In mid September 2026, a broad coalition of independent and crossbench politicians introduced a coordinated suite of four bills to the Australian Federal Parliament, referred to as the Red Lines Package.

This legislation is designed to put strict, binding legal limits on Australia’s military exports, public investments, and trade to ensure the nation is not complicit in war crimes, genocide, or illegal occupations. 

It was introduced in the House of Representatives on 14 September by independent MP for Mackellar, Dr Sophie Scamps (seconded by independent MP Andrew Wilkie), and the companion bills were introduced in the Senate with co-sponsorship from Senators Fatima Payman, David Pocock and Mehreen Faruqi.

The package was developed by a coalition of legal experts, human rights advocates, and civil society groups, and formally launched at Parliament House with speakers including former Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs.²

Key principle

The key principle of the legislation posits that Australia should never arm, fund, invest in, or profit from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or illegal occupation anywhere in the world.

Four bills

The four interrelated bills comprising the Red Lines Package are summarised below:

1. Defence Trade Controls Amendment (War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide) Bill 2026 – This bill bars the minister from issuing defence export permits where there’s a risk that goods could contribute to genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. A major focal point is halting the supply of Australian-manufactured components for F-35 fighter jets used by Israel in Gaza. This bill requires a public permit register, end-use certificates, and creates criminal/civil penalties (including for officials).
2. Genocide Reporting, Prevention, and Restitution Bill 2026 – This bill requires annual ‘Genocide Statements’ from Commonwealth entities, large businesses, defence companies, universities, and the Future Fund, covering entire value chains (which are broader than the Modern Slavery Act). The bill creates an Anti-Genocide Commissioner and specific duties to be carried out by senior managers.
3. Treasury Laws Amendment (Divesting from Illegal Investments) Bill 2026 — This bill bars the Future Fund, superannuation funds, and charities from investing in companies complicit in illegal settlements or genocide risk, and necessitates divestment once identified.
4. Occupied Territories Goods and Services (Import Prohibition) Bill 2026 — This bill criminalises importing or trading goods/services from occupied territories, bans resource extraction from such territories, and applies extraterritorially to Australian citizens, residents, and corporations.  This bill is grounded in the constitution’s external affairs power and international instruments like the Fourth Geneva Convention.¹

Key supporting arguments

• Legal gap: Genocide has been a crime under Australian law since 2002, but there’s no comprehensive framework requiring due diligence, transparency, or risk prevention. Proponents argue that this leaves Australian capital (via the Future Fund, superannuation, and charities) able to flow into companies linked to illegal settlements or war crimes.
• International legal obligations: Advocates argue Australia has a legal duty under international law to prevent genocide. The package would bring domestic law into line with obligations under the Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, and international human rights covenants.
• Historical precedent: Supporters point to Australia’s past action against apartheid South Africa as a precedent for using trade and investment restrictions to respond to serious international law violations.
• Public mandate: Backers cite strong civil society support . The package has been endorsed by groups including Amnesty International, Oxfam, ActionAid, the Australian Centre for International Justice, and the Jewish Council of Australia. Also cited was a 125,000-signature Amnesty petition tabled in the Senate which calls for an end to Australian arms supply links with Israel.
• Reputational and ethical framing: Proponents argue the laws would protect Australia’s international reputation and prevent complicity in mass atrocities, framing it as a values-alignment measure rather than a distinct departure from existing norms.

Current status

In late September 2026, rather than voting down the bills, the Labor government and the Coalition teamed up to pass an amendment blocking a formal Senate inquiry into the package. Human rights groups noted that this measure effectively shut down public and expert scrutiny before committee evaluation.

Incredibly, the government defended its response by stating that Australia already maintains a strict export-control framework factoring in human rights. As noted above, the administration of this framework has failed to stop the supply of Australian-manufactured components for F-35 fighter jets used by Israel in its genocide in Gaza.

Also, true to form, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles emphasised the importance of defence exports to building the domestic defence industry without any mention of the moral imperative to ensure that such exports are never used in perpetrating human rights abuses, war crimes or genocide.³

Advocates, including the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), Amnesty International Australia, and the Jewish Council of Australia, have condemned the major parties for stifling debate and evading accountability with respect to existing and potential Australian complicity in international law violations.

The bills remain subject to future second-reading debates.

Notes

1. Full details of the bills’ text and explanatory memoranda can be accessed via the Red Lines Package website.

2. Amnesty International, ‘Red Lines’ bills hit Parliament as allies move to cut trade with illegal Israeli settlements’, Sep 13, 2026.

3. Advocates emphasise that Australia does not have a federal Human Rights Act or Charter of Rights. For example, Laura Banks writing in Deepcut states: “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.”