Chapter 2 - The Need for Roadworks and the Involvement of Australian Authorities

2.1   Conditions of the Roads

This chapter shows that the partially completed roadworks at Brighton Beach, ANZAC Cove and North Beach were urgently needed.  It identifies several factors contributing to the decay of the coastal road, including erosion, lack of adequate repair work in the past and the increased volume of traffic over the past five years.  It is important to stress that even critics of the impact of the recent roadworks acknowledge that without major repair work, both the coastal road and the road from Chunuk Bair to Lone Pine posed threats to public safety.

The evidence presented to the Committee was unanimous that the roads around Gallipoli Peninsula were in need of repair.  The continuing popularity of ANZAC Day commemorations has increased the volume of traffic on these roads, particularly coach traffic from the north of ANZAC Cove. 

The number of visitors attending the 25 April 2005 ceremony at ANZAC Cove has increased from roughly 10,000 people in 2002 and 2003, to an estimated 18,000 in 2004 and 17,000 in 2005.[48]  The Committee heard evidence that hundreds of coaches used the roads on and around ANZAC Day.

The roads on the Peninsula are also crumbling from erosion, poor construction and lack of past repair work.  Mr Sullivan asserted that Australian authorities often expressed concerns to the Turkish Government that the coastal road was unsafe.  He stated in evidence that: [49]

... the professional view that there has been horizontal erosion at ANZAC Cove of approximately 10 metres ........ my major concern was that buses...were going past each other on a road that was crumbling into the sea.

Turkish authorities also appear to have held these concerns.  The Committee received a submission from a Turkish-born Australian citizen, Mr Vecihi Basarin, who had spoken to the Turkish authorities responsible for the roadworks.  Mr Basarin wrote that the authorities had told him their concerns that one of the buses full of school children or tourists would be involved in a road collapse into the sea.[50]

The Committee heard evidence that the road from Chunuk Bair down to Lone Pine was also in urgent need of repair.[51]

Mr Sullivan noted that the road is highly arched, and "the prospect of something disastrous occurring is very real".[52]  AVM Beck (OAWG) also noted the "very high crown" on the Chunuk Bair to Lone Pine road made two-way coach access difficult.

AVM Beck (OAWG) further claimed that the connecting road from the Kemalyeri Memorial to Chunuk Bair is "very old narrow bitumen".  In the past, the difficulty of passing parked coaches on this road meant that "hundreds of coaches were not even getting to Lone Pine or Chunuk Bair for the Service".[53]

Mr Bill Sellars, who has lived on the Gallipoli Peninsula in the town of Eceabat for the past three years, gave evidence to the Committee by teleconference.  While a prominent critic of the roadworks, he admitted that both the coastal road and the Chunuk Bair to Lone Pine road were breaking up due to erosion and posed safety and environmental concerns.  In evidence he stated: [54]

Concerning the roadworks, I have said in articles that I have written and in interviews that I have given to the media that there is no question that the roads around ANZAC Cove to the north and south and, indeed, elsewhere on the battlefields were in urgent need of repair.  Here were concerns about safety and environmental protection because of erosion.

Mr Sellars did note that at one point above ANZAC Cove, there had been "some collapsing of the road".  However, he claimed this condition was attributed to the collapse of a culvert built by the Turkish state "many years ago".[55]

Mr Sellars agreed that construction on the Chunuk Bair to Lone Pine road was "definitely necessary", but added that "any widening of the road from its original width would be unnecessary".[56]  The Majority Report relies on his evidence, notwithstanding he has absolutely no expertise to make such assertions.  In addition, it contradicts evidence given to the Committee by a number of qualified and professional persons.

