Calls for military exports transparency, as government denies Israel arms trade

Australia Broadcast Center

4 days ago

The federal government has upheld dozens of military export permits to Israel, raising fresh questions about Australia's weapons transfers throughout the war in Gaza.
Australia continues to deny that it supplies weapons and ammunition to Israel, saying that has been the case "for at least the past five years".
Defence Minister Richard Marles has recently doubled down on denials, adding that any claims of weapons exports were "misinformation".
But in responding to a parliamentary question on notice, the Defence Department has acknowledged that after a review, it decided to uphold 35 defence export permits granted prior to October 7, 2023.
And after previously stating that the permits related to 'dual-use' items, the new information also reveals that most are listed as specifically for military purposes.
Any Australian company wishing to export arms — or military-related goods — must get a permit through the Department of Defence.
The permits fall under two categories on the Defence and Strategic Goods List — either military-specific or dual-use items.
Dual use items can be for commercial or civilian applications.
The system has been criticised by international law experts, human rights campaigners and the Greens for lacking transparency.
And there has been growing calls for more information about exactly what each permit covers, and to ensure that exports are not being used to wage war in Gaza.
In June 2024, the Defence Department launched a review into the 66 "active" permits approved before the outbreak of the conflict in Gaza, following the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas.
The review has so far resulted in 16 permits being amended or lapsed, 13 remain under review, while Defence said 35 required "no further action".
When the review was announced last year, Mr Marles told the ABC that they had looked at the permits, and would continue to scrutinise the exports, but were "confident that those licences are for what we describe as dual-use technology".
The Department of Defence description of the two permit categories:
But Defence has recently responded to questions on notice from the Greens, which revealed that 31 of the remaining active permits are on the 'Part 1 — Munitions List'.
Part 1 exports are "designed or adapted for use by armed forces" or "inherently lethal", as outlined by the Defence Department.
The 13 permits still under review also fall into this category.
Only five of 16 of the amended or lapsed permits were classed as "dual-use technology".
A question on notice is a written question submitted by a member of parliament to a government minister, often provided after Senate hearings when a more detailed answer is required.
Defence Deputy Secretary Hugh Jeffrey told Senate estimates in November that the review was needed to ensure the exports would not be used in contradiction to Australia's "international obligations".
He said action was taken on 16 permits — which were not related to weapons or ammunition — because "when there is a conflict, it's more difficult to make those assessments".
When quizzed about 'Part 1' permits, Mr Jeffrey said that "they have no other use outside a defence context, but they're not necessarily inherently lethal, in and of themselves".
"The fact that a permit might relate to list one doesn't equate to the assertion that we're exporting military equipment to Israel," he said.
"It could go to, yes, munitions, but it also could go to body armour."
He has also said that they could include items such as night-vision goggles.
The ABC asked Defence a series of questions, including the process used to review the permits, and how it could be confident they would not be used in breach of international obligations during conflict.
Clarification was also sought on whether active permits related to weapons and ammunition, and the status of the 13 permits still under review.
The Defence Department has not provided any comments.
David Shoebridge, the Greens' Defence and Foreign Affairs spokesperson, has been regularly pressing the government for information on its military exports, calling for an end to the two-way arms trade.
He said Mr Marles was given the opportunity to set the record straight, and explain why he initially declared that the majority of permits fell into the dual-use category.
"The government has chosen to mislead the public and, even when caught out, refused to correct the record," Senator Shoebridge told the ABC.
"This awkward mix of misdirection and secrecy is a way for Labor to avoid admitting to the reality of the two-way arms trade with Israel and then having to seriously tackle it."
The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, is among hundreds of civil society organisations urging the government to stop arming Israel "directly and indirectly".
It has also launched a landmark legal bid — on behalf of Palestinian human rights organisations operating in Gaza and the West Bank — to determine whether Australian-made weapons and ammunition were being sent to Israeli forces.
Lara Khider, the organisation's acting executive director, said requests this year to seek clarification about the review also remained unanswered.
"It is unclear what process was undertaken as part of the review and whether this was in accordance with the law," Ms Khider told the ABC.
"The lack of transparency in relation to this review and the broader arms exports regime has placed our clients and the broader Australian public completely in the dark about Australian arms exports to Israel."
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced on Monday that Australia would formally recognise a Palestinian statehood, saying that "the situation in Gaza had gone beyond the world's worst fears".
Over the weekend, Foreign Minister Penny Wong also united with four Western countries to condemn Israel's decision to fully seize Gaza City, saying it would "risk violating international humanitarian law".
Germany — which provides about 30 per cent of Israel's arms imports — was quick to take stronger action, suspending defence sales for any weapons that could be used in Gaza "until further notice".
But Mr Marles has ruled out following Germany's lead.
"The fundamental point is that we are not supplying weapons to Israel, and there is no step that we could take, equivalent to that of Germany, which would have any impact in relation to that," he told the ABC's Insiders program.
The ABC reported earlier this year that a remote weapon system designed and built by Australian company Electro Optic Systems was one of dozens of counter-drone technologies tested by the Israel Defense Forces earlier this year.
The government has also been questioned about supplying parts for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has used in operations in Gaza.
Last month, Senator Wong said Australia contributed F-35 "components and parts that are non-lethal in nature".
While Mr Marles described the involvement in the fighter jets' supply chain as being "a very different question" to the issue of being an arms exporter.
Senator Shoebridge described the government's comments as "excruciating".
"International law is crystal clear, parts of weapons are weapons," he said.
"I want to be very clear, when the Albanese government says to the Australian public Australia doesn't export weapons to Israel, this is them actively misleading the public."
The UN Arms Trade Treaty, to which Australia is a party, applies to all "conventional arms", including combat aircraft, armoured vehicles, missiles and small to light weapons.
It states that control systems must regulate the export of "parts and components" that provides the capability to assemble conventional arms.
And that states countries are prohibited from authorising arms transfers where it had knowledge that the arms would be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, or certain war crimes.
Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said Australia had actively spoken in recent weeks about Israel's actions in Gaza being in violation of international law.
And that plans to occupy the remaining parts of Gaza should have "further heightened those concerns".
"Given the extent of the ongoing Israeli military assault on Gaza and Australia's objections, the Albanese government needs to be confident that any goods exported from Australia to Israel are not contributing to that campaign," Professor Rothwell told the ABC.
"This is especially the case given that South Africa has commenced proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice arguing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and Israel has done little to respect orders issued by the court to modify its military campaign."