Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This report was tabled yesterday, and it is the review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security of the relisting of the Hamas Brigades; the PKK, which is known as the Kurdistan Workers Party; the organisation Lashkar-e-Tayyiba; and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I speak to this report in the absence of the chair, Arch Bevis, who is away with a delegation. I participated in the deliberations and I speak to the report, and I take the opportunity of thanking my colleagues and also the secretariat staff for their work in the preparation of this report.

The recommendations were that all four organisations, which have been found to be terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code, should not be the subject of a disallowance resolution by either this or the other house of parliament. In that context, I speak to recommendations which reflect the view that the committee formed: that each of these organisations remain listed terrorist organisations. As part of the process, I note that proscription of terrorist organisations requires a very high level of examination and cooperation, and it crosses political boundaries.

Members would note on page 4 of the report that the Prime Minister wrote to the premiers of states and to all chief ministers advising of the intention to relist each of these organisations, and positive replies were received in each case. In that context, I note that the matters were largely without contest except in two matters. One involved the Hamas Brigades, where there was contest—an assumption by one of the people who wanted to give evidence to the committee, a Mr Judeh, who came to a view that if you found information on the internet, that was all that was necessary to form conclusions. I just wish to say that he contested much of the information presented by ASIO on the basis that it was information published on the internet, and he presented voluminous amounts of his own open source data—equally collected from the internet—and because they were juxtaposed he came to a view that proscription should not occur. I would simply make the point, and it was made in the committee’s conclusions, that whilst statements of reasons often refer to open source documents, importantly they state that information provided while publicly available has been corroborated by classified information. This was a matter that the committee tested in coming to a view that the Hamas Brigades should be still listed as a terrorist organisation. I note that that is not the whole of the Hamas organisation that is proscribed.

The other matter in which there was some contest was in relation to the PKK—the Kurdistan Workers Party. There were people who represented Kurdish organisations in Australia, and they put to us some of their concerns about relisting of that organisation. The committee in its report makes the very strong point that the relisting of the PKK is in no way meant as a comment on Australians of Kurdish descent. It is of concern to the committee to have Australians of Kurdish background believing that they are in a position of being lesser citizens or persecuted, but the committee fully accepts that, while members of the Kurdish community may wholeheartedly support the PKK’s political and ideological objectives, they oppose terrorism. In fact, when we had the witnesses before us, we examined that issue at some length, because we did identify, from the material that was available to us, that the PKK was an organisation that had been involved in violent acts in the period 2006-09, and that is outlined in the report.

The issue that arose in some of the evidence given before us was whether the PKK may now be changing its modus operandi. That was an issue of considerable interest to us. The evidence that we received, particularly from ASIO, was that there is still a large chunk of the organisation that adheres to the use of terrorist activities to get its point across, and its ideology. In our discussion with the security organisation, it was clear that they would reconsider the listing of this organisation if it substantially changed its modus operandi. There were some interesting developments that we canvassed in the report involving the pardoning of certain people in relation to offences that had occurred in Turkey. From our perspective, while engagement in peace and mediation was useful, until there is clear evidence that the organisation has changed, that should not be a matter that would influence our judgment.

I want to conclude by simply saying that, in relation to this question as to whether or not a state such as Turkey may have reacted in a way which those who engage in terrorism believe might justify that activity, in my examination of some of the representatives of Kurdish organisations, I put this proposition. I referred to the statement of reasons and I said that it lists conduct from 13 September 1996 until March this year, conduct which involves what the Attorney-General has described as terrorist activity. I said, ‘It seems to me that you are not contesting that this has in fact happened. I think that makes our task very difficult. I would simply say that if what you are arguing is that activity of that sort is not justified because of what the Turks are doing, I do not regard that as an appropriate response.’

I simply make the point that when you are dealing with terrorist organisations it is sometimes more difficult when there are people of a particular ethnicity here in Australia who support some of the ideological positions that organisations take. Their presence here cannot be seen in any way as condoning terrorists. I think that is the fundamental issue. The committee did test these matters very fully with the community people involved. They would not be surprised that we recommend that the proscription of the PKK not be disallowed, but they did have an opportunity to put their views and they were heard. We put strongly the view that terrorism, wherever it occurs, cannot be condoned and that we have to act in relation to those issues.

I thank my colleagues on the committee for their continued work in relation to dealing with these very important and sensitive issues. I welcome the opportunity to have been able to speak to this report.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday there was tabled in the House the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security concerning a review of the relisting of Hamas Brigades, PKK, LeT and PIJ as terrorist organisations. In every case they are relistings, these being organisations that have been proscribed for quite some time.

