Introduction

Terms of Reference

On 11 May 2005, the Senate referred the following matters to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2005:

the circumstances surrounding the request by the Australian Government to the Turkish Government in August 2004 to undertake work to ease congestion on the Gallipoli Peninsula;
the role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Office of Australian War Graves, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Environment Australia in the road works, and related construction activity, at ANZAC Cove in the lead-up to ANZAC Day on 25 April 2005;
the heritage protection of ANZAC Cove, including the proposed joint historical and archaeological survey of ANZAC Cove and proposals for the establishment of an international peace park, as well as national and world heritage listing for the area; and
any other related matter.

On 21 June 2005 the Senate extended the time for reporting by the Committee to 18 August 2005.

On 17 August 2005 the Senate further extended the time for reporting to 15 September 2005.

On 8 September 2005, the Senate extended the time for reporting to 12 October 2005.

Background to the Inquiry

We feel compelled to write this Minority Report following a review of the Majority Report. In short, the Australian Government has, at all times, acted appropriately and correctly.

The fundamental starting point of any inquiry on the Gallipoli Peninsula is that it is situated in Turkey and therefore, Turkish laws and Turkish sovereignty prevail. This should have been the starting point of the Majority Report however, unfortunately the Majority Report has been written on the misconceived basis that the Australian Government is responsible for what happens on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Indeed, the few references to Turkish sovereignty in the Majority Report are obscurely concealed as merely passing references.

We are especially concerned that that the allegations made during this political point scoring exercise have the potential to damage relations between Australia and Turkey. As indicated, the starting point is the fact that Gallipoli is in Turkey and Turkish sovereignty prevails. Australia, in any dealings with Turkey in relation to the Gallipoli Peninsula, must therefore rely on the goodwill of the Turkish government and to date the relationship has been cordial and based on mutual respect.

The Inquiry was established purely as a cynical and point-scoring exercise against the Government. The Majority Report adopts an accusatorial tone against the Australian Government. Throughout, the issue has been played out as a grubby political point scoring exercise rather than preservation of a significant and historically important military site.

The Majority Report bases the majority of its finding on the sensational and unsubstantiated evidence of Mr William Sellars, a resident of the Gallipoli Peninsula. The Report fails to adequately and correctly reflect the overwhelming bulk of the written and oral evidence given to the Committee and instead relies on conflicting evidence from Mr Sellars that is beyond his area of expertise, is often baseless and invariably at odds with the evidence of other learned persons giving evidence before this Committee. Mr Sellars, a self-styled historian and journalist (who conceded he has no formal qualifications in history or archaeology) was the source of the media allegations regarding the discovery of alleged human remains and bones during roadworks undertaken by the Turkish authorities. Mr Sellars makes serial appearances around ANZAC Day and tellingly, conceded in evidence that he has financially benefited from his sensationalised media assertions.

Turkey and Australia share a history in Gallipoli. Over the years, goodwill has prevailed and there has been a very positive relationship to date. It would be a very disturbing if the politicisation of this issue caused damage to the relationship between Australia and Turkey. Accordingly, it is important that we rise above the issue and address the facts before this Committee, rather than the hyperbole and innuendo, to ensure that the goodwill, positive relationship and cooperation with the Turkish Government continue.

Conduct of the Inquiry

Submissions and Hearing

The Committee advertised the inquiry on 25 May 2005 and 8 June 2005 in The Australian and on the Senate website. Interested persons were invited to lodge submissions by 10 June 2005 although the Committee agreed to accept submissions after that date.

The Committee received 15 submissions from various individuals, private and non-government organisations and Government departments.

