A former MP takes on a routine lobbying role, a Chinese university is named, and suddenly we are in national security territory. This is framing doing the work that facts do not.

The Canberra Times has delivered a remarkable feat with its recent report: “_Former Liberal MP lobbying for Chinese university with 'deep links' to People's Liberation Army_” turning a routine post political lobbying gig into the opening act of a national security thriller.

Former Liberal MP Pat Farmer, we’re solemnly informed, is working with a Chinese university that has “deep links” to the PLA. Within three paragraphs, he’s gone from marathon runner to potential Bond villain — albeit one whose alleged plot involves offshore campuses and education policy.

And then, in the fine print, came the ultimate punchline: “there is no suggestion” he’s done anything wrong.

What a useful disclaimer, once readers have already been escorted to the edge of panic.

The article rounds off by listing other former politicians who’ve worked with Chinese-linked firms — Robb, Downer, Brumby — but singles out Farmer as “one of the few advising directly for Chinese government-owned entities.” That’s basically the same thing: all Chinese universities are state-owned. But it sounds alarming enough to stand.

What makes this specimen of journalism so instructive is the framing: it does all the heavy lifting, while the disclaimer provides legal cover. It’s rather like printing someone’s photo next to a crime scene, then adding in fine print that they’re not a suspect: technically accurate, functionally misleading, or, convenient.

The article makes much of Central South University being “jointly supervised” by China’s State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense (SASTIND).

It quoted ASPI’s Fergus Ryan: “Our research shows CSU is jointly supervised by the Ministry of Education and SASTIND, the agency responsible for weapons and aerospace R&D, and that it holds a current weapons-production licence.”

Our research shows. How very cloak-and-dagger. Except this “research” comes from CSU’s own website and much publicly available information on Chinese internet space — the kind of thing any Mandarin 101 student could find. ASPI has essentially translated public documents and repackaged them as intelligence, a bit like discovering that ANU is overseen by the Department of Education and treating it as a scoop.

What the article omits is that SASTIND works with most of China’s top universities. It’s not a secretive exception, just a structural feature of the Chinese higher education system. In our country, we see Australian universities partner with Defence, MIT pockets Pentagon contracts, and Oxford helps develop hypersonic propulsion — and still finds time to teach Latin.

Let’s just face the fact that nobody in Beijing is penning investigations into Melbourne Uni’s defence links. That would be considered a waste of column inches — and probably a bit childish.

Research universities conduct defence research. This is not breaking news. Except, apparently, when some of us need it to be here.

The real comedy begins when you consider what else these same media outlets don’t cover.

Australia’s mining giants sell China the iron ore that becomes the steel in EVs, infrastructure, and – who knows – aircraft carriers. The transaction directly supports China’s industrial and military development. And yet, curiously, no breathless investigations into how our mining giants contribute to China’s geostrategic rise.

Instead, these outlets mourn falling Chinese demand for our exports and fret over lost revenue. Apparently, selling China the materials for its buildup is just good business — but a former MP helping a university explore education partnerships is cause for national security concern.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so proudly inconsistent. We want China’s money for our rocks, but heaven forbid someone help set up a joint education program.

Push the logic a little further and the whole frame collapses. Every Australian who buys Chinese-made goods — from smartphones to microwaves — is, by this logic, funding China. Should we start registering appliance owners under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme?

Luckily, most of our media don’t run exposés on everyday economic entanglements, as it is clear to most people that our economy is deeply interwoven with China’s. The mining sector depends on it. Our retail shelves are filled by it. And we all know these same commentators wouldn’t volunteer their salaries to compensate for the economic fallout if we genuinely “cut ties” tomorrow.

Here’s the real test of intellectual honesty: would this article exist if Pat Farmer were advising Cambridge? Or Stanford? Of course not. The scandal only appears because the institution is Chinese. Strip that detail, and you’re left with: former MP helps university explore partnerships. Not exactly Watergate.

Universities collaborate with defence agencies. Former MPs become consultants. These are not crimes. But insert the word “China,” and suddenly we’re off to the races with weaponised adjectives and institutional panic.

Meanwhile, the ships keep sailing, the goods keep arriving, and we continue to act surprised when China doesn’t take our national security theatre seriously. Perhaps because we don’t either — except when it’s convenient.

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

Please support Pearls and Irritations with your tax deductible donation

This year, Pearls and Irritations has again proven that independent media has never been more essential.

The integrity of our media matters - please support Pearls and Irritations

For the next month you can make a tax deductible donation through the Australian Cultural Fund

Please click here to add your donation.