← Back to home Browse all bills

Defence Trade Controls Amendment

Current status

This bill became law on Apr 8th, 2024.

Policy area

Defence & foreign affairs

What does this bill do?

Basic or applied research meant for broad public release is carved out, so openly publishable research is not treated as controlled defence goods or technology.

Why was it introduced?

Existing defence trade controls left gaps over sharing controlled technology with foreign people in Australia and re-supplying Australian defence goods and technology overseas, while still requiring permits for some UK and US transfers. The bill closes those gaps with new offences and lets certain transfers and services to the UK and US proceed permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one.-free.

Broader context

Australia already had defence trade controls, but they still required permits for some transfers with the United Kingdom and United States and did not fully cover giving controlled technology to foreign people in Australia or re-supplying Australian defence goods and technology overseas. In late 2023 the government brought in this bill as part of the AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. reform package to close those gaps and create permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one.-free pathways for eligible UK and US work, and Parliament passed it in March 2024 before it received Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law. The page says the bill became an Act after it received Royal Assent in April 2024. in April 2024.

Key criticism

The main criticism was that the bill could wall off Australian research, advanced manufacturing and dual-use technologyTechnology that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. The page says critics worried the bill could make this kind of research and industry work harder to share internationally. work from wider global collaboration by privileging AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. partners while adding new permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one. burdens and criminal risks. That broader case against the bill came mainly from the Greens, while some crossbench and coalition speakers backed the bill but still warned about drafting, safeguards, red tape and slow approvals.

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 30 Nov 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

130 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. Basic or applied research meant for broad public release is carved out, so openly publishable research is not treated as controlled defence goods or technology.

  2. Many defence goods, technology and related services can move permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one.-free between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States when they meet set conditions, speeding AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers.-linked work.

  3. People in Australia can now face up to 10 years jail or a large fine for giving controlled defence technologyDefence technology that is covered by the export control rules. The bill makes it an offence to give this kind of technology to the wrong person without a permit. to a foreign personA person who is not counted as an Australian person under the Act. The new offences on the page often turn on whether the recipient is a foreign person. in Australia without a permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one..

  4. People overseas can commit an offence if they re-supply controlled Australian defence goods or technology from one foreign place to another without the needed Australian permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one..

  5. People can also commit an offence for giving technical help or training on controlled military goods or technology to a foreign personA person who is not counted as an Australian person under the Act. The new offences on the page often turn on whether the recipient is a foreign person. without a permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one., but some authorised work for foreign militaries or governments is exempt.

Show source excerpts
  1. DSGL goods means goods within the scope of the Defence and Strategic Goods List, but does not include goods constituting technology, as defined in that list, that has been produced in the course of, or for the purposes of, fundamental research.
    Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act 2024 final Act text
  2. The cumulative effect of subsections 5C(1) and 5C(2) of the Bill is to establish a targeted exemption to the requirement to hold a permit for certain supplies of DSGL goods or DSGL technology, or for certain provisions of DSGL services, to the United Kingdom and the United States. The purpose of this exemption is to enhance and expedite collaboration between and among AUKUS partners to help maintain Australia’s capability edge, while strengthening the capability to protect sensitive technologies that underpin our security.
    Defence Trade Controls Amendment explanatory memorandum
  3. Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 2,500 penalty units, or both.
    Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act 2024 final Act text
  4. The offence in subsection 10B(1) is relevant to people who receive DSGL goods or DSGL technology from Australia while outside Australia, and subsequently supply or transfer those goods or technology to a foreign person or another foreign country without a section 11 permit authorising the activity.
    Defence Trade Controls Amendment explanatory memorandum
  5. The meaning of ‘foreign work authorisation’ is defined in Part IXAA of the Defence Act 1903. The purpose of this exception is to ensure that a person who holds a valid foreign work authorisation to perform work does not commit an offence under subsection 10(1) of the DTC Act. This is because a person who already holds a foreign work authorisation issued under Part IXAA of the Defence Act is deemed to be sufficiently approved under that Act to engage in the provision of DSGL services as regulated by section 10C of the DTC Act.
    Defence Trade Controls Amendment explanatory memorandum

