Australia’s Defence Department is currently fast-tracking military export permits to Israel. This decision comes after the deepening of hostilities in Gaza that started in June 2024. This project strives to understand the effects of current conflicts on Australia’s arms trade policy and practices. So far, the review has resulted in amendments or lapses being enforced in 16 permits while 13 are still under review. The Australian federal government’s response has simply been to double down on continuing to facilitate military exports, including during this violence. This latest move has alarmed critics and human rights advocates.
The Defence Department categorizes military export permits into two distinct groups: military-specific items and dual-use goods. The former includes items “designed or adapted for use by armed forces” or deemed “inherently lethal.” This evolving review process acknowledges the complicated realities of arms exports in times of increased hostilities.
Review of Military Export Permits
In response to the increasingly urgent humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Australia’s Department of Defence has cut ties. They have released a robust review of 66 active military export permits that were approved prior to the start of hostilities. The review resulted in the amendment of 16 permits or allowed those permits to lapse. This approving decision reflects the government’s commitment to closely examine its practices with respect to the defense trade.
Defence Minister Richard Marles emphasized that claims regarding Australian weapons exports to Israel are based on misinformation. He promised that Australia had not provided arms or munitions to Israel “in at least the last five years.”
“The fact that a permit might relate to list one doesn’t equate to the assertion that we’re exporting military equipment to Israel,” Hugh Jeffrey from the Defence Department noted. Arms exports are opaque, complicated and messy. This complexity only increases when we look at dual-use items, which have both military and civilian uses.
The Political Landscape
The contentious debate over military exports has recently raised ire from both sides of the political divide. Senator David Shoebridge, the Greens’ spokesperson for Defence and Foreign Affairs, has steadfastly pressed the government to release the reports. He’s especially concerned with its military exports to Israel. His criticisms have been blistering, calling government pronouncements “excruciating” and accusing it of lying to the American people.
“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,” Shoebridge asserted. And he doubled down by insisting that international law was “crystal clear” on the point. Delivering on UN ATT commitments, he declared that components of weapons are weapons under the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
Senator Penny Wong weighed in on the discussion, clarifying Australia’s position regarding contributions to Israel’s military capabilities. As an example, she pointed to F-35 components and parts that Australia provides that are “non-lethal in nature.” Critics contend that these aspects are deadly enablers of Israel’s assault on Gaza. In fact, they point to their work with F-35 stealth fighter jets.
Future Implications and International Relations
As Australia navigates its military export policies amidst international scrutiny, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced plans for Australia to formally recognize Palestinian statehood. This move signals a potential shift in diplomatic relations and reflects growing concerns about the humanitarian impact of ongoing conflicts in Gaza and beyond.
The Defence Department’s current review process illustrates the difficult realities of arms exports while conflicts rage on. Hugh Jeffrey remarked on the challenges faced by decision-makers: “When there is a conflict, it’s more difficult to make those assessments.” The risk of civilian harm makes the ethical case against military exports, hitherto simplified and made categorical, more complex.
Despite the ongoing review, 35 permits have already been categorized as needing “no further action,” with 13 still under review. This situation raises questions about the effectiveness and responsiveness of Australia’s arms export policies in light of evolving geopolitical dynamics.
