Australia’s new?research sharing rules?look destined to become law after the government accepted demands for fundamental research to be more explicitly excluded.
A??recommended that the definition of “fundamental research”, which is exempt from permit requirements imposed by the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill, be inserted in the bill rather than in “subsequent regulatory instruments”.
The committee’s report, which was tabled more than six weeks earlier than expected, also recommended a review within three years.
Subsequent government amendments placed the exemption within the bill, along with a broad definition. It encompasses both basic and applied research that?“would ordinarily be published or shared” and is not subject to security-related restrictions. ?
Sector leaders said the definition was “appropriate” and compatible with US arrangements. “Putting the fundamental research exemption in legislation will provide scientists with more confidence that the definition can’t be changed on a whim,” said?Chennupati Jagadish, president of the Australian Academy of Science.
“They won’t be at risk of breaking the law by undertaking discovery research, simply speaking at a conference, teaching a PhD student or collaborating with a colleague.”?
The Group of Eight said the new rules effectively created a US-Australia “research free trade zone” in defence-related research. Chief executive Vicki Thomson said the proposals were a “game changer” that would help Australia realise the full potential of the 2021?Aukus alliance.
“While concerns have been raised that the reforms could compromise broader research collaboration, the Go8 has worked closely with government to reach a carefully calibrated balance that protects our research partnerships while enabling us to pursue our Aukus goals,” she said.
Ms Thomson said alignment with US rules was “a key condition for Aukus”. She said failure to progress the alliance would compromise Australia’s role in regional security and its capability in advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum and cyber.
“It would also be a lost opportunity for Australian productivity and prosperity. Australian industry [would] forgo the economic benefits from the growth of new industries, infrastructure and technology upgrades, and new jobs estimated modestly at 20,000.”
The amended bill passed the House of Representatives on 20 March, opposed only by the Greens. It was introduced into the Senate the following day and given the opposition’s blessing by shadow foreign affairs minister Simon Birmingham.
“We’re asking the US to share its most sensitive defence technologies with Australia,” he told the Senate during a 25 March debate. “It is…a big test of trust.”
Labor backbencher Raff Ciccone, who chaired the Senate committee, said the government had shown a willingness to consult on the changes with the higher education and research sectors.
The Greens maintained their fervent opposition, with nine of the party’s 11 federal senators offering speeches condemning the joint Labor and Liberal support of the proposals.
“The war parties are teaming up to cause self-harm to Australia,” science spokesman David Shoebridge told the Senate. “The…bill [is] designed to wall off the Australian scientific and research community from the great bulk of global science and research.”
Education spokeswoman Mehreen Faruqi said the legislation could fuel brain drain. “This bill risks freezing a wide range of international research collaboration outside of the Aukus bubble, cutting Australian research off from the rest of the world and exposing researchers to penalties of up to 10 years in prison.”
