Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of the Labor Party on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021, which seeks to amend the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 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 cyber activity, serious violations or serious abuses of human rights, activities undermining good governance or the rule of law including serious corruption. This is an important addition to Australia's existing Autonomous Sanctions Act introduced and passed by Labor in 2011. It significantly broadens the scope of activities counter to Australia's interests for which financial sanctions may be applied.

For the past 10 years, 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 to regimes that committed grave human rights abuses or acts of aggression. These sanctions enabled Australia to take seriously our international commitments to peace and security, while further augmenting pressure on foreign regimes where the UN Security Council sanctions had been adopted; for example, those which were applied in relation to Iran and North Korea as well as for Syria, Zimbabwe and Russia. But it has become increasingly apparent that an update and broadening of the scope of activities to which sanctions may be applied is necessary.

We are more than 70 years from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Eleanor Roosevelt described it, the 'international Magna Carta for all mankind'—or humankind. With its foundations in the four freedoms proclaimed 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, this must encompass civil and socioeconomic rights, it remains as profound as ever and perhaps it remains as aspirational as ever. Because while we have seen so many advances in human rights, we have also seen stagnation and we have seen deterioration. While the 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. Sadly, this is also not a new phenomenon.

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer and tax auditor, who was hired in 2007 to investigate corruption by Russian interior ministry officials. After uncovering a US$230 million scam, Magnitsky was arrested, detained and tortured. Denied medical treatment and family visits, he died in prison in 2009 at the age of 37. It is 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 who commit gross human rights violations.

In the absence of sufficient accountability mechanisms that raise the cost of such behaviour, it falls to nation-states to act. Previously, through our UN commitments, Australia targeted entire regimes for nefarious behaviours, grave abuses and serious risks to international peace and security. The Autonomous Sanctions Act that a Labor government brought forward and legislated in 2011 enabled sanctions that targeted countries and individuals independent of multilateral arrangements and these have proved an important tool of Australia's foreign policy, targeting those responsible for egregious behaviours whilst limiting the negative consequence on others by depriving access to capital, goods and services. But it is clear we need to go beyond what has traditionally been the realm of sanctions, threats to international peace and security. We need to use sanctions to help support agreed international norms of human rights and to be a force for positive change. As the global Magnitsky movement has shown, depriving human rights abusers of their wealth and ability to travel can hit them where it hurts. Magnitsky sanctions will ensure that those responsible cannot seek safe haven for themselves or for their assets in Australia.

Legislation referencing Mr Magnitsky has been enacted in various jurisdictions, including in the US, the European Union, Canada and the United Kingdom, since 2012.

In Australia, Labor and others have been calling for Australia to join our friends and partners in the introduction of Magnitsky-style sanctions for some time. As shadow foreign minister, I've previously raised the need for such sanctions with the Turnbull and Morrison governments, including with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. For some time, the prevailing view in the Morrison and Turnbull governments was that such a regime was not necessary—that the Autonomous Sanctions Act, introduced by Labor, already allowed for the listing of individuals and entities complicit in human rights abuses abroad. But Labor took the view that Australia being part of the global Magnitsky movement was in our national interests because it is in our interests that we work to generate and preserve global public goods.

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 nations and all peoples. This is at the heart of Labor's foreign policy tradition. Magnitsky sanctions and formalised engagements 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 an 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, whilst also minimising the impact on the broader population.

In December last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended the Australian government 'enact standalone targeted sanctions legislation to address human rights violations and corruption', or a Magnitsky act, that should be able to receive nominations from any sources. I acknowledge the committee and its chair, Senator Fawcett; and, in particular, the Human Rights Sub-Committee, chaired by Mr Andrews; and the Labor members of that committee and the subcommittee—Ms Swanson, Senators Ayres and Kitching, Mr Gorman, Mr Hayes, Mr Hill, Mr Khalil, Senators McCarthy, O'Neill and Sheldon, and Ms Vamvakinou—for their leadership and work to bring this bill into existence.

