Australia’s commitment to international law becomes considerably less convincing when enforcing it might disrupt defence contracts, the flow of dirty investments or strategic alliances. The Albanese government’s resistance to the Red Lines Package exposes this inherent contradiction: they will always condemns atrocities overseas, while continuing to make sure that Australian companies profit this them.
The Red Line Package seeks to prevent Australian weapons, investments and trade from contributing to genocide, war crimes and illegal occupation – this shouldn’t be a problem for a government that presents itself as a defender of human rights, and it’s a very basic premise: Australia should not finance, equip or profit from atrocities. Yet Labor and the Coalition combined to block a Senate inquiry into the legislation.
An inquiry would allow the proposals, their practical consequences and any shortcomings to be examined publicly, and fit into the public interest test. There are also questions about Australian defence exports and the global F-35 supply chain, and trade with illegal settlements. What safeguards follow Australian military components beyond the factory gate? How should financial institutions assess their exposure to atrocities? And why should commercial complexity become an excuse for avoiding responsibility?
Although Israel and Gaza give these questions immediate urgency, the package proposes a broader standard, applying across countries rather than singling out just the one government, which in this case, is Israel. That makes the political test even more important: whether Australia will accept enforceable limits, even when they inconvenience powerful partners.