On 17 June 2005, the Committee met in Canberra to hear evidence from the following witnesses:

Name	Organisation	Referred to in Minority Report as follows
Mr William Sellars (via teleconference from his home in Eceabat on the Gallipoli Peninsula)	Private capacity	Mr Sellars
Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) encompassing the Office of War Graves (OAWG)
Air Vice Marshal Gary Beck	Director Office of Australian War Graves	AVM Beck (OAWG)
Mr Ian Campbell	Deputy President, DVA	Mr Campbell (DVA)
Mr Mark Anthony	Secretary, DVA	Mr Anthony (DVA)
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
Ms Denise Fisher	Director Southern European Section DFAT	Ms Fisher (DFAT)
Mr Jeremy Newman	First Assistant Secretary, Americas and Europe Division, DFAT	Mr Newman (DFAT)
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH)
Mr Theo Hooy	Assistant Secretary, Heritage Management Branch, Heritage Division	Mr Hooy (DEH)
Mr David Young	First Assistant Secretary, Heritage Division	Mr Young (DEH)
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C)
Mr Hugh Borrowman	Assistant Secretary, International Division	Mr Borrowman (PM&C)
Mr Ian Kemish	First Assistant Secretary, International Division	Mr Kemish (PM&C)
Mr Andrew Metcalfe	Deputy Secretary	Mr Metcalfe (PM&C)

Subsequent to the hearing of evidence, further documentation has been provided to the Committee.

We note that since the Inquiry, Air Vice Marshal Gary Beck has retired. In a Press Release dated 3 August 2005, the Minister for Veterans Affairs, the Hon. De-Anne Kelly BE MP stated that AVM Beck had served eight years as Director of the Office of Australian War Graves. Given that AVM Beck's term was to expire in January, the Australian Government had decided to advertise the position, affording him the opportunity to apply for the position. We understand that subsequently, AVM Beck has resigned.

Procedural Issue – Non Disclosure of Government Legal Advice

The Majority Report claims to raise a serious procedural issue in relation to the disclosure of Government legal advice during the course of this Inquiry.

It has been a long standing practice of this, and previous Australian governments, not to disclose legal advice provided to a government minister, unless there are compelling reasons to do so in a particular case.

In this instance, as contained in reasoning provided by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials in their evidence to the Committee, no compelling case was made for the disclosure of legal advice provided to DFAT relating to the Treaty of Lausanne.

As is proper based on past practice, the Minister for Foreign Affairs provided the Committee with written reasoning outlining his decision to decline request to provide legal advice and this decision is strongly supported.

Structure of the Report

The Minority Report commences with an Executive Summary, our Findings and Recommendations and Comments on the Recommendations in the Majority Report followed by five chapters which cover the following detail:

Chapter 1 - reviews the historical significance of the 1915 conflict and the Gallipoli Peninsula for both the Australian and Turkish people. It also examines the resurgence of interest in visiting Gallipoli.

Chapter 2 - looks at the need for roadworks on the Gallipoli Peninsula and the adequacy of facilities and in particular, examines the request by the Australian authorities to improve facilities at the Australian Commemorative site.

Chapter 3 - examines the response of the Australian government to damage caused by the roadworks and in particular, focuses on the overwhelming evidence given which contradicts the sensational allegations made by Mr Sellars.

Chapter 4 – examines various research and heritage issues and examines some of the current initiatives by Turkish and Australian authorities to preserve the ANZAC site.

Chapter 5 – examines the completion of the roadworks and other current initiatives, including the work of the Inter Departmental Committee and the Joint Turkey/Australia Second Study.

Executive Summary

On numerous occasions, the Australian Government has expressed its appreciation for the role of Turkish authorities in maintaining the ANZAC sites and in enabling organisation of an annual commemoration of ANZAC Day on the Gallipoli Peninsula.[1]

The Inquiry was established purely as a cynical and point-scoring exercise against the Government without regard to the potential to the damage the close relationship between the people of Turkey and Australia.

The fundamental starting point of this Inquiry should have been that the Gallipoli Peninsula is situated in Turkey and therefore, Turkish laws and Turkish sovereignty prevail. Hence, the Turkish Government can make whatever decisions it deems appropriate on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Therefore, any construction, changes, and/or alterations to the area are matters wholly within the responsibility of Turkey, not Australia. Whilst it is open to the Turkish Government to seek Australia's views in relation to the Gallipoli Peninsula, it is a matter entirely for the Turkish authorities to either accept or reject those views.