I want to deal, in particular, with the relisting of the Hamas brigades as a proscribed organisation under section 102 of the Criminal Code. Perhaps before going to that it is worth noting that this is a process that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has undertaken, under the functions conferred on it by the legislation, for several years. It is my view that the committee performs an invaluable function in doing so because it provides a degree of publicness about a process which would otherwise take place almost entirely behind closed doors. In deciding to list, the Attorney-General relies on the advice of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation. The Attorney-General publishes a statement of reasons. The committee, in being able to hold a hearing, in being able to receive submissions from interested members of the public, is able to review the decision and make a recommendation in respect of it. For every organisation, by holding such a hearing and receiving submissions the committee is able to satisfy, at least to some degree, public interest in a process which concerns all.

Particularly in relation to Hamas it is worth noting—and the committee has made comment about this in the report—that what has been listed is the Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, which is the armed or military wing of the Hamas organisation and, as the committee has noted in the report, Hamas itself—that is, the political organisation—is not being listed. It is a distinction that, for the moment, is worth persisting with because, despite the basis of Hamas, despite its history, even now it is to be hoped that Hamas will renounce the approach that it has taken ever since it was founded in 1987, which is a complete commitment to violence and, indeed, a commitment to the destruction of a member state of the United Nations, namely Israel. It is a fact that Hamas, not itself making a great deal of distinction between the political organisation and the brigades, has for years carried out acts of violence, targeting civilians. It is apparent that, as I speak, Hamas remains committed to carrying out such acts.

Just to reiterate—the report goes into some of these details—it is worth noting that Hamas has, in the last several years, fired thousands of rockets at Israeli towns, at civilian centres. Indeed, Hamas rockets, rockets for which the brigades have taken direct responsibility after the event, have fallen on schools, kindergartens and houses throughout Israel. Some 4,000 to 5,000 rockets have been launched since 2007 alone, when the Hamas organisation took control of Gaza in a violent coup. It can also be noted that Hamas has launched these rocket attacks from schools and from mosques in Gaza and, therefore, there should not be any doubt about the nature of the brigades, the organisation that has been listed here.

It is worth noting that Hamas is still holding an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, whom Hamas operatives kidnapped in 2007 from Israeli territory, killing two IDF soldiers at the time. Hamas has held Shalit for more than three years, denying him access to the Red Cross and all other representatives.

It is also the case that indiscriminate firing of rockets by Hamas has killed or wounded several Palestinians within Gaza, that the firing of rockets by Hamas has damaged UN facilities and that, in every sense, it is right to describe Hamas as a true terrorist organisation. It engages in indiscriminate destruction of life and property.

The Hamas charter, which was adopted in 1988, has never been altered. It has never been renounced by the Hamas organisation. It commits Hamas to establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. It rejects the approach of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to the current conflict in Israel. It is a rejection of democracy. Hamas rejects democratic methods and rejects human rights. It rejects the rights of trade unions. It rejects the rights of women as those rights are understood and cherished by Western countries such as ours. What appears in the report of the parliamentary joint committee is but a small sample of the acts in which the Hamas brigades have engaged in recent years.

There is ample evidence of the treatment of political opponents of Hamas in the Gaza Strip including murder, knee-capping and throwing its political opponents off buildings. There was a particularly egregious example of the conduct of the brigades in August this year when Hamas suppressed what it saw as an insurrection in a mosque in Rafah. There had been a sermon suggesting that Hamas was not Islamist enough and that was met by an armed attack in which the brigade surrounded this mosque in Rafah firing rocket grenades into the mosque killing more than 20 Palestinians, including an 11-year-old girl.

There is no doubt that Hamas and the brigades, as its armed wing, completely reject all that is known or understood about human rights in this country or throughout Western countries. There is a totalitarian approach taken to all media and to all education. There is a continuation of the glorification of suicide bombing and encouragement of children to become martyrs. That is the nature of the organisation that is here being relisted. It is why the parliamentary joint committee—rightly—has recommended that that relisting be endorsed.

The other matter I want to raise in relation to the Hamas organisation is to record my regret at some of the submissions that the parliamentary joint committee received in relation to whether or not the Hamas brigades should be relisted.

I might just say something else about the process that the parliamentary joint committee uses. As is made clear not only in relation to the Hamas brigades organisation but also in relation to all of the other organisations which are dealt with in this report, ASIO provides material to the Attorney-General and that material which is provided to the Attorney-General is reflected in ASIO’s statement of reasons. That is, of course, a public document and, naturally enough, is based on material which is able to be made openly available or open source type material as is recorded in the committee’s report. That information, which is contained in the publicly available statement of reasons, has also been corroborated by classified information in all senses.

