Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

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 has been criticised in previous reports—had improved, but that the time frame for such consultation is still relatively short. The consultation between ASIO and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has, however, become far 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 the review. They included questions raised about the timing of the announcement of this particular listing. Some members of the committee expressed reservations about the merits of 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 this 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 on the review and hopes there will continue to be a constructive debate on the listings process. Furthermore, I would particularly like to commend the work of the committee secretariat: committee secretary Margaret Swieringa; research officer Cathryn Ollif; and executive assistant Donna Quintus-Bosz. Sometimes the committee has had to work under very stringent conditions and time frames, and they have done excellent work in servicing the committee and providing this report on time.

It is also worth noting, with respect to the reviews of proposed listings, that many of the submissions we receive on each separate listing come from the same organisations each time. Therefore, much of it consists of exactly the same information being given to the committee on a repetitive basis, regardless of which organisation is under consideration for listing. However, the committee has taken all of these representations into consideration and has come up with its report. I commend the report to the Senate.

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

I have only just received a copy of this report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I have started to read it, so I can say that I am familiar with the broad terms of the report. The nature of committee members’ work is to be commended.

I draw the Senate’s attention in particular to the minority report by Senator Faulkner and Mr Duncan Kerr. The majority report supports, in effect, the government’s proscription of the PKK, while the minority report essentially calls for a much higher level of caution in the approach taken in this matter. This is a reassessment of the government’s proposed proscription of the PKK. I understand that it is not the first time that this matter has been addressed by the committee and that, in the past, attempts have been made to proscribe the PKK but that they have not been proceeded with.

The reason I am speaking on this matter is that for many years I have worked with members of the Kurdish community in Melbourne. Their offices are located two kilometres from my house. I have visited their premises on numerous occasions. In fact, I am a life member of the Kurdish Workers Association of Victoria. I am very concerned about the basis on which this proscription has been argued in the report, because I think there has been a failure to appreciate the important difference between support for military operations in a war of national liberation, as some would see it, and the political activities of organisations in support of Kurdish civil rights.

There is a fundamental problem with the way in which the report presents those arguments. It acknowledges that not all military action is in fact terrorist by nature, but it then fails to follow up that line of argument and deal with the question of the Kurdish minorities in the Middle East, the way in which they have been treated over the last 100 years and the actions that have occurred in relation to political developments, particularly in the south-east of Turkey.

I acknowledge that serious questions arise from the claims and counterclaims regarding the military campaigns that have been conducted both by the Turkish state and by elements associated with the PKK in Turkey. I would have thought that the report would have paid greater attention to the reports of the CIA and the State Department with regard to human rights abuses in the south-east of Turkey, which have given rise to the political disturbances in that region.

However, I am particularly concerned about the consequences of such a proscription on Australian citizens living peacefully, going about their normal activities but expressing a view as to human rights and social conditions in Turkey. At what point does one draw the line between the expression of views on those questions and claims of support for terrorist activities? Nowhere in this report do I see any definition of that question.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should speak to Duncan, then.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to 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.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to echo the concerns about the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that we have just heard from Senator Carr. We are in a free and open democracy, where the expression of points of view is at a premium. We are also in an age when terrorism has been raised as a major political issue and has been used—quite correctly—to worry people about the security of our society. But it is very imprudent to allow that to have the consequence of shutting down a debate or representation in movements, particularly those which ostensibly are aiming for self-determination, freedom and democracy—the very things which President Bush and Prime Minister Howard, for example, espouse as major qualities of a future peaceful global situation.

These are difficult questions. Would not, under the current government, Nelson Mandela and his organisation have been proscribed a couple of decades ago? I think they would. Would not, potentially, the same have happened to Xanana Gusmao in East Timor? I think it would. We have to be extremely careful that Australia be judicious about the use of proscription, and particularly where, as Senator Carr says, there is a delineation between military activists and people who are advocating democracy.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Carr and Senator Ferguson, Senator Brown is entitled to be heard in silence.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I simply believe that some fresh air needs to be taken here. A check needs to be made on this and, to be blunt about it, it does seem that the government has gone into action to proscribe the PKK in reaction to the visit of the Prime Minister of Turkey last year.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was in place before then.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has happened consequent to that.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The hearings have been consequent—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the hearings have been consequent to that and the initiation occurred when there was an impending visit, which was then carried to fruition. There are obvious inconsistencies in this ruling. Or, if we are taking this to be the new benchmark, then there must be fear about a whole range of other movements for democracy and for other rights around the world. These are difficult decisions, but we need to take extreme care about proscribing the right of the Kurds to aspire to self-determination and democracy and for that to be a matter of debate and a matter for support by people here in Australia, whether they are ex-Kurdish nationals or Australian citizens. Senator Carr has pointed to his own personal concerns about this because he is supporting a democratic movement—as it is—within this country. So the alarm bells are ringing here, and before action is taken the government ought to think very carefully about it.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you read the report?

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.