[2026] WASAT 32 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 (WA) CITATION : SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2026] WASAT 32 MEMBER : DR M EVANS-BONNER, SENIOR MEMBER HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS DELIVERED : 13 APRIL 2026 FILE NO/S : EOA 11 of 2025 BETWEEN : SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, AUSTRALIA PTY LTD Applicant Catchwords: Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) - Exemption application - Race - Nationality - Citizenship - Application for exemption under s 135 of the EO Act from the operation of s 37, s 39 and s 49 of the EO Act - Applicant requires exemption to comply with contractual and legal obligations with the Commonwealth - International Traffic in Arms Regulations - Export Administration Regulations - No current employees or contractors in Western Australia - Whether exemption from discrimination on the grounds of race in areas related to employment warranted in the circumstances - Exemption granted for 3 years - Terms and conditions imposed on grant of exemption Legislation: Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) Electoral Act 1907 (WA), s 17 Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) Page 1 [2026] WASAT 32 Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 37, s 39, s 49, s 50, s 50(d), s 51, s 52, s 68, s 69, s 70, s 71, s 72, s 73, s 74, s 135, s 135(1), s 135(3), s 135(6), s 137, Pt V, Pt VI, Pt IX Equal Opportunity Regulations 1986 (WA), reg 24, Export Administration Regulations International Traffic in Arms Regulations Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 5 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 60(2) Result: Application for exemption granted for a term of 3 years with conditions Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : N/A Solicitors: Applicant : Squire Patton Boggs Case(s) referred to in decision(s): ASC Pty Ltd [2024] WASAT 39 Boeing Australia Holdings Pty Ltd (Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2007] VCAT 532 Cobham Aviation Services Australia Pty Ltd [2023] WASAT 21 Commissioner for Equal Opportunity v ADI Limited [2007] WASCA 261 Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 1 Saab Australia Pty Ltd [2025] WASAT 23 Page 2 [2026] WASAT 32 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction Systems Planning and Analysis, Australia Pty Ltd (SPAA) has 1 applied to the Tribunal for an exemption from the operation of s 37, s 39, s 49 and s 68 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) (EO Act), pursuant to s 135(1) of the EO Act. The exemption sought is for a period of five years. The exemption would permit SPAA to request, and to make 2 decisions based upon, information from their Western Australian employees and contractors about their citizenship, race or nationality. Requesting and acting upon this information without an exemption 3 would constitute unlawful discrimination under the EO Act. SPAA requires the exemption because it has contracts with the 4 Commonwealth of Australia, the performance of which require access to United States defence technologies. Access to those technologies requires compliance with United States export control laws which restrict persons of certain nationalities from having access to the technology. At the time they made the application, SPAA did not have any 5 employees or contractors in Western Australia but intended to expand its operations in Western Australia from around September 2025. For the reasons set out below, I have decided to exercise discretion 6 to grant SPAA an exemption from the operation of s 37, s 39 and s 49 of the EO Act (but not from s 68 which is not covered by s 135(1) of the EO Act) for a period of three years, subject to conditions. The orders, and my reasons for making them, are set out below. 7 The issues The issues I must determine are: 8 (1) Whether I should grant the exemption. (2) If so, whether the exemption should be subject to any conditions or limitations and the length of time it should be granted for. Page 3 [2026] WASAT 32 Procedural overview On 23 July 2005, SPAA applied to the Tribunal for the exemption 9 (Application). The Application was accompanied by 'Attachment 1 - Detailed 10 Grounds of Application' (Initial Grounds) and a copy of the proposed exemption sought, marked as 'Attachment 3' (Initial Proposed Exemption). SPAA also lodged copies of equivalent exemptions granted to it by 11 the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 21 July 2025 (SA Exemption) and by the Discrimination Commissioner in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT Exemption) on 6 January 2025. On 13 August 2025, SPAA lodged an affidavit of Ms Zoe Lynam, 12 Managing Director of SPAA affirmed on 12 August 2025 (First Lynam Affidavit) providing background to the application and addressing factors relevant to the Tribunal's consideration of the exemption. The Affidavit attached copies of the SA Exemption and the ACT Exemption. Pursuant to reg 24 of the Equal Opportunity Regulations 1986 13 (WA), the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity (Commissioner) is a party to an application unless the Commissioner lodges an affidavit with the Tribunal setting out the reasons why the Commissioner does not wish to be a party to the application. On 14 August 2025, the Commissioner lodged an affidavit 14 (Commissioner's Affidavit) confirming that he did not wish to remain as a party to this proceeding. The Commissioner's Affidavit further confirmed that he would leave it to the Tribunal to satisfy itself as to whether the exemption is necessary and should be granted. On 5 September 2025 I made programming orders at a directions 15 hearing, including an order that the Commissioner was no longer a party to this proceeding. Section 135(3) of the EO Act provides that the Tribunal 'shall cause 16 notice of an application for an exemption, … to be given by newspaper advertisement or otherwise, in such form and manner as the Tribunal may direct'. I therefore also ordered that SPAA place an advertisement of the 17 application in the Public Notices section of The West Australian Page 4 [2026] WASAT 32 newspaper by no later than 27 September 2025, so that if any interested person wished to be a party to the application for exemption, they could notify the Tribunal in writing. I also made orders that: 18 (a) by 26 September 2025 SPAA was to send a notice of the application to each of its Western Australian employees and contractors and place the notice on its website up to and including 10 October 2025; and (b) by 15 October 2025, SPAA was to file with the Tribunal an affidavit with annexures to confirm it had complied with the advertising and notice requirements and to provide any further submissions or comments it had received in response to the application and the notice of the application. At the directions hearing I observed that the exemption could not 19 include s 68 of the EO Act (which is not in a part of the EO Act covered by s 135). I also queried the range of persons who would have access to information about the nationality of persons within the organisation and asked for further information as to why a five-year term was sought. On 19 September 2025, SPAA lodged a revised version of the 20 exemption sought (Revised Exemption). SPAA also lodged a further affidavit of Ms Lynam affirmed on 21 19 September 2025 (Second Lynam Affidavit) which sought to address why a five-year term was required. On 15 October 2025, SPAA lodged another affidavit of Ms Lynam 22 affirmed on the same date (Third Lynam Affidavit), with annexures to confirm that the orders I made concerning the advertising and notices had been complied with. The Third Lynam Affidavit confirmed that SPAA had not received any comments in response to the notice of the application. The Tribunal did not receive any applications from interested 23 persons to be joined as parties and did not otherwise receive any submissions or comments. I am therefore satisfied that persons who may have an interest in the 24 