David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a revised explanatory memorandum to this bill, and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The government will reform Australia's 2011 autonomous sanctions framework through the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Amendment Bill 2021 and the Autonomous Sanctions (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Amendment Regulations 2021. The reforms will ensure Australia can sanction individuals and entities responsible for, or complicit in, egregious conduct, including malicious cyberactivity, serious human rights abuses and violations, and serious corruption. They will also ensure Australia can establish further thematic sanctions regulations in the future, including in relation to serious violations of international law.

This reform responds to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into the use of sanctions to target human rights abuses and violations that was tabled on 7 December 2020, to which the government responded on 5 August 2021.

With this reform, Australia introduces Magnitsky style sanctions, as now recognised in the title of the bill. The Magnitsky movement was inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who exposed fraud committed by Russian government officials, but was consequently arrested and imprisoned. He was subjected to degrading treatment and tortured, and he died in custody on 16 November 2009.

Through the advocacy of Bill Browder, whose firm Hermitage Capital Management Mr Magnitsky was advising, the US Congress in 2012 passed the Magnitsky Act, banning travel and freezing assets of those Russian officials responsible. From 2016, countries including the United States, Canada, the EU and the United Kingdom, began to create or update their respective sanctions frameworks to enable perpetrators of egregious conduct to be sanctioned in a more timely way, no matter where the conduct occurs. With this debate gathering momentum internationally, Foreign Minister Payne referred the matter for inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in 2019.

Autonomous sanctions can be used as an important tool of statecraft to respond to the most egregious situations of international concern, when it's in our national interest. They are highly targeted measures, designed to influence, deter and impose costs on the perpetrators, while minimising the impact on the general population.

Autonomous sanctions are distinguished from sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council and implemented by UN member states pursuant to international obligations. Australia uses autonomous sanctions in egregious situations of international concern which are not covered by UN Security Council sanctions, or to supplement sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council.

Australia has a proud history of promoting and protecting human rights globally, supporting the international rules based order, and acting for the peace and security of the international community. We have used our existing country-specific autonomous sanctions regimes to those ends. These include human rights violations in Zimbabwe and Syria, and Russian threats to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The bill expands Australia's Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 by creating a framework to establish new thematic sanctions regimes, which will allow Australia to list perpetrators of the most egregious relevant conduct of international concern, wherever and whenever such conduct occurs.

The government recognises the importance of denying the perpetrators and beneficiaries of egregious acts from accessing our economy and benefiting from the freedoms our democracy allows. Positioning Australia to act more quickly to freeze the funds of perpetrators and beneficiaries, and to prevent them from travelling here, will ensure that we do not become an isolated, attractive safe haven for such people and entities, and their ill-gotten gains.

An increasing number of comparatively attractive economies have joined the 'Magnitsky movement', and this bill is timely for Australia. This will also allow us to act more swiftly with key like-minded sanctions partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, where it is in the national interest.

As sanctions are a foreign policy tool it is both appropriate and in line with our existing autonomous sanctions framework that the power to impose, remove or vary thematic sanctions rests with the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Prior to making a thematic sanctions listing decision, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be required to consult and obtain the agreement of the Attorney-General, as first law officer of the Commonwealth. The Minister for Foreign Affairs must also consult with any other relevant ministers. This decision-making process ensures that thematic sanctions listings decisions take account of all relevant foreign policy and other national interest considerations. These amendments set out the executive process by which the thematic sanctions decisions are made, not the material on which the minister can rely.

The bill sets out an illustrative list of themes for sanctions regimes. If the parliament elects to pass the bill, the government will amend the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 to establish three new thematic sanctions regimes: serious violations or serious abuses of human rights; activities undermining good governance and the rule of law, including serious corruption; and malicious cyberactivity. This was part of the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, issued on 5 August 2021.

This will enable Australia to respond flexibly and swiftly in the national interest, without the delay of creating a new country regime when a situation of international concern arises, if the conduct constitutes serious human rights abuses and violations, serious corruption or malicious cyberactivity.

