Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

There is an interjection across the chamber asking whether or not people have read the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and on behalf of the Australian Democrats I need to place very much on record that I have yet to read the report. Obviously we are dealing with its tabling at the moment. There is also a reason that the Democrats are not participants in the committee inquiry. The obvious reason is that we do not have representation on that inquiry and I think—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that Senator Ferguson probably knows me well enough to know that, had I been on that committee, I would have been an active and engaged participant in the inquiry.

On behalf of the Democrats I just wanted to echo the concerns that have been raised. Without going into detail until I have read the report, I am pretty confident that I would have drafted and issued a minority report as well. I think senators would recognise that the Democrats have been fairly consistent over the years on the issue of proscription, and so for us the issue of proscription of the PKK would not be a challenging issue per se. On the specific issue of the PKK and the idea of it specifically being listed as a terrorist organisation, I know the issues are complex and are combined with the current political environment in Turkey. We have to take into account the issue of distinct arms of the PKK—the argument that there are different arms, political and military. There are also a number of issues with the committee process.

I have looked at some of the submissions that deal with concerns that organisations, including Amnesty, have. I know that human rights groups are very much opposed to the proscription of the PKK. There are also conflicting reports as to the current role of the PKK in Turkey. I think we need to look into some of the allegations that the Turkish government has made against the PKK. It is not doubted that in the past—and, arguably, currently—the PKK has been integral, in some respect, to the representation of the rights of ethnic Kurds in Turkey. In fact, the international community has encouraged dialogue between the Turkish government and the Kurds. Australia in the past has recognised the efforts of the PKK to initiate peace. There is an argument—I know it has been raised by a number of groups in submission form and by human rights groups generally—that the proscription of the PKK could undermine the peace process.

I am happy to resume my remarks at another stage; I suspect there may be a disallowance debate in the offing, but I did want to add some comments on behalf of the Australian Democrats because we were not involved in the committee process. I would like to be, but you never know. We will see what the Senate reform comes up with. The Democrats certainly would have submitted a minority report. We do not think that proscription is the answer and I do not believe it is the answer in this case—but I do not mean to take away from the complexity of the issue and the work that is being done by colleagues on that committee. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.