Further, Mr Sellars claimed that widening this road on the scale that was conducted at ANZAC Cove would risk exhuming bones, and the tunnels and trenches still intact from the 1915 campaign.[57] 

Again, the Majority relies on these assertions and fails to take account the evidence given by AVM Beck (OAWG) based on engineering advice provided to him.[58]

AVM Beck—If we could just go to the map, the ridge road—the one running

inland up to Chunuk Bair; the one that runs past Lone Pine—has become a one-way road as part of a loop.  What is currently the dotted line here is now a road; just imagine that as an anticlockwise loop.  The section from Chunuk Bair south to the intersection with Brighton Beach on the coast is one way and very narrow.  There is a section from Chunuk Bair south-east to Kemalyeri memorial, which is not shown there but it is where the fully lined road intersects with the dotted line. That was Ataturk’s headquarters.  There is a memorial there.  That road was very old narrow bitumen. When you have 500 coaches parked on that section, nothing can pass the parked coaches.  Hundreds of coaches were not even getting to Lone Pine or Chunuk Bair for the service. So we have a major problem there in getting to those services.

When the services are over, because all these coaches are parked there it takes hours to move the traffic again.  So quite simply the proposals were to improve that section from Chunuk Bair down south-east to Kemalyeri memorial and perhaps—just a suggestion—to restore two-way traffic to the roads south-west of Chunuk Bair through Lone Pine. Of course, the purpose of twoway traffic is to free up all the coaches. All the Australians at Lone Pine, for example, could leave after their service rather than there being a complete stop of the traffic until all the services are over.

Senator Bishop—I understand that. Given that the road was given specific mention—and I understand your reasoning there—why didn’t you also seek assurances on environmental and heritage research and protection there, it really being the central part?

AVM Beck—Simply because the advice I had from Arup engineering in Istanbul was that that road could be improved—a two-way road—without it impacting on anything other than the existing road surface.

Senator Bishop—Without impacting on anything but the existing road surface?

Air Vice Marshal Beck—Yes.

It is clear from the evidence given that Australian authorities did seek appropriate engineering advice prior to making the request to Turkish authorities.

2.2   Increased Turkish Visitors and Usage of the Roads

In terms of the use of the coastal road, Mr Sellars argued that it is not heavily used except the week around ANZAC Day.  Once again, Mr Sellars evidence is subject to dispute and conflicting accounts from other persons before the Committee and official Turkish Government figures.

The Majority Report agrees that there have been conflicting media reports. 

Ms Fisher (DFAT) stated that Turkish Government figures indicated two million people visited the Gallipoli Peninsula every year.  In evidence she stated:[59]

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Do you have estimates of the number of people who

visit the peninsula every year and how many of them are Turkish?

Ms Fisher—Using the Turkish government figures, we know that over two million visitors visit the area every year. A large majority are Turkish nationals but there are also visitors from other countries.

On 6 March 2005, The Age reported that: [60]

... more than 2 million Turks are expected to visit the area this year.

The article quoted Australian tour operator, Bernina Gezici, as saying: [61]

the road wasn't built because of the people coming for ANZAC Day—it was built because more and more Turks are coming to celebrate what was for them a historic victory.

A rough calculation would indicate an average of 5,479 per day or about 109 coaches (assuming 50 people per coach).

This is in direct contradiction to Mr Sellars' written submission in which he states that most Turkish tour groups do not visit the coastal strip as "there is only one Turkish monument in this region".[62]  He added, "the argument that the road had to be upgraded due to the weight of visitor numbers is not sound".[63]

AVM Beck (OAWG) also gave evidence that contradicted Mr Sellars' testimony: [64]

In his evidence about traffic he said that domestic traffic is mostly down the south as opposed to our area – the ANZAC area.  This is not quite true either because probably the most visited sites are Chunuk Bair, the statue of Ataturk, the 57th Regiment cemetery and all of the memorials in that area. It is true that the coastal road traffic is not as heavy as on the Second Ridge road, but it would be every bit as heavy as down the south.

In evidence to the Committee, Mr Sellars asserts that for all but less than one week of the year, the road is not heavily used.  He asserts that usually, on a daily basis in the warmer months of the year: [65]

you may only get one or two smaller tour coaches coming through with Australian and New Zealand visitors.  On an hourly basis-as when I was there only a few weeks ago – on average there were only 10 or so coaches, or fewer, going through the area.

There is a real issue about the credibility of this evidence.  Mr Sellars resides at Eceabat, which is some 10 kms from the road in question.  It is clear from his evidence that he has based this assessment not on prolonged and constant observations, but on casual viewings when he is in the area.[66]

That is in part correct.  I would say that there are some periods of the year, in about March, when there is heavier traffic.  That is the peak period of Turkish visits, but it is nowhere near the time of ANZAC Day and the days before and following. ... The only time that there are large numbers of visitors from either of those countries is in and around ANZAC Day.