The government response included a commitment to introduce a new thematic cyber-regime, in addition to the Magnitsky-style sanctions canvassed by the committee. This additional tool of statecraft will serve alongside other law enforcement and operational mechanisms to enhance Australia's response to instances of egregious malicious cyber activity that impact our interests.

The regulations will provide the specific criteria under which a person or entity could be sanctioned under three of these new thematic regimes, should the Minister for Foreign Affairs assess—after appropriate consultation—that it is in Australia's national interest to do so. Additional thematic sanctions regimes could be included in the regulations at a later date, should the government consider they are necessary.

Embedding the new thematic regimes in our existing autonomous sanctions framework means that established processes and safeguards will continue to apply, rather than being duplicated across multiple sanctions acts and frameworks. This is important to provide certainty and continuity for all of those who engage with our autonomous sanctions framework. Businesses and the community can maintain their existing compliance processes while those involved in governance, whether at the bureaucratic, political or legal level, will not be required to administer new provisions. This is similar to the approach taken by the UK, which does not have a standalone act, and has a similar framework with regulations under an overarching act.

The changes we are making to the existing act and regulations empower us to do all that a separate bill would do, without creating multiple, and complex, laws, separate frameworks, and imposing additional regulatory burdens on businesses and the community.

To ensure Australia's framework remains fit for purpose, as soon as possible, after three years of the operation of the bill coming into effect, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade must commence a review of the operation of these amendments and prepare a written report of the review, which must be tabled in each house of parliament.

Consistent with current practice, the government encourages public engagement on these significant issues and looks forward to the future recommendations from parliament and civil society on possible listings. In making a listing, the minister can consider any relevant material that will assist her in being reasonably satisfied the criteria is met, including credible information obtained by non-governmental organisations. The government encourages public engagement on human rights and corruption issues, conducts regular consultation with civil society and will continue to receive suggestions for sanctions listing from a range of sources.

The bill will support the ongoing role of sanctions as a primary tool of statecraft, by which Australia can define, defend and demonstrate our foreign policy values globally and support a robust international rules based order.

I commend the bill to the House and, in doing so, would like to thank everyone who has advocated for and supported Magnitsky-style sanctions—in particular, Foreign Minister Payne; the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator David Fawcett; the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Subcommittee, Kevin Andrews MP, and his colleagues on the committee; and several others across all sides of politics, including Senator Penny Wong, Senator James Paterson, Senator Kimberley Kitching and Senator Janet Rice.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

r BRENDAN O'CONNOR () (): I rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-Style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. This bill seeks to amend the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011, which was enacted by the previous Labor government to enable the listing of individuals and entities responsible for or complicit in egregious conduct, including 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 for the rule of law, including serious corruption.

This piece of legislation is an important addition to Australia's Autonomous Sanctions Act that, as I say, was introduced and passed by Labor in 2011. It significantly broadens the scope of activities that are counter to Australia's interests for which financial sanctions may be applied. For the past decade Australia's ability to implement sanctions against individuals was more limited to: those responsible for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats to international peace and security; and regimes that committed grave human rights abuses or acts of aggression. These sanctions enabled Australia to take seriously its international commitments to peace and security by further augmenting pressure on foreign regimes where UN Security Council sanctions had been adopted, such as those in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe and Russia. But it has become increasingly apparent that an update and a broadening of the scope of activities to which sanctions may apply is necessary.

We are more than 70 years from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As my colleague in the other place, Senator Wong, said of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

As Eleanor Roosevelt described it, the international Magna Carta for all mankind. With its foundations in the four freedoms espoused by her husband: freedom of speech, freedom to worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear … with its recognition that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and its implication that to be sincere it must encompass civil and socio-economic rights, it remains as profound as ever. And perhaps it remains as aspirational as ever.

