Chapter 5 - Completion of Roadworks and other Current Initiatives
5.1 Roadworks as at June 2005
Since the issue of the roadworks "entered the public domain courtesy of the press",[197] DVA officials have made several trips to Gallipoli and noted work in progress on the coast road. Mr Sullivan advised the Committee of the status of the roadworks as at the time of the Inquiry:[198]
The roadworks as they are now. After March, it was established that the roadworks in terms of the engineering works had been completed. The roadworks are still not complete. At the moment, they are completed to the first level of asphalt. There are two further coatings of asphalt to be laid and then the road has to be furnished in respect of guttering, safety rails or other things. There has been a progress report that the road got to the point where it got to on around the week before ANZAC Day and, other than some minor works, no further work has occurred on the roadworks to date.
As we have previously stressed, action in relation to the roadworks is a matter ultimately for the Turkish authorities. However, the Turkish authorities have graciously agreed to listen to Australian suggestions. As Mr Sullivan stated in evidence:[199]
We have got to remember that the Prime Minister of Turkey graciously agreed with the Prime Minister to listen to our suggestions as to the progress of the completion of the roadworks and other shore protection issues. We have taken that offer from the Turkish government very seriously and we are engaging with them in respect of that work. The focus has been the pursuit of what the prime ministers agreed to do.
5.2 Other current initiatives
As indicated by Mr Sullivan, the focus of activities and the trips by officials to Gallipoli have been in pursuit of what Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Erdogan agreed to in April 2005. He summarised the actions as follows:[200]
You are covering all these trips, and most of those trips are about that. We got the revelation of the roadwork in March, got an understanding of the extent of the roadwork and pursued the issues of the human remains and military heritage. There was the conduct of the services in April, and most of the travel since then has been around the pursuit of the agreements between the two prime ministers of the countries involved.
It must be remembered that both Australian and Turkish authorities have shared concerns about the safety of the coast road. Indeed, this was accepted by Senator Bishop although we are concerned that it has not been given any relevance in the Majority Report. We refer to the following exchange at the Inquiry:[201]
Senator Bishop —All right. Did you or any of your officials, from the time this came into the public domain in late February or early March right up until ANZAC Day of this year, on any occasion express concern to the government of Turkey about that work—such as the extent of the work and those sorts of matters?
Mr Sullivan—No. We have always expressed to the government of Turkey the fact that we had issues about that coastal road. It was unsafe. Their addressing of it, we understood. But we were concerned, as they were, that the road was well built and that the road did not disturb significant Australian or Turkish cultural or military heritage. That was a shared concern, and it remains a shared concern. You could only get to a hypothetical, but whether we would have requested change if we had engaged with the Turkish government before the excavations had occurred, I do not know. I cannot answer that, because it is hypothetical. But we have not expressed concerns as to what the Turkish government has done about their road.
Senator Bishop —You have not. That is clear. You regularly inspected the work. You received cables from other people who visited the site. Important and serious matters have been regularly drawn to the attention of the minister by you—and quite properly so. Your concerns were and are for the safety and the serviceability of the road, the remains and the military heritage. Those concerns are extant. They continue.
Mr Sullivan—And they are shared.
Reference was also made at the Inquiry about a suggestion that a rock wall be used to underpin the coast road. Whilst Mr Sullivan agreed that there was a fairly compelling argument that the embankment and the coast road required shore protection, he underlined that:[202]
No, we will be taking suggestions to the Turkish government very soon, and
then it will be up to the Turkish government to decide what to do with their own roadworks. They have graciously given us the opportunity to make suggestions.
Indeed, following press reports about the possibility of a rock wall, Prime Minister Howard made a call prior to ANZAC Day and wrote to the Turkish Prime Minister seeking that any construction be suspended subject to their discussions due a short time later. As a consequence of the Prime Minister's action, Australia has now been invited to make suggestions.[203]
5.3 The Inter Departmental Committee (IDC)
The Interdepartmental Committee is chaired by PM&C and involves DVA, DFAT and DEH and is addressing a number of issues arising from the meeting of Prime Minister Howard and Prime Minister Erdogan, which covers many issues including but not exclusively the roadworks.[204]
As far as the IDC is concerned, DVA has the lead in two issues. Mr Sullivan stated that: [205]
The first was to lead the work in providing suggestions to the Turkish government as to the roadworks on ANZAC Cove and their completion, including any need for shore protection work or a seawall. The second issue that we are to lead on is the broader historical and archaeological review of the ANZAC battlefield area. This review seeks to provide input so that an appropriate balancing of the development of the traffic, military and cultural heritage and environment can be achieved with good, agreed and accepted knowledge of the significance of each and every part of the ANZAC battlefield.
