SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thanks Madam Speaker. It's good to be moving relatively swiftly with this bill and a bit like the Hon Gerry Brownlee we're looking forward to the committee stage to raise a few questions. I think I want to signal from my side there'll only be a couple of key questions that I want to draw out. It's going to be an interesting balance tonight between obviously scrutiny under urgency but making sure that the bill is passed. Because I will echo what I said in the first reading: I think there have been missed opportunities in the past for New Zealand to implement a piece of legislation like this. Again not specific to any one country but to adopt that autonomous sanction or a Magnitsky-type legislation.I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised by members. I think at one level this is a significant departure if we buy the idea of an independent foreign policy. I sort of don't actually. I think New Zealand—we'll often give lectures at the university on this. I think it's a hard argument to make any more. New Zealand is very much drawn along by the geostrategic winds be it our traditional allies or the likes of our trading partners. So we will try to act independently but we are under heavy heavy influence. And so we can make an independent judgment on those but I don't think we just stand alone. To further echo this what we're doing tonight is not new. This is not New Zealand going out on a limb. This has not even been unilateral or bilateral. New Zealand is simply following suit of so many other countries liberal democracies in particular. So many other countries already have Magnitsky-type laws in play which they've been able to swiftly deploy and it will be interesting to see once this one's passed just how New Zealand's sanctions align with other countries such as our friends in the UK or Canada for example; Australia for sure. So that's important.There's also been and rightly a lot of discussion about describing this war as illegal and it absolutely and abundantly is. But I think it's important certainly for me to say it wouldn't matter even if it were not illegal; this is an unjust and wrong war. It's immoral. So even the legality is not the key point here. First and foremost it's just plain wrong.And I've been disappointed—I mean people are allowed to express their views but as they have over recent days picking across social media trying to make excuses saying well this side did this and this agreement's been broken here or there. I mean these are all good interesting points. But at the end of the day one country Russia is lobbing shells custom munitions and other ordnance into cities. They said not since 1945—in fact I think Kharkov was last shelled in 1944 as they pushed the Nazis out. And now the Russians are back again. They're just shelling in a sense their own people. It's just madness.And then there's one other thing I just think needs to be put on the record. There's a number of people rightly very happy with where things are at the moment militarily but a word of caution—from a layman; granted. Russian war doctrine is to use more and more force. When things don't go their way they drop more ordnance. It gets worse. And that's why despite the delay it's time that we're putting that through here tonight because I think you know these sanctions will have to ramp up. Again to be a pop psychologist—and I'll probably get into trouble for this—someone like Putin is a lunatic and when he gets pushed into a corner when he gets desperate—because all of this is about his image—he's going to lash out even further. He's going to lash out even further. And so we need to have good strong sanctions.I really just want to stress to those who rightly want to ensure that the multilateral order continues: we absolutely want to engage and respect the UN where we can. Well actually it's not even that. We want to just respect the UN period. But I don't think us passing a bill like this makes us act unilaterally. We are doing it with so many others. And I want to point out too that it's in my mind not just the Security Council which is failing. I think the whole UN can fail as well. I turn my mind back to the vote that was made I think about two years ago around Hong Kong or the national security laws. Fifty-three countries voted in favour with China to say that these national security laws crushing Hong Kong's democracy destroying the freedom of the press leading to people that I know—and I'm not going to mention them by name because that'll get them in even more trouble with the CCP but they were arrested. They've been arrested for simply turning up or protesting or having a yellow umbrella or whatever. But the key point is 53 nations in the UN General Assembly voted for the national security law voted against democracy. I think that's shameful. It doesn't therefore say the UN is of no use. It certainly says the UN needs reform. But I think it for me illustrates very clearly the need the absolute need for us to have this sanctions bill.The last couple of points—and look we'll probably get into the committee stage. It will be the place of how we respond to the question of cyber-security or cyber-incursions. Again probably always risky putting things on the Hansard record but I think we're going to see an increase in cyber-issues shall we say and tit for tat. And you know we already have issues of non-State and State actors deploying these sort of tactics and I think unfortunately Russia's a very strong purveyor of them. We need to be able to ensure that this law can respond.The final part drawing back to the whole question around Magnitsky Acts: there's been some talking about the bill tonight being bespoke and that's true. In some ways we don't have to again be bespoke. New Zealand can learn and look overseas and see where some best practice is. I'm sure the Minister and her officials have drawn on that as they too have from Gerry Brownlee's legislation. But New Zealand doesn't always have to do things in a unique way; sometimes off-the-shelf works. And so I will begin to conclude by once again waving the flag if I will for you know New Zealand to adopt Magnitsky legislation. I suppose I speak not only on behalf of Louisa Wall and myself as co-chairs of IPAC the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China but my MP friends and senators across the globe who would want me to say this and I'm happy to. It's something their countries have taken up and they would love us to do the same. But I welcome committee stage when we reach it.