Context

Broader context for this bill

Australia already had defence trade controls, but they still required permits for some transfers with the United Kingdom and United States and did not fully cover giving controlled technology to foreign people in Australia or re-supplying Australian defence goods and technology overseas. In late 2023 the government brought in this bill as part of the AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. reform package to close those gaps and create permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one.-free pathways for eligible UK and US work, and Parliament passed it in March 2024 before it received Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law. The page says the bill became an Act after it received Royal Assent in April 2024. in April 2024.

  1. 30 Nov 2023

    Government says existing defence trade controls leave gaps

    The minister said the law did not fully cover sharing controlled technology with foreign people in Australia or re-supplying Australian defence goods and technology overseas, while still requiring permits for some UK and US transfers.

    Hansard ↗
  2. 30 Nov 2023

    Bill introduced to support AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. defence technology sharing

    The government introduced the bill to tighten controls over sensitive defence technology while allowing eligible transfers and services between Australia, the UK and the US to move without permits.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  3. 19 Mar 2024

    House debate ties the bill to smooth AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. implementation

    Speakers in the House described the bill as a critical path for seamless technology transfer under AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. and for aligning Australia's military export system more closely with the United States.

    Hansard ↗
  4. 27 Mar 2024

    Parliament passes the bill

    Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for the new permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one.-free AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. pathways and new offences to become law.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  5. 08 Apr 2024

    Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law. The page says the bill became an Act after it received Royal Assent in April 2024. makes the changes law

    Royal AssentThe formal step that turns a passed bill into law. The page says the bill became an Act after it received Royal Assent in April 2024. turned the bill into an Act, completing the legal changes that expanded offences and enabled eligible UK and US defence trade to proceed without permits.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗

Legislative route

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 30 Nov 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 30 Nov 2023

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

Second reading moved

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (15/03/2024) review 30 Nov 2023

Referred to Committee (30/11/2023): Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee; Committee report (15/03/2024)

Referred to committee

APH bill page notes
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

Returned from Federation Chamber 20 Mar 2024

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Reported from Federation Chamber

Second reading debate 20 Mar 2024

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

House second reading agreed 20 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 20 Mar 2024

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

Consideration in detail debate

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 third reading was moved in the Senate. The Senate agreed to the third reading in a counted vote on 27 March 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 formal step that turns a passed bill into law. The page says the bill became an Act after it received Royal Assent in April 2024., turning the bill into an Act.

Key criticism

The main case against this bill

The main criticism was that the bill could wall off Australian research, advanced manufacturing and dual-use technologyTechnology that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. The page says critics worried the bill could make this kind of research and industry work harder to share internationally. work from wider global collaboration by privileging AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. partners while adding new permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one. burdens and criminal risks. That broader case against the bill came mainly from the Greens, while some crossbench and coalition speakers backed the bill but still warned about drafting, safeguards, red tape and slow approvals.

Most criticism focused on implementation risks and international research limits, not opposition to tighter protection of sensitive defence technology itself.

Research and industry could be cut off from wider global collaboration

Critics argued the bill would steer Australian defence-related research and advanced manufacturing into an AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers.-centred system, making collaboration with partners outside the United States and United Kingdom harder and less attractive. They warned this could discourage work on dual-use technologyTechnology that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. The page says critics worried the bill could make this kind of research and industry work harder to share internationally. and reduce access to international expertise and markets.

Raised by The Greens, with related concern from Zoe Daniel Source ↗

Permit burden and new offences could overreach

Speakers warned the new permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one. rules and criminal offences could create heavy compliance burdens, unfairly catch veterans or current ADFAustralia’s armed forces. The page mentions ADF members because the new offences and permit rules could affect their training, knowledge and later civilian work. members, and make it harder for skilled people to move into civilian defence work if the paperwork and approvals are too rigid or slow.