While it's fair to say we've seen so many advances in human rights, we've also seen stagnation and deterioration. And, while the global pandemic has fostered greater awareness and debate in some societies about the devastations of poverty and inequality, in other places political leaders have sought to manipulate the circumstances of the pandemic to further weaken human rights in their own countries. Unfortunately there's nothing new in that.

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer and tax auditor who, as the minister has just mentioned, was hired in 2007 to investigate corruption by Russian interior ministry officials. Magnitsky was a lawyer, accountant and tax partner at Moscow law firm Firestone Duncan. He was arrested in November 2008, after he helped Hermitage, once Russia's largest foreign portfolio investor, reveal the biggest alleged tax fraud in the country's history. It's well-known that he died in prison awaiting trial. The Russian government of the day ordered the chief prosecutor and justice minister to launch an investigation. The $230 million crime allegedly involved senior police officers, judges, tax officials, bankers and the Mafia.

The Hermitage Capital Management CEO and founder is William Browder, an American financier who took British citizenship, and he is the grandson of the former leader of the American Communist Party, Earl Browder. The fund manager was alleged to have evaded taxes and was barred from the country in 2005, but its CEO denies these allegations. He urged all lawyers associated with the matter to leave Russia for their safety, but Magnitsky stayed. He was arrested after he testified against a Russian interior ministry official involved in a tax raid on Hermitage offices and officials involved in the $230 million fraud. He was charged with participating in tax evasion and, as we know, he met an ill fate.

In a large way, Magnitsky is an inspiration for this initiative and indeed the proposed legislation before us. It's in his name that advocates around the world have sought to shed light on those individuals, governments and regimes that use their power to crush dissent and resist accountability, and those that commit gross human rights violations. In the absence of comprehensive and effective global accountability, protocols that raise the cost of such behaviour, it relies upon nation states to act independently.

Australia, through the United Nations, ensured we dealt with this matter. It was the government of 2011 that legislated the Autonomous Sanctions Act to enable sanctions that targeted countries and individuals independent of multilateral arrangements. This has proved an important tool of Australia's foreign policy. It meant we were able to target those responsible for egregious behaviour, while limiting the negative consequences on others, by depriving access to capital, goods and services. But it is clear that we need to go beyond what has been traditionally considered, insofar as the realm of sanctions, threats to international peace and threats to security. We need to use sanctions to help support agreed international norms of human rights and be a force for positive change. It's therefore important that we do everything we can to prevent the deprivation of human rights in order to counter such action.

These sanctions will ensure those responsible can seek safe haven for themselves or for their assets in Australia. I think it's fair to say that, as a result of the efforts of Mr Magnitsky, we have seen enactments throughout various jurisdictions across the globe, including the United States, the European Union, Canada and the United Kingdom, since 2012. Labor has been calling for Australia to join our friends and partners and to introduce these sanctions for some time. Indeed, Senator Penny Wong and Labor colleagues have been raising these matters throughout recent years, as have, I might add, members of the government. We have been raising these matters with the Turnbull and Morrison governments, including with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The prevailing view in the government was that such a regime may not be necessary, that the Autonomous Sanctions Act already allowed for the listing of individuals and entities complicit in human rights abuses abroad. Labor took the view that Australia being part of the global Magnitsky movement was in our national interest, because it is in our interest that we work to generate and preserve global public good.

Shaping the world for the better, something all of us in public life should aspire to, includes promoting issues and principles which we believe are of common benefit to all our nations and peoples. That is at the heart of Labor's foreign policy tradition. These sanctions and formalised engagement with NGOs to target those responsible for human rights abuses are contemporary expressions of that tradition. Enshrining in law those actions that are counter to our interests is a very important signal to the perpetrators and beneficiaries of egregious human rights abuses as well as threats to international peace and security. Working with our like-minded partners would enable effective and timely targeting of individuals and entities responsible for such conduct while also minimising the impact on populations.

