Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

I am making the point to you that, if these questions of proscription are to be treated in this way, these issues do need to be clarified. This argument also applies to a whole host of other organisations. Since I have worked for so many years with Kurdish groups in Melbourne on their normal democratic rights of migration and social security—and the expression of their political views on those broader questions—I think it is important that those questions are clarified. For instance: at what point will I be in breach of this ban as a result of being a member of an organisation that is not technically proscribed? If I attend a meeting—a Navroz festival or a cultural event of that nature—where views are expressed, does that place me in breach of the law? This is the danger of this sort of process. There has been no demonstrable evidence to support the claims, with regard to threats to Australian interests, of disputes within Turkey involving the Kurds. In fact, I understand that this government actually supports the Kurds in northern Iraq. I understand it also supports their activities with regard to Syria. So I raise the issue about whether or not there is a direct security benefit by this proscription for Australian interests, as distinct from the interests of a foreign power. I am also very concerned about the timing of these actions. I note the discrepancies in the report about the timing of advice being sought from various agencies of the Australian government, and I am not persuaded by the arguments presented that it had no relationship with the visit of certain senior Turkish politicians. I am very concerned, however, about the broader questions about the impact that such a listing will have on law-abiding Australian citizens.