I can see that. Secretary, this morning we finally got some answers on notice that were asked at last estimates, on 25 October, about export permits that have been issued to the State of Israel. We were advised that two weapons export permits have been granted to Israel since 7 October 2023. We got that answer this morning, a bit before 8 am. Does that answer say that two export permits have been granted to Israel between 7 October 2023 and 8 am today, when the answers were given, or is it that two export permits had been granted to the State of Israel between 7 October 2023 and when we asked it, on 25 October?
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I can see that. Secretary, this morning we finally got some answers on notice that were asked at last estimates, on 25 October, about export permits that have been issued to the State of Israel. We were advised that two weapons export permits have been granted to Israel since 7 October 2023. We got that answer this morning, a bit before 8 am. Does that answer say that two export permits have been granted to Israel between 7 October 2023 and 8 am today, when the answers were given, or is it that two export permits had been granted to the State of Israel between 7 October 2023 and when we asked it, on 25 October?
Mr Jeffrey : Two export permits have been granted since the time of the last estimates.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: What were those export permits for?
Mr Jeffrey : You won’t be surprised that I won’t go into the content of individual permit decisions.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Was it a decision of the minister to grant the export permits? Under the regs, it’s a ministerial decision. Did the minister sign off on it?
Mr Jeffrey : I repeat my last answer.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: No. Who signed off on it? The regs require the defence minister—
Mr Jeffrey : I’m just not going to go into details.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: It says in 13E(4) of the defence and strategic goods part of the customs regs that the defence minister is the person who grants permission. Was it the defence minister who granted permission?
Mr Jeffrey : I’ll talk about the process, as we usually do.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: That’s what I’m doing.
Mr Jeffrey : The process is that the delegation to grant the permit rests with the Defence Export Controls team in the Department of Defence. We can, from time to time, raise issues to the minister’s attention and seek his or her decision on matters relating to exports when it’s particularly sensitive or there are other issues to consider, but I’m not going to go into each individual case.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Did these go before the minister?
Mr Jeffrey : I’m not going to go into each individual case.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I’m not asking for the individual case; I’m asking for the process. I want to know whether the defence minister signed off or was involved in either of the two weapons export permits that have been granted to the State of Israel since 7 October. Was the defence minister involved?
Mr Jeffrey : I understand your question and my answer to you is that we won’t go into individual permits.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I press for an answer. Through you, Chair, I press for an answer. Clearly, Mr Jeffrey knows whether the defence minister was involved and he’s choosing not to answer.
Senator LAMBIE: Yes. It’s ridiculous.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: If he wishes to go through the process of seeking to take some privilege claim, he can do that. But he clearly knows and he’s not telling us.
Mr Jeffrey : As I’ve mentioned to you before, we’re happy to take you through the process—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: No. I want my question answered.
Mr Jeffrey : of how we do things on a case-by-case basis.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I want my question answered.
Mr Jeffrey : I won’t go into details of the individual permits. Mr Nockels can take you through how the delegation sits within the department and how it’s exercised.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Maybe I phrased it badly. Did the Deputy Prime Minister have any involvement in these two export permits that have been granted for weapons exports since 7 October?
Mr Nockels : Senator Shoebridge—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: If you’re answering my question, Mr Nockels, I’m quite comfortable. But if you’re not going to answer my question, don’t just chew up the time. Did the Deputy Prime Minister have involvement—
Mr Nockels : Senator Shoebridge, I’m seeking to answer your question. As the deputy secretary just mentioned, the process is that, under the legislation—that is, the Defence Trade Controls Act—ultimately the defence minister is responsible for those decisions. However, those decisions, in terms of giving permits, are delegated down into the department. So, in direct response to your question, the answer is no.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: He had no involvement and it didn’t come across his desk. Is that your answer, Mr Nockels?
Mr Nockels : That is correct.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: In granting the weapons export permits to the State of Israel, how was that possible, given that one of the criteria you were meant to be considering is whether or not the export may aggravate an existing threat to international peace and security or to the peace and security of a region or a particular event or conflict of concern to Australia? How could you grant the export permit, given that?
