Brownlee GerryAUTONOMOUS SANCTIONS BILLFirst ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I move That the Autonomous Sanctions Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.This bill establishes a framework for the implementation of autonomous sanctions by New Zealand to further its aims of enhancing New Zealand's diplomatic capabilities and to enhance the concept of our independent foreign policy. This is a bill that once if it were to be an Act would provide a significant extra tool in the tool kit of diplomacy.New Zealand takes great pride in our independent foreign policy stance. We've shown it on numerous occasions. And while that independence means that we choose our friends and support a rules-based international order we do so autonomously. We are among the first and founding members of the United Nations. There have been many many positives come out of that organisation. But when it comes to expressions of disapproval of rule breakers of human rights abusers of those who perpetrate acts of aggression or conquest of others the United Nations falls well short of what might reasonably be expected.New Zealand relies heavily on the United Nations' sanction process. That process can impose sanctions on countries through the Security Council. The process which is the only mechanism through which the United Nations can make legally binding resolutions—and therefore New Zealand—is subject to veto power by the permanent five members: the United States France the United Kingdom Russia and China. This undermines in my opinion its effectiveness and I'll talk more about that immediately.It often means that meaningful action against perpetrators of a break up of rules of international bad behaviour go unpunished. So if we look for a start at the Ukraine: following the 2014 cessation of Crimea to Russia Russia vetoed attempts by the United Nations to declare that cessation illegal. So there was no commentary about that and no consequence for that particular action. The resolution would have simply affirmed Ukraine's sovereignty its independence its unity and its territorial integrity. Has New Zealand ever affirmed that on its own? Not to my knowledge.Then look at Syria. Since 2011 Russia has vetoed over 16 Security Council resolutions on the Syrian civil war and the humanitarian crisis that all too many of us have seen on the television sets and all to protect Russia's ally President al-Assad's Government. The resolutions were aimed at ending the civil war providing diplomatic and humanitarian assistance to those who were most adversely affected by that conflict. We had nothing particular to say about that.Then there's Israel. Since 1972 the United States has blocked over 53 Security Council resolutions designed to get a greater degree of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And more recently there is Cambodia. What has ever been done for the total takeover of that country by its military?And then of course the one that no one likes to talk about and that I think the Government is most concerned about is the situation in Xinjiang in China. China refused to enter into talks on even the drafting of a Security Council resolution that called into question abuses against Uighur people.In all these circumstances it's the citizens of the country in question that suffer from the United Nations' inaction and the political motivations of the permanent members will leave that always to be the case. When an autonomous sanctions regime is in place action can be taken to assist in alleviating civilian suffering without the hamper of the interests of the five permanent members getting in the road.So what are some examples of that? I'll come to those in a minute. But firstly let me just say that if a country can't sanction another country then surely it can bring down some autonomous sanctions against individuals against regimes or against entities where their assets might be frozen their services dispensed with their ability to enter this country denied any interaction with them by citizens of this country also put into the can't do" list. And these are circumstances where it may be that the Minister of Foreign Affairs decides that there is a threat to the stability of the Indo-Pacific area and that there is a necessity for us to make a very tangible statement and action and bring down sanctions against some particular individual.In recent times the countries that do have an autonomous sanctions regime often referred to as the Magnitsky regulation or law can bring down sanctions. The United States for example the European Union the United Kingdom and Canada impose some sanctions on actors alleged to be involved in human rights abuses in Xinjiang China. The United Kingdom in April 2021—that's this year—sanctioned 14 Russian nationals accused of conspiring in a $230 million corruption scheme as part of the Government's anti - global corruption sanctions—regulations created under the UK's version of autonomous sanctions. The United States in June of this year sanctioned three Bulgarian individuals and 64 countries over their involvement in facilitation of Russian interference in the Bulgarian Government. The United States in July this year sanctioned 22 Myanmar nationals including Ministers for their involvement in the country's February military coup and anti-democratic attacks.These are examples of what an autonomous sanctions bill can do. I said before that it's known throughout the world as Magnitsky-type legislation. There is a great book out called Red Notice and if anyone has an interest in how regimes that are totalitarian can operate and how much they can see lawlessness go under the radar it's worth a read. It's written by a gentleman called Bill Browder. Bill Browder has been a tireless campaigner for Magnitsky-type legislation because of the circumstances that he was put in. His Russian lawyer was a gentleman called Sergei Magnitsky. Well Bill Browder was allowed to leave the country; Sergei was not. And for various reasons bad operators bad actors you might say tortured Sergei Magnitsky and ultimately murdered him. Bill Browder went to legislators in the United States and said "We've got to do something about these people. They're thieves they're murderers and they use the international system to protect their ill-gotten gains and to avoid accountability for their crimes." And so the United States adopted Magnitsky legislation named after Sergei because of the life that he lost.That legislation has been replicated by Governments of a similar type to New Zealand—Governments and countries that value freedom Governments and countries that don't like the idea that lawless people can go about their activities without any account. And so this bill that I'm bringing to the House tonight would enable New Zealand to bring in a similar type of legislation.If anyone does need any convincing about exactly what drove this legislation and what drives the desire to have it throughout the world can I recommend you go to a wonderful podcast called The Backroom of Politics by Gerry Brownlee. In it—Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well you've got to take your advertising chances. But in it there is a there is a great podcast—Minister Mahuta you'd love it—with Bill Browder in which he outlines the dreadful situation that's motivated him to put so much of his life into this type of legislation.So can I conclude by saying that this is a bill that would give life to the independent foreign policy stance long claimed by New Zealand. It is an essential but simple tool in the toolbox of democracy and I commend it to the House and do hope that the Government is not too frightened to vote for it."