proceeding have had an opportunity to be joined and to make submissions or comments. Page 5 [2026] WASAT 32 At a further directions hearing on 17 October 2025 I made orders 25 giving SPAA the opportunity to file a further copy of the revised exemption sought and any further submissions and/or evidence. I continued to express some concerns about the range of persons in the Revised Exemption who may have access to information about the nationalities of employees or contractors, and whether there was sufficient evidence that a five-year term was required. On 31 October 2025, SPAA filed another revision of the exemption 26 sought (Final Exemption), together with Submissions dated 31 October 2025 (October 2025 Submissions) and a further affidavit of Ms Lynam affirmed on 31 October 2025 (Fourth Lynam Affidavit). I held a further directions hearing on 13 February 2025 because 27 I required more information from SPAA concerning its policies and procedures on discrimination, the duration and number of contracts the company has with the Commonwealth, clarification if there were any employees in WA, why existing exemptions and exceptions including clause 126.18 of the ITAR were insufficient, and the scope of the information to be requested from employees and contractors. I made orders giving leave to SPAA to file any further submissions 28 and evidence in response to these queries by 27 February 2026. In response, SPAA filed 'Applicant's Submissions' dated 29 27 February 2026 and a further affidavit of Ms Lynam affirmed on 27 February 2026 (Fifth Lynam Affidavit). That affidavit attached information including: (a) revisions of SPAA's Anti-Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying Policy (Anti-Discrimination Policy); (b) Workplace Complaints and Dispute Resolution Policy and Procedure (Complaints Policy); (c) Privacy Policy; (d) Recruitment Guideline; and (e) a copy of an exemption granted by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) to SPAA, and another company described as a wholly owned subsidiary of SPAA, Proximity Advisory Services Ptd Ltd, for a five-year term (Qld Exemption). Page 6 [2026] WASAT 32 Determination on the documents On 5 November 2025, I ordered that, subject to any other order the 30 matter was to be determined entirely on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). I was satisfied that it was appropriate to do so, with SPAA also having agreed that it was appropriate to determine the application on the documents. In making my decision I have had regard to the documents, 31 submissions and evidence I have outlined and defined above. Legislative Framework Objects The objects of the EO Act are set out in s 3, which provides: 32 The objects of this Act are - (a) to eliminate, so far as is possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy, family responsibility or family status, sexual orientation, race, religious or political conviction, impairment, age, publication of relevant details on the Fines Enforcement Registrar's website or, in certain cases, gender history in the areas of work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services and the activities of clubs; and (b) to eliminate, so far as is possible, sexual harassment and racial harassment in the workplace and in educational institutions and sexual harassment and racial harassment related to accommodation; and (c) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the equality of men and women; and (d) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the equality of persons of all races and of all persons regardless of their sexual orientation, religious or political convictions or their impairments or ages. Unlawful discrimination on the ground of race In this application, SPAA has applied for an exemption from the 33 operation of s 37, s 39 and s 49 of the EO Act which concern unlawful discrimination on the ground of 'race'. 'Race' is defined in s 4 of the EO Act to include national origin or 34 nationality. The definition of 'race' is as follows: Page 7 [2026] WASAT 32 race includes colour, descent, ethnic or national origin or nationality and the fact that a race may comprise 2 or more distinct races does not prevent it being a race for the purposes of this Act. Section 37 of the EO Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against 35 job applicants and employees on the ground of race. The relevant parts of s 37 of the EO Act provide: (1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the ground of the race of that person - (a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment; or (b) in determining who should be offered employment; or (c) in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered. (2) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the ground of the race of the employee - (a) in the terms or conditions of employment that the employer affords the employee; or (b) by denying the employee access, or limiting the employee's access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits associated with employment; or (c) by dismissing the employee; or (d) by subjecting the employee to any other detriment. … Section 39 makes it unlawful to discriminate against contract 36 workers on the ground of race. It provides: It is unlawful for a principal to discriminate against a contract worker on the ground of the contract worker's race - (a) in the terms or conditions on which the principal allows the contract worker to work; or (b) by not allowing the contract worker access, or limiting the contract worker's access, to any benefit associated with the work in respect of which the contract with the employer is made; or Page 8 [2026] WASAT 32 (c) by denying the contract worker access, or limiting the contract worker's access, to any benefit associated with the work in respect of which the contract with the employer is made; or (d) by subjecting the contract worker to any other detriment. Section 49 of the EO Act makes it unlawful to require a person to 37 provide information about their race. It provides: Where, by virtue of a provision of Division 2 or this Division, it would be unlawful in particular circumstances for a person to discriminate against another person, on the ground of the other person's race, in doing a particular act, it is unlawful for the first-mentioned person to request or require the other person to provide, in connection with or for the purposes of the doing of the act, information (whether by way of completing a form or otherwise) that persons of a different race would not, in circumstances that are the same or not materially different, be requested or required to provide. As I mentioned above, SPAA also sought an exemption from s 68 38 of the EO Act. That section makes it unlawful to publish or display an advertisement of notice that could reasonably be understood as an intention to do an act that would be unlawful under the EO Act. However, s 68 is in Pt V of the EO Act which is not included in 39 s 135 as a part of the EO Act where an exemption can be granted. In the Revised Exemption and the Final Exemption SPAA removed reference to s 68 of the EO Act. Specific exceptions Despite the objects of the EO Act, when enacting the EO Act, the 40 legislature included exceptions in recognition that in some circumstances discrimination may be justified. They include: (a) Section 50 of the EO Act, titled 'Genuine occupational qualifications' allows discrimination in work or employment in circumstances including where race is necessary for the performance of that work. (b) Section 50(d), as well as s 51 of the EO Act provide for 'positive discrimination' to promote the welfare or equality of persons of a particular race and to ensure those persons have equal access to facilities, services or opportunities to meet their special needs. (c) Section 52 of the EO Act, titled 'Citizenship', provides an exception where a public authority specified in Part IX of the Page 9 [2026] WASAT 32 EO Act can discriminate between Australian citizens and persons who are not Australian citizens in accordance with a