Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010. This bill was debated in June, prior to the federal election; however, due to the proroguing of the parliament, it has had to be reintroduced. The coalition continues to support this bill, with some slight reservations that I will raise later in my speech. I do not want to repeat verbatim my speech on this bill from June, but I will nevertheless need to cover much of the same ground.

As I noted in the earlier debate, this bill will enable Australia to implement autonomous sanctions without having to rely on legislation that is in fact intended for other purposes. The bill is designed to strengthen Australia’s autonomous sanctions regime by allowing greater flexibility in the range of measures Australia can implement beyond those achievable under existing instruments, thus ensuring Australia’s autonomous sanctions can match the scope and extent of measures implemented by like-minded states. There is an alternative, United Nations Security Council sanctions regime currently covering 11 nations in addition to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Autonomous sanctions are in addition to the UN Security Council sanctions regime.

This is a stand-alone piece of legislation that gives governments the ability to impose a sanctions regime without resorting to the sometimes messy amendment of other legislation that regulates activities, such as the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations, the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations or other legislation related to the provision of services or software.

The bill also provides a standard penalties regime for those who contravene the provisions of the legislation. This is consistent with the rules applied to the enforcement of UN Security Council sanctions specified under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945.

Sanctions are a necessary part of the armoury in international relations. They are a useful tool if a nation-state wants to avoid more drastic measures such as resorting to military intervention. They have existed ever since humanity was divided into various groupings and tribes.

I note that sanctions are considered by the Australian people to be a productive tool in foreign policy terms. The Lowy Institute for International Policy recently conducted a poll called Australia and the world: public opinion and foreign policy. One question in this poll related to Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, and it is interesting to note that after ‘diplomatic negotiations’, with 85 per cent support, 69 per cent of those surveyed supported ‘economic sanctions’ as a favoured response to Iran’s behaviour.

Australia is not a huge user of the tool, and I think that over time there has been a judicious use of it to make whatever diplomatic point has arisen over time. The coalition believes that autonomous sanctions can, in appropriate circumstances, play an important role in sending clear messages to regimes or countries that their behaviour is unacceptable to the norms of our regions. That is why the coalition supports this bill. It streamlines and improves the ability of the government to impose sanctions against regimes whose behaviour is out of step with accepted international behaviour.

Sanctions are not a solution to every international situation, nor are they generally able to provide rapid changes in aberrant or abhorrent behaviour. They are one of the ways in which the international community can show solidarity with countries where some have adopted behaviour that threatens to undermine stability or threatens their neighbours and beyond. Indeed, only this last week, the issue of a sanctions regime was raised in the national media.

In July this year the Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor of Monash University, South Africa, Professor Dina Burger, visited Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe in his office in Harare and reportedly extended to him an invitation to give a guest lecture at one of the university’s campuses. Professor Burger is reported to have praised Mr Mugabe’s humility. Zimbabwe has been subject to Australian autonomous sanctions since September 2002, targeting the Mugabe regime and its supporters. The sanctions are extensive. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website, there are sanctions implemented by the Reserve Bank of Australia against targeted financial sanctions involving members or supporters of the Mugabe regime, including senior management officials of state-owned companies. In addition, there are restrictions on visas for travel to Australia by members or supporters of the Mugabe regime, including senior management officials of state-owned companies. There is also screening of all student visa applications from Zimbabwe to identify whether any applicants are the adult children of Zimbabwean individuals subject to Australian travel and financial sanctions. Applications so identified are referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for consideration as to whether their presence in Australia would be in Australia’s foreign policy interests. There are also an arms embargo, a prohibition of defence links, the downgrading of government-to-government contacts at multilateral forums and the downgrading of cultural links. Monash University has subsequently disowned Professor Burger’s actions, and rightly so.

More broadly, in the case of autonomous sanctions imposed by our country, in addition to Zimbabwe, they are in place against Burma, North Korea, Iraq, the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Fiji, and they range from financial sanctions to travel restrictions, the suspension of government-to-government links and the like. Autonomous sanctions against Burma have been in place since October 2007 and against members of the Burmese regime, their associates and their supporters. In response to the regime’s crackdown on pro-democracy activists in 2007, the former coalition government introduced bans on financial dealings in Australia on about 400 Burmese officials and associates. At the time, Foreign Minister Downer described them as ‘the strongest financial measures available under existing Australian legislation against countries or individuals that are not subject to United Nations Security Council sanctions’.

