Australia's defence export
practices have come under renewed scrutiny following reports that
Australian-manufactured components have been incorporated into weapon systems
used by the Israeli military in Gaza. These revelations raise questions
about the effectiveness of Australia's export controls and the broader
implications of the AUKUS security partnership.
The AUKUS agreement, signed in
2021 between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, comprises
two pillars. Pillar One focuses on providing Australia with
nuclear-powered submarines, while Pillar Two aims to enhance collaboration on
advanced military capabilities and streamline defence trade among the three
nations.
In line with Pillar Two,
Australia enacted the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act 2024, which came
into effect on 1 September 2024. This legislation established a
licence-free environment for most military and dual-use goods and technology
transfers between Australia, the UK, and the US, effectively waiving permit
requirements for such exchanges.
Critics argue that this
streamlined process may inadvertently facilitate the transfer of
Australian-made components into conflict zones without adequate
oversight. For instance, the Canberra-based defence company Electro Optic
Systems (EOS) has been linked to the R400 remote weapon system, which was
reportedly tested by the Israeli military. While the final assembly and
export of the system occurred in the US, the components originated from
Australia.
Similarly, Australian company
DroneShield's DroneGun Mk4, an anti-drone weapon system, was observed in use by
the Israeli Defence Forces. Photographs from a February 2024 investor
presentation show an Israeli soldier holding the device, suggesting its
deployment in the region.
These instances have prompted
concerns from human rights organisations. The Australian Centre for
International Justice (ACIJ) has highlighted the potential for Australian-made
components to be used in violations of international humanitarian law. In
response, the ACIJ, along with over 230 civil society organisations, has called
for an immediate halt to all direct and indirect transfers of F-35 parts and
components to Israel.
The Australian government
maintains that it has not supplied weapons or ammunition to Israel since the
onset of the Gaza conflict in October 2023. However, a review of 66
military export permits to Israel, approved before the conflict, is currently underway
to assess compliance with international obligations, including human rights
considerations.
As Australia continues to deepen
its defence ties with the US and UK under AUKUS, these developments underscore
the need for robust oversight mechanisms to ensure that defence exports align
with Australia's legal and ethical commitments.
There is documented evidence
that Australia has continued to export various goods to Israel since October 7,
2023, including items with potential military applications. These exports
encompass both direct shipments and indirect transfers through third countries,
raising concerns about Australia's compliance with international arms control
obligations.
Direct and Indirect Military Exports
According to data from the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australia exported
approximately $1.5 million worth of arms and munitions to Israel in February
2024. This figure nearly matches the total value of such exports since the
Albanese government assumed office, bringing the cumulative total to over $3.25
million. The term "arms and munitions" includes items such as
guns, bullets, missiles, and other weaponry .
Furthermore, a 90-page list
obtained by Declassified Australia under Freedom of Information laws details
thousands of goods exported directly to Israel since October 7,
2023. These items range from electronics and communication equipment to
aircraft parts and engines, some of which could have military
applications .
One of the most high-profile
revelations centres on the Electro Optic Systems (EOS) R400 remote weapons
system—a platform capable of deploying a 30mm cannon, manufactured in
Australia. A photo published by the Israeli Defence Force in January 2025 shows
Israeli officials standing beside the system under the headline “Counter Drone
Evaluation Testing with New Customer.” According to the Israeli evaluation, the
system “performed extremely well.”
While the R400 is assembled in
the United States, its Australian origins are undisputed. Defence Minister
Richard Marles and Prime Minister Albanese have maintained that these exports
do not constitute “arms exports to Israel” due to their intermediary assembly
in the US. Critics argue this is a legalistic manoeuvre that sidesteps
Australia’s responsibilities under international law.
Senator Shoebridge has suggested
that these transfers may have been facilitated under “Pillar II” of the AUKUS
security agreement, which significantly eases the transfer of defence
technologies between Australia, the US, and the UK. Legislation passed in March
2024 removed the requirement for export permits when sending certain goods to
the US, effectively creating a legal backchannel for sensitive exports to be
redirected beyond the initial recipient.
The supply chain extends beyond
conventional arms. Export records list fibre optic cables, satellite systems,
thermal imaging equipment, and radiation detection hardware—all of which have
military and surveillance applications. Many of these systems bolster Israel’s
control over the Palestinian telecommunications infrastructure, which rights
groups say is central to enforcing the blockade and limiting Palestinian
agency.
Australian government
departments have thus far declined to disclose the end-use or final recipients
of these technologies, citing commercial confidentiality or national
security—further fuelling concern over transparency and accountability.
Export Permits and Regulatory Oversight
The Australian government has
issued numerous defence export permits to Israel. In Senate Estimates on
February 26, 2025, Defence officials stated that since October 7, 2023, 22
permits had been issued, with four having expired. The remaining active
permits were described as benefiting the Australian Defence Force and
Commonwealth capabilities.