The Morrison government did not respond to the committee's recommendations until August this year, and it has taken a further three months for this bill to be introduced. Whilst it is a welcome step that the government has introduced it, the delay in introducing Magnitsky-style sanctions has sent a regrettable message—that Australia is not committed and that we do not take human rights abuses seriously. Meanwhile, we have seen increasing and disturbing reports of human rights violations around the world, and, in some places, political leaders have sought to manipulate the circumstances of the pandemic to further weaken human rights.

Mr Magnitsky is not alone among those who seek to expose abuse and wrongdoings by those in power. As we speak today, Chinese citizen journalist Zhang Zhan is on a hunger strike and at risk of dying without the urgent medical requirements she needs. Ms Zhang was sentenced to four years of prison in December 2020 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—a democratic transition which Australia and Australians had been deeply supportive of. The subsequent violent crackdown against those protesting the coup saw thousands of political prisoners detained and civilians killed by security forces. Ten months have passed, and Australia stands alone amongst the UK, the United States, Canada and the European Union in refusing to apply any additional targeted sanctions against those responsible for the violence.

And now we have reports that Australia's Future Fund—that is, taxpayers' funds—has been investing in joint ventures with the Tatmadaw and Chinese weapons manufacturers dealing in Myanmar. I have written to the minister and expressed my deep concern about these reports. Our Future Fund should not be investing in Tatmadaw linked entities and should not be profiting from the Tatmadaw's attack on Myanmar's democracy.

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 be required to perform forced labour. Modern slavery is real. Modern slavery, including forced labour and forced marriage, still 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, and 24.9 million of them were in forced labour situations. Research by the Walk Free Foundation has found that one in every 130 women and girls around the world are 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 own Modern Slavery Act. So I again continue my call on the Morrison government to work with us and the crossbench to improve the Modern Slavery Act, to introduce tougher penalties for noncompliance and to strengthen mandatory reporting requirements on possible exposures to abuses. Certainly, if elected, Labor will place ending modern slavery as a central priority of our international human rights engagement. This would include sanctions against those directly profiting from forced labour and modern slavery.

It is incumbent upon the Australian government to prosecute our interests, including support for human rights and democratic freedoms. Decisions to implement sanctions against individuals and entities are and should remain executive decisions of government, which have to take account of all relevant factors, including foreign and strategic interests and implications of bilateral relations.

But it would also be appropriate to consult more widely. The process leading up to this legislation has laid bare some of the deficiencies in the Morrison government's engagement with human rights advocates and diaspora community groups. So often, their insights—not to mention their real-time reporting and on-the-ground knowledge—have been ignored. If elected, Labor would correct this.

We also believe that the themes of the bill under which sanctions can be applied are insufficiently wide. The bill does not cover the violations of the rules and norms of armed conflict. It does not cover the crime of genocide or other crimes against humanity. It does not cover instances where rape and sexual violence are used as weapons of war. It does not cover the targeting of civilians, nor the manipulation or blockage of humanitarian aid in conflict zones. This is why we will amend this legislation 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—certainly, to us, and I assume to the government—by human rights NGOs, including Human Rights Watch Australia and Save the Children, and I thank them publicly for their constructive engagement in providing feedback to the government's bill.

There is a further amendment I urge the government to consider. This is Australia's Magnitsky Act, which is why, today, we will move an amendment to include 'Magnitsky' in the title of the bill, as a strong signal of Australia's support for the global Magnitsky movement.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased today to rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. The world is at a tipping point in the struggle against creeping or, in some places, marching, authoritarianism. In Australia, we live with the benefits of a stable and prosperous democracy. Its superiority over any other model of political and economic organisation may seem self-evident, but this is actually not the case for many people in many parts of the world. Democracy and personal liberty cannot be taken for granted anywhere or at any time. They must be defended and, if I may put it this way, they must be defended aggressively in all of our countries.

