← Back to home Browse all bills

Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia’s Military Secrets)

Current status

This bill became law on Apr 8th, 2024.

Policy area

Defence & foreign affairs

What does this bill do?

Some former defence staff must get approval before working for a foreign military or foreign government in a covered country, or they can face up to 20 years in jail.

Why was it introduced?

Former defence staff and other Australians could work for or train foreign militaries in sensitive military goods, tactics and procedures without Defence approval, leaving Australia’s military secrets exposed. The bill requires ministerial authorisation for that work and training, lets the minister block risky cases, and creates offences for doing it without approval.

Broader context

Australia already had laws protecting classified defence information, but late in 2022 the Albanese government directed Defence to examine whether former personnel could still pass sensitive know-how to foreign militaries, and by September 2023 reports that ex-Australian pilots were being recruited to train Chinese aviators made the gap visible. The bill responded by requiring ministerial approval for certain former defence staff and other Australians before they could work for or train foreign militaries in covered areas, and it became law in April 2024 after committee scrutiny and parliamentary passage.

Key criticism

The main criticism was that the bill could chill legitimate defence and university research links, expose researchers and industry workers to very severe criminal penalties, and further tie Australia to AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support.-driven restrictions led by the United States and United Kingdom. That fuller case against the bill came mainly from the Greens, while Coalition speakers backed the bill but warned the approval scheme still needed workable rules, oversight and fast decisions so veterans and industry were not unfairly caught.

Who supported it?

Hon Richard Marles MP introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; opposed by Greens, some crossbench members.

Introduced in House 14 Sept 2023
Passed House 20 Mar 2024
Passed Senate 27 Mar 2024 Aye 32 No 12
Became law 08 Apr 2024

Did it become law?

Yes

Became law 08 Apr 2024

Final passage

Recorded final vote

1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.

Passage speed

207 days

From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

Meaning

What does this bill do?

  1. Some former defence staff must get approval before working for a foreign military or foreign government in a covered country, or they can face up to 20 years in jail.

  2. Australian citizens and permanent residents who are not covered as former defence staff must get approval before training a foreign military in controlled military goods or military tactics.

  3. People can apply for approval, but the Defence MinisterThe minister who decides whether a person can do the covered work or training, and who can also set exemptions. must refuse if the work or training would harm Australia's security, defence or international relations.

  4. The Defence MinisterThe minister who decides whether a person can do the covered work or training, and who can also set exemptions. can carve out some former defence workers and some foreign countries so the new approval rules do not apply to them.

  5. People affected by approval decisions can seek a merits reviewA review that looks at the substance of a decision and can remake it, not just check for legal error., usually first by the Defence MinisterThe minister who decides whether a person can do the covered work or training, and who can also set exemptions. and then by the Administrative Appeals TribunalThe body that can conduct external merits review of some approval decisions under this bill..

Show source excerpts
  1. A foreign work restricted individual must not perform work for, or on behalf of, a military organisation, or government body, of a relevant foreign country if the individual does not hold a foreign work authorisation for the work and no other exception applies.
    Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia’s Military Secrets) as-passed bill text
  2. Subsection (1) provides that an individual commits an offence if the individual is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident, and the individual is not a foreign work restricted individual, and the individual provides training to, or on behalf of, a military organisation of a foreign country or a government body of a foreign country. The provision of such training either relates to goods, software or technology within the scope of Part 1 of the Defence and Strategic Goods List, or training relates to military tactics, military techniques or military procedures. The foreign country must be a relevant foreign country.
    Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia’s Military Secrets) explanatory memorandum
  3. An individual may request a foreign work authorisation. The Minister must grant or refuse the authorisation. The Minister must refuse the authorisation if the Minister reasonably believes that the work or training by the individual would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia.
    Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia’s Military Secrets) Act 2024 final Act text
  4. This section enables the Minister to determine classes of individuals that are not foreign work restricted individuals and countries that are not relevant foreign countries. Subsections (1) and (2) relate to determinations for classes of individuals that are not foreign work restricted individuals and subsection (3) would relate to determinations for countries that are not relevant foreign countries.
    Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia’s Military Secrets) explanatory memorandum
  5. An individual may seek internal or external merits review of certain decisions made under the foreign work authorisation provisions. For decisions that are not made by the Minister personally, internal review must be sought before external review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
    Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia’s Military Secrets) explanatory memorandum

