Introduction

1.1 The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) provides national research infrastructure (NRI) grants to selected Australian universities, publicly funded research agencies, and private companies.³ NRI is defined as ‘nationally significant assets, facilities and services that support leading-edge research and innovation’ (for example, see Case study 1, a full list of NCRIS funded projects is at Appendix 3).

1.2 NCRIS was established in 2006 in response to the March 2004 Final Report of the National Research Infrastructure Taskforce, which stated:

The consensus across all Australian Governments and research institutions is that, while decisions on research themes or projects might be made through a competitive process, investment in research infrastructure should be made in a strategic, collaborative manner.⁴

1.3 In the 2004–05 Federal Budget, the government announced NCRIS’s establishment, to ‘ensure that research infrastructure is directed to the highest priority research projects and that universities and public research organisations actively collaborate on research projects and use of infrastructure’.⁵

1.4 The 2015 Research Infrastructure Review Final Report found that Australian Government funding for NRI is critical, as there is ‘no precedent anywhere in the world to suggest that industry, state and territory governments or not-for-profit agencies would accept sole responsibility if the Australian Government stepped away’.⁶ The Review recommended the government regard its investment in NRI ‘as the patient capital required to secure Australia’s future in research’.⁷

1.5 The design of NCRIS is generally supported by the Australian research sector, with the December 2023 Australian Universities Accord Final Report noting NCRIS is:

a highly collaborative and distinctively Australian program which maximises Australia’s NRI investments by coordinating open access, targeted specialities and co-funding by government, universities and, sometimes, publicly funded research agencies (PFRAs) and industry across the research sector.⁸

Funding arrangements

1.6 Between 2004–05 and 2028–29, NCRIS will provide an estimated $5 billion in grants, with annual expenditure peaking in 2024–25 at $503 million (Figure 1.1). NCRIS funds 26 NCRIS facilities, and one associate membership payment to access international research infrastructure. NCRIS has ongoing funding.⁹ A budget measure provided additional NCRIS funding of $1.9 billion over 12 years from 2017–18 to 2028–29.¹⁰ As of December 2025 funding agreements with NCRIS facilities conclude on 30 June 2028 (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1: NCRIS expenditure, 2004–05 to 2028–29

Source: ANAO analysis of Science, Research and Innovation Budget Tables for 2025–26, 2024–25 and 2013–14, and Education 2025–26 Portfolio Budget Statements.

1.7 NCRIS funded NRI must be made widely accessible to researchers and industry, with barriers to access as low as practicable. A website, Research Infrastructure Connected, is funded by NCRIS to help users identify the right research infrastructure for their needs.¹¹ NCRIS facilities were used by 78,586 Australian researchers and 12,941 international researchers in 2023–24 (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.2: Total^a NCRIS facilities users, 2021–22 to 2023–24^b

Note a: Education manually removes outliers from this dataset. ANAO has not undertaken further data cleaning or data verification.

Note b: Verified data is not available for the period after 2023–24.

Source: ANAO based on Education data.

1.8 NCRIS funding is allocated using closed non-competitive grants, which were available for up to five years in the 2022 funding round, and up to four years in 2023 and 2025 funding rounds.¹² To facilitate collaboration, the Grant Guidelines require applicants to commit their own contributions and seek other contributions to support the funded activity. Total co-contributions estimated by facilities between 2019–20 and 2024–25 (Figure 1.3) amounted to $1.9 billion against NCRIS funding of $1.9 billion. There is no required minimum level of contributions, but according to the Grant Guidelines, ‘it is expected other contributions will at least match the NCRIS grant for each project’.

Figure 1.3: Total NCRIS facilities co-contributions^a and NCRIS funding, 2021–22 to 2024–25^b

Note a: Total co-contributions include both cash and in-kind (provision of staff and other non-monetary resources) contributions. The value of in-kind contributions are estimates only, provided by NCRIS facilities in reporting to Education.

Note b: Reliable data outside of 2019–20 to 2024–25 is not currently available. ANAO has not undertaken further data cleaning or data verification.

Source: ANAO based on Education data.

1.9 NCRIS projects collaborate with organisations such as universities, publicly-funded research agencies, Australian and state and territory governments, companies, and other NCRIS projects (Case study 1 provides an example of NCRIS project collaboration). NCRIS projects disclosed this collaboration by listing co-contributors and NCRIS partner projects in their applications for the 2023 and 2025 grant rounds (Figure 1.4).

Source: Integrated Marine Observing System, What is the Integrated Marine Observing System? [Internet], IMOS, available from https://imos.org.au/about [accessed 9 January 2026]. Coastal Research Infrastructure, CoastRI: Research Infrastructure Connecting Land and Sea [Internet], Coastal Research Infrastructure, 2026, available from https://www.coastri.org.au/ [accessed 16 January 2026].

Figure 1.4: Co-contributors and NCRIS partners identified in grant applications 2023–25^a

Note a: Application forms for the 2022 grant round did not include a specific question addressing co-contributors or NCRIS partners so are not included in this figure

Source: ANAO analysis of NCRIS grant applications.

1.10 As of 2025–26, NCRIS is the ninth largest Australian Government research and development (R&D) funding program (Figure 1.5). In addition to NRI funding administered by the Department of Education (Education) via NCRIS, research infrastructure is also funded by other Australian Government R&D programs. For example, the Australian Research Council (ARC)¹³, the National Health and Medical Research Centre (NHMRC) grants¹⁴, and the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) each administer infrastructure funding programs.¹⁵ In total, Australian R&D funding is provided across 193 programs in 14 portfolios.¹⁶ The Australian Government is undertaking a strategic examination of the research and development (R&D) system.¹⁷ The panel commissioned to lead the examination has delivered a report with 20 recommendations to government.¹⁸ The report stated that the ‘future of our national research infrastructure and National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (NCRIS) [sic] is uncertain’, reflecting that a portion of NCRIS funding is only budgeted to 2028–29 (see paragraph 1.6); the panel recommended that ‘Governments commit ongoing funding to ensure sustainability of research infrastructure’ (Recommendation 4a).¹⁹ As of March 2026, the Government has not responded to the report.