law of the State. For example, s 17 of the Electoral Act 1907 (WA) provides that a person must be an Australian citizen to be enrolled to vote in a state election (Commissioner for Equal Opportunity v ADI Limited [2007] WASCA 261 (ADI) per Martin CJ at [66]). General exceptions There are also general exceptions in Pt VI of the EO Act. 41 The general exceptions are so expressed because they are applicable to discrimination on any of the grounds in the EO Act. They include: (a) acts done to comply with an order of the Tribunal or a court: s 69. (b) acts that would allow charitable benefits to be conferred on a class of person: s 70. (c) the admission of persons as members of a voluntary body or the provision of benefits, facilities or services to members of the body: s 71. (d) the acts or practices of religious bodies including the ordination or appointment of persons as priests or ministers: s 72. (e) the establishment of educational instructions for religious purposes: s 73. (f) the provision of housing accommodation for aged persons: s 74. Tribunal may grant an exemption Section 135(1) of the EO Act provides that an application can be 42 made to grant a person an exemption from certain provisions. It provides: The Tribunal may, on application by a person, by order, grant to the person an exemption from the operation of a specified provision of Part II, IIAA, IIA, IIB, III, IV, IVA, IVB or IVC. A 'person' is defined in s 5 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) to 43 include a company. Section 137 of the EO Act describes that the effect of an exemption 44 order is that an act that would otherwise be unlawful under the relevant Parts of the EO Act will not be unlawful. It provides: Page 10 [2026] WASAT 32 Nothing in Parts II, IIAA, IIA, IIB, III, IV, IVA, IVB and IVC renders it unlawful for a person who has been granted an exemption from a provision of one of those Parts, or a person in the employment or under the direction or control of a person who has been granted such an exemption, to do an act in accordance with the provisions of the order by which the exemption was granted. The EO Act also provides for the duration and terms upon which an 45 exemption can be granted in s 135(6). It provides: (6) An exemption or further exemption - (a) may be granted subject to such terms and conditions as are specified in the order; and (b) may be varied either on the application of the person to whom the exemption is granted or at the instance of the Tribunal; and (c) may be expressed to apply only in such circumstances, or in relation to such activities, as are specified in the order; and (d) shall be granted for a period specified in the order not exceeding 5 years. The Scope of the Tribunal's discretion to grant an exemption The scope of the Tribunal's discretion to grant an exemption is 46 broad, but it is nevertheless constrained by the policy objectives, and the objects, scope and purpose of the EO Act which is to be ascertained from the construction of the EO Act as a whole (ADI at [47] - [48] and [55] per Martin CJ). As Martin CJ explained in ADI at [56], the EO Act is structured to 47 prohibit certain types of discriminatory conduct by reference to specific grounds, and although there is significant overlap, the ambit of the conduct prohibited under different grounds is not identical. For example, the ambit of prohibitions on conduct that might be discriminatory on the ground of sex is not identical to the ambit of conduct prohibited because it is discriminatory on the ground of race (ADI, per Martin CJ, at [58] - [59]). It is therefore necessary to identify the ambit of the conduct that is 48 prohibited concerning the specific ground for which the exemption is sought. I have endeavoured to do this by outlining the provisions for Page 11 [2026] WASAT 32 which the exemption has been sought, namely s 37, s 39 and s 49, as well as the exceptions in s 50, s 51 and s 52 of the EO Act. The Tribunal will need to undertake a balancing exercise when 49 considering whether to grant an exemption. This is a 'process whereby the Tribunal weighs the advantages, both public and private which would flow from the grant of exemption, against the detriment which flows from the discriminatory conduct' (ADI, at [74], Martin CJ citing Boeing Australia Holdings Pty Ltd (Anti-Discrimination Exemption) [2007] VCAT 532 (Boeing)). The Tribunal can be guided by considerations identified and applied 50 in similar cases. However, the Tribunal should also be mindful that those considerations are not exhaustive and that other considerations may be relevant on a case-by-case basis as to whether it is appropriate and reasonable to exercise discretion to grant the exemption (ADI at [49] - [54]). With that caveat in mind, I observe that in ASC Pty Ltd 51 [2024] WASAT 39 (ASC) at [29], President Pritchard (the former President of this Tribunal) summarised some of the considerations that may be relevant for the Tribunal to apply. They include: • whether the exemption sought is necessary; • whether the proposed exemption is reasonable and necessary having regard to the reasons for which it is sought; • whether there are non-discriminatory ways of achieving the purposes for which the exemption is sought; • whether the proponent of the proposed exemption has taken reasonable steps, or is able to take any reasonable steps, to avoid or reduce the adverse effect of a particular act or action before seeking the exemption; • the public and private impacts of the grant of the proposed exemption; • whether the exemption is in the community interest; and • whether any other persons or bodies other than the applicants support the application. SPAA addressed these considerations in its submissions and 52 evidence and did not raise any other considerations. Page 12 [2026] WASAT 32 I am satisfied that no other relevant considerations arise on the facts 53 and circumstances of this case. I have therefore applied these considerations when weighing whether to exercise the discretion to grant the exemption in this application. Before doing so, I will set out the findings of fact that are material 54 to my decision. Factual findings I make the following factual findings based on the information 55 before me, and particularly the First Lynam Affidavit, Second Lynam Affidavit, Fourth Lynam Affidavit and Fifth Lynam Affidavit. SPAA's headquarters are in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). 56 It employs approximately 15 employees. SPAA is a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company, 57 Systems Planning and Analysis Inc (SPA Inc) which has its headquarters in Virginia, United States. SPA Inc has operations across the United States and employs 58 approximately 2,600 employees. SPAA has six contracts with the Commonwealth of Australia 59 (Commonwealth) through the Department of Defence to provide defence-related services to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and other government agencies. Those contracts expire between March 2026 and December 2026. SPAA's contracts with the Commonwealth include to provide 60 support to the navy, army, air and joint capability divisions in areas including weapons, robotics and autonomous systems, and work related to defence systems. SPAA does not have any employees or contractors in WA, but it 61 intends that one of the six contracts it has with the Commonwealth will involve WA based employees and contractors subject to the exemption being granted in WA. SPAA also undertakes work in support of the trilateral security 62 partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS). Page 13 [2026] WASAT 32 In 2023, SPAA entered into a contract to provide advisory and 63 assistance services (including program support, engineering, maintenance planning, executive coordination, strategic advice and operational analysis) to support the United States AUKUS office in the execution of AUKUS projects (AUKUS Contract). The AUKUS Contract is due to expire in 2028. In 2023 SPAA seconded two SPA Inc secondees from the United 64 States to perform