Australia’s approach to military exports has come under scrutiny due to a lack of transparency, raising questions about the country’s adherence to international arms control standards. Historically, Australian governments have prioritized a high international profile in arms control, aligning with efforts to support a global rules-based order. This commitment has extended to various multilateral agreements concerning nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as well as the nation’s role in the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which integrates human rights and humanitarian considerations into the arms trade.
Despite these efforts, the current opacity of Australia’s defence export regime is causing concerns. Particularly, the lack of public disclosure regarding the export of military and dual-use items could challenge Australia’s reputation as a supporter of the rule of law. This issue gains significance in light of geopolitical tensions and strategic competitions globally.
Under Australian law, defence exports require a permit from the Minister of Defence. However, detailed information about these exports, including the recipients and purposes, is not publicly disclosed. In contrast, major arms exporting nations like the United States and members of the European Union provide more detailed public reports on their military exports.
Questions have been raised about Australia’s defence exports to various countries, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, particularly regarding their potential use in conflict zones or in violation of international law. For instance, over 300 defence exports to Israel have been approved since 2017, but the specifics remain undisclosed. This lack of information has led to legal challenges and public protests, seeking greater accountability and adherence to international legal standards.
The comparison with the transparency practices of the US and EU highlights an accountability gap in Australia’s defence export regime. Advocates suggest that aligning Australia’s disclosure practices with these nations would better serve its interests in maintaining international credibility and reinforcing the global rules-based order, crucial for national security and foreign policy.