Figure 1.5: Australian Government R&D programs and activities estimated at over $100 million in 2025–26

Key: Yellow bar represents the expenditure of NCRIS; blue bars represent the expenditure of other Australian Government R&D programs and activities.

Note: Some programs are presented together for the purposes of this chart: Higher education research block grants comprise the Research Support Program and Research Training Program; R&D Tax Intensives comprise refundable and non-refundable R&D tax incentives.

Source: ANAO analysis of Science, Research and Innovation Budget Tables for 2025–26.

1.11 NCRIS is administered by Education. Education’s resourcing for the administration of NCRIS has declined since 2022–23 (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1: Resourcing for NCRIS administration, 2022–23 to 2025–26

Source: ANAO based on Department of Education data.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

1.12 From 2004–05 to 2028–29, NCRIS will deliver an estimated $5 billion in grants.²⁰ NCRIS facilities are nationally significant assets, which are usually too large to be funded by individual research organisations. This means that without effective Australian Government support, these facilities would not be available to researchers.

1.13 This audit was conducted to provide assurance to the Parliament over the effectiveness of Education’s administration of NCRIS in achieving the outcomes of the program.

Audit approach

Audit objective, criteria and scope

1.14 The objective of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Education’s administration of NCRIS in achieving the outcomes of the program.

1.15 To form a conclusion against the objective, the following high-level audit criteria were adopted:

• Does the administration of funding opportunities and funding decisions promote the proper use and management of public resources?
• Have appropriate arrangements been established to measure and assess the outcomes from grant funding?

1.16 The audit focused on NCRIS funding delivered from 2022 to 2025. This included all funding under the 2021 NCRIS Roadmap, except for the outcomes of the second funding round of 2025, which was still in progress at the time of the audit, with an anticipated completion date of early to mid-2026.

Audit methodology

1.17 To assess the audit objective and criteria, the audit methodology included examination and analysis of Education documentation; meetings with relevant departmental staff on site in Canberra and remotely; and site visits to selected NCRIS-funded facilities.

1.18 The audit was open to contributions from the public between 15 September and 21 December 2025. The ANAO received and considered six submissions.

1.19 The audit was conducted in accordance with ANAO Auditing Standards at a cost to the ANAO of approximately $351,526.

1.20 The team members for this audit were Nancy Jin, Renae Lowden, Alyssa McDonald, Fin Wardman, Hazel Ferguson, and David Tellis.

2.1 Effective grants administration promotes the proper use and management of public resources. The Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines 2017 (CGRGs) and Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles 2024 (CGRPs, replacing the CGRGs from 1 October 2024) establish the overarching grants policy framework and articulate the expectations for all non-corporate Commonwealth entitles in relation to grants administration to achieve this objective.²¹

2.2 The CGRPs (and previously the CGRGs) are made by the Finance Minister under subsection 105C(1) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and thus form part of the finance laws. Compliance with the finance laws is a requirement of the Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct.²²

Does Education’s administration of funding opportunities and funding decisions promote the proper use and management of public resources?

Approach to allocating NCRIS funding

2.3 The CGRPs state ‘[a]chieving value with relevant money should be a prime consideration in all phases of grants administration.’²³ Appropriately designed grant opportunities ensure resources are ‘deployed in an efficient, effective, economical and ethical manner, while not imposing overly burdensome requirements on grantees’.²⁴ NCRIS grants are described as ‘closed non-competitive’ in the 2022, 2023 and 2025 NCRIS Grant Guidelines, which describe the NCRIS grant program and details of the grant opportunity.

2.4 The most recent assessment of the appropriateness of Education’s use of the ‘closed non-competitive’ method²⁵ for allocating NCRIS funding was in 2015. In 2015, the Research Infrastructure Review Final Report found that NCRIS’s ‘consensus driven approach’ has been ‘more effective than competitive bidding’ to align strategic investments with national research priorities.²⁶ This is consistent with the establishment of NCRIS investment in ‘a strategic, collaborative manner’, rather than as a competitive process for investing in research infrastructure (paragraphs 1.2 to 1.3).

Managing risks associated with restrictive eligibility criteria

2.5 Targeted or restrictive eligibility criteria may assist where narrowing the field of potential applicants aims to achieve a particular policy outcome. However, care needs to be taken that restrictive eligibility criteria does not exclude potential applicants that may be better placed to contribute to the policy outcomes or provide better value with relevant money.²⁷ Education’s grant planning process aims to manage this risk.

NCRIS roadmaps

2.6 The planning process for the allocation of NCRIS funding begins with the development of a roadmap every five years by sector experts. Roadmaps set out national research infrastructure (NRI) funding priorities, based on an assessment of capabilities and future areas of need for the next five to ten years. As the ‘key policy document on NRI requirements’, a roadmap should ‘enable Australia to maintain its research excellence, increase innovation and address emerging research challenges’.²⁸

2.7 Development of the 2021 Roadmap (the most recent as of December 2025) was led by an Expert Working Group²⁹ with membership agreed to by the Minister for Education and the Minister for Industry and Science, supported by a departmental taskforce. The process involved:

• seeking expert advice;
• consulting with the research community, the university sector, research funders, state and territory governments, peak organisations, existing facility operators, publicly funded research agencies, private research institutes, international organisations, Government agencies and industry and business;
• providing stakeholders and the community with the opportunity to input on policy discussion papers and a draft Roadmap; and
• providing updates on progress to the responsible ministers.

