David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I made the point earlier in the debate that the US system is quite a different model and regulates a much broader range of circumstances than is proposed by this bill. That will not come as news to you. For example, foreign students are required to obtain permits for using controlled technology during their studies in the US. In response to university-sector concerns, Defence sought advice from the US government's agencies with responsibility for US export controls on the regulation of the US university and research sectors: both the Department of State and the Department of Commerce. I have taken you to that in comments I gave before question time; indeed, I quoted the US ambassador and his own advice on this important point.

The DSGL exemptions to which you refer and about which you ask are being used by both the US and Australia to implement the Wassenaar controls. Australia and the United States have, through the obligations of the Wassenaar instrument, the same list. We are effectively talking, on this occasion, of the two regulatory regimes trying to achieve the same thing. So we say there is no difference of substance between the intent of the US system and their lists and that proposed here.