In December last year, as the minister referred to, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended that the Australian government 'enact stand alone targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption'—or the Magnitsky Act—that should be able to receive nominations from any source. On behalf of the opposition, I acknowledge the committee—the chair, Senator Fawcett; the deputy chair, Ms Swanson; and members Senator Ayres, Senator Kitching, Senator Patrick, Mr Gorman, Mr Hayes, Mr Hill, Mr Khalil, Senator McCarthy, Senator O'Neill, Senator Sheldon and Ms Vamvakinou—and its leadership and work to bring this bill into existence. The Morrison government did not respond to the committee's recommendations until August this year, but we are thankful we are now debating the bill in the House before rising this year.

I should also note that this matter has been taken up by members on both sides of the aisle. But I would also just acknowledge the fact that Senator Kimberley Kitching was awarded an acknowledgment for her efforts to bring this matter to the attention of the government and this place and the other place when she raised these issues. Indeed, she has been recognised by the Boston Global Forum for her efforts. I think that also should be noted, given her commitment to this cause.

What we have seen, I think it is fair to say, are efforts by advocates to do better and to amend the current act to broaden the capability to take on human rights abuses. Individual members of the opposition and, indeed, of the government—including you, Deputy Speaker Andrews—have advocated for the need to do more. We have seen other like-minded countries already enact legislation consistent with this approach. I think it's therefore timely that this matter is resolved and is dealt with before rising this year.

As I say, the government didn't respond to the committee's recommendations until recently, in August, and it has taken three months for this bill to be introduced. We believe the delays were regrettable. They sent a regrettable message. But, as I say, we have finally arrived where we should have arrived earlier. That Australia wasn't sufficiently committed and that we did not take human rights abuse seriously was a charge that we were laying against the government, and I guess it's fair to say through pressure by government members and by the opposition we have seen this matter finally put before us.

In the meantime, we have seen increasing disturbing reports of human rights violations around the world. In some places, political leaders have sought to manipulate the circumstances of the pandemic to further weaken those human rights. As we speak today, Chinese citizen-journalist Zhang Zhan is on a hunger strike and at risk of dying without the urgent medical intervention that she needs. Ms Zhang was sentenced to four years of prison in December last year for social media posts critical of the handling of the early COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan.

The 1 February military coup in Myanmar was a direct attack on the country's ongoing democratic transition. The subsequent violent crackdown against those protesting the coup saw thousands of political prisoners detained and civilians killed by security forces. But 10 months have passed and Australia stands alone amongst the UK, the United States, Canada and the European Union in not applying additional targeted sanctions against those responsible for the violence.

And now we have the reports that Australia's Future Fund, the taxpayers' fund, has been investing in joint ventures which have in some ways assisted these human rights breaches. The opposition has written to the minister and expressed our concern about these reports. It's fair to say—and I'm sure every member of the House would agree—that the Future Fund should not be investing in such matters. It should not be profiting from what's happened in Myanmar.

Importantly, the regulations of this bill enable the listing of individuals or entities that engage in serious violations of a person's right not to be held in slavery or to be required to perform forced labour. As we know, modern slavery, including forced labour and forced marriage, affects millions of people, including in our region. In 2017, an estimated 40 million people around the world were living in conditions of modern slavery. Approximately 25 million of these people were in forced labour situations. Research by the Walk Free foundation has found that one in every 130 women and girls around the world is living in modern slavery.

When it comes to criticising these violations, Australia cannot bring the moral credibility we need to the table unless we strengthen our Modern Slavery Act. Labor continues to call upon the Morrison government to work with us and the crossbench to improve the Modern Slavery Act to introduce tougher penalties for noncompliance and strengthen mandatory reporting requirements on possible exposures to abuses. Labor will do more than amend these laws; we will place ending modern slavery at the heart of our international human rights engagement. This includes sanctions against those directly profiting from forced labour and modern slavery.

