Chapter 3 - Allegations of Environmental Damage and Australian Authorities' Response

This chapter examines the two main criticisms of the recent construction work on the coastal road on the Gallipoli Peninsula.  The first is that the roadworks allegedly uncovered bone fragments of soldiers killed without burial in the 1915 conflict.  The Majority Report asserts that there has been accompanying concern that no archaeological survey of the site was conducted prior to the construction work commencing and includes the concomitant inference in the assertions that the Australian Government ought to have conducted the archaeological survey. 

Again, this fails to take into account the fundamental issue that the Gallipoli Peninsula is Turkish sovereign territory and that any decision in relation to a survey or other matter on the Peninsula is a matter for the Turkish authorities.  It would be totally out of place for Australian authorities to have turned up on Gallipoli and purported to go ahead and conduct any survey, archaeological or otherwise, on Turkish sovereign territory.

The second criticism levelled in the Majority Report is that the roadworks have caused permanent damage to the military heritage of the landscape.  It is claimed that the road has been widened beyond the extent necessary to ensure visitors' safety; that soil has been deliberately dumped onto the beach below; that there were no environmental measures put in place to minimise erosion from the construction; and that no effort was made to preserve the footsteps of the original ANZACs.  Also that no effort appears to have been made to identify and record sites of military heritage by Australian authorities, despite representations to do so prior to the work. 

Yet again, this analysis is flawed as it fails to critically recognise the first principle that does, and must properly underline any inquiry into matters on the Gallipoli Penninsula – that is, that the fundamental premise that the Gallipoli Peninsula is Turkish territory and that any decision in relation to roadworks, soil movements, or other changes to the landscape is a matter for decision of the Turkish authorities.  It would be totally out of place for Australian authorities to dictate to the Turkish authorities how they undertake activities on their own sovereign territory, just as we would rail against any attempt by Turkish to impose similar requirements on Australian soil.

However, this does not sadly prevent the Labor Members of this Committee from using the resources of a Senate Committee to wage a politically motivated ‘fishing expeditation’ in the full knowledge that what is being asserted is wrong.

This chapter outlines the response of Australian authorities to these claims.  It does so based on official public statements from Government Ministers, submissions and the evidence presented to the Committee by officials from the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA), the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC).

3.1   Summary of the Australian Government Position

A summary of the Government’s position on ANZAC Cove was made clear in Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP’s media release of 23 April 2005.  It states:

Recent weeks have seen various claims, including in the Australian Parliament, about the involvement of the Australian Government in the road works which have taken place at ANZAC Cove.  In particular, it has been claimed that the former Minister for veteran’s Affairs, the Hon Dana Vale MP, requested these works.

I have decided to release the letter of 2 August 2004 from Mrs Vale to the Hon Osman Pepe, Turkish Minister of Environment and Forests.  The letter addressed improvements to the Dawn service site and possible works on an entirely different road on the peninsula, not work on the ANZAC Cove Road.  [underlined added] (The specific section of road where Mrs Vale was actually seeking improvements was the stretch of road between Chunuk Bair and the Kemalyeri Memorial.  It has since been resealed.)

While it was common ground between Australia and Turkey that some reinforcement and improvement of the ANZAC Cove Road was needed, I feel I should put it on record that works of the scale that have actually taken place were not sought by the Australian Government.

There is and should be no question that the road at ANZAC Cove was in need of repair and improvement to cope safely with the increasing number of Turkish and foreign visitors to the peninsula each year, and not just on ANZAC Day.

As indicated in the DFAT Submission, significant roadworks began in February 2005 at ANZAC Cove. 

3.2   Allegations of unearthing of bone fragments and damage to landscape and Australian authorities' response to allegations

Term (b) of the Terms of Reference specifically requires that the Committee examine roles 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 Majority Report seeks to cover Term (b) through a series of allegations and sub-allegations interspersed with commentary and findings. 

Indeed, an analysis of the Majority Report highlights that the principal source of the allegations relied upon to make the above criticisms of the Government are based on nothing more that unsubstantiated sensational media reports, fuelled principally by Mr Sellars. As we heard in Mr Sellars' own evidence, financial reward was received in exchange for information and allegations.

3.2.1   Allegations that bone fragments have been unearthed

The Majority Report states that in terms of the effect of the roadworks, a matter of key interest to the Committee was the allegation that human remains, namely bone fragments, had been unearthed in construction works on the coastal road.

This allegation was first made public on 6 March 2005 in Frank Walker’s articles in both The Age and the Sun Herald.[83]  The Sun Herald article reported that human remains: [84]

are believed to have been dug up and destroyed by Turkish workers as they widen a road for tourist buses on ANZAC Cove.

We would stress that the sensationalism is based not on fact, but on a mere supposition or belief.  Furthermore, the accompanying photograph showing a truck and heavy lifting machine, has the following caption underneath it:

Roadworks for bus parking have disturbed the previously pristine ANZAC Cove, leading to fears for the many unmarked graves.

Photo: Bill Sellars

This is totally misleading because the photograph was taken in February 2004 and not in March 2005 as the article implies.  At the Inquiry, Mr Sellars was forced to correct the deliberately misleading statement:[85]

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Mr Sellars, I would like to take you to your article.  You have been mentioning the Daily Telegraph, but of course there are other articles.  There was one in The Age of 6 March which included a photograph taken by you. When did you take that photograph?

Mr Sellars—Within, I would say, a couple of days of its publication—within about two or three days of that. I could check on my computer when the photograph was generated.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Is that the only photograph you have taken?  Have you taken photographs in the past?

Mr Sellars—Do you mean prior to the excavation work or from the time the work began?

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Prior to the excavation works.

Mr Sellars—Yes, I have.  Over the many years since I first visited the battlefields I have taken photographs of many of the areas there.  And since the excavation work began, when I first visited the site some days after the work had begun, I took photographs at that time and, I believe, probably on every subsequent visit to the area.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Does that include the photograph that you took that was referred to in the article?  There is an article in the Daily Telegraph of 13 February.  I have the transcript but I do not have the photograph.  I assume that you took the photograph that was included with that article?

Mr Sellars—What was the date given? Did you say 13 February?

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —The date was 13 February 2004.

Mr Sellars—I beg your pardon, I thought you were referring to the roadworks. If that is a photograph of a heavy lifting machine and the story details the proposal to charge admission fees to the battlefields, yes, that was my photograph.

We would like to state at the outset that Mr Sellars has no qualifications in history or archaeology,[86] yet professes to make assertions in areas of which he has no professional expertise.  He deposed to the Inquiry as follows:[87]

Senator Fierravanti-Wells—Thank you, Mr Sellars. Taking you back to your

qualifications: basically you have no academic qualifications.  Is that the situation? Yes or no?

Mr Sellars—I have academic qualifications, yes. I have a degree in writing. I do not have academic qualifications as far as a degree in the study of history.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —So you are not a qualified historian. Do you have any qualifications in archaeology? What is your expertise? You have made substantial comments in your submission—

Chair—Slow down the questions a little bit because of the telephone connection.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —I will slow down my questions. Mr Sellars, you have made substantial assertions in your submission about archaeology—

Chair —It seems that we have lost the telephone connection. Can we get the connection restored?  We are now back on air. Mr Sellars, Senator Fierravanti-Wells was just asking you some questions when we were cut off.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —We were talking about your qualifications, Mr Sellars.  You have just indicated to me that you do not have qualifications in history and you do not have qualifications in archaeology.  You also assert that you are a journalist.  Do you have qualifications as a journalist?

Mr Sellars—I have a degree in writing from what is now the University of Canberra.  I have also worked as a journalist full time and professionally since 1989.  With respect to your questions or your comments on my qualifications—

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Mr Sellars, I simply asked you: yes or no? I was satisfied with your answer.  You live some 10 kilometres away.  Tell me how long you have been at Gallipoli.  You have been at Gallipoli now for—what—three years?

Mr Sellars—I have been living on the peninsula for three years. I first visited it more than 17years ago.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —What is your regular work, Mr Sellars?

Mr Sellars—As I have explained, I am a journalist.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —I see. And who do you work for?

Mr Sellars—A variety of media outlets.  Part of my work is freelance.  I write English language news material for the television networks here in Turkey for their internet site.  I am an accredited correspondent to a magazine in Paris.  I write on occasion for the Daily Telegraph and also business and commodities publications in England and elsewhere in Europe as well as contributing other articles on a freelance basis to other publications.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —How many reports do you regularly file on Gallipoli?  Or do you only do it on and around ANZAC Day?