The Majority Report bases the majority of its finding on the sensational and unsubstantiated evidence of Mr William Sellars, a resident of the Gallipoli Peninsula. The Majority Report fails to properly and correctly reflect the overwhelming bulk of the written and oral evidence given to the Inquiry and instead relies on conflicting evidence from Mr Sellars that is beyond his area of expertise, is often baseless and invariably at odds with the evidence of more expert persons. Mr Sellars, a self-styled historian and journalist (who conceded he has no formal qualifications in history or archaeology) was the source of the media allegations regarding the discovery of alleged human remains and bones during roadworks undertaken by the Turkish authorities. Mr Sellars makes serial appearances around ANZAC Day and tellingly, conceded in evidence that he has financially benefited from his sensationalised media assertions.

Instead, the Majority Report has been deliberately and knowingly written on the misconceived notion that the Australian Government is somehow responsible for what happens on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Indeed, the few references to Turkish sovereignty in the Majority Report are conveniently and obscurely concealed as merely passing references.

Rather than respecting and preservation of a significant and historically important military site, the Inquiry has been used as a grubby political point scoring exercise aimed at taking cheap political shots at the Government.

We are concerned that that the allegations made during this political point scoring exercise have the potential to damage relations between Australia and Turkey. Australia, in any dealings with Turkey in relation to the Gallipoli Peninsula, relies on the goodwill of the Turkish Government and to date the relationship has been cordial and based on mutual respect.

Gallipoli has been of significance to Australia since the landing of troops on the beaches in 1915 and since then, commemorations have paid tribute to the ANZACs - to celebrate their achievements and to mourn those who had sacrificed their lives.

The significance of the 1915 Allied campaign at Gallipoli in the history of the Australian nation has experienced a resurgence of interest in recent years as a symbol of independence, nationhood, national ethos and identity. The significance of Gallipoli is reflected by strongly growing attendances at ANZAC Day ceremonies at ANZAC Cove over the last decade, and by a resurgence of interest and support for commemorative activities.

The entire Gallipoli Peninsula, is experiencing significantly increased levels of tourism from both Australian and New Zealand citizens but more overwhelmingly, by Turkish citizens with an estimated two million Turks visiting the Gallipoli Peninsula every year.

Arising from high usage, especially due to the millions of Turkish visitors as well as visitors from other nationalities, the roads on the ANZAC site are in need of repair so as to ensure minimum risks to public safety. This has also resulted in the need to restrict access at times of high demand.

Whilst the facilities for those attending commemorations at the Australian Commemorative Site adjacent to ANZAC Cove have been improved, they are still inadequate.

The Turkish Government, in recognition of its responsibilities and the need to provide better access on the Peninsula for visitors of all nationalities, embarked on a program of roadworks.

The Australian Government, through the agency of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Office of Australian War Graves, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, sought improvements to facilities at the Australian Commemorative Site. In a letter from then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Dana Vale to Turkish Minister for Environment and Forests, His Excellency, Mr Osman Pepe, dated 2 August 2004 issues were outlined where assistance was sought from the Turkish Government to cope with increased attendances. The letter concentrated on improving parking arrangements for coaches on the northern side of ANZAC Commemorative Site to cater for larger crowds; on improvements to Ridge Road running past Lone Pine and Chunuk Bair – a substantial section of this road needed to be improved to improve traffic and safety; and on measures to reduce walking distances and easing traffic congestion.

At no time, did the Australian Government request that the ANZAC Cove Road be widened or changed.

Whilst Australian authorities were told in or about October 2004 by a Turkish official that there were a number of projects on the Peninsula that they were going to spend $US64 million, no information was provided on the roadworks. Australian officials did not become aware of the extent of the roadworks until February 2005.