2.8 The resulting roadmap (as summarised in Figure 2.1) set funding priorities through ‘key challenges’, ‘opportunities for system-wide enhancements in NRI’ and ‘step changes’ and made eight recommendations. The government agreed to the recommendations of the 2021 Roadmap on 31 March 2022. The 2021 Roadmap also committed to conducting a Roadmap process every five years and an investment plan process every two years.

2.9 The 2021 Roadmap recommended the establishment of ‘an Expert NRI Advisory Group to drive a more effective NRI ecosystem’. The National Research Infrastructure Advisory Group³⁰ (NRIAG) held its first meeting on 1 February 2023, and is responsible for the development of future roadmaps, including the 2026 Roadmap, which is under development as of December 2025. The NRIAG is also responsible for ‘informing the strategic direction of NRI investment plans’. (paragraph 2.12).

2.10 Each set of guidelines (2022, 2023 and 2025) describes the purpose of the grant round in reference to the purposes of NCRIS and the 2021 Roadmap.

Figure 2.1: NCRIS investment prioritisation approach, 2022 to 2025

Source: ANAO analysis of 2021 Roadmap.

NCRIS investment plans

2.11 Previously, the 2016 Roadmap set out priorities for investment, and the two-yearly 2018 and 2020 investment plans set out the government’s response to these priorities. Education has not undertaken a strategic planning process to determine funding required for each priority under the 2021 Roadmap, as was delivered via previous investment plans.

2.12 Under the 2021 Roadmap, the outcomes of grant funding rounds in 2022, 2023 and 2025 were described as investment plans, and a document was developed for one ‘step change area’ (national digital research infrastructure, NDRI, see paragraph 2.13) and described as a ‘draft final investment plan’. Submissions received by the ANAO from stakeholders raised concerns about recent investment planning processes in relation to the timing of investments and the inconsistent processes used in investment planning across grant rounds and step changes under the 2021 Roadmap.

2.13 The document described as the ‘draft final investment plan’ for NDRI was developed by an NRIAG working group.³¹

• At the 2 December 2024 meeting of the working group, Education undertook to provide the document to NRIAG for endorsement.
• This working group document was published by Education on 13 December 2024 as containing recommendations for NDRI investment from the working group and as a draft for community comment. Consultation closed 7 January 2025.
• As of February 2026, funding for one area of NDRI has been implemented via a 2025 funding round for High Performance Computing (HPC). The HPC round sought grant applications to address funding needs in one of the sixteen investment areas identified in the working group document. The ‘indicative maximum investment’ in the working group document was $100 million. Actual grant funding allocated was $77 million for one year, with a further investment of $23 million to be considered in subsequent grant rounds.
• Education advised the ANAO on 6 February 2026 that the working group document has not been put to NRIAG for endorsement (though updates were provided to the NRIAG), or the Education Minister for approval, as the working group ‘draft final investment plan’ is advice that will be used as input to the ‘final investment plan’. The ‘final investment plan’ is the outcome of the grant funding round, which is informed by NRIAG as an advisory body and is approved by the minister as part of grant assessment processes.

2.14 The NRIAG 2024–25 work plan, agreed by the Minister for Education on 12 September 2024, indicated ‘investment plans’ would be developed for three other step change areas and NRI workforce. As of February 2026, planning for investment in two step changes (Research translation infrastructure, World-leading environmental and climate infrastructure) and NRI workforce has been informed by surveys. Documents akin to the ‘draft final investment plan’ for NDRI, are not intended to be developed for other step changes and NRI workforce.

2.15 Table 2.1 sets out the differences between Education’s previous planning process and the current process. It shows that processes under the 2021 Roadmap do not demonstrate the same level of strategic planning of NCRIS investments by Education as was undertaken under the previous 2016 Roadmap. Further, the use of ‘investment plan’ to refer to NRIAG working group advice (and the substitution of said advice with surveys in three of the four areas where planning work has been undertaken) has the potential to create confusion among working group members and stakeholders, particularly when coupled with Education’s characterisation of outcomes of grant funding rounds as ‘investment plans’.

Table 2.1: Planning under the 2016 Roadmap and the 2021 Roadmap

Source: ANAO analysis of Education documentation.

Other mechanisms to mitigate risks associated with restrictive eligibility criteria

2.16 The NCRIS encourages partnering with existing NCRIS facilities which allows new organisations to engage with the program. Between 2019–20 and 2024–25, approximately 311 unique partners have co-invested in NCRIS projects (either via cash contributions or in-kind contributions such as the use facilities owned by the partner organisation).³² While many work with multiple NCRIS facilities and have sustained partnerships across all four years, there is evidence of new entrants to the program via this pathway. For example, in 2024–25, NCRIS facilities recorded co-contributions from 41 new organisations that had not been recorded as co-contributors in the previous five years.

Residual risk

2.17 While Education’s planning process and collaborative focus provide opportunities for open consultation on NCRIS funding priorities and the introduction of new organisations to the program, risks remain. Education has not considered nor mitigated the risk associated with the exclusion of potential applicants that may be better placed to contribute to the policy outcomes or provide better value for money (paragraph 2.5).

2.18 These risks are indicated by:

• the high degree of stability in NCRIS funding recipients:
  • since 2022, a total of 26 NCRIS facilities and one international membership have received funding, of which one was a new entrant to the program (i.e. had not received NCRIS funding prior to grant funding rounds under the 2021 Roadmap);
  • some environmental scanning is evident, but in the 2025 HPC grant round, all organisations that were invited to apply had previously received NCRIS funding (albeit for different projects in some cases); and
• a lack of structured assessment of outcomes against roadmaps or investment plans, meaning there is no process for identifying when outcomes from funding have been achieved, or NCRIS investments in particular facilities should be wound down and infrastructure decommissioned.