Mr Sullivan gave detailed evidence of the outstanding work to complete the road and shore protection. Again, allegations were raised by Mr Sellars about possible military remains outside known grave sites along the coast road. As with other allegations, these were unsubstantiated and were clearly and unequivocally denied by DVA and CWGC:[206]
I do not think anyone is suggesting that there is an incidence of human remains along the constructed road at the moment. None of the work envisaged is going to require any further excavations or work; it is basically road finishing and then there is the shore protection issue. I will make the point that not only was it the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s release but also no other party had come forward asserting the existence of human remains.
Again, Mr Sellars' unsubstantiated, sensational and attention grabbing assertions sit out on their own: [207]
There are three elements: we have a party—and I am not indicating any disrespect for his assertion—who has made an assertion; no other assertion has been made to us; and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission have made their release.
5.3.1 The underpinning of the rock wall on the coast road
Mr Sullivan gives an explicit history of the complexities of the coast road issue: [208]
The history of the road since 1915 is that Gallipoli and the peninsula as a whole is an area of significant erosion. In fact, there is a professional view that there has been horizontal erosion at ANZAC Cove since 1915 of approximately 10 metres. The old road was certainly subject to major problems at the seaside edge because of erosion. There is little or no doubt that this road will continue to be subject to damage from erosion if there is not some shore protection.
Indeed, as we previously noted, even Mr Sellars himself agreed that the current road is already in need of some repair.
Mr Sullivan outlined serious safety issues associated with the coast road:[209]
It is subject to the forces on that embankment, and it is of course a road which has significant traffic. There was a bit of a debate this morning about what is significant traffic. The major worry for me in terms of the old road was that, except on 25 April, it was a two-way road. So you had big buses passing each other at speed on an inadequate road with a crumbling seaside edge. There was no potential, given the road system around the park, of moving permanently, for instance, to a one-way traffic system. Unless you started building major loops for things to turn around in you could not do it. I am not one who believes that the previous road was viable in terms of what I would describe as the significant traffic issues. I am not getting into whether there are 10 buses every 30 minutes. My major concern was that buses—and someone has reported that a lot of children are often on those buses—were going past each other on a road that was crumbling into the sea. T his road could face the same fate if there is not some shore protection involved.
Mr Sullivan indicated that the IDC has signed off on proposals to suggest to the Turkish authorities for their consideration.
Mr Metcalfe, in response to questioning about timing of the roadworks, replied as follows:[210]
The roadworks are being dealt with as a matter of urgency, for quite practical reasons. You made the very point before about the stability of the slope, which is at quite an acute angle. I am told that it is at about a 45-degree angle and is subject to erosion and possibly attack from the sea. I note, of course, that there has been a road there for many years and it has been subject to the elements for many years. There is a weather factor in the timing of the completion of those roadworks. Quite understandably, the Turkish authorities, having invested considerable time and energy in upgrading that road—given the volumes of people now visiting the park—are keen to complete that road. And we are quite confident that the sorts of proposals that we will discuss will be progressed quite quickly.
5.3.2 Joint Australia/Turkey Second Study
Mr Sullivan indicated that decisions would be required with the Turkish Government to understand what the two Prime Ministers meant by the term joint second study:
We have not gone anywhere near as far. It is the second phase, and we will use this visit to Turkey to initiate some decisions with the Turkish government to fill out what the two prime ministers meant when they agreed to this joint second study. From our perspective, we will be ensuring that we have a very good understanding of the engineering side of some of the battlefield ridges and where existing roads, monuments and other things are. We will concentrate our historians on scoping, from their perspective, areas of great significance.
Senator Bishop—Military significance?
