Foreign Affairs - Independent Clark

Australia's foreign policy is made in Washington and Canberra's corridors — not by the people who live with the consequences. This page sets out where I stand.

The Middle East

Palestine

What is happening in Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe. Australia's response has been inadequate. A government that claims to stand for human rights cannot simultaneously supply diplomatic cover to a campaign that has killed tens of thousands of civilians, blocked aid, and destroyed hospitals and schools.

My position: Australia must call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire. We should suspend any defence exports or intelligence-sharing arrangements that directly enable operations in Gaza. We should recognise the State of Palestine — as over 140 countries already have.

A Two-State Outcome

A just and lasting peace requires a viable Palestinian state. Decades of settlement expansion have made that harder, not easier. Australia should use its voice in multilateral forums to hold all parties accountable to international law — not shield any party from scrutiny.

On boycotts: Australians have a legal right to make purchasing decisions based on their conscience. I support the right to boycott as a non-violent form of political expression. Government should not penalise or legislate against peaceful consumer action.

RESTORE: Aid, Not Arms

I have developed a concept called RESTORE — a dedicated reconstruction and trauma-support program for children affected by conflict. Australia's foreign aid budget should expand humanitarian response in the region, fund medical evacuation for injured children, and support prosthetics and rehabilitation. This is what a humane foreign policy looks like in practice. Read the RESTORE concept →

Australian Sovereignty and the US Alliance

Australia is a proud democracy and a capable country. Our foreign policy should reflect Australian interests and values — not be a function of whoever holds office in Washington.

AUKUS and the Submarine Deal

The AUKUS nuclear submarine arrangement commits Australia to spending upwards of $368 billion over coming decades, entangles our defence posture with US strategic priorities, and raises serious questions about whether we are trading long-term sovereignty for short-term alliance optics.

My questions: What strategic threat does AUKUS specifically address that cannot be met by other means? Who in Australia actually decided this, and with what democratic mandate? What happens to Australia's independent foreign policy if we become operationally dependent on US shipyards and supply chains for our most significant military asset?

I am not anti-alliance. I am pro-scrutiny. These are questions a functioning parliament should be asking loudly and publicly. Instead, both major parties have waved this through without adequate debate.

Five Eyes and Intelligence Sovereignty

Australia's participation in the Five Eyes intelligence network is a strategic asset. But intelligence-sharing arrangements must serve Australian interests — and Australians have a right to know when those arrangements draw us into conflicts, surveillance operations, or policy positions we have not chosen for ourselves.

My position: A parliamentary oversight committee with genuine authority — not just briefings — over how intelligence-sharing commitments shape Australian foreign and defence policy decisions.

Trade and Economic Independence

The trade war between the United States and China, and shifting US policy on tariffs and alliances, is a reminder that economic dependence is a sovereignty risk. Australia needs to diversify its trade relationships, rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity, and ensure our supply chains for critical goods are not a strategic vulnerability.

Principles for an Independent Foreign Policy

International Law First

Australia should apply the same standards to all states. If we condemn one country for occupying another's territory, we must say so consistently — regardless of who the ally is.

Humanitarian Obligations

Aid, refugee intake, and diplomatic pressure must reflect genuine humanitarian need — not which crisis is politically convenient to acknowledge.

Parliamentary Accountability

Major military commitments, basing agreements, and intelligence arrangements must come before parliament for debate and a vote — not be announced as a fait accompli.

No Wars Without a Vote

Australia should not commit troops or resources to any armed conflict without an explicit vote in the House of Representatives. The power to send Australians to war belongs to the people — not the Executive.

This page will be updated as policy positions develop. For questions or submissions, contact the campaign.