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

To be forensic about it, the US system seeks to control the results of fundamental research. This framework does not seek to control the results of fundamental research.

Perhaps I can assist further. The US does not exclude fundamental research from the requirement to obtain a permit for the export of controlled technology. The US export controls are complex, and this issue needs to be considered very carefully. It is simply not correct to suggest that universities and researchers in the United States do not have to comply with US export controls. The US export control arrangements span multiple agencies and control lists, and that is one of the virtues of the Australian framework in comparison. There are numerous circumstances in which an export approval is required and numerous sets of exemptions that may apply.

The fundamental research exception quoted in the proposed amendment relates only to dual use technology in the US and is an exception only for the outcomes of fundamental research. This type of exemption does not apply in Australia because the bill does not contain any provisions which seek to regulate the outcomes of research. The US government has provided specific advice to Australia's Chief Scientist and the Senate committee on this critical point. The US government, the authority on US export controls, has made the following points very clear: there is no exception that allows controlled technology to exported out of the US for fundamental research without US government authorisation. In fact, with limited exception, export controlled technology used by foreign researchers or students while in the US requires government authorisation prior to its transfer. This goes further than the provisions in this bill, which do not apply domestic controls within Australia.