It is incumbent upon the Australian government, we would contend, to prosecute our interests, including support of human rights and democratic freedoms. Decisions to implement sanctions against individuals and entities are, and should remain, executive decisions of government, taking into account all relevant factors, including foreign and strategic interests and implications for bilateral relations. But it would also be appropriate to consult more widely. The process leading up to this legislation, in our view, has laid bare how disinterested the current government is in serious engagement with human rights advocates and diaspora community groups. Too often their insights, not to mention their real-time reporting of on-the-ground knowledge, are ignored. Labor would seek to correct this.

We also believe that the themes of the bill under which sanctions can be applied are not wide enough. It does not cover violations of the rules and norms of armed conflict. It does not cover the crime of genocide or other crimes against humanity. It doesn't cover instances where rape and sexual violence are used as weapons of war. It doesn't cover the targeting of civilians or the manipulation or blockage of humanitarian aid in conflict zones. This is why we will amend the bill to enshrine violations of international humanitarian law, the law of conflict, as an additional theme under which sanctions can be applied. This is a view that has been clearly communicated by human rights non-government organisations, including Human Rights Watch Australia and Save the Children. I thank them for their constructive engagement in providing feedback to the government's bill.

We support this bill. It is overdue and there is more to be done, but it is important that we see this bill pass today and proclaimed in law so we can do better to deal with serious human rights abuses and prevent the ability of individuals to exploit circumstances where we see time and time again fundamental human rights being affected adversely and broken. I commend the bill to the House.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications and Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Andrews, before beginning, I acknowledge your significant interest in the matter of this bill. This an important bill, and it's been a long time in the making. The Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-Style and other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 implements a Magnitsky style sanctions regime in Australia, allowing for targeted sanctions against individuals who commit human rights violations and engage in corruption. It also expands the reach of these sanctions to other themes, including, relevantly for my portfolio responsibilities in this place, those who engage in malicious cyberactivities. I want to say a few words today about both the Magnitsky human rights campaign and the use of individualised sanctions as a tool of cyberdiplomacy.

Labor has been urging the government to introduce Magnitsky style sanctions since June of 2020, but there have been a number of people in this House, on both sides of the chamber, who have been campaigning for these laws since well before that time. I want to pay tribute in my remarks today to those people and acknowledge the very significant impact that their advocacy will have here and around the world. I start with Senator Kitching in the other place, who, in addition to sitting on the subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade which recommended these acts, has long had a private senator's bill in her name to implement this. I also would like to commend Senator Kitching on her recent Magnitsky award for service to the global Magnitsky movement. I would also to like to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee for bringing this bill to fruition—particularly the chair, the member for Menzies; and the deputy chair, the member for Fowler. I thank the government for heeding the calls of international human rights experts and victims of human rights abuses in referring consideration of a Magnitsky scheme to this committee and ultimately acting on their recommendation with this bill.

But the person that I think this place owes a particular obligation to acknowledge in this debate is the great Michael Danby, the former member for Melbourne Ports. He insisted unrelentingly to everyone in this place that we pay attention to the need for a Magnitsky regime and the message it sends to human rights abusers. He even introduced a private member's bill to do so in 2018 to implement a Magnitsky regime, and in his second reading speech on that private member's bill—and I was proud to sit next to Michael Danby when he introduced his bill—he rather colourfully but no less accurately summed up the urgency with which we should be proceeding on this issue. He said that:

I think democratic countries around the world need to be involved in more push-back against these authoritarian regimes. This is something that should attract the support of both sides of politics. The great Australian actor Peter Finch, in the film Network, advised people to open their windows and shout, 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore'. That should be the attitude that informs democratic citizens right across the world.

He was right then, and I'm glad the chamber is heeding his call now. Such was the former member for Melbourne Ports's commitment to this issue in his valedictory speech in this chamber he said:

I feel a longing for all the unfinished business I leave here. Although I moved a first reading of the Magnitsky Act, it is not enshrined in our law. The government has come to favour having a legislative device for pushing back against corruption and human rights abuses by authoritarian countries. I say to this parliament that Magnitsky would allow us—like the US, Canada and the UK—to tell states like Russia that you can't kill 38 Australians and get away with it. Unfortunately we seem to have run out of time.

