Australia has amended or lapsed at least 16 defence-related export permits to Israel in recent weeks, government officials have confirmed.
The Department of Defence had been reviewing 66 “active” export permits to Israel, as revealed by Guardian Australia in October, after the UK government announced a reassessment of its arms licences to Israel in September. Officials said Australia had issued about 247 permits that relate to Israel since 2019, but had since revised the number of active permits to 65.
At a Senate estimates hearing in November, one of the department’s deputy secretaries, Hugh Jeffrey, confirmed at least 16 were amended or lapsed as a result of the review, with the full review expected to conclude in the coming months.
Jeffrey explained there were a number of reasons why a permit would be lapsed or amended to remove a country, such as Israel, as an end user of the equipment.
In some cases, the export could be considered inactive, and is not being used by industry.
In other cases, Jeffrey said, such as the onset of a violent conflict – where there is a “very high” number of civilian deaths – the laws impose a “much tougher test on the decision to grant a permit”.
“Under the legislation, for defence to recommend the government agree that a permit application be agreed to, we have to be very confident that the export would not be in contradiction to Australia’s national security or other international obligations,” Jeffrey said.
“When there is a conflict, it’s more difficult to make those assessments.
“In some circumstances, in relation to these permits, we’re lapsing or amending them to remove Israel as an end user because we can’t be confident in relation to some of those permit applications.”
The federal government has repeatedly stated that Australia “has not supplied weapons or ammunition to Israel since the conflict began and for at least the past five years”.
But the government has faced criticism for failing to be transparent about what each permit covers. It has also defended Australia’s supply of parts for the global supply chain for the F-35 fighter aircraft. Israel has used F-35 aircraft in Gaza.
An export permit is required for any goods covered by Australia’s Defence and Strategic Goods List.
A government spokesperson told Guardian Australia that since 7 October last year, the government had examined export permits issued to Israel in the preceding five years, and confirmed Australia had not supplied weapons or ammunition to Israel in that time.
“As part of this process, defence confirmed it is working with industry to amend or lapse 16 pre-existing permits to Israel. This is to ensure the permits do not give rise to an export that could be contrary to the government’s position on this matter.
“To be clear – these 16 permits were all approved before the conflict began and none of the permits relate to weapons or ammunition.”
In a response to a question on notice in early November, defence revealed 59 of the 65 permits were categorised as part one. Items on that list are described as “designed or adapted for use by armed forces” or “inherently lethal”. Those on part two of the list are deemed “dual-use” and are typically used for commercial or civilian use but “with potential military and weapons of mass destruction application”.
The Greens senator David Shoebridge has been highly critical of defence and the Albanese government for not being more forthcoming with details on the export permits.
Shoebridge has called for the complete end of two-way arms trade with Israel, and said the department’s segments showed Australia had been “permitting the export of military and inherently lethal equipment to Israel”.
after newsletter promotion
Jeffrey told Shoebridge in Senate estimates: “The fact that a permit might relate to list one doesn’t equate to the assertion that we’re exporting military equipment to Israel.”
Military equipment, as a term, is quite broad, Jeffrey said. “It could go to, yes, munitions, but it also could go to body armour. It could go to items that are not in and of themselves inherently lethal but are clearly military items,” he said.
In June, the defence minister, Richard Marles, said the government was “confident that we’re not talking about weapons here, but they are exports that have gone for civil use, and that the claims that are being made by the Greens are absolutely false”.
Guardian Australia asked defence how many of the 16 export permit changes fell into either part one or two definitions, whether defence made the decisions based on information from the UN and international court of justice rulings and how many further permits are awaiting review, but did not receive a response.
In April, the Australian Centre for International Justice made an application to Marles, requesting the revocation of all current export permits to Israel and to other countries which might later make them available to Israel.
The centre’s executive director and principal lawyer, Rawan Arraf, said she welcomed the government’s move but remained concerned about the “extreme lack of transparency”.
“We can’t be sure that all those decisions to revoke or refuse to revoke are made correctly, given the public has no information on what is being cancelled and what wasn’t, and what information defence relied on,” she said.
“There’s still no clarity, for example, whether Australian parts and components that make up the F-35 fighter jet involved in lethal airstrikes in Gaza, have been reassessed in this review.”
Arraf said staff from one ACIJ’s clients lost 24 members of his family, five of them children, in an airstrike on their home in northern Gaza.
“It’s simply unacceptable that Australian-made parts and components could be involved in such atrocities,” she said.
“International law is clear, the Australian government must end the two-way arms trade with a state that is condemned by the ICJ as maintaining an unlawful occupation regime.
“Australia has international obligations to ensure it is not aiding Israel’s violations of international law.”
