Russia Sanctions Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Russia Sanctions Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

I move, That the Russia Sanctions Bill be now read a first time.

Ko te manawa rere kia ū, kua ū, tēnā tātou e te Whare.

[Be resolute the impulsive heart, it is indeed! Greetings to all in the House.]

Today is the 14th day of war in Ukraine. Russia has not ceased its unprovoked, unjustified, and inhumane aggression on innocent people in Ukraine. There have been harrowing reports of significant damage to civilian properties, schools, hospitals, and public buildings. Russia has continued to violate the ceasefires promised and has killed indiscriminately men, women, and children. Families are fleeing for their lives. Russia is causing a massive humanitarian crisis. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has reported that over 2 million people have been displaced and have escaped to the neighbouring countries of Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, and Slovakia.

The international community has condemned Russia’s actions, and Aotearoa has been clear that we stand with Ukraine. We’ve been unequivocal in our call for de-escalation and military retreat. We acted quickly to impose the measures at our disposal and were one of the first to offer humanitarian assistance, contributing an initial grant of $2 million to Ukraine for humanitarian organisations with a local presence to offer much-needed help during this winter period. We’re looking to increase this as work with the neighbouring countries who have so generously opened their borders to those fleeing Putin’s barbaric treatment. As we understand how best we assist those who have stayed in the Ukraine and those who have fled, we want to ensure we are doing our bit. We were swift to signal to international allies that we would apply travel bans, export controls, and have called in the Russian ambassador to make clear our position.

Putin has continued on this indiscriminate course of action. As a small country, New Zealand believes strongly in the international rules-based order and the multilateral system, but this time the United Nations Security Council failed us, with Russia vetoing any UN sanctions but the United Nations General Assembly making it very clear, with a vote of 141 to 5, who condemned Russia’s actions. New Zealand feels it is appropriate to pass this bill, strong in the knowledge that we are acting in line with the international community. Today’s legislation allows us to step up our response to Russia’s grave, unprovoked war on the Ukrainian people. It is evident that a united global approach to Russia’s actions will require sustained endurance and what I have called a wall of resistance to what is a serious contravention of international law and the UN Charter that we can now see. By taking this action in this particular circumstance, New Zealand remains aligned and in-step with international partners. We’ll not be used as a backdoor to circumvent others’ sanctions regimes.

That is why the Government is introducing this targeted sanctions bill under urgency, and I do want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee. While this is a targeted sanctions bill, some of the characteristics of those sanctions mechanisms will be evident to him, based on the bill that he previously had in the House. The legislation is purposefully broad. It is a framework which enables me, as foreign Minister, to recommend specific regulations as the situation warrants, in correspondence with international law and with the agreement from a group of Ministers with powers to act. The framework is an enabler. It enables an escalation in our response as aggression in Ukraine escalates and alongside subsequent decisions of international partners. The bill includes better information-sharing provisions and enables in-depth analysis of the financial and corporate structures surrounding individuals and entities. While this is a framework, the specific regulations that the bill will enable are being worked through at pace.

A public register will be published outlining the specific individuals, entities, and assets targeted. This will ensure transparency regarding those impacted by the targeted sanctions regime. The legislation enables regulations to be targeted against those who are linked to Russia’s war in Ukraine or who are of economic or strategic importance to Putin’s regime. It doesn’t mean that someone who is Russian and wealthy will automatically be a target. We know that many ordinary Russians do not support this war. We’re not looking to target every individual or company simply for being Russian. The legislation also enables us to respond to those States or individuals who might help Russia in their aggression against Ukraine, like Belarus. We will be able to stop or restrict people or companies from travelling to or from New Zealand, or staying here if they’re already here; moving assets to New Zealand or using assets already here; providing or using services like banks, loans, legal services. This means that we can, for example, stop the purchase or sale of property, the movement of marine vessels, ships, yachts, and planes in New Zealand’s waters or airspace, stop imports and exports, lending of money, or the movement of money.

We’re already working with urgency on the initial tranche of regulations. The first tranche will align New Zealand with partners to prevent assets from being moved here. This will include more extensive travel bans, sanctions on Russian banks, and potential asset freezes based on decisions with international partners. There will be further phases as we build a bigger picture of assets in New Zealand. The framework for sanctions allows us to evolve dependent on the situations on the ground in Ukraine. It provides us with the ability to carefully examine the relationships and identify individuals and companies that meet the legal threshold outlined in the bill so that we can have the greatest impact on Russia’s ability to wage war.

There’s been a lot of media commentary about the scale of New Zealand’s response to Russian aggression and the war taking place in the Ukraine. The actions we have and are taking signal our solidarity with the international community to highlight that the protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty is an important feature of upholding the international rule of law. This is a prime case and reason why it is appropriate to ensure that we have a targeted sanctions bill regarding Russia’s active terror on the Ukraine, and I’m pleased to introduce it to the House.

Āio ki te rangi, āio ki te whenua, āio ki te ao katoa, pai mārire.

[Peace in the heavens, peace on earth, peace to all peoples, goodness and peace.]

Слава Україні.

The National Party will be showing its agreement with the motion when the vote is called later in the afternoon.

The one thing that can’t be lost in the politics of passing a bill like this is the recognition of the extreme suffering that so many people in the Ukraine are currently enduring, the huge movement of people out of that country, terrified for their futures, and the largest movement of refugees seen in a single event in the world. By the end of this week, it’s expected that some 2 million people will have chosen to leave the Ukraine, but that still leaves over 50 million people who are potentially suffering the tyranny of Vladimir Putin’s Russian boots upon them, and there will be, over a long number of years I suspect, the need for humanitarian assistance in that country. We certainly hope they prevail.

But the situation that presents itself at the moment is a difficult one for the entire world. As soon as Mr Putin brought out the nuclear card and made a suggestion that he may not hesitate to use that sort of weaponry—that put the whole world on notice. So we have a situation here where, while military intervention might be something people call for, might be something that people wish was happening, we should recognise that New Zealand is not in a position to participate in that sort of action unless it is partnering alongside someone else, and that’s just not on the cards at the moment. So that leaves us in a position of having to try and cripple the Russian economy to make the cost of waging this war so hard on the Russian regime and, frankly, on Russian people who support that regime, and we can only do that through a range of sanctions.

I wish that we had had standing legislation that would allow us to be in a position of having gone to that position two weeks ago when, with respect to the Government, they were saying that we didn’t need that, that there were other methods that could be used. The Prime Minister, as little as a week and a half ago, was insisting on that. But I do respect the fact that Nanaia Mahuta has engaged with other countries’ Foreign Ministers and has come home to New Zealand and said, “Right, we need to do this.” That is a mark, I think, of leadership and I acknowledge her for that.

I would say that while she was generous enough to mention that some of this bill is similar to the bill that I brought into the House last year and was rejected by the Government, there is at least one insightful journalist, a very capable journalist, Sam Sachdeva, in fact—I think one of the foremost journalists operating in the press gallery at the moment—who has done a little bit of an analysis and decided that some 83 percent of this bill is identical to the bill that I introduced last year. Now, all that really points to is that there is a massive desire on the part of this Parliament, and through the efforts of the Government, to send a strong message to the international community that we stand alongside them in wanting to exercise some of the sanctions that are going to put significant pressure on Vladimir Putin. In the end, it’s sad that you’ve got all that upset of life, that disruption, the death, the pain, the horrible human circumstances that he is inflicting on the people in the Ukraine that will, to a lesser extent, be felt by some of his own people as a result of some of these sanctions. That is a natural consequence, unfortunately, of the unprovoked aggressor action that Mr Putin has decided to lead.

