IN this age of terrorism it is easy to miss the small events that perhaps represent greater threats to our security and civil liberties.

Last week federal parliament’s Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (formerly known as the Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD) tabled a report which has far-reaching implications for the civil rights of potentially thousands of Australians. The report was a review of the Howard Government’s December 2005 decision to list the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) as a terrorist organisation. The Criminal Code Act 1995 makes membership of or support for any organisation so listed a criminal offence and imposes severe penalties.

The majority of the Committee supported the listing of the PKK as a ‘proscribed organisation’ under the Criminal Code — though it also recommended that the Government keep the matter under review. The Committee asked the government to give active consideration to the number of Australians who support the PKK’s broad aims without endorsing terrorist activity and whether it might be sufficient to ban only the PKK’s military wing, the Kurdistan Freedom Brigade. It also asked the government to take into account the fluid state of moves towards ceasefires between the PKK and the government of Turkey.

There are around 5000 Australians of Kurdish origin.

Notwithstanding the Committee’s careful qualifications, the ban on the PKK potentially exposes thousands of Australians of Kurdish background to imprisonment — because belonging to the PKK now carries a ten year gaol term. Just associating with the PKK carries a three year term of imprisonment. Many could be people who have lived perfectly ordinary lives in Australia and who themselves have had nothing to do with terrorism, but who identify the PKK as ‘their party’ in the sense that they support it as a legitimate national liberation movement fighting for the freedom of the Kurdish people.

The Joint Committee does not divide on partisan lines. In the past the Committee has reached unanimous conclusions but in this case it was not possible. As a result I joined in a minority report which recommends that the Government reassess its listing of the PKK.

Australia currently lists nineteen organisations under the Criminal Code, including the PKK. However in no other case has there been reason to believe that the banning of an organisation could catch large numbers of Australians or impinge on their civil rights. The organisations that have been banned have been terrorist groups pure and simple or the military (terrorist) wings of larger organisations such as Hamas or Hezbollah.

National liberation struggle

In evidence to the Committee the Attorney-General’s Department advised that it is relevant for the Committee to consider the practical impact of imposing severe criminal penalties on large numbers of Australian residents who support what they see as a national liberation struggle. But no Government agency could give the Committee any information about the number of people who might be caught up in this net.

The Committee received no evidence that a ban on the PKK would directly benefit Australia’s national security. There was no evidence of any terrorist activity conducted by the PKK or members of the Kurdish community in Australia. Australia already has strong laws criminalising actual conduct involving terrorism — sending money out of Australia to aid the PKK is already prohibited, just as it is already an offence for an Australian to serve an organisation seeking to overthrow a foreign government by force. Nor have Australians overseas been directly targeted.

That is not to suggest that Australians visiting Turkey could not become victims of the conflict in that country. But that risk is similar to that which faces tourists in many other troubled regions of the world where governments face armed opposition groups. There is always a risk that visitors and tourists could get caught up and become innocent victims. Fortunately to date no Australian tourist has been killed as a result of any PKK-related activity.

The Joint Committee had previously adopted criteria, submitted by ASIO, to guide its decisions regarding proposed listings of terrorist organisations. The criteria were designed to justify discrimination between organisations which have resorted to the use of political violence which should be listed as terrorist organisations and those (the larger majority) which should not. The Australian Parliament relies on the Joint Committee to ensure that the quite extraordinary legal step of making it a crime to support or belong to an organisation is not taken inappropriately. The Joint Committee has published those criteria in its previous reports. There has been no rationale put forward in this case to justify a departure from the policy ASIO itself identified in earlier hearings. The listing of the PKK does not meet these criteria.

Our minority report asks the government to reassess the listing. It asks why any ban could not be limited to the PKK’s military arm? This has been the approach taken in respect of other groups such as Hamas which have both political and armed aspects. The Government’s own statement of reasons for listing the PKK referred to the PKK’s military wing—so such a distinction would have been possible. A ban so limited would allow Australians to exercise their democratic rights to express their support for the PKK and its campaign for a Kurdish homeland while at the same time to treat membership or support for their military or terrorist wings as a criminal offence.

The impact on Australia’s Kurdish community of the enforcement of these laws could be far-reaching and disastrous, not just for those peaceable individuals who could unwittingly be caught up in terrorism trials, but more broadly for the relations between civic groups and the Government. Notwithstanding the usually legitimate reasons we share in responding strongly to terrorist, there is suspicion amongst some communities in Australia about the Government’s rhetoric of equality and respect when it comes to people of different faiths. The precedent of this listing could well serve to entrench and broaden such views. If it does Australia will be a weaker nation, not safer, as a result.