Mr Sellars—It would depend on the circumstances of the story and the events.  I believe this year I filed three stories—or it could have been four—on various issues around ANZAC Day, not all of them to do with the roadworks.  Last year I believe I filed two stories that had any relationship to the Gallipoli Peninsula.  The year before that I do not believe I filed any around ANZAC Day.  At the time of ANZAC Day most Australian media outlets send their own staff reporters so the pickings can be somewhat slim for freelance writers here.

The importance of the above deposition is threefold.  Firstly, Mr Sellars' assumes that by virtue of the fact that he resides at Gallipoli, it gives him authority to speak on a range of matters of which he has no expertise or qualifications.  Secondly, he has some qualifications in writing and works as a freelance journalist.  Thirdly, he derives financial benefit from writing about Gallipoli and given the nature of his writings over the past years, this has been sensationalised allegations about access fees (which never eventuated) and bones (which then disappeared).  The implication from the above testimony is that he needs to write his stories before ANZAC Day because the major Australian media outlets send their own journalist to cover ANZAC Day and that as a primary source of income, he has tended to write an annual batch of Gallipoli stories in the period leading up to ANZAC Day for pecuniary gain.

It is curious to also note that whilst Mr Sellars states his regular work is that of a journalist, he then seems somewhat coy about some fees paid to him.  Indeed, he is at pains to seek to differentiate work he gets paid for and unpaid work.  The following evidence also raises some interesting issues:[88]

Senator Fierravanti-Wells—You indicated earlier that you have no commercial

interests.  Does that mean that, when you file your stories et cetera, you are not paid for anything?

Mr Sellars—Thank you for clarifying that.  As a working journalist, when these stories appear I am paid if commissioned by a media outlet.  I do not charge money for any of the interviews that I have conducted with the Australian media. I have been paid for two stories that have appeared in the Australian media.  They pertain to the Gallipoli peninsula and the developments and the roadworks there.

At first, Mr Sellars is telling the Inquiry that he has only been paid for two stories.  He then goes on to depose that notwithstanding he is much sought after for his work, he does not actually charge fees.  This seems a somewhat unusual proposition.  His evidence continued as follows:[89]

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —I notice in the introduction to your submission you tell us that you are much sought after by writers and documentary film makers. Could you tell us a little bit more about that and the commercial nature of these enterprises?

Mr Sellars—I may be sought after.  I do not actually charge fees.  As I have mentioned previously, I think in answer to Senator Watson, I have acted as a historical consultant to a Turkish documentary production here.  There was no fee involved in that.  Other historians have at times sought my advice or input.  I do not work on a fee-charging basis for such activities.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Can I just summarise that by saying that, in short, you have not derived any commercial benefit from any story—sensational or otherwise—that you have promulgated, published or otherwise contributed to in relation to ANZAC or Gallipoli?

Subsequently, Mr Sellars advises he was also paid well in advance for commentary on Channel Nine.  Indeed, it lends further credence to the proposition that Mr Sellars' actions regarding the roadworks were part of an extended and premeditated campaign by him to generate sensational allegations from which he ultimately derived commercial gain:[90]

Mr Sellars—As I made clear before, I was commissioned by one Australian newspaper, the Daily Telegraph. I have been paid for two stories.  There was also a fee for providing some commentary provided by the Nine Network well in advance of ANZAC Day.  Those are the only payments that I have received and I have never sought payment for interviews.  I must say that the Channel Nine payment was something of a surprise, because I had neither asked for nor expected to have it.  And I should say, whether you are implying this or not, I have not been involved in the campaign to make public and put on the open forum what is being done here on the peninsula as an attempt to either gain monetary benefit or enhance my career in any way.

Notwithstanding his denial to gain monetary benefit, he forcibly maintains he was the first to go public with his sensational allegations:[91]

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —So, as to your last comment, when you say in your

submission, ‘I was the first who went public in the media,’ that is not the case, then?

Mr Sellars—It is most definitely the case that I was the first person to go public in the media saying there were human remains being disturbed by the roadworks.  In that statement I was trying to make a clear point, identify myself and explain my involvement and my qualifications to discuss the matter of the human remains, the other issues of damage to the area and the disturbing of historical relics and artefacts in the area.

It seems very strange that a person whose "regular work" is as a journalist, then distinguishes between what he is or is not paid for.  We believe that in recent years Mr Sellars, in anticipation of ANZAC Day has deliberately sought to raise sensationalised claims from which he has then directly gained monetary benefit.  Previously he did this in relation to an allegation about access fees which were never proposed and never imposed and more recently, about human bones he alleges to have found but which then disappeared.

The Majority Report states that both articles noted Mr Sellars' claims that the roadworks must have dug up human remains as many Australians and Turks were hastily buried on the beach and Cliffside – not that bones were dug up but a mere hypothesis that the roadworks "must have" dug up remains.  Again, sensationalism not based on solid facts, but on a mere hypothesis from an unqualified amateur archaeologist.

Again, Mr Sellars' testimony regarding the bones he allegedly dug up is questionable.  In short, he asserts that because he has allegedly found bones in the past, then the roadworks must have "dug up remains this time".  The following extract from his testimony demonstrates the lack of credibility of this witness:[92]

Senator Fierravanti-Wells—We do not have a copy of that but it would be useful if you could provide a copy of it as well.  In the article in the Age of 6 March 2005, you are quoted as saying that the roadworks must have also unearthed human remains.  You were not sure about that, were you?

Mr Sellars—I was positively sure, because I had seen human remains before that time.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells—From the way it is attributed to you, it does not seem clear.

Mr Sellars—It may not be—

Senator Watson—It was your story.

Mr Sellars—but I can assure you that I have seen human remains prior to 6 March.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells—You say, ‘I am always finding bones from soldiers that were buried’—

Mr Sellars—Is that in a story by-lined by Mr Russell Skelton or by me? I think I heard Senator Watson saying, ‘It was your story.’

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —I did not say it was your story, Mr Sellars. I am just saying that there are comments—

Mr Sellars—Does my name appear—

Chair—Order! We can only have one speaker at a time, please.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —I do not wish to pursue it.  Mr Sellars, the article quotes you as saying, ‘I am always finding bones from soldiers that were buried there in the first few days of battle to get ashore.’  So what is your basis for asserting that you are so sure that they were all there from the first few days?  You told me before that you do not have archaeological qualifications so how can you make that sort of assertion?

Mr Sellars—Probabaly the assertion could be made—not as an archaeologist but in some ways as a historian—that that area was only fought over extensively on the first day of the campaign.  There was extensive shelling of the area—as I have also written in another article—throughout the campaign, from the morning of the landing until the final evacuation of the ANZAC beachhead in December. So, yes, the case is that I have often found human remains in that area.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Thank you, Mr Sellars.

Mr Sellars—That story was not by me. I would not have quoted myself in my own story, so it was written by another journalist.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —I did say that, but they do quote you in inverted commas.

Mr Sellars—Yes.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Are you saying that you have been misquoted?

Mr Sellars—In reference to this story, no, I have not. I can think of one other story in which I was misquoted, yes.  The journalist later acknowledged that he had not accurately reflected my comments.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —In this case, Mr Sellars, you agree with me that you have not been misquoted?

Mr Sellars—I do not believe that I have. I have not got the exact story in front of me. It was some time back.  There is a high probability that there are human remains in that area which may well have come from the initial day’s fighting.  Alternatively, they may have been generated through casualties from indirect artillery fire later in the campaign or from erosion of the battlefields bringing debris down over the last 90 years.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —But you are not sure, Mr Sellars and that is very clear from the comments that were made by and attributed to you. So you are not really sure, are you?

Mr Sellars—No. Not to the extent of—

Senator Fierravanti-Wells —Thank you.

On 12 March 2005, Mr Sellars himself authorised articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun, which allegedly produced photographs of: [93]

what appear to be leg and hip bones at the road construction site.

The articles claimed that the photographs refuted statements by the Australian and Turkish Governments that no human remains have been dug up at Gallipoli.  We refute the veracity of these assertions and indeed, the Inquiry was offered no proof of the authenticity of any of the photographs including when the photographs were allegedly taken, by whom and where they were taken.

The Committee heard evidence from Mr Sellars concerning his comments on the unearthing of bone fragments.  Mr Sellars alleges that on 1 March 2005, Fairfax journalist Russell Skelton, Turkish tourism operator Ilhami Gezici and his wife Bernina, and 'a number of other people' were all present when the bones were found.[94]  Mr Sellars subsequently identified these other people as his wife, Ms Serpil Karacan Sellars, and a tour guide with 'Hassle Free' tour agency named Baris.[95]  Interestingly, no evidence was proffered by any of these five people that supported Mr Sellars' allegations.

