Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few brief comments on the Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen Australia’s autonomous sanctions regime by allowing greater flexibility in the range of measures that Australia can seek to implement, therefore allowing the sanctions which we can autonomously—that is, by ourselves—put in place to match the scope and range of sanctions by other like-minded countries.

Suffice it to say—it is fair—that we live in a very uncertain world. If anyone was ever unsure about that, they should cast their mind back to 1986, the International Year of Peace, when no fewer than 46 wars ravaged the globe. Today war continues to be a scourge on our world with even more conflict globally. I think everyone would concede that when countries descend into chaos and war, horror always follows. To send young men and women into harm’s way is not something that an executive would seek to do lightly. We all acknowledge that at times the profession of arms is indeed necessary, but it behoves the executive and, indeed, all parliamentarians to keep themselves accountable and to ensure that we do everything possible before engaging in that ultimate battle of wills that is armed combat. Indeed, armed combat should be absolutely the last resort.

We should be looking at any number of options for us to take forward before resorting to force. Unfortunately, the reality is that, whilst we do everything to secure our borders, our national interests and our way of life, force at times is necessary. But this bill is all about considering what we do before the application of force. One of the key measures that needs to be considered before force is used has to be the use of sanctions, of economic might, of political muscle and of the strength of our argument and our ideas backed up by the strength of our commerce to achieve our political end state before we engage in that ultimate battle of wills. This is the role of sanctions.

As we know, there are United Nations imposed sanctions whereby the UN seeks and passes a resolution for sanctions against a particular nation. Of course, there are autonomous sanctions—sanctions imposed by individual countries outside of the multinational arena. In the case of Australia, we currently have a range of sanctions in place against countries such as Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran and, more locally, Fiji. These sanctions range from financial sanctions to travel restrictions, suspension of government-to-government links, not allowing our ambassadors to reside in certain countries and so on.

The purpose of this range of sanctions is to send a very clear message—that we as a nation will seek to stand up to tyranny, that we will not allow other countries to sink into anarchy, that we will protect the rights of democracy and that we will set an example of a First World nation as it seeks to do what it can to bring about a world freer from the threats of violence, disease and hunger. Sanctions are about saying, ‘We will play a responsible part in the rule of nations and the rule of law globally.’ This is why various governments have moved to put sanctions in place against such dictatorial and brutal regimes as we find with the military junta in Burma, North Korea, Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Iran. We also seek to place sanctions against nations where constitutional democracy has unfortunately failed, like in Fiji.

The challenge is that currently sanctions are imposed by relying on legislation that is, frankly, intended for other purposes. I thought the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his original second reading speech gave a very good example of where Australia currently uses a hodgepodge of legislation to achieve that. He noted that Australian financial sanctions are imposed autonomously by Australia relying on the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations Act 1959. These regulations were originally promulgated for the protection of our nation’s currency and the regulation of our foreign currency reserves. However, we have used that bill to provide the basis for financial sanctions against some of the nations of the world. If that is not creative, I am not too sure what is.

The purpose of the bill today is to move beyond the creative and to put in place a bill that allows a range of autonomous sanctions to be applied in their own right. It is to provide flexibility and responsiveness in imposing sanctions from our nation on a range of countries, without having to rely on a raft of other legislation that frankly does not fit the purpose. Providing this flexibility and giving the executive the vehicle and the powers it needs to appropriately and legally impose sanctions for the betterment of parts of the world is sensible, right and supported.

Sanctions where appropriate can actually achieve end states that other areas of governance, actions or talk cannot. There are numerous examples of where sanctions have been the appropriate course applied to move a foreign government towards a better way of governance. The coalition believes autonomous sanctions can play a very significant part in sending clear messages. If we look at the access regimes of Iran, North Korea and Burma, regimes where democracy is downtrodden, where human rights are violated, where independent political parties seeking to represent people are not allowed and where trade unions are not permitted, for these countries it is absolutely appropriate for a nation like Australia to seek to use sanctions to send a very clear message—that freedom is not just for the few; freedom is for all.

People in all countries must be free to assemble under trade unions. I know you may be shocked to hear that from me, as a great Liberal, but I actually take some pride in fighting for the rights of people to assemble under a trade union. People have that right and they should have the right to seek to come together. That is a choice and freedom they should have. They should not be pushed into a trade union. There should not be laws that force them into a trade union. There should not be rules that say, ‘You must collectively bargain with a trade union and you have no choice.’ But freedom to gather, collect and be represented is a freedom worth fighting for.

People should have the right to join a political party. They should have the right to seek office. They should have the right to bring up their families free from restrictions from the state. They should have the right to seek office and change in their nation. People should have the right of free speech, cognisant of the needs of others. People should have the right to travel and rights of expression and religion. These are fundamental and basic freedoms that any First World nation considers just and right to stand up for. People should be able to enjoy freedom in all its realms and all its wonders, as a First World nation does.

We as a nation are not ignorant of the plight of others, nor do we ignore them and turn the other cheek. We will seek to use every measure at our disposal that is sensible, appropriate and warranted to achieve the end of sending a clear, appropriate and compassionate message—that, whilst we care for the people of other nations, at times we do not care for their unelected, dictatorial representatives. Frankly, I would rather see the use of sanctions to achieve a political end state than seek to continue to rely on force.

I am not blind to the fact that force is sometimes required, that it can be all too necessary. I am cognisant that as we speak there are some 300,000 Australian combat men and women deployed overseas on a range of operations from the Sinai to Egypt, the Sudan, the Solomons, East Timor, the wider Middle East, the HMAS Melbourne in the Gulf and Afghanistan in combat seeking to assist, help and support people who are suffering under dictatorial, oppressive and brutal regimes and insurgencies.

There is indeed a time for war. I am not blind to that fact. I understand the price of peace is eternal vigilance. There is no way for us to move away from that necessity when it is required. But putting together a platform that allows the first step to be a range of sanctions that does not require us to rest on a range of disparate legislation is clearly the first step.

I note that a range of privacy concerns on this bill have been raised by the coalition. I believe the bill is being referred to a Senate inquiry to further examine some of these issues should they arise, noting that the bill facilitates access to information for purposes to allow the bill to be enacted. Whilst on the surface this may well seem appropriate, the due course of parliamentary oversight does require the bill to be analysed in greater detail, and I certainly applaud the Senate for taking that move.

The Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010 in its intent will seek to provide an appropriate framework for the executive to undertake the role of seeking to preserve freedom and protect the rights of individuals by first seeking sanctions. It enjoys our support but clearly we reserve our right to move amendments should the Senate committee report otherwise.

See this speech in context