We have rejected the Majority finding that bone fragments were unearthed by the coastal roadworks and that military heritage and significant sites were damaged permanently. These are based on sensationalised allegations, generated primarily by Mr Sellars through the paid media reports. The only person alleged to have found bones at the time of the roadworks was Mr Sellars and then, the bones "disappeared" before a full assessment of their scientific nature, provenance or age could be made. We believe Mr Sellars has used ANZAC Day as a vehicle for profit and journalistic coverage to benefit financially from the stories.

The Inquiry heard evidence of the considerable changes over the years to the landscape at Gallipoli which have resulted in past unearthing of bones.

We have rejected outright the Majority finding that there was no effort made by Australian authorities to investigate allegations that bone fragments had been uncovered, nor to negotiate with Turkish authorities on the extent of the roadworks. The Majority Report overlooks the detailed and compelling testimony of the actions taken by Australian officials both in Australia and in Turkey on the extent of consultation.

Given the longstanding relationship of cooperation between Australia and Turkey, the Australian Government accepted assurances given by Turkish officials about the roadworks.

Australian officials, at all times, acted properly. In this case, we were dealing with actions being undertaken by a foreign Government on its own sovereign territory. Any suggestion or inference that Australian officials ought to have taken direct and interventionary action in these circumstances is totally unjustified and erroneous.

Gallipoli is a recognised international cemetery. The Treaty of Lausanne sets out the responsibilities for maintenance of the area. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) is the properly designated international body responsible for the management of the Gallipoli Peninsula on behalf of all participant countries under the overall control and sovereignty of the Turkish Government. The CWGC has an office at Canakkle on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Australia is a board member of the CWGC. Hence, the reliance by Australian authorities on the advice from the CWGC (this being the body with maximum authority and expertise) that following an extensive examination of the area, no evidence was found that human remains had been disturbed, was entirely appropriate and fully justified under the circumstances

We have recommended that the Australian Government give consideration to basing a full time representative at the CWGC at Canakkle. This appointment would not only formally recognise the importance of the Gallipoli Peninsula to Australia but provide an important resource to assist in the planning of upcoming ANZAC Day ceremonies ahead of the centenary commemorations in 2015 and most importantly, provide a resource to assist the Turkish Government with World Heritage Listing.

The Government of Turkey should be credited with the declaration of the Gallipoli Peninsula as an international peace park, in recognition of its significance as an original WWI battlefield of immense importance to the nations who fought there. Additionally, the Gallipoli Peninsula has been heritage listed under Turkish law.

Discussions regarding heritage listing of the Gallipoli Peninsula on the Australian Register of the National Estate commenced in 2002. Since then, there has been a shift from heritage listing under Australian legislation to more symbolic means of recognition. Much was sought to be made of the failure to list, however, even if the site had been World Heritage listed, there would have been no veto over any roadworks – they could still have gone ahead.

The discussions between Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Erdogan and the press release issued by Prime Minister Howard on 26 April 2005 now form the backdrop to ongoing cooperation and progress on bilateral issues between Turkey and Australia including the Gallipoli Peninsula.

The Inter Departmental Committee is effectively addressing the issues arising from the meeting of Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Erdogan, which covers a range of issues, including, but not exclusively, the roadworks. Whilst any archaeological survey of the roadworks site conducted either prior to or after the commencement of the roadworks is a matter for the relevant Turkish authorities, the Inquiry heard evidence that discussions on the broader historical and archaeological review were underway as to how best these could be progressed.

In summary, the Inquiry was little more than a blatant and unmitigated political exercise undertaken in the full knowledge of Australia's inability to intervene in the Turkish management of the Gallipoli Peninsula.