Senator McAllister: Senator Shoebridge, I will ask Mr Jeffrey and Mr Nockels to step you through it, but you persist in referring to this as an export permit in relation to weapons. You know, because we’ve canvassed it here before, that permits are required for a very wide range of products and we have canvassed the range of them here previously. I’ll refer your question on.
Mr Jeffrey : Thank you. As we’ve explained before—you’re aware of the process—the export control permit process involves a range of goods. You can be assured that, if two permits were agreed, they would have been agreed on the basis that they did not prejudice Australian national interests under the criterion of the legislation.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: But you won’t tell us what any of the goods are. This is more of the tennis racquets, is it, rather than armour, drone parts or parts of F-35s? It’s sporting goods again, is it?
Mr Jeffrey : As you know, the Defence and Strategic Goods List contains a wide range of items, the majority of which are dual-use items and therefore cover a range of different applications.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Mr Jeffrey, is military-grade steel, used for tank armour and for the armour on fighting vehicles that are currently being deployed in Gaza, considered to be a weapon?
Mr Jeffrey : Not under our definition. Steel is steel and it’s not a weapon.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Even though it’s been exported directly to two separate Israeli arms manufacturing companies that used the steel to put on armoured fighting vehicles that are currently in Gaza and also used in the West Bank. You don’t define weapons-grade military armour used for that purpose as a weapon; is that as I understand it?
Mr Jeffrey : The definition we use for ‘weapon’ we derive from definitions of the United Nations—the Arms Trade Treaty, which classifies what weapons are.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Do you consider parts of an F-35 fighter jet, such as the parts manufactured in Australia and used on Israeli defence force fighter jets to open the bomb bay doors, to be weapons?
Mr Jeffrey : A pencil is used for writing. It’s not designed, in and of itself, to be a weapon, but it can be, if you want to use it as a weapon.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Bomb bay doors are generally used to release bombs.
Mr Jeffrey : Under the UN definition, weapons are defined as whole systems, like armoured vehicles, tanks and combat helicopters. Paint and other items are not considered weapons, in and of themselves.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: With the 50-odd contractors who contribute parts to the F-35 fighter jets that are currently being used to drop bombs on the Palestinian people in Gaza, you count none of their exports as weapons; is that right?
Mr Jeffrey : There’s a lot in your question. I don’t know if—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Bomb bay doors.
Mr Jeffrey : I don’t know if F-35s are being used in the conflict in Gaza. You’ll need to ask the—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You’re doing the export permits for these weapons parts and you don’t know whether or not they’re being used in Gaza?
Mr Jeffrey : No; I’m just saying that, in responding to your question, I’m not confirming that F-35s are being used in that context.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: They are.
Mr Jeffrey : If Australian industry—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: They are.
Mr Jeffrey : If there is a request to purchase Australian-produced material—Australia is a contributor to the global supply chain on F-35s and, if Israel is seeking to purchase that equipment, it would need to go through the same export control process as does every other export that is covered by the DSGL.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Indeed, the relevant international definition of weapons expressly includes parts. Indeed, that matter was recently considered, just in the last 48 hours, by a Dutch court, which found conclusively against what you say and said that the provision of F-35 jet fighter parts by the Netherlands to Israel was in breach of their international arms control obligations and, in fact, ordered a cessation of the export. Do I accept your position or the position that was just found by a Dutch court?
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, I draw you back to my opening statement. We are asking questions of officials that go to the operations or financial positions of Australian departments and their agencies, not those overseas.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Correct.
CHAIR: Can you perhaps rephrase or continue on with your line, but be mindful that officials can only answer within their jurisdiction.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: My question was in order. Mr Jeffrey, answer it.
CHAIR: It’s not, and I’m just asking you, politely, to rephrase the question.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You’ll have to point to the standing order, Chair, that says—
CHAIR: Don’t waste time.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: No; you’re wasting time and you’re running interference on this.
