Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. First up, I do want to thank the foreign minister and her office for their work on this legislation. As the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade set out in a unanimous report, it's important that Australia adopt Magnitsky legislation and be part of the global Magnitsky movement, to enable the application of targeted sanctions against human rights abusers. This legislation isn't called Magnitsky legislation, but, in enacting this framework, Australia will be following in the steps of other countries around the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and others, who have created legislative frameworks to impose targeted sanctions against human rights abusers. This legislation does not go as far as the unanimous committee report recommended, but it is a very good beginning. I and the Greens will be moving amendments to strengthen and improve this legislation so that it goes closer to what the committee report unanimously recommended.

But, in talking about committee reports and bills and targeted sanctions frameworks, it's easy to lose sight of why this matters. It matters because this framework, when applied correctly, can be a tool to support human rights around the world and to respond to those who attack and undermine them.

I want to share the story of an anonymous prisoner who was taken captive by junta forces in Myanmar:

The soldiers in rural Myanmar twisted the young man's skin with pliers and kicked him in the chest until he couldn't breathe. Then they taunted him about his family until his heart ached, too: "Your mom," they jeered, "cannot save you anymore."

The young man and his friend, randomly arrested as they rode their bikes home, were subjected to hours of agony inside a town hall transformed by the military into a torture center. As the interrogators' blows rained down, their relentless questions tumbled through his mind.

"There was no break – it was constant," he says …

Sadly, that isn't an isolated story. From the same reporting by AP of torture by the junta forces:

The prisoners came from every corner of the country and from various ethnic groups, and ranged from a 16-year-old girl to monks. Some were detained for protesting against the military, others for no discernible reason. Multiple military units and police were involved in the interrogations, their methods of torture similar across Myanmar.

The attacks by junta forces on human rights and democratic freedoms have been relentless since the coup in February this year—and I want to acknowledge the work of others in this place, including Senator Smith and the member for Wills in the other place and many others in this building, as we have worked together to highlight the horrific situation in Myanmar.

Australia should respond to the human rights abuses occurring in Myanmar and elsewhere around the world. We think targeted sanctions are a good step and an important step in responding to the human rights abuses. I use Myanmar as an example, but this issue is much broader and goes to countries around the world. Here in Australia, we must be doing more to address human rights violations. We cannot claim to impose sanctions with any credibility unless we are willing to uphold human rights here in Australia. That must start with justice for First Nations peoples but address a whole range of issues. I'm proud to be part of the Greens, who call out human rights abuses wherever they occur. My heart goes out to the two First Nations women who we have just heard have died in custody in the last day.

Our response must include where human rights abuses occur in other countries as well. In West Papua we have seen attacks on civilian populations. In the Philippines, protesters have been killed. In China, we have consistently called for action on targeted sanctions against the officials who have been responsible for the cultural genocide of the Uighur people. Our approach to human rights should be consistent, calling out human rights abuses wherever they occur, whether by Australia's allies, including the United States and India, or against Tibetans and Hongkongers or in other countries around the world. Australia should place human rights at the centre of our approach to foreign policy, not just a selfish interpretation of what's in the national interest. And, sadly, we need more than a legislative framework that enables the minister impose sanctions. We need a fair process and we need the political will to impose sanctions.

In raising the issue of the will to impose sanctions, I want to return to and highlight particularly the case of Myanmar and to foreshadow that we've got substantive amendments to the bill that go to some of these points. I'd like to quote here from a submission provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the joint standing committee during the inquiry. Keep in mind that this was written before this bill was introduced, early in the inquiry, referring to the existing legislative framework. The submission states:

Within the current autonomous sanctions framework, Australia could establish thematic sanctions regimes, such as a human rights based regime, where the regime is not tied to a particular country. Such a regime could comprise targeted financial sanctions and travel bans, which could be directed against individuals or entities designated or declared on human rights grounds.

This submission outlines two ways to establish a thematic human rights based regime: one, by way of new standalone legislation, or, two, through incorporation into the existing autonomous sanctions framework by way of an amendment to regulations. Clearly DFAT's very public advice was that there was no need for a new act in order to impose targeted sanctions on human rights grounds.

We welcome these amendments that will make it clearer that there is an opportunity to impose thematic sanctions, including on human rights grounds, but the fundamental point here is that we could have been using the existing legislative framework to impose thematic sanctions. We could have imposed targeted sanctions against the generals leading the coup in Myanmar when it started in 2021. The reason that we chose not to, as far as we can tell, based on multiple rounds of multiple questions in Senate estimates, is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs believes that it's in Australia's interest to follow the approach of ASEAN. Sadly, that point has been addressed repeatedly and publicly but to no avail.

