Sponsor speech Supports
Fatima Payman
Payman strongly supports the bill and says it is needed to stop Australia and its businesses being complicit in genocide, especially through defence and supply-chain spending.
Read in Hansard ↗Genocide Risk Reporting
Current status
This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Policy area
Government & democracy
What does this bill do?
Arms makers, military suppliers and related businesses in Australia would have to publish a yearly public statement on how they identify and deal with genocide risks in their operations and supply chains.
Why was it introduced?
Australia has only partly put its genocide obligations into domestic law, leaving gaps in preventing complicity through defence relationships and supply chains. The bill requires annual genocide-risk statements from government and some businesses, creates an Anti-Genocide CommissionerA new watchdog role proposed in the bill to help improve compliance and supply chain transparency, but not to investigate individual complaints., and adds penalties to push due diligenceThe checks and action a business would have to do to spot genocide risk, reduce it, and show that its steps are working. and transparency.
Broader context
Australia had long been bound by the Genocide ConventionThe 1948 international treaty that sets Australia's core duties to prevent, punish and avoid involvement in genocide. and, from 2014, by arms trade rules requiring care over transfers linked to genocide, but the bill’s backers argued those duties were only partly reflected in domestic law and left gaps around defence relationships, government investment and complex supply chains. After the International Court of JusticeThe main United Nations court, which the bill cites for its provisional measures in the South Africa v Israel case. issued provisional measuresTemporary court orders that ask a country to act while a genocide case is still being heard. in the South Africa v IsraelThe genocide case before the International Court of Justice that the bill uses as part of its argument that Australia should act on known risk. case in January 2024 and a UNThe international body whose statement in June 2024 called for a halt to arms transfers to Israel. statement in June 2024 called for a halt to arms transfers to Israel, the bill was introduced to force annual genocide-risk reporting and create an Anti-Genocide CommissionerA new watchdog role proposed in the bill to help improve compliance and supply chain transparency, but not to investigate individual complaints., but it later lapsed at the end of the Parliament in July 2025.
Key criticism
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and no detailed criticism appears in the available debate material. The only recorded contribution here was supportive, so any broader reservations about drafting, compliance burden or enforcement reach are not established on this record.
Who supported it?
Senator Fatima Payman introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from some crossbench members.
Introduced in Senate 28 Nov 2024
Failed in Senate 21 July 2025
Did not reach House —
Did not become law —
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
235 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
What does this bill do?
-
Arms makers, military suppliers and related businesses in Australia would have to publish a yearly public statement on how they identify and deal with genocide risks in their operations and supply chains.
-
The Australian Government would also have to publish its own yearly genocide risk statement, and companies or bodies not covered by the law could choose to opt in and report too.
-
Each report would need to explain the business or government's supply chains, the genocide risks it sees, what it has done about them, and how it checks whether those steps work.
-
The bill would create an Australian Anti-Genocide CommissionerA new watchdog role proposed in the bill to help improve compliance and supply chain transparency, but not to investigate individual complaints. to help government, business and community groups improve compliance and make supply chains more transparent, but not to investigate individual complaints.
-
Businesses that fail to lodge a report, file materially false information, ignore an order to fix non-compliance, or go without a required due diligenceThe checks and action a business would have to do to spot genocide risk, reduce it, and show that its steps are working. system could face criminal penalties.
Show source excerpts
-
The Genocide Risk Reporting Bill 2024 (‘the Bill’) will establish a Genocide Reporting Requirement for certain businesses and other entities in Australia to make annual public reports (Genocide Statements) on their actions to address genocide risks in their operations and supply chains.
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum -
Australian reporting entities and entities carrying business in Australia are required to submit Genocide Statements for every twelve-month period. The Australian Government must also publish an annual Genocide Statement. Entities that are not required to report can volunteer to provide annual public Genocide Statements.
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum -
A Genocide Statement must cover mandatory criteria by describing:
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum -
The Bill also creates a new Anti-Genocide Commissioner. The Commissioner’s functions would allow the Commissioner to work with Government, business and civil society to support compliance with the Act, improve the transparency of supply chains, and help fight genocide in Australia and abroad. The Commissioner’s function in relation to supporting businesses to address risks of genocide practices in their operations and supply chains involves supporting businesses to identify and assess genocide risks and processes for their elimination, minimisation and avoidance.