On balance, the evidence of increased usage and especially increased Turkish usage of the site is overwhelmingly against Mr Sellars.  This again calls into question the overall credibility of his evidence.

Mr Sellars seeks to invoke an alleged discussion with Professor Yalinkilic (the same Professor Yalinkilic with whom AVM Beck (OAWG) was having discussions), to bolster his assertion that the work was being carried out to facilitate the movement of Australian and New Zealand tourists and at the request of the Australian Government.[67]

Subsequent to the hearing, he has provided to the Committee a hand written pages of notes which he alleges are his notes of one interview with Professor Yalinkilic.  The notes are undated, unsigned and are of no probative value at all and the veracity of this assertion is questionable.

2.3   The Australian Government's Request for Roadworks on the Peninsula

Whilst Australia and Turkey had a shared concern about the roads at ANZAC Cove, Australia did not request the recent roadworks at ANZAC Cove. 

We would like to highlight the following clear and unequivocal evidence given at the Inquiry by Mr Newman (DFAT), First Assistant Secretary, International Division, DFAT:[68]

Senator Watson—For the public record, could you confirm that Australia did not request the recent roadworks at ANZAC Cove?

Mr Newman—That is correct.

Senator Watson —We shared a belief that some reinforcement may have been necessary in the interests of public safety, but the works of the scale that took place were not sought by the government?

Mr Newman—That is correct.

Senator Watson —Thank you. Could you confirm that Australia at all times has urged that all developments in the ANZAC Cover area should preserve the cultural and historical heritage of the area?

Mr Newman—That is correct.

Chair—You can give the answers before you hear the questions if you like.

Senator WATSON—I do not need any assistance.

Chair —I am sure he does not.

Senator Watson —I think you have recognised the very appreciative stewardship that Turkey has accorded to the peninsula over many years.

Mr Newman—That is correct. It is a very well known thing. Indeed, our chairman made a very impressive statement in the parliament last year to record his appreciation of Turkey.

Access to the ANZAC site has long been a matter of concern to the Australian Government.  Each year, when officials prepare for the ANZAC Day ceremony, discussions on traffic arrangements are held, centring on the adequacy of the existing network and options for improving access for visitors.  Road improvement has long been central to Australian concerns.

In this context, the letter dated 2 August 2004 from the (then) Australian Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Danna Vale MP to the Turkish Minister for Environment and Forests, His Excellency Mr Osman Pepe, is of particular significance.  Minister Vale’s letter proposed several "improvements" to the ANZAC Commemorative Park in light of an expected increase in visitor numbers for the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Canakkale.

The letter was signed on 2 August 2004 but there was a gap between signature and delivery due to a change of ambassadors.[69]

2.3.1   Increased Congestion

The DFAT Submission highlights two important points regarding this reference.

Firstly, that Australian officials at the Embassy in Ankara, working in conjunction with DVA officials, since 2000, had been having ongoing discussions with Turkish officials in relation to traffic flows, congestion, access and safety issues in the preparation periods leading up to ANZAC Day commemorations.

Secondly, the access and safety concerns of Australian officials were shared by the Turkish Government, given the increase in Turkish visitors to Gallipoli.  The DFAT Submission states:[70]

It is estimated that over 2 million people visit the Gallipoli Peninsula every year, most of them Turkish nationals.  About 800 coaches with Turkish tourists visit the peninsula each weekend.

2.3.2   Letter from Minister Vale to the Government of Turkey - August 2004

On 2 August 2004, the (then) Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Dana Vale MP signed a letter to the Turkish Minister for Environment and Forests, Mr Osman Pepe which was subsequently delivered by the Australian Ambassador in when she [H.E. Ms Jean Dunn] gained accreditation.[71]  Mr Sullivan confirmed that the actual date of delivery was 27 September.[72]

Contrary to assertions made both in the Parliament and the media no request was made to widen or change the ANZAC Cove Road. 

