Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on this report. I was the chair of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee that considered the matters relating to the Gallipoli peninsula. I have spoken previously on this when I tabled that report. That report is very comprehensive, dealing with the problems that arose surrounding the construction of the roads on the Gallipoli peninsula. I also note that the government members presented a minority report which I think was about two or three times longer than the majority report, which is pretty unusual. I suppose it could be said that that was a very comprehensive minority report. The problem was that just about every conclusion that was drawn in that minority report was inaccurate.

The first point I wish to make in that regard is that the government senators and other representatives of the government have continued to argue that, because this is sovereign Turkish territory, Australia has no authority or power at the end of the day to get involved in the matter. By implication, these people say: ‘It really wasn’t our fault. It must have been the fault of the Turkish authorities.’ I particularly recall the Prime Minister making those sorts of assertions. I also recall that, at the time, the then minister when these works were being approved in the early days was the Hon. Danna Vale, the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. She was the only minister that did not survive the 2004 election as a minister. That was largely due to her atrocious performance over the three years that she had stewardship of that portfolio. What we know is that these works were carried out at the request of the Australian government. It is on the record. The then minister wrote to the Turkish authorities and requested that the work be done. Of course, the government dropped the ball. They did not really take much of an interest in trying to ensure that those works were being carried out in an appropriate manner. It all spilled out when some bone fragments were found. That led to media publicity and claims that they were human remains. That in turn led to a cessation of the works whilst hurried talks were arranged between the Australian and Turkish authorities to try to sort the issue out.

One of the myths that is put about here is that, because Gallipoli is part of Turkey, this work falls under Turkish sovereignty and, as such, we really do not have any influence or power at the end of the day. I cannot deny that this is Turkish sovereign land. We are in many respects treated as guests of the Turkish government. They certainly go to great lengths to ensure that the Anzac Day ceremonies that take place there—and I have been honoured to have attended and participated in those ceremonies—are conducted with the greatest of respect and honour being paid to all the fallen on that peninsula, whether they be Turkish, Australian or from whichever other nations fought at the time.

What is also true is that there is a treaty called the Treaty of Lausanne, which was entered into after the end of World War I and which Turkey is bound by. It contains provisions that require the nation where the battlefields and war graves are located—in this case, Turkey—to meet certain obligations with the maintenance of those war graves. In that respect, countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, us through the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, have a major role to play in what work is ultimately done on that peninsula and how those memorials, grave sites and other facilities are maintained.

So you simply cannot dismiss this issue by saying, ‘Well, at the end of the day, Australia really couldn’t do anything to solve the problem.’ That is just fallacious nonsense. Unfortunately that was put forward. I might say—and I have spoken about this before—that when we tried, during this hearing, to get some detail from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade as to the application of this treaty, we were denied that information. Firstly it was denied to us because it was said that it is legal advice and we were not entitled to ask for it. And, when we pointed out to the department that that was an erroneous argument and that we were entitled to ask for it, the next response was: ‘Well, there is a longstanding practice that we don’t provide this advice; therefore we are not going to give it to you.’ So they changed the reason for not giving us the advice but they still declined to give it to us.

Of course the real point here is that the second reason is nonsense as well because there is no longstanding practice. In fact, there is a joint committee of this parliament, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which does this very sort of work. It looks at the provisions of international treaties that Australia may enter into. It follows that we as a parliament are entitled to be given advice on the intended application of treaties.

The other point I wanted to make, which has come about subsequent to the publication of this report but is very relevant to it, was that a committee of the UK parliament also has considered this matter. I want to read into the Hansard a letter from the Chairman of the All Party War Graves and Battlefield Heritage Group, which consists of members of both houses of the UK parliament. The chairman of that committee is Lord Faulkner of Worcester. He writes to the secretary of our committee, and this has now been made public as a document of the committee:

I am writing to you in my capacity as chairman of the All Party War Graves and Battlefield Heritage Group (APWGBHG), which consists of Members from both Houses of the UK Parliament. The Group exists to support the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and to further educational programmes aimed at increasing knowledge of battlefield heritage, to support the conservation and promotion of such heritage, and to encourage best practice in multi-disciplinary battlefield archaeology.

My All Party Group has taken a strong interest in the recent developments at Anzac Cove and associated areas on the Gallipoli Peninsula. On behalf of the Group I have made at least three enquiries of both the Australian and New Zealand High Commissions in order to obtain a clearer view of the potential risks and damage to the archaeological and cultural heritage of the Gallipoli battlefields. I have also sought the views of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Having taken advice from experts in the UK, Australia, and on the ground in Gallipoli, my Group had been concerned that the construction works were of a scale likely to damage the integrity of this most sensitive of all battlefields.

I am gratified that an inquiry into the matter of the road construction at Anzac Cove has been carried out promptly, and note its comments regarding the damage to the Anzac battlefield. The results of your inquiry were discussed at the last meeting of the APWGBHG. These results confirmed the advice we had received regarding damage, and are therefore of some concern to my Group.

However, I am convinced that the summary recommendations achieved by your inquiry are highly appropriate in order to safeguard the Anzac, and indeed other battlefields of the Gallipoli Peninsula. As such I write to offer the continued support of the APWGBHG in the furtherance of the conservation of these most historically significant battlefields.

Yours sincerely, Richard Faulkner

I think that says it all. The joint committee of the UK parliament has supported the recommendations of this Senate committee.