Sharma GauravDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise today to take a call on the Autonomous Sanctions Bill before the House today. I want to start by acknowledging Mr Brownlee and for his bill you know being chosen from the ballot. I guess the most significant contribution from Mr Brownlee today was the conversation around his podcast which I noticed is not in the top 100 political podcasts of New Zealand but I have subscribed to it now.Mr Brownlee your bill proposes to establish a framework for implementation of international sanctions by New Zealand outside of the United Nations Security Council Chapter 7 framework. It is important to note however that—Mr Brownlee—it is wrong to assert that without this bill New Zealand has absolutely no international control. Governments do have a significant area of tools that they can use to respond to security and human rights abuses including diplomatic relations statements travel bans as well as export controls and restrictions. But I do note that this Government and our Minister of Foreign Affairs Nanaia Mahuta continue to work in this space as they consider what more they can do to support human rights around the world. Part of that work as I understand is to consider what role an autonomous sanction bill like this could play. But to me there are three key differences or issues currently proposed by your bill. These three issues include a lack of in-depth consideration of human rights issues a lack of consideration of emerging risks and more importantly a lack of playing as a team member with other members of the United Nations.Mr Brownlee you gave some really good examples of human rights abuses across the world. You talked about Syria. You talked about Russia. Yet your well-meaning bill fails to mention any human rights in clause 8 of the bill which lays out a threshold for implementing sanctions that you propose. Not only that the human rights are considered nowhere else in this whole bill. The bill also does not provide for sanctions with respect to the emerging areas of security risk. We have recently seen in the past few months many cyber-attacks on some of our very important institutions in this country. This includes the NZX the ANZ Bank and in my case even our local Waikato Hospital in Hamilton. It is important that we consider these emerging risks when we are proposing a significant bill like this.In addition to this as a lot of my colleagues have mentioned the problem here is that we are a member of the international community. It is important that we take into consideration our already existing diplomatic relationship within the framework of the United Nations because to go outside it means many more countries will move away from this and then you get to a point where nobody is following a consistent rule of law. I understand that Australia has a bill like this already in place but it has the same issues that your bill faces. The main one it includes is around the human rights violation which it doesn't cover but also some of the new security risks that I've mentioned like the cyber-security issue. At the moment the Australian Government is looking at amending their bill significantly to address these issues. In the current form that your bill has been proposed to the House it would need to go through a significant amendment process in going through a select committee stage which would mean that the final bill would look very different from what you are proposing. Looking at all of that it makes more sense to restart a new bill if you want to which will address some of these important issues. Because if you're talking about human rights issues in Syria if you're talking about human rights issues in Russia if you're talking about human rights issues in China then you do need to address this in your bill. As I said the clause 8 which specifically mentions the sanctions and the conditions required for it doesn't talk about human rights at all and without it the bill just completely fails.So I would urge the member to consider some of these important things because of which he has obviously brought the bill to the House including things like cyber-security as I said because that is the future of risk that we are talking about which many of us will face from time to time. So I oppose the bill just like many other members of the House in moving forward. Thank you.