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

I support the Labor Party’s position on this disallowance motion. The positions that have been outlined by Senator Ray and Senator Ludwig have highlighted that we will not be supporting this disallowance motion. However, we are concerned about a number of matters that relate to the questions that have been raised and highlighted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its report Review of the listing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. I noted the remarks of Senator Ferguson yesterday and Senator Ray and Senator Ludwig today. I particularly note that the joint committee unanimously recommends:

... that the matter be kept under active consideration and requests, in that process, that the Government take into account:

• the number of Australians of Kurdish origin who may support the broad aims of the PKK without endorsing or supporting its engagement in terrorist acts;
• whether it would be sufficient to proscribe the PKK’s military wing—

and the fluid state of the current peace negotiations, or what pass for peace negotiations, with the Turkish state.

I also note the minority report of Senator Faulkner and Mr Duncan Kerr, where they highlight a number of concerns. I specifically draw attention to the fact that this committee mainly works on a unanimous basis; in fact, all of the reports that I have seen from this committee have been unanimous except for this one. It is rare indeed for people on this committee to come back to the parliament with reports indicating a difference of view. This is one occasion where that has occurred.

Senator Ferguson drew our attention to the criteria that have been raised with regard to the listing of the PKK. The minority report draws to our attention that ‘no evidence was placed before the committee that the proposed listing meets the criteria as submitted by ASIO’. Clearly there is a difference of view between members of the committee on whether that matter of criteria has been addressed, and one can only presume that the emphasis should be placed on the words no evidence ‘has been presented’. Senator Ray draws our attention to the fact that these are not mandatory criteria in any event, that they are matters of judgement and, as a consequence, the majority of the committee has taken the view that the action of the government is justified in that regard.

There is also the argument put about the nature of the conflict in Turkey which I think is clearly abhorrent. The fact that 30,000 people have been killed in a civil war is something that no-one could possibly see any virtue in. I read in the CIA’s latest report that there are somewhere between 350,000 and one million people being displaced in the south-west of Turkey. That is something that no-one could take any pleasure in at all. The fact that human rights abuses in Turkey are very, very well documented is something that no-one could take any pleasure in whatsoever.

Turkey is a very interesting country—it is aggressively secular. It is a country, however, that seeks to impose a secular view of its politics to the point where people cannot wear a headscarf, and where the question of national unity is seen to be so important that the teaching of languages other than mainstream Turkish is regarded as a political offence. Certainly that was the case up until very recently, and there is some considerable concern still being expressed about those matters. Anyone who expresses a view about the Armenian genocide is in serious legal trouble, as we have seen recently with the case of prominent intellectuals within Turkey. We have seen that there have been questions raised about the nature of the judiciary, so there are a whole range of issues that need to be addressed. Clearly in those circumstances there are very strongly held views in this country.

My concern, however, is specifically with matters that go to issues of Australians. I have indicated before in this chamber that I have been associated with the Kurdish community in Victoria as a senator for many years. I did not seek, but was awarded, life membership of the Kurdish Association of Victoria. I have worked with the community in my suburb in Melbourne for a very great length of time. Contrary to popular opinion, very few of the community are actually in the Labor Party itself—very, very few indeed—but there are some people who are. I do know this community quite well and I have sought to assist it in terms of migration, social security and all the other work that all of us do on behalf of constituents.

Recently the president and committee of the Kurdish Association approached me to express very deep concern about the implications of this proscription. Ismail Guneser has been in this country for well over 40 years and he expressed a very strong view to me that one of the things that led him to come here was the ability to express your view about political matters. He was deeply disturbed at the prospect that he may be arrested and jailed for carrying a sign. That may well be one of the consequences of this particular proscription. I have pointed out to the association that in my view the proscription of the PKK and its associated entities does not directly affect the Kurdish Association of Victoria because the association is neither proscribed nor listed as an entity of a proscribed organisation. I am concerned, however, that in all the speeches so far from members of the joint parliamentary committee the position has been put that it has been impossible to disentangle the social work of the PKK from its military wing. That is very disturbing, given that it will be an offence under these proscriptions for people to be associated with the PKK and that its social work cannot be distinguished from its military work.

In all the years I have been associated with the Kurdish community in Victoria I have always been impressed with the work they do with regard to Australian citizenship. At their functions there is usually a member from the Democrats; Senator Allison has been at the offices in Pascoe Vale on many occasions. I have seen members of the Liberal Party represented at these functions. I, of course, have been there on many occasions. During these functions you get an opportunity to view the social work and the educational and cultural activities of the community. In all my involvement I have never heard any member of the community express support for illegal activities. I defy any other member of this chamber who has visited or participated in these functions to confound that view.