It is particularly important to note that Mr Sellars alleges Mr Skelton was present at the time when the bones were allegedly found.  However, in his articles of 10 April 2005 in the Sun Herald and in the Sunday Age, or in his article of 17 April 2005 in the Sunday Age Mr Skelton does not disclose that he was present when the bones were allegedly found.  Given this was the key complaint in the articles, it would not be unreasonable to assume that if Mr Skelton had indeed witnessed so important an event as the alleged discovery of human bones, he would have specifically and deliberately stated this in his articles?  We believe this casts some doubt on the circumstances of the alleged finding of bones and at the very least, calls for further corroboration of Mr Sellars' claim that Mr Skelton was present when human remains where discovered.

In his opening statement, Mr Sellars told the Inquiry that in mid-March 2005, the Australian Ambassador to Turkey, HE Ms Jean Dunn, had discussed these allegations with him.  Mr Sellars asserted that he explained to the Ambassador that one of the bones had been removed soon after he, Mr Skelton, and the others present had found it at the site.  The Inquiry was told however, that Turkish employees of the company carrying out the roadworks had removed the bone fragment.[96]  This seems a curious turn of events that, having made allegations of finding bone fragments, the alleged find mysteriously disappears.

Mr Sellars held himself out to be a "writer and historian".[97]  It is surprising that, for someone who professes to have such a love and respect for the Gallipoli Peninsula, he is remarkably ignorant of the proper way of dealing with the finding of bones.  He stated that: [98]

I live on this peninsula because I choose to do so and I have the greatest respect for all the soldiers of all nations who served and fell here.  My concern, as a mark of respect to the men and indeed some women of all nations who were involved in this campaign, is to preserve the battlefield in the best way that it can be using best management practices and causing the least amount of damage to this site that is of great historical and heritage importance to the people of our country and, in particular, the people of Turkey and New Zealand.

Notwithstanding this, it is clear from his own evidence that Mr Sellars was not aware of the proper process for the discovery, identification and disposal of human remains.  He sought advice "many years ago and have since acted on that advice."[99]

There are a number of troubling features and inconsistencies about Mr Sellars' evidence on this point:

• his clear lack of knowledge of the proper procedure for dealing with human remains;
• his failure to acquaint himself with the proper procedures given his comment that he is "always finding bones from soldiers that were buried there in the first few days of battle to get ashore";[100]
• given his self-styled expertise as a "writer and historian",[101] one would assume that he would not only have made an effort to contact the CWGC and appraise himself of current procedures – he admitted in evidence that he was relying on information provided to him almost twenty years ago (in 1988) when he alleges he first found bones;[102]
• having allegedly sought advice "many years ago" and had "since acted on that advice";[103]
• given he has resided on the Gallipoli Peninsula for the past 3 years and in Turkey for 10 years,[104] one would assume that he knew of the location of the CWGC and indeed, ought to have made some effort of at least some contact with the very body that has responsibility in his area for something he avows to have a clear passion and interest in;
• his clear admission that he had not spoken to the current CWGC officer based in the Gallipoli Peninsula area;[105]
• given his outdated information, it is clear that Mr Sellars made little or no effort to formalise any alleged find through the proper channels but rather chose to adopt more sensationalised methods through the media, some of which netted him financial gain;
• having allegedly found bones, he should have notified the CWGC.[106]

The Majority Report refers to skeletal findings made in January 2003 by Australian archaeologist Dr David Cameron.[107]  We have referred to the website headed "January 2003 News" which refers to a photo of "Debris located on Walkers ridge, femur at ANZAC Cove, the Sphinx" courtesy of Dave Cameron. 

We have examined the website and quote the relevant background and explanation to the finding:

THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF THE ANZAC GALLIPOLI BATTLEFIELDS OF 1915

David Cameron and Denise Donlon (Department of Anatomy and Histology, University of Sydney) are submitting an ARC Discovery Grant application based on the archaeology and history of the ANZAC Gallipoli Battlefields of 1915.  A joint preliminary survey conducted of the ANZAC Battlefields, by Cameron, Peter Dowling and their Turkish colleagues from the 18th March University, during January 2003 has confirmed the viability of this project.  Cameron and Dowling also had extensive discussions with Professor R. Bademli of the Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park (Middle East Technical University, Ankara), representatives from the Turkish National Parks (Ankara) and colleagues from the 18 March University (Çanakkale, Turkey) concerning joint fieldwork projects and publications.  These discussions, along with talks conducted with the Australian Office of War Graves, Environment Australia, the RSL and the Australian Ambassador to Turkey have resulted in the refinement of project aims (see below).  This trip has resulted in close ties being drawn between these institutions and the University of Sydney and the ANU.

Archaeological excavations will attempt to reconstruct the movement of ANZAC and Turkish troops through the landscape of Baby 700 and Battleship Hill during the first day of the landings.  Another set of excavations will attempt to locate the furthest inland point reached by Australian troops on the morning of 25th April.  In addition to these excavations, for the first time a detailed survey of the ANZAC battlefields in the Gallipoli Peninsula will be undertaken to document the archaeological remains in detail.  We will also for the first time address issues associated with potential environmental impacts associated with ongoing road works and visitor facilities being planned for the Peninsula.  This will involve a number of student dissertations.  We will work with Turkish authorities to help limit the impact that increased tourism and ongoing problems associated with erosion are having on places of historic and cultural significance.

The extract also describes the archaeological finding in the following terms:

Photos: Debris located on Walkers ridge, femur at ANZAC Cove, the Sphinx, courtesy Dave Cameron.

It is also interesting to note the scope of the study:

While this project is not actively searching for human remains, it is important that any remains discovered be examined in order to assist in determining their national identity.  This level of identification will enable them to be reburied in the most appropriate cemetery on the Peninsula.  Identification will be conducted using archaeological techniques, forensic anthropological examinations, DNA and isotope nitrogen/oxygen ratio studies.  Finally this project will provide an English translation of the Turkish Official Histories of the Gallipoli Campaign.  This will for the first time enable non-Turkish reading scholars to finally include Turkish accounts of the campaign, which until now have been almost totally lacking. It will involve an Australian and Turkish multidisciplinary team.

Allegations were made at the Inquiry that Dr Cameron had undertaken a preliminary survey and that it had been provided to DVA.[108]  However, it is clear from the extract above that Dr Cameron had simply submitted an application for an ARC Discovery Grant.

We would stress the need to put these allegations into proper context.  The risk of finding bones on the Gallipoli was put to Mr Sullivan in connection with roadworks along the coast road at ANZAC Cove.  He proffers the more plausible explanation that any potential unearthing of bones is likely due to erosion and not the alleged roadworks.  He states:[109]

Senator Bishop—Did you also at that time provide advice from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission that there was no risk of finding bones associated with the roadworks along the coast road at ANZAC Cove?

Mr Sullivan—You can never assert that there is no risk of anything. What we asserted was that a report by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission said that there was no evidence of any human remains. In Gallipoli, there is always the chance, or risk, of human remains and bones being found, either in situ or having been washed down from the hills. After every winter, and every rain season, bones are commonly found. In a place where erosion is significant, if a bone fragment had been found as a result of the roadworks, our view is that it was probably the result of erosion, not of a bone having been buried where the road was. It extends into the third area, and the level of battlefield activity resulting in death and burial in situ at that part of the battlefield, is very low.

Senator Bishop —Down the bottom?

Mr Sullivan—Yes.  They are is the combination of how much battle activity there was and how much of that battle activity resulted in soldiers bodies, for all sorts of circumstances, unfortunately having to be left in place, buried on site where they lay. Casualties in the area were generally Australian. It was an area always under Australian control from the early hours of 25 April 1915.  The wounded were extracted and treated either offshore or in the early established medical centres and those who died were buried.  That was the basis of us forming a view, not dismissing the chance that there was a risk of human bones but, if there was, it would have been the result of erosion.

The exaggerated nature of the initial press allegations also included references to "desecration".  It is important to note that the CWGC's assurance that following an extensive examination of the area, no evidence was found that human remains had been disturbed.[110]  Hence, the use of a highly emotive term as "desecration" in such an erroneous manner belies the seriousness of the claim.  Clearly, the intention is simply be sensational and inflammatory.

Mr Sellars also asserted that notwithstanding he had no qualification in archaeology, nevertheless, he holds himself out as having the capacity to identify human bones.

AVM Beck (OAWG) agreed with the Chair that if bones were found, the species of the bones may have been human or animal. Indeed, AVM Back replied that whilst it would be difficult for him to identify the bones, it would not be so for officials from CWGC.[111] 

AVM Beck (OAWG) went on to give an example of bones uncovered in Merris in Northern France and the forensic examination undertaken in that instance to ascertain their origins.[112]

 3.2.2   Allegations that the landscape has been damaged

The second matter of environmental concern to the Committee was the allegation that the roadworks had permanently damaged the landscape at ANZAC Cove.