I hope that Michael Danby has been watching the debate on the implementation of the Magnitsky regime in Australia this week as we pass the bill into law and we finally complete the work that he began in this place years ago.

Of course, while we owe much in this place to those of us who have advocated for a Magnitsky act, most of all we must acknowledge Bill Browder, who led the global push for these laws, and the late Sergei Magnitsky, whose name we honour in the bill's title. The story of the two friends is well-known but its the kind of story we can't be told enough. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian tax lawyer employed by the British American financier Bill Browder. Magnitsky was murdered at the age of 37 after uncovering and exposing a massive fraud committed by officials within the Russian government. When Magnitsky blew the whistle on this fraud, he was jailed by the Russian government without trial for 11 months. In jail he was tortured to death. Left in squalid conditions, he developed severe medical conditions, including pancreatitis, and his prison doctors withheld treatment as a means of coercion. He died a harrowing death alone in a jail cell. Complaining of worsening stomach pain for five days, by the end he was vomiting every three hours, and with a swollen stomach, was finally moved to a medical facility where he was given a painkiller and assessed psychiatrically. Half an hour later he was dead.

After tracking the ill-gotten gains of those Russian officials back to the US, Magnitsky's good friend Bill Browder successfully lobbied the United States government to place sanctions on the individuals, and in his name the US Congress passed the Magnitsky Act, laws to say that when domestic governments won't hold people accountable within their own borders for outrageous human rights abuses then other states will take the lead in doing what they can to hold those responsible accountable. Browder has dedicated his life to lead a push for global Magnitsky laws to ensure that human right abusers like those that murdered Sergei Magnitsky would not have a safe haven anywhere on this earth.

The point behind the bill is that this story is far from unique. There are countless Sergei Magnitskys in this world who deserve our attention and our action. As Bill Browder noted on the need for the laws globally:

The global Magnitsky sanctions will issue a stark warning to human rights abusers and kleptocrats around the world that no longer will they be able to commit atrocities with complete impunity. Targeted sanctions against those involved in corruption and human rights abuse will provide an immediate, tangible consequence which directly affects an individual where it hurts them the most—in their pocket. Leaders of corrupt regimes will know they are no longer able to protect their ill-gotten gains abroad, or flee to their lavish properties in foreign countries. Totalitarian dictatorships ultimately fall, and when they do, the Global Magnitsky Act will prevent those who have committed human rights abuses from claiming asylum almost anywhere in the world.

And it's because of this campaign that Labor has moved amendments to recognise Sergei Magnitsky in the title of this bill.

While Labor supports the bill finally before the House, it has taken a long time to get here since the committee recommended a Magnitsky regime be put in place. The committee released its report in December 2020, around this time last year, and recommended that the government enact a sanctions regime. But the government did not respond to the committee's full report until August 2021. Today's faffing about whether to list this bill for debate and to finally resolve this bill was pretty discouraging at the last moment. I thank the government for bringing it on and dealing with it today. But its absence on the legislative calendar for today was a disappointing start to the morning.

The Morrison government's delay in introducing Magnitsky style sanctions has sent a regrettable message—that this is not a priority for Australia. In an era where democratic values are under increasing pressure and authoritarianism gains pace around the world, both within and without countries, we need to be forthright in our defence of democratic values. In the 12 months that this government has delayed the implementation of a Magnitsky sanctions regime, we've seen increasing and disturbing human rights violations around the world, including the military coup in Myanmar this past February; the erosion of the democratic system and the one country, two systems arrangement in Hong Kong; and the reports of continuing mass detentions and other human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang and across China. In finally passing these laws, we are saying to human rights abusers: 'Australia will not be a bolthole for you. You are not welcome here.'

