Senate debates

Tuesday, 10 August 2021

Bills

Human Rights (Targeted Sanctions) Bill 2021; Second Reading

3:47 pm

Photo of Rachel SiewertRachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I am introducing the Human Rights (Targeted Sanctions) Bill 2021 to provide a framework for referrals to the Minister, requiring a response as to whether the Minister will impose targeted sanctions.

I want to start by noting that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade tabled its report on Magnitsky legislation in December 2020. That report was titled Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the Global Magnitsky movement? It followed extensive evidence provided to the Committee, from human rights organisations here in Australia and around the world, and a number of notable individuals including Bill Browder, Garry Kasparov, Amal Clooney and Geoffrey Robertson, and many others who gave their time, expertise, and in some cases gave evidence confidentially because of the personal risk to themselves.

The joint standing committee report was a unanimous, cross-partisan report, supporting Magnitsky legislation.

It's been more than half a year since the Government received that report.

In May, Senator Kitching cosponsored a motion with me, to require a response from the Government to that report. The initial response to that first order for the production of documents, when it was tabled, was very disappointing. Just a letter, saying that "The Government is still considering the 33 recommendations", and therefore they couldn't provide a response.

It was only after I lodged a second notice of motion, to require a response from the Government to that report, that we saw a response from the Government. Not actual legislation, but at least a formal response to the report. When we see legislation, we will of course scrutinise that closely, but we welcome that small step forward.

I note particularly, however, that the Government did not agree to Recommendation 12 of the report, "that an independent advisory body be constituted to receive nominations for sanctions targets, consider them and make recommendations to the decision maker". That is an important gap, and one that goes directly to the basis for this bill. I also note that Government has also not agreed to recommendations 13 or 14 that recommended the independent body be able to hold public hearings, and the Minister be required to respond to recommendations from the independent body.

So let me be very clear - the Australian Greens want to see the introduction of an appropriate Magnitsky framework, with a bill that we can appropriately scrutinise and debate.

Given it took the government 8 months to respond to the Committee's unanimous cross partisan consensus report, I am not holding my breath for when we will see a proposed bill, and from the government's response on 5 August for that bill to be as comprehensive as is required and to fully reflect the consensus recommendations of the Committee.

So, in the absence of that bill I introduce this bill to create a framework for referrals, or as the Committee report describes them, nominations. While we wait for the bill to implement the proposed changes in the Government's response, the Australian Government does have the power to introduce sanctions under current legislation. As the Joint Standing Committee's report noted:

There is provision within the current Australian autonomous sanctions regime to sanction individuals on the basis of human rights abuses. Similarly to Magnitsky-style Acts in the United States and Canada, the Act and Regulations allow for a person to be listed for financial sanctions and travel bans for human rights violations …

We are of course very conscious of the extensive evidence the Committee received, about the shortfalls in the current regime. We agree with many of those critiques - we would prefer to see a full Magnitsky act, that is framed to target human rights abusers. However, while we are waiting for the Australian Government to act, tragically, human rights abuses are continuing to occur in countries around the world, and the Australian Government has tools available in the current sanctions framework which it is not using.

I noted earlier recommendations 12-14 of the report, which recommend establishing an independent advisory body. We would like to see a full Magnitsky bill, including provisions to establish an advisory body, that could be debated and considered appropriately in this chamber. Failing that, however, this Bill goes part-way to addressing that.

This Bill is a provisional measure that uses the core Magnitsky principles, leveraging the current legal regime in Australia until there's a more comprehensive, stand-alone, Magnitsky. As an interim step, this bill creates a referral framework - so that where a number of Parliamentary bodies, as set out in the bill, pass a resolution in relation to a particular human rights abuser or a person responsible for serious corruption, then the Minister will be required to provide a statement.

The approach in this Bill is intended to mirror that used in the United States framework, which has been summarised by the Congressional Research Service:

… Section 1263(d), requires the President to respond within 120 days to requests from the aforementioned committee leadership to determine whether a foreign person has engaged in sanctionable activity under the law and whether or not the President intends to impose sanctions.

Let me be very clear, that the power to impose sanctions would still sit with the Foreign Minister. This bill does not in any way change that. What it would simply require is a statement from the Foreign Minister, as to whether the Government will impose sanctions or not. We think a nomination process from Parliamentary bodies is entirely reasonable. If the government would prefer a nomination process from an independent body, established by legislation, we would be very open to considering that; and have been disappointed to see that idea rejected in the Government's response to the report. Additionally, a number of process constraints make it simpler to adopt a nomination process from Parliamentary bodies in this bill, and we think it is a reasonable step.

The Bill explicitly includes a review, by the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade, once we actually have a legislated Magnitsky framework. That will provide an opportunity to examine whether the approach outlined in this bill is still an appropriate nomination framework, or whether it has been superseded. But until that happens, we think it is an appropriate step.

This Bill is also a very important reminder that the Foreign Minister has powers, under the current framework, to impose targeted sanctions against human rights abusers. That is something that the Myanmar diaspora community has been calling for since the coup started. There have been equivocal statements from the Department and the Minister on this issue, over time, and a range of public debate. I want to particularly note the letter from civil society organisations in Myanmar, responding to the statement that targeted sanctions would not improve the situation on the ground. The letter stated:

We are deeply disappointed in your Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ' s assessment that additional sanctions on Myanmar would not have a positive impact on the ground …

We strongly call for Australia and the international community to take action against these criminals through targeted sanctions and other appropriate measures.

That is a reminder of how important this issue is, and how long the Australian Government has already delayed action. According to the UN's Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (27 July 2021):

The junta has murdered at least 931 people and is holding at least 5,630 in arbitrary detention where they are in danger of being infected with the virus. Another 255 people have been sentenced for trumped up crimes, with 26 of them - two of whom are minors - sentenced to death. According to the UNHCR, there are 570,320 internally displaced persons currently living in Rakhine, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Kayin, Mon, and Bago states.

Junta forces have engaged in at least 260 attacks against medical personnel and facilities, claiming the lives of at least 18 people. Over 600 health care professionals are currently eluding outstanding arrest warrants and at least 67 are being held by junta forces.

Despite this horrific situation, the Australian Government has refused to act, in contrast to many countries around the world. As the Australian Council for International Development summarised: "Together, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and the European Union have imposed sanctions on a total of 38 individuals and 17 entities associated with the junta."

So the Bill explicitly includes a clause requiring an urgent statement from the Foreign Minister, as to whether the Australian Government will impose targeted sanctions against individuals who have been responsible for, or complicit in, the coup in Myanmar.

Since the 1st of February, the start of the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, the same battalion that has caused genocide and human rights abuses - such as using rape against the Rohingyar - has been unleashed on civilian protestors on the streets of Rangoon and beyond. Democratically elected officials such as Aung San Suu Kyi, have been arrested and civilians have been murdered in plain daylight.

The time for deliberating has passed. Australia must act.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.