The Majority Report asserts that several submissions to the Committee expressed concern at the transformation of the landscape as a result of the roadworks.[113]  Whilst this may be the case, it is important to note that whilst they made references to allegations of damage, most concede that responsibility for the Gallipoli Peninsula rests with the Turkish authorities.

A submission by Ian Tait and Geoffrey Ostling is qualified by the authors as a submission  prepared in a short time with limited opportunity to research background details.[114]

Some submissions are simple and contain an outright barrage of allegations regarding what the the Australian Government should or should not do but fail to even mention that Turkey has sovereignty over the Gallipoli Peninsula.[115]  Others make the concession as to Turkish sovereignty as an aside and then appear to continue in a similar vein asserting what Australian authorities ought to do in the sovereign territory of another country.[116]

The questioning of officials at the Committee hearing concentrated on two issues - the widening of the coastal road and the dumping of spoil onto the beach at ANZAC Cove. 

3.2.3   The widening of the road

The Majority Report states that the key accusation against Turkish and Australian authorities was that the roadworks were excessive and that "In particular, it was widely commented in the media that the widening the coastal road by up to 20 metres was unnecessary."  Again, the Majority Report bases its allegations principally on the assertions of Mr Sellars and to some extent, on the self-serving media releases of Labor Members of Parliament.[117]

The Majority Report cites Les Carlyon, author of the bestseller, Gallipoli: [118]

They were concerned with putting on a show for one day of the year, rather than preserving the site for 365 days when a lot more than the 20,000 who attend on ANZAC Day tour the battlefields.  The last thing needed was a wider road.

This assertion reinforces the evidence that many more people visit Gallipoli other than on ANZAC Day.  Indeed, it lends added credence to the evidence of the estimated two million Turkish visitors to the Gallipoli Peninsula.[119]

The Majority Report also notes that the extent of the road widening was also a point of disagreement between the Australian Government and the Turkish contractors.  On 25 April, the Courier Mail and Herald Sun reported the comments of Veterans' Affairs Minister, De-Anne Kelly MP: [120]

they've certainly widened it more than we were expected, were advised or wanted.

3.2.4   The dumping of soil

The Majority Report states that on 3 March 2005, several Australian newspapers published reports claiming the ANZAC Cove Beach had been buried under a pile of excavated soil.  Press reports in The Canberra Times and the Courier Mail quoted the following statements from Mr Bill Gudgeon, spokesman for the political party, New Zealand First: [121]

Recent photos of parts of the site under excavation are almost unrecognisable, and ANZAC Cove Beach in some places has actually ceased to be a beach because it is covered in dirt ... I would urge the Turkish Government to monitor the damage construction is causing to the area to ensure that this designated national park does not suffer any long-term damage through erosion.

It is interesting to note that Mr Gudgeon's concerns are directed at the Turkish authorities.  No mention at all is made about the Australian or for that matter, the New Zealand Government.

Again, the Majority Report seeks to rely purely on media allegations made by Mr Sellars about the cessation of works and purports to cite an article in the Sun Herald dated 6 March 2005. In the article, author Mr Frank Walker quotes Mr Sellars wherein he alleges that more than 80 metres of the 500-metre-long beach are covered in rubble and it is impossible to traverse and that when they dug into the side of the cliff to widen the road to 20 metres, they undercut the only path leading to the cemetery and it is now eroding away.[122]

The Majority Report continues its reliance on its principal "authority" Mr Sellars in an wrote in an article for the Daily Telegraph that the waters of the cove "are filled with sediment".[123]  Mr Sellars continued with this claim to the Committee when he stated: [124]

... last Tuesday I was snorkelling in ANZAC Cove and there has been an effect from the roadworks on the sea area off the beach.  Many of the relics in the cove, such as a sunken barge from the campaign and piles for the piers that were used to land troops and supplies, and the seabed itself have been covered by a layer of silt coming from earth dumped directly onto the beach of the cove by the Turkish firm building the road.

As AVM Beck advised the Committee, swimming at ANZAC Cove is banned.[125]  Again, it demonstrates the inconsistency of Mr Sellars' approach.  On the one hand he professes that "at no time would I ever consider that I have acted in any way in a disrespectful manner"[126] yet on the other hand, he is happy to swim in ANZAC Cove where swimming is banned.  In short, this demonstrates a disregard for proper procedures and questions Mr Sellars' credibility in relation to his allegations and purported respect for the ANZAC heritage area.

In short, the Majority Report and its finding on this issue are nothing more than a series of unsubstantiated assertions based on allegations reported in the media by a witness whose credibility, at best, is questionable.[127]

Mr Sellars also made allegations about general silt covering some of the waters off ANZAC Cove.  Again, this was repudiated in evidence given by Mr Sullivan when he rejected them as an exaggeration: [128]

The only other thing is that, in recording the silt, I could not see how you would associate what appeared to be a general silt covering of some of the waters off ANZAC Cove with the very limited spill of fill across ANZAC Cove.  Even the worst photograph of the spill of ANZAC Cove is probably a tonne or two of fill. That area is largely, as I say, subject to erosion. If wind or rain occurs it does not surprise me at all that silt is in ANZAC Cove.  Those areas of water would quite commonly have silt from those hills on them.  I do not think you could specifically say it was a result of the spill across the cove of some fill in the road construction.  It looked quite stable when I saw it.

The Majority Report refers to the submission of the Australasian Institute of Maritime Archaeology (AIMA): [129]

AIMA was alarmed by the recent damage to this near-pristine archaeological site.  The current works program has done more than compromise the archaeological integrity of fragile relics situated along the length of the affected road area.   [It] may have impacted on the archaeological remains within the near-shore areas.

Unfortunately, the AIMA submission fails to recognise that ANZAC Cove is within the sovereign domain of a foreign country and not one where Australia has joint responsibility, which appears to be the tenor of their submission.  Indeed, apart from an oblique reference to the complexities regarding management of ANZAC Cove arising from its location in another country, there is no definite recognition of Turkish sovereignty and authority over decisions and actions taken in relation to ANZAC Cove.

3.3   Details of Response of Australian Authorities

As we have repeatedly shown above, the findings in the Majority Report are primarily based on a series of sensationalised allegations made by Mr Sellars.  They do not examine the detailed response made by Australian authorities and in particular, the evidence given by Australian officials at the Inquiry.

We have however preferred to adopt a more systematic approach in keeping with the request of Senate and the terms of reference.  We have therefore opted to review the various roles mentioned above and examine the adequacy or otherwise of their response to various allegations.

3.3.1   Role of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, including the Office of Australian War Graves

The DVA Submission categorically and unequivocally states that DVA had no role in road works in the lead up to ANZAC Day 2005:[130]

DVA had no role in road works, and related construction activity, at ANZAC Cove in the lead up to ANZAC Day on 25 April 2005.  The Director of War Graves was aware of a proposal to widen the road from October 2004.  He understood the proposal to be the widening of the road from 5.5 metres to seven metres.  DVA, including the Director, was not aware of the extent of the works undertaken to achieve this widening until they occurred.

AVM Beck (OAWG) advised the Committee that post August 2004 he had visited Gallipoli on six occasions since August 2004.[131]  Other DVA staff from DVA had also visited.  He stated that the first two of these meetings were with the Turkish Director-General of National Parks, Mr Yalinkilic in relation to enlargement of the ANZAC Commemorative site where the Dawn Service is conducted so that stands could be put further back.  Indeed, three submissions had been made to the Turkish authorities over the latter part of 2004 but never gained approval.

Assertions were sought to be made regarding the point at which the improvements to the roadworks became known.  It is clear that AVM Beck (OAWG) first became aware of the widening of the road in early November 2004:[132]

Senator Bishop – Did those discussions that you had in those half-dozen meetings with your Turkish colleagues also include improvements to the roadworks either north or south?

VAM Beck – I cannot quite recall when I first heard about it but I know that in our second meeting with Yalinkilic he produced a master plan that showed little dots where car parks would be.  I did not come away with any impression that the road was being widened.  I first heard that from DFAT in about early November.

Senator Bishop – When was your second meeting?

AVM Beck – Between 3 and 9 October.

Senator Bishop – So in the second meeting there was some discussion on roadworks and the Turkish officials indicated to you potential sites for car parks.

AVM Beck – Yes.  The roadworks we were talking to Yalinkilic about were on a dirt road from Shell Green up to Lone Pine, called Artillery Road.  It is marked on the map.