The bill also amends the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 to enable sanctions against individuals that perpetuate malicious cyberactivity. This is a very good step in the fight against international cybercriminals, who are menacing Australian businesses and our essential services, our critical infrastructure, particularly to international ransomware crews. Again, it's the same problem we were dealing with with human rights abusers—domestic governments refusing to hold individuals within their own borders accountable for acts that menace the international order.

In Australia and around the world, these criminals have wilfully targeted health and hospital networks, bringing them to their knees and putting lives at risk. We've seen no fewer than eight attacks on health and hospital networks this year. These cyberattacks are not just disruptive and they're not just costly; they are a threat to life. And, indeed, we've tragically seen deaths from ransomware attacks on hospitals in Germany and the United States. Frankly, we have been lucky there haven't been more deaths, and we're particularly lucky there haven't been deaths in Australia. These modern-day privateers regularly undertake these attacks with impunity from their host countries. Sanctions regimes targeting individual hackers, like the expanded scope included in this bill, are a useful part of the cyberdiplomacy toolkit for trying to put an end to this impunity. It's not easy. Attribution of cyberattacks is often not a trivial exercise from a technical perspective. It requires careful analysis, and it's not always possible to do at an individual level. But, where it is, sanctions regimes are a useful tool for responding to and deterring malicious cyberactivity.

Autonomous sanctions regimes targeting cybercriminals have already been implemented by our allies, including the United States, the United Kingdom and the EU. And, in the case of state backed actors, they have been able to go further than Australia has. While Australia has joined international partners in attributing malicious cyberactivity to hackers with links to the Chinese Ministry of State Security in the case of the Hafnium and Microsoft Exchange campaign, and to Russia in the SolarWinds supply chain attack, we haven't been able to go so far as to impose targeted sanctions on individuals that engage in these kinds of activities when we identify them as responsible.

The United States first began imposing sanctions on cybercriminals in 2012, when the Obama administration used terrorism related powers to designate the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence for hacking activities that it had been undertaking with Hezbollah. In 2015, President Obama issued executive order 13694, which allowed individuals and entities to be designated for malicious cyberactivities unconnected to terrorism offences. In 2016, the US expanded its cybersanctions regime 'in view of the increasing use of such activities to undermine democratic processes or institutions' including 'harming, or otherwise significantly compromising the provision of services'.

The United States has imposed 311 cyber-related sanctions over the last decade. Our allies have already been able to use targeted sanctions against individual members of the Sodinokibi or REvil group, the same Russian based ransomware crew that was responsible for ransomware attacks on JBS Foods, our biggest meat supplier, shutting down their operations. The US has also placed individual sanctions on associates of North Korea's Lazarus Group, an infamous hacking group, for their numerous cyberattacks, including the very dramatic attack on Sony Pictures in 2014, in response to a not particularly good Seth Rogen movie; one of the biggest bank heists in world history, on the central bank of Bangladesh; and, most heinously of all, the WannaCry 2.0 attack in 2017, which caused global damage estimated in the billions, including to the NHS and hospital networks around the world, in more than 150 countries.

The European Council too has stated:

Sanctions are one of the options available in the Union's framework for a joint diplomatic response to malicious cyber activities (the so-called cyber diplomacy toolbox), and are intended to prevent, discourage, deter and respond to continuing andincreasing malicious behaviour in cyberspace.

Those sanctions can be imposed for attacks that 'cause a significant impact, and constitute an external threat to the EU or its member states'. In July 2020, the European Council placed sanctions against six individuals and three entities for various significant cyberattacks, including Operation Cloud Hopper, WannaCry and NotPetya. This was followed up by sanctions on two individuals and one group for a cyberattack on the German federal parliament in October 2020.

So we're some way behind our allies in the global effort to deter malicious cyberactivity, but this bill is an important opportunity to catch up and pull our weight on this front. This bill adds a measure of action to our words internationally. It gives weight to the words of Australian diplomatic representatives and the Australian government in international forums when they stand up for international norms of appropriate state behaviour in cyberspace and when they stand up for international law in this area. That's why Labor supports this bill. It doesn't solve every problem. There are no silver bullets in this space. It's a complex area of both international law and cyberdiplomacy. But the measures in this bill advance the debate. They get us in the conversation.