North Korea has been subject to Australian autonomous sanctions since 2006. Autonomous sanctions from Australia were employed against Iran from October 2008 and against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from June 1992, targeting those indicted for or suspected of war crimes during the early 1990s. Autonomous sanctions have been in place against Fiji since December 2006. They are:

… against those responsible for the December 2006 Fiji military coup and senior appointees of Fiji’s Interim Government.

Iran has been accused of pursuing nuclear weapons—an accusation denied by the regime—but its ongoing refusal to fully cooperate with the international nuclear inspectors has raised international concerns. This is a critical issue for the whole world, as Israel has threatened military action against nuclear facilities in Iran, an action that would almost certainly trigger retaliation from Iran and its proxies with a potentially devastating impact on the globe. There is an obvious need for sanctions against Iran to work effectively and for Iran to open up its nuclear program to inspectors who can certify that its program is for peaceful power generation purposes. The consequences of the alternative are too terrible to contemplate.

North Korea, in contrast, has detonated nuclear devices in breach of United Nations Security Council resolutions and remains a source of deep tension in the region. Punitive sanctions have impacted on the regime and the long-suffering people of North Korea but have had limited impact on the behaviour of the regime. Its recent provocative action in allegedly sinking a South Korean navy ship has raised tensions close to breaking point.

We must continue to trust that targeted sanctions can work to bring about a change in the behaviour of rogue regimes around the world. Of course, such sanctions can create a dilemma. They can inflict damage on the target country’s population to the point where the moral or humanitarian implications of the sanctions can raise concerns. A case in point is North Korea. While broad based sanctions are called for, a collapse of North Korea would cause a massive flood of refugees into the region. The desired result, the end to North Korea’s nuclear program and its provocative behaviour in pursuit of it, must be put in this context.

There is a view that sanctions are more likely to work if there is an organised domestic political opposition force which can build political pressure on the government. However, in the absence of such opposition, sanctions can sometimes bolster domestic public support for a regime that blames an external enemy for all the woes of the nation. Nonetheless, strong sanctions tend to create a political atmosphere of anxiety and paranoia, which greatly increases the possibility of armed conflict.

International economic pressure could also create incentives for authoritarian regimes to be even more repressive towards opposition forces in order to hold on to power. Burma is a prime example. The more pressure from the international community, the more determined the regime seems to be in its efforts to destroy the chances of the main opposition, which had been the National League for Democracy as it was, and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi from taking any role in the country. As I have informed this House on a number of occasions, I met with Aung San Suu Kyi in 1995. I think that any person who has spent any time in her presence could not fail to be overwhelmed by her inspiring and moral example of leadership. The Burmese regime, having been humiliated in the 1989 election when Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won 89 per cent of the parliamentary seats, appears ever more determined not to concede to foreign pressure in the event that it weakened its claim, albeit spurious, to legitimacy and popular support.

However, despite these risks and consequences and the dilemmas they can raise, on balance sanctions have proved to be an effective way of encouraging governments to adopt behaviour that is in line with the values of the international community. Historically it is fair to say that sanctions have played an important role in effecting the behaviour of many governments or regimes around the world. While far from perfect, I would argue they have helped avert military conflict in many instances. Sanctions can have a devastating impact on regimes in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and they did play an important role in preventing Saddam Hussein obtaining nuclear weapons.

While the coalition supports this bill in principle, we propose to refer it to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee because of our concerns about the domestic privacy implications of the bill. These concerns arise from this passage in the original second reading speech of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs:

… the bill will facilitate access to information for purposes associated with the administration of sanction laws by removing impediments for the sharing of such information within the Commonwealth, and allowing specially designated Commonwealth entities, responsible for the administration and enforcement of sanction laws, to require, by written notice, the production of documents and written information—including under oath—from persons outside of government in order to determine whether a sanction law is being complied with.

The coalition believes that the government should elaborate on this aspect of the bill to satisfy the privacy concerns arising from this passage in the second reading speech. Nonetheless, with that slight reservation, I note that the Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010 will provide added flexibility to Australia to implement autonomous sanctions that reflect our belief that a type of behaviour is unacceptable and must be changed to avert more serious action. Rather than having to rely on existing legislation to implement autonomous sanctions, Australia will have available to it a more flexible range of foreign policy options to demand a change of behaviour. Subject to the point about referring the passage on privacy considerations to the relevant Senate committee, I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context