In the last couple of days, there have been various diplomatic efforts to try and sort this out, discussions between Ukraine officials and Russian officials, but repeatedly when there have been some agreements made, particularly about safe passage and temporary ceasefires, the Russian side seem not to have got the message through to the people on the end of the guns, and that is a problem. When it comes to diplomacy, there is a need for basic respect, there is a need for an understanding and trust that whatever agreement is reached will be exercised by either of the parties. It’s useful, I think, that the Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, has had a face-to-face talk with Mr Putin. The world cannot be in a position of saying he was shut off and no one talked to him, and therefore we accept the consequence of this. There is a need to constantly state directly to that man that his regime undertaking this sort of action is unacceptable to the whole world.

There are many views that are put at a time like this. Remember that this bill is specific to Russia and the Ukraine conflict. It will mean that sanctions can be brought against countries who support Russia in their actions against the Ukraine. But there are those who say, “Well, there should have been a longer process in this.”, that this bill should have gone to a select committee, it should have had a wider consideration. I think we’re too late getting here already.

I received a very interesting commentary today from Matt Robson, a former deputy foreign Minister from some time back, who suggested exactly that, that we take more time over it, suggested that we learn some of the history, that we have greater consideration of the arguments from either side. But doing that is a sort of finger-twiddling exercise while so many people are dying, and while the Russian economy is at a point where it could be seriously so impacted that the war effort could be at least dampened down a bit seems to me a somewhat uncaring position to mention.

There are those who say, “Well, we should continue to support the multilateral approach.”, that we should continue with the efforts of diplomacy through the United Nations and other bodies. Well, as the Minister herself has said, the United Nations Security Council arrangement with its veto available to the five permanent members leaves us in a very awkward position, and therefore it is necessary for us to have our own law that allows us to work outside that. Who would have thought that at a time when one of the five permanent members of the Security Council chooses to invade another nation without provocation, when the debate came at the United Nations about some kind of censure or sanction against that aggressor nation, the member who has perpetrated this particular act, Russia, sits in the chair at the moment of the United Nations Security Council? That is almost a comical sort of situation to be in.

So, yes, the 141 countries to the 5 voted in favour of condemning Russia’s actions, but that’s where it stops. So today, with this bill, we join with other like-minded countries in being able to exercise some of the sanctions, and I hope all of the sanctions, that others think necessary to slow down that Russian war effort. It will mean that we can sanction banking activities. We can, effectively, ensure that New Zealand does not become a safe haven for ill-gotten gains from those who might have profited out of the regime of Vladimir Putin. And I hope that our investigations in that regard are extensive. The bill allows for regulations to be brought down that give effect to sanctions. So the bill is just like a vehicle, if you like, for being able to achieve these sanctions. It would be my hope that there is some cross-party discussion about the extent of those sanctions and that there are not too many limitations put on them.

But I just say I spoke before about the fact that everyone loses here. The Ukrainian people at the moment, suffering as they are, it’s inexplicable to reach a simple definition or a simple explanation for how they might be feeling; simply to say that they have our huge sympathy and, hopefully, empathy. But it will affect Russians as well. And in that regard, I’d make the point that we have seven fishing boats operating in New Zealand with Russian crews. Most of those crews are Ukrainians, and they only hold a dual passport because of the conquest of the Crimea. And so we’ve got to be somewhat discerning when it comes to those situations. Innocent people should not suffer unnecessarily, but innocent people are suffering unnecessarily because of Mr Putin’s actions. And that’s one of the reasons why this bill is going to get such wide support across the House. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to start, essentially, where the member who’s just resumed his seat, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, ended, and that is with having my first opportunity, really, in this House to express my deep sorrow for the people of the Ukraine for what they are going through at the moment.

We are a very long way from the Ukraine, but two things stand out in my mind. The first is the images that we see on television of innocent people, especially children, being caught up in these kinds of conflicts. It is heart-breaking, and it is the result—as both the speakers in this debate have already said—of an unprovoked invasion by Vladimir Putin that is a flagrant breach of international law.

The second group of people I want to note are the Ukrainian community in New Zealand. We have a number of people of both Ukrainian extraction and more recent migrants in New Zealand, not as many as some other countries like Canada and so on, but enough for us to be really aware of the impact that this is having on the Ukrainian diaspora around the world. I want to take the time in this House now to acknowledge particularly those whose loved ones either have had to move and have had to shift and who have been directly affected by bombing, but also just the stress that goes with knowing that your family members are under attack in the way they are. I want the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian people in New Zealand to know that the Government—and indeed, I am sure, this House—is standing with them at this very, very difficult time.

This piece of legislation has come to the House under urgency, and whenever that happens, we all need to take a breath and recognise why we would do that. I don’t think there are many situations that justify urgency more than the invasion of a sovereign country in the way that this has happened by Russia. We need to take all the steps we can to stand alongside them.

It is also one of the reasons why this is a very targeted piece of legislation. It’s a piece of legislation that focuses on the Russian invasion. It does allow us to be able to be specific in our sanctions whilst taking the time to consider what further regime we might have, and I will return to that question before I finish my speech today. So having the ability to move swiftly and in a targeted way, I believe, justifies the use of urgency here, and I’m pleased that the House is focused on it today.

The use of sanctions in this way in the design of the bill is flexible, and I want to congratulate my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for bringing the bill to the House. Because we are using a regulatory approach to do this, we can not only move quickly and targetedly but we also have the flexibility to move in lock step with other like-minded nations. I hate to say this in this House, but I’m not sure this will be a short conflict. Unfortunately, I believe this is likely to be quite an extended one, with an enormous impact on the people of the Ukraine, and it will mean that there may well be a need to continually look at what the international community can do to put pressure on Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime. Therefore, having a sanctions regime that, as has been built within this piece of legislation, is flexible enough to continually respond is important. So I think the design of the legislation is clever, and I think it’s the right response for us to be able to deal with where the situation may evolve to.

I do want to note for the record that of course the Government did move within the confines of the law and the confines of our current sanctions approach quickly. So we did move to put people on a travel ban list, we did move to make sure that there was no way we could be exporting to support the Russian military, and we have continued to take steps in that regard. We were one of the first countries to front up with humanitarian aid support, and the Minister of Immigration has given an outline of the kinds of steps we’re taking to support those who need to leave Ukraine, particularly those who already have people here in New Zealand.

There are a number of different ways we can do this. Just as a small aside, in my role as the Minister for Sport and Recreation, overnight I signed up with dozens of other like-minded countries to a statement committing us to supporting a ban on Russia hosting major sporting events and supporting a ban on Russian athletes being involved in major sporting events. That’s an example of each and every one of us having the ability to come together with like-minded nations to send the clearest of messages to Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime that he needs to stop what he is doing and move towards diplomacy and negotiation. He, however, is not listening to that for now, and that’s why measures such as those contained in the bill that we’re debating tonight are so important.

Others have outlined what the bill, essentially, does, but giving us a framework where sanctions can stop or restrict people or companies from travelling to or from New Zealand, moving assets to New Zealand—and this is an issue that could have arisen with the way in which other countries were putting in place sanctions regimes. Had we not done this, we did run the risk that we could see a movement of assets to a place like New Zealand. This will stop that from happening, but will also make sure that there are limitations in place on using assets that are already here. This is the “freeze, not seize” approach to the management of how we do these sanctions, but the idea that we can freeze assets is an important one.

Then, as Mr Brownlee has pointed out, services like banks, loans, legal services—this is where we can really have an impact on the economic power that sits behind Vladimir Putin, on whom he relies to have his power. So having that combination of areas in which we can make regulation and undertake this work—it is incredibly important to be able to do that. There are practical things. We can stop superyachts and planes and other ships from entering New Zealand’s water or air spaces, and we can make sure that New Zealand is not a place where assets can be safeguarded from other countries’ sanctions, as I’ve already mentioned.

There are a number of offences created here, as well as a civil enforcement mechanism. We want to use laws like the Immigration Act and like the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act to make sure that we control any attempts for the banking system in New Zealand to be used in such a way that it goes against the whole international community’s condemnation.

