Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I will try not to take up my full 10 minutes, but I think that this is an important matter and that the extra information that was tabled contains further worthwhile material for people to examine. There are a few aspects of this issue of roadworks at Gallipoli peninsula, specifically at Anzac Cove. Firstly, there is no doubt that it is significantly noticeable. I had the great fortune and privilege to be able to visit Gallipoli towards the end of last year—in a delegation headed by the current Acting Deputy President, Senator Ferguson—and get a very good look at parts of the Gallipoli battlefields. It is quite a large area, so we did not get to look at all of it, but we certainly looked around the Anzac section. There is no doubt that the roadworks make a significant and fairly noticeable cut into the slope of the hill.

I suppose the most important aspect from here on is to recognise that what has been done has been done. Also, I think that it should be said that some degree of roadworks was probably necessary for public safety, given the way the park operates at the moment. I think the big problems with what occurred were that the work was not done as sensitively as it could have been done—it was a bit crude—and also the refusal of the relevant ministers in the federal government to acknowledge that they were involved in it. So we had this continuing obfuscation and running out of the line: ‘Oh, well, it is all up to the Turks. We can’t do anything about it.’ Obviously, at the end of everything, it is up to Turkey what they do with their own land. But we as a nation, as a government, do have input into what happens there and the Turks, quite laudably, enable Australia to have input into what happens in that area.

Clearly, we were involved in requesting the roadworks and were aware they were going to happen. It was the refusal to acknowledge that, and the continual red herrings to distract attention from that, that I found most frustrating. I think the roadworks were less than ideal and the process was less than ideal. As Senator Forshaw just said, that is an opinion shared by others from the UK, who we could suggest have perhaps a bit more of an impartial view than any of us in this chamber.

The big issue is where we go from here with the whole Anzac Cove area and, indeed, the Gallipoli peninsula itself. That is something that I think more attention needs to be paid to, rather than having a continuing political controversy about the roadworks and doing a lot of finger pointing about that and ignoring the whole future of the Gallipoli peninsula and the Anzac Cove area. There are significant issues that really do need to be tackled. And there is work being done on those; I am not suggesting that there is not. But I think there needs to be more acknowledgement of and greater priority given to what needs to be done, greater recognition of some of the challenges that are coming and less sensitivity about the concerns that people rightly have about whether the area is being properly protected.

While it is not always acknowledged in Australia, it has to be emphasised that the Gallipoli peninsula is immensely significant to the Turkish people as well. It is not so much Anzac Cove; they are more interested in the top of the ridge line where all the Turks were, repelling the Australians, rather than where the Australians ran onto the beach and up the hills. Nonetheless, the whole area was the site of the slaughter of many Turks, over 100,000 from memory—enormous carnage. The site is also very significant in the development of what one might call the mystique surrounding the modern Turkish republic’s founder, Kemal Ataturk. So it is not as though Turkey does not care what happens there.

It has to be said that the battlefield in many ways has been significantly altered—it has been over 90 years now—and not just because of the passage of time. Sadly, that includes cemeteries, monuments and roads all across the battlefield. It is simply not realistic to suggest that the whole place can be kept in some sort of time capsule, the same as it was in 1915. The beach itself of Anzac Cove has changed dramatically. It is much shallower now than it was 90 years ago. A bit of erosion from the roadworks may have contributed to that, but it was certainly already the case anyway. So we have to acknowledge that and recognise that we cannot keep it in a time capsule.

Another aspect of this issue, a point that I like to emphasise whenever I get the opportunity, is the future management of the area. The numbers of visitors to the Gallipoli peninsula have skyrocketed in recent years. The high numbers of Australian visitors are well noted and there are growing numbers of Turks visiting. Those sorts of visitor numbers put enormous pressure on the site, particularly around Anzac Day, of course, when there are hordes of people all over the place for the dawn service and the like.

What I believe we need to look at is shifting it away from a place that people can drive all over, where buses drive in and out and all over the place, and moving towards setting up a visitors centre at the entrance to the park. Perhaps people could be ferried around on shuttle buses with commentary and interpreting services and those sorts of things. Some of these things have been suggested in the past and adopted up to a point, but for various reasons the infrastructure has not advanced as far as is desirable. I think that is where the effort needs to be from here.

I think it is important to recognise that our relationship with Turkey should be about a lot more than Gallipoli, but it does present a unique bonding opportunity for us and that very significant country. It is a good platform for Turkish attitudes towards Australians; we can start a little bit ahead of people from other nations because we already have that positive appreciation of Australia from many of the Turks. Turkey is going through a very important period, including its potential entry into the European Union, a goal in which I hope very much it succeeds. It has an absolutely critical geopolitical role in the region as the bridge between Asia and Europe. It has a very significant role as a heavily Islamic country but one that is a secular democracy. It certainly has difficulties and issues that it has to work through; it could probably do with being a little less sensitive to criticism as well—in fact, it definitely could.

But it is in our interests as a country to make use of the advantages we have in our relationship with Turkey. Whilst that relationship has to be about more than just Gallipoli, Gallipoli is always going to be a key part of it. We should make sure for the sake of our future relationship, as well as out of respect for the memory of the many Australians who died there and the role that Gallipoli has in our nation’s psyche and history, that we do more to protect the Gallipoli peninsula into the future—not just Anzac Cove but the whole area surrounding it. I think we should also make it more accessible and presentable, so people can be more aware of the story and the facts surrounding the events there. As an aside, I take the opportunity to recommend Les Carlyon’s book Gallipoli, a history of Gallipoli. It is very insightful. Getting the truth out about what happens in war is not always easy, but I think we need to do that as well—not just the legends and the myths but also some of the facts, because they are very useful for us to learn from.

So I hope that in amongst all the political finger-pointing around this issue, some of it justified, we do not lose sight of the main game, which is the future protection of the entire Gallipoli peninsula and the opportunity to present it positively to future generations of Australians and, indeed, to future generations of Turkish people.

Question agreed to.