Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] Labor has been committed to Magnitsky-style legislation for some years, so we welcomed the committee's report, and I want to make some comments about the committee's report and the government response to it. Senator Wong, Labor's shadow spokesperson for foreign affairs, has been a very clear and public advocate for this kind of approach. It is increasingly being adopted around the world. I note that the United Kingdom, with its Magnitsky-style legislation, has scores of current sanctions on foot in countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Russia and North Korea.

Labor's support for this kind of reform is consistent with our proud history of support for multilateralism and human rights. It was HV Evatt who was at the formation of the United Nations and the drafting of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It was the Whitlam government's support for international human rights agreements, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These are all profound achievements that have contributed much to the global architecture that advances human rights. Then there was the leadership of Bob Hawke, as Prime Minister, in opposing the nasty, vicious apartheid regime in South Africa—against some opposition from this parliament, I have to say—and notably accepting Chinese students in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. We on this side have a consistency of approach on these issues.

Magnitsky-style legislation would be a powerful tool to advance human rights. The need for such a framework is clear. As has been made very clear, there are real weaknesses in the effectiveness of sanctions directed at an entire state and substantial limitations in terms of using domestic criminal law regimes to try and prosecute these kinds of abuses. By focusing sanctions on the perpetrators of human rights abuses, we can target bad actors without oppressing or punishing the people they oppress. By using these powers in concert with allies, the international community and international institutions, we can actually be effective. These changes should drive a deeper engagement across these multilateral institutions and mean that Australia can be part of an effective response to human rights abuses overseas.

I want to commend those senators who've engaged on the committee. This report has been the product of quite some cross-party cooperation and endeavour.

That said, it has taken far too long for the Morrison government to come to the conclusion, or the set of conclusions, that it has on the committee report. The government has dragged its feet, even as core members of the government's representation on this committee have been calling publicly for this kind of reform. It's like everything that the Morrison government does: words but no action. It has been dragged to this set of conclusions, with no apparent explanation for its reticence.

I am disappointed that the government has not supported all of the recommendations of the committee. Recommendations 12, 13 and 14—relating to the establishment of an independent advisory body that would receive and consider nominations for these sanctions and make recommendations to the decision-maker—would lend a lot of legitimacy to this kind of reform. While Labor supports ministerial discretion, an independent body would ensure accountability and transparency in the implementation of these powers, and consistency in international affairs confers legitimacy. Similarly, the refusal to adopt a watchlist also hampers consistency, accountability and transparency.

I also note the reactions of some human rights organisations to the government's decision to amend the current act rather than introduce a new, fit-for-purpose act. The Australian Centre for International Justice has said:

The government has a real opportunity to introduce a stand-alone, targeted, human-rights sanctions act. However, it wants to amend the clunky Autonomous Sanctions Act, which even the parliamentary committee agreed was ineffective.

Save the Children has said that the government's proposal is 'a step in the right direction, but falls short of what is needed,' and that:

Our sanctions regime must act as a deterrence to those who would target schools and hospitals in armed conflict …

However, narrowing the human rights criteria, as outlined in the Government's response, may not cover such violations of international humanitarian law.

We have to be a leader in Australia on human rights. It is critical that we understand that, as Keating famously said, we get our security in our region, not from our region. The creation of regional bodies, such as ASEAN and APEC, is fundamental to our prosperity and to our security, but they are also important vehicles for advancing human rights. Our security ultimately rests on establishing a common commitment across our region.

I want to make a couple of comments about consistency, and I want to make a couple of comments about multilateralism. Some of the advocates for this type of legislation have couched it in Manichean terms of good versus evil across the globe, and there are some terrible things that happen around the world. The strength of the Magnitsky legislation approach is that it deals with the behaviour and deals with it consistently. It gives the government the option of proportional sanctions on specific human rights abuses. That requires global cooperation and a consistency of approach. When I reflect on some of the human rights abuses that have occurred around the world, I reflect upon, for example, many of the Chilean emigres who I grew up with, particularly in the labour movement: young people who had fled to Australia, their colleagues at university and in human rights organisations having been murdered by the Pinochet regime. I reflect on people like Lina Cabaero, a Sydney resident and a Filipino emigre, who died this week. She was a human rights activist in the Philippines who fled the Marcos regime. All of these kinds of human rights abuses should be targeted equally and effectively, and we should be using Magnitsky style reforms to improve accountability and to lift international human rights standards. Consistency means that people who have committed or who propose to commit human rights abuses know that the sanctions regime will be enacted not because of who they are or because there is some national interest or agenda being pursued but because of what they have done. That is very important for conferring legitimacy.

The second thing is, of course, that this requires multilateralism and more countries engaging with this kind of approach—more cooperation across the region, more investment in relationships in the region and more endeavour in terms of our international affairs, not less. Finally, I'd just say that I heard Senator Rice speak in relation to events in Myanmar. I think that one of the early tests of the effectiveness of this kind of legislative reform will be whether or not sanctions are effected against the leaders of the repressive regime that has done so much damage to the people of Myanmar, that has done so much to destabilise our region and that has so brutally repressed human rights. Australia and other countries in the region have invested much in the restoration of democratic rights in Myanmar. We have seen them be torn down, and the proponents of that kind of action must be early targets of Magnitsky style legislation when this government finally gets around to implementing reform. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.