Red Lines Package Omnibus

1. Defence exporters and suppliers would be barred from providing military goods, technology or services where there is a real risk they could help genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The ban would cover permitted and permit-free supplies, and the minister would have to refuse, change or cancel permits when the risk applies. Customs permissions could not override these bans. The Defence Minister would have to issue consistent export-prohibition notices where reasonably necessary, and knowingly or recklessly breaching one would be a separate offence. The Crown could be prosecuted, specified permit decisions would be reviewable, and findings by certain international courts could create a presumption that a real risk exists unless the contrary is proved.

2. The Defence Minister would have to monitor covered defence supplies and, where practical, verify their final users and the risk of later misuse. A public register would list permits, related activities and permit-free or Customs-controlled supplies. Sensitive information could be removed unless that would hide a possible breach, and suppliers would have to keep records for at least 10 years.

3. The Future Fund Board would be required not to knowingly make investments linked to prohibited companies, illegal settlementA civilian settlement in occupied territory that is illegal under international law. activity or organisations whose conduct may contribute to genocide risks, and to take all reasonable steps to prevent them. If it discovered such an investment, it would have to sell it promptly. Registered charities would face similar restrictions and could lose their charity registration for non-compliance. Super fund trustees and directors would likewise be required not to knowingly use affected money or assets for these purposes and to take all reasonable steps to prevent that use.

4. Arms-related businesses that are Australian entities or operate in Australia, and entities in either category with annual group revenue of at least $100 million, would have to report each year on genocide risks across their activities and supply chains. Universities, specified research bodies, Commonwealth bodies and the Future Fund Board would also report. A single-entity statement would need governing-body approval and be due within six months after the reporting period. Joint statements would generally have the same six-month deadline, unless rules set another period; an alternative approval route could be used only where the usual routes were impracticable. The minister would prepare one statement covering all non-corporate Commonwealth entities.

5. The reports would have to identify genocide risks and explain the organisation's response, how effective it was, who was consulted and what complaint channels were available. Reports could not be misleading and would be published free online. Related entities under common control would have to provide information needed to reveal otherwise undisclosed risks, and the reporting organisation would have to include those risks. Covered organisations would also have to take all reasonable measures to find and avoid risks, then take reasonably necessary steps to remove risks they identify.

6. The Anti-Genocide Commissioner could order reporting organisations to sell investments, end agreements or take other corrective action, while senior managers would have to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance. A separate ban would apply to everyone. It would cover conduct calculated or reasonably likely to assist or enable genocide, hinder efforts to prevent or punish it, hinder public awareness, or result in someone benefiting from genocide or related conduct.

7. A new Australian Anti-Genocide Commissioner would support organisations, conduct education and research, review relevant Commonwealth laws and assess whether Australia was meeting its duties under the Genocide Convention. The Commissioner could hold inquiries but could not investigate or resolve individual suspected cases of genocide. The Commissioner would have complete discretion and could not be directed by anyone. Government finance law could not be used to terminate the appointment or limit the Commissioner's independence or legal functions.

8. The Finance Minister, responsible ministers and other Commonwealth financial decision-makers would have to use their powers consistently with the bill's genocide-reporting and prevention rules. Existing financial-governance powers could not require conduct that conflicts with those rules or prevent conduct that the rules require.

9. Australian citizens and ordinary residents, Corporations Act companies, and businesses centrally managed and controlled in Australia would commit offences if they imported or sold goods produced wholly or partly by an unlawful settler in an illegal settlementA civilian settlement in occupied territory that is illegal under international law., acquired or provided services supporting such settlements, or extracted natural resources from an occupied territoryA qualifying occupied territory, an area forming part of one, or a territory or area added by rules.. Attempts and assistance would also be covered outside Australia. Rules could add occupied territories or areas. The import exception would apply only to goods intended for Australia that were already aboard a ship or aircraft whose journey had begun when the schedule commenced. Parties to earlier contracts would not be liable merely because those contracts existed, but would have three months to change or end them. The defence for United Nations activity would be limited to acts or omissions carried out by a principal or subsidiary UN organ. Contraventions would also carry separate civil-penalty liability.

10. The proposed penalties are substantial. Intentional or reckless breaches of the main defence-supply bans could attract up to 30 years in prison, 1 million penalty units, or both. Individuals who breach the reporting, risk-prevention or senior-manager rules could face up to five years and 10,000 penalty units. An individual who knows, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct breaches the separate complicity ban could face up to 15 years and 50,000 penalty units. For companies, reporting offences could attract the greater of 50,000 penalty units or 10% of annual turnover, while breaching the complicity ban could attract 2.5 million penalty units. Occupied-territory trade offences could attract up to five years and 1,250 penalty units when prosecuted on indictmentA prosecution for a more serious offence using the formal court process.. Courts could also award compensation or damages and make injunctions or other orders, while specified ministerial and Commissioner decisions could be reviewed.

No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.