The practical application of human freedom through political participation in democracy as a universal idea is central to our humanity, and so are human rights and the protection of human rights. While these notions had their origins in Europe and North America, they are not Western in essence. They are universal, and just as applicable in the developing world as they are in the developed world. As the United States Declaration of Independence expresses it:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness— …

And the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789 contains a very similar principle

Art. 1er. Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et egaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent etre fondees que sur l'utilite commune.

We must remind ourselves that these are quite radical ideals. Throughout history they have not been the norm.

For evidence of how fragile democracy is, we need only look at certain parts of the world where, in recent years, we have seen a slide back to authoritarian governments. In that context, the fault lines are there for all of us to see. Many of the great democracies, the 'free world', if you like—and I'm sorry that that has become a controversial expression, but it's the free world of which I'm very proud—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Japan, New Zealand and, of course, our great alliance partner the United States of America, respect human rights, the rule of law, the protection of private property rights and the right to speak out about political issues without fear of a knock on the door at midnight. Just imagine what that's like to live with—someone coming to knock on your door to take you away.

Of course, democracies don't always do this perfectly. The Declaration of Independence, which I quoted earlier, has not always guaranteed that the United States is free from error or the oppression and dispossession of its own citizens. And yet its ideals have lit the way to freedom. One only has to look at the T-shirts of those marching for freedom recently in Cuba or Hong Kong; those T-shirts were adorned with the American flag, the Stars and Stripes. However, no less a figure than Dr Martin Luther King Jr invoked that very phrase, 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,' in the struggle for civil rights that led his nation to a more perfect union. And therein lies the genius of democracy: our willingness to accept imperfection, to own up to our mistakes, and then to use them as an example of how to be better and how to do better.

The authoritarian world—I won't name individual countries—does not respect anything other than the maintenance and projection of power. It has ever been thus. Without the protections and due processes of democracy, even the most prosperous businesspeople can lose everything overnight, and we've seen this quite recently in a country in our region. The most innocent citizen can be jailed without cause. The most seemingly powerful official can be sent straight to jail, after a show trial, if she or he falls foul of their authoritarian ruler. In the authoritarian world, the average citizen lives looking over their shoulder, watched by facial recognition cameras, judged by a police state, randomly punished in the most brutal prisons imaginable, all while these abuses are aided, abetted and covered up by a controlled media. As democratic senator for New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: 'If the newspapers of a country are filled with good news, the jails of that country will be filled with good people.'

It is not wrong to say that one side, for all of our faults—which are many—is good and to say, equally, that to deny basic human rights and due process to any person is evil. 'Evil' is a word that some are uncomfortable with in our modern age. It is a word without which we cannot do, and I am idealistic enough to believe that you support good and you oppose evil, even if it costs you, even if it hurts you. History will judge us for this. Future generations will judge us for this. In this modern age, there are regimes run by the dregs of humanity, who, because they are so inhumane, torture and jail and murder their own citizens, and break their spirits; delight in causing fear; take away hope and humanity; place their citizens in concentration camps; steal from their compatriots; and enforce slavery and arbitrary detention. If you understand the beauty that it is to be a human being, of being alive and vital; if you believe in the dignity of human beings, then you can't really allow such evil to go unchallenged. And, if you do believe in the beauty of human life, then, for every person who lives under such regimes and cannot stand in the light but is shoved into the dark, you understand why Magnitsky legislation is necessary and you also understand why democracies must be supreme.

President Kennedy said in his inaugural address that 'the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God'.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Abetz. He was, of course, when he said those words, referring to the Soviet Union, and look at it today—plus ca change. I'm not saying that democracies are always right. After all, it was from his jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama, that Martin Luther King Jr wrote these words, which should still ring in our ears—and they certainly ring in mine very often. He wrote:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

But it is democracies where there is sunlight and transparency, that have a rule of law, that respect the rights of minorities, that believe in free and fair elections, that believe in the freedom of the press and that believe in human rights. It is they that are the promised land for those who suffer at the mean and ugly hands of authoritarian regimes. Democracies need to grow, not to contract.

