Crossbench 'Red Lines' Bill Seeks Limits on Australian Military Exports

Independent senator David Pocock and independent MP Sophie Scamps will present "red lines" legislation in federal parliament on Monday 14 September 2026. The bill would bar Australian goods, including F-35 fighter jet parts, from use by the Israeli military.

The bill is written as a general limit on future transfers, not as an embargo aimed at one country. It would ban Australian defence equipment, technology or services from being used where they could breach Australia's international human rights obligations, according to details reported ahead of the launch The Guardian. Other descriptions of the package describe the ban as covering defence exports that could be used to commit genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Proponents say the practical effect would be to end Australia's role in making F-35 parts used by the Israeli air force in Gaza. The F-35 is built through a multinational supply chain, like a machine assembled from parts made in many countries. Proponents argue that Australian-made parts are part of that chain and fall under Australia's export controls, the permit rules for what military goods can be sent abroad and how they can be used.

The package goes beyond weapons hardware. Proponents say it could also stop companies and institutions from investing in activities linked to illegal settlements and other serious violations of international law. The text, as described, ties defence trade limits and investment limits to the same international law test.

The proposal includes two new accountability steps. It would create an independent anti-genocide commissioner. It would also require large companies, defence businesses and Commonwealth entities — federal government bodies — to report genocide risks in their operations and supply chains and to act on them.

The push comes from across the crossbench, the MPs and senators outside the major parties. It also includes the Greens and independents Lidia Thorpe, Andrew Wilkie and Fatima Payman. Thorpe, Pocock, Scamps and APIL jointly invited supporters to the launch of the Red Lines Package in late August, an invitation that foreshadowed the September presentation.

The broader context here is how crossbench power works. Bills from the crossbench rarely pass without government support. They can still force a minister to respond, trigger committee review, and require the government to explain its end-use assurances, its promises about checking how weapons are finally used.

Looking at export-control practice, the proposal would move from case-by-case permit decisions to fixed legal red lines plus mandatory checks by companies. State controls and company reporting would run side by side. That approach borrows from modern supply-chain laws and applies it to preventing mass atrocities.

In my view, the hard questions are about definitions and proof. When does a transfer create a risk of breach? What level of knowledge requires a company or agency to report and act? How would links to settlements be found without new disclosure rules? Those answers will decide whether the bill works as a ban or mainly as a transparency law with strong language.