I do want to acknowledge Mr Brownlee for the work that he’s done in this space and for the way in which he has championed these issues. In the interests of accuracy, 83 percent is the total of the bill that—from Mr Sachdeva, who we all agree is a great journalist. Twenty-eight percent of the material is identical, 41 percent has minor changes, and 12.3 percent is paraphrased, adding to 83 percent.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The balance was just a font change.

That’s right—that’s right. So just in the interests of accuracy, it’s very important for the Minister of Finance to be able to add those things all together to make them reach 83 percent.

But, in all seriousness, I do want to thank Mr Brownlee for his work here. He has raised the issue here and, obviously, in previous debate about the question of a wider autonomous sanctions regime, and I do want to say that this opportunity we have now to have this targeted regime is important, but the conversation does need to go on about the way in which New Zealand is able to play its part in sanctions.

We have proudly—and this is Governments of all stripes—looked towards multilateral sanctions to be in lock step with the international community, but that runs headlong into another longstanding multiparty piece of foreign policy, and that is our opposition to the veto at the Security Council. I can’t quite remember the exact quote, but it was from Peter Fraser when he was at the San Francisco conference in 1948. He talked about: imagine having a fire brigade who had all of the fire engines and all of the water, but one member of the brigade could prevent the engine from going to the fire, and that is the situation we have with the UN Security Council and the veto. It is a ridiculous situation, heightened all the more, as Mr Brownlee pointed out just now, by the fact that this is one of the members of the Security Council who has undertaken this invasion that is a flagrant breach of international law.

So in the absence of always being able to rely on multilateral sanctions, that does beg the question of autonomous sanctions. But it is important that New Zealand makes its own decisions about that and that we create, if we choose to, a law in that way that is very much cognisant of our circumstances and our place in the world, and the role that we play in upholding our independent foreign policy. So I think it’s an issue worthy of debate, but I don’t think it would be the right decision today to try to put in place a wide-scale autonomous sanctions regime without having done the rest of that work.

Therefore, I think the bill that we have in front of us today is exactly the right piece of legislation for this situation. I want to thank all members of the House for their work in getting us to this point, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to begin acknowledging the Ukrainian people. It’s probably quite difficult, certainly for myself and many here, to conceptualise the horror of what they are going through: a sovereign, nascent democratic country being invaded and shelled—and, from what reports we have seen, too, the use of weapons, such as cluster munitions, that should not be used. So, as I say, to acknowledge the Ukrainian people and all that they’re going through; to acknowledge, as well, the Ukrainian community here in New Zealand, who are hurting terribly, not only to see what is occurring to their country but to their loved ones. I’m sure most of us, if not all of us, in this House have been talking to those Ukrainian New Zealanders and hearing their experiences.

I want to also, though, acknowledge the Russian people. One thing I’ve learnt in my little life is that the first victims of any despotic, autocratic rule are the people. So this is, ultimately, the invasion of President Putin and his cronies, and, as I say, I think it’s important to acknowledge the Russian people, thousands of whom are being arrested at the moment for simply standing up and saying, rightly, that they do not want war. And, too, I want to acknowledge the Russian New Zealanders here, many who will be feeling the pressure and perhaps even getting a bit of opprobrium. For those who stand on the side of right, the side of democracy, and with Ukraine, they should have nothing to fear.

When I think of this bill and where it’s needing to go—actually, I should stop for a moment and acknowledge the Ukrainian President, President Zelenskyy. I think it’s striking that he’s a comedian who became a President, and yet in another country we have a President who’s become a joke. I think it’s probably, then, useful to add here the condemnation, which I’m sure all the House has, of President Putin and what he’s doing.

As Gerry Brownlee has noted, National will be supporting this bill. It’s the right and proper thing to do. It’s a good bill, and I want to acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the many people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I’m sure, who have been working hard to pull this together. It’s a good bill, and I’ll touch on that, but partly in this first reading speech I want to say it in my opinion has come a little late, and it should go further.

Those of you who know my views will know I’ve been a great proponent of what’s known as Magnitsky legislation. A chance, arguably, was had here tonight to put through Magnitsky legislation, a piece of legislation which is much, much broader, enabling this country to actually independently stand up and impose sanctions on a much wider range of human rights abusers in the world. However, in the interests of time, this Parliament does need to move swiftly, so, in acknowledging what the Government’s doing and us rightly voting for it in the interests of speed, it’s certainly my hope and intention, through the following debate and over the coming days and weeks, to continue championing Magnitsky legislation. What’s sometimes called “autonomous sanctions” are very, very similar. They enable countries like New Zealand to impose independent sanctions on human rights abusers. These sanctions have, effectively, become the Achilles heel where sanctions through the UN and other bodies have failed.

It’s really, really simple what Magnitsky laws do, what autonomous sanctions laws do. They hit the despotic, the autocratic, the human rights abusers where it hurts the most: in their pockets. The irony of people—and you see it with Putin, Lavrov, and others—from Russia: they don’t like to stay in Russia. Autocrats don’t like that. They tend to try to move their families around the world. They like to be on their luxury yachts and their private jets, and they like to come to the West. They like to come to countries like New Zealand. They like to travel around. They like to flaunt their money. And the great thing about full, widespread, autonomous sanctions, or Magnitsky laws, is that they stop that happening.

Most countries in the world, most of our allies, have actually introduced these laws, and that’s my first contention around this piece of legislation, good as it is: in my opinion, we should have had one of these laws in place already. It’s no secret to the House that I’ve been working for a while now with Bill Browder, the father, if you will, of Magnitsky sanctions. We had a talk the other day with Geoffrey Robertson, one of the leading human rights barristers in the world: a conversation with the likes of Senator Kitching from Australia and others from Canada, the UK, America—actually, a lot of people I work with through something called the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. We’ve been advocating for a while now for New Zealand to have a comprehensive autonomous sanctions, or Magnitsky, law so that New Zealand can, to pick up the words of our Deputy Prime Minister, act with an independent foreign policy. But we don’t have that mechanism. It’s something that I would argue has been missed for some time. But, as the saying goes, you can’t cry over spilt milk.

So tonight, arguably, we had a chance to do more. We could have crossed out the word “Russia” and allowed, actually, a number of other countries to fall within the scope of this bill. As I say, it’s important that we don’t get bogged down in that. I think we must pass this bill. There is an urgency with what’s happening in the Ukraine. But fundamentally, and importantly, a Magnitsky piece of legislation is exactly the same: it’s just not one country specific.

I think it’s important to say here tonight that the human rights abuses in the world don’t stop just because Russia’s invading the Ukraine. It’s still continuing. And I might remind the Parliament, too: it’s only been in recent years that another democracy, that of Hong Kong, was crushed by the Chinese Communist Party, and we did not have the ability to do more. We should have, and we should still be able to when we look at countries like China and what they’re doing—amongst other jurisdictions in the world where human rights abuses are far, far too prevalent. So it is an encouragement to the Parliament: yes, let’s pass this bill tonight, but let’s have the courage, as well, to expand the legislation.

In many ways we have the template. It’s always important to acknowledge Gerry Brownlee; that is right and proper. What is being presented tonight is very simple. I had, somewhat tongue-in-cheek—and now I feel bad, on a serious topic—said it pretty much was Gerry’s bill, just with “Russia” pencilled in. But that’s relatively accurate. I just encourage that we take out the eraser in a few days’ or weeks’ time, remove the word “Russia”, and allow all countries, all States that perpetrate human rights abuses to come within the scope of a bill like this. It’s what allows New Zealand to act.