Findings

Chapter 1 - The Significance of the Gallipoli Peninsula to both Australia and Turkey

The Gallipoli Peninsula is in Turkey and hence, any construction, changes, and/or alterations to the area are fully within the territorial sovereignty of Turkey. They are matters of responsibility of Turkish authorities, not Australia.
Whilst Australia may have views in relation to what occurs on the Gallipoli Peninsula, such views may only be proffered by Australia. What consideration they receive lies in the discretion of the Turkish Government.
Gallipoli has been of significance to the Australia since the landing of troops on the beaches in 1915. Since then, ANZAC Day commemorations have paid tribute to those who had been ANZACs, to celebrate their achievements and to mourn those tho had sacrificed their lives.
The significance of the 1915 Allied campaign at Gallipoli in the history of the Australian nation has experienced a resurgence of interest in recent years as a symbol of independence, nationhood, national ethos and identity.
The significance of Gallipoli is reflected by strongly growing attendances at ANZAC Day ceremonies at ANZAC Cove over the last decade, and by a resurgence of interest and support for commemorative activities.
In the lead-up to the centenary of the 1915 landing, public interest in Gallipoli is likely to grow
The Turkish people commemorate the Canakkale naval and Gallipoli land battles as founding national events. The conflict was Turkey's sole victory in five First World War campaigns. It is seen as the last great victory of the Ottoman Empire.
Kemal, who in 1923 became the first president of the newly-created Republic of Turkey, was commander of the 19th Division at Gallipoli. He was on hand to oppose the Allied landing in April 1915, and was feted for his military strategy. In 1934, Kemal was awarded the title "Ataturk" - father of the Turks.
The official toll of Turkish dead was 87,000 although it could have been higher.
Turkey has seen fit to protect Gallipoli as a national park.
Other nations also suffered heavy losses at Gallipoli including 22,000 British soldiers and 10,000 French.
In addition to millions of Turkish visitors and thousands of Australians and New Zealanders, many other visitors of different nationalities visit the Gallipoli Peninsula.

Chapter 2 - The Need for Roadworks on the Peninsula

The entire Gallipoli Peninsula, which was the field of battle from 25 April to December 1915, is experiencing significantly increased levels of tourism from both Australian and New Zealand citizens and most overwhelmingly, by Turkish citizens.
The ANZAC Cove sector of Gallipoli, as defined in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, is experiencing a similar level of pressure. Turkish authorities do not appear to have imposed any restrictions on access by tourists.
Whilst the facilities for those attending commemorative activities at the Australian Commemorative Site adjacent to ANZAC Cove have been improved, they are still inadequate. There is insufficient space for attendees on ANZAC Day, poor water supply and inadequate toilet facilities.
Whilst improvements have been made at the Australian site, access by road remains difficult, there is insufficient parking space for buses and traffic management arrangements on key ceremonial occasions, including ANZAC Day.
Arising from high usage, especially due to the millions of Turkish visitors as well as visitors from other nationalities, the roads on the ANZAC site are in need of repair so as to ensure minimum risks to public safety. This has also resulted in the need to restrict access at times of high demand.
The Turkish Government, in recognition of its responsibilities and the need to provide better access on the Peninsula for visitors of all nationalities, has embarked on a program of roadworks.
The Australian Government, through the agency of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Office of Australian War Graves, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, sought improvements to facilities at the Australian Commemorative Site.
In a letter from then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Dana Vale to Turkish Minister for Environment and Forests, His Excellency, Mr Osman Pepe, issues were outlined where assistance was sought from the Turkish Government to cope with increased attendances. The letter concentrated on improving parking arrangements for coaches on the northern side of ANZAC Commemorative Site to cater for larger crowds; on improvements to Ridge Road running past Lone Pine and Chunuk Bair – a substantial section of this road needed to be improved to improve traffic and safety; and on measures to reduce walking distances and easing traffic congestion
We find that at no time, did the Australian Government request that the ANZAC Cove Road be widened or changed.