However, the Department of
Defence has acknowledged that some export permits to Israel involve parts,
component parts, or full systems related to defence goods and
services. While these items may not be classified as conventional arms
individually, their components could be integrated into larger weapons systems.
Internal Defence Department
communications, disclosed in Senate Estimates, acknowledge that while permits
exist for parts and components destined for Israel, these items are “not
regarded... as conventional arms.” Yet many of these items fall under List 1 or
2 of the Defence Strategic Goods List (DSGL)—a classification that includes
weapons, drones, missile parts, and advanced avionics.
The distinction appears to be
less about function and more about legal definitional gymnastics. Experts warn
this framing undermines the spirit of the ATT, which obliges signatories to
prevent arms exports likely to contribute to serious violations of international
humanitarian law.
Calls for Transparency and Accountability
These developments have prompted
calls from human rights organisations and public servants for greater
transparency and a reassessment of Australia's arms export policies. In
May 2024, over 300 Australian public servants signed an open letter urging the
federal government to cease supplying all military parts and weapons to Israel,
citing concerns over potential breaches of international humanitarian law.
The Australian Centre for
International Justice (ACIJ) has also highlighted the risks associated with
indirect arms transfers, where Australian components are exported to third
countries, such as the United States, before being incorporated into weapons systems
supplied to Israel. Such practices may bypass Australian export controls
and contravene international legal obligations, including under the Arms Trade
Treaty.
International legal scrutiny is
intensifying. A legal brief submitted by Birchgrove Legal to the International
Criminal Court (ICC) alleges complicity in war crimes and genocide by senior
Australian leaders, including the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Penny Wong,
and Defence Minister Marles. The ICC, to which Australia is a signatory, has
reportedly included these claims in its ongoing investigation into the
situation in Palestine.
Legal experts such as human
rights lawyer Kellie Tranter argue that Australia may be in breach of Article 1
of the Genocide Convention, which compels signatories to “prevent and punish”
genocide. “There is evidence,” Tranter writes, “that Australia has failed to
use its capacity to influence Israeli conduct, and may have facilitated,
economically or materially, acts that entrench Israel’s occupation of
Palestinian territories.”
A Bipartisan Blind Spot?
While the Greens have called for
an immediate suspension of all military exports to Israel, the Labor government
and the Coalition remain largely aligned in their approach. Media coverage of
the issue has been sparse, with few outlets engaging substantively with the
growing body of evidence linking Australian defence exports to ongoing civilian
harm in Gaza.
What remains clear is that
Australia’s role is no longer easily dismissed as peripheral or benign. The
current conflict, which has claimed tens of thousands of lives, demands a
reckoning—not only with the actions of foreign powers but with the domestic industries
and policies that enable them.
As pressure builds
internationally for accountability over the use of force in Gaza, the Albanese
government must confront a pressing question: can a country committed to human
rights and the rule of law continue to justify its military and technological
ties with a state under investigation for war crimes?
Albanese’s “Kindness” Rings Hollow as Gaza Starves and Australia Stays
Silent
On
election night, as Anthony Albanese stood before a crowd of jubilant supporters
celebrating Labor’s 3 May victory, he spoke of “Australian values” — kindness,
compassion, decency. Foreign Minister Penny Wong followed suit, describing him
as a leader defined by empathy.
But
at that very moment, reports emerged that 57 Palestinians had died of
starvation in Gaza. Israeli authorities had yet again denied access to
humanitarian aid convoys attempting to reach a civilian population under siege.
As families starved and children perished, the silence from Canberra was as
deliberate as it was deafening.
In
a different Australia — one imagined by many who have contributed to Pearls and Irritations — compassion
would not be reserved for campaign rhetoric. For years, that outlet’s
contributors have chronicled the suffering in Gaza, raising alarms that have
gone unheeded by those in power. Their writing is forceful, rigorous, often
poetic. But it exists in a vacuum where neither votes nor vested interests are
at stake.
Writers
such as Margaret Reynolds, Ali Kazak, Paul Heywood-Smith, Helen McCue, Richard
Hill, Alison Broinowski, Greg Barns, and John Menadue have documented the war
crimes, the hypocrisy, the blatant disregard for international law. They have
exposed the systemic brutality of Israel’s occupation and Australia’s
complicity in its continuation. Yet none hold public office. None are permitted
onto the debate stages where policy is shaped.
Helen
McCue, who has spent four decades working in Palestinian refugee camps, asked
Prime Minister Albanese directly: “How can you sleep at night?” Her questions
echo like unanswered charges. “Can you hear the screams of children under the
bombs?” “Can you hear the cries of those operated on without anaesthetic?”
But
instead of moral clarity, we get the same tired defence: “Israel has a right to
defend itself.” Legal scholars like Paul Heywood-Smith have dismantled that
line. Under international law, he argues, an occupying power has no such right
when it is the aggressor. What Israel calls “self-defence” often amounts to
collective punishment — a war crime by any measure.