A lot of people say, “Well, that doesn’t fit a multilateral framework.” Well, actually, it does; New Zealand’s the outlier on a lot of this legislation, as I’ve said before. I did it on a podcast. Here we go: there’s a shameless, shameless shout-out for my podcast, On Point. I had Tom Tugendhat on, the chair of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee. He knows, I know, the Minister knows: we’re outliers. It doesn’t matter if it’s modern slavery, it doesn’t matter if it’s Magnitsky laws: we’re outliers. We’re not being multilateral, ultimately. And let’s put it on record, too: the UN is failing. That doesn’t mean we want to get rid of it—nothing like that—but it’s not working, and I think a couple of people have noted that tonight around the use of the veto and so forth.

So there’s much more that could be done. I think New Zealand has, for me, been slow out of the blocks, but it’s good that we’re here tonight to discuss this. I would certainly encourage, as we think of sanctions in the wider sense, too: there is much more that we can do. It was good to hear the Minister for Sport and Recreation address how we’re engaging in that space. You know, politics and sports are not meant to mix, but sometimes there are exceptions.

We certainly want to see Government engage more around how we can bring Ukrainians who have New Zealand family here. How do we set up a lifeboat scheme for refugees, something I called for with Hong Kong residents? I’d like to see it here, with Ukrainians. Has any thought been given to closing our immigration office, our visa processing office, in Moscow? What thought has been given to bringing our ambassador back, or to kicking the Russian one out? What encouragement can we give to more New Zealand companies, to pull, like Fonterra have, out? I would acknowledge, too, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, whom often I have had a few challenging words to around their investments in China. It’s good to see that they’re pulling their funds from Russia. There’s much, much more that can, and should, be done.

And fundamentally, too—it was part of a discussion I had recently—a lot of this is coming out of a perception that the West is weak. That’s one of the reasons Putin’s acting: the West appeared weak. He’s learning the hard way that, actually, we’re not, and I think today, and through you, Minister, it’s really good to see New Zealand is stepping up to join the West.

I wanted to end with a semi-theological quote, but it actually comes from the UN Ambassador of Ukraine, Ambassador Kyslytsya. I just liked it; I shared it on my Facebook the other day, and I think it sums up my views, not in the theological area, per se, but more the political, when he said to the Russians: “There is no purgatory for war criminals; they go straight to hell”. And that’s a message for you, President Putin.

Our next call is a remote call, and just before I call the Hon David Parker, I’ll just remind members calling in remotely that they should apply for the call via the chat function.

Thank you for that reminder, Mr Speaker. It was remiss of me not to do that. What a chilling time it is in the world, with the challenges that we face from the war in the Ukraine, from COVID, from the pernicious effect of foreign interference through social media channels and cyberattacks. This coalescing of challenges that the liberal democracies of the world face is something that I never envisaged even at the start of this electoral cycle, and it’s certainly, I think, the most unsettling period for me as a Minister in a democratically elected Government. I don’t think any Western democracy has really faced this combination of challenges for a long, long time. And I find it an incredibly disturbing responsibility to be in power at a time like this and take very seriously the responsibilities and opportunities for betterment that come from Government action at a time like this.

There can be no greater challenge to the rules-based order than a member of the United Nations Security Council flouting the most basic of international laws and, without provocation or attack, invade a neighbour using dishonest pretexts like an assertion that they’re Nazis, when it’s most obvious to countries like us that the Ukrainian Government was not a Nazi Government; using the pretext that they, Russia, had to do this for their own security, when there was no real threat from either the Ukraine or NATO to the territorial borders of Russia; and an attack on the rules-based order which, as other members have said, cannot be properly responded to through UN channels because the right of veto of UN Security Council members is relied upon by Russia to stymie the effort. The need for action is so clear, not just from what happened in Ukraine but we know that the Russian Government was at the side of the Syrian Government in the atrocities that were perpetrated against those who were involved in a civil war in Syria. And so we can have little trust as countries in support of Ukraine that those similar tactics won’t be brought to bear against the Ukrainian people.

So I think that the role of New Zealand—limited though it is from afar, and limited as it is by our lack of military capability and our lack of proximity to this conflict, we have to do our bit to join the world to create consequences for those who are in power in Russia. So we do that by not wishing to bring misery to the Russian people. We don’t want them to suffer the economic consequences that are going to befall Russia as a consequence of these actions, but we have very few remedies—other than entering into the war in Ukraine—other than to exact economic consequences both on the Russian Government but also those people of influence within the Russian administration, senior military leaders, and senior functionaries within the Government of Russia.

The issue as to how far you reach with those sanctions is yet to be fully explored either in New Zealand or around the world. It’s clear that there will be ascending levels of sanction, it seems, from our people who we traditionally partner with in these sorts of events worldwide. I for one have been paying attention to some of the operative provisions in this legislation, and I thank the other political parties for their consideration of these issues at short notice as well. And I know we did have the benefit of the bill that had been drafted through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade under the prior National Government, and so we’ve been able to move very quickly in response to bring this legislation forward.

But hurried though that has been in response to the human tragedy unfolding in the Ukraine, we have had a period to carefully consider some of the provisions. And in particular, clause 8 of the bill as it came forward has been subject to some remedial work involving the Government. My own officials were concerned to make sure that that clause 8 empowering provision as to when sanctions can apply or what is the purpose of those sanctions was made clearer than it was in the original draft. In the short time available, we’ve also reached out to the Privacy Commissioner and to the New Zealand Law Society, both of whom have had input into the legislation, and I think it is improved as a consequence. And it may be that that is an issue that members want to discuss with the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she is in the chair for the committee stage of this bill, because it does go to the core of how far down the administration these sanctions can reach.

There’s been some interesting media coming out to say that, yes, we can address the issue of the highest-ranking Russian officials and the billionaire class who have so profited from the Russian administration and their closeness to it, but there are views that the sanctions need to reach further into senior governmental officials beyond that absolutely upper coterie, none the less to people who are powerful within the Russian administration and have probably become multimillionaires through it, and who have properties overseas, assets overseas, and as Simon O’Connor has said, like to have the benefits of their associations with liberal democracies where they enjoy holidaying and sometimes relying upon those overseas jurisdictions for the education of their children. And those sorts of issues may yet be necessary to consider. We haven’t considered those issues as an international community, I don’t think, in any great detail yet, but we may need to. Therefore, the second part of clause 8(2) is designed to be reasonably broad in the ability of sanctions to reach further than just the absolute upper coterie of the Russian administration.

In respect of other issues that were raised by Simon O’Connor in respect of Magnitsky sanctions: as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister have both said, we’re open to that discussion. I would note that the bill that has been tabled by the Hon Gerry Brownlee didn’t, from our point of view, adequately cover those, so it couldn’t just be quickly passed into law if that was the will of the National Party.

And I would also note that since that bill was drafted, I think the problems of foreign interference via social media destabilising Western liberal democracies have become worse, the seriousness of cyberattacks trying to create mayhem in liberal democracies around the world, and trying to undermine the very settings that we rely upon to have peaceful, free settings in our own home countries. And we’ve seen some of the effect of that misinformation. Some of it comes from liberal democracies, but even that which comes from liberal democracies is sometimes pushed along by ill-meaning promotion from jurisdictions like North Korea and Russia trying to foment discontent in our own nations. And I think we’ve got to take a serious look at that as well. The Prime Minister’s already on the record in respect of some of those issues arising not just from Ukraine but from recent events at home.

So it’s an incredibly serious attack to the rule of law. The whole of Europe is destabilised by this. I was talking to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the chill that is in Europe at the moment at a Government level. She has just returned from there, and we can well imagine the effect that this is having on those capitals that are closer to the Ukraine than we are. We look to Europe as being bastions of upholding liberal democracy. I think we model ourselves on some of the forms of democracy that they have in Scandinavia. And it’s interesting to see the brave actions of the likes of Finland and other countries like Poland, who we don’t always agree with on everything, standing up to try and push against the atrocities that the Russian regime is perpetrating. I accordingly support this first reading of the bill to the House.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that we’re only a few minutes away from the dinner break, I wondered if you would prefer to take up the dinner break now and resume afterwards.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Well, I think the rules would say that you’ve got 10 minutes, irrespective, so you can complete your speech.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Seek leave, James.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): You don’t need to seek leave. That’s how the Parliament operates, so if you start prior to five you go through to your full time.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. In the hope that this is helpful, if the member sought leave of the House, we could approve that leave for us to return now, early.

