Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, this legislation, the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-Style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021, comes, of course, from a landmark report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, tabled around 12 months ago in the parliament, which called for an overhaul of Australia's sanctions regime. You're a member of that committee and an active participant and, in fact, the chair of its Human Rights Subcommittee. Australia's sanctions regime has proven to be insufficient in countering serious human rights violations and widespread corruption. This thematic sanctions bill—which I believe should be entitled 'Magnitsky legislation', in line with our recommendation—will provide real and tangible targeted responses and bring us into line with other strong human-rights-protecting states. There will be additional mechanisms, when this law is passed, for the Australian government to target and sanction individuals and beneficiaries who have committed serious human rights abuses or are guilty of serious corruption perpetrated in any country around the world.

The government has not accepted all of our recommendations. The scope of the autonomous sanctions that the government is putting forward in this bill includes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, threats to international peace and security, malicious cyberactivity, serious violations or serious abuses of human rights, and activities undermining good governance or the rule of law, including serious corruption. They're worthy things and deserving of support. I believe and Labor believes, though, that they don't go wide enough and that the themes of the bill, under which sanctions can be applied, should be wider. For example, the bill doesn't cover violations of the rules and norms of armed conflict. The government's chosen not to cover the crime of genocide or other crimes against humanity. The government's chosen not to cover instances where rape and sexual violence are used systematically as weapons of war. The government's chosen not to cover the targeting of civilians or the manipulation or blockage of humanitarian aid in conflict zones. The government's chosen not to take up our, I think, thoughtful and considered recommendations—a matter on which we had real debate and turned our mind to in the committee—regarding our media freedoms and protection for journalists. Special consideration was given, Deputy Speaker Kevin Andrews, as you would remember, through our inquiry on the need to protect journalists and human rights defenders.

I'll make these remarks: media freedom is under threat across the world like never before. We've seen this kind of threat manifest in places like Turkey, China, the Russian Federation, Hong Kong, Egypt, Cambodia, just to name a few. I made similar remarks in my tabling speech in relation to the report. I'm sorry to say that in our key security partner and largest foreign investor, the United States, shamefully our own citizen Julian Assange is being pursued by the United States, facing life imprisonment—an effective death sentence—for publishing evidence of US war crimes. We cannot underestimate this risk to liberal democracies if journalists are unable to do their jobs. It'll affect all of us as a global community. They're matters which I think should concern everyone in the parliament. Journalists as well as human rights, democracy, Labor and environmental rights activists remain at great risk in places like Cambodia.

I'll just make a few remarks on Cambodia, Deputy Speaker. You know from our work on the committee together that I've got a great interest in human rights in Cambodia. I'm proud to represent a vibrant Australian Cambodian diaspora community. Cambodia gives us a great operational example of the potential application of the proposed Magnitsky legislation. In making these remarks, I do stress this legislation is not about targeting one country. This legislation would apply across the world and give the government that extra tool in the toolkit when needed. But for many years in Cambodia, under the gangster regime of Prime Minister Hun Sen, human rights have been under threat. In the Cambodian CPP, the ruling elite stand accused of enormous and systemic corruption. Hun Sen and his family and his cronies line their own pockets at the expense of ordinary Cambodians. They take their land, they attack their labour rights and they suppress dissent. They've given up any pretence of being a democracy. The gangster Prime Minister there won 125 seats out of 125 seats! I'd love to win more seats at the election, but I think it should be because that's what the people choose through casting their votes, not through systemic corruption. And, unfortunately, as we've seen with many authoritarian and liberal regimes across the world, the situation has been getting worse in the last 18 months, using the cover of COVID-19 to advance authoritarian changes.

It doesn't matter for governments like Cambodia that the United Nations human rights expert has issued concerns about mass trials of individuals on charges of conspiracy theory and incitement to create social chaos, including, I might say, charging in absentia Australian citizens—a new tactic. Human rights organisations have been calling on the Cambodian government to stop their harassment of independent media outlets and intimidation of journalists. There was testimony to the inquiry from brave members from the Cambodian diaspora, who take a risk in speaking out in support of democracy and human rights. Many of them will never be able to visit their home country, the country of their birth or their ancestors. But they spoke out and gave us testimony about threats, including against Australian citizens, and money laundering by Cambodian officials buying assets here in Australia—the kind of stuff that this legislation will give the government more targeted tools to actually address and deal with. I hope they do.

