Investing in war. Human rights orgs mull legal action against Future Fund, super funds

Australia’s Future Fund and other major funds may soon be defending themselves as opponents of the Gaza genocide consider court action. Andrew Gardiner with story.

A recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court of New Zealand has defunded that country. correct address Human rights issues and Geneva Convention violations before investing in conflict zones.

Activists are preoccupied with the implications of the New Zealand decision, which has seen the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) and the Australian Center for International Justice (ACIJ) explore legal options “to ensure that our sovereign wealth fund and all other investment funds comply with their human rights due diligence obligations.”

The Hague case over Australia’s sale of weapons parts directly to Israel would have to be brought by another country, but Nicaragua has launched a similar, yet unresolved case. Germany In 2024.

Australia sells weapons parts directly to Israel

MWM It recognizes that there are at least two avenues for legal challenge to the Future Fund’s selective use of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors in determining where to invest, and to Australia’s sale of the F-35 and other parts to Israel.

One is in The Hague,

Aside from the much-watched genocide trial, “Australia could face cases before judicial bodies such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ),” says ACIJ’s Rawan Arraf Israel.

Future Fund’s reputation is at stake

According to Arraf, the fund’s investments “expose Australia to serious reputational consequences, including undermining its credibility within the UN system, and undermine its position as a state that claims to uphold international law and human rights.”

“Reputation results” was at the heart of the New Zealand decision, but Australia’s decision Future Fund Act (2006) does not mention these words, which means there is no example of something similar here. Instead, activists focused on Article 18 of the law, which gives Finance Minister Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher “Investment Power” authority over the fund.

As Ministers of the Crown, both are subject to Australia’s obligations under the various international agreements and conventions of which we are part. “The (Future Fund) Board has express investment exemptions for activities prohibited through international conventions and agreements ratified by Australia,” the Department of Finance said. attracts attention.

Australia is also a signatory to treaties and conventions prohibiting:

1. Genocide (A UN-backed investigation found that Israel commitment genocide in Gaza);
2. Starvation of civilians (International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants issued Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant for such crimes);
3. Illegal settlements (The ICJ ruled that Israel’s settlement policies in the West Bank violated international law by “relocating part of its own civilian population to the territory it occupies”);
4. Racial Discrimination (ICJ found “numerous and serious violations by Israel against Palestinians (in the West Bank), including holding Israel accountable for the first time.” apartheid”).

looking the other way

It seems likely that readers will assume that Chalmers and Gallagher have already demanded that the Future Fund withdraw close to $300 million of its money from the companies that enabled these crimes. much more. But it seems this is being ignored under the watchful eyes of Australia’s very powerful Zionist lobby.

“The Future Fund has withdrawn its money from places like China, Russia and Myanmar in recent years, but it appears that some in the Middle East, where the death toll in Gaza alone has risen, are under pressure not to follow suit. six figures”said a senior activist.

MWM It approached the Future Fund and two relevant government departments for comment.

Australia likes to think of itself as a good global citizen, but that image is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain when the Future Fund is in full swing on war profiteering.

The fund’s ambivalence towards the carnage in the Middle East was made even more clear when serial criminal Elbit Systems was removed from the banned investment list six months before the Gaza invasion.

Arms manufacturer investments raise warnings for Future Fund

double standards

One example is Elbit, which has been condemned for its role in bloody moments such as the attack on the World Central Kitchen aid convoy in Gaza in 2024, which killed seven aid workers, including Australian Zomi Frankcom. But that hasn’t stopped the Future Fund increasing its investments in Elbit five-fold same year.

As state wealth and pension funds NorwaySweden and the Netherlands are giving up on companies that enabled genocide, our Future Fund doesn’t seem to want to know about it. That is, international exclusion, unless it is a country like Russia, which the fund has announced it will divest. only four days After the invasion of Ukraine.

How will they get rid of this double standard? The answer lies in the detailed text, where exceptions specifically mandated by the government for various war crimes are mysteriously watered down until they appear in the fund’s much-vaunted investment policies.

Claiming its ‘independence’ from the government, the fund applies a narrow set of investment exclusion rules, allowing criminals like Elbit to slip through the cracks.

Historically, the fund only excluded companies that produced cluster munitions, land mines, and chemical and biological weapons; but Responsible Investment director Kirsten Simpson has promised to make a change one day.multi-year program”.

But until these “few years” have passed and we see real change, ACIJ will review the Responsible Investment Policy framework as “surprisingly inadequate”.

Rather than making any meaningful change to the fund itself, one solution could be changes to the Future Fund Bill by Michael Shaik of Free Palestine Melbourne (FPM).

There is an urgent need to align Future Fund investments with our international obligations.

draw the line

sign Red Lines 2.0A legislative package addressing (among other things) the fund’s investment practices will soon be introduced with the participation of a pair of independent Senators.

Activists say the legislation will need strong support from human rights groups, opponents, Greens and (if they are lucky) major party sympathizers before being referred to Senate Inquiries, which will trigger the public scrutiny needed to bring about change.

As for its passage into law, Red Lines 2.0 faces major challenges after an earlier version was blocked by major parties. Nicaragua, meanwhile, has threatened to formally file a lawsuit at the Hague against three countries (Britain, Netherlands and Canada) over sales of arms parts to Israel.

The FPM and other activist organizations recognize the long difficulties they face in combating the giant Zionist lobby, and – court challenges aside – they continue to engage with grassroots activism.

“We know there is a lot of work to be done, but we are in business for the long term, building businesses and communities. links Shaik spoke about “withdrawing investments and making the government’s current support for Israel untenable.” MWM.

APAN on its own behalf “Nakba nowcampaign on Friday to commemorate the anniversary of the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians following Israel’s founding in 1948. Protesters marched in cities across Australia to commemorate the Nakba, which APAN has made a focal point of its campaign to withdraw from the Future Fund.

“The Nakba of 1948 (its meaning) ‘disaster’ in Arabic) murdered tens of thousands of people and wiped 530 villages off the map,” said APAN campaign leader Molly Coburn. “This continues today, and we are all paying the price.”

An Adelaide-based Media Studies graduate with an MA in Social Policy, I was an editor covering current affairs, local government and sport for a variety of publications before deciding to change careers in 2002.