Indeed, during the Inquiry various assertions were sought to be made regarding the interpretation of the letter in an attempt to distort the true intention and meaning of the Minister’s position.  In light of this, we believe that the full content of the letter warrants reproduction below:

Minister Vale attached as part of her correspondence a summary of proposed improvements to the ANZAC Commemorative Site.  Approval was sought from relevant Turkish Government ministries for the following proposals designed to accommodate increasing numbers attending the ANZAC Day commemorations on Gallipoli Peninsula:

We would like to stress the point made in the DVA Submission that traffic management for the ANZAC Day services are a major issue with the responsibility residing with the Turkish Jendarme through the office of the Governor of Canakkle.  The DVA Submission particularises some of these concerns:

• Several hundred coaches are needed to transport those attending the services;
• On 25 April the road is made one-way and all coach travel is diverted from the Visitors Centre at Kilye Koyu northwards through Bigali and Buyukanafarts, except in 2005 when a shuttle service for the elderly was allowed to approach from the south during specified times;
• Significant walking distances of up to 7 kms from coaches to the ANZAC Commemorative Site;
• Following the Dawn Service, many people walk to Lone Pine and onto Chunuk Bair with those unable to walk transported in buses;
• Buses proceed along the narrow and dangerous Ridge Road and Gun Ridge Road to Lone Pine and Chunuk Bair.

Again, given the assertions made in the Inquiry, it is important that the specific proposals are detailed in this Minority Report:

• Site Enlargement – widen the site up to seven metres by the removal of native bushes and returfing.  The increased area enabling attendance by about 20,000 visitors.  Additional adjoining area parallel to the road between the site and the toilet area proposed to enable off-site parking for video, generator and media vehicles;
• Toilet Installation - timber retaining walls and gravel surfaces;
• Mains-water supply;
• Installation of traffic bollards;
• Coach turnaround facilities
• Lone Pine War Cemetery – better space utilisation and temporary stands.

The DVA Submission further notes that the Turkish authorities approved final drawings and the 6.3 km of road works along Brighton Beach, ANZAC Cove and North Beach in the second half of 2004.

Criticism was sought to be levelled at DVA for not consulting with the Department of Environment and Heritage in preparing the letter.  However, as AVM Beck (OAWG) indicated, given the very limited scope of the letter, consultation with DEH was not necessary and under the circumstances, such action was justified.[73] 

Furthermore, AVM Beck (OAWG) was questioned as to why the letter concentrated on the Lone Pine-Chunuk Bair-Kamelyeri road within the context of total traffic movement on the Peninsula.  In his reply, AVM Beck (OAWG) stated that: [74]

Because within our traffic plan, that was the major difficulty we faced.

The crux of DVA's confinement of its proposals to this road is evidenced by the following exchange:[75]

Senator Bishop —Understood. Thank you, Mr Sullivan.  We were talking about why the letter concentrated on the Chunuk Bair road.

AVM Beck —If we could just go to the map, the ridge road—the one running inland up to Chunuk Bair; the one that runs past Lone Pine—has become a one-way road as part of a loop.  What is currently the dotted line here is now a road; just imagine that as an anticlockwise loop.  The section from Chunuk Bair south to the intersection with Brighton Beach on the coast is one way and very narrow.  There is a section from Chunuk Bair south-east to Kemalyeri memorial, which is not shown there but it is where the fully lined road intersects with the dotted line.  That was Ataturk’s headquarters.  There is a memorial there.  That road was very old narrow bitumen.  When you have 500 coaches parked on that section, nothing can pass the parked coaches.  Hundreds of coaches were not even getting to Lone Pine or Chunuk Bair for the service. So we have a major problem there in getting to those services.

When the services are over, because all these coaches are parked there it takes hours to move the traffic again.  So quite simply the proposals were to improve that section from Chunuk Bair down south-east to Kemalyeri memorial and perhaps—just a suggestion—to restore two-way traffic to the roads south-west of Chunuk Bair through Lone Pine.  Of course, the purpose of two way traffic is to free up all the coaches.  All the Australians at Lone Pine, for example, could leave after their service rather than there being a complete stop of the traffic until all the services are over.