For those of us in this parliament and around the world who do not hold out an appeasing hand to those who commit human rights abuses, who do not hold out a slippery hand to those who engage in large-scale corruption; for those of us who tell these evil people, 'No, we will not look away while you do wrong,' but rather look them straight in the eye and say, 'We shall make pariahs of you all'; for those of us who choose to fight for the best world we can have; for those of us who will fight for justice and righteousness, we have made the only choice there is to make.

I was recently in one of the oldest centres of democracy on this earth, Westminster, for an awards ceremony. I am honoured and humbled that I received an award for outstanding contribution to Magnitsky legislation.

An honourable senator: Congratulations.

Thank you. I will never forget some of the people I met there and had an opportunity to become better acquainted with in meetings concerning Magnitsky legislation. They included people whose hands have been permanently affected by the poison that agents of the Russian state had administered. Their hands are red and disfigured, the veins distorted. They have had to learn to walk again because they were so badly affected by the poison.

They included people who were not able to come at all, because they are imprisoned with no due process or no process at all. They included journalists who have been threatened because they have written about despots and the money trails of their corruption and who are still being threatened years after their books and columns were published. Their publishers have been threatened, through both legal and extrajudicial means, and their families have been threatened. Maybe today is the day that they, or one of their children, put their hand on a doorknob at their home and that doorknob has been coated in poison. That's happened to people.

Whether it be the Republic of Conscience, as imagined by Seamus Heaney, which makes clear that we are self-aware beings capable of self-examination, or whether we are guided by the Bible, the Torah, the Koran or the Vedas in the Bhagavad Gita, or whether it is what we see in our daily dealings with other human beings, we learn to distinguish what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral and, indeed, what is good and what is evil.

If we don't call out evil where it lurks, and if we don't fight back when given the opportunity to diminish and defeat evil, then who are we? What are we doing in this place? It is for that reason—the lack of respect for the rights of their fellow human beings—that we observe the phenomenon of those who have gamed the authoritarian system by stealing or by engaging in the most heinous human rights abuses and corruption and then seeking the safety of the free world's jurisdictions. They seek to protect themselves and their ill-gotten gains with the very protections they deny to the victims of their regimes. Our system of land title gives you as close to absolute certainty that no-one can steal your property from you. In the authoritarian world, there is no such safety. If someone with power wants to take, he or she can do just that. There might be the occasional fig leaf of pretend process, but the outcome is the same.

That brings us to this bill. This bill is inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, an employee of hedge fund manager Bill Browder. Sergei Magnitsky was murdered by Russian crooks connected to the highest levels of the current Russian regime. He died in a Russian prison after being tortured. He was murdered because he had uncovered what were successful attempts to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from the Russian state. Mr Browder, the employer of Sergei Magnitsky, is a prosperous man, and I spent a quite a lot of time with him in London recently. He could have continued with a quiet and comfortable life, but he was so outraged and saddened that he has dedicated his life to what are now called Magnitsky laws.

Prior to the introduction of the bill we are speaking on today, local proposals to do the same have been driven by many in this place. I want to talk about Michael Danby, who was the first person I talked to about Magnitsky legislation, having seen Bill Browder interviewed on 7.30. But I also want to acknowledge Senator Payne and her office, as Senator Rice has said. I want to acknowledge Senator Rice, and I want to acknowledge Senator James Paterson—another Victorian, so maybe Victoria really is where the good people are. I want to acknowledge Mr Hastie, in the other place, the Hon. Kevin Andrews and Mr Chris Hayes. And I want to acknowledge Senator Abetz and Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Although this was done in the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Senate standing committee was equally committed to this legislation, so I appreciate the work of my fellow committee members.

