Our capitalist world sadly means we have to fund endeavours that should be standard in a thriving society - like informing the public of the important news happening around them, and tracking where their hard-earned tax dollars are spent. We’ve been doing that for just over a year now on a shoestring budget. But we’re in it for the long haul, so if you can, chip in with as little or as much as you like, or become a paid subscriber. Every dollar goes towards expanding our journalism (i.e. pissing off the powerful, and we are, so help us go further).
An Australian-made component can be fitted to an F-35 fighter, flown by another country and used in a conflict thousands of kilometres away. So where does Australia’s responsibility end?
That question sits at the centre of a package of bills being put to federal parliament by crossbench MPs and senators, who want Australian law to prevent defence equipment, technology, investment and services from contributing to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or unlawful occupation.
The Red Lines Package – introduced on 15 September by independents David Pocock and Sophie Scamps, and co-sponsored by Andrew Wilkie, the Greens and senators Lidia Thorpe and Fatima Payman – is a suite of four bills that would impose new obligations across defence exports, investment, trade and genocide-risk reporting.
Gaza the catalyst
The F-35 program is the most politically charged example. Australia is a partner in the multinational program and Australian companies manufacture components for the aircraft. Those parts enter a global supply chain before the finished aircraft are operated by different countries. F-35 aircraft have been used by Israel during its military operations in Gaza.
The crossbench argues Australia should not avoid responsibility simply because an Australian-made component is supplied indirectly, or because it is not itself a weapon.
Defence Minister Richard Marles has defended the existing system, saying Australia has a “very strict defence export control legislation and regime”.
Scamps argues the problem is that Australia’s international commitments are not sufficiently reflected in domestic law.
“It cannot be left to the discretion of the minister or government of the day to decide which genocides or illegal occupations we act on,” she told Deepcut.
She said the proposed laws were not designed around one country or conflict.
“There are grievous human rights abuses going on all around the world,” Scamps said.
“It is not nearly good enough for our government to say they are not sure if components we manufacture here in Australia are being used in F-35s that have killed tens of thousands of people and children in Gaza.”
What would change?
Australia already regulates defence exports, including military and dual-use goods and technology.
The proposed defence bill would add a test: whether there is a real risk Australian defence goods, technology or services could facilitate genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
That would require officials to look further along the supply chain.
Australia does not necessarily export complete weapons systems. Its defence industry makes components, develops software and provides specialist technology that can ultimately become part of larger military platforms. The sponsors argue the question therefore cannot simply be whether the immediate Australian export is lethal.
The proposed changes would also introduce greater oversight, end-user monitoring and transparency around defence exports.
The legal gap
The wider package rests partly on an absence in Australia’s legal framework.
Australia does not have a federal Human Rights Act or charter of rights. Unlike Victoria, Queensland and the ACT, there is no comprehensive federal law requiring Commonwealth decision-makers to consider a broad range of human rights.
That does not mean Australians have no human rights protections. The Constitution protects some rights, federal laws prohibit discrimination and the common law provides other safeguards. Australia has also ratified major international human rights treaties.
But international treaty obligations do not generally become directly enforceable domestic rights simply because Australia has signed them. They usually need to be incorporated into legislation.
The Red Lines Package does not seek to create a federal charter of rights. Instead, it proposes specific rules for areas where Australian governments, businesses and institutions can contribute to conduct overseas.
Following the money
The second bill would restrict investments by bodies such as the Future Fund, superannuation funds and charities where investments are connected to prohibited activities such as illegal settlements or conduct contributing to genocide.
Where an investment fell within the proposed regime, the institution would have to divest. That raises a difficult question for Australian investors: how far down a corporate chain should responsibility extend?
A superannuation fund might own shares in a multinational company whose subsidiaries, contractors or suppliers operate in activities covered by the legislation. Deepcut has previously reported on the Future Fund expanding its investments in Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems while Israel was slaughtering people en masse in Gaza.
The proposal would require institutions to look beyond the company name and investigate what their capital ultimately supports.
Reporting genocide risks
The package would also establish a genocide-risk reporting regime.
Large businesses, defence companies, universities, Commonwealth entities and the Future Fund would have to identify genocide risks within their operations and supply chains and report on the steps taken to address them. An independent Anti-Genocide Commissioner would also be established.
Dr Sophie Rigney, an RMIT University international law and human rights academic who helped draft the legislation, told Deepcut the reforms were intended to bring Australian law into closer alignment with its international obligations.
“There is a lag,” she said, arguing Australia had historically helped develop international law but had sometimes been slower to implement those obligations domestically.
“What (the bills) do is actually address Australia’s obligations, and not in reference to one particular thing happening in any other part of the world. We need to be really proactive about protecting Australian interests in this really complex global environment,” Rigney said.
Trade would also change
The fourth bill would prohibit the import and sale of certain goods produced in occupied territories and restrict the acquisition or provision of services supporting illegal settlements, while also targeting the extraction of natural resources from occupied territories.
The effect would be to move questions of international law into ordinary commercial decisions.
A company importing a product, providing a service or entering a contract could be required to establish whether the transaction was connected to activity prohibited under Australian law.
What happens next?
In an unusual move, Labor joined the Coalition on Thursday to vote to block a Senate inquiry into the Red Lines Package. An inquiry would allow open interrogation of the package without the government having to commit support. But the vote prevents the bills from even reaching the committee process, effectively denying parliamentary – and public – scrutiny.
The government’s position is that Australia already has a strict export-control regime that takes humanitarian and human rights considerations into account. More importantly, the Albanese government is enthusiastic about expanding Australia’s military industry and is unlikely to impose perceived impediments to its growth, no matter the human cost.
“Defence exports are really important in terms of building an Australian defence industry,” Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said last week.
The crossbench argues existing laws leave gaps and rely too heavily on ministerial decisions and case-by-case measures.
At the heart of the debate is a broader question: if Australia says genocide, war crimes and unlawful occupation are unacceptable, what should that commitment prevent Australian governments, businesses and institutions from doing?
The Red Lines Package puts that question into practical terms - at the weapons factory, in the superannuation portfolio, across corporate supply chains and potentially in the goods Australians buy.