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum -
In line with the penalties proposed for the Modern Slavery Act 2018 by Recommendation 20 of the Professor John McMillan AO review of that Act, subsection 61(1) outlines criminal penalties for a reporting entity that It is an offence for a reporting entity:
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum
Context
Broader context for this bill
Australia had long been bound by the Genocide ConventionThe 1948 international treaty that sets Australia's core duties to prevent, punish and avoid involvement in genocide. and, from 2014, by arms trade rules requiring care over transfers linked to genocide, but the bill’s backers argued those duties were only partly reflected in domestic law and left gaps around defence relationships, government investment and complex supply chains. After the International Court of JusticeThe main United Nations court, which the bill cites for its provisional measures in the South Africa v Israel case. issued provisional measuresTemporary court orders that ask a country to act while a genocide case is still being heard. in the South Africa v IsraelThe genocide case before the International Court of Justice that the bill uses as part of its argument that Australia should act on known risk. case in January 2024 and a UNThe international body whose statement in June 2024 called for a halt to arms transfers to Israel. statement in June 2024 called for a halt to arms transfers to Israel, the bill was introduced to force annual genocide-risk reporting and create an Anti-Genocide CommissionerA new watchdog role proposed in the bill to help improve compliance and supply chain transparency, but not to investigate individual complaints., but it later lapsed at the end of the Parliament in July 2025.
- 1951
Genocide ConventionThe 1948 international treaty that sets Australia's core duties to prevent, punish and avoid involvement in genocide. takes effect for Australia’s international obligations
The explanatory memorandum says Australia signed the Convention on 11 December 1948 and that it entered into force under international law in 1951, creating core duties to prevent and punish genocide.
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum ↗ - 03 June 2014
Arms Trade TreatyThe arms control treaty that limits when Australia can approve transfers of weapons or parts if they may be used in genocide or other grave crimes. adds duties over transfers linked to genocide
The memorandum says the treaty entered into force for Australia on 3 June 2014 and requires Australia not to authorise certain arms transfers when it has knowledge they would be used in genocide or other grave crimes.
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum ↗ - 26 Jan 2024
ICJThe main United Nations court, which the bill cites for its provisional measures in the South Africa v Israel case. issues provisional measuresTemporary court orders that ask a country to act while a genocide case is still being heard. in South Africa v IsraelThe genocide case before the International Court of Justice that the bill uses as part of its argument that Australia should act on known risk.
The bill’s memorandum says the court’s orders indicated a plausible case that Palestinians in Gaza had a right to be protected from genocide, sharpening the argument that Australia had to act when a serious risk was known.
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum ↗ - June 2024
UNThe international body whose statement in June 2024 called for a halt to arms transfers to Israel. statement calls for a halt to arms transfers to Israel
A UNThe international body whose statement in June 2024 called for a halt to arms transfers to Israel. statement dated 20 June 2024, cited in the memorandum, called on states and companies to stop arms transfers to Israel to prevent human rights violations.
Genocide Risk Reporting explanatory memorandum ↗ - 28 Nov 2024
Genocide Risk Reporting Bill is introduced in the Senate
The bill was introduced to require annual genocide-risk statements from government and some businesses, backed by penalties and a new Anti-Genocide CommissionerA new watchdog role proposed in the bill to help improve compliance and supply chain transparency, but not to investigate individual complaints. to support compliance and supply-chain transparency.
Parliamentary timeline ↗ - 21 July 2025
Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
The proposal did not become law because the parliamentary record shows it lapsed when the Parliament ended.
Parliamentary timeline ↗
Legislative route
How did it move through Parliament?
House Senate
Introduced 28 Nov 2024
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
Second reading opened 28 Nov 2024
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Lapsed at end of Parliament 21 July 2025
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main case against this bill
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and no detailed criticism appears in the available debate material. The only recorded contribution here was supportive, so any broader reservations about drafting, compliance burden or enforcement reach are not established on this record.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far.
Votes
Recorded votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Who spoke, and what they said
Start here — lead voices
All speeches by bloc
Minor parties and independents
1 speaker · 1 support
Minor parties and independents
1 speaker · 1 support
-
Fatima Payman ★ Payman strongly supports the bill and says it is needed to stop Australia and its businesses being complicit in genocide, especially through defence and supply-chain spending.
“The choice is clear. I urge all members of this Parliament to rise to this challenge and support this Bill.”
Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Full record
- Status
- Not Proceeding -- Collected from the APH bill page.
- Originating house
- Senate
- 28 Nov 2024
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
- 28 Nov 2024
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
- 21 July 2025
Senate · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.