Raised by Coalition speakers including Phillip Thompson and Keith Wolahan Source ↗

Australia could become more dependent on US defence settings

Some critics said the bill would bind Australia more tightly to United States and United Kingdom defence rules and priorities, narrowing independent policy choices and increasing dependence on an AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. security framework.

Raised by Greens senators and Zoe Daniel Source ↗

Further sources

parlinfo.aph.gov.au ↗ 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. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.

House

Carried

Government package: 36 amendments

Government amendments clarify the Defence Trade Controls Bill by defining Australian Military Sales Program items, excluding fundamental research from DSGL goods and technology, and tightening supply rules for certain overseas persons.

20 Mar 2024

Passed on the voices

The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.

Themes in the public amendment sheets

Senate

Defeated

Reject Lambie defence trade amendment

The Senate rejected Senator Lambie’s amendment on sheet 2485 on voices.

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 30 Nov 2023

Marles supports the bill and says it will strengthen Australia’s defence trade controls while making it easier to collaborate with AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. partners.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead opposing voice Opposes

Barbara Pocock

Australian Greens • Senator 25 Mar 2024

Barbara Pocock says the Greens will oppose the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024The bill that updates Australia’s defence trade rules. On this page, it is described as becoming an Act and creating new offences plus permit-free AUKUS pathways. because it is part of the AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. package, aligns Australia's military export system with the US, and ties Australia more tightly to US strategy.

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 is needed to implement AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. and avoid Australia falling behind on the export-control timetable.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Mixed

Zoe Daniel

Independent • MP 19 Mar 2024

Daniel says she is worried the bill could narrow access to research expertise and make Australia more dependent on the United States, so she wants the government to change it before it proceeds.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

5 speakers · 6 contributions · 5 support

  1. Katy Gallagher Gallagher supports the bill and says it is critical legislation to strengthen Australia’s export controls, protect sensitive defence technology and information, and help create a licence-free environment with AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. partners.
    “This is critical legislation.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 21 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Matt Thistlethwaite Thistlethwaite backs the bill and says the government intends to pass it.
    “In relation to the Greens dissenting report, the government does not agree with that recommendation, and the government intends to pass the bill.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Richard Marles ★ 2 contributions Marles supports the bill and says it will strengthen Australia’s defence trade controls while making it easier to collaborate with AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. partners.

    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 • 30 Nov 2023

    Marles supports the bill and says it will strengthen Australia’s defence trade controls while making it easier to collaborate with AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. partners. He presents it as a national security measure and says it should be examined and possibly improved in committee, but his clear position is to pass it.

    “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 Australia’s protective security while unlocking AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. collaboration, trade and economic benefits. He says the government has improved it through committee inquiries and amendments and commends it to the House.

    “These bills were the subject of inquiry processes by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The government thanks the committees for their work. As I said in my second reading speech, the government is committed to improving the bills through an inquiry process. The assistant minister has outlined in his contribution the government's response to these reports, and the amendments that I will read shortly achieve this aim. I commend the bills to the house.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  4. Raff Ciccone Raff Ciccone says the committee supports the bill and wants it passed without delay because it will strengthen defence export controls, support AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers., and improve clarity through government amendments and consultation.
    “I am pleased that the government has agreed with the recommendations that we as a committee made. It shows how the Senate committee system should be: a considered inquiry, a considered response and better legislation. Taking into consideration the recommendations listed in the report, the committee supports the passage of this bill without delay, and I thank the government for its meaningful response to the recommendations made in the final report. I'd like to thank those who participated in the inquiry. The committee was very grateful for the valuable contributions it received and is satisfied that the proposed legislation has the in-principle support required to back its passage through this place. I commend the bill to the Senate.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Tim Ayres Ayres supports the bill and says it is a necessary reform that will strengthen Australia’s defence trade controls while making AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. collaboration, innovation and investment 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 · 5 support · 1 unclear

  1. Simon Birmingham ★ Birmingham says the coalition supports the bill and wants it passed quickly because it is needed to implement AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. and avoid Australia falling behind on the export-control timetable.
    “The coalition wants to see swift passage of this bill and has always wanted to see swift passage of this bill to ensure that we can achieve the objectives under AUKUS.”