AVM Beck (OAWG) remained emphatic in his view that the roadworks were not drawn to his attention by the Turkish authorities in his meetings with them:[133]

AVM Beck – They did not draw it to my attention.  I did not gather that from looking at the master plan, because that was not really discussed with us.  He was just showing us that there were a number of projects on the peninsula that they were going to spend the $US64 million on.  I never gained any information from Yalinkilic about the roadworks.  I think I first heard about it from the Embassy when I was told that the road was going to be widened from 5.5 metres to seven metres.

Senator Bishop – And when was that?

AVM Beck – I think that was about October.

Senator Bishop – Okay.  So around October, the Embassy in Ankara was aware of the widening of the road from the south and that was communicated to DVA and came to your attention.  Is that correct?

AVM Beck – Yes.  We were told that the road would be widened by 75 centimetres each side.

Senator Bishop – When the proposal to do the work from the south on the roads was drawn to your attention by the Embassy, did you instruct the Embassy to raise any objections to any of the proposals?

AVM Beck – No.  I had no grounds for doing that.  I was surprised when I heard about it because it did not seem to be relevant to our traffic plan at all.

In short, AVM Beck's (OAWG) evidence is clearly that he, and consequently, the Australian authorities through him, were not aware of the extent of the road works until February 2005.

Whilst AVM Beck (OAWG) held various meetings and was shown a master plan of various Turkish projects, he denied in evidence that they (the extent of the roadworks) were brought to his attention:[134]

AVM Beck—They did not draw it to my attention. I did not gather that from looking at this master plan, because that was not really discussed with us. He was just showing us that there were a number of projects on the peninsula that they were going to spend the $US64 million on. I never gained any information from Yalinkilic about the roadworks.  I think I first heard about it from the embassy when I was told that the road was going to be widened from 5.5 metres to seven metres.

Senator Bishop—And when was that?

AVM Beck—I think that was about October.

Senator Bishop—Okay. So around October, the embassy in Ankara was aware of the widening of the coast road from the south and that was communicated to DVA and came to your attention. Is that correct?

AVM Beck —Yes. We were told that the road would be widened by 75 centimetres each side.

Senator Bishop —When the proposal to do the work from the south on the roads was drawn to your attention by the embassy, did you instruct the embassy to raise any objections to any of those proposals?

AVM Beck —No. I had no grounds for doing that. I was surprised when I heard

about it because it did not seem to be relevant to our traffic plan at all.

Senator Bishop —But you did not pursue it any further other than being surprised?

AVM Beck —No. I was concerned about its impact on our cobblestone road through the site. The road widening, as it turns out, looks like it will affect our site as well.  They are going to widen the cobblestone road. That is part of the plan. But that was the limit of my—

Senator Bishop —Where is the cobblestone road?

AVM Beck —Through the site.

Senator Bishop —Through the ANZAC Cove site?

Mr Campbell—No. Through the commemorative site.

AVM Beck —No. Through the ANZAC commemorative site.

Mr Sullivan—It is only 100 metres or so. Instead of bitumen, it is cobblestone.

Mr Campbell—The road by the commemorative site wall is of cobblestones not bitumen.  It has been cobblestones since 2000.

Senator Bishop —I understand. Did you raise any environmental and heritage protection issues at this series of meetings you attended, Air Vice Marshal?

AVM Beck —No, I did not. To be honest, I did not think widening the road 75 centimetres either side would have any impact on the environment.

Senator Bishop —When did it come to your knowledge that the road construction or extensions were going to be significantly more than the 75-centimetre extension?

AVM Beck —I think I read about it in Mr Sellars’ article.

Senator Bishop —When was that? In February or March?

AVM Beck —February, perhaps.

Senator Bishop —And you had not been aware of it prior to then?

AVM Beck —No.

Clearly, AVM Beck (OAWG) was viewing the matter from the perspective of the impact of the road widening on the cobblestone road through the ANZAC commemorative site.  Furthermore, he did not raise any environmental and heritage aspects given that he did not believe that widening the road by 75 centimetres either side would have any impact on the environment.[135]  Given this perspective, it is clear that AVM Beck (OAWG), or any other Australian official, ought reasonably not to have been alerted to the true nature of the work envisaged by the Turkish authorities.

DVA officials were categorical in their responses to questioning about their knowledge of the roadworks:[136]

Senator Bishop – When did it come to your knowledge that the road construction or extensions were going to be significantly more than the 75-centimetre extension?

AVM Beck – I think I read about it in Mr Sellars’ article.

Senator Bishop – When was that?  In February or March?

AVM Beck – February, perhaps.

Senator Bishop – And you had not been aware of it prior to then?

AVM Beck – No.

Senator Bishop – Had you been aware of it prior to then, Mr Sullivan?

Mr Sullivan - No, Senator.

Senator Bishop – Mr Campbell?

Mr Campbell – No, Senator.

Senator Bishop – No-one in the department or the organisation has been aware prior to then of the extent of the actual work as it contrasted to the proposal?

Mr Sullivan – No.

It is clear from the evidence that DVA and the Embassy, through AVM Beck (OAWG) were aware in about October 2004 that the road was to be widened from 5.5 metres to 7 metres.  However, it is also evident that given the discussions between officials were in relation to only a limited road widening, under the circumstances, there was no reason or basis to envisage the nature and extent of the roadworks as they subsequent emerged.[137]

Senator Bishop—No-one in the department or the organisation has been aware prior to then of the extent of the actual work as it contrasted to the proposal?

Mr Sullivan—No.

Senator Bishop—So the post had not sent an officer down to check on the road construction work at all?

Mr Sullivan—That is something you would have to ask DFAT. As Gary Beck has said, certainly the department and the embassy, through Air Vice Marshal Beck, were aware in around October that the road was to be widened from 5.5 to seven metres.  We became engaged on the roadworks issue following the press reports of the works.

Senator Bishop—You had no advice prior to that that warranted your involvement?

Mr Sullivan—There was no engagement with us in respect of the roadworks prior to the press becoming interested.

AVM Beck—Senator, could I add that maybe in my visit of 27 February, or the visit of 5 February, they had certainly started roadworks but it was down from the museum north along Brighton Beach—where it says ‘Gaba Tepe’, that section running north—and they quite literally had just widened the section about one metre either side.  Even when I was there, there was no evidence that it was going to be anything more than they said.  But I repeat that, to this day, I do not know why it was necessary to widen the road.  Certainly, repairs were needed.  The way they have done repairs is a matter for the Turkish authorities, but in terms of meeting our objective—and I am not saying that that is why they did it—we never sought nor required a widening of the road from 5.5 metres to seven metres.

Senator Bishop —So the net content of your evidence is that, over a series of meetings over a number of months from early October, the Turkish government had made you aware of a widening of the coast road from the south from 5½ metres to seven metres; that you regularly visited the site thereafter, but that the differentiation from actual construction to what you had been informed in planning terms did not come to the attention of you or the department until it hit the press some time in February or March?

AVM Beck —I would add that it was on the 20 March visit when I saw the roadworks. It was well and truly progressed by then.

Senator Bishop —So that was the first time you saw it.  That would have been after the time it had achieved some press notoriety back here, wouldn’t it?

AVM Beck —Yes.

Mr Sullivan indicated that since the roadworks had become an issue, the conduct of most of the discussions around the roadworks with the Turkish officials had been led by DVA. 

When the reports of the roadworks were first brought to public attention, Mr Sullivan and AVM Beck (OAWG) went to Turkey to report to the Minister.[138]  On the 20 March visit, AVM Beck (OAWG) states he saw the roadworks on this visit and that they were well and truly progressed by then.[139]  He observed that they were cutting into the cliff far more than he had ever imagined they would need to.[140]

AVM Beck (OAWG) states that DVA commissioned a report from Arup Engineering and Consulting to principally examine the impact that the roadworks would have on the conduct of the commemoration services, including traffic and safety.  In evidence, he stated that he did not think the roadworks could possibly be completed in time (for 25 April 2005) given the culverts being cut across the road and the utter dependence on this road for traffic access.  AVM Beck advised the Committee that Arup thought the works would be completed by 20 April and indeed, Minister Pepe also gave an assurance that the works would be completed by 20 April.[141]

Mr Sullivan indicated that the roadworks had raised concerns with DVA in three areas:[142]

1. the effect of the roadworks on the commemoration service;
2. the claims of human remains being disturbed; and
3. whether the roadworks had caused any significant damage or raised significant issues regarding military and cultural heritage in the area.