Inside
Labor, even those who once pledged solidarity with Palestine have gone quiet.
In 2017, the party voted to recognise Palestinian statehood. In government, it
has done nothing of the sort. When Senator Fatima Payman broke ranks to speak
up, former senator Margaret Reynolds lamented how even principled voices are
shackled by party discipline.
Alison
Broinowski notes the absurd contradictions: Hamas flags banned at pro-Palestine
rallies while Israeli ones fly freely; Russian war crimes condemned with gusto
while Israeli atrocities are met with tortured euphemisms. “Australia has no
hesitation in calling Putin a war criminal,” she writes. “But can’t apply the
same standard to Netanyahu.”
Ali
Kazak, in a searing open letter to Israeli citizens, accuses them of cloaking
ethnic cleansing in the language of peace. “They speak of security,” he writes,
“but wage a genocidal war.” His anger extends to Australian politicians — their
parroting of Israeli talking points a testament, he says, to “undignified
ignorance” and a sycophantic foreign policy built on silence.
Greg
Barns, a barrister and former political advisor, calls it what it is: a moral
collapse. He proposes what few in Canberra dare to consider — sanctions against
Israel and criminal charges for Australian dual nationals fighting with the IDF
in Gaza. “This is not just foreign policy,” Barns argues. “It’s a matter of
upholding the Rome Statute and the principles we claim to value.”
An Israeli government minister has vowed that “Gaza
will be entirely destroyed” as a result of an Israeli military victory, and
that its Palestinian population will “leave in great numbers to third
countries”, raising fears of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territory.
The declaration on Tuesday by the finance minister,
Bezalel Smotrich, came a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved a plan
for Operation Gideon’s Chariots, which an Israeli official said would entail
“the conquest of the Gaza Strip and the holding of the territories”.
The Israeli threats to seize control of the
territory permanently has stirred global outrage with many describing the this
as a threat of ethnic cleansing.
Humanitarian officials say the territory is on the
brink of catastrophe as food and fuel runs out due to a total Israeli blockade
imposed on 2 March.
Now Israel has now openly declared its plan to
ethnically cleanse and permanently occupy Gaza
With Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu saying the
“Palestinian population will be moved out of Gaza.”
Now we just saw Australians firmly reject the
pro-genocide Liberals.
So this is now a test for this new Labor
government.
What will they do in response to Israel’s horrific
new plan ?
There is now no excuse for inaction, Dutton is
gone, the Libs are dead and buried as a political movement for several years.
What is Albanese waiting for??
How many dead Palestinians? How many starving
children will it take?
Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to manage
the optics. As John Menadue observes, Palestinian voices are pre-emptively
silenced unless they first denounce Hamas. Israeli suffering is individualised;
Palestinian suffering, if acknowledged at all, is abstract, collective, and
somehow inevitable. “Genocide is not newsworthy,” Menadue writes, “when its
victims are brown, Muslim, and stateless.”
This
has not just been a war but a campaign of settler colonialism dating back to
1948. That media imbalance didn’t begin with Gaza 2023 — it’s woven into the
fabric of how Israel-Palestine is reported. “Palestinians and Muslims,” he
notes, “are treated as less human, less valuable than white Jews or white
Christians.”
This
is the great Australian dissonance: a nation that speaks the language of values
while trading in silence. A political class that speaks of peace while
greenlighting weapons exports. A media that insists on balance while
platforming a one-sided narrative of victimhood and vengeance.
And
so we return to that question, the one posed repeatedly by writers and
activists alike:
So
what?
What
does it mean to write 1,000 articles, give 100 speeches, sign endless
petitions, if none of it shifts the needle of public discourse? Is Australia
condemned to be a spectator — or worse, an enabler — as the destruction
continues?
One
possible answer lies in transforming the margins into the mainstream. Pearls
and Irritations, and platforms like it, must evolve beyond being forums of
conscience. Their voices — reflective, informed, courageous — must reach the
national stage.
Australia
cannot afford more of the same. The next time a prime minister speaks of
compassion, it must not be in front of party faithful but in front of the world
— demanding, at the very least, a ceasefire, humanitarian access, and
accountability for crimes against humanity.
Because
Gaza is not just a headline. It is a test of what kind of country we are. And
the world is watching.
Anthony Albanese should have been referred to the International Criminal Court as an accessory to genocide in Gaza, making him the first leader of a Western nation to be referred to the ICC under Article 15 of the Rome Statute.
Other material:
- More than 1400 lawyers signed an open letter to Australian elected representatives dated 8 November 2023
- 137 legal scholars against genocide open letter
92 page letter (communique) to ICC Media release referring to above letter “endorsed by King’s
Counsel Greg James AM and well over 100 senior counsel and barristers, retired
judges, law professors and academics from around Australia”
Comments
Post a Comment