work with respect to this contract in WA. They are not currently located in WA, but SPAA intends to expand its operations into Western Australia and to perform work to support AUKUS operations in Western Australia. The Royal Australian Navy base, HMAS Stirling, will support the 65 Submarine Rotational Force - West, which is a rotational presence of United Kingdom and United States submarines, and will house Australia's first nuclear-powered submarine capability from the 2030s. On 14 September 2025, the Australian Government announced a 66 $12 billion investment in the Henderson Defence Precinct, anticipated to result in the direct employment of 4,000 people and the creation of 10,000 new jobs across Western Australia. SPAA organised introductory meetings with Defence West in 67 November 2025 regarding opportunities to provide support to AUKUS initiatives in Western Australia. Defence West is responsible for implementing the 'WA Defence and Defence Industry Strategy 2025'. The performance of its contractual obligations with the 68 Commonwealth under the six contracts, as well as the AUKUS Contract, requires SPAA to receive information consisting of United States origin defence articles, services or technical data from the Commonwealth under a third-party transfer process (Controlled Material) which is subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The ITAR and the EAR are laws of the United States. SPAA has also entered into contracts with SPA Inc which require it 69 to comply with permits, licences, approvals or agreements made under the United States and Australian import and export control laws including the ITAR and the EAR in order to access the Controlled Material. The ITAR and the EAR impose obligations on SPAA to: 70 Page 14 [2026] WASAT 32 (a) identify the nationality of all personnel who will have access to the Controlled Material; (b) disclose the nationalities of all personnel who have access to Controlled Materials to relevant parties (the United States Department of State or the relevant export licence holder); and (c) limit or prohibit persons of particular nationalities from having access to the Controlled Material. Non-compliance with the ITAR and EAR may result in SPAA being 71 prevented from working on contracts already in place or under tender, or from future contracts, which would negatively impact on its business in Australia. Non-compliance may also result in SPAA being liable for 72 significant civil and criminal fines and penalties of up to $1 million (US Dollars) and/or 20 years imprisonment for individuals. Further, non-compliance may result in SPAA's parent company, 73 SPA Inc being prohibited from contracting with the United States Federal Government, which would negatively impact its business in the United States. SPAA has an Anti-Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying Policy 74 which was updated on 1 March 2026 (Anti-Discrimination Policy) and states that SPAA 'will not tolerate unlawful discrimination'. The Anti-Discrimination Policy defines when conduct will amount to unlawful discrimination and sets out the rights and responsibilities of workers and managers. SPAA has updated the Anti-Discrimination Policy in anticipation of the exemption being granted in WA, NSW and Victoria. It includes information about the exemptions SPAA has been granted and explains why SPAA needs to request and consider information on citizenship and nationality to comply with SPAA's ITAR and EAR requirements. SPAA also has a Workplace Complaints and Dispute Resolution 75 Policy and Procedure (Complaints Policy) which sets out the procedure for managing informal and formal concerns and complaints. SPAA provides regular training to members of its management 76 team, and its leads and Recruitment Team about the existing exemptions including their scope and the impact on individual employees and Page 15 [2026] WASAT 32 contractors. Training recently occurred in November 2025, with another training session scheduled for March 2026. SPAA has a Privacy Policy which sets out the company's 77 procedures regarding the recording, storage and retention of personal information. SPAA also has procedures in place for the recruitment of roles 78 where compliance with the ITAR and/or EAR are required. This includes storing confidential recruitment information in a centralised location accessible by trained hiring managers with a log in. In the ACT, the Discrimination Commissioner granted SPAA the 79 ACT Exemption on similar terms to the Initial Proposed Exemption from the provisions of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) for a period of three years from 1 January 2025. The South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted 80 SPAA the SA Exemption on similar terms to the Initial Proposed Exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) for a period of three years from 21 July 2025. SPAA has an ITAR/EAR Compliance Officer who monitors 81 compliance with the SA Exemption and ACT Exemption, including compliance with the conditions of those exemptions. The compliance officer will also monitor the WA exemption if it is granted. On 24 February 2026, the QIRC granted SPAA, and another 82 company described as a wholly owned subsidiary of SPAA, Proximity Advisory Services Ptd Ltd, the Qld Exemption for a five-year term. Should the exemption be granted? Is the Further Exemption necessary and is it reasonable having regard to the reasons for which it is sought? I have combined the first two considerations stated by President 83 Pritchard in ASC, because they overlap and are interrelated. SPAA intends to expand its business in Western Australia, 84 including to engage employees and contractors in Western Australia to undertake work under one of its six existing contracts and also to undertake work under the AUKUS Contract. Page 16 [2026] WASAT 32 The AUKUS Contract is due to expire in 2028, but SPAA 85 anticipates it will be awarded another five-year contract. As work in Western Australia connected to AUKUS increases, 86 SPAA intends to expand its operation in WA and to engage employees and contractors in Western Australia. However, SPAA's contractual obligations with the Commonwealth 87 require it (and therefore its employees and contractors) to access Controlled Material which is subject to the ITAR and the EAR. To comply with the ITAR and EAR, SPAA must identify the 88 nationality of all persons who will have access to Controlled Material to ensure that there is no unauthorised access in breach of the ITAR and/or EAR. They must also disclose the nationalities of all persons who will have access to Controlled Material to the US Department of State or the relevant export licence holder. It must therefore be able to request and retain information about nationality from its employees and contractors, as well as to make decisions based on this information, such as a decision not to employ a person in a role that requires access to Controlled Material based on nationality. If SPAA did not do so, it would be unable to determine whether an 89 individual is permitted to access Controlled Material, placing SPAA at risk of contravening the ITAR and the EAR, as well as its contractual obligations. This could result in substantial penalties, both civil and criminal, and potentially a breach of contract, and both SPA Inc and SPAA being precluded from future opportunities to contract. However, requesting information about nationality from employees 90 and contractors, and discriminating against persons based on nationality, would contravene s 37, s 39 and s 49 the EO Act. Thus, it would not be possible for SPAA to comply with its 91 contractual and legal obligations under the ITAR and EAR, without engaging in discriminatory conduct that would contravene the EO Act. Further, there are no specific or general exceptions in the EO Act 92 that SPAA could rely upon instead of applying for the s 135 exemption. I agree that the s 135 exemption is the only means by which SPAA 93 could carry out contractual obligations in Western Australia, including