2.19 Submissions received by the ANAO from stakeholders raised concerns relating to potential users’ access to NCRIS facilities and potential unmet demand due to low levels of awareness in user groups. This is supported by a survey of industry respondents undertaken as part of Research Infrastructure Connected (funded by NCRIS), which found that 31 per cent were not at all familiar with NCRIS in 2024, although this reduced to 23 per cent in 2025.

2.20 Education does not have a policy or process for identifying NCRIS complaints and concerns, or managing inquiries from prospective applicants seeking access to NCRIS funding. Complaints would be subject to Education’s formal Complaints Handling Policy.

Application assessment and approval

2.21 The CGRPs state ‘[g]rants administration should provide value, as should the grantees in delivering grant activities.’³³ This requires the careful comparison of the costs and benefits of feasible options in all phases of grants administration, particularly when planning and designing grant opportunities and when selecting grantees.³⁴ Consistency with grant guidelines and established processes is key to better practice grants administration.³⁵

Assessment of applications

2.22 The 2022, 2023 and 2025 NCRIS Guidelines required applicants to submit proposals for assessment against weighted criteria. Assessment was to be completed by an assessment committee of Education staff, with the option to seek external experts or advisors, or additional information. During this period, three rounds of funding allocation were completed, each with a different scope to address different priorities under the 2021 Roadmap, as summarised in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: NCRIS funding rounds, 2022 to 2025

Note a: The consultation referenced here was undertaken in 2021 and 2022 for three of eight subject-specific ‘scoping studies’ funded under the 2018 Investment Plan, and through 2021 Roadmap processes and Education’s stakeholder engagement.

Note b: The 2021 Roadmap identified five step change areas: national digital research infrastructure; synthetic biology research infrastructure to deliver new bioindustries; research translation infrastructure to drive increased industry investment; world-leading environmental and climate infrastructure to underpin Australia’s national adaptation strategy; scoping future requirements to understand the opportunities that arise from taking a national approach to collections.

Note c: The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation identifies the following as priority areas: resources; transport; medical science; defence capability; renewables and low emissions technologies; agriculture, forestry and fisheries; and manufacturing technologies and products that support the advancement of Australia’s industrial capability.

Note d: As of December 2025, a second funding round under the 2025 NCRIS Guidelines is in progress and has not been considered as part of this audit.

Source: ANAO analysis of NCRIS Guidelines, 2022, 2023 and 2025.

Note a: The funding formula has been amended by the ANAO to remove a reference to ‘eligible provisions’, which was part of the calculation in 2013, but not in 2022. ‘Eligible provisions’ referred to amounts deducted in 2013 in recognition that some facilities had already received support for facility maintenance.

Note b: As of December 2025, funding agreements with NCRIS facilities conclude on 30 June 2028 (Figure 2.2).

2.23 Table 2.3 outlines the ANAO assessment of Education’s processes for assessing applications in 2022, 2023 and 2025.

2.24 Formula-based funding allocations for the 2022 grant round were approved before an assessment of applications was undertaken (see paragraph 2.31).

2.25 In 2023 and 2025 funding rounds, the assessment of applications for NCRIS funding followed a two-step process, including:

• initial assessment against criteria by an individual Education staff member, with either a ‘met’ or ‘not met’ outcome; and
• strategic assessment, with expert input, against considerations such as whether the application related to a continuing activity (research infrastructure capability which would be lost without funding), sovereign capability and urgency.³⁶

2.26 The initial assessment against selection criteria in the 2023 and 2025 funding rounds did not take into account the weighted allocations for criteria included in the Guidelines for both rounds.

2.27 Following the strategic assessment, Education documented funding outcomes and a rationale for funding decisions for each application received in 2023 and 2025. The rationale for some decisions included considerations not clearly articulated against the criteria in the grant guidelines, such as: the urgency of funding sought; previous NCRIS funding which would cover the period of the proposal; and Education’s plans to develop additional step change strategies.

2.28 Education did not undertake a strategic planning process which considered all 2021 Roadmap priorities, including step changes (see paragraphs 2.11 to 2.12 and Table 2.1).

Table 2.3: ANAO assessment of Department of Education NCRIS assessment process, 2022 to 2025

Key: ● completely met all relevant requirements ◕ mostly met relevant requirements ◑ partly met relevant requirements ◔ met some relevant requirements ◯ did not meet relevant requirements.

Note a: As of December 2025, a second funding round under the 2025 NCRIS Guidelines is in progress and has not been considered as part of this audit.

Note b: The CGRGs applied to NCRIS grant rounds completed in 2022 and 2023. The CGRPs replaced the CGRGs in 2024 and applied to the 2025 NCRIS grant round.

Note c: The Glossary of the 2025 NCRIS Guidelines provides consideration of value with relevant money includes: the quality of the project proposal and activities; fitness for purpose of the proposal in contributing to government objectives; that the absence of a grant is likely to prevent the grantee and the government’s outcomes being achieved; and the potential grantees relevant experience and performance history.

Source: ANAO analysis of Education documentation.

Approval of grants

2.29 The NCRIS 2022 and 2023 Guidelines state funding approval is to be provided by the First Assistant Secretary, Research Division, Department of Education, while the 2025 Guidelines state funding approval is to be provided by the Minister for Education (the Minister). Education advised the ANAO on 3 February 2026 that the 2025 Guidelines did not represent an update in process, the approval of NCRIS grants has always sat with the Minister in practice and is followed by a separate approval from the First Assistant Secretary for agreed funding to be actioned.

2.30 Table 2.4 below outlines ANAO’s assessment of Education’s advice to the Minister when seeking approval of NCRIS grants against the requirements for advice to ministers in the CGRGs and CGRPs.

