Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

This is an important debate, as Senator Ludwig just indicated, and it is pleasing that thus far we have been able to conduct it in a measured way. There is always the opportunity for cheap political points and for people who express concerns about listings like this to be basically smeared as being supporters of terrorism and things like that. It is pleasing that this debate has not descended to that sort of puerile level.

What we need to remember is not just the impact on people in Turkey who are affected by actions of the PKK or the aims and goals of the PKK and their supporters in Turkey but also the impact on Australians. Listing an organisation in this way, as the PKK has been, has the potential to impact on Australians, including, in my view, Australians who are, in all meaningful senses of the word, innocent of any genuine attempt to support what might be seen as terrorist acts.

There is no doubt that the PKK has been and, in some circumstances, continues to be involved in, supporting of or linked to actions that can reasonably be described as terrorist activities. The labels ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ are somewhat fluid—and I will not get into that debate now, beyond acknowledging that they are subjective terms in some circumstances. But clearly there has been politically motivated violence carried out by the PKK in Turkey, and to that extent there is understandable concern about being seen to support those acts.

I want to emphasise that a report has been done into this by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee has had the opportunity to review the evidence. I make the point again, as I often do, that that committee does not, by law, have any members from the crossbenches; it does not have any minor party or Independent members on it. So we are completely dependent on the views of the major parties—and the major party members who are on that committee—to assess any of the evidence. I think that is unfortunate.

Whilst there is a valid argument about proportionality, and one could say that there are not enough crossbench members in both houses to justify a position in proportional terms, I would also point out that this committee, of all the committees in the parliament, is—by definition and understandably—the most secretive. It is the least open, so there is less opportunity than is the case for any other committee for people outside of the committee to view what is going on. If ever there were a valid argument that a committee should have a diversity of representation on it, it would be for that committee. I once again express my dissatisfaction with that arrangement. I again request that, the next time the relevant legislation comes up for amendment, that situation be remedied—even if it is at the expense of cross-party representation on some of the other standing committees. It is a situation where evidence is presented in camera by groups like ASIO and others, and we have no alternative other than to rely on the judgements of the members of the committee, which they present by way of a report.

As has already been outlined in this debate, the report contained a minority view from two Labor members, which is very unusual—I do not know if it is unprecedented, but it is certainly extremely unusual. Senator Ray, as a longstanding member of that committee, outlined the details in his contribution. As is usually the case—not always but usually—Senator Ray’s contribution was very measured and balanced with regard to the issues—not that I am saying I agreed with all his conclusions. The points made in the minority report by Mr Duncan Kerr and Senator Faulkner cause concern. It should be emphasised that listing an organisation has potentially serious consequences for Australians. It does not just mean that we are making some judgement that a particular organisation overseas is a bunch of bad people—that we are making some official statement that they are bad guys or something like that; it has particular significant, specific legal consequences, and that is why it should not be done lightly and why it should be fully justified.

As Senator Ray pointed out, the majority report was less definitive and conclusive than usual. There was more of a flavour of wanting an eye kept on this one. That whole flavour of being less definitive than usual causes me and the Democrats some concern because we are talking about basic rights here—the basic rights of Australians, and others, of course. Paragraph 1.13 of the minority report says:

... the Joint Committee received nothing by way of evidence or submissions that would justify a conclusion that the proscription—

of the PKK—

would have any direct positive security benefits for Australia.

It goes on to say:

Australia already has strong laws to criminalise actual conduct involving terrorism.

... Actions giving direct assistance to any acts of terrorism are already unlawful.

So refusing to make these listings does not mean that people can get away with directly supporting terrorist acts and organisations and get off scot-free. It is already unlawful. That is one of the issues around the whole concept of listing. There has been some suggestion that you need special offences for terrorism that otherwise do not apply, when of course there are already many laws regarding supporting, facilitating or conspiring to be part of acts of violence of whatever sort, and those laws already exist separate to this listing. That also must be emphasised.

The minority report goes on to say:

Sending money out of Australia to aid the PKK is already prohibited and it is already an offence under Australian domestic law for any Australian to serve an organisation seeking to overthrow a foreign government by force. No Australian has been charged with such existing offences.

So, what proscription does is to take a further step and create a criminal offence for a person belonging or giving any support to the PKK, disconnected from the need to prove any act of or support for terrorism. Of course, the problem is that the PKK is a lot more than just a bunch of criminals conducting terrorist acts. There certainly is that element, but you cannot disconnect that from the wider aims of many of the Kurdish people in that region for greater rights.