Senator Bishop —I understand that. Given that the road was given specific mention—and I understand your reasoning there—why didn’t you also seek assurances on environmental and heritage research and protection there, it really being the central part?

AVM Beck —Simply because the advice I had from Arup engineering in Istanbul was that that road could be improved—a two-way road—without it impacting on anything other than the existing road surface.

Senator Bishop —Without impacting on anything but the existing road surface?

AVM Beck —Yes.

Senator Bishop —It was already a two-lane road?

AVM Beck —The problem with the road is that it has got a very high crown and it is very dangerous for passing traffic, and the road would need to be levelled.

Mr Sullivan—There is no disagreement with any evidence that I have heard here today or any submission that I have made about the sensitivity of the ridge road and the statements that, not far off that road, you will enter areas of extreme military heritage sensitivity.  Both the Australian government and the Turkish government fully recognise that.  This was not to say: let us move into what are very sensitive areas.  We continue, again having been invited by the Turkish government, to offer views as to how they can address what is a major problem for them.  The traffic in that area, regardless of 24 and 25 April, through the spring and into the summer months is enormous. Several hundred buses are there each weekend.

The camber of the road has quite a big arch on it.  There is a mix of buses and walkers.  Sometimes you can even see buses passing each other on edges of the camber, and the prospect of something disastrous occurring is very real.  So the Turkish government is looking at how it can address the traffic issue while remaining sensitive to the military heritage issues, and we are certainly assisting in any way we can in looking at that issue.

Senator Bishop —But, by fixing that road up there at Chunuk Bair—going back to a two-lane road—would involve, would it not, widening the current road?

Mr Sullivan—Not necessarily.

Senator Bishop—I am familiar with the road, as is Air Vice Marshal Beck—as you are, Mr Sullivan—and, as you say, there is a heightened crown in the middle of the road.  If you are going to effectively level the road, by definition it will expand out on either side and, as there are significant military heritage sites immediately adjacent to the current road, it strikes me as odd that the request was not made in Minister Vale’s correspondence seeking assurances on that military heritage and environmental protection.

Mr Sullivan—My understanding is that if, in looking at widening that road or looking at making it into two-way traffic, it impinged on the military and cultural heritage issues of the road the Turkish government would not agree, and my knowledge is that the Australian government would urge for it not to happen.  We would have to look at other solutions in terms of traffic management which did not impinge.  Implicit in every bit of material that passes between the two governments on this matter is their shared concern at all times for the conservation of military heritage issues in Peace Park.

The Committee received a submission from environmental consultants Mr Ian Tait and Mr Geoffrey Ostling, which appears to support the proposal for a turn-around facility.  Both Mr Tait and Mr Ostling had attended the 25 April 2005 ceremony at ANZAC Cove.  The first part of their submission noted: [76]

It appears that the audience was only allowed access from the northern access [road]...We were required to walk past several hundred buses parked single file on the side of the narrow road into the cemetery site, a distance of about 5 kms.  The access from the south appears to have only been for the dignitaries and service vehicles...

Why was no centralised parking area or even a bus set-down and turn around area on the northern access round to facilitate the movement of the general public ...

AVM Beck (OAWG) told the Senate Committee Inquiry that the roadworks on a northern coastal road near 'Embarkation Pier' had made a 'marginal improvement' in walking distance to the April 2005 service.[77]  There was also a system whereby those who were over 75 years of age could pre-register to be taken off the coach at the visitors' centre and transported by a shuttle service to within 300 metres of the site.

In short, there were only two road issues for the Australian authorities.  In evidence AVM Beck (OAWG) stated:[78]

Senator Bishop—So there was active consultation all through that negotiation

phase with the relevant Turkish authorities?

AVM Beck—Absolutely.  That included the then Minister for Forests and Environment, Professor Nami Cagan.

Senator Bishop—You mentioned in your discussion that road access was an issue.  Why was that an issue and why did the Turks effectively veto your initial plans?

AVM Beck—The diversion of the traffic north through Bigali and Buyukanafarta in 2000, that first year, occurred completely unknown to us. During those early years there was very limited communication and I fully expected the traffic to go east-west and traverse the site, but it was all diverted. In the years since, that plan has been confirmed and it remains that way today. 