Some of the individuals held accountable by these sanctions are interesting characters. One, Maksim Yakubets, the leader of the Evil Corp ransomware group in Russia, has been sanctioned by the US government. He drives a fluoro camouflaged Lamborghini with the licence plate 'Thief'. That kind of impunity needs to end.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bruce is straying away from the bill before the House.

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

It's little bit of context about the scheduling. It's important stuff, Deputy Speaker.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will come back to the bill.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I first heard the name Sergei Magnitsky many years ago when talking to my predecessor, Michael Danby, who would very much like to have been here today. I'm sure, had the borders been open, he would have been in the chamber today to shepherd this bill through, to see the continuation of his work and the work of many others and see the Magnitsky act legislated and go through as law in this country. This is a cause that Michael believed in deeply and a cause that guided him throughout his political career. He often took issues and took a stance on issues before they became mainstream and before many others did so. It is a great credit to Michael that he spent many days in this place looking not just for the latest political trend but, rather, at what was the principle he needed to stand for on behalf of those who needed a voice in this great chamber of democracy.

Michael wanted very much to see a Magnitsky act legislated. He retired just before it happened. He passed the mantle on to his good friend in the other place Senator Kitching, who has carried on the Danby mantle of Magnitsky and shepherded this bill through. I pay tribute to Senator Kitching, who was recently awarded a Sergei Magnitsky human rights award for 2021. She is very much a worthy recipient of that award as someone who has worked tirelessly to see that Australia joins the many other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, that have a framework of sanctions on individuals who are against human rights.

Senator Kitching organised for a group of us from both sides of the parliament to listen to the great Bill Browder, the person who started this global movement in honour of his friend and lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a prison camp in Russia. Hearing Bill speak, even though it was on Zoom because of the pandemic, was infectious. From his passion and sincerity, you can see why this has become a global movement and why democratic nations around the world have introduced similar bills to this one. Make no mistake, it is due to Bill Browder and his tireless commitment to stand up for what is right, not what is easy.

This bill is a big step forward in our sanctions regime. Is it exactly as the Labor Party would have legislated and drafted? No. But it is a bill that we will support, obviously. It is a good step in the right direction, and it does improve our sanctions capability. It is important that Australia has strong sanctions capabilities. In instances like what happened in Myanmar where there was a coup, where Australia is now standing alone among similar countries in not having issued sanctions, it is important that we have legislation such as this in order to take action and send a strong signal to those who ran the coup in that country.

The other person I want to mention in this speech—and I'll keep my remarks relatively brief—is Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert. Along with the member for Wentworth, I worked with the Minister for Foreign Affairs—and I want to pay credit also to the Prime Minister, who was deeply involved in the activity—to have her released from an Iranian prison after 800 days. The astounding thing about Kylie Moore-Gilbert is that, despite the unbelievable ordeal that she had to go through, she has come out of that with grace, strength, intelligence, conviction and a commitment to stand up for others who were in her spot and others who face similar situations. She has been a champion for this legislation as well, and I pay tribute to her.

This is the culmination of many years of work. This is the culmination of many years of dedication. This is a good piece of legislation. It is important that Australia increases our sanctions capability, and I am proud to support the Magnitsky act in honour of Sergei Magnitsky and Bill Browder and all of their tireless efforts.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ) : Before calling the minister I will just add, as Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which tabled a unanimous report after an inquiry into the Magnitsky legislation, that I commend the government for bringing forward this legislation and the House for expediting the debate today.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 is a really important bill that is long overdue. People across both sides of the chamber, in this place and in the other, have said many things. There is capability in this to add other themes and additions, but the important thing is that we acknowledge not only people like Michael Danby but people around the country who have been calling for this sort of legislation, so I'd like to thank all contributors to the debate. I've just given an extensive second reading speech which outlines all the important things. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.