SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) (remote): Thank you Madam Speaker. Last week I met with some of our Ukrainian community in Auckland. For me I spoke about how profoundly jarring on a macro scale Russia's actions are for them they spoke of the unfathomable personal impact. T.S. Eliot wrote about the still point in the turning world where past and future gather a time when we weigh up histories and tensions alongside the realities of today and we make an explicit decision about our role in what comes next. Today's realities are war and acute crisis in Ukraine. We don't have the still point. We have a serious human crisis playing out that requires a bespoke immediate approach as well as in due course a more enduring regime that applies more broadly—developed from a deep and rigorous assessment of the future of multilateralism international law human rights and the monitoring architecture we need to put into place to make such an enduring system effective.The events of two weeks ago were jarring. In truth there are issues here that are deep and old. There is the annexing of Crimea and strategic intervention into other territories. There's the end of the Warsaw Pact and what followed the Minsk agreements. But what's undeniable is that this is an act of aggression an undeniable breach of international law causing the most catastrophic of rights abuses on the ground. Many people have asked me in the last week has the UN failed us? Well within the buildings in Geneva is the Human Rights Alliance of Civilizations Room where the Human Rights Council often meet. The artist Barceló created a rather extraordinary work on the ceiling that he describes as a sea upside down". As you sit underneath it you look up to the floor of the sea our common baseline. And in many ways this was the poetic spirit behind the drafting of the charter to prevent a subsequent world war to protect that baseline through in part the veto.It's useful to recall that the UN was built to replace a failed League of Nations who was seen to have failed at preventing World War II. For those who lament the death of UN multilateralism who might even call it a post - World War II artefact I don't believe that's the case. Global multilateral forums are still important and the charter itself holds a lot of tools like the Chapter VI powers which are really valuable when exercised in efforts to de-escalate conflict. But there's a clear need for a matured charter in today's world and a number of speakers tonight have spoken to that. It's becoming clearer that we also need a framework for autonomous sanctions.I want to make a few brief comments on the content of the bill and how it differs from the member's bill drawn from the ballot last year though also it draws from it. And first I thank Mr Brownlee for his work and others across the House for their advocacy in relation to these issues. The first issue to look at is the threshold that triggers a Minister's power to make sanctions regulations. So one unusual thing about Mr Brownlee's member's bill was that it's set in place a different threshold for regulation making for issues that arise in the Asia-Pacific region than those that arise elsewhere which would essentially mean that a Minister would not need to have regard to UN decision-making in terms of Asia-Pacific. This is of course problematic in terms of maintaining an heir to global multilateralism as a forum of first response. This bill is different and it draws that tie to UN decision-making regardless of where the crisis is occurring.The second issue in Mr Brownlee's member's bill is that it referred only to Article 41 of the UN Charter. It ignored other aspects of Chapter VII like the de-escalation measures and Article 40. This bill draws a broader circle around Chapter VII as a threshold including permitting regulation where it's unlikely the Security Council will act. And I think we've heard from Green Party members that there may be an introduction about a reference to the General Assembly decision-making as well. In short there are a broader range of actions or inactions that can trigger these statutory powers.The third issue is that the member's bill didn't explicitly address the issue of cyber incursions so the language of the bill we have in front of us uses terms such as "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity" which in my view perhaps may lend themselves to capture the scope of more modern incursions that can still have really really devastating effects.Finally there was the question about whether Mr Brownlee's bill would have brought in Magnitsky sanctions and Minister Parker addressed this. My view is the answer is no. We do need to consider this work but an enduring system requires careful attention and a nuanced and uniquely New Zealand approach to the balance we take. I want to thank the Minister for urgently bringing this bill to the House. We now have bespoke legislation enabling regulations to be drafted in light of this complex environment. As a member of the Regulations Review Committee I look forward to considering the regulation-making powers in this bill at one of our future meetings. I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time."