Who is carrying a pro-Israel agenda into Australia’s Parliament?

In a discussion uploaded by the Australian Jewish Association on 12 June 2025, Andrew Wallace MP explains that the Israel Allies Caucus operates outside the Commonwealth Parliament’s auspices. Two days later, a supporter’s account describes an Australian foundation established to support the caucus through advocacy, education and visits to Israel.^[1][2]

The caucus brings elected representatives into an external advocacy programme. Its parliamentary participants give it an audience and standing. The public should also be able to identify who organises its activities and sets the agenda whenever MPs present its work.

An external programme involving MPs

Wallace says the caucus is distinct from an official parliamentary friendship group. It was open to all MPs and senators, he explains, though its Australian membership at that point came from the Coalition.^[1] A parliamentary title or a meeting in Parliament House can identify the participants without making the programme Parliament’s own.

The international Israel Allies Foundation describes its mission as mobilising political support for Israel through faith-based legislators. The Australian supporter’s account connects the caucus to that network and describes a foundation supporting its work.^[3][2] The organisations are declaring a political purpose, and religious conviction is a legitimate basis for advocacy.

Wallace also gives the strongest reason to resist treating the caucus as a body that sets Coalition policy. He says he cannot speak for the Coalition, identifies its then policy as a two-state solution, and explains that an external caucus without Labor members can criticise the government more freely than a cross-party friendship group.^[1] His account places the caucus within domestic political competition. A member’s participation and the party’s policy remain separate questions.

Sponsored travel gives access

Wallace’s interests statement records flights, transfers, meals and accommodation supplied by the Israel Allies Foundation for its December 2019 Jerusalem Chairman’s Conference.^[4]

Wallace declared the benefit openly. The historical register names the provider and assistance, although it supplies neither full costs nor an itinerary.^[4] Those disclosures are the starting point for scrutiny.

Sponsored travel gives a provider time with a politician and a role in choosing the speakers, experiences and material through which a conflict is understood. Its political value can lie in that opportunity even when the participant retains independent judgement. Programmes and follow-up correspondence would show which arguments sponsors presented and what, if anything, they asked Wallace to do afterwards.

Education carries policy choices

The Australian foundation’s programme, as described by supporter Pam Culpitt, includes visits, community events, media statements, legal change and education about Israel and the Jewish people’s historical and biblical connection to the land.^[2] In the AJA discussion, John Lockwood describes educating parliamentarians and their electorates and asks how the foundation can reach them.^[1]

That proposed education has a political direction. It seeks to shape how MPs and constituents understand Israel, with legal change among its stated aims. Historical and biblical connection is a subject for discussion; present legal rights require their own reasoning, including scrutiny of occupation and Palestinian rights. MPs should expect an advocacy programme to explain how its materials address competing accounts.

An openly partisan programme deserves a hearing. Its value can be assessed more fairly when audiences know who chose its content and what action it seeks. Event notices should name the organiser and sponsor. MPs hosting a session should say whether they are supporting its policy position or offering advocates an opportunity to argue it.

Wallace and the foundations should publish who governs and finances the caucus’s activities, the materials and itineraries supplied to MPs, and the policy changes they request. MPs should explain which requests they accepted or rejected and why. The test is whether a reader can follow an advocate’s programme into an MP’s decision without mistaking access to Parliament for Parliament’s endorsement.