But Hamas, perhaps differently to some of the other organisations listed here, is itself an organisation which prides itself on publicity. There is a wealth of information available about the activities of the Hamas brigades. It is available to anyone in Australia who has even a passing interest in events in the Middle East. What was of surprise and indeed concern to me was to see that in some of the submissions that were received by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, rather than dealing with the matter which was before the committee, which was whether or not to endorse the relisting of the Hamas brigades, these submissions instead engaged in precisely the same attack that Hamas itself is engaged in, which is to attack a member state of the United Nations, namely Israel.

The committee—rightly, having received various submissions along these lines—rejected the submissions insofar as they sought to attack the state of Israel. There is no part of the process that the committee hearings are involved in which required the committee to look at the conduct of the state of Israel. To do so is almost to accept the false justification that is sometimes advanced for the terrorist actions of organisations like the Hamas Brigades. The committee rightly rejected that approach.

The parliament should be under no illusions that the task that is conferred on the committee is to review the available evidence and to hear from members of the public who might have information to provide to the committee or views as to whether or not a particular organisation ought be listed. The task before the committee is not to allow its processes to be hijacked into some kind of attack on the state of Israel or any other member state of the United Nations; it is rather to consider the actual activities of the proscribed organisations to judge whether they have engaged in terrorist activities. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Hamas, by any measure, is a terrorist organisation. It, indeed, proudly and openly carries on its own activities as a terrorist organisation. It is right that the committee has made the recommendation that it has, which was not to recommend the disallowance of the regulations which listed the Hamas Brigades. I commend the report to the House.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the recommendations of this report. Even though I am not a member of the committee, I think that, as the member for Isaacs said, the process of the committee evaluating these organisations is a worthwhile process that this parliament should be involved in, partially because it gives the Australian public a feeling of transparency which they duly deserve and an ability to have input into how the Australian government makes decisions about these particular organisations. Originally, it was proposed that the Attorney-General alone have the right to list these organisations and that at some later period that would be sunsetted and reconsidered. This is a better process where both the Attorney-General and the parliament are involved.

I find strange some of the submissions that, according to the report, were made, but I will return to that in a moment. I first of all want to support the relisting of not just Hamas but also Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, particularly because of that organisation’s disgraceful role in trying to engender terrorist incidents against Australians and because of their murder of two of our countrymen in Mumbai in the attacks on that very fine Indian city last year. I must report my own countersuggestibility. After Lashkar-e-Tayyiba attacked the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower hotel amongst the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, my daughter and I stayed there some months later, perhaps in a minor act of solidarity with the people of India.

I will first say something about Hamas and then will return to Lashkar-e-Taiba. The argument being made by many people is that Hamas is a legitimate political organisation. Indeed, there is an attempt in 2.26 of the committee’s listings to say that there is a difference between its legitimate political and social activities and its terrorist activities. I think that is a convenient argument that our security services put. Unfortunately for those who make that argument, Hamas does not make that argument. Sheikh Yasin and Mr Rantisi, the previous leaders of Hamas, were clearly the people giving orders for various terrorist attacks, and they made no distinction between the civilian and military wings of that organisation.

As the member for Isaacs rightly said, this is an organisation that took power by force in Gaza and its rule of brutality there is something that is clearly alien to Australians. Very interestingly, since the conflict in Gaza in January this year the support for that organisation has, not surprisingly, dropped. The Ramallah based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research said that Hamas would receive only 28 per cent of the votes if there were to be elections now whereas the rival Fatah organisation had increased to 44 per cent. That might be the reason why Hamas, so earnestly promoted by a gentleman from the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Paul McGeough, has absolutely ruled out the possibility of further elections in Gaza.

If we look at the political issues beyond the prescription issues in this report for peace in the Middle East—the unification of the Palestinian side in negotiations is seen as impossible because of the differences between Hamas and Fatah—we would come to the conclusion that we must earnestly support elections in Gaza as soon as possible because the Palestinian people themselves would then be able to elect representative and more moderate organisations that would be able to include negotiations with the other side. Statements like those recently made by Hamas that the Interior Ministry will hold accountable anyone involved in elections is an ominous threat that I think says something about the nature of that organisation. Mr McGeough and other people who are apologists for Hamas have said that it is a political organisation that will morph into an organisation that can be negotiated with. Its foreign based leader, Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus in October this year, talking about negotiations for a proposed two state solution peace settlement, said:

We must say: Palestine from the sea to the river, from the west to the occupied east, and it must be liberated. As long as there is occupation, there will be resistance to occupation.