work related to the AUKUS Contract that requires access to Controlled Material, and comply with the ITAR and EAR without engaging in Page 17 [2026] WASAT 32 prohibited discrimination. I am therefore satisfied, and find, that the exemption is necessary and reasonable. Are there non-discriminatory ways of achieving the purposes for which the exemption is sought? As I explained above, there are no specific or general exceptions in 94 the EO Act that would assist SPAA, other than an exemption being granted under s 135. A possible non-discriminatory means by which SPAA could 95 comply with its legal and contractual obligations is to rely on existing exemptions or exceptions in the ITAR, including in clause 126.18. In addition, a request could be made in relation to a particular ITAR export authorisation to have the US Government specifically approve people with a particular nationality or specifically approve a particular person. However, both possibilities would necessarily involve individuals 96 being asked to provide information about their nationality and for the information to be shared with the US government which would contravene the EO Act. Overall, although there appear to be non-discriminatory ways of 97 achieving the purpose of the exemption, (namely making a specific request to the US government or relying on an existing exemption or exception such as the exemption in s 126.18 of the ITAR), I am satisfied, and I find, that these are insufficient to negate the need for an exemption. Is the exemption in the public interest? Without the exemption, SPAA will not be able to expand its 98 contractual operations into WA, and any roles that require compliance with the ITAR or EAR would have to be undertaken outside of the state in the ACT, SA or Qld where exemptions have been granted. This would mean a loss of employment opportunities for Western Australians. As a result of the AUKUS alliance there will likely be an expansion 99 of defence-related contract work in WA in the coming years which is beneficial for the WA economy. This is evident from the investment in the Henderson Defence Precinct which was announced to have an anticipated direct employment of 4,000 people and the creation of 10,000 new jobs across Western Australia. Further, as I mentioned above, there will be a rotational presence of United Kingdom and United States submarines at the HMAS Stirling base which will house Australia's first Page 18 [2026] WASAT 32 nuclear-powered submarine capability from the 2030s. Granting an exemption to SPAA will enable them to do business in WA, and to seek to expand their existing business under the AUKUS Contract into WA. In addition to benefitting the WA economy and providing employment opportunities in WA, defence-related work undertaken by SPAA in connection to the AUKUS alliance in WA would contribute to Australia's defence capabilities and its relationships with the US and UK. The public interest is served by consistency and predictability in the 100 granting of exemptions in similar circumstances, including for other companies that have had to comply with the ITAR and EAR. Similar exemptions to those sought by SPAA have been granted in WA by this Tribunal (see, for example, Saab Australia Pty Ltd [2025] WASAT 23). Further, the public interest is also served by consistency and 101 predictability in the granting of similar exemptions to those granted to SPAA in other States and Territories. As I outlined above, SPAA has current exemptions on similar terms and conditions to the Final Exemption, namely the SA Exemption, the ACT Exemption and the Qld Exemption. On balance, I find that the public interest favours the grant of the 102 exemption. The public and private impacts of the grant of the proposed exemption As I stated above, the public and private advantages which would 103 flow from the grant of the Further Exemption must be balanced against the detriment which flows from the discriminatory conduct (Boeing, ADI). Again, there is some overlap between this, and other considerations 104 including the public interest consideration, and whether the exemption is reasonable or necessary. As outlined above, the grant of the exemption will allow SPAA to 105 comply with the ITAR and EAR with respect to work to be undertaken in WA without contravening the EO Act. Without the exemption, this work would need to be undertaken in the ACT, SA or Qld where exemptions have been granted. In short, the grant of the exemption would mean that SPAA could expand its operations in WA and engage employees and contractors in WA, thus creating jobs and contributing to the WA economy. If an exemption is granted SPAA would also be able Page 19 [2026] WASAT 32 to pursue other contractual opportunities in WA, such as through the Defence West, where those contracts require access to Controlled Material. It would most likely be difficult for SPAA to obtain any future contracts in WA which require access to Controlled Material without the exemption being in place. With respect to individuals, being asked to provide information 106 about nationality is likely to cause little, if any detriment to individual employees and contractors. However, the use of that information to exclude people from particular roles based on nationality, or from being employed in the first place, may have serious consequences for an individual, including financial and/or emotional consequences. If a person is excluded from a particular role based on nationality, it has the potential to create two classes of employment whereby those who are not Australian citizens may be treated differently to others: see Cobham Aviation Services Australia Pty Ltd [2023] WASAT 21, at [97]. On balance, I am persuaded that any detriment to individuals in 107 being asked about their nationalities or excluded from certain work, is outweighed by the public and private advantages of granting the exemption. These include public interest considerations such as protecting and enhancing Australia's national security and WA economic interests and employment opportunities. Whether SPAA has and will continue to take any reasonable steps to avoid or reduce the adverse effect of the discriminatory acts SPAA has submitted that the exemption will cause little or no 108 adverse effect. It submits that it will utilise its existing systems and processes to implement similar measures in WA to those it has implemented under the ACT Exemption. SPAA has procedures and policies in place, including the 109 Anti-Discrimination Policy, to educate its employees about discriminatory conduct and to provide clear guidance that discrimination and bullying will not be tolerated. SPAA's Complaints Policy provides for a procedure for complaints to be investigated and escalated. SPAA also seeks to educate its workforce about exemptions that are 110 currently in force. The Anti-Discriminatory Policy explains the purpose and scope of the exemptions so that its employees and contractors understand why the information is being requested. Formal training is also provided to the management and recruitment teams which includes Page 20 [2026] WASAT 32 information being provided to prospective candidates and about limitations on the disclosure of the information. If the exemption is granted in WA, relevant WA personnel will also receive this training. The ITAR/EAR compliance officer who monitors compliance with 111 SPAA's existing exemptions will also monitor compliance with the WA exemption if it is granted. This will assist to ensure the conditions and reporting requirements of the exemption are being complied with to minimise its impact. SPAA also has information management procedures in place to 112 securely store and restrict access to confidential personal information, as referred to in SPAA's Privacy Policy and in SPAA's documentation concerning recruitment for ITAR/EAR roles which provides for central and secure storage of recruitment information that is only accessible by hiring managers. The text of the exemption that SPAA has proposed also contains 113 conditions to