Context

Broader context for this bill

Australia already had laws protecting classified defence information, but late in 2022 the Albanese government directed Defence to examine whether former personnel could still pass sensitive know-how to foreign militaries, and by September 2023 reports that ex-Australian pilots were being recruited to train Chinese aviators made the gap visible. The bill responded by requiring ministerial approval for certain former defence staff and other Australians before they could work for or train foreign militaries in covered areas, and it became law in April 2024 after committee scrutiny and parliamentary passage.

  1. Late 2022

    Defence begins examining gaps in controls on former personnel

    The Albanese government directed Defence to assess whether existing policies and procedures were adequate to stop former defence personnel transferring sensitive information to foreign militaries hostile to Australia.

    Hansard ↗
  2. 13 Sept 2023

    Reports emerge that Australians were being recruited to train Chinese aviators

    The Australian Financial Review reported the planned laws were a response to former Australian pilots being headhunted to instruct Chinese military personnel on flight tactics.

    Australian Financial Review ↗
  3. 14 Sept 2023

    Government introduces the bill to require approval for foreign military work

    Richard Marles introduced the bill to make certain former defence staff and other Australians seek authorisation before working for or training foreign militaries in covered circumstances.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  4. 19 Mar 2024

    Government backs committee changes as the bill returns to the House

    During resumed debate, the government said the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityThe parliamentary committee that scrutinised the bill and recommended it be passed, according to the page draft. had recommended the bill be passed and accepted one exemption change in principle.

    Hansard ↗
  5. 08 Apr 2024

    Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the military-secrets safeguards law

    Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, completing the creation of a new approval regime and related offences for unauthorised foreign military work and training.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

Legislative route

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 14 Sept 2023

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 14 Sept 2023

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Intelligence and Security review 14 Sept 2023

Referred to Committee (14/09/2023): Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and SecurityThe parliamentary committee that scrutinised the bill and recommended it be passed, according to the page draft.; Committee report (14/03/2024)

Referred to committee

APH bill page notes
Second reading debate 19 Mar 2024

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Sent to Federation Chamber for debate 19 Mar 2024

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Referred to Federation Chamber

Federation Chamber debate 19 Mar 2024

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Second reading debate

House second reading agreed 19 Mar 2024

The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.

Second reading agreed to

House agreed to amendment packages 19 Mar 2024

The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.

Consideration in detail debate

Returned from Federation Chamber 20 Mar 2024

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Reported from Federation Chamber

House third reading agreed 20 Mar 2024

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Introduced 21 Mar 2024

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 21 Mar 2024

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Second reading debate 25 Mar 2024

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Senate second reading agreed Aye 28 No 12 25 Mar 2024

Recorded vote: 28 to 12.

The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.

Second reading agreed to

Committee of the Whole debate 25 Mar 2024

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Third reading moved 25 Mar 2024

The Senate moved the third reading on this date, but the recorded third-reading agreement occurred on 27 Mar 2024.

Senate third reading agreed Aye 32 No 12 27 Mar 2024

Recorded vote: 32 to 12.

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Passed both houses 27 Mar 2024

Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.

Finally passed both Houses

Assent 08 Apr 2024

The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.

Key criticism

The main case against this bill

The main criticism was that the bill could chill legitimate defence and university research links, expose researchers and industry workers to very severe criminal penalties, and further tie Australia to AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support.-driven restrictions led by the United States and United Kingdom. That fuller case against the bill came mainly from the Greens, while Coalition speakers backed the bill but warned the approval scheme still needed workable rules, oversight and fast decisions so veterans and industry were not unfairly caught.

