David Jull (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Review of the listing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

I present the sixth report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security under section 102.1A of the Criminal Code Act 1995. In this report the committee has reviewed a new listing for the Kurdistan Workers Party, or the PKK. This is the 19th organisation to be banned under the Criminal Code.

As in previous reports, the committee reviewed both the procedures and merits of the listing. The committee advertised this review in the Australian on 21 December 2005 and on its website from that date. The committee took evidence at a private hearing on Monday, 6 February 2006 from ASIO, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Federation of Community Legal Services of Victoria. In addition, the committee considered 16 submissions from the public and from legal and community groups.

The committee noted in its report that the process of consultation with the states, a matter that had been criticised in previous reports, had improved, but the time frame for such consultation is still short. The consultation between ASIO and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has, however, become much more substantial.

On the matter of community consultation, at the committee’s private hearing the Attorney-General’s Department clarified that all they intended to do in this area was to provide a community information program on a proposed listing, not a consultation on the merits of a listing. The committee concurs with that intention. The committee continues to believe that an information program is important and should be instituted in any future listing.

Some additional issues were raised during this review. They included questions raised about the timing of the announcement of this particular listing.

On the merits of the listing, some members of the committee expressed reservations about the listing and the majority of members have requested that the government keep the matter under active consideration. In particular, the committee noted that, unlike many of the other listings brought before the committee, there are potentially large numbers of Australians who, while not endorsing or supporting its engagement in terrorist acts, might have sympathy for the broad aims of the PKK insofar as it promotes self-determination for Kurds in Turkey. It was because of uncertainties in this area that the committee has also asked the government to consider a proscription of the military wing alone and to take into account the fluid state of moves towards possible ceasefires.

Nevertheless, with these provisions, the committee has supported the listing.

The committee would like to thank all those who provided submissions for these reviews and hopes that there will continue to be constructive debate on the listings process. I commend the report to the House.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the sixth report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security under section 102.1A of the Criminal Code Act. As a starting point, I thank the committee secretariat—the Committee Secretary, Margaret Swieringa; the Research Officer, Cathryn Ollif; and the Administrative Officer, Donna Quintus-Bosz—for their assistance in providing this report. The report deals with the listing of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or the PKK, under section 102.1(b) of the Criminal Code, where:

... the Minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not the terrorist act has occurred or will occur)—

or advocating the doing of a terrorist act, whether the terrorist act has occurred or will occur. As the chair of the committee has just stated, this is the 19th organisation that has been banned—that is, proscribed—under the Criminal Code.

In the process of the committee undertaking its review it examined the procedures and merits of the listing. It took evidence from ASIO, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Federation of Community Legal Centres in Victoria and took 16 submissions from public and community groups. It has been noted that most of the public and community group submissions were against the proscription, but that may reflect the nature of the respondents and their relationship with those communities they represent rather than a view that predominates in the broader Australian community about this listing.

In examining the procedures, the chair touched on the consultation period with the states and some of the difficulties with the consultation time frame between the Commonwealth and the states regarding the listing of a proscribed organisation, which has seen some improvement, but I think we would acknowledge that more needs to be done and that the communities affected by the listing need to be informed by the Attorney-General’s Department of the effects of the proscription listing.

On the merits of the listing there has been some concern expressed by committee members about the timing of the listing and the precipitating factors which led to the PKK being proscribed. Whilst the committee found that there had been no direct evidence of intervention that affected the proscription timetable, it emphasises why the government agencies like ASIO, DFAT and the Attorney-General’s Department need to provide clearly articulated, accountable and, in my view, benchmarkable reasons which are adhered to as to why proscription of organisations needs to be undertaken, to provide the measure of reassurance that the community needs when these extraordinary powers are invoked. Additionally there has been some concern expressed about the effects of proscription on those of Kurdish origin in Australia. I believe that the committee’s recommendation takes those concerns into consideration in conjunction with the fluidity of moves towards possible ceasefires.

It is noted, however, that the PKK was designated as a foreign terrorist organisation by the United States under the immigration and nationality act in 1997 and that the US has recently added the name of Kongra Gel, which is one of its offshoots, to the listing. Canada listed the PKK on 11 December 2002 under the Criminal Code Act. The United Kingdom listed the PKK under the Terrorism Act 2000. It should be noted that the PKK and/or its military wings have been identified as having been involved in the propagation of terrorism in the past and in recent times. There would be a view that some people of Australian origin who may go to Turkey may be affected by that. I believe that the committee’s recommendations in the light of the concerns raised in the evidence brought before the committee and the support of the listing are balanced. In  the light of that, I commend the report to the House.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Fadden wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.