minimise the impact of the exemption. I address these below under the heading 'Should the exemption be subject to conditions or limitations?' Overall, I am satisfied, and I find, that SPAA has implemented, and 114 will continue to take, reasonable steps to avoid or reduce the adverse effect of the discriminatory acts if the exemption is granted. Whether any other persons or bodies other than the applicant support the application In the Commissioner's Affidavit, the Commissioner stated his view 115 that 'the application is not intended to further the objects of the [EO] Act' and '[left] it to the Tribunal to satisfy itself as to whether the exemption is necessary and should be granted'. As I outlined above, neither SPAA nor the Tribunal received any 116 submissions from persons other than SPAA in support of, or in opposition to, the application for the s 135 exemption. The lack of any objections being received, lends some weight to the 117 exemption being granted. Balancing the considerations On balance, I am satisfied, and I find, that the considerations I have 118 discussed above, support the grant of the exemption. Page 21 [2026] WASAT 32 Should the exemption be subject to conditions or limitations? The exemption sought by SPAA contains conditions in 119 paragraphs 13 to 21 which aim to limit the scope of the exemption. The exemption is set out in full in Annexure A to these reasons. By way of summary, the conditions to the exemption include that 120 the exemption will only apply to conduct by SPAA which is necessary to obtain and manage ITAR or EAR export licensing and to perform contractual obligations which involve access to Controlled Material: paragraph 13. Apart from being able to request nationality and citizenship 121 information from current and prospective employees, the remaining exemptions apply only where SPAA has taken all reasonable steps to avoid engaging in conduct that would breach the EO Act, including to rely on ITAR exemptions and exceptions, or to seek to amend the relevant export licences so that the person can have access to Controlled Material: paragraph 14. Other conditions in the exemption include providing information to 122 candidates and employees in plain English as to how they may be affected by the ITAR and EAR, including providing them with information about the exemption, equal opportunity laws and the possibility of SPAA applying for a specific authorisation for them to access Controlled Material in appropriate cases, the contact details of a nominated employee to provide them with further information if they are concerned they may not be able to satisfy these requirements, and information about how they can apply for Australian citizenship: paragraphs 15 and 16. The provision of this clear information may assist to minimise the negative impact on individuals by helping them to understand the basis for the restriction before they apply for a position or before a negative decision is made based on the information. Advising them of the option of Australian citizenship or of the possibility of a specific authorisation may also help to minimise any adverse impacts of the exemption so they can seek further information and make an informed choice about their options. Applying for Australian citizenship may not be enough to permit the person to access Controlled Material, but it may mean that the individual may have the opportunity of obtaining other roles in SPAA which require a person to be an Australian citizen. If a person is moved from a project involving access to Controlled 123 Material, due to ITAR and EAR controls or if their employment is terminated if there is no other work they can perform in the business, Page 22 [2026] WASAT 32 SPAA must take all reasonable steps to explain the reason to the person and to limit loss or harm to the person: paragraph 17. This condition contemplates that a person's employment will only be terminated if there is no other option but to do so. The Exemption also seeks to protect the privacy of individuals. 124 The conditions also ensure that no information concerning nationality is apparent on the face of security passes: paragraph 18; and restricting access to information about security passes, security clearance levels and access to Controlled Material to specified persons and government agencies to which SPAA has an obligation on a 'need-to-know basis': paragraph 19. A further condition is that SPAA's employment policies shall be 125 amended as soon as possible to refer to the exemption and its conditions, and to make it clear that the purpose is to comply with SPAA's legal and regulatory obligations, including under the ITAR and EAR: paragraph 20. Awareness of the exemption and its conditions in SPAA's employment policies will also help to ensure compliance with the exemption and the effectiveness of the conditions. Overall, these conditions, in my view, will assist to minimise the 126 impact of the exemption on SPAA's employees, contractors and prospective employees and contractors. A further condition has also been included by SPAA, which 127 requires SPAA to undertake detailed annual reporting to the Commissioner for the duration of the exemption. The matters to be reported on include the steps taken to comply with the conditions of the exemption, the number of persons affected by the exemption, how they have been affected and steps taken to address any adverse effects, anti-discrimination training provided to employees and contractors and implementation and compliance more generally. To SPAA's credit, the initial exemption proposed included reporting twice per annum but was revised to once per annum after I advised that annual reporting was sufficient and consistent with other exemptions granted in WA. The appropriateness of an annual reporting condition was discussed by Deputy President Glancy (as President Glancy then was) in Cobham at [118] - [123]. In summary, annual reporting provides independent oversight for the term of the exemption and will monitor whether SPAA is undertaking all reasonable steps to comply with the conditions and limitations of the exemption to minimise its adverse effects. Annual monitoring is consistent with the objects, scope, and purpose of Page 23 [2026] WASAT 32 the EO Act, including the Commissioner's statutory oversight role which will assist to promote public confidence in the EO Act, including the grant of exemptions. The terms and conditions set out in the exemption are also 128 consistent with the conditions imposed in other cases where similar s 135 exemptions have been granted and are consistent with the terms of the other current exemptions granted to SPAA in other Australian jurisdictions, namely the ACT Exemption, the SA Exemption and the Qld Exemption. I am satisfied that the conditions are reasonable and will assist to 129 limit the scope of the exemption and its adverse effects. I find that it is appropriate that these conditions, which are included in the exemption set out in Annexure A, should be included in the exemption. Term of the exemption SPAA seeks the exemption for a five-year term. 130 Five years is the maximum term for which an exemption can be 131 granted under s 135 of the EO Act. Generally speaking, a five-year term would most often be granted 132 if there is evidence that contracts requiring ITAR/EAR compliance would extend for, or beyond the term of the exemption. In SPAA's case, the AUKUS Contract is due to expire sometime in 133 2028 (the actual expiry date was not provided to the Tribunal). SPAA expects it will be awarded another 5-year AUKUS contract, but there is no confirmation that this further contract will be granted. SPAA intends to perform work in support of AUKUS operations in WA and aims to start employing WA employees and contractors. SPAA has engaged one US secondee to undertake work related to the AUKUS Contract, who is located in WA. The six other contracts with the Commonwealth expire between 134 March 2026 and December 2026. As I have outlined above, if the exemption is granted, SPAA intends to expand its