I'd encourage the government, when this legislation passes—I hope it passes unanimously—to have an early look at Human Rights Watch's 'Cambodia dirty dozen'. Magnitsky laws will give the government the tools to deter and shine light on the behaviour of the corrupt Cambodian elite and ensure Australia no longer provides any shelter to these gangsters. As my friend Victorian Labor MP Meng Heang Tak said in his testimony:

… it's about time that Australia played a role in curbing this regime. Given our geographic location, if we don't have a Magnitsky or we don't have enough measures to curb this interference in Australia, Australia is a very good place for the ruling party, for the elite, to park their assets.

We know—the evidence has been given to the parliament for years—that Australia is a safe haven for the Cambodian corrupt ruling elite to buy assets, to educate their children and to seek residency. They come and go. This can be tackled.

So I do commend this legislation to the House. These laws send a strong message of support to the victims and survivors that states are joining together, that the global community increasingly is working together, to take stronger action to combat these violations. I will read into the Hansard a quote from Hemara In, who lives in my electorate and is a friend of mine. He's one of those Cambodians still subject to criminal charges by the Cambodian justice system. He hasn't been there for years but he's still subject to trumped-up criminal charges of incitement for daring to speak out while here in Australia in support of human rights and democracy, daring to speak out in support of our values. It's a new tactic because, if convicted in Cambodia by the criminal courts, he will have a criminal record. That will stymie his ability, and make it dangerous for him, to travel through large parts of the world if there's any chance of extradition to Cambodia. This is a tactic—I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. Shamefully, the foreign minister has said nothing about this tactic almost 12 months later. It's a tactic that we cannot stand by and meekly accept as a country. We need to work with our friends and allies and push back.

He said that if Australia were to adopt a Magnitsky-style targeted sanction regime it would send:

… hope to ordinary people that the international community understands their plight and is willing to stand by them and to help them. It's a message of hope.

By enacting these laws today, we as a country can add our voice to that growing global message of hope. At their core, Magnitsky laws are about lighting a candle to shed light on the darkness and protect the most vulnerable in our global community.

I'll make some remarks about 'why now?' After delays of too long, as other speakers have said, why is it so significant at this time that Australia finally actually pass these laws? It's because there's a global movement underway, and Australia must be part of it. We should not underestimate the value of Australia bringing ourselves into line finally with other world-leading states in enacting Magnitsky-style legislation. These laws will ensure that human rights are not merely ideals that we talk about, things that we might have posters on our wall about or noble words said in committees, but things that we actually follow through with as a parliament, as a government and as a country with real action. That's the key here.

If they're used properly and wisely by the government, these laws can represent tangible and effective deterrents, because global experience is that deterrence is a powerful force in preventing human rights abuses and corruption. Of course, these laws are not going to stop all bad behaviour—of course not—but if used well they can deter and moderate abuses if perpetrators know that they will risk exclusion from the global financial system, the loss of assets and that their beneficiaries and family members may also be affected, or that they're prevented increasingly from entering developed, reputable countries across the world. I say that it is important that we do this today.

It was incredibly disappointing for us who've fought so hard for this—it was Labor's foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, who spoke to the Turnbull government and the Morrison government, who has been calling for a long time now for us to enact these laws. It was Labor in government in 2011 that enacted the autonomous sanctions regime. This gives us the third limb, if you like. We've got United Nations sanctions, we've got the autonomous sanctions regime introduced by a Labor government and now finally—initially through pressure from Labor, and I credit many backbench members of the government for joining with us through the committee process—today we'll have the Magnitsky-style targeted sanctions.

It is important we do this today. It was really disappointing, given all the work that's been done—it came through the Senate today—that the government hadn't listed this for debate. It's not as though the government has any real legislative agenda, is it? The sitting calendar makes that clear. The Senate is going to sit for five days from tonight to 7 August; 10 days for the House of Reps. The Prime Minister's so terrified of getting his own party room together. It's not as though they have any real legislative agenda, so I'm questioning why—

See this speech in context