Chapter 3 - Response of the Australian Government in Damage Caused by the Roadworks

The Turkish Government has sovereign authority over the Gallipoli Peninsula and therefore, can make whatever decisions it deems appropriate in the area. Whilst it is open to the Turkish Government to seek Australia's views, it is a matter entirely for the Turkish authorities to either accept or reject those views.
The Australian authorities first became aware of the extent of the roadworks in February 2005.
We reject the Majority finding that bone fragments were unearthed by the coastal roadworks and that military heritage was damaged permanently. These are based on sensationalised allegations, generated primarily by Mr Sellars through the paid media reports.
The only person alleged to have found bones at the time of the roadworks was Mr Sellars and then, the bones "disappeared" before a full assessment of their scientific nature, provenance or age could be made.
We find that Mr Sellars has used ANZAC Day as a vehicle for profit and journalistic coverage to benefit financially from the stories generated by him in recent years.
We find that Mr Sellars lacks the expertise and qualifications to make many of the assertions upon which the Majority Report bases its findings.
We reject the Majority finding that significant sites of the ANZAC campaign between April and December 1915 have been lost forever as a result of the roadworks. We accept evidence that erosion and changes to the landscape at Gallipoli have resulted in past unearthing of bones.
We reject outright the Majority finding that Australian officials did have first-hand knowledge while construction was underway that the roadworks were causing damage to the landscape. The overwhelming evidence given by all officials was that they became aware of the extent of the roadworks in February 2005.
We reject outright the Majority finding that there was no effort made to investigate allegations that bone fragments had been uncovered, nor to negotiate with Turkish authorities on the extent of the roadworks. The Majority Report overlooks the detailed and compelling testimony of the actions taken by Australian officials both in Australia and in Turkey on the extent of consultation.
Given the longstanding relationship of cooperation between Australia and Turkey, the Australian Government accepted assurances given by Turkish officials in relation to the roadworks.
We find that officials from Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), primarily AVM Beck (OAWG), did have discussions with Turkish officials prior to the roadworks, but these were confined to areas which had been the subject of the correspondence from Minister Vale to Minister Pepe.
We find that the procedures for treating human bones at Gallipoli are clear and fall within the responsibility of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC). The CWGC maintains a physical presence at Gallipoli and we find that any person, especially one such as Mr Sellars who purports to have an interest in such matters, ought to have availed himself of the updated information on procedures relating to bone discovery.
We find that at all relevant times, Australian officials acted properly and within the framework of actions being undertaken by a foreign Government on its own sovereign territory. Any suggestion or inference that Australian officials ought to have taken direct and interventionary action in these circumstances is unjustified and wrong.
We reject outright the Majority finding that, by its failure to safeguard the ANZAC Cove site and its Australian military heritage, the Government defaulted on its responsibility to the Australian people, particularly the expectation of veterans. We find this Inquiry to be little more than a blatant and unmitigated political exercise undertaken in the full knowledge of Australia's inability to intervene in the Turkish management of the Gallipoli Peninsula.

Chapter 4 – Research and Heritage Issues

Whilst Gallipoli is recognised as an international cemetery, the Treaty of Lausanne sets out the responsibilities for maintenance of the area. Whilst Australia is a board member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the Commission is the properly designated international body responsible for the management of the Gallipoli Peninsula on behalf of all participant countries under the overall control and sovereignty of the Turkish Government.
We recommend that Australia base a full time representative at the CWGC at Canakkle. This appointment will be a formal recognition of the place that the Gallipoli Peninsula holds in the Australian national psyche, assist in the planning of upcoming ANZAC Day ceremonies ahead of the centenary commemorations in 2015 and most importantly, provide a resource to assist the Turkish Government with World Heritage Listing.
Any historical or archaeological survey of the Gallipoli area is entirely a matter for the Turkish Government. Australia's involvement in his task can only come as a direct consequence of an invitation by the Turkish Government to participate in such a task.
Any archaeological survey of the roadworks site conducted either prior to or after the commencement of the roadworks is a matter for the relevant Turkish authorities.
Reliance on the advice of the CWGC advice, this being the body with maximum expertise and authority, was appropriate and justified under the circumstances.
The Government of Turkey should be credited with the declaration of the Gallipoli Peninsula as an international peace park, in recognition of its significance as an original WWI battlefield of immense importance to the nations who fought there.
We find that progress on the Heritage listing of the site on the Australian Register of the National Estate is at a sensitive stage. Since discussions on this issue commenced, there has been a shift from heritage listing under Australian legislation to more symbolic means of recognition.
Even if the site had been World Heritage listed, there would have been no veto over any roadworks – they could still have gone ahead.