operations into WA and will engage and utilise employees and contractors in WA to perform work under one of these six contracts. SPAA anticipates that it will be granted further contracts until at least 2041. Although SPAA has an expectation that it will be awarded ongoing 135 contracts with the Commonwealth and that it will be awarded another Page 24 [2026] WASAT 32 AUKUS Contract, at present, SPAA's contractual obligations in WA do not extend beyond 2028. The evidence of substantial government investment in the 136 Henderson Shipyard, suggests that there will be increased work in WA associated with AUKUS in the coming years. SPAA has also been seeking business opportunities in WA through Defence West, but those enquiries appear to be in their initial stages with introductory meetings in November 2025. SPAA intends to continue to engage with, and to start providing support to Defence West. However, whilst those factors may add to the opportunities available to SPAA in WA, there is no certainty that SPAA will be awarded those anticipated contracts. A five-year term will likely give SPAA some commercial certainty 137 while it seeks to expand its business in WA and to tender for AUKUS related contracts, however, there is no certainty that SPAA will have contracts in WA extending beyond 2028. Recently, in Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2026] WASAT 1 (Linfox), 138 I granted a further exemption for 3 years in circumstances that were similar to this case. Linfox applied for a further exemption of five years in July 2025. However, the contract for which the exemption was associated was not expected to continue beyond 1 April 2026. Linfox expected that some of the services under that contract would be continued under other contracts which Linfox tendered for from time to time. The company was also close to signing another contract for which an exemption was likely to be needed. Given the duration of these contracts, and the fact that a further exemption could be sought if needed, I granted the exemption for three years instead of the requested five years. In the Queensland Exemption, the QIRC granted a five-year term 139 with the duration of the term being solely based on the annual reporting requirement to the Commissioner. In Linfox, I also considered that the term of the Further Exemption 140 sought was counterbalanced by an annual reporting condition to the Commissioner who would be able to monitor any changes in circumstances which may mean that the Further Exemption was no longer required. Nevertheless, I was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of future contracts whereby the exemption would be required that would warrant a five-year term. That reasoning applies equally in this case. Further, whilst the Commissioner can monitor Page 25 [2026] WASAT 32 compliance, there is no ability under s 135 of the EO Act for the Commissioner to bring an application to the Tribunal if the exemption is no longer required. Consequently, it is my view that a three-year term is appropriate. 141 Such a term covers the duration of the current AUKUS Contract which expires some time in 2028. Should SPAA secure a further AUKUS Contract or otherwise expand its WA operations beyond that timeframe, another application can be made to the Tribunal which includes up to date information justifying an exemption for a further term. I am therefore satisfied that a three-year term is appropriate in the 142 circumstances of the case. Conclusion Having considered the objects, scope, and purpose of the EO Act, 143 and after weighing the considerations that are relevant to the grant of the exemption, I am satisfied that an exemption with conditions for a term of three years is appropriate and warranted in the circumstances. I will therefore exercise discretion to grant the Final Exemption 144 sought by SPAA for a term of three years. Orders I make the orders set out in Annexure A. 145 Page 26 [2026] WASAT 32 Annexure A The Tribunal orders: Pursuant to s 135(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) (EO Act), Systems Planning and Analysis, Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 621 832 102) (SPAA) is granted an exemption from compliance with the provisions of s 37, s 39 and s 49 of the EO Act for a period of three (3) years insofar as those sections relate to the 'race' (as defined in s 4 of the EO Act) of applicants for employment, employees and contract workers to the extent that they may: Applicants for employment 1. Inform applicants for employment in roles which will require access to material (Controlled Material) subject to permits, licences, approvals or agreements made under the United States and Australian import and export control laws (ITAR and EAR controls) that they may be adversely affected by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) if they are not an Australian citizen or if they hold dual nationality and/or citizenship from proscribed countries. Request for information about nationality 2. Request information from current and prospective employees (employees), and individual contractors and employees of contractors (contractors) who perform, or are anticipated to perform, work for or on behalf of the Applicant and who are, or are anticipated to be, subject to the Applicant's control and direction for positions related to projects which use Controlled Material, in relation to the current and prospective employee or contractor's citizenship, previous citizenships, race or nationality, or substantive contacts where such contacts are affiliated with countries proscribed by section 126.1 of ITAR, providing this request for information is limited to information for determining whether an application for authorisation would be required to allow the job candidate, employee or contractor to have that access and whether in the Applicant's reasonable judgment that application would have significant prospects of success. Page 27 [2026] WASAT 32 Use of nationality information 3. Impose a condition on any offer of employment or contract for services in roles which are likely to require access to Controlled Material that the person must, pursuant to ITAR and EAR controls, be authorised to access that material whether pursuant to an individual approval obtained from the United States Government or otherwise. 4. Take an employee or contractor's citizenship, previous citizenships, race or nationality, or substantive contacts, where such contacts are affiliated with countries proscribed by section 126.1 of ITAR, into account in determining whether that person may be offered a role or allocated work that involves access to Controlled Material. 5. Maintain records of the nationalities and citizenships of employees and contractors who have or may have access to Controlled Material. 6. Require present and future employees and contractors involved in projects which access Controlled Material to notify the Applicant of any change to their citizenship status or substantive contacts where such contacts are affiliated with countries proscribed by section 126.1 of ITAR. 7. Restrict access to Controlled Material to particular employees and contractors of the Applicant based on their citizenship, previous citizenships, race or nationality, or substantive contacts where such contacts are affiliated with countries proscribed by section 126.1 of ITAR. 8. Record information relating to security clearances granted to employees and contractors who perform work for or on behalf of the Applicant and who are subject to the Applicant's control and direction for positions related to projects which use Controlled Material. 9. Impose limitations or prohibitions on access to Controlled Material on persons not authorised to access that material. 10. Maintain records of the nationalities of persons who have or will have access to Controlled Material, with distribution limited to only the following personnel of the Applicant and Systems Page 28 [2026] WASAT 32 Planning and Analysis, Inc. with a need to know for the purposes of determining their ability to participate in a particular project: (a) directors and executive staff; (b) human resources managers; (c) senior security officers; (d) senior in-house legal personnel; (e) senior export control officers; and (f) senior technology officers. 