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

I'm making the point that I welcome the government's belated decision to introduce this legislation and bring it forward for debate today. It should have been listed. It should have been a priority, given the government has no agenda, as I said, but I do welcome the fact we are debating it today.

Targeted restrictions are important. They mean visa bans, travel restrictions, limiting access to assets and restricting access to Australia's financial system for people who have perpetrated serious human rights violations or serious corruption. They will complement our existing sanctions, as I said. They are important because in the absence of sufficient global accountability mechanisms that raise the cost of behaviour outside global norms—deterrents, if you like—then it falls to nation-states to act independently. Through our United Nations commitment—that first level of sanctions, if you like—Australia has targeted whole regimes for unacceptable, nefarious behaviour, grave abuses and serious threats to international peace and security.

In 2011 a Labor government built on that regime, implementing the Autonomous Sanctions Act to enable these sanctions to apply to targeted countries and individuals completely independent of our multilateral arrangements. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade didn't want these sanctions. They said, 'You could use the existing act.' The committee, to its credit, didn't accept that advice. I don't mean to be mean to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. They were actually very helpful witnesses. They cooperated with the inquiry. They put their view, which was obviously the government's view. The government didn't want this legislation, but, to their credit, some of the government backbenchers obviously fought that fight internally, and here we have this legislation. Autonomous sanctions have proved to be an important tool of Australian foreign policy, and these sanctions will complement them.

Sanctions are controversial. There are some countries that don't support sanctions at all, but I believe we need to use them to help support agreed international norms of human rights and be a force for positive change. The Magnitsky movement has shown, including internationally—and we received this evidence through the inquiry—that when you deprive human rights abusers of their wealth and their ability to travel it hits them where it hurts. It's not going to deter every example of egregious behaviour, but it can make the world a better place.

In closing, I hope this legislation passes the House today. I do commend the government for finally deciding belatedly—better late than never on this one—to bring this matter forward for debate. So in the likelihood that this is the last sitting day of this parliament with this rotten, tired, corrupt government over there—I can certainly understand why the Prime Minister won't want to bring his party room back together in February—on that possibility, or indeed likelihood, then at least this parliament will on its last day of sitting, if that turns out to be the case, have done something decent, something supported by all members of parliament, to shine light and deter the most egregious of human rights abusers.

See this speech in context