Aid & development, explained.
Taliban fighers sit over sacks of relief aid in the aftermath of an earthquake at Mazar Dara village in Nurgal district, Kunar province on 14 September 2025 (Wakil Kohsar/AFP via Getty Images)
Humanitarian workers face danger abroad – and legal uncertainty at home under Australia’s current laws.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The legal reform needed to match Australia’s global humanitarian promisesThe legal reform needed to match Australia’s global humanitarian promises
The world is presently suffering the highest number of conflicts since the Second World War. At least 48,000 civilians were killed last year, with one eighth of the world’s population impacted by conflict. A perfect storm of overlapping crises means that several infamous categories sit at all-time high: more than 75 million people are internally displaced, almost 44 million are refugees, and nearly 350 million people face acute hunger.
Crises in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and Myanmar have placed the global humanitarian system under severe strain – and that was before major donors began cutting their aid programs. The vital work of humanitarian personnel, who are being killed in record numbers, is becoming more difficult and hazardous right when it has never been more urgent.
It is against this backdrop that Australia, along with more than 100 other countries in September, committed to “reverse deadly trends impacting the safety and security of humanitarian personnel” on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
The Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, led by Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong, rightly reiterates countries’ international humanitarian law obligations and the key role of multilateral frameworks and institutions. But it also recognises that there are practical domestic measures that countries can take. It calls on signatories to commit “humanitarian exemptions to sanctions and counter-terrorism measures” to help facilitate “full, safe, rapid and unhindered humanitarian access for the delivery of humanitarian assistance”.
Yet despite undertaking months of determined diplomacy to bring about the Declaration, Australia doesn’t have legislated exemptions of its own.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong at the United Nations Headquarters in New York in September (Daniel Walding/DFAT)
Recent consultations by Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy and Defence Dialogue with more than 70 humanitarian and international law experts and practitioners reveal it is currently incredibly difficult for Australian humanitarian organisations to meet the strict requirements of compliance when allocating program funds in conflict-affected areas. Australia’s domestic legislation around counter-terrorism and sanctions remain one of the biggest impediments to humanitarian access – and Australia is nearly alone in the world when compared to like-minded partners, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union members and the United States, all of which have exemptions for humanitarian work. Australia’s domestic laws criminalise humanitarian acts and agencies which are committed to protecting civilians within regions controlled by proscribed actors (e.g. Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or Hamas in Gaza).
Aligning Australia’s domestic legislation with its allies would involve clear and consistent humanitarian exemptions across all counter-terrorism laws and sanctions regimes. UN Security Council Resolution 2664 (2022) – which created the first standardised humanitarian carve-out across the UN sanction regime writ large – offers a clear example of how this can be done in practice. The Resolution notes that sanctions “are not intended to have adverse humanitarian consequences for civilian populations nor adverse consequences for humanitarian activities or those carrying them out”. It expresses the Security Council’s “readiness to review, adjust and terminate, when appropriate, its sanctions regimes taking into account the evolution of the situation on the ground and the need to minimise unintended adverse humanitarian effects”.
The parliamentary opportunity is immediate for Australia to put the words of the Declaration into meaningful and practical action.
Encouragingly, a recent Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into Australia's thematic sanctions framework recommended with bipartisan support an amendment to “provide a standing exemption from all sanctions measures for legitimate humanitarian assistance, consistent with the approach taken in … Resolution 2664 (2022)”.
The inquiry is part of a broader process, initiated by a 2023 DFAT review of Australia's sanctions laws “to identify areas of reform to ensure sanctions law remained clear, fit for purpose and aligned with contemporary foreign policy objectives”.
The official timetable, however, is vague and unambitious, committing only to finalise legislative reform “before the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 sunset on 1 October 2027”. The pressing need for humanitarian exemptions has been identified over many years, but recent examples, such as the earthquake in Afghanistan, have brought focus to the urgency of the problem. A two-year timeline is clearly inadequate and will result in lives lost that could have otherwise been saved.
The introduction of amendments to the Criminal Code in the Australian Parliament this month creates an ideal opportunity to incorporate some of the humanitarian exemptions that have been proposed for some time. This would have a transformative impact on Australia’s humanitarian program. Freeing humanitarians to deliver relief in regions that might be politically complex, but require urgent assistance, nonetheless. With Gaza being the obvious example of where a window of opportunity may have now opened.
The Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel attests to the tenacity of Australia’s diplomats and efficacy of Australian diplomacy in seeking to combat a “growing culture of impunity” globally. It evokes Australia’s reputation over time as an effective multilateral negotiator, coalition builder and trusted partner. But more than that, it lays the foundation for more tangible action among its signatories.
The legislative framework exists, the international precedents are numerous, and the parliamentary opportunity is immediate for Australia to put the words of the Declaration into meaningful and practical action.
About the authors
Tom Barber
Tom Barber is a policy analyst and researcher with a focus on Australian statecraft and global risks.
Naomi Brooks
Naomi Brooks is the Humanitarian & Advocacy Lead for the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID).
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