This is not a matter of taking sides in the dispute between Kurdish people in Turkey and the Turkish government; it is a matter of recognising that there are legitimate differences of opinion about the rights of the Kurdish minority in that region and that people have a legitimate right to hold those views. They do not have a legitimate right to conduct violence to promote those views. That is where the distinction lies. In some cases, it is impossible to carve out a neat dividing line between the two, and that is the problem that has arisen here.

The bigger problem is that there is a significant Kurdish community in Australia—and it must be emphasised that they have contributed very positively to Australia—and also a very significant Turkish community. The Kurdish people come from a region which covers not just Turkey but also parts of Iraq, Iran and Syria. It should be noted that whatever criticisms of constraints of the rights of Kurdish people in Turkey are or have been in the past—certainly my understanding is that circumstances now have improved from what they were in the past—the oppression and persecution of Kurds was far worse in the previous regime in Iraq and is far worse in the current regime in Iran.

The fact is that many Australians of Kurdish background, who are positive and constructive members of the Australian community, nonetheless identify with and support the broad aims of the PKK inasmuch as they see it supporting greater rights for the Kurdish people living in Turkey. The problem with listing the PKK is that many of these people who simply see themselves as broadly supportive of the PKK in a general sense—without necessarily approving of its violent actions—could get caught up by the laws of Australia that come into force as a result of this listing. That is a concern to me, and certainly that is a concern expressed in the minority report. Perfectly innocent Australians, in all meaningful senses of the word ‘innocent’, could be deemed to be criminals and guilty of criminal offences simply by virtue of being supportive, in a very general sense, of the PKK in that they view it as fighting for greater freedom for Kurdish people in Turkey. That to me is a serious concern. From the whole report, not just the minority report, it does not appear that those potential consequences were taken into account by the government when making this listing.

I want to take the opportunity, even though it may be seen as slightly tangential to the issue, to stress that this is not about taking sides. I have spoken a few times before in this chamber about modern-day Turkey. The position I am taking is not anti-Turkey in any way. I have met with the Turkish ambassador and have visited Turkey. I strongly support them in their efforts to become part of the European Union and I think the actions of some current European countries in resisting that are not helpful. I think they are undesirable in a global sense, let alone in a regional sense, over there.

There are certainly issues with regard to human rights and freedom of speech that Turkey needs to improve on. But Turkey’s history is very different to Australia’s and I think people need to be a bit more conscious of the very significant challenges that Turkey has to face. The world can look very different when your neighbours are countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria and some of those to the east of Turkey. Also, Turkey has a history, being at that bridge between East and West, of having people at various times over many years trying to carve it up and dole bits out as spoils of war. It is not surprising that it has a different view of the world and different concerns and sensitivities.

Every country to some extent is a prisoner of its history and has difficulty in facing and confronting some of its flaws. Australia certainly has that in its inability to confront the reality of its own history over the last couple of hundred years and the serious human rights abuses that have been perpetrated. We also have a very severe problem in acknowledging the reality that our modern-day prosperity has in many ways been built on the oppression and slaughter of the Indigenous people of this country.

So I am not in any way seeking to lecture Turkey about their need to resolve some of their human rights issues and their difficulties with confronting some of their actions of the past, whether towards Kurdish people, Armenians or others. I simply state these issues as a matter of fact and also point out that the position that I and the Democrats are taking on this issue is not in any way taking sides or in any way an anti-Turkey position. It is motivated totally by our concern about the human rights consequences for Australians and the potential for innocent people to be inappropriately caught up in the provisions of Australian law and also by the concerns which go through the full aspects of the committee report about the lack of solidity of some of the evidence put forward by the government to justify this particular act. When in doubt on an issue that has such a serious effect and the potential to catch innocent people in its provisions, I think one should err on the side of protecting the rights of Australians.

I also emphasise once again that it is already illegal in Australia to directly support terrorist acts by the PKK or anybody else and it is an offence to provide money directly out of Australia to the PKK or to serve an organisation seeking to overthrow a foreign government by force. Those things are already against the law. In that circumstance, unless there are very strong and indisputable arguments for imposing further criminalising offences, I do not believe, whilst there is doubt, that such action should be supported. I do not think this action would impact one way or the other on increasing the safety of people in Turkey, including the many Australians, of course, who visit Turkey. I would strongly encourage those who have not visited to go not just to Gallipoli but to many other parts of what is a truly fascinating country. It is simply a matter of whether this is an appropriate use of provisions in Australian law. I and the Democrats do not believe that it is, based on the evidence available to us via the relevant report of the parliamentary committee.