Chapter 5 – Completion of roadworks and other current initiatives

We find that the Inter Departmental Committee is effectively addressing the issues arising from the meeting of Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Erdogan, which covers a range of issues, including, but not exclusively, the roadworks.
We would recommend that the IDC give consideration to any financial commitment to future road works at Gallipoli.

Rejection of the Majority Report's Recommendations

Majority Report Recommendation 1

The Committee strongly recommends remedial action before the onset of winter to stabilise and restore the vegetation at ANZAC Cove. This will ameliorate the scarring caused by the earth works and minimise future erosion.

We reject this recommendation. The Gallipoli Peninsula is within Turkish sovereignty. Following the meeting between Prime Ministers Howard and Erdogan on 26 April 2005, an agreement was reached in relation to various bilateral issues, including pertaining to the Gallipoli Peninsula. We refer subsequently to the Inter Departmental Committee which has been established to give effect to the agreement between the two Prime Ministers.

Any action in relation to the Gallipoli Peninsula is ultimately a matter for the Turkish Government. Australia cannot simply take unilateral action on the territory of another sovereign country.

Majority Report Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends clearer guidelines for the future management, recovery, reburial or storage of human remains at Gallipoli. The current arrangements are clearly not understood, and their effectiveness is doubtful.

We reject this recommendation in that the Treaty of Lausanne establishes the regime for the overseeing of war cemeteries. As indicated above, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is the properly designated international body responsible for the management of the Gallipoli Peninsula on behalf of all participant countries

Given the expertise and standing of the CWGC, our recommendation would be instead to base a full time official at the CWGC's office in Cannakle on the Gallipoli Peninsula. This appointment not only formally recognises the importance of Gallipoli to the Australian national psyche, but is a practical suggestion which will result in on the ground assistance in the planning of upcoming ANZAC Day ceremonies ahead of the centenary commemorations in 2015 and most importantly, provide a resource to assist the Turkish Government with World Heritage Listing.

Majority Report Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends a full military-historical audit of the entire battlefield area at Gallipoli, with Australian priority for the ANZAC area. This survey must be public information and must be continually updated.

This recommendation again, fails to understand that Turkey is a sovereign country and any decisions relating to what may or may not be undertaken on the Gallipoli Peninsula is a matter ultimately for the Turkish authorities. Any investigation, survey or "audit" is a matter for consideration by the Turkish Government.

Furthermore, the Majority Report's recommendation fails to recognise Turkish authorities have already agreed to Prime Minister Howard's proposal for a joint historical survey of the anzac area (including archaeological aspects) to provide a clear basis for balancing development plans for the park and the preservation of key sites.

It is clear from evidence given at the Inquiry that negotiations for this to occur are on foot.

Majority Report Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends that a working group be established by the government to advise it on the coordination of the conservation management planning of the Gallipoli site. This group should include key government departments (including DVA, DEH and OAWG), the Returned Services League, the Australian War Memorial, and historians and archaeologists with specialist knowledge of Gallipoli.