CHAIR: Time is getting away from us.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: My question is in order.
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, you should withdraw that.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I withdraw that.
CHAIR: Thank you.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: My question is in order.
CHAIR: Continue on. You’ve only got one minute left.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Mr Jeffrey, you heard the question. A Dutch court, looking at those same international conventions, just found unambiguously that the provision of F-35 jet fighter parts to the State of Israel was in breach of international conventions on arms control, was the provision of a weapon and was unlawful, and ordered the cessation of it. Why do you say they’re wrong, and why do you say that parts of weapons do not constitute weapons for our international obligations?
Senator McAllister: I think it’s unsurprising that officials are not in a position to provide commentary on a specific judgement made in a court in another jurisdiction in relation to, presumably, a domestic law in that jurisdiction which interacts with international law. Mr Jeffrey has, on many occasions, provided answers to you, which I know that you don’t like or agree with, about the operation of the legal framework in Australia; I think he’s been very straight with you about how that operates. It may be that he’s in a position to provide some comment in relation to your question, but I do wish to make the point that it’s a very specific question about a particular finding in another jurisdiction and I think it is beyond what might ordinarily be expected of an official in these estimates.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Indeed, no, Minister, because the Arms Trade Treaty, to which Australia is a party, provides, in article 4, which is headed ‘Parts and Components’, an extended definition of ‘weapon’, which reads:
Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components where the export is in a form that provides the capability to assemble the conventional arms covered under Article 2(1) and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorising the export of such parts and components.
That’s our obligation under the Arms Trade Treaty. As I understand it, Mr Jeffrey, your department seems to be ignorant of that and is routinely breaching it.
Mr Jeffrey : You’ve just described exactly what we do. Anything under the Defence and Strategic Goods List has to be subject to an export permit issued by this department. If an Australian industry firm wants to export these goods, they have to seek a permit. They include parts, they include whole systems, they include military items and they include dual-use items. Everything that you’ve just described is the process.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You just told me that parts of weapons aren’t weapons, despite the very clear definition in the Arms Trade Treaty that Australia is a party to and your department is obliged to enforce.
Mr Jeffrey : You’ve lost me. What point are you asking us to—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: When you said that parts of weapons are not weapons, you did so either ignorant of or, worse still, deliberately misrepresenting our international obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty.
Mr Jeffrey : No. I think that’s—
Senator McAllister: I think Mr Jeffrey has just—
CHAIR: You should withdraw that because—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I withdraw that.
CHAIR: Thank you.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You did so in direct breach of our international obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty, didn’t you?
CHAIR: Thank you. I have to move the call along. Senator Malcolm Roberts has been waiting patiently.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Just to be clear on one point on that line of questioning, it is clear that Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel in the last five years; correct?
Mr Jeffrey : That’s correct.
CHAIR: The other point that I want also to flesh out is that an export permit—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Bomb bay doors, chrome parts—
CHAIR: Excuse me.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Armour for their military.
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: What you said is plainly untrue.
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: It’s plainly untrue.
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: The Australian public are sick of being gaslighted by this government.
CHAIR: And I think we’re sick of your interjections, but we’ll carry on. One other point is that having an export permit does not mean that things have actually been exported; correct?
Mr Jeffrey : That’s correct.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call…..
CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge?
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I have one question to finish off on the weapons exports. Minister, do you know how many current weapons export permits are in place for the State of Israel? They can have a five-year term or a two-year term. How many are currently in place?
Mr Jeffrey : Can I first please correct the record? You asked me earlier about whether there have been any additional export permits agreed. I said since last estimates; it’s actually since 7 October—two permits since 7 October.
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I thought you were going to address paint as a weapon. No? How many are there?
Mr Nockels : We would have to take that on notice. We have previously provided to the committee how many permits we have given. As you correctly point out, some of them lapse over time. As for how many are extant or current—
Senator SHOEBRIDGE: You’re taking it on notice?
Mr Nockels : I will have to come back to the committee on that.