The engagement of Arup Engineering and Consulting was an appropriate response by DVA to determine whether the road would be safe and to gather an understanding of what had occurred in terms of access to drawings, the standard of the road in respect of Turkish design standards, contractual responsibilities including linkages between the various Turkish agencies from Ankara to Canakkle and then down to the contractors.

Assertions were sought to be made about the conduct of DVA in relation to the latter two issues.

In respect of the remains, Mr Sullivan gave evidence that DVA approached the custodians of the Gallipoli cemeteries, graves and memorials:  the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.  This is the responsible authority.  Mr Sullivan advised the Committee that the Commission had publicly reported back to DVA as follows: [143]

As a result of the public concern regarding the development of work currently being undertaken in the ANZAC Cove area of the Gallipoli Peninsula, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission would like to reassure the public that our regional representatives have carried out an extensive examination of the area and have found no evidence that human remains have been disturbed.  The commission would also like to reassure the public that our cemeteries and memorials remain unaffected by the development work.  They stand ready to receive the thousands of pilgrims who will pay their respects to the fallen this, the 90th anniversary, of the ill-fated Gallipoli campaign.

It is important to note Mr Sullivan’s evidence on this point:[144]

That, for us, was authoritative.  It came from the people who were charged under the Treaty with these matters, and it satisfied us.

It must be remembered that the CWGC has an office on the Gallipoli Peninsula and was thus in the best position, not only given its authority under the Treaty, but its proximity to the site, to make the best assessment.  Mr Sullivan understandably placed great weight on the assessment of the "eminent and qualified" staff of the CWGC.[145]  He stated in evidence that:[146]

I personally put great weight on what is generally a very conservative organisation when it comes to the protection, over 90 years, of the graves of Commonwealth soldiers.  When they say they have done a special examination and they make a finding, I give it great weight.

DVA’s reliance on the investigation, finding and advice of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was fully justified and appropriate.

3.3.2   Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Alexander Downer, MP

Mr Newman (DFAT) summarised the role of the Department: [147]

Our role has been to support and advise the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, who were just here.  As you are aware, we conveyed the letter from the Minister at the time to her counterpart, so we were a point of transmission.  In Canberra we have been involved in a number of Inter Departmental Committee discussions.  Basically, we help and support the Department of Veterans’ Affairs with preparations for the ANZAC Day ceremony.  We play a major part in it, as you would be aware from your visits with the Ambassador, by making frequent visits, generally having contact with officials of the Turkish Government and Turkish Ministers, and talking about our needs in terms of preparations for the event.  That has included, on occasion, discussions on the road situation.

It is clear from Mr Newman's evidence that DFAT first became aware of the roadworks at Gallipoli in late February 2005:[148]

Mr Newman—The first time we became aware of that was in late February.  I could not give you the exact date, but we were alerted towards the end of February, and by 3 March the Ambassador, Jean Dunn, had raised concerns with the Turkish authorities about the scale of the works and had alerted us in Canberra to that.

Senator Bishop—How did you become aware back in late February?

Mr Newman—We had a visit at the time from the Embassy down to the Peninsula.  I think that was the first time people saw the actual scale of it.

From 1 to 4 February, the Australian Ambassador went to Gallipoli with officers of the Office of Australian War Graves, the Federal Police, Defence and New Zealand officials to examine security preparations for the ANZAC Day ceremony but did not become aware of the work in the south and north.[149]

Mr Newman (DFAT) gave evidence of the circumstances surrounding when DFAT first become aware of the roadworks:[150]

Mr Newman—The first report we had was from the Ambassador. There was an email to us on 3 March, followed very quickly by a cable. That was referring to the extent of the roadworks. At that stage, the Ambassador had been told that they were talking about building buttresses along ANZAC Cove, which I assume is a reference to the future of the seawall, which was being raised earlier.

Senator Bishop—It sounds like it.

Mr Newman—So she then raised concerns about the state of the road repairs with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a National Parks official, and separately with other officials.

Senator Bishop —So she raised concerns deriving from her observations with a range of relevant Turkish government officials after 3 March?

Mr Newman—Yes.

Senator Bishop —And she cabled you from time to time, I presume, on the progress of her negotiations or consultations with those Turkish departments?

Mr Newman—That is correct.

Senator Bishop —You might just tell us who she raised concerns with and when she did so.

Mr Newman—At that stage, she raised concerns with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an official from National Parks, and a deputy undersecretary in the Prime Minister’s department.

Senator Bishop —You are referring there to departments of the Turkish Government, aren’t you?

Mr Newman—Yes.

Given that the issue of the roadworks had the potential to affect the bilateral relationship between Australia and Turkey, it is understandable that the Hon. Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has overall responsibility for the bilateral relationship, became involved.[151]

Furthermore, as Mr Newman (DFAT) told the Committee, Minister Downer was reporting to Parliament of discussions he was having with the Ambassador of a foreign country.  In those circumstances, it was entirely appropriate that the Minister report accordingly.[152]

On 8 March 2005, Minister Downer, in response to a question, made the following statement to Parliament:[153]

... There have been some media reports – I think in the Daily Telegraph and possibly on one of the commercial stations – about the rebuilding of an existing road around ANZAC Cove.  The road is being rebuilt for safety reasons.  There is no question that the road does require some urgent reinforcing, and the Turkish authorities are endeavouring to complete the road in time for the 90th anniversary commemorations.

On seeing the media reports, Minister Downer took immediate action by asking the Australian Ambassador to contact Turkish authorities.  This was relayed to Parliament on 8 March 2005:[154]

On seeing the media reports I instructed our Ambassador to Turkey, Jean Dunn, to raise with the Turkish government the issues that have been raised in the media reports because, obviously for all of us, the site is of enormous historical and emotional importance and it would be of very great concern to us if the remains of fallen soldiers were being disturbed and dirt was being dumped onto the beach at ANZAC Cove. 

The Turkish authorities were categorical in advising the Australian Ambassador that no remains have been unearthed during the roadworks.  Minister Downer informed Parliament on 8 March 2005 as follows:[155]

During the course of the discussions yesterday, the Turkish authorities told our Ambassador that archaeological work had been carried out prior to the roadworks commencing and that no remains have been unearthed during the roadworks. 

Furthermore, in the event that any remains were unearthed, an assurance was given by the Turkish authorities that reconstruction would stop.  It is clear from Minister Downer's statement to Parliament on 8 March 2005 that the Turkish authorities had responded to Australian concerns sensitively and with what appears to be great promptness:[156]

They also assured us that if any remains were unearthed they would immediately instruct that the reconstruction of the road be stopped.  We appreciate that very much.  I must say I very much appreciate the sensitivity with which the Turkish authorities responded to our representations. 

Furthermore, in response to earth being put onto the beach at ANZAC Cove, the Turkish Government also was clear and unequivocal in its response, namely to remove the earth promptly.  Minister Downer informed Parliament on 8 March 2005:[157]

It is true that contractors have put some earth onto the beach at ANZAC Cove.  The Turkish government is instructing the contractors to remove the earth from the beach so the beach can be restored to its proper condition.

Minister Downer then went on to conclude:

... From the Ambassador’s discussions with the Turkish authorities I am satisfied that they are aware of our concerns, that they are aware of the media reports and that they will take all necessary steps – as they have done for many, many years – to protect the dignity of the site.

As we have repeatedly stated, what actions the Turkish authorities take in relation to the Gallipoli Peninsula is, ultimately, their decision.  Australia can make representations but clearly, it is up to the Turkish authorities to heed any concerns and take what action they deem appropriate.  The Majority Report fails to take this singularly important fact into account. 

On 10 March 2005, Minister Downer took further positive action and met with Turkey’s Ambassador to Australia.  It is clear from the majority of the written and oral evidence that there was a need to improve the road system – this is freely admitted.  In answer to a question he told Parliament of his meeting and advised the House that:[158]

... We had a discussion about the proposal to improve the road system around ANZAC Cove.  The member for Hughes, in her capacity as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in August last year wrote to the Turkish authorities and explained that she thought there was a need for improvement in some of the road systems, for safety reasons. 

The Turkish authorities are responsible for improving the road system.  To suggest or otherwise imply that in some way Australia or Australian authorities could simply have gone onto the Gallipoli Peninsula and told Turkish authorities how or what they should do with their road system is preposterous.  Unfortunately, this is the overwhelming inference in the Majority Report.

As Minister Downer advised Parliament on 10 March 2005:[159]

The Turkish authorities, quite rightly, are endeavouring to improve those roads.  There has been significant erosion over the years, and the road above ANZAC Cove, in particular, requires urgent reinforcing. 