My interest in it was simply getting people to the site to minimise complaints to the minister and to make sure that we could move the people between the services.  I will give you one example.  It was the year 2000 when the Prime Minister was there.  We were only allowed to send 30 coaches up Ridge Road to Lone Pine, and we had over 300.  The road was two-way then.  The loop road, as we call it—which is the one you see running north-east from the Gaba Tepe museum on the map—was not there. That did not exist.

Senator Bishop—The loop road being the dotted lines?

AVM Beck—More or less, yes.  That was a two-way road, north and south, and we were only allowed 30 coaches.  So there were very evident difficulties with the traffic plan right from those early days.

Senator Bishop—Were there also problems with the road planning in terms of the areas north of Ari Burnu?

AVM Beck—No, except that we would have liked somewhere to park coaches.  We could never find any places to park. We tried to negotiate with farmers for the lease of some of the land for parking coaches but it was difficult.  They are all planting tomatoes at the very same time, so that was never possible.  Because it is one-way traffic south, our only problem with the coastal road was where to park the coaches.

Senator Bishop—On the map, what is that dotted line from Embarkation Pier up

around to Lala Baba? What does that dotted line represent?

AVM Beck—I am not sure that that is accurate, but that road is there. It is a coastal dirt road.  As part of the peninsula park development, all the illegal farmlets and houses there have been evacuated and are being demolished.  That is why we used that road this year to try and create a coach park.

Senator Bishop—Your evidence is that when you set up the Australian design competition and your ongoing negotiations with the Turks over there you tried to address issues of road access from down around Gaba Tepe museum.  You also had problems with road access in terms of turnaround or parking facilities in the north.  They are the only two road issues you had?

AVM Beck—Those are the only two road issues.

The above evidences that clearly, the proposals made by the Australian authorities were confined to the two road issues and did not request any work to the coast road.

2.5   The Roadworks Timetable

The Majority Report sets out the following roadworks timetable:

February 2005	Work commenced on the coastal road
2 March 2005	Turkish authorities halted the work following accounts in the Turkish and Australian media that the site was being damaged (see chapter 3 Work resumed shortly thereafter
14 March 2005	The major excavation work commenced on the ANZAC Cove section of the coastal road on 4 March and was completed
18 March 2005	Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan announced that the next major construction work would be on the road from Chunuk Bair to Lone Pine
2 April 2005	The widening of the coastal road and the first layer of asphalt was completed

2.6   The Extent of the Recent Roadworks

The Majority Report states that the most recent roadworks have been confined to the coastal road.  Along this road - from Embarkation Pier in the north to Brighton Beach in the south - there have been six areas of construction work:

• at North Beach, on the seaward side of the road at the foot of Reserve Gully, where a car park has been constructed
• the northern headland of Ari Burnu, where the road has been extended into the hillside
• the seaward end of ANZAC Gully, where a short section has been removed
• on the seaward side of the road adjacent to Shrapnel Valley, where a car park has been built
• the southern headland of Hell's Spit, which has been deepened and raised, and
• on Brighton Beach to the south of ANZAC Cove, there has been a 15 metre excavation.[79]

At the time of the Committee hearing in June 2005, construction work on the coastal road was only partially finished.  The first level of asphalt had been laid and the engineering aspect of the work was complete.  There are two further coatings of asphalt planned, as well as furnishings such as guttering and safety railings.[80]

The Committee heard evidence that the coastal road along ANZAC Cove has been widened from 5.5 metres to 7.0 metres of bitumen.  Either side of the new road is one-and-a-half metres of platform, making the new road's platform roughly 10 metres wide. These measurements vary, however.  Mr Sullivan explained to the Committee that in some places, the old road has cut "significantly inland".[81]

However, irrespective of the extent of the roadworks, this was a matter for the Turkish authorities.  As highlighted in other parts of this report, Australia authorities did not become aware of the extent of the roadworks until February 2005.  Whilst AVM Beck (OAWG) was aware of the master plan of $US64 million of projects on the Gallipoli Peninsula, Professor Yalinkilic provided no indication of the extent of the works.[82]

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page