SpeechThird ReadingHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I rise to make a brief contribution on the third reading of the Russia Sanctions Bill.I move That the Russia Sanctions Bill be now read a third time. In my brief contribution I want to acknowledge all the members who have contributed to this debate and in a way that has acknowledged the urgency with which we are putting through legislation which for the moment and given the context is a necessary objective because we are at the very sharp end of observing a war that is unjustified and unprovoked and we are seeking to not only express our discontent with that approach but actually show our support and our solidarity with the international community around introducing a targeted sanctions regime.Can I acknowledge from the outset Andrew Williams from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who was responsible for drafting this bill and worked very hard on it supported by Nathan Hollis and others. Sadly Andrew and his family have COVID and he was unable to join me at this particular point of the debate but for his work and the work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office I'd like that to be acknowledged. He was working through the wee hours to ensure that we had something that was fit for purpose. The next point I'd like to make is really to the good-thinking Kiwis of New Zealand. Whether or not they understand the fullness of the legislative process the intent has to be conveyed. The intent is that we target those who support Putin's regime and the military action that's being undertaken. We will use the sanctions process to be able to target those persons and entities and their assets and services who may be involved in that type of activity. But this is not intended to attack or target every person of Russian ancestry. I want to really highlight that. That will be really important for all members of this House as we connect not only to members of the Ukraine community but also to members of the Russian community who are just as distressed about what they're observing over in that part of the world. The other aspect that I'd like to highlight is that the reason we undertook to ensure that the legislative framework established sanctions by way of regulation was to remain agile. Yes it's a broad legislative framework to impose regulations but necessarily so. It will enable the regulatory process to have thresholds met which is set out in the legislation.A lot of discussion has been raised about our broader stance—our broader stance in terms of multilateralism. I too believe that there is an important role for multilateralism and we need to strengthen the institutions of the United Nations. The UN Charter must be fit for purpose for this time as well as the discussion around the role of the United Nations Security Council and the right of veto. We hold fast to long-held views here—certainly on this side of the House—that the veto that can be exercised can be counterproductive and in this instance that has been shown to be true. So we advocate for the reform of those institutions in a way that strengthens ultimately our ability to say as a small nation in the Pacific that we uphold international law we support multilateralism we support the institutions that advocate for peace and human rights and we will do our bit. And do our bit we have.And if there's any sense in this House that we haven't done enough or we haven't done it fast enough I invite you to really go into some of the commentary of the approaches of other countries. Singapore for example have taken recent steps to take a position on this issue in this instance because they see it as quite significant; whereas previously they didn't have the tools available to them. Switzerland has exercised a position when they have formerly held a position of neutrality. So the war that is being undertaken in Ukraine by Russia because it is unprovoked and unjust has forced a number of countries to revisit their former positions and respond in a very different way. So I wouldn't beat ourselves up too much. Yes we can always do better yes we can always do more but in comparison to what's happening around the world we are doing our bit.And let me just come to humanitarian aid because this is my biggest worry. Having met with the International Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to get a very clear-eyed view of their assessment of the situation one of the comments that they made in relation to the way in which New Zealand provides humanitarian aid is that we always provide humanitarian aid with the view that we rely on those organisations and their footprint to undertake the role that we know that they can undertake for the humanitarian response unlike other countries. Other countries often tag their humanitarian aid to certain aspects of what those organisations provide. So they use New Zealand in many regards as an exemplar of a country who does its bit in a way that supports these credible institutions to rally an international humanitarian effort in response to a range of things around the world and I don't think we should take that lightly or I guess underestimate how those organisations see our contribution.Lastly I am critically mindful that this bill would not pass without the full support of the House and it is a different kind of a bill. And while we've all had our differing views on aspects of who did what when and all of that and what could have been done better I do respect the fact that on the big issues we've seen fit to come together and show our solidarity in this regard and I thank you all.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the motion be agreed to.