Again, the Turkish authorities provided assurances to Minister Downer.  Based on the good relations between Australia and Turkey, to have doubted such assurances would not have been proper or correct.  Minister Downer advised the House on 10 March 2005:[160]

The Ambassador, yet again, has reassured me that the historical significance of ANZAC Cove and other sites will be protected while these essential roadworks are undertaken.

Again, the Turkish authorities advised that no remains had been uncovered and further, that the soil would shortly be removed from the beach.  Minister Downer told the House on 10 March 2005 that:[161]

He has confirmed the advice that I provided to the House a couple of days ago that no remains have been uncovered during the roadworks and that soil which has been placed on ANZAC Cove beach would be removed shortly. 

Again, Minister Downer took positive action in requesting the Australian Ambassador to once again visit the site.  On 14 March 2005, he told the House that Ambassador Jean Dunn had visited the ANZAC sites and found no evidence of disturbance of human remains.  He stated to the House that:[162]

... I asked our Ambassador based in Ankara, Jean Dunn, to visit the Gallipoli Peninsula and ANZAC Cove over the weekend so she could inspect the roadworks herself.  She has done so over two days.  During those inspections, she found no evidence of any human remains or bone fragments.  

In addition, Ambassador Dunn took counsel from the experts on the site, namely the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) which has its office at Canakkle.  Given the expertise, responsibility and proximity that the CWGC has for the area, it is totally reasonable for Ambassador Dunn not only to consult with CWGC but to rely on their expert information. 

Minister Downer reported to the House as follows on 14 March 2005:[163]

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which operates in the Gallipoli area, advised her that they inspected the area thoroughly before and during the roadworks and found no evidence of remains.  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission also advised that they thought it very unlikely that any human remains would be found, because the area was thoroughly searched for remains in the 1920s and any remains found then were interred in local cemeteries.

Given the sensational allegations made by Mr Sellars, Ambassador Dunn spoke with Mr Sellars during her visit.  It is interesting to note that Mr Sellars was unable to produce the two bone fragments that he alleged to have photographed.  Minister Downer relayed to the House on 14 March 2005 the information provided by Mr Sellars to Ambassador Dunn:[164]

A man called Bill Sellars, who is an Australian who lives in the area and has an intense interest in the preservation of Gallipoli, has told our ambassador that of two bone fragments that he had photographed one had disappeared and he could not relocate the other. 

In response, Ambassador Dunn also requested Mr Sellars to advise Australian authorities and of course, the CWGC of any further alleged finds:[165]

The Ambassador has asked him to advise us and of course the Commonwealth War Graves Commission if he does find any further remains, in particular so those remains can be treated respectfully and in the appropriate way. 

It is interesting to note that on the one hand Mr Sellars holds himself out to be a person allegedly versed in history and understanding of military heritage, but on the other hand, demonstrates a rather cavalier and inappropriate attitude in relation to the care and attention of remains which he alleged were human.  One would have thought at the very least, he would have promptly contacted the CWGC and informed them of the find so that the find could have been verified and the bones interred in an appropriate and respectful manner by appropriately qualified archaeologists.  Instead, it would appear that Mr Sellars opted instead to parade his alleged find through sensationalised media avenues – here and abroad.

Yet again, the Turkish authorities gave assurances that in the event that remains were located, the roadworks would stop.  As indicated above, given the good relations between Australia and Turkey, to have not accepted the assurances given by the Turkish authorities to Ambassador Dunn would have been inappropriate.  Minister Downer advised the House on 14 March 2005:[166]

The Ambassador did register yet again with the Turkish authorities our concern that, if remains were to be found, the roadworks should stop, and the Turkish authorities have agreed to do precisely that.

It is clear from Minister Downer’s statements that overall, the responsibility for the works remained with the Turkish authorities.  Further, whilst it was important for the road to be safe for visitors, the Australian Government’s continued position of ensuring that the historic significance of the site be properly preserved is paramount and evident.

Mr Newman (DFAT) gave evidence to the Senate Committee that Turkish authorities had undertaken an inspection before the road was built:[167]

The Turkish authorities informed us that they had had an inspection before the road was being built and that if they found any bones they would stop the work. We also had our ambassador go down there—this is at the time when the stories about the bones had emerged in the newspapers—with the senior administrative officer from the embassy. On two separate days they inspected the roadworks and saw no evidence of bones at that time. It was on this same visit that our ambassador called on Mr Bill Sellars to discuss his claims about the bones.

We have been concerned that the sensationalised press coverage and the various allegations made by persons such as Mr Bill Sellars had the potential to affect the relationship between Australia and Turkey.  We should be grateful that the Turkish authorities accept that the media do not necessarily reflect the Government's view in any way.  Mr Newman (DFAT) in his evidence made the following point:[168]

In answer to your last question, I am not aware of any particular sensitivity

being raised with us. I think that the Turkish authorities fully understand the role of the media, and that the media does not necessarily reflect, in any way, the government’s view.  We have certainly had very constructive discussions with the Turkish authorities through this period, and they understand that our position has not necessarily been reflected in some of the press reporting of the issue.

3.3.3   Role of Department of Environment and Heritage

The Department of Environment and Heritage Submission dated 10 June 2005 (the DEH Submission) notes that the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) had no role in the road works.

In relation to the awareness of DEH about the roadworks, we note the following evidence given to the Inquiry by Mr Young (DEH), First Assistant Secretary, Heritage Division, DEH:[169]

Senator Bishop—When did your department learn that Australia had requested the roadworks that were referred to in the letter that Mrs Vale wrote which was released by the Prime Minister in April?

Mr Young—I do not believe the department was ever advised of that letter.

Senator Bishop—Did you see the letter sometime after it was released by the Prime Minister?

Mr Young—Yes.

It is clear from the evidence that the role of DEH has been primarily in relation to the heritage listing of the Gallipoli Peninsula and by way of support to DVA in relation to the historical and archaeological study.[170]

Mr Young—I think our formal role is purely in relation to the listing issue but, as the wider department responsible overall for heritage matters, we are supporting the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in their second study, which is the study of the wider historical and archaeological significance of the area.  We are doing that because, firstly, we have heritage expertise and, secondly, it will assist us with our task of finding a mutually acceptable way of symbolically recognising the area.  The idea behind those studies is very much that they are joint studies carried out by Turkey and Australia together.  If we can through completing those studies come to a common agreement on the mutual significance of the area then we think that that is a very important step in reaching some subsequent agreement on listing or another appropriate mechanism.  I think we see our response role as contributing to the work of Veterans’ Affairs through our expertise in heritage and also to establish, hopefully, the relationships with Turkey that will enable us to advance the other matter.

Senator Bishop—So your role is, firstly, directly related to your registry processes but, secondly, supportive and facilitative of making a contribution to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in doing the work that has been delegated to them.  Is that correct?

Mr Young—That is correct.

Senator Bishop—Coming back to what initiated this discussion, did the Prime Minister’s release of Minister Vale’s correspondence requesting roadworks in the Gallipoli park trigger any action or activity on the part of officials of your department?

Mr Young—The release of the letter, no, but in the wider context of the debate and the discussions, yes.  I was part of a delegation led by Mr Metcalfe from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to Turkey to discuss a wide range of issues including the roadworks.  So directly, no; indirectly, yes.

Senator Bishop—Indirectly what has emerged is an expanding role, or a clearer role, for some of the heritage aspects of your department’s work arising out of this whole discussion.

Mr Young—I think that is correct, yes.

In summary, the expertise of DEH, especially in the current situation, centres around the protection and management of heritage places, with DVA providing the specialist military history or military heritage input.[171]  In evidence Mr Young stated: [172]

There are two issues: what is important and why is it important?  I think that is rightly addressed by the military historians and heritage specialists.  The question is: once you have established what is important about this heritage, what are the appropriate ways of protecting and managing it?  I do not believe that the military historians would see themselves as experts in the way in which those places can then be protected. I should not really speak for them, but our expertise is that, once the values are established, how do we go ahead and protect and conserve them for future generations?  We are, in our endeavours with Turkey, trying to find a way forward and think about how the ANZAC area will be in 10 to 50 years time and that is essentially the context in which our expertise is provided.

Much was sought to be made at the Inquiry about the heritage list.  The Majority Report seems to suggest that somehow, heritage listing under Australian law might have prevented the roadworks.  Mr Young (DEH) clearly stated that heritage listing would NOT have prevented the roadworks:[173]

Senator Fierravanti-Wells—I am interested in aspects of their heritage listing and how much it compares to our heritage listing under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Mr Young—We have not done an analysis of that type.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells—Would heritage listing under Australian law provide us with a veto over any proposed changes to the Gallipoli peninsula?

Mr Young—No.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells—Could it have prevented the roadworks?