Most criticism focused on research impacts and implementation safeguards rather than rejecting tighter protection of military secrets altogether.

Research and collaboration could be chilled

Greens senators argued the bill could deter legitimate university, research and industry work by requiring approvals for some training and collaboration, backed by heavy criminal penalties if people get it wrong. They said this risked cutting Australian researchers off from non-AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. partners and discouraging ordinary defence-related cooperation.

Raised by The Greens, especially Mehreen Faruqi and Larissa Waters Source ↗

The scheme could be too broad or burdensome in practice

Even supporters warned the offences are serious and the approval system could unfairly catch veterans, service members, researchers or businesses if exemptions are unclear or decisions are slow. Coalition speakers said support depended on co-designed regulations, sensible carve-outs, review rights and oversight so the law did not create avoidable delays or mistakes.

Raised by Coalition supporters including Phillip Thompson, Keith Wolahan and Simon Birmingham Source ↗

It was criticised as a selective national security crackdown

Jacqui Lambie argued the bill was piecemeal because it imposed tough post-employment restrictions on former defence personnel while leaving MPs, senators and senior ministers outside the same regime. Her criticism was that the government was demanding one standard from defence workers without applying it across other powerful officeholders who also handle sensitive information.

Raised by Senator Jacqui Lambie Source ↗

Further sources

parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗

Votes

Recorded votes

How the bill itself passed

The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.

Passed

House passed the bill

House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.

20 Mar 2024

Passed on the voices

In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.

Carried

Senate passed the bill

Aye 32 No 12

Passed 32 to 12. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, One Nation, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

27 Mar 2024

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 17 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Liberal Party 6 / 0
Unknown 3 / 0
Independent 1 / 1
One Nation 2 / 0
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0
Nationals 1 / 0
UAP 1 / 0

Earlier bill-stage votes

Carried

Senate cleared second reading

Aye 28 No 12

Passed 28 to 12. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.

25 Mar 2024

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 16 / 0
Greens 0 / 11
Unknown 7 / 0
Liberal Party 3 / 0
Independent 1 / 1
Jacqui Lambie Network 1 / 0

Amendments at a glance

Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.

House

Carried

Exempt authorised defence work and training

This bill text amendment would exempt certain conduct linked to authorised Defence foreign work and specified training from the new Criminal CodeThe federal criminal law framework that the bill's offences sit within or amend. offence.

19 Mar 2024

This bill text amendment would exempt certain conduct linked to authorised Defence foreign work and specified training from the new Criminal CodeThe federal criminal law framework that the bill's offences sit within or amend. offence.

Passed on the voices

The chamber agreed to this amendment without a counted vote — the presiding officer judged the ayes louder than the noes, and no member called for a division.

Amendment text ↗

Senate

Defeated

Ban identifying special forcesElite defence units; one proposed amendment would have made it an offence to identify current or former members. members

Senator Jacqui Lambie’s proposal, decided on voices, would have made it an offence to identify current or former ADFAustralia's military force, which includes the Navy, Army and Air Force. Special ForcesElite defence units; one proposed amendment would have made it an offence to identify current or former members. members or publish information that could reveal who they are.

Defeated on voices

The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.

Hansard record ↗

These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.

Parliamentary debate

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Sponsor speech Supports

Richard Marles

Australian Labor Party • MP 14 Sept 2023

Marles supports the bill and says it is a needed step to strengthen Australia's safeguards on sensitive defence information, especially in light of AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support..

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead opposing voice Opposes

Larissa Waters

Australian Greens • Senator 25 Mar 2024

Waters says the bill should not pass because it would lock Australia into a US and UK military export bubble, cut Australian researchers off from other countries, and impose harsh penalties on ordinary defence and research collaboration.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

Simon Birmingham

Liberal Party • Senator 25 Mar 2024

Birmingham says the coalition supports the bill and wants it passed quickly because it strengthens safeguards around Australia’s military secrets and helps implement AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support..

