Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026
Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (16:02): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I rise today to speak in support of the Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026.
At its heart, this bill is about a pretty simple principle. There should be some lines that Australia is simply not prepared to cross. We should not be supplying weapons or military technology where there is a serious risk they will contribute to genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Australians' retirement savings and public money should not be financing illegal settlements or activities that contribute to genocide. Australian businesses and institutions should have a responsibility to identify and act on genocide risks in their operations and value chains. And Australians should not be able to profit from trade that sustains illegal settlements in occupied territories.
These should not be controversial propositions. They should be basic standards for a country like Australia that says it believes in international law, human rights and the rules-based international order. This bill brings those principles together into one package, covering defence trade controls, investment, genocide prevention and reporting, and trade with illegal settlements in occupied territories.
Importantly, these laws are not about picking a side in one particular conflict. They are about establishing rules that apply consistently. Because international law means very little if we insist on its application when it suits us and look the other way when it does not.
If we believe genocide is wrong, that must be true regardless of who is committing it. If we believe war crimes are wrong, that must be true regardless of who commits them. If we believe illegal occupation should not be economically sustained, that principle has to apply consistently too.
That consistency matters enormously at this moment. I've heard from so many Australians who are deeply distressed by what they are witnessing overseas and frustrated by what they see as a gap between Australia's stated commitment to international law and the practical decisions we make about trade, investment and defence. This legislation is an attempt to start closing that gap.
The first part of this package deals with defence exports. Australia has a significant defence industry and increasingly sees defence exports as part of our economic and strategic policy. But with that comes responsibility.
Schedule 1 deliberately adopts a broad definition of defence technology, goods and services. It covers not only arms, but relevant technical assistance, training, financial assistance, military personnel, technology, software and defence services. It also strengthens end-use requirements so that there is greater accountability for where Australian defence goods and technology ultimately go and how they are used.
The principle here is straightforward: Australian weapons, technology and expertise should not contribute to genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. We cannot simply wash our hands of responsibility once something leaves Australian shores. The second part of this package deals with investment.
This is increasingly important. Australians collectively have enormous financial power through our superannuation system, while the Commonwealth manages significant public assets through the Future Fund. Most Australians would reasonably expect that their retirement savings and public money are not being used to support serious violations of international law.
This bill puts legal obligations behind that expectation. It establishes restrictions covering the Future Fund, registered Australian charities and superannuation entities. For example, the bill would require the Future Fund Board to take reasonable steps to prevent investment in prohibited companies, illegal settlement activity or entities engaged in practices that may contribute to genocide risks.
And importantly, where the Board becomes aware that an investment is inconsistent with those requirements, it must promptly divest. Again, the principle is simple. Australia should not condemn serious violations of international law with one hand while allowing public money to help finance them with the other.
The third major element of this legislation is about prevention. One of the things I think is particularly important about this package is that it does not treat genocide solely as something we respond to after the fact. It asks what Australian governments, institutions and businesses can do to identify risks earlier and prevent Australian involvement.
The bill establishes a system of genocide statements, due diligence and corrective action, backed by an Australian Anti-Genocide Commissioner. Reporting entities would be required to take reasonable measures, including appropriate due diligence, to avoid genocide risks and practices that may contribute to those risks in their operations and value chains. They would also have to identify those risks when they arise and report them.
Crucially, this isn't intended to be a box-ticking reporting exercise. Where risks are identified, entities are required to take action. The Commissioner would have powers to make remediation orders, including requiring an entity to divest investments, terminate or unwind agreements, or take other specified action.
Senior managers would also have a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure their organisation complies with the legislation. That is an important shift. Transparency matters, but transparency without action is not enough.
If an Australian institution discovers that something it is doing, buying, financing or investing in is contributing to an unacceptable risk, there should be a responsibility to do something about it. The bill therefore establishes an independent Australian Anti-Genocide Commissioner. The Commissioner would have functions relating to addressing genocide and supporting victims, including consultation, advocacy and inquiries.
The legislation expressly provides that the Commissioner has complete discretion in exercising their functions and is not subject to direction from anyone. Appointments would also be merit-based and publicly advertised, with candidates required to have appropriate expertise in areas including human rights, regulation or public policy relating to genocide. I think that independence is particularly important.
Questions about Australia's involvement in conflicts overseas can be extraordinarily politically charged. An independent office provides another mechanism for scrutiny that is grounded in evidence and law rather than the politics of the day. The final major part of this package concerns trade with illegal settlements in occupied territories.
The bill creates offences relating to settlement goods and services and establishes enforcement mechanisms around those prohibitions. Again, there is an important principle behind this. If a settlement is unlawful under international law, Australia should not be helping make that settlement economically viable through our trade.
There is little point saying we do not recognise unlawful territorial acquisition while simultaneously allowing economic activity that helps sustain it. This package is ambitious. There will undoubtedly be debate about its details.
There should be. These are significant legal obligations, and Parliament should properly scrutinise how they operate, whether definitions are appropriately drawn, how compliance will work and whether the institutions tasked with enforcing them have the resources and independence they need. But we should not lose sight of the fundamental question this bill puts before us.
What responsibility should Australia take for the consequences of Australian money, Australian weapons, Australian companies and Australian trade? For me, the answer cannot be: none. Global supply chains and financial markets have made it increasingly easy for countries and corporations to be connected to human rights abuses thousands of kilometres away.
Distance does not make those connections meaningless. And complexity cannot become an excuse for doing nothing. Australia has spent decades arguing for a world governed by rules rather than simply by power.
As a middle power, we have a huge stake in that system. But if we want other countries to respect international law, Australia has to demonstrate that we are willing to apply those principles ourselves—including when doing so is difficult. And we have to apply them consistently.
That is one of the things I have heard most strongly from people in the ACT. People are deeply concerned about the suffering they are seeing around the world. They want Australia to play a constructive role.
But they also want consistency. They don't want one standard for our friends and another for everyone else. They want to know that when Australia says there are certain things the international community should never tolerate, we actually mean it.
Genocide. War crimes. Crimes against humanity.
Illegal occupation. These are red lines. And our domestic laws should reflect that.
This legislation says Australian weapons should not enable these crimes. Australian public money and retirement savings should not finance them. Australian organisations should take reasonable steps to ensure their operations and value chains are not contributing to genocide risks.
And Australian trade should not help sustain illegal settlements. Those are serious obligations. But they reflect the seriousness of the conduct we are talking about.
Ultimately, this bill is about ensuring that Australia's commitment to international law exists not only in the statements we make, but in the decisions we make about our weapons, our money, our businesses and our trade. Australia cannot prevent every atrocity around the world. But we can make sure we are not contributing to them.
We can make sure we are not profiting from them. And we can draw clear legal red lines around what Australians, Australian institutions and Australian governments should never enable. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator DAVID POCOCK: I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.