Table 2.4: ANAO assessment of advice to the Minister for approval of NCRIS grants

Key: ✔ meets requirement; ✘ does not meet requirement.

Note a: Requirements and paragraph number references are common between both the CGRGs and CGRPs unless otherwise specified. The CGRGs apply to NCRIS grant rounds in 2022 and 2023, and the CGRPs apply to the 2025 grant round.

Note b: The ANAO’s assessment of advice in 2022 noted that the advice considered by the minister did not meet requirements of the CGRGs due to the sequencing of approvals and assessments by Education (see paragraph 2.32).

Note c: As of December 2025, a second funding round under the 2025 NCRIS Guidelines is in progress and has not been considered as part of this audit.

Source: ANAO analysis of Education advice to the Minister.

2.31 In 2022, Education sought ministerial approval of the NCRIS 2022 Guidelines, to extend funding for existing NCRIS projects until 30 June 2028. The proposed Guidelines specified:

• grant allocation amounts for each NCRIS project, determined by a formula; and
• that eligible applicants would be required to submit a proposal, which would be assessed against criteria.

2.32 The Minister approved the 2022 Guidelines on 12 September 2022 based on the advice from Education.³⁷ Education then completed an assessment of applications against the criteria in the 2022 Guidelines and no further ministerial approval was sought after this assessment. Due to the sequencing of approvals and assessments by Education, the advice considered by the minister did not include the following items, which were at the time required by the CGRGs:

• the application and selection process followed, including the selection criteria, that were used to select potential grantees;
• the merits of the proposed grants relative to the grant opportunity guidelines; and
• which grant applications fully, partially, and did not meet the selection criteria.³⁸

2.33 In addition to the specific deficiencies identified in the sequencing of the 2022 approval process, Education’s advice to the Minister:

• in 2022 lacked an explanation of applicable legal requirements;
• in 2023 did mention some applicable legal requirements, but this information was not complete, and the advice lacked a clear link between reasons for recommending funding of applications (or not) and assessment criteria; and
• in the 2025 HPC round, reasons for recommending funding of applications (or not) were not clearly linked to assessment criteria.

2.34 Education’s advice to the Minister has improved over funding rounds from 2022 to 2025. By 2025, the lack of indication of which grants met the selection criteria remained the only deficiency, which impacts the Minister’s ability to appropriately record the basis for grant approval relative to the grant guidelines as required by the CGRGs and CGRPs.³⁹

2.35 Following assessment of applications and approval from the Minister, the relevant First Assistant Secretary provided approval for funding arrangements under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) in each grant round from 2022 to 2025.

2.36 An Education internal audit in 2025 included a recommendation to ensure the legislative basis for NCRIS grants is documented when the First Assistant Secretary approves funding arrangements under the PGPA Act. This recommendation was implemented in the approval minute to the First Assistant Secretary regarding outcomes of the 2025 NCRIS grant round. The internal audit did not make any recommendations regarding the approval process from the Minister and did not consider whether this met the CGRP requirements (or previously, the CGRGs).

2.37 Education advised the ANAO on 31 March 2026 that in ongoing and future NCRIS grant funding rounds, a department-wide template for advice to the minister for the approval of grants will be used, which provides guidance on relevant requirements of the CGRPs, including advice on whether grants have met assessment criteria.

Grants to the European Molecular Biology Laboratory

2.38 NCRIS grant funding is used to pay for Australia’s associate membership of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) which allows Australian researchers to access EMBL facilities. This membership is established by an agreement between Australia and the EMBL signed on 29 June 2015 by the Branch Manager, Research and Higher Education Infrastructure on behalf of the Australian Government and the Director General of the EMBL; an associate membership fee is required to be paid annually under this agreement. The membership was established for two years under the 2015 Agreement, then extended automatically after expiration, with termination of the membership requiring notice by Australia a year in advance. The 2021 Roadmap notes that the funding for EMBL membership supports international collaboration.

2.39 In the 2022 grant round, $15 million in funding was granted for EMBL associate membership fees over three years when the Guidelines were approved (see paragraph 2.31).

Efficiency of the allocation process

2.40 Education does not measure the efficiency of its grant allocation process or have targets for assessment timeframes.⁴⁰

2.41 The approximate cost of allocating NCRIS grants between 2022 and 2025 is shown in Table 2.5.⁴¹ While Education was able to assess 134 applications comparatively rapidly in 2023 (approximately 1.2 days each), the average cost of each successful applicant assessed was $10,743, an increase on the $4,013 in 2022. The average cost per successful applicant assessed continued to increase in 2025, with two successful applicants receiving funding assessed at a cost of $16,358 each.

Funding outcomes

2.42 The 2021 Roadmap identified five step change areas to ‘enhance its sovereign capability’ while exploring new opportunities building on existing research infrastructure. Table 2.6 outlines the activities funded to support each step change area, and funding for continuing activities. Funding from January 2022 to December 2025 for each step change ranged from $0.00 (scoping future requirements for collections) to $116.86 million (climate and environment). Funding for continuing activities was provided to address Recommendation 2 of the 2021 Roadmap. Between 2022 and 2025, Education directed 80.5 per cent of approved NCRIS grants towards continuing activities.

Table 2.6: Number and total value of NCRIS activities by continuing funding^a or 2021 Roadmap ‘step change’, 2022 to 2025

Note a: Continuing funding is allocated to maintain an existing NCRIS facility and is not identified as relating to a specific step change area. In 2023, continuing funding was also mapped by Education against step changes, with 67 per cent of funded continuing activities identified by Education as supporting a step change.

Note b: The 2022 funding round provided a funding amount NCRIS facilities could apply for, to meet their ongoing operating costs. As such, no applicants requested more funding than they were provided, and there was no assessment of applications against step change areas. All 2022 applicants have been included in the ‘fully funded’ column in this table, under ‘continuing’. Total funding for 2022 was $921.36 million for 25 projects and one international membership. An additional NCRIS facility, Australian Access Federation (AAF), was funded in 2023, bringing the total number of NCRIS projects to 26.