Point of order. I seek leave of the House to start the dinner break and resume afterwards.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Ha, ha! Members, the House is adjourned for the dinner break, and will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s a saying that history doesn’t repeat but it does rhyme. And the parallels between Putin’s Russia and Putin’s regime and those of Adolf Hitler are quite remarkable. Both were authoritarians who had, or have, an ideology of chauvinistic nationalism. Both of them use extensive propaganda and coercion to keep their own populations compliant. If you look at the history pre the full outbreak of World War II there are parallels between, say, the annexation of the Sudetenland on the Czech borderlands with Donbas and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. There are parallels between the Anschluss of Österreich and the annexation of Crimea, and, of course, also, after all of that, it was ultimately the invasion of Poland that led the world to act more comprehensively to stop Hitler and his regime. So it is that the invasion of the Ukraine has finally spurred the world to act to stop Vladimir Putin and his regime.

The big difference, of course—I mean, there are many differences—is that in this case, the world is attempting to use as little violence as possible, de-escalation and the use of sanctions, rather than to allow the world to erupt into a more general conflagration, which, given the presence of nuclear arms, would be utterly—utterly—catastrophic. Which, of course, brings us to the nature of this bill on sanctions.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We’re very grateful to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for the work that she’s done and for her engagement with us in bringing it to the House, and, in particular, bringing through references to the General Assembly into the explanatory note; more on that in a minute. As members of this House know, and has been referenced obliquely in a couple of prior speeches, the Greens do have concerns about where a more general autonomous sanctions regime could go. Primarily, that boils down into the risk that autonomous sanctions regimes could well undermine the multilateral system and the United Nations system. But in this case—first of all, this is a very narrow bill that does focus on Russia and its war in the Ukraine. But, actually, this bill reinforces the UN system in the multilateral system specifically by bringing in that reference to the General Assembly.

I would just flag at this point, we will be tabling a Supplementary Order Paper later on, in the name of Golriz Ghahraman, to bring that reference forward into the operative part of the bill. Because I think we have an opportunity here to shape a piece of legislation that explicitly enhances the role that the UN system has, given that it’s the failure of one part of the UN system, i.e., the Security Council, that this legislation is even necessary in the first place. Again, I just wanted to thank the Minister for her engagement on that particular point. I think if we do get into more general autonomous sanctions legislation later on, we hope that we’ll be able to carry forward that kind of reference in that piece of legislation when we get to it.

We know that the United Nations Security Council itself is dysfunctional, and I think the Hon Grant Robertson referred to Peter Fraser, who, of course, at the time that the UN was being formed, argued very strongly against the veto. But the United Nations Security Council does not equal the entirety of the UN system. The General Assembly is, of course, a much wider body. It’s a much more inclusive body. It’s much more consensus based, and in this case, it has very strongly condemned the Russian war in the Ukraine. The concern that the dysfunction in the Security Council could be used as an excuse by countries to, kind of, essentially, do what they want, to just bypass the UN system in its entirety—and, you know, we have seen that happen before, particularly with the war on terror. So I think it is really important to us to be able to say, “No, this action is itself endorsed strongly by the UN system through the General Assembly.”

Second of all, Russia, of course, has clearly breached international law. It’s committing the crime of aggression. It may well be committing war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity and genocide as well. So it is absolutely incumbent upon us all in the international community to sanction Russia for those crimes and to, essentially, enhance the role of the multilateral system in doing so. Russia, of course, is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and it is the one that is committing these crimes of aggression, and like I said, possibly war crimes and crimes against humanity as well.

The other, I think, useful precedent in this is that this is coming before Parliament. I think being debated in the House—if we were to have a more general autonomous sanctions regime come up, then I think preserving that principle as well in each case would be an important part of the oversight and transparency with which any future piece of legislation should take place.

I just wanted to turn to one particular aspect—which is a bit oblique in terms of New Zealand’s role in this, but—it is that around the world, the sanctions regime is a bit slow when it comes to oil and gas. I noticed that today the UK and the US have said that they will be phasing out the imports from Russia of oil and gas. I do want to say that those countries that are importing oil and gas and other fossil fuels from Russia are essentially helping to bankroll Putin’s war effort, even whilst they may be applying financial and other forms of sanction on Vladimir Putin and his regime. That is, of course, Putin’s plan: to get countries hooked on the energy exports that are available from Russia. This really should be the very best excuse for countries to finally wean themselves off what is an incredibly volatile, risky form of energy and to move very quickly to domestic energy systems, enhance their own energy independence and security, and—by the way—clean up their emissions output.

The second thing that I wanted to say in conclusion is to the Russian people, and this has been brought up a number of times tonight. As we pass this legislation, there is a risk that people will read it as a signal to go after regular, ordinary Russian people either living here in Aotearoa or around the world. What we want to send them is a very clear message that we know that this war is Putin’s war. It is not the war of the Russian people. I would ask New Zealanders not to engage in prejudice against ordinary Russians because of the act of the regime in Russia. It is Putin’s war, not that of the Russian people.

Finally, I do want to finish by reflecting where some other speakers started, which is on the suffering of the Ukrainian people. It is an appalling time for those people. I don’t think that we should lose sight of the fact that we really need to be doing everything that we can when it comes to humanitarian aid, and, in particular, support for the now 2 million refugees that are in the borderlands and Poland and other countries around the outside of the Ukraine. I want to thank the Government for its work in examining family reunification as one way that we can make a difference, and hope that we can also see it fit to extend many thousands of places to Ukrainian refugees here in Aotearoa as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise tonight in support of the Russia Sanctions Bill. And it’s important that we’re passing this law tonight. It’s important because the situation in Ukraine is devastating. Ukraine has suffered an unprovoked invasion, a violation of its sovereignty, and aggression by Russia. I want to acknowledge the Ukrainians who will be wondering when this will end, whether they will survive another night, whether their family members will survive with them. We must stand with them and support them. And we have to stand with them as a nation, because of the shared values that we hold, the values of democracy: being able to have elections, being able to have freedoms—the freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly that we know is lost under authoritarian regimes.

Two weeks ago, Russia began to invade Ukraine, and I’m sure that we have all seen the pictures of devastation and destruction. We’ve seen missiles bombing civilian residences. We’ve seen families being torn apart, fathers hugging their children as they go off to fight in a war that they never asked for; kilometres of tanks rolling into cities to cause destruction; and women giving birth in bunkers. But we have also seen a huge amount of resilience from the Ukrainian people. Civilians have taken up arms. People who have never fought or fired a weapon before are doing so so that they can protect their family and their country. We’ve seen farmers towing away tanks. We’ve seen grandmothers making makeshift bombs, but not only making weapons but using the weapons of words. And I wanted to share a quote that is going around the world, which was from a very brave grandmother, saying, “Take these seeds and put them in your pockets, so at least sunflowers will grow when you die here.”

This is an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russian military, and these actions are condemnable. As a party, and as a country, we believe in the international rules-based system, and, as a small country, we rely on it for our safety and our security. But while we support collective action under the United Nations Security Council, we have to admit that in this case, it has failed, and that is a very sad situation for anybody who believes in liberal democracy and relies on international rules-based systems for their peace and security. But although the United Nations Security Council has failed because Russia has been able to veto sanctions to itself in that system, that has not stopped other countries from condemning these actions and taking their own actions to stand up against the aggression. And we shouldn’t need to be here today. We should already be on a list of countries that I will read for this House: Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United States, the United Kingdom, and 27 States of the European Union have all passed sanctions. We have been the weakest link in the West. We should have been standing with those other countries for liberal democracy, for values of freedom, weeks ago.