    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 create the export control regime required for AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. and to show the United States that Australia is taking its obligations seriously.
    “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 strengthens Australia's defence exports framework and makes AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. technology sharing easier.
    “It's true that there has been a fairly condensed amount of time provided for the consideration of these bills. We understand the time constraints in both the UK and the US that have required us to be dealing with these matters this sitting fortnight, and so, as I've said, we will be supporting passage of this legislation through the House. But, as a result, it is important that we have safeguards and points of review to ensure this legislation is operating as it should. That's why the coalition's support has been provided on the basis of enhancing the co-design of regulations for the defence export framework, with recommended industry working groups participants representing Australian sovereign SMEs and a statutory review time frame of three years from commencement to evaluate the functioning of the updated defence export legislation and framework.”

    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 ADFAustralia’s armed forces. The page mentions ADF members because the new offences and permit rules could affect their training, knowledge and later civilian work. training and sensitive defence knowledge, especially in the AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. context.
    “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 Maria Kovacic speaks to the bill, focusing on aUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. is arguably the most significant step taken in the defence of Australia in the postwar era.
    “AUKUS is arguably the most significant step taken in the defence of Australia in the postwar era. It was the coalition government that founded AUKUS in 2021 with our two most important security partners.”

    Liberal Party • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. Keith Wolahan Wolahan supports the bill and says it is needed to protect sensitive AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers.-related defence technology, but he wants strong oversight so the new offences do not unfairly criminalise veterans or current ADFAustralia’s armed forces. The page mentions ADF members because the new offences and permit rules could affect their training, knowledge and later civilian work. members.
    “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

10 speakers · 9 oppose · 1 unclear

  1. Larissa Waters Larissa Waters speaks to the bill, focusing on i rise, along with my colleagues, to contribute to the debate on these two bills: the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024The bill that updates Australia’s defence trade rules. On this page, it is described as becoming an Act and creating new offences plus permit-free AUKUS pathways. and the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024.
    “I rise, along with my colleagues, to contribute to the debate on these two bills: the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024 and the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Barbara Pocock ★ Barbara Pocock says the Greens will oppose the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024The bill that updates Australia’s defence trade rules. On this page, it is described as becoming an Act and creating new offences plus permit-free AUKUS pathways. because it is part of the AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. package, aligns Australia's military export system with the US, and ties Australia more tightly to US strategy.
    “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 Janet Rice opposes the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024The bill that updates Australia’s defence trade rules. On this page, it is described as becoming an Act and creating new offences plus permit-free AUKUS pathways., arguing that it ties Australia more closely to the US and UK, adds heavy permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one. burdens on researchers and industry, and risks isolating Australia from the rest of the world.
    “The bill has, therefore, drawn widespread criticism, as it risks creating a significant disincentive for most of the world to work with Australian researchers and trade critical technology.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Mehreen Faruqi Faruqi says the Greens oppose the bill because it would undermine international research collaboration and put Australia's research sector at risk.
    “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. David Shoebridge David Shoebridge opposes the bill and says it should be rejected because it would lock Australia into an AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. defence bubble, damage research and advanced manufacturing, and make the country less safe by cutting scientists off from global collaboration.
    “I don't think anyone much outside their defence establishment understands that there are two pillars of AUKUS—both dodgy. The first pillar is the almost $400 billion for nuclear submarines we're not going to get. But this is second-pillar stuff. This is the cooperation on a range of advanced defence military capabilities. Late last year the US Congress passed legislation that exempts Australia and Britain from some of the US's stringent export control requirements under their International Traffic in Arms Regulations, ITAR, scheme but only on the condition that both the UK and Australia pass similarly stringent export control laws. That's what this bill is meant to be. But, of course, this bill should be rejected in full. It has been rushed through, despite significant concerns from business and academia. It fails to address the very real issues that exist already within the Australian defence export regime, and it will have devastating impacts on the research and technology sector if it's passed without radical changes.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. Peter Whish-Wilson Peter Whish-Wilson says the Greens oppose the bill and want it rejected in full because it was rushed, has not fixed existing export-control problems, and would seriously harm research and technology work.
    “Now, late last year, US Congress passed legislation that exempts Australia and Britain from some of the stringent export control requirements under the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations—what's known as ITAR—scheme but only on the condition that both countries implement similarly stringent export control laws domestically. This bill is intended as Australia's response to this demand from Washington. The bill should be rejected in full. It's been rushed through despite significant concerns from businesses and academia. Senator Shoebridge earlier showed me the nine pages of substantive amendments—not second readers—for the committee stage just from the government. I'm not sure I've seen nine pages of amendments for a piece of a government's own legislation before. It certainly suggests that this has been rushed. It fails to address the existing very real issues with the Australian defence export regime and will have devastating impacts on the Australian research and technology sector if passed without radical changes.”