Again, we reject this recommendation. An Inter Departmental Committee has been established which brings together officials from the DVA (including OAWG), DFAT, DEH and PM&C. The IDC's role is to give effect to the agreement of Prime Ministers Howard and Erdogan of 26 April 2005 in relation to a broad range of bilateral matters, including, a wide range of matters pertaining to the Gallipoli Peninsula:

Continued close consultation over symbolic recognition of the historical importance of the ANZAC area;
Further enhanced cooperation on ANZAC issues, including the preservation of sites and the environmental and historical values of the area;
Agreement for a joint historical survey of the ANZAC area (including archaeological aspects) – as referred to in commentary on our rejection of Recommendation 3;
Agreement on a joint engineering review to ensure that the roadworks, including measures to control erosion in the ANZAC area are completed in a way as sympathetically as possible to the landscape;
Cooperation and assistance to provide a safe environment for growing number of visitors to the area whilst protecting important historic sites.

Majority Report Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends that the activities of this working group are documented in annual reports. These reports should be sent to the proposed parliamentary committee (see recommendation 6).

Given the comments made in relation to Recommendation 4, the IDC will be composed of officials from a range of Australian Government departments. As part of the current annual reporting requirements applicable to Departments, significant event reporting will likely occur through the normal departmental reporting processes. Furthermore, Departments are subject to scrutiny pursuant to the Estimates process. This, in our view, will afford sufficient reporting for the IDC.

Majority Report Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends to the parliament that it establish a joint standing military commemorations committee. This Commemorations Committee will exercise bi-partisan oversight over all commemorative programs, including the management of all sites of Australian military heritage. It is hoped that the establishment of the Committee will remove the risk of political exploitation of commemorative events by the government of the day.

We reject this recommendation as we believe that it will lead to a less harmonious relationship between Australia and Turkey than that which has existed over the years. Indeed, as we have expressed earlier, we are concerned as to the effect that the Inquiry may have on the relationship. This report shows that rather than removing the risk of political exploitation, risk will actually be heightened by the establishment of such a committee.

We are concerned that the establishment of such a parliamentary committee further opens up scope for unnecessary and ongoing opportunities for political point scoring. Given the sensationalism that this Inquiry has produced, one can only imagine the effect and magnitude that an ongoing parliamentary committee would generate.

As previously indicated, avenues of current parliamentary scrutiny are sufficient.

Majority Report Recommendation 7

The Commemorations Committee should receive quarterly reports from the relevant government agencies on all commemorative activity and planning, including all memorial construction, event preparation, meetings, agendas, outcomes, public education and budgets. The Commemorations Committee should also receive advice from the working group on all military heritage conservation issues, and develop a rapport with comparable groups in Turkey and New Zealand.

As outlined in our earlier responses to Recommendation 6, a commemoration committee is not necessary for reasons previously outlined.

Majority Report Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government should maintain a dialogue with the Turkish Government on the symbolic recognition of Gallipoli, with the express objective of a management plan for the protection of Australian military heritage at Gallipoli.

This recommendation fails to recognise the ongoing and dialogue already existing between Turkey and Australia from the Prime Ministerial level to departmental level on a wide range of bilateral issues, including those relating to the Gallipoli Peninsula.

Indeed, we are most concerned that the Majority Report may be negatively received by Turkey and has the potential to damage the good relations between the two countries.

Majority Report Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that special arrangements be established whereby discussions and negotiations with the Government of Turkey with respect to the international recognition of Gallipoli should be reported to the new parliamentary standing committee on a quarterly basis.

Based on our previous comments in relation to Recommendation 6, we believe such a committee is not necessary.

Since 2002, the Howard Government has kept the Australian people, through the appropriate avenues, well informed as to the progress of recognition of the Gallipoli area. In keeping with this approach, we are confident that any future decisions will be similarly dealt with.

List of Abbreviations

ANZAC	Australian and New Zealand Army Corps
CWGC	Commonwealth War Graves Commission
DEH	Department of the Environment and Heritage
DFAT	Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
DVA	Department of Veterans' Affairs
IDC	Inter-Departmental Committee
OAWG	Office of Australian War Graves
PMC	Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Committee Hansard Proof Committee Hansard, Senate, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Friday, 17 June 2005, Canberra

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page