Mr Sullivan—Yes, and we will also have some advice with us from Environment and Heritage. The engineering advice we take is a mixture of advice, from road engineers, coastal waters engineers and landscape engineers, so we cover all aspects of engineering. We will engage the Turkish government and say, ‘Let’s sit down and work out what our prime ministers were after, where we’re going to take it and how we’re going to take it forward.’ So it is preliminary in respect of the second stage.
Senator Bishop—Is it an agenda item yet to do a full military/historical audit of
that whole battlefield area?
Mr Sullivan—I would not be surprised if that formed part of what we may end up doing.[211]
Mr Sullivan conceded that use could be made of the term "archaeological audit of significant battle sites."[212]
Mr Melcalfe, in response to questioning about timing of the historical and archaeological review, gave the following reply:[213]
In relation to the broader joint historical and archaeological review, discussions are now under way as to how that can be best taken forward. I note that there is no work currently being undertaken in that very precious area of the front line, but there is enormous pressure in terms of numbers of people wishing to visit the area. Therefore, we have a very clear understanding of the point you were raising before—in relation to tunnels, trenches and remains—and how all of these issues can be worked through together. There is a second track that is also proceeding but I suspect that because it is a bigger area, and because there are undoubtedly large numbers of undisturbed human remains as well as other historical sites—a number of cemeteries and all that sort of thing—that will probably be a longer process to work through.
We note that the joint historical survey between Australia and Turkey is a unique undertaking and to the best of the knowledge of officials at the Inquiry, has not been undertaken previously.[214]
5.3.3 Australian financial commitment to work on Gallipoli
It is important to note that while Australia has made no financial commitments to fund any future work in Gallipoli, there is a preparedness to do so if necessary.
Mr Metcalfe (PM&C) gave the following evidence on this point:[215]
Senator Bishop—Have we made any financial commitments to fund any future work in Gallipoli?
Mr Metcalfe—No, but certainly there is a preparedness to contemplate that if necessary.
Senator Bishop—those two working groups?
Mr Metcalfe—Essentially, work is being carried forward, firstly, quite specifically around the road at ANZAC Cove. I did not have the opportunity to see colleagues from Veterans’ Affairs earlier today, but they may well have said that that work is under way. As I indicated in my opening statement, Mr Borrowman was part of the technical delegation on that issue. That has led to us having some quite useful ideas as to how the roadworks could be completed in a way that meets all concerns. There will be further discussions about that.
5.3.4 Allegations of Turkish plans to build viewing platforms
Subsequent to the Inquiry, Mr Sellars forwarded correspondence to the Committee in which he makes further allegations that Turkish authorities were purportedly planning "to develop a number of scenic viewing areas for visitors at a number of sites at high points on the battlefields of the Gallipoli Peninsula."[216] Mr Sellars relies on alleged media coverage, none of which has been detailed in his correspondence or provided to the Committee.
Subsequently, he goes on to allege that the information that I have received on the proposed developments comes from two different sources, both of them Turkish, however, he is not at liberty to disclose their names. He goes on to make general assertions about allegedly proposed construction, none of which are authenticated or substantiated.
The Secretary to the Committee requested comment from DVA on 22 August 2005. In response, DVA replied as follows on or about 9 September 2005:[217]
The Australian Government shares Turkish concerns that unrestricted public access may cause damage to the historical and environment values of the Anzac area. The Turkish authorities have advised that they may have to consider options to contain and minimise this impact, including protection measures such as boardwalks and viewing platforms. Turkish authorities have advised that they will consult closely with the Australian Government about the development of any measures or works in the Anzac area. This is consistent with the agreement reached between Prime Ministers Howard and Erdogan regarding close cooperation and consultation between the two governments on the protection and preservation of sites in the Gallipoli Peace Park.
Given the ongoing work of the IDC and its interaction with Turkish authorities, Australian authorities have clearly not been made aware of any such alleged proposals. Indeed, it brings in to question the veracity of the fresh assertions made by Mr Sellars.
In short, we believe this information is of no probative value. Given Mr Sellars' propensity in the past in making sensational and unsubstantiated allegations, we believe that such fresh allegations ought to similarly be discounted.
Senator John Watson
(Deputy Chair)
Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page