Mr Young—No.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that the ANZAC area was declared a heritage site by the Turkish Government in the early 1980s.  Notwithstanding protection which one would assume that Turkish law could provide to the area by virtue of its listing as a heritage site, the Turkish Government still saw fit to undertake the roadworks. 

Therefore, simply put, if heritage listing under Turkish law did not preclude the roadworks, clearly, similar heritage listing under Australian law would not have had any effect. Any adverse criticism of the Australian Government's conduct in relation to the area, especially under these circumstances, is absolutely unwarranted.

3.3.4   Role of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

In his opening comments, Mr Metcalfe (PM&C) referred to the Submission provided to the Committee and made the following comments:[174]

The Secretary of the Department wrote to the committee recently and drew your attention to the two recent media releases from the Prime Minister.  As you are aware, PM&C is working closely with a number of departments—particularly the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of the Environment and Heritage—on the range of issues associated with Gallipoli and ANZAC Cove.  I led a delegation to Turkey in April involving senior officials from those departments to hold discussions with senior Turkish officials on a range of issues relating to the shared heritage of the ANZAC area, the works occurring in the park and the preparations for the ANZAC ceremonies.  Mr Kemish and I were both at Gallipoli as part of the Prime Minister's party and the wider official party for ANZAC Day this year. Mr Borrowman was part of the recent delegation led by Veterans’ Affairs specifically dealing with issues in relation to the road engineering at ANZAC Cove.

Mr Metcalfe (PM&C) was asked whether PM&C had sought legal advice in relation to the Treaty of Lausanne and gave evidence as follows:[175]

Senator Bishop—Has PM&C taken any legal advice on the significance of the

Ttreaty of Lausanne?

Mr Metcalfe—No. To be absolutely precise, we have consulted with DFAT in relation to the Treaty, but we have not sought or received legal advice on the treaty.

Senator Bishop —If you sought advice and you got it from DFAT, would that be

regarded as definitive or not?

Mr Metcalfe—Yes and no. I must say that on the application of treaty law certainly the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and their legal advisors would be a highly regarded source of advice. But I must say that ordinarily on international law matters, I would usually look to the Attorney-General’s Department to provide that advice.  But we have neither sought nor received such advice.

Senator Bishop —Neither sought nor received it?

Mr Metcalfe—That is my understanding.

It is also clear from the evidence that PM&C became aware of the issue of the roadworks at the same time as everyone else.[176]

Mr Metcalfe (PM&C) also gave evidence of first-hand viewing of the roadworks and on his return to Australia, he briefed the Prime Minister.  He stated as follows:[177]

Mr Metcalfe—Essentially, there were three aspects to the work that I was doing.  One was in relation to getting a first-hand understanding of the issues associated with the roadworks.  The second was to continue discussions with the Turkish officials in relation to the issue of heritage.  Third, it was an opportunity for the delegation, particularly Mr Campbell and me, to reassure ourselves about the arrangements for the commemoration, given the very large number of people that we were expecting.

Senator Bishop —When you returned after 12 April and 13 April, were you able to advise the Prime Minister as to the adequacy or otherwise of archaeological research on the coast road, which was the subject of work?

Mr Metcalfe—I met with the Prime Minister upon my return to Australia and I briefed him on my observations of the range of issues that I had been sent to consider and discuss.  It was at that stage that I provided him with briefings about the roadworks and specifically drew to his attention the understanding that I had obtained while visiting the ANZAC Cove area of the proposed completion of the roadworks involving a seawall. That led to a chain of events that you are probably aware of.

Senator Bishop —Why don’t we go through both of those issues. Firstly, on the nature of your briefing to the Prime Minister: what were your observations? The reason I ask that is that it was still fairly stark when I was there about two weeks later.

Mr Metcalfe—I do not think it is appropriate to go into what I briefed the Prime Minister on.  That is an issue between the Prime Minister and me. But I am happy to say that there was a briefing in relation to those three areas. As a result, it was agreed some representation should be made to Turkish officials, particularly in relation to the completion of the roadworks, which, as I said, has led to the chain of work that is now under way.

Senator Bishop —You had some concerns that you related to the Prime Minister?

Mr Metcalfe—I told the Prime Minister what I saw.

Senator Moore—Were photographs taken of it?

Mr Metcalfe—Yes, I did have some photographs. I do not want to be cute about this. There is no disputing the fact that the scale of the works was larger than we had expected.  We understand the reasons why the works had been carried out in the way that they had, but we are very keen to work with the Turkish authorities to ensure that the completion of the works occurs in a way that is as complementary as can possibly occur to the environment and to the heritage significance of the site.

It is clear from the testimony of Mr Metcalfe (PM&C) that once he had briefed the Prime Minister on the issue of the rock wall, the Prime Minister asked that Turkish authorities be contacted with a request that no further action be taken until full engineering advice had been received:[178]

Senator Bishop —Why did the Prime Minister request that work on the rock wall cease?  My understanding is that the rock wall was absolutely essential to the future support of that portion of ANZAC Cove.

Mr Metcalfe—At the end of the day, I think various engineering solutions are possible, depending on where the road is seated and the angle of the slope from the road down to the beach.  But it is fair to say that it is an extremely active coastline.  The advice I have seen indicates that the coastline has probably receded around 10 metres since 1915 through the active erosion that has occurred.  Indeed, it is interesting that the advice I have seen indicates that the beaches in the area are actually fed from erosion from the hillsides behind and that an active south-north littoral current moves sand up the beaches.  You have obviously seen it yourself at first-hand.  Given the ferocity of the winter storms and the rain in the area, erosion is very much a part of the environment.  It became apparent to us when we visited ANZAC Cove and talked to the road engineers that their plans for the protection of the road involved a significant solid rock seawall.  I am quite happy to put on the record that that obviously raised concerns for me as to what that would mean for the ultimate appearance of, and accessibility to, the beach at ANZAC Cove.  It was for that reason that the Prime Minister, on being briefed about this, asked that we contact the Turkish authorities and request that no further work occur until we had had the opportunity to receive full engineering advice.  That process is happening in a very cooperative way and is continuing.

Senator Bishop —It is almost to the completion stage?

Mr Metcalfe—Certainly the engineering assessment has been undertaken.  We now need to talk further with the Turkish authorities about how we can find a solution that meets all of the various interests that have to be accommodated.

Again, this underlies the basic issue that work on the Gallipoli Peninsula is a matter for the Turkish authorities.  Accordingly, no criticism can or should be levelled at Australian authorities.  It is clear that to the extent possible through talks and cooperation, Australian authorities have put forward suggestions.  Whether Turkey accepts these or otherwise, is ultimately a matter for Turkey.  Failure by Turkey to follow Australian suggestions is not a responsibility which Australian authorities should bear.

Senator Bishop sought in the Inquiry to take issue at certain concerns raised by Dr Cameron, an archaeologist from Sydney University with some reputed interest in Gallipoli.  We assume he is the same Dr Cameron referred to earlier who had, together with Denise Donlon, submitted an ARC Discovery application.  It is unclear whether that application was successful and if not, whether this may have constituted a motive for Mr Cameron's negative public utterances. 

In any case, Dr Cameron did not see fit to lodge a submission to this Inquiry and preferred to instead air his grievances publicly without putting them before the Committee.  Accordingly, we found this to be another example of the sensationalism on which the majority sought to place some credit. 

 3.3.5   Role of the Attorney General's Department

As far as we are aware, no submission was made by Attorney-General's and no evidence was given by the Department to the Committee.

3.4   Comments by Turkish Authorities in Australia

During the Inquiry, Senator Bishop referred to a statement made by the Turkish Ambassador alleging the roadworks were done at the direction of the Australian Government.  Evidence was given that this was based on a misunderstanding and it is important to note the exchange:[179]

Senator Bishop—The Turkish Ambassador to Australia made a statement that was put out on the wires and reported by the ABC on 25 April that the roadworks were done at the direction of the Australian government.  Did anyone from DFAT contact the Turkish Ambassador to Australia and seek clarification of his comments?

Mr Newman—I do not believe we did, no.

Senator Bishop—Were you aware of his comments?

Mr Newman—Yes.

Senator Bishop—What is your view of them?

Mr Newman—I think there was a misunderstanding.

Senator Bishop—You do not believe the comments are correct?

Mr Newman—I think there may have been a misunderstanding.

Senator Bishop—So the comments were erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the facts?

Mr Newman—I think it is a misunderstanding.

Chair—I think that is all you can say. You have answered the question.

It is clear that any comments which have been made by Turkish authorities were under a mistaken belief.  In any case, it is obvious from the considerable evidence provided to the Inquiry that the roadworks in question were not undertaken at the request of the Australian Government.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page