Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I rise with great pleasure to speak on this report about the adoption of an Australian Magnitsky act. I want to acknowledge the subcommittee members for their work on this, particularly the chair, the member for Menzies, and the deputy chair, the member for Paterson. I also want to acknowledge Senator Kitching, who has long been a strong advocate on this issue. There's a private member's bill on the Notice Paper in the other place to implement an Australian Magnitsky act. An Australian Magnitsky act is a much-needed law in order to demonstrate our commitment to human rights. This is a bipartisan issue that has attracted unlikely allies from both sides of the aisle. The global movement for countries to pass their own version of the United States Magnitsky act has gathered pace in the last few years. We should be right there with other countries leading the charge.

But I want to use my time today to acknowledge the history of this issue and the people in this place and outside of it who have advocated for years to get us to the point of this committee report. It all started with a Russian tax auditor named Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered at the age of 37 after he uncovered a major fraud committed by officials within the Russian government. He'd been put on the case by Bill Browder, a British-American financier, who would go on to lead the charge for these Magnitsky laws around the world. Magnitsky and Browder did what all of us hope that we would do in the same situation—spoke up and exposed a fraud. They filed criminal complaints, hoping that the system would work. But Magnitsky was jailed for his efforts, without trial, for 11 months, and in 2009 he died in prison following several years of what can only be described as prolonged torture at the hands of Russian authorities. He was denied medical care and kept in squalid conditions. He developed major medical conditions, including gallbladder disease and pancreatitis, for which prison doctors withheld treatment as a means of coercing his actions. A report on his death said that he'd complained of worsening stomach pains for five days, and by the day of his death he was vomiting every three hours and his stomach was swollen. When they finally moved him to a medical facility, he wasn't treated; he was given a psychiatric assessment and a painkiller. He was dead 30 minutes later, having died alone in a jail cell.

Browder tracked the assets back to the US, and he lobbied US lawmakers to target those who had profited. It's in his name that the United States passed the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which sought to punish those personally responsible. In 2016, they took the principles of this law and made them global, with the ability to apply sanctions to any foreign officials that might have been involved in human rights abuses personally, regardless of where they occurred. This is really a story of mateship—something that we value highly as a nation. Browder took the push global and has created a worldwide movement to create laws that punish government officials involved in human rights abuses globally in the name of his mate. Browder gave up his successful career to make getting justice for his mate his life's work. Many countries have since adopted a Magnitsky act or a law similar to it, as a result of his fierce advocacy. Canada began this process in 2015, and it made it into law in 2017. It's sanctioned 70 individuals under these laws. The European Union passed a resolution in 2019 to create a Magnitsky act of its own and will soon make it law. The United Kingdom passed amendments to its existing laws in 2018, soon after leaving the European Union, and has since imposed nearly 50 sanctions on individuals, including on two Myanmar generals for their involvement in the persecution of the Rohingya people and other ethnic minorities.

I welcome the progress on this act represented by the committee report and acknowledge the work that's been done by the committee and its advocates in this place. Once we have enacted our own Magnitsky law, we must pursue a greater global commitment to human rights through the adoption of these laws. This is something that we've been talking about in this parliament for quite some time. I want to acknowledge one member who was tireless in his pursuit of this issue well before it was on the radar of many others in this place. The former member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, was a strong advocate for these laws. He insisted that the parliament pay attention to this issue, and he persisted until the parliament did. He can be a pain that way, Brother Danby. He even introduced a private member's bill, which I was proud to sit in the chamber as he argued for. In his valedictory speech in April last year, where I sat next to him, he said:

I feel a longing for all the unfinished business I leave here. Although I moved a first reading of the Magnitsky Act, it is not enshrined in our law. The government has come to favour having a legislative device for pushing back against corruption and human rights abuses by authoritarian countries. I say to this parliament that Magnitsky would allow us—like the US, Canada and the UK—to tell states like Russia that you can't kill 38 Australians and get away with it. Unfortunately we seem to have run out of time.

Well, comrade, we have picked up the torch and we will carry on your work in this parliament.

I know that Michael Danby would be happy to see us debating this issue, but he'd probably be asking why we haven't already implemented it. Labor's shadow foreign affairs spokesman made clear Labor's position in July this year, supporting the introduction of Australian Magnitsky law, 'to send a strong signal to those committing human rights abuses abroad and to defend our democratic institutions.' The shadow foreign affairs minister also said that it must be enacted soon, saying:

While the world is rightly focused on managing the pandemic, we've continued to see human rights abuses. This is why the UK has flagged targeted sanctions under its recently passed Magnitsky laws. Australia has existing sanctions mechanisms, and an Australian Magnitsky Act would allow for more explicit targeting of human rights and corruption abuses.

Australia has an important role to play here. The US led the charge. The UK has done its bit, Canada has done its bit and the European Union is almost there. We should be there with them. If we don't pass a Magnitsky Act, we risk becoming a safe haven in the developed world for human rights violators.

The committee's report notes Geoffrey Robertson QC's observation that 'although human rights abuses can be listed as designating criteria for sanctioning, under Australia’s current regime, there is little scope for sanctioning an individual for corruption'. It is a growing trend, as the inquiry notes, that perpetrators of human rights abuses and corruption take advantage of our globalised financial system to secure their assets in countries like Australia—and we've seen this in Melbourne. Australia is an attractive place for this, and we must send a strong message that we won't allow our country to become a haven for those that perpetrate human rights abuses and corruption, particularly in our own region.

It's important that we send a strong message through targeted sanctions, such as travel bans and asset freezes, which a Magnitsky Act would enable. As Bill Browder notes:

The global Magnitsky sanctions will issue a stark warning to human rights abusers and kleptocrats around the world that no longer will they be able to commit atrocities with complete impunity. Targeted sanctions against those involved in corruption and human rights abuse will provide an immediate, tangible consequence which directly affects an individual where it hurts them the most—in their pocket. Leaders of corrupt regimes will know they are no longer able to protect their ill-gotten gains abroad, or flee to their lavish properties in foreign countries. Totalitarian dictatorships ultimately fall, and when they do, the Global Magnitsky Act will prevent those who have committed human rights abuses from claiming asylum almost anywhere in the world.

The committee notes in its report that countries that have adopted these laws are seeing success, noting:

… there are indications of early success in applying targeted sanctions to curtail options for enjoyment and freedoms of human rights abusers and beneficiaries of corruption. Australia’s imposition of travel bans and asset freezes could apply some level of consequences in cases where they were otherwise lacking.

Australia should be a leader in our region and on the global scale in demonstrating our commitment to human rights. An Australian Magnitsky Act would be an important step in this process. An Australian Magnitsky Act would put human rights abusers and corrupt government officials in our region on notice that Australia was not their bolthole. That's why we must continue full steam ahead to deliver an Australian Magnitsky Act.

I thank all of the committee members for their work on this review, and I thank all of the parliamentarians from both sides of the aisle who have campaigned for and championed this issue to get the debate to where it is now. I look forward to the parliament acting on this review and progressing it in the future.

See this speech in context