I also take the view that it is the right of all Australians of Kurdish descent to defend human rights and, in fact, to defend Kurdish national aspirations. I think it is appropriate that people are able to express views about the Kurdish identity and aspirations, and they may not necessarily see that that is the same thing as being directly associated with the PKK. I have sought legal advice on this matter. The legal advice I have received is that the proscription of the PKK also extends to a person who might be regarded and described as an informal member. That means that someone who is involved with other people who he or she knows are members of the PKK may themselves be suspected of being a member of the PKK and therefore become liable for up to 10 years imprisonment as a result of this informal membership. People who are considered formal or informal members of the PKK and who recruit someone else may also be liable to sentences of up to 25 years imprisonment, and members involved in fundraising on behalf of the PKK or an associated organisation risk 15 years in prison. You can understand that members of the Kurdish community are concerned, given the nature of the proscription laws in this country.

But, given that you cannot disentangle association from membership, formal and informal, it does raise certain questions. There are matters that go to the issue of communications with persons who are known to be or are suspected of being associated with the PKK and who might be involved in such activities on two or more occasions. They are liable for three years imprisonment under this proscription.

These are all matters that are clearly open to interpretation. There may be exemptions under the proscription in defence of such activities because of family or religious contact. Given that most of the Kurds I know are extraordinarily secular in their attitudes, it is unlikely that there would be too many religious circumstances, but circumstances could arise where that would occur. These, of course, may well ultimately have to be determined in an Australian court of law. However, it poses some very difficult issues for people who are concerned with the welfare of the Kurdish community and have taken the view that protesting about human rights is something that they should do in a public way.

As I understand the situation, no evidence of illegality in Australia has been presented. There may well be such evidence, but I am not aware of it and the committee was not aware of it, and no evidence has been put before us with regard to the activities of members of the Kurdish community in this country. There are very strong laws in existence in this country for illegal activity, and there ought to be, as far as I am concerned. That is not in question. If people wish to engage in armed conflict, there are inevitably consequences that flow from that. However, this question also applies to dual citizens who get themselves involved in the armies of other countries, and that obviously occurs, as we have seen in recent times. There is a question about the relationship between human rights abuses and the activities of state organisations that also ought to be borne in mind in these circumstances.

It seems to me that the minority report of Duncan Kerr and Senator John Faulkner raises matters that require attention. There is clearly a case for the government to consider this position very carefully and, as has been pointed out to the chamber, there are circumstances arising where that can occur. I trust that that opportunity will be taken. There are clearly matters that require much more careful attention than would otherwise be the case. Given the qualified nature of the report, as Senator Ray has pointed out, I think it is something that we should view with great interest and ensure that it occurs.

The Socialist International recently met in northern Iraq with various political representatives with regard to the Kurdish question. In a circular distributed on 16 June, they make this point:

Conditions for the political representation of Kurds and their enjoyment of other rights remained limited and inhibiting. Cooperation among different political groups was perceived as a positive step in furthering their rights. It was highlighted that the only way to protect and foster the rights of the Kurdish people remained in the political arena and in advancing and deepening democracy without resorting to any form of violence.

That is clearly a view that I support. There are circumstances in Turkey that require urgent reform, and I trust that progress will be made in that regard. I am not aware, however, of anybody in this country, in terms of the work of the Kurdish Association of Victoria, who is actually proposing to break the law or has sought to break the law. I trust that that is the position, and I know that they have very good relationships with the security forces and are well known to them. They come down for a cup of tea on a regular basis. Certain intelligence units in Victoria have made themselves accessible and widely known, so I presume that if there was evidence of breaches of the law then action would have been taken. Nonetheless, it has to be highlighted that there are very large numbers of Australians who are very concerned about the consequences of proscriptions of this nature, and I know that historically there have been circumstances when this type of legislation, this type of proscription, has been abused.

I was recently in Berlin and had the opportunity to have a tour with the President of the Reichstag’s office. I was shown some new exhibits that are on public display in the renovated Reichstag building. One part of that building is an excavated tunnel that used to run under the square between the Reichstag and the Reichsminister’s house, which is now the parliamentary dining room. That is now on public display, as is part of the excavated tunnel. It is on display because, in Germany, there is yet to be an official acknowledgement of who started the Reichstag fire. It is widely believed that the Reichstag fire was started by people associated with the Reichsminister, Hermann Goering, and that the perpetrators of that fire moved from the Reichsminister’s official residence through this tunnel to set fire to the Reichstag. Of course, it was the burning of the Reichstag that led to the various declarations of states of emergency and the various emergency laws when the fascists seized total power in Germany. Those circumstances led to the arrest of people who were described in every instance as terrorists—the Jews and various other groups that the government did not like.

I am not suggesting for a moment that this is the situation, but I use it as an example to highlight that it is very important that we keep a close watch on these issues, particularly when citizens’ human rights and civil liberties are at stake. We need to be highly conscious not only of the right to security of all Australians, which should be at the forefront of our thinking, but also of ensuring that in the pursuit and defence of that right to security we do not sacrifice other rights and make mistakes about the way we seek to secure the people of this country from threats of political violence.