student and research visa applications are processed within five to 11 months, survey respondents’ experiences often approached or exceeded the upper end of these ranges.

Applicants in engineering, technology and the fundamental sciences reported the longest waits (median 8-8.5 months), while those in the humanities, social sciences, economics and business reported shorter durations (0.5-3.5 months).

Open-ended responses highlighted two recurring themes: uncertainty and limited communication. Many participants cited the lack of updates as a key challenge, affecting, for example, housing arrangements and scholarship compliance. As one respondent noted, “I have been waiting more than 10 months with no reply. My offer will expire before the visa comes.”

Eighty-four percent of respondents said visa timelines had significantly affected their study or research plans, primarily through delayed commencement dates. About 60% reported considering alternative destinations due to visa uncertainty, though most ultimately maintained plans to study or work in Australia.

Respondents were also asked what they believed to be the main reasons for visa processing times. The most frequently cited explanation was policy or bilateral relationship factors between China and Australia (73%), followed by security, health or background checks (53%) and high processing workload (32%). Smaller proportions identified incomplete or additional document requirements (9%) and personal circumstances (5%).

These findings suggest respondents understood visa delays through both geopolitical and procedural lenses. Many associated extended processing times with broader bilateral and security-related contexts rather than administrative inefficiency alone. However, their expressed concerns, as reflected in qualitative comments, were predominantly procedural, focusing on transparency, timeliness and predictability. While respondents accepted the legitimacy of Australia’s integrity and security frameworks, they were dissatisfied with implementation quality, particularly communication and procedural consistency.

These experiences occur within a broader policy environment in which Australia, like other advanced research economies, is seeking to balance research openness with national security imperatives. Over the past five years, government agencies and universities have strengthened due diligence and foreign interference frameworks to safeguard research integrity and critical technologies. While these measures aim to protect national interests, they can also introduce complexity to international collaboration, particularly in technical disciplines.

Australia’s capacity in emerging technologies has been built on international collaboration. Researchers with academic backgrounds in China have contributed substantially to postgraduate research capacity in these areas. Sustaining such collaboration while maintaining robust governance will remain an enduring policy challenge. Balancing the need for openness and trust with legitimate security considerations will require continual transparency and engagement between government, universities and international partners. Effective safeguards also remain indispensable. As the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has noted, foreign interference risks in the research sector are real and cannot be left unchecked; the task is to counter those risks without eroding the openness that sustains Australia’s scientific and technological capability.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.