Note c: All 2025 funding allocated as of December 2025 was for national digital research infrastructure. Total funding was $77.0 million for two activities, both of which were partly funded.

Note d: The Collections step change was not supported in NCRIS grant rounds from 2022 to 2025. Education is in the process of determining the scope and priorities for a national approach to the step change.

Note e: Over this period, Education considered 165 activities for funding from 163 applications. Two activities considered did not have applications as: the Marine National Facility was part of the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) when 2022 applications were received but was considered for funding as a separate project; and European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) did not submit an application in 2022 as this is an international membership fee covered by NCRIS.

Source: ANAO analysis of Education documentation.

Funding continuity

2.43 Funding stability (or ‘patient capital’, see paragraph 1.4) allows NCRIS projects to secure highly skilled staff, meet existing and future demands for the research sector and pursue relationships with industry. Submissions received by the ANAO from stakeholders raised concerns in relation to the funding duration of grants, noting short durations of funding may lead to uncertainty and lack of ability to plan long term.

2.44 In March 2022, Education identified NCRIS funding agreements were due to cease in June 2023. The lack of funding certainty beyond this date was affecting industry engagement in long term research and causing operational issues relating to staff recruitment and ability to seek co-investment. This led to the 2022 NCRIS funding round using a formula-based approach (see Box 1 and Table 2.2) which provided base operational funding to sustain ongoing NCRIS projects to 2027–28 to provide certainty and continuity to the research sector.

2.45 As of December 2025, NCRIS grants are of four to five years in duration, with the exception of two one-off payments provided in 2025 (Figure 2.2). While funding for NCRIS is ongoing and additional funding has been budgeted to 2028–29 (see paragraph 1.6), most funding agreements end on 30 June 2028 — two funding agreements end before this date.⁴² Appendix 4 provides the annual NCRIS funding awarded from grant rounds between 2022 and 2025.

Figure 2.2: NCRIS annual funding provided in grant rounds between 2022 and 2025^a

Note a: The 2025 funding round provided one-off payments in 2025, to support two high performance computing investments. Grants approved under the 2022 Guidelines commenced payments in 2023–24. As of December 2025, funding agreements with NCRIS facilities conclude on 30 June 2028.

Source: ANAO analysis of Education documentation.

Processes to ensure probity and transparency

2.46 The CGRPs state that ‘maintaining probity involves applying and complying with public sector values’ and that ‘transparency provides assurance that grants administration is appropriate and that legislative obligations and policy commitments are being met’.⁴³

2.47 Table 2.7 outlines the ANAO assessment of Education’s processes to ensure probity and transparency in grant administration for funding rounds from 2022 to 2025.

Table 2.7: ANAO assessment of Education processes to ensure probity and transparency in NCRIS grant administration

Key: ● completely met all relevant requirements ◕ mostly met relevant requirements ◑ partly met relevant requirements ◔ met some relevant requirements ◯ did not meet relevant requirements.

Note a: Requirements and paragraph number references are common between both the CGRGs and CGRPs unless otherwise specified. The CGRGs apply to NCRIS grant rounds in 2022 and 2023, and the CGRPs apply to the 2025 grant round.

Note b: As of December 2025, a second funding round under the 2025 NCRIS Guidelines is in progress and has not been considered as part of this audit.

Source: ANAO analysis of Education documentation.

3.1 Program performance measurement and reporting allow a reader (including the Parliament) to understand if an entity’s intended results are being achieved, and the factors affecting its performance.⁴⁴

3.2 The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (the PGPA Act) requires entities to measure and assess their performance in achieving their purposes.⁴⁵ Additionally, the government’s Commonwealth Evaluation Policy states that:

Commonwealth entities and companies are expected to deliver support and services for Australians by setting clear objectives for major policies, projects and programs, and consistently measuring progress towards achieving these objectives.⁴⁶

3.3 Effective evaluation allows for corrections, informs future design, and evidence gained from monitoring and evaluation supports government decision-making.⁴⁷ For grants, appropriate performance evaluation and reporting arrangements allow funders to evaluate whether outcomes have been achieved and whether a particular grant activity achieved value with relevant money.⁴⁸

Have appropriate arrangements been established to measure and assess the outcomes from grant funding?

Monitoring NCRIS facilities

3.4 Between 2022 and 2025, the NCRIS grant guidelines provided that grant recipients would be required to provide Education with progress reports, a final report within six months of grant completion, and independently audited financial acquittal reports, and (if requested) ad hoc reports. The guidelines also specified the following monitoring arrangements:

• Education may conduct compliance visits and inspect records kept; and
• Education will evaluate the grant program to measure how well the outcomes and objectives have been achieved, and may use information from the recipient, including application information, interviews, or other requested information, for this purpose.

3.5 Each Grant Agreement and Deed of Variation includes reporting requirements for recipients of NCRIS funding. Grant Agreements contain clauses which allow for monitoring and evaluation, including that grantees provide Education with an Annual Activity Plan, Mid-Year Activity Report, and Annual Report. Templates for these are provided in the Grant Agreement. The Grant Agreement also establishes powers to collect information through ad-hoc reports. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are required for each grant activity, and are to be reported in each Mid-Year Activity Report and Annual Report. These reporting arrangements are outlined in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Performance reporting arrangements for NCRIS facilities

Source: ANAO analysis of Education documentation.

3.6 The ANAO examined Education’s assessment of reporting using a selection of six (of 26) NCRIS grant recipients with reporting obligations between 2022 and 2025. Education collects and assesses the Annual Activity Plan, Mid-Year Report and Annual Report provided by NCRIS grant recipients, and approves each milestone payment following approval of the milestone report. Education assesses risks, compliance, project performance and organisational processes, procedures and systems to produce the information (including value for money considerations from 2025).