I have met with Ukrainians this week and I’ve looked them in the eye, and I’ve seen the pain and suffering that they’re currently going through—people who have anxiety because their family is overseas in Ukraine and they don’t know whether they will survive through the night, whether they’ll be able to have another phone call, or whether they’ll ever see their parents again. It is so sad, and we have to respond to Russia’s breach of international law.

This bill would establish a framework for implementing sanctions by New Zealand in response to the aggressive acts and the breaches of international law by Russia. And it would do a few things—and I don’t want to go into a huge amount of detail, but it would establish this framework to impose and enforce the sanctions on persons, assets, and services; it would provide the ability to prohibit or restrict imports or exports to and from sanctioned entities; and it would extend sanctions to persons and entities of another country where that country is providing a legal aid or assistance to Russia’s military actions against the Ukraine. These are heavy measures. That is unfortunate, but they must be made for the value of democracy. We don’t know how this will end. We don’t know whether this war will go on for months, years, decades. But we do know that we cannot stand aside. We have to take part and stand with other countries imposing economic sanctions against Russia.

The Government has been extremely slow to pass this law. It uses urgency at the drop of a hat to pass all sorts of crazy laws in this Parliament, and yet we have been waiting days to see this law enter this Chamber. There has been no preparation. It seems ridiculous to me that we have a Government over here that preaches kindness and believes it can solve every problem in the world by just saying that we should be kind and we should smile. It’s a fantasy-land delusion. The world is messy. The world is not always kind, and you can’t always just solve something with a bit of spin and a smile. The world is not a nice place all the time. We should have known that something like this would be needed and had a framework ready to go for when it was needed. Australia, our closest friend, passed its sanctions a very long time ago, and, potentially, that’s why they get taken more seriously in defence than we do.

But we need to allow more than just these sanctions to happen. We need to allow Ukrainian Kiwis to have their families come back, to have them here in New Zealand. And I want to read two messages that I have from two Ukrainian New Zealanders, which I received today. Natalia: she says, “The Ukrainian community can guarantee the accommodation and food for six months for the people that can return here.” And Alex: he says, “We totally support any simple solution to reunite Ukrainian families here in New Zealand. Many will have lost their homes and communities. It is a sensible, long-term solution for what is a relatively small number of people. However, why did Kris Faafoi not start on day one with just letting those who have family here and would qualify normally for some sort of visa under normal circumstances, get on and apply? My elderly mother-in-law has abandoned her home to be bombed and looted, with just a small backpack with her worldly possessions, because the Minister won’t let her apply. She’s sleeping in a train station in Slovakia, where she doesn’t even speak the language.”

We must support the Ukrainian Kiwis that we have here, and support our community and make sure that those family members who are currently homeless in Ukraine can be supported by their family here. We also need to pass autonomous sanctions not just for Russia, but for any other future country, because we must be clear that Russia may be the first of these authoritarian states to declare war and violate sovereignty. It could be Ukraine today and Taiwan tomorrow. We need to send a signal that we will fight back. As a liberal democracy, it is our duty to stand up for other liberal democracies when their values and livelihoods are under threat, and we need to be there for those so that they will be there for us. We must contain authoritarian powers that will be at war with liberal democracy. I will support this bill on behalf of the ACT Party tonight, and condemn the actions of Russia.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member’s time is up.

Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. E te Māngai o te Whare, otirā ngā mema katoa o te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. Te mihi tuatahi. Ki te iwi o Ukraine, he mihi aroha ki a koutou i runga i te wā nei.

[Madam Speaker, greetings. To the Speaker of the House, and to all members of the House, greetings one and all. Firstly, I wish to express my sympathy to the people of Ukraine in the current circumstances.]

It’s at this time that I want to acknowledge the people of Ukraine. Every evening, I believe, what beams into many of our homes through Aotearoa New Zealand, is the significant sight of millions of Ukraine people having to leave the country, and it is a really sad sight to see people, of no making of their own, having to leave their homelands through the unlawful, illegal, unprovoked invasion by Russia. This Government on this side, led by the Hon Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister Mahuta, has introduced this Russia Sanctions Bill, which we are debating in urgency tonight. Can I acknowledge all parties that have recognised the importance of this bill in passaging it through the House under urgency. Can I also acknowledge all the officials that have pooled a four-part bill in such a quick space of time for us to debate tonight.

But that former speaker who just retained their seat, Brooke van Velden, I want to challenge the fact that this side of the House was slow. When we had our initial response when Putin invaded unlawfully the Ukraine, we immediately put in targeted travel bans. We prohibited exports to our military. We suspended bilateral foreign ministry consultations and we put $2 million towards our humanitarian aid. I believe that we have—and in debating tonight’s bill, I want to touch on not just the broad framework but the further sanctions that this bill enables. It also empowers the Minister to take further actions in reviewing the extra steps that this bill enables.

As previous speakers has said, it’s not all Russians. It’s a very bespoke piece of legislation aimed at those that are causing the most harm in the Ukraine. It is talking about the freezing of assets in New Zealand for those people either very closely associated with the invasion or the supporting nations that are enabling it. It talks about moving to prevent the moving of money and assets and using our country as a safe haven when those individuals that we have identified will be held accountable. It will also stop the superyachts and ships and aircraft from entering New Zealand waters or airspace.

As the Minister of Customs, it is important we operate in a rules-based international environment to ensure both people and goods move across the globe in a legal way. This invasion—this invasion—puts all that at risk and the absolute blatant ignoring of the calls by international countries to the actions of Putin I think will go down in history as—will galvanise, I believe, all those nations that stand in solidarity against the actions of Russia.

This bill is a broad framework, as I mentioned earlier, that enables the Minister of Foreign Affairs further powers to ensure that the sanctions that we have currently in this bill that we will be debating over the course of this evening are fit for purpose but enables us to respond very quickly if those sanctions are no longer applicable or we have to explore further sanctions—this is the bill before the House tonight that we are debating. The bill does send very clear messages that New Zealand—the people of New Zealand, the Government of New Zealand—is standing in solidarity with the international community in further sanctions of the Russians’ illegal invasion in the Ukraine.

But back to the human pictures that we are seeing in our homes over these last 14 days of the occupation. I want to acknowledge surrounding countries, particularly like Poland, who have opened up their border to take the overflow of refugees who have leaving the Ukraine. I want to acknowledge the other countries that are not only making themselves a safe haven for the Ukraine people to shelter in but also providing the initial aid for those families. It’s a sad sight when you see mainly mothers with young babies and young children having to make the enormous trek from their homelands into foreign lands purely for safety.

Nobody wants war but President Putin has declared his hand—that’s exactly what he is seeking—and the bill that we are debating tonight sends that very clear signal where New Zealand’s position is in response to the international community. I look forward to further debating on this bill that members will have. I’m pleased to say that the majority of members in this House, if not all, unanimously support the bill. It is timely, it is tailored to the crisis that’s at hand, it positions New Zealand in a very strong position. It allies us with the response from the international community and I commend it to the House.

The next call is a split call. I call on the Hon Mark Mitchell for the first five minutes. He’s connecting with us remotely, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, can I acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in the Russia Sanctions Bill, and also the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who introduced the original Autonomous Sanctions Bill.

Can I just say, I don’t want to dwell on this too long, but, actually, in terms of timing, it does matter, when you see the type of aggression that’s being unleashed on the Ukrainian people by President Putin and Russia. Internationally, it is important that we respond as a country quickly. We’ve got a proud tradition as Kiwis in always taking a strong stand against any type of international human rights abuses or acts of aggression. So timing does matter, and we were too slow on this. Actually, the international community does watch. So it is with regret that, unfortunately, this bill wasn’t in the House sooner. However, it’s here now, and I want to acknowledge the Minister on bringing the bill to the House.