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Supports

Jacqui Lambie

Jacqui Lambie Network • Senator 25 Mar 2024

Jacqui Lambie backs the bill's core aim of restricting former defence personnel from doing sensitive work for foreign militaries, but says it is a piecemeal and hypocritical approach to national security because it does not apply the same rules to MPs, senators and senior ministers.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

6 speakers · 7 contributions · 6 support

  1. Katy Gallagher Gallagher supports the bill and says it creates a fit-for-purpose export control framework that protects military secrets while still supporting trade, research and AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. cooperation.
    “The Bill is appropriately targeted to strike a balance between protecting our national security while supporting economic prosperity through international exports.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 21 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Peter Khalil Peter Khalil strongly supports the bill, saying it is a commonsense and necessary way to stop sensitive defence knowledge being passed to foreign militaries while aligning Australia with AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. partners and existing export controls.
    “In that vein, I am very, very pleased to extend my strong support for this bill, because it provides a commonsense but also necessary suite of measures to achieve this objective. It complements our defence export controls measures, it brings us into step with our AUKUS allies, it comes as a culmination of extensive consultations with relevant and impacted stakeholders and it comes at a time when the strategic theatres that we operate in and the threats that we face are becoming more and more asymmetrical and more and more difficult to identify. Those asymmetric threats warrant appropriate responses in this legislative framework as part of our response. We need those responses. We need transparent and clear responses. I am proud to say that this is the right approach to counter such threats on all fronts. I commend the bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Luke Gosling Gosling supports the bill and says it is a crucial step to protect Australia’s military secrets, strengthen safeguards on former defence personnel working with foreign militaries, and support AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. interoperability.
    “It's a crucial piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Matt Thistlethwaite Thistlethwaite says the government supports the bill because it strengthens the prohibitions on sharing military secrets and stops people with sensitive defence knowledge from working or training for foreign militaries or governments.
    “The purpose of this bill is to enhance and extend the existing prohibitions on sharing military secrets. It seeks to ensure that those individuals with knowledge of sensitive defence information do not engage in work or training for foreign militaries, governments or entities that are damaging Australia's national security interests.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Richard Marles ★ 2 contributions Marles supports the bill and says it is a needed step to strengthen Australia's safeguards on sensitive defence information, especially in light of AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support..

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Richard Marles, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Moved amendment Australian Labor Party • MP • 14 Sept 2023

    Marles supports the bill and says it is a needed step to strengthen Australia's safeguards on sensitive defence information, especially in light of AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support.. He also says the bill should be scrutinised and possibly improved by committee, but he clearly wants it passed.

    “I commend the bill to the House.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Australian Labor Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Marles supports the bill, saying it strengthens protections for Australia’s defence information and technology while keeping the system permissive enough to support AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. collaboration and innovation. He argues it strikes the right balance between national security and economic and research benefits.

    “Similarly, the safeguarding Australia's military secrets bill does not seek to limit the employment opportunities of any Australians. It extends Australia's already robust legislation and policies further by enhancing the protections around our defence information and technology and that of our allies. It adopts a proactive approach by establishing an authorisation framework to regulate the performance of work and specified training to a foreign military, foreign government or foreign government entity.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  6. Tim Ayres Ayres supports the bill and says it is a critical security reform that will strengthen protections for defence secrets while making AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. collaboration and trade easier.
    “These bills will ensure Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States can collaborate, innovate and trade at the speed and scale required to meet the challenging strategic circumstances, and they will build Australia's long-term national defence by supporting our AUKUS commitment. I commend the bills to the chamber.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Coalition

6 speakers · 6 support

  1. Simon Birmingham ★ Birmingham says the coalition supports the bill and wants it passed quickly because it strengthens safeguards around Australia’s military secrets and helps implement AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support..
    “We are committed to safeguarding our national military secrets and to working on a bipartisan basis with the government in terms of Australia's national security, and we support the passage of the SAMS bill to address these very rare but very serious instances or risks to our security and defence information acquired by individuals.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Andrew Hastie Hastie supports the bill and says it is needed to meet Congress's export-control requirement for AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. and to show Australia is serious about protecting military secrets.
    “These bills implement the export control regime that is required by Congress. It means that President Joe Biden—kids, you've seen him on the TV!—will be able to sign off and say that Australia met its obligations through this parliament.”