On 3 December 2019, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women, Senator the Hon. Marise Payne, asked the Human Rights Subcommittee of the joint standing committee to inquire into the use of targeted sanctions. In that committee, we heard from a number of expert witnesses, both local and international. These included Bill Browder and prominent international lawyers Geoffrey Robertson QC and Amal Clooney, as well as former Canadian Attorney-General Professor Irwin Cotler. I met all of these people in London, and they have been, and remain, very generous with their time. I want to say thank you to them—they were amazing sounding-boards. I'd also like to also acknowledge again the members of the joint standing committee, particularly those on the Human Rights Subcommittee.

I think it's also important—and this will be the last point I make—to synchronise our local response, through the passing of this bill, with the responses of like-minded democracies, which is why I'm so pleased Labor will be moving an amendment to put 'Magnitsky' into the title of this bill. In a world of growing authoritarianism, the harmonisation of this type of legislation becomes a weapon for democratic pushback. I'm in regular contact with New Zealand and Japanese legislators, and they hope to enact their own Magnitsky legislation. I think this will be very important for our region.

A strong and clear message will be sent to lower-ranking officials and criminal thugs that their crimes, whether on behalf of or protected by their superiors, will not be immune from international consequences. This legislation says to them: 'Your stolen money is no good here. No matter how you steal from your people, there will be no shopping trips to Paris, no harbourfront mansions in Sydney, no skiing in Aspen and no nest egg in a Western bank.' Like King Midas, they will have lots of gold but no way to enjoy it. It will also say: 'You are beneath contempt. You are so loathsome that we have judged you and we will say so in public—we will name you. Australia will not be a fence for stolen goods nor a hollow log for stolen money.'

This legislation is important. We are a democracy and as a democracy we should stand with other democracies and other like-minded people around the world and say no to the evil that we also see in our world.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague Senator Janet Rice. Senator Rice eloquently expressed the position of the Greens. We support this bill, but Senator Rice will be moving amendments, hopefully, to make this bill stronger.

While we are talking about human rights and human rights abuses today I want to use this opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy on human rights in this chamber. Ever since I joined parliamentary life and, indeed, well before that I have been talking, perhaps non-stop, about human rights. My first speech in the New South Wales parliament way back in 2013 discussed the plight of girls in Pakistan. I have supported the human rights and self-determination of many marginalised and persecuted peoples around the world.

In this chamber many senators get up and speak about human rights violations and human rights abuses—indeed, as they are doing today—but definitely choices are made about whose human rights will get the nod in here and whose are taboo. I can tell you that there is one group of people whose human rights don't matter to those opposite me—the Palestinian people. Palestinians for decades have been amongst the most oppressed people in the world. They are subject to daily humiliation, brutality and violence by the Israeli government. Their human rights are being violated and abused every single day, but in here they are not considered human enough to have rights. Obviously, they are not equal and everyone is not equal in the eyes of many in this chamber.

Israeli authorities continue to persecute and oppress Palestinian people. Settlement and occupation continues. Violence continues. The Gaza blockade continues. Homes continue to be demolished. Palestinians are routinely subjected to dispossession, violence, forcible separation, persecution and humiliation. Yet as soon as you raise these injustices you are hounded and condemned. Shamefully and shamelessly they try to label you as anti-Semitic. It is all designed to shut you up, to silence you. I can tell you that your false accusations are not going to silence me. I will not be backing down in calling for an end to these injustices of settler colonialism, as I will not be backing down in talking about human rights abuses wherever they happen.

Just recently the Israeli government labelled six Palestinian civil society and human rights organisations as terrorist groups. This is another attempt to criminalise criticism of Israel. This is an appalling and alarming decision, and it must be condemned, but there is no condemnation from the Australian government—all while they stand up here today and talk about human rights abuses.

The former World Vision manager of operations in Gaza, Mohammed El Halabi, has been in detention in Israeli custody since 2016—that's five years ago. Israeli authorities allege that he diverted US$50 million donated to World Vision to armed groups for terrorism purposes, but comprehensive audits by World Vision and the Australian government found no evidence of funds being diverted. Yet he languishes in detention, his trial held behind closed doors in secret. So why aren't the so-called arbiters of human rights, who are sitting across the chamber, jumping up and down for a fair and transparent trial? Why has the Morrison government remained quiet about Mohammed's plight? They just don't care about Palestinian human rights and justice. In fact, they want to silence those who want justice for Palestinians. That's why Prime Minister Scott Morrison was so enthusiastic to adopt the IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism, which has been used to silence critics of the Israeli government for its human rights abuses of Palestinian people.