The Green Party leader James Shaw highlighted what I think is a very valid point: this is probably the worst situation in terms of global instability that we have ever experienced since World War II, and a Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. The worst thing and the most sinister thing about the situation that we face currently is that there are nuclear warheads involved, or possibly involved, in this conflict.

So although President Putin has decided to bring force and use force against the people of Ukraine, and that force has to be met and we have to stand in solidarity with the brave people of Ukraine to hope that they can repel the invasion by Russia, it’s also very important that diplomatic channels remain open as well. Because if there’s one thing that we have to avoid at all cost, then that is a nuclear confrontation. The stakes are very high in this conflict. Although we are thousands of kilometres away, we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this isn’t going to have a serious impact on all of us.

Can I just speak very briefly to the UN. I’m not a big fan of the UN. I think that they do some good work in some pockets around the world, but I think this is a time for them now to stop and take stock and reflect on just how effective they are. I remember back at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in 2017 when I met with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister at the time, Pavlo Klimkin, and became good friends with him. He signalled at that time already—and we all saw it internationally—that Russia was bullying Ukraine and had serious, aggressive intent towards them. So then how does Russia become the chair of the UN Security Council? How does Russia veto any action by the UN against an overtly aggressive Russia who is invading a sovereign, peaceful country? So, I’m sorry, you can debate the effectiveness of the UN, but right at the moment, I think they’ve lost a lot of credibility, and there’s a lot of hand-wringing going on, and that’s got to stop.

I’ll put up another example of when we saw the terrible genocide in Rwanda, when General Roméo Dallaire, who was the head of the UN mission there, called for help and assistance from the UN. He could see a genocide unfolding, and the UN again sat there wringing their hands. We can be proud of our role there, because our New Zealand envoy and ambassador stood up and said that we should be sending more support. So I think there’s some serious reflection to be done in terms of the UN and the signal that they can send to an aggressive warmongering Russia.

Finally, can I just say that always the victims of these conflicts are the civilian population, and the civilian population in Ukraine are suffering. They’re living in tunnels. They are being bombed. There are casualties. Their supply chains are starting to break down. They can’t get the basics and the necessities. They can’t get milk powder to feed their babies. You’ve seen a mass evacuation. The one part of the UN that I will acknowledge is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the work that they do.

But also, let’s remember the Russian civilian population as well, because not a lot of them support what their President is doing. I’ve got friends here in New Zealand who are Russian. They’re absolutely devastated at what they’re watching. So let’s remember and consider them as well and hope that maybe they can bring some pressure to bear on their President, get him to step back from a precipice which he’s dragging all of us as an international community into. Let’s hope that the sanctions that have been put in place, the position that the international community is taking very strongly against Russia actually is sufficient to get President Putin—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member’s time is up.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou. Ka tīmata i tētahi waiata i titoa e Tuini Ngāwai mō Te Pakanga Tuarua, ā, i heipū tēnei tūāhuatanga ki runga i a Rūhia.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker, and greetings to us all. I will begin with a song written by Tuini Ngāwai about the Second World War and perfectly appropriate for this situation in Russia.]

‘Putini waha huka, upoko mārō

He tangata tohetohe ki te riri, e!

Hinga atu, hinga mai i runga o Rūhia!

Ka whēru ōna mahi! Hei! Auē, auē!

Tūhikitia rā, tūhāpainga rā

Te rau o tō patu ki runga i te upoko

Hoatu, e tama, karia te kauae o

Te pūrari paka nei a Putini e!’

[Putin foaming at the mouth, pig-headed

He keeps fighting on and on

With many deaths on both sides because of Russia!

We’ll wipe the floor with him, Hei! Auē, auē!

Lift right up, lift high up

The blade of your weapon above his head!

Come on son, break the jaw

Of this bloody bugger Putin!]

I take this opportunity on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak on the first reading of the Russia Sanctions Bill. As I said when I spoke to the motion last week, Te Paati Māori wholeheartedly condemns the unprovoked and unjustified actions of Vladimir Putin, his Government, and their invasion of the Ukraine. Our hearts go out to the people of the Ukraine and the Ukrainian community here in Aotearoa, and we stand in solidarity with you.

I want to mihi to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for taking the time to meet with me, to brief Te Paati Māori on the bill and the sanctions regime it puts forward. We commend her work in advancing this legislation in support of Ukrainian sovereignty. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill. The bill recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine, which has been undermined by Russia and their allies. Upholding the international rule of law around territorial integrity is important for all sovereign peoples, including indigenous peoples and tangata whenua. In an increasingly unstable, insecure, and connected world, violent imperialism threatens us all. We must not allow imperial superpowers to invade and annex sovereign nations, or this threat will only grow.

It is our position that sanctions should be primarily targeted at oligarchs and the ruling class of Russian society. Those who hold the power should be those who face the repercussions. We recognise that the sanctions that slow down the Russian economy, which is necessary in the immediate term to halt their military progress, will have some impact on the working people of Russia. That is why sanctions must be time bound and reviewed on a continuous basis to determine their effectiveness and their adverse impact on working people. The exemption of humanitarian reasons must also be used wherever necessary.

Te Paati Māori is also supporting the urgency motion for the legislation. We believe the use of urgency must meet a high bar but that, in this case, the bar is met. The need to support Ukraine is a rapidly evolving situation that is urgent and real. However, it is our view, despite our support of the motion, that we should always have a public submissions process on every piece of legislation, even if the process is only a week long. We have communicated this position to the Minister and appreciate her response that engagement with civil society is being considered. We also acknowledge that the legislation includes a post-implementation review, which will be completed after the passage of this bill.

Finally, it is the view of Te Paati Māori that, in future, Aotearoa must be more consistent in applying sanctions. Any imperial power illegally invading a sovereign nation should be sanctioned. All imperial proxy wars must be condemned and opposed. Why did our successive New Zealand Governments not condemn the illegal US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, or Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine? Rather than condemn the United States for their illegal, imperial invasion, we’ve supported them with troops, with training, with intelligence. This must end. Aotearoa should not be in servitude to any imperial power. This bill will establish a framework of sanctions sanctioning Russia, but we need a consistent sanctions regime that reflects our position as an independent Tiriti-centric nation in the South Pacific. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe and thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in support of the Russia Sanctions Bill at its first reading, and can I just offer my congratulations to Minister Mahuta for her work in leading this at quite some space into the House, as we are under urgency, and can I thank all the parties of the House who have provided input into this bill.

In the last two weeks, we have watched shocked as the Russian invasion advances across Ukrainian towns and cities. We have stood in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, defending their borders, their homes, and their right to self-determination. Now we stand in the House together with our allies across the world to condemn the invasion in the strongest possible turns and usher in this targeted sanctions bill.

This bill is the first of its kind; never been brought before in this Parliament. In most cases, as we’ve heard, New Zealand would only pass sanctions after a resolution of the United Nations Security Council—but, as we know, Russia is exercising its veto in the Security Council so that forum is deadlocked. This means New Zealand must, as we have, act quickly to draft a set of sanctions absent of the Security Council and we are introducing this bill in lock step with our allies, targeting individuals, their assets, companies, and services.

Under this bill, New Zealand authorities will have the power to freeze assets held in New Zealand to prevent people and companies from moving their money and assets to New Zealand to escape sanctions and to stop superyachts, ships, and aircraft from entering our waters and our airspace, among other measures. These are serious sanctions and they reflect New Zealand’s strong stand against breaches of international law. That is what the Russian invasion of Ukraine represents: a breach of international law and a breach of the principles of sovereignty. So we implement these sanctions in lock step with our allies, all of whom are similarly alarmed that an invasion is occurring. The people of Ukraine not only have a right to govern their own country as they see fit, to live free from the aggression of a larger neighbour, but the people of Ukraine also have the right to enjoy peace—and so too do the people of Russia; they have a right to enjoy peace and they are not personally responsible for the actions of their leaders. That is why these sanctions and the sanctions imposed by our allies are targeted against, in the words of our Prime Minister, those who are responsible for or are associated with the Ukraine invasion or who are of economic or strategic relevance to Russia, include oligarchs. We must not allow New Zealand to become a safe haven, so to speak, for their assets or those persons. We must pass this bill that signals our outrage.