    Liberal Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Phillip Thompson Phillip Thompson says the coalition will support the bill because it closes loopholes that could let former ADFAustralia's military force, which includes the Navy, Army and Air Force. members pass sensitive military know-how to foreign governments.
    “We must support the intentions of this legislation to safeguard our national and military secrets, and the coalition will work on a bipartisan basis with the government in the best interests of Australia's national security.”

    Liberal National Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Andrew Wallace Wallace supports the bill and says it is needed to protect sensitive ADFAustralia's military force, which includes the Navy, Army and Air Force. training, tactics and techniques from being passed to foreign militaries.
    “The bill itself is very commendable. The PJCIS committee examined the bill. We made a number of recommendations to the government. I am hopeful that the government has accepted those recommendations, because it's very common for a government to accept the recommendations of the PJCIS. One of them in particular was this. When the bill came before the committee, it made no reference to banning a former ADF member from providing services to a militia. We all know that in some cases it's very hard to tell the difference between a government military, or a military that is the tool of a sovereign government, and militia forces. So the committee recommended that the bill be amended to reflect that.”

    Liberal National Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Maria Kovacic Kovacic says the coalition will support the bill as part of backing AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. implementation and the wider defence reform package.
    “As the founders of AUKUS, the coalition will support the implementation of AUKUS by supporting the bills on a bipartisan basis. The SAMS bill has been considered and is supported by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and an advisory report has been produced, including recommendations. The DTCA Bill has been considered, albeit on an expedited basis, by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. On the basis of key concessions and additional recommendations secured by the coalition, the coalition is supportive of the final report and recommendations, which were tabled last week. Support for expedited passage of DTCA and SAMS has also been provided based on a statutory review time frame of three years from commencement to evaluate the functioning of the updated defence export legislation framework and a commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister to establish a new statutory parliamentary joint committee on defence, JCD, as soon as possible. The coalition has indicated its expectation that this be completed by the winter break, and the DPM's office has, on several occasions, stated that the draft JCD legislation will be available within weeks.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. Keith Wolahan Wolahan supports the bill and commends it to the House, saying Australia needs stronger protections for defence and AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. secrets.
    “I thank the PJCIS and the corresponding defence committee for the work they do; I know there's a lot of work put on the committee and I thank those who have cooperated to push this forward. I'm grateful that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake is in here; I think that's important, and I urge, as the member for Fisher did, for the future defence committee's oversight of the implementation of this scheme. Our 581,000 veterans are heroes; anyone who signs up to be a member risks having their family stand next to their coffin, as the Fitzgibbons did on Monday. For that, we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. To then say that some of them will become criminals with an offence that's liable for 20 years, we had better be sure that it's right. We had better be sure. I commend the bill to the House.”