3.7 In cases where assessment identified issues in reporting, Education sought more information from the grant recipient, and required resubmission with improved information. If Education does not accept submitted reporting, grant milestone payments may be withheld, but this has not occurred since 2021.

3.8 ANAO testing identified the following deficiencies in Education’s assessment of reporting:

• Education does not have an assurance process over the information provided by grant recipients.
• While Education collates risks reported in the Mid-Year and Annual Reports, it has not established an approach to ensuring these risks are managed effectively.
• In Education’s assessment of performance:
  • KPIs ‘vary in breadth and consistency’, and are sometimes ‘very vague or non-existent’, which creates challenges for measuring facility and program performance (paragraph 3.11); and
  • it does not use information from the reports to evaluate the grant program to measure how well program outcomes and objectives have been achieved (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.17).
• No compliance visits or record inspections were conducted between 2022 and 2025 (see paragraph 3.17).

European Molecular Biology Laboratory associate membership reporting requirements

3.9 Under the agreement between the EMBL and Australia, there are no requirements for monitoring and performance reporting — no regular reporting in relation to the EMBL associate membership is submitted to and assessed by Education.

Work underway to improve monitoring of NCRIS facilities

3.10 A draft KPI framework was developed to encourage better practice and presented to a Reporting Working Group of NCRIS Directors⁴⁹ on 9 August 2023. Education implemented the framework in its assessment of the Mid-Year Report 2023–24 and Annual Activity Plan 2024–25. ANAO examined the KPIs collected by NCRIS facilities in 2025–26 (see Table 3.1). All facilities examined had KPIs relating to governance and management, engagement, and service delivery, but other kinds of KPIs were more specific to the NCRIS facility.

Table 3.1: Number of NCRIS projects with KPIs by activity type for 2025–26

Note a: A total of 26 projects receive NCRIS funding and report against KPIs. The European Molecular Biology Laboratory is an associate membership and does not provide reporting KPIs.

Note b: Other activities KPIs related to included completing new research infrastructure (28 KPIs), maintaining existing infrastructure (18 KPIs), administering grant programs (two KPIs), IT security (two KPIs), sustainability (two KPIs) and identifying development opportunities (one KPI).

Source: ANAO analysis of Annual Activity Plans 2025–26.

3.11 In July 2025, an internal NCRIS Governance Review⁵⁰ by Education found that of 26 NCRIS facilities with reporting obligations, four had KPIs which were ‘very vague or non-existent’ and eight had KPIs which relate to ‘goals of governance but aren’t measurable or specific’. Education provided recommendations of the Governance Review to individual NCRIS projects, and requested NCRIS projects to outline actions to be taken to implement recommendations, including that they should form the basis of governance and management activities for projects, with a planned review of outcomes in 2027–28.

3.12 In response to an internal audit recommendation, Education developed a ‘Performance Evaluation Framework’ to assess grantee performance over time starting from assessment of 2024–25 Annual Reports in October 2025. The Framework seeks to assess performance against the common sub-clauses of grant agreements⁵¹ on a scale of one to three.

3.13 While this approach provides a framework to assess performance over time (for example, indicating where facility performance improves over time), it does not provide, or include any plans to deliver, an ‘assessment of the design, implementation or results of [NCRIS]’ to determine if the intended outcomes of the program are being delivered.⁵² As of February 2026, implementation of the ‘Performance Evaluation Framework’ is at an early stage, and no clear outcomes have been observed.

Program evaluation

3.14 The NCRIS program has not been evaluated between 2022 and 2025.⁵³ On 17 December 2025, Education advised the ANAO that ‘each successive roadmap builds on lessons learned from previous iterations and reflects the evolving nature of technology, research priorities and sector needs’. Education considered the implementation of recommendations and priorities for funding in the 2016 Roadmap as part of development of the 2021 Roadmap, but how this informed the content of the 2021 Roadmap, or resulted in changes to NCRIS program management is not clear. No evaluation reports of the 2016 Roadmap or 2021 Roadmap have been published.

3.15 Under the 2016 Roadmap, Investment Plans (paragraphs 2.11 to 2.12) were developed as a government response. This approach has not been used under the 2021 Roadmap. The 2021 Roadmap contains eight recommendations which were agreed by government (see paragraph 2.8) and some planning processes were undertaken (see paragraphs 2.11 to 2.15). There is no evidence Education tracks the implementation of recommendations.

3.16 Education collects ‘impact stories’ to emphasise what it calls the ‘real-life’ outcomes facilitated by NCRIS projects, in the form of, for example, research outcomes or commercial products (for example, see Case study 2). Impact stories are used by Education to ‘answer information requests and create communications materials’.

Source: Australian National Fabrication Facility, ANFF Casebook 2024 [Internet], ANFF, Victoria, Australia, 2024, available from https://anff.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ANFF-Casebook-2024.pdf [accessed 28 January 2026].

3.17 The National Research Infrastructure Advisory Group (NRIAG) is tasked with ‘ongoing review of the NRI principles, research challenges framework, and step change opportunities to ensure the continued alignment of NRI with national priorities’, and ‘reviewing current NRI facilities and services’.⁵⁴ In June 2024, the NRIAG assessed the alignment of NRI principles and NRI investment principles with current funding activities, and determined that the investment in NRI has aligned with the principles and the principles are still relevant for decision-makers. Education advised the NRIAG that further work could include ‘an improved performance framework for all NRI activities’. No further work has occurred which was reported back to the NRIAG. As part of NRIAG meetings, the group visited NCRIS facilities, though documented review of these facilities was not evident.