I'd like to quote from a letter written by current and former ASEAN members of parliament:

More than six months since the military coup and the subsequent campaign of violence unleashed by the Myanmar Army, ASEAN has failed in its responsibility to the people of Myanmar, and the broader international community.

  …   …   …

ASEAN's very own principles of non-interference and consensus-based decision making prevent the bloc from taking any meaningful steps towards an end of violence in Myanmar. Even its provisions of humanitarian aid, if it takes place, risks further legitimizing the junta, and not reach those in need.

In that regard we would like to echo the findings of our fellow parliamentarians from Australia who in their recent Inquiry into certain aspects of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Annual Report 2019-20—Myanmar, noted that: "there are complex relations within and between ASEAN nations, and that this led to concerns that ASEAN would not intervene decisively on the Myanmar crisis.

This reflects a fundamental problem in the current legislative approach that we are looking at today. It simply strengthens the legislative framework for powers that the foreign minister already has but has refused to use. We support this bill, and we welcome it, but it does not address this fundamental problem, which is that Australia has not imposed targeted sanctions using the legislative tools already available. This goes now to the amendments we will be debating later today.

I can foreshadow that we will welcome and support the amendments circulated by the Labor Party. In turn, our amendments, I believe, would significantly improve the bill, if supported. In particular, I'd like to go to the issue of how the minister selects which individuals should be targets of sanctions. The joint standing committee report says:

The Sub-committee considers that there should be an established and transparent pathway for organisations to nominate a person for sanctionable conduct.

The Sub-committee recommends that an independent advisory body be created to receive nominations, consider them and make recommendations to the Minister for a decision. This would provide a degree of public confidence in the process of nomination, and allow representations from those people and organisations directly affected.

The structure and composition of this body would be the subject of further consultation, however the Sub-committee considers it should include the ability to conduct its inquiry in public and to publish reasons for its decision. It is also important that recommendations by the independent advisory body must be considered by the Minister and that the Minister must give reasons for any decision not to adopt a recommendation by the advisory body.

This is a very important recommendation from the committee and it is extremely disappointing that it's not been adopted in the legislation that we are discussing this afternoon. However, in its response, the government notes that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade could fulfil some of the functions of that independent advisory body.

Given that, I hope that the minister will welcome the amendments that I'll be moving today. Broadly speaking, those amendments, the ones on sheet 1502, would create a framework to enable referrals to the minister, including through the joint standing committee. The minister would remain the decision-maker and the power to impose sanctions would remain with the executive, unchanged by the amendment. All that would change is there would be an established and transparent pathway to nominate individuals for sanctionable conduct. The United States adopts a similar approach, with congressional committees able to refer names with a response required from the executive government. We think this is a very reasonable, balanced approach and it addresses a fundamental flaw in this legislation.

I will be moving a number of other amendments, but let me reiterate: we welcome this bill and are keen to ensure it passes before the end of the year—we are keen to ensure that it passes today—but we think it can be improved. The amendments we have circulated will help improve the bill and, in turn, provide a better framework for protecting human rights. I want to go through some of the details of the amendments, because I'm not at all certain, with the guillotining of debate, that we're going to get to full committee stage for this bill or whether we're just going to ram through amendments. I will go through some of the points with each of my amendments.

Let me reiterate: my amendment sheet 1502 addresses an important gap in the current bill. It creates an established and transparent pathway for referrals and provides for review in three years, as recommended by the joint standing committee. This is a fundamental point: if this bill is to genuinely create a framework for protecting human rights and not simply create targeted sanctions as a tool that the minister can use for geopolitical reasons, then there must be a capacity for an established, transparent pathway for human rights abusers to be nominated.

Here in Australia we have seen horrific human rights abuses. And some of Australia's close regional neighbours, as well as major international allies, have committed significant human rights abuses. That includes the Indonesian government, the Philippines government, the government of India and the United States government. If the Australian government is to avoid claims that targeted sanctions are anything more than a thinly-veiled tool for advancing Australia's so-called 'national interest' under the guise of human rights then there must be some basic framework and those transparent pathways to how these sanctions are applied.

My amendments on sheet 1508 reflect recommendations from the joint standing committee and our consultation with civil society. We think that they will significantly improve the framework and the capacity of civil society to engage in these issues while not detracting from the minister's powers. I reiterate: the Australian Greens will support this legislation, but I do look forward to the support of others in this place for our amendments. We think they would improve the bill significantly. I also wish to note that I circulated a second reading amendment but I'm not going to proceed with it.