Palestinian Human Rights Groups Launch Federal Court Bid to Uncover Australian Arms Export Permits to Israel
Three prominent Palestinian human rights organizations have initiated a legal challenge in the Federal Court of Australia, aiming to compel Defence Minister Richard Marles to release documents related to military export permits for Israel. The groups allege that these permits may have been granted without proper assessment of potential human rights abuses, potentially violating international law.
Legal Action Seeks Transparency on Dual-Use Exports
The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al-Haq, and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, supported by the Australian Centre for International Justice (ACIJ), filed an affidavit last week. They plan to make a discovery application for arms export documents, arguing that the Australian government's secrecy undermines public trust and accountability.
The Albanese government has consistently denied supplying weapons to Israel since October 7, 2023, describing existing permits as "dual-use" for commercial or civilian applications with potential military uses. In August, Marles stated emphatically, "Let’s be clear: we don't supply weapons to Israel."
Defence Department Review Reveals Permit Changes
In November 2024, the defence department confirmed it had amended or lapsed at least 16 defence-related export permits to Israel as part of a review of 66 active exports. Deputy Secretary Hugh Jeffrey explained that permits were lapsed or amended because the department could not be confident they would not contradict Australia's national security or international obligations.
By October 2025, the department reported 54 active permits, including 22 issued to Israeli end-users since October 7, 2023, with five expired. Thirty-one permits issued before the war were deemed not requiring action, while six remained under ongoing scrutiny.
International Law Experts Highlight Obligations
Professor Donald Rothwell, an international law expert at the Australian National University, noted the government's refusal to release documents through freedom of information laws. He explained that the discovery request is a standard step in civil litigation to build a legal case against the Commonwealth.
Associate Professor Joanna Kyriakakis, an international criminal justice expert at Monash University, emphasized Australia's obligations under international law to avoid contributing to risks of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes through technology exports. She stated this case is critical for assessing whether the minister considered such risks when permitting exports to Israel.
Global Context and Australian Involvement
The United Nations independent international commission of inquiry found in September that "genocide is occurring in Gaza and is continuing to occur," according to its chair, Navi Pillay. Former human rights commissioner Chris Sidoti, a commission member, urged Australia to ensure it is not involved in arms trading that breaches international law.
Shawan Jabarin, Al-Haq’s general director, asserted Palestinians' right to know who is arming Israel and what is being exported. He criticized the lack of transparency, stating, "We should not have to go to court to understand who is arming the Israeli regime."
F-35 Program and Supply Chain Concerns
The Greens have campaigned against Australian-made parts in F-35 fighter jets used in Gaza strikes. Australia participates in the Joint Strike Fighter Program, with over 75 companies contributing to the global supply chain. RUAG Australia is the sole global supplier of the F-35's "uplock actuator system," enabling missile firing while maintaining stealth.
Germany, the second-largest arms supplier to Israel after the US, has halted exports for use in Gaza operations. Marles argued Australia cannot take similar action as it does not directly supply arms to Israel.
Previous Attempts and Public Mistrust
The groups previously sought documents in November 2023 but discontinued the action due to transparency issues. Rawan Arraf, ACIJ's principal lawyer, criticized the arms export regime for operating with minimal public scrutiny, leading to mistrust and anger over potential complicity in grave international crimes.
This legal bid underscores ongoing tensions between government assurances and demands for accountability in arms exports, with implications for Australia's foreign policy and human rights commitments.