Let me decode for this house what that means. That means there are not, as Australia originally voted for in the United Nations in 1948, two states—a Palestinian state next to an Israeli state. This is an Islamic state like Gaza from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. You can understand how the bikini-clad women of Tel Aviv on the beaches, the people who participate in gay rights demonstrations in Jerusalem, the normal people of the Israeli Jewish state—middle-class, small ‘l’ liberal, just like us in Australia—would fiercely resist living under a sixth century Islamist fanatic state. They have my entire support and I think they have the support of most of the democratic world for resisting that. Until these people can be brought to some kind of reality then they and their apologists, in my view, are out of the negotiating game. That is no reason for stopping negotiating with entirely reasonable Palestinian Arab political organisations. As the member for Oxley knows, I recently had the pleasure of participating, under the auspices of the Australian Workers Union, in a TULIP function at the ALP national conference with Mr Issa, the Palestinian representative in Canberra. He is a very engaging and moderate gentleman who, to misquote Margaret Thatcher talking about Mr Gorbachev, is ‘a man who we can do with business with’.

Let me turn my remarks to the organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba, which the committee has proscribed. As the committee’s report says, a number of members of Lashkar-e-Taiba have been arrested in Australia. People from this organisation, who have been jailed in other countries, have come to Australia, including Willie Brigitte. I note that a number of people who have subsequently been let out of jail, such as Mr Hicks and others, were involved in training at Lashkar-e-Taiba camps. This seems to be the favourite part of the international al-Qaeda franchise, which is concentrating on Australia. People who have been arrested and charged in Sydney, such as Mr Brigitte, have been trained and organised by this particular arm of al-Qaeda.

As the Calcutta Telegraph noted on Monday, a Pakistani-American mapped out all the Mumbai target sites, including the Jewish centre, Chabad House, by sinisterly posing as an American Jew. His name is Dawood Jilani. He changed his name. He is a US national. He was arrested by the FBI in February. He went to India and scoped all of these sites that were attacked. We have to be very alive to the possibility of precisely this kind of person coming to Australia. On 3 October 2009, he was arrested on federal charges of plotting to commit terrorist acts on overseas targets, including facilities and employees at a Danish newspaper, for the cartoons that they had published. So Lashkar-e-Taiba remains an active concern to this country. We have had a number of people who have been arrested, charged with working with Lashkar-e-Taiba and convicted.

I commend the parliament for continuing to list these organisations and for the laws under which these people have been convicted. I commend the security services—the Federal Police, ASIO and others—who have been able to bring evidence. I commend the courts, which, despite their many small ‘l’ liberal inclinations, have convicted people who have rightly been brought to them under these kinds of charges. The parliament performs an important process for the Australian people in making sure that we go through all of these organisations systematically, carefully and rationally. We have to do that as long as these people are targeting this country and other organisations and democratic countries around the world. I was very pleased to hear the member for Berowra say that the Attorney-General had written to all state attorneys-general and had their support for the continued listing of these organisations.

I was astonished to see that the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Victoria) made a submission to this inquiry. I hope the submission was duly discussed by that organisation. Community legal centres, in my understanding, look after people in Australia who are the oppressed of the earth and do not necessarily have the ability to find legal defences for themselves. They look after people on pensions, who do not have the resources to find solicitors. They represent them on matters that we in a civilised society have determined everyone should be represented on. For them to be making representations to the parliament on terrorist organisations and saying that they should have the listings lifted is something far beyond their brief. It would be an outrage to most Victorian taxpayers who rightly fund legal centres for the 99 per cent of good work they do. I urge the organisations involved to make sure they know what they are doing before they come to the federal parliament and start getting involved in national and international politics which is far beyond their purview.

I end by making the regrettable point that I was with the Minister for Home Affairs in my electorate of Melbourne Ports when he announced special security funding for various schools in my electorate. The security funding was a direct result of reports like this. In January, the leader of the Hamas organisation in Gaza, Mahmoud Zahar, made the threat that, because of the killing of children in Palestine, they had legitimised their people’s killing of our people all over the world. This was considered by many people in Australia, the United States and Europe to be a threat by Hamas to carry out terrorist action in Australia. Through this report, the parliament and the Australian government, by other measures, is taking every necessary step to protect the security of the Australian people. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Mr Ripoll) adjourned.