    Australian Greens • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  7. Dorinda Cox Cox says the Greens oppose the bill because it is rushed, aligned to AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. and the US, and likely to harm Australian research and technology by adding heavy permitThe official authorisation needed before many controlled defence goods, technology or services can be supplied. A major change on this page is that some UK and US transfers will no longer need one. burdens and penalties.
    “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 ↗
  8. Penny Allman-Payne Allman-Payne says the Greens will oppose the bill because it locks Australia further into AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. and foreign control over research and regulation, while diverting money and attention from 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 ↗
  9. Jordon Steele-John Steele-John says the Greens will oppose the bill because they see it as a key enabler of AUKUSThe defence partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On this page, it is the main reason the bill creates faster, permit-free pathways for some transfers. that binds Australia too closely to the United States and undermines independent foreign policy.
    “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 ↗
  10. Stephen Bates Bates says the Greens will oppose the bill because it would tighten defence export controls in a way that cuts Australia off from wider international research and trade, especially with countries outside the US and UK.
    “If this bill passes in its current state, researchers and businesses working with people from countries like South Korea or India on technology and research that is dual use would have to stop and get approval from the minister or risk 10 years imprisonment. This has drawn widespread criticism from industry and the higher education sector, who have raised real concerns that this new bill will force them to apply for thousands of new permits to do basic research and product development. This bill risks creating a significant disincentive for most of the world to work with Australian researchers and to trade critical technology, and it is not something that the Greens will support.”

    Australian Greens • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Minor parties and independents

2 speakers · 2 mixed

  1. Zoe Daniel ★ Daniel says she is worried the bill could narrow access to research expertise and make Australia more dependent on the United States, so she wants the government to change it before it proceeds.
    “I now understand that the government has been consulting with stakeholders in the research community about these provisions and plans to alter the legislation with the intention of addressing these issues. I look forward to seeing what the government proposes and whether any changes fully address concerns. I will otherwise move a series of amendments later to address these issues.”

    Independent • MP • 19 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Jacqui Lambie Lambie says the defence trade controls changes may be necessary and she does not oppose them in principle, but she criticises the bill as piecemeal and hypocritical because the government is not applying the same security constraints to itself.
    “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. The government needs to do much better than they're doing right now. I tell you: when it comes to national security, once again, you're as weak as water. If you want people to be involved, put yourselves under the same restrictions. Lead by example in here. You've got people up this end of the chamber trying to get Australians to trust us, and you guys are knocking us all down. That's what the major parties are doing to us in this country, and it's so unfair. Start leading in here!”

    Jacqui Lambie Network • Senator • 25 Mar 2024

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Record

Full record

Full chat