It is clear that there is a very shallow understanding of human rights in this place. Human rights cannot be discarded when they become politically inconvenient. The reality is that many of those who are human rights converts when it comes to helping certain causes are just fairweather friends, because the ultimate taboo in Australian politics is to talk about the human rights of the Palestinian people. The hypocrisy on human rights in here can be seen by people out there. The reality is that change is not going to come from this chamber. It will come from out there, where people are rightly angry at the decades upon decades of injustices towards Palestinian people. They are tired of your silence. They are tired of being silenced. They are speaking up and they are standing up. I am one of those people who will not be silenced.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. I have continued over the years to advocate for the enactment of laws to deal with perpetrators of human rights abuse and corruption by those who transfer assets to use them in countries which are usually democratic and financially stable. I thank Senator Kitching for her comments and for the strong sentiment with which she expressed them. I know that those of us who have been on this journey agree very much with the sentiment of her comments. She outlined the history of the Magnitsky legislation following the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, the work that Bill Browder has focused on and the efforts made internationally to bring human rights perpetrators to the front line of responsibility in introducing targeted sanctions.

Standalone Magnitsky legislation has been introduced in various countries. I'm very pleased that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, of which I'm a member, has recommended that we enact world-leading law to apply targeted sanctions to perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption, so as to align Australia with the global movement and to limit opportunities for human rights abusers, corrupt officials and their beneficiaries to enjoy the proceeds of their abuse. The recommendations that were made by the committee were aimed at strengthening our commitment to protecting human rights, including banning entry of perpetrators to Australia and the capacity to seize assets. Therefore, proper and targeted sanctions legislation will make Australian places and institutions off limits to people who have profited from unconscionable conduct.

I would have liked to see standalone legislation enacted, rather than an extension of the sanctions framework that we are now adopting. Having said that, I think this is a very good start to legislation. I am pleased that we are adopting the amendments that are going to be proposed by the Labor Party, as I understand, most especially to ensure that the name Magnitsky is included in the title, to emphasise the important links with the global movement. I am disappointed, though, that we are not going to have a watchlist of people being considered for sanctioning, given that many of them come from the range of authoritarian regimes that Senator Kitching referred to and that I have made comments about, particularly in relation to the communist regime in China and its skulduggery. I note that perhaps in the past there has been a reluctance and resistance to a full-blown Magnitsky standalone sanctions act. Whilst I think this piece of legislation is a good step in the right direction, I do think that ultimately there is scope for us to strengthen and enhance the framework in the future.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 has my full support. Much has been written and said about this legislation and other like pieces in other jurisdictions around the world. I commend Senator Kitching on an exceptionally good and powerful speech, the full contents of which I adopt, and I again congratulate her on a very, very good exposition on the matters that are before the chamber. I'm also delighted that, as I understand, the two amendments that Labor are moving will be adopted. To have the Magnitsky name in the title is, I think, fitting for this martyr, and that is what he is. So we're delighted that that is going to occur. I also understand that, in a breakout of bipartisanship, the Greens amendment in relation to having this legislation reviewed after three years by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade will also be adopted by the government.

I think this bill has been one of the examples of our parliament working at its very best. I recall the journey myself, and I pay tribute to the former member for Melbourne Ports. He was the one that first made me aware of the name Magnitsky and then of the legislation that might be put forward in honour of his name. I then wrote to relevant people on my side of politics and got the polite 'not needed' response, which was then followed up with an acceptance that it might be a good idea for the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's subcommittee on human rights to have a look at this idea and whether it is needed in Australia. I was very pleased to be able to serve on that committee and come down with a unanimous report, where all members of the committee, under the very able chairmanship of the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, produced a result which has now been adopted, from what I can gather, by all sides of the parliament in both chambers.