11. Establish security systems and access protocols that will prevent the unauthorised re-export or re-transfer of Controlled Material. 12. Disclose, if and when required, citizenship, previous citizenships, race or nationality, or substantive contacts where such contacts are affiliated with countries proscribed by section 126.1 of ITAR, of the Applicant's employees and contractors to: (a) The United States Government, including: (i) the United States' Department of State; (ii) the United States' Department of Commerce; (iii) the United States' Department of Defense; (b) the Australian Department of Defence; (c) the Australian Space Agency; (d) United States based contractors for whom the Applicants perform work under subcontract; and (e) any other organisation for which, or on whose behalf, or at whose request the Applicant undertakes work in respect of which the Applicant has directly or indirectly an obligation not to transfer Controlled Material to persons of certain nationalities. Page 29 [2026] WASAT 32 CONDITIONS 13. The exemption applies only to the Applicant's conduct where it is necessary to obtain and manage ITAR and EAR export licensing or to perform contractual obligations which involve access to Controlled Material. 14. Other than the particular exemption referred to above at paragraph 2 (Request for information about nationality), the remaining exemptions apply only to the Applicant's conduct where: (a) the Applicant has taken all steps that are reasonably available to avoid engaging in conduct which would otherwise be in breach of sections 37, 39 and 49 of the EO Act, including: (i) reliance on ITAR exemptions, exceptions or other provisions, including clause 126.18 of ITAR, where applicable; (ii) where an employee or contractor is a national or dual national of a country not approved for access to Controlled Material, then the Applicant will either request the United States Government, or request the relevant export license holder(s) to request the United States Government, to amend the relevant export licenses to enable the person to have access to Controlled Material, unless the Applicant, on reasonable grounds, determines that either: (A) the job candidate, employee or contractor is not the best candidate for the position; or (B) such an application does not have significant prospects of success; and (iii) in the event that the United States Government requires the Applicant to provide further information specific to the person, then with the consent of that person, the Applicant will work with the person to supply (or request that the Page 30 [2026] WASAT 32 relevant export license holder(s) supply) all relevant information to the United States Government so that an application for approval may be made in relation to that person. 15. Where, pursuant to this exemption, the Applicant wishes to reserve the right to make a conditional offer of employment or contract for services in relation to a position which will or may involve access to Controlled Material, any advertisement, invitation for expressions of interest, or other promotional information referring to the position must include the information that: (a) the position will or is likely to require access to Controlled Material and that any person occupying the position must be able to satisfy ITAR and EAR controls which may require specific authorisation for that person to access Controlled Material; and (b) if a job candidate is concerned as to whether or not they will satisfy the requirement in (a), they should contact a nominated employee of the Applicants who is able to provide relevant information, including information set out in paragraph 16 below. 16. The Applicant must specifically communicate to job candidates for roles, and existing employees and contractors in roles, whether currently or in the future, requiring access to Controlled Material: (a) express notice that they may be adversely affected by the ITAR and EAR controls if they are not an Australian national, if they hold dual nationality and/or citizenship from proscribed countries, or if they are not of Australian national origin; (b) a reasonable explanation in plain English of the nature of any such adverse effects; (c) notice that the Applicants have an exemption under the EO Act to enable it to take steps to prevent access to Controlled Material; Page 31 [2026] WASAT 32 (d) advice that any necessary application for specific authorisation for a person to access Controlled Material would be made by the Applicants, in appropriate cases; (e) information about how they can apply for Australian citizenship; and (f) information regarding their rights under Australian Federal, State and Territory discrimination laws. The Applicant may comply with this condition (paragraph 16) through a range of alternatives, including individual written notices, published policy statements (at a location accessible by job candidates and existing employees and contractors), web-based posting or other similar means. 17. Where, pursuant to this exemption, an employee or contractor who is not authorised pursuant to ITAR and EAR controls to have access to Controlled Material (including pursuant to any individual approval), is moved from a project involving access to Controlled Material to any other work or has their employment terminated in circumstances where there is no other work the employee or contractor can perform in the Applicant's business, the Applicant must, through a duly authorised officer, explain to the person why he or she is being transferred or terminated and must otherwise take all reasonable steps to avoid or limit harm or loss to that person. 18. Where the Applicant uses a system of security passes to reflect the fact of access to Controlled Material or levels of access to material subject to Australian security restrictions, the passes may be coded but not in such a manner that the nationality can obviously be identified from the coding. 19. All information relating to security passes, security clearance levels and access to Controlled Material shall be restricted to: (a) the following personnel of the Applicant and Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc.: (i) directors and executive staff; (ii) human resources managers; (iii) senior security officers; Page 32 [2026] WASAT 32 (iv) senior in-house legal personnel; (v) senior export control officers; (vi) senior technology officers; and (b) relevant personnel of United States Government agencies and Australian Government agencies pursuant to which the Applicant has an obligation, and to each of their properly appointed nominees on a 'need to know' basis. 20. The Applicant's employment or other relevant policies shall be amended as soon as reasonably possible so as to refer to the terms of this exemption, including all conditions attaching to it, and to make clear that the purpose of the Applicant's request for nationality information is made solely for the purposes of compliance with legal and regulatory obligations imposed pursuant to the defence export control laws of Australia and the United States. 21. The Applicant is required to provide a written report to the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity by 31 January each year, from the date of this instrument of exemption, over the period of the exemption, detailing: (a) the steps it has taken to comply with the above conditions; (b) the number of persons affected by this exemption, the nature of the effects, and the steps taken to address any adverse effects; (c) the anti-discrimination training of employees and contractors provided by the Applicant; and (d) implementation and compliance generally with the terms of this exemption order. Page 33 [2026] WASAT 32 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. DR M EVANS-BONNER, SENIOR MEMBER 13 APRIL 2026 Page 34