As our colleagues in this House know, New Zealand supports the multilateral system and we’ve heard that in these debates thus far; we support the rules-based international order. We do not support an international system where the militarily strong do simply as they wish; that’s a world New Zealand doesn’t want to see. The multilateral system, a rules-based system, is so important, whether in diplomacy, climate change, migration, or military matters. We make international progress by working together. But where one State acts alone, acts aggressively, invades; well that damages the international system. But one way to help preserve the international system is through sanctions. This isolates Russia and its leaders and it signals the world’s outrage and the world’s solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

I heard in the contributions thus far some claim that we’ve acted too slow. Well, just this week, the Russian Government has issued a list of the most unfriendly countries and I’m proud that New Zealand has made that list, because it’s a direct recognition of the actions that we have taken and that we are taking with this bill.

So, lastly, I want to just cover the other suite of arrangements, of measures, that we are taking, because, in addition to this bill and the initial actions that we took, our Government is also providing humanitarian aid, prioritised visa applications, and releasing some emergency oil stocks to help stabilise shaky oil markets. We are doing our bit in a range of ways in a whole bunch of areas. In conclusion, let this House stand against aggression and in favour of peace. Let this House stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I, too, stand with others in support of this legislation and in the strongest possible terms to condemn the actions of the Russian Government, Vladimir Putin, and the atrocities that are being caused by the illegal invasion of the Ukraine. Here we are in New Zealand, a long, long way away from Europe and from what’s happening, but it is touching people within the borders of our country. I particularly want to offer thoughts to Ukrainians who live in New Zealand who have loved ones that they find it hard to get in touch with, that they’re worried about, and New Zealanders who are married to Ukrainians or have friends or family there that they think of.

All MPs, I’m sure, have had local people get in touch with them. I just today had a local man get in touch with me who was worried about his wife’s family—his brother-in-law, their children, and others—and a plea from him to me, as the local MP, as I’m sure all MPs are receiving, to ask the Government, to persuade the Government, to quickly make a decision over the ability to reach out to Ukrainian loved ones and offer them safe harbour in New Zealand. Countries of Europe are doing that. We’re hearing that as many as 5 million Ukrainians will leave their country because of this illegal act on the part of Vladimir Putin. Some of them will be taken up in the countries surrounding them and other parts of Europe, but for those that have family members in New Zealand, it’s important that we do our bit. The Government has the ability to make a decision quickly on this, and I implore them to do so. Every day they take to consider it is an eternity for those who are there in the Ukraine, and just as long for those in New Zealand fearing for their loved ones.

This invasion is of slim provocation. It is a war crime. It is an illegal, unlawful, and unprecedented attack on this country, and it must be resisted. I’m very pleased that we’re in this House passing legislation collectively in urgency, but I would say that it is a shame that we have to come here in urgency, because there was an opportunity for the House to join together and do this earlier. This isn’t being political; this isn’t having a go at the Government; but it is saying that actually there were opportunities before now—and as late as last week—to pass this legislation, or legislation like this, to send a message to Russia and the Russia administration about the views of New Zealand, its Parliament, and its people.

I get that when you’re in Government you like to do things your own way, but, actually, when challenged with this last week in question time, David Parker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs—well, he was Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time—said that the Autonomous Sanctions Bill that had been before Parliament, that could have been adopted last week and would achieve exactly the same as this legislation in so far as Russia is concerned—David Parker, speaking as Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that the legislation that Gerry Brownlee had before the House, that he tried to move so that we could adopt it last week, was lacking in the areas of cyber-security and humanitarian issues. Well, this legislation does not deal with cyber-security or humanitarian issues at all, and so I think all this was was the Government last week not wanting to move forward in the way of cooperation in the House that we are now seeing by all parties in supporting this legislation. It was about actually wanting to take the weekend to bring something forward and show that they are doing it.

We support this because what’s happening by Russia in the Ukraine is wrong. New Zealand stands on its own two feet internationally. We speak with our own voice. We don’t do what others tell us just because they do so. But there are times when action needs to be fast and it needs to be swift. The Government did put in place restrictions fairly quickly in some areas, but they were limited in what they could do, and here we are today passing legislation to give them the ability to pass regulation so that they can put in place sanctions against Russia, when almost every other country we would stand with—in this case, a position of principle against the atrocities caused by the Russian administration against the people of the Ukraine and the democratic country of Ukraine, we are tardy. Because Australia has already done it. The US has already done it. The UK has already done it. Most of Europe has already done it. Many, many countries have already done that. So I look forward to when we join them and the world sends another message to Russia that what is happening is not acceptable, that it is illegal, and that we will stand against it and are opposed to it in the strongest possible terms. But the Government could have done this earlier rather than taking their time in the way that they have.

Yesterday on TVNZ 1, there was a report about trade and the effect it will have upon New Zealand. Whilst our trade with Russia is modest, because of trade elsewhere and oil that others import there will be some challenge to New Zealand. But I called at the time for the Government to put in place trade sanctions against Russia. You see, one of our larger companies, Fonterra, has done so already, weeks ago. They’ve made the choice to not export to Russia at this time. They chose to do that themselves. They considered it. They wanted to make a stand. And some would say, “Well, it was not a lot of trade that goes on behalf of Fonterra into Russia. It was symbolism.” But it’s important symbolism, and it’s symbolism the Government could have shown already. If the New Zealand dairy farmer can work out that you should put trade sanctions against Russia at this time, surely the New Zealand Government could.

There are some opportunities in this legislation for trade sanctions, but they’re not strong. In fact, the Government does not need this legislation to put trade sanctions in place against Russia. They could have done so yesterday. They could have done so last week. They could have done so at the same time that Fonterra and New Zealand dairy farmers did: two weeks ago. They could do so tonight, before this legislation goes through. I would ask them to send one more signal, along with the Parliament, to Russia: of trade sanctions, and in the strongest possible terms, as we are seeing other countries now do. The US has just announced it will no longer import oil from Russia. That will have an impact upon them. They will be shorter of oil. The prices will go up and hit consumers and families in the pocket there. The New Zealand Government has the opportunity to make a stand, and to do so quickly, not two weeks from now, following others, as we’re now seeing with this legislation.

Countries of the world—the US and the UK—have said they are looking to the World Trade Organization about removing the most favoured nation status in trade from Russia. This is something the Government should be considering and looking at. In the case that, as other speakers have said, this atrocity, this fighting, this invasion will not be short-lived and will go on for a long period of time, we should be considering all tools that we have available to us to bring pressure on Russia and continue to send the message that what the Russian President is doing is not acceptable to the people, the Parliament, and the Government of New Zealand.

The final thing I would like to say is there will be many, many stories of brutality, both directed towards the Ukrainian people and, I see on my TV tonight, against Russian people in Russia who are protesting against this illegal invasion. We must stand with them, and our thoughts must be with them. My final plea is to all New Zealanders in as far as Russian citizens who are also permanent residents and citizens of New Zealand. They have chosen New Zealand as their home. They are one with us. They support us. We must be understanding of them, of the concern that they have for what’s happening in their mother country and the dictatorship that we see from Russia. As far as decision making is concerned, there is no democracy in Russia. New Zealand is a democratic country. We welcome our Russian friends who live in New Zealand. They are good New Zealanders and we stand with them, as they stand with all of us tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I call on Vanushi Walters for the last call on this first reading of the Russia Sanctions Bill. Vanushi is connecting with us remotely.

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.

Second Reading