In short, that which is before us is legislation I fully support. Given the time constraints, I simply ask people who want to know my thoughts about this matter to read and look at things I may or may not have said in the past, but especially to read Senator Kitching's speech.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 to introduce a Magnitsky-style sanctions regime for Australia. It will be a brief contribution because of the time management motion in place to ensure this and other important legislation pass tonight. A Magnitsky-style sanctions regime is an idea whose time has come and, in the current geopolitical environment, has an irresistible logic. It has in recent times become a very popular cause, and I expect it will shortly pass this chamber unanimously, but that was not always the case. It was only a few years ago that it was a very lonely cause. I'm proud to have been one of the early advocates for Magnitsky sanctions before it was my party's policy to introduce them. I recognise that there are a number of others in the chamber and in the other place who were also early supporters of this important cause, in particular Senator Kitching and of course the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, who did a wonderful job chairing that inquiry.

But I want to pay tribute to someone who has been recognised by others as well in this debate and who was earlier than all of us in in recognising the importance of this initiative, and that is of course the former member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby. Michael was publicly making the case for Magnitsky sanctions before it was cool and introduced in the previous parliament a private members' bill to legislate them. He in turn was inspired by Bill Browder and Senator John McCain, who pioneered and first instituted these sanctions in the United States, and they have since been widely adopted across the world. The sanctions were first enacted in memory of Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered in custody in Russia, but this has since become a much wider cause for those who are oppressed all around the world.

I'm very pleased that Australia is now standing with like-minded countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union and many others, in equipping ourselves with a vital tool to combat rising authoritarianism. It is time democracies had the ability to push back and enact a real and personal cost for those who abuse human rights and seek to reshape the international rules-based order from one that respects the freedoms of the individual to one where the power can be exercised without any restraint. No longer will human rights abusing and corrupt foreign officials be able to comfort themselves with the idea that, even if they were sanctioned by our partners, Australia could be a safe haven for their ill-gotten gains or a refuge for them to flee to. I hope that soon, in a few years time, as momentum for sanction regimes like this grows all around the world, there will be nowhere that they can seek comfort or shelter.

I am particularly pleased to see a uniquely Australian innovation in this version of a Magnitsky act. For the first time ever in the world, our act will equip us to target not only those who abuse human rights or engage in seriously corrupt conduct but also those who threaten our national interest in the cyber realm. This will become an increasingly important tool to help shape and deter our adversaries. In addition to the other measures we have at our disposal, like publicly attributing responsibility for cyberattacks, it will be particularly powerful if our allies and friends who already have Magnitsky schemes amend them to include this provision, and I encourage them to do so. Acting in concert, we can wield a powerful weapon of deterrence against those who seek to do us harm.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, for bringing this proposal to the parliament today. It was Senator Payne who first referred this issue to the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it is Senator Payne who has brought forward this robust legislation today. In addition to the foreign relations act, which passed this time last year and which ensures that the federal government is in charge of our foreign policy—as it should be—Australia is equipping ourselves with the tools we need to defend our democracy, our sovereignty and our freedom in a dangerous world. In passing the bill tonight, and I hope in the House tomorrow, the parliament of Australia is sending a very strong message to those who would seek to bully and threaten us in seeking to change who we are. Australia is a proud liberal democracy. We will stand up for ourselves, our interests and our values on the international stage, no matter what you throw at us.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the minister concludes the debate on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021, as chair of Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade I'd like to thank the minister for her referral to the committee for us to consider this. I'd like to thank colleagues from all sides of the chamber and also the House for their constructive engagement, particularly Mr Kevin Andrews, who chaired the subcommittee. I'd also like to thank the executive for their constructive engagement after the report and their decision to proceed. I think it's quite appropriate that our system of democracy has worked—and worked well. It's why we should defend it, and I commend this bill to the house.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me begin by acknowledging and thanking those colleagues who have spoken on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021 for their contributions to this very important debate. Some colleagues have been part of the policy discussion on Magnitsky-style legislation for many years, in particular colleagues who have spoken in here this afternoon. I acknowledge the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator Fawcett; the chair of the joint standing subcommittee, from the other place, Mr Kevin Andrews, and colleagues on the committee. That includes, of course, those across the parliament: Senator Rice, Senator Kitching, Senator Wong, my good friend Senator Paterson, Senator Abetz, Senator Fierravanti-Wells and many other colleagues who have contributed over time. This is an important reform. It's an important response 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.