    Liberal Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Greens

7 speakers · 7 oppose

  1. Larissa Waters ★ Waters says the bill should not pass because it would lock Australia into a US and UK military export bubble, cut Australian researchers off from other countries, and impose harsh penalties on ordinary defence and research collaboration.
    “These two bills would effectively create an export licence-free bubble between the US and the UK pertaining to military and dual-use goods. But the effect of that is that Australia will be effectively cut off from the rest of the world with harsher and expanded restrictions on working with people outside that US and UK Anglo bubble. We talk a lot about structural racism—I might clarify; the Greens talk a lot about structural racism—and here we go again, aligning ourselves with these Anglo-bubble countries with the effect that we will seriously disbenefit research work being conducted in other non-Anglo nations. If this bill were to pass in its current state, researchers and businesses working with folk in countries like South Korea or India on the technology of research that is dual-use would have to stop. They'd have to get approval from the minister or risk ten years imprisonment. Seriously, the proportionality of this is just outlandish.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Barbara Pocock Pocock says the Greens will not support the bill because it is part of the AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. package and will tie Australia more closely to the US.
    “There is a long list of reasons why AUKUS is a bad idea. Most important amongst them is that there is no sensible solution for waste, and this is not a small problem. The bill currently before parliament is part of a suite of AUKUS related legislation to ensure Australia's military export systems align with the US. It will cut Australia off from the rest of the world and tie us to the US. The Greens will not support it.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Janet Rice Rice opposes the bill because she says it deepens Australia’s alignment with the US under AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support., expands ministerial control over defence personnel, and creates a chilling effect on independent foreign policy.
    “We've got another bill that's being debated today: the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024. That's another insidious piece of legislation, aligning us closer to the US. It seeks to introduce harsher punishments and more ministerial powers to punish ADF personnel who train or work with certain foreign militaries and government entities.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Mehreen Faruqi Faruqi says the Greens will oppose the bill because it would restrict international research collaboration, chill university and industry partnerships, and expose researchers to heavy criminal penalties.
    “The Greens oppose this bill, which undermines international collaboration that is so essential for our research sector. This bill is just the latest example in a long list of both the Labor and Liberal parties blindly doing the bidding of the United States. Australia should be pursuing an independent foreign policy and fulfilling its role to create a world of disarmament, decolonisation and justice.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Dorinda Cox Cox says the Greens will not support the bill because it was rushed through and would impose harsh new controls and penalties that harm Australian research, technology and defence workers.
    “The Australian Greens absolutely don't support this bill. It's been rushed through despite all of the significant concerns, particularly from academia and from businesses. It fails to address the very real issues with our defence export regime. It will have the most devastating impacts on Australian research and technology sectors if it is rubberstamped and passed without any scrutiny and without any change. As a place of scrutiny of legislation, we should be doing at least that.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. Penny Allman-Payne Allman-Payne says the Greens will oppose the bill because it locks Australia further into US and UK military control, restricts research and industry, and diverts money from public priorities like schools, housing and welfare.
    “These bills lock Australia into the whims of foreign governments in the United States and the United Kingdom, and the Greens oppose them. It is disgraceful that this is what the Labor government has decided to prioritise. And, as Senator Rice said, this is about choices. We currently have a situation where nearly every single public school in this country remains underfunded. Kids cannot get the resources that they need to reach their potential. We also have people in our community who are being punished and kicked down by a punitive welfare system. We have people who can't afford to put food on the table, to pay their rent, to buy their kids the stuff they need for school. And we have renters facing exorbitant rent increases and people right across the country in housing stress.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  7. Jordon Steele-John Steele-John says the Greens will oppose the bill because they see it as a key enabler of AUKUSThe security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States that several speeches say this bill is meant to support. that weakens Australia's foreign policy independence and pulls the country closer to US-led wars.
    “So the Greens will continue to oppose it, and we will continue to work with those in the antiwar and the pro-peace movement to oppose it. We join with those in the Australian community, the 80 per cent of the Australian community, who do not want to see a closer alliance with the United States, particularly a United States led by Donald Trump. We look at that prospect, another 20 years of following the US into regime change war after regime change war, and we say no. We proudly place our opposition on the record, and challenge those who would support that idea to cite a single instance, a single instance in the postwar period—”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Minor parties and independents

1 speaker · 1 support

  1. Jacqui Lambie ★ Jacqui Lambie backs the bill's core aim of restricting former defence personnel from doing sensitive work for foreign militaries, but says it is a piecemeal and hypocritical approach to national security because it does not apply the same rules to MPs, senators and senior ministers.
    “This legislation will impose new restrictions on former ADF and defence department personnel. This may well be necessary, and I do not argue with that in principle, but the bill also reflects a piecemeal, hypocritical and deficient approach to national security.”

    Jacqui Lambie Network • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Record

Full record

Full chat