Reporting

3.18 Demonstrating the environmental, economic and social returns on public investment in research is increasingly important.⁵⁵ Measuring the impact of research infrastructure investment remains challenging (Box 2).⁵⁶

Source: OECD, Reference Framework for Assessing the Scientific and Socio-economic Impact of Research Infrastructures, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 65, OECD Publishing, 2019.

Program performance measures

3.19 Performance planning and reporting should draw clear links between an entity’s key activities and the results achieved and provide meaningful performance information with a clear line of sight between planned and actual performance.⁵⁷

3.20 Meaningful performance statements show what entities planned to achieve in the reporting period and how well they performed. If prepared in accordance with the requirements of the PGPA Act, they should provide performance information in a form that can be easily used by Parliament, government and the public to hold entities to account. They should help readers understand:

• the purposes and intended outcomes an entity has been funded to deliver;
• the key activities being undertaken by the entity in pursuit of those purposes and outcomes; and
• the results achieved, the impact the entity is having and the progress it is making.⁵⁸

3.21 The ANAO has conducted audits of annual performance statements of Education since 2021–22 — performance statements audits encourage entities to invest in the processes, systems and capability needed to develop, monitor and report high quality performance information.⁵⁹

3.22 Education’s 2024–25 performance statements included a performance measure PM019 ‘the proportion of research publications in Australia that are among the world’s top 10% most highly-cited journals’. This measure has been used to report performance for Program 2.5 (Investment in Higher Education Research) and Program 2.6 (Research Capacity) in the entity’s Portfolio Budget Statements. NCRIS funding is reported under Program 2.6, comprising 61 per cent of the budgeted expenditure of the program in 2025–26.⁶⁰

Other published information

3.23 In addition to performance information published in Education’s annual report, other information about NCRIS outcomes is published on Education’s website. ANAO assessment of the suitability of these to understand NCRIS program performance is provided in Table 3.2. Published information is directly related to the purpose of NCRIS and demonstrates other categories of impact; further work could be undertaken to improve reporting as:

• the relationship between Education’s management of NCRIS and the outcomes reported is not specified;
• user numbers and co-contribution amounts are sourced from grant recipients and do not undergo an assurance process;
• selection of case studies is based on Education’s identification of stories that have a ‘defined, realised outcome’ and demonstrate a ‘core’ NCRIS objective — this does not address the risk of bias where favourable ‘success stories’ are selected⁶¹; and
• each NCRIS program or facility has different characteristics and objectives, which means that performance information such as co-contribution amounts and number of users is not meaningful when aggregated for the purpose of measuring program performance.

Table 3.2: ANAO assessment of published performance information

Key: ◆ fully meets suitability requirements of a performance measure ▲ partly meets suitability requirements of a performance measure ■ does not meet suitability requirements of a performance measure.

Note a: The ANAO has assessed the published information against the better practice guidance in the Department of Finance’s Developing performance measures (RMG 131).

Note b: Department of Education, National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy Case Studies [Internet], Education, Canberra, 2025, available from https://www.education.gov.au/ncris/case-studies [accessed 15 December 2025].

Source: ANAO analysis of Education documentation.

Appendix 1 Entity response

Appendix 2 Improvements observed by the ANAO

1. The existence of independent external audit, and the accompanying potential for scrutiny improves performance. Improvements in administrative and management practices usually occur: in anticipation of ANAO audit activity; during an audit engagement; as interim findings are made; and/or after the audit has been completed and formal findings are communicated.

2. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) has encouraged the ANAO to consider ways in which the ANAO could capture and describe some of these impacts. The ANAO’s corporate plan states that the ANAO’s annual performance statements will provide a narrative that will consider, amongst other matters, analysis of key improvements made by entities during a performance audit process based on information included in tabled performance audit reports.

3. Performance audits involve close engagement between the ANAO and the audited entity as well as other stakeholders involved in the program or activity being audited. Throughout the audit engagement, the ANAO outlines to the entity the preliminary audit findings, conclusions and potential audit recommendations. This ensures that final recommendations are appropriately targeted and encourages entities to take early remedial action on any identified matters during the course of an audit. Remedial actions entities may take during the audit include:

• strengthening governance arrangements;
• introducing or revising policies, strategies, guidelines or administrative processes; and
• initiating reviews or investigations.

4. In this context, the below actions were observed by the ANAO during the course of the audit. It is not clear whether these actions and/or the timing of these actions were planned in response to proposed or actual audit activity. The ANAO has not sought to obtain assurance over the source of these actions or whether they have been appropriately implemented.

• Education has accepted internal audit recommendations in relation to Education’s administration of the NCRIS program — including in relation to developing evaluation frameworks (paragraphs 3.12 to 3.13) and validating accuracy of performance information (paragraphs 3.6 to 3.8), incorporating a more fulsome rationale for the use of closed non-competitive grants (paragraphs 2.3 to 2.4), documenting grant approval decisions (paragraphs 2.29 to 2.36), completing conflict of interest declarations (paragraphs 2.46 to 2.47) and uploading information to GrantConnect within the 21-day reporting period.
• Education undertook an internal Governance Review of NCRIS projects. Education has consulted with NCRIS projects to implement changes from the Governance Review, and plans to monitor improvements in 2027–28 (paragraph 3.11).

Appendix 3 NCRIS projects, as of August 2025

Source: Department of Education, Funded research infrastructure projects [Internet], available from https://www.education.gov.au/national-research-infrastructure/funded-research-infrastructure-projects [accessed 8 April 2025].

Appendix 4 NCRIS annual funding from grant rounds, 2022 to 2025

Note: European Molecular Biology Laboratory is funded by NCRIS under an international associate membership arrangement (see paragraph 2.38). The remaining 26 NCRIS funding recipients are Australian research facilities.

Source: ANAO analysis of Education documentation.