Senator Paterson is right: Australia has a strong 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. As a government we've used our existing country-specific autonomous sanctions regimes to those ends, whether that includes human rights violations in Syria or Russian threats to sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Establishing new thematic sanctions will enhance the government's longstanding use of autonomous sanctions as a strategic foreign policy tool through which Australia can impose costs on and influence and deter those responsible for egregious situations of international concern, while minimising impacts on general populations.

With this reform Australia introduces Magnitsky-style sanctions. The Magnitsky movement to establish thematic sanctions addressing human rights and corruption was indeed inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, the Russian lawyer who exposed fraud committed by Russian government officials, who was arrested and imprisoned. Subjected to degrading treatment and tortured, he died in custody on 16 November 2009.

Through the advocacy of Bill Browder, whose firm Hermitage Capital Management Mr Magnitsky was advising, in 2012 the US congress passed the Magnitsky act, banning travel and freezing assets of those Russian officials responsible. Since then countries including Canada, the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom began to create or update their respective sanctions frameworks to enable perpetrators of this egregious conduct to be sanctioned in a more timely way no matter where the conduct occurs. While that debate gathered momentum internationally, as others have said, I referred the matter for inquiry by the joint standing committee.

An increasing number of like-minded countries have joined the movement. The bill is timely for Australia. It's a reform which will mean Australia can take timely action, including with like-minded partners, where its in the national interest, in response to situations of international concern wherever they occur in the world. Denying the perpetrators and beneficiaries of egregious acts from accessing our economy is essential and ensures they cannot benefit from the freedoms our democracy and rules based society allows. This reform will, importantly, ensure that Australia does not become an isolated, attractive safe haven for such people and entities and their illegal gains.

Our government response included a commitment to introduce a new thematic cyber-regime, in addition to the regime canvassed by the committee. This additional tool will serve alongside other law enforcement and operational mechanisms to enhance Australia's responses to instances of egregious malicious cyberactivity that impact our interests. The government response also agreed to the Attorney-General being consulted in the making of thematic sanctions by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The minister will also consult any other relevant ministers to ensure consideration of all relevant foreign policy and national interest equities. These amendments set out the executive process by which thematic sanction decisions are made, not the material on which the minister can rely. In making a listing the minister can consider any relevant material that will assist in being reasonably satisfied the criteria are met, including credible material and information obtained by non-government organisations.

The government strongly encourages public engagement on human rights and corruption issues and regular consultation with civil society, and will continue to receive suggestions for sanctions listings from a range of sources. The regulations will provide the specific criteria under which a person or entity could be sanctioned under these new thematic regimes should it be in Australia's national interests to do so. Embedding the new thematic regimes in our existing autonomous sanctions framework means that established processes and safeguards will continue to apply, not be duplicated across multiple sanctions, acts and frameworks. That's important to provide certainty and continuity for all of those who engage with our autonomous sanctions framework. This is similar to the approach taken by the United Kingdom, which does not have a standalone act and has a similar framework with regulations under an overarching act.

The government encourages public engagement on these significant issues, and we look forward to continuing to receive future recommendations from parliament and civil society on possible listings. The bill will support the ongoing role of sanctions as a primary tool of statecraft by which Australia can define, defend and demonstrate our values globally, and can support a robust international rules based order. This is a significant reform, and I thank all of those who have worked collaboratively on it. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.