Fact checking the myths on Dutton's Palestinian visa ban

Australians have been subjected to a torrent of myth-making after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, in full Donald Trump mode, declared he wouldn’t allow any visas to be granted to Palestinians fleeing the war in Gaza.

In the scramble to justify Dutton’s thought bubble, his colleagues David Littleproud, Dan Tehan and James Paterson have been quick to offer all sorts of justifications for Dutton’s position. The Murdoch press has turbo-charged the myth-making with alarming enthusiasm.

Many of them have started backing out from Dutton’s total ban idea to offering “expert” advice on how visa and security checking could be done better.

Myth #1: Dutton’s demand could be legally implemented

Leaving aside the unprecedented nature of Dutton’s demand, the media has failed to report that such a visa ban would be illegal under the current Migration Act. The Act requires each visa application to be considered on its merits against the legal criteria. Even if Dutton was still minister for immigration, he could not legally instruct visa processing officers to refuse all visa applications from Palestinians.

He would need to change the legislation to give himself that power. That would be a highly dubious legislative change, unlikely to pass the Senate or survive legal challenge. Dutton would know that but is happy to pretend otherwise.

Peter Dutton demonises Gaza refugees for political point-scoring

In a move that won’t surprise many, the Opposition’s venomous rhetoric has once again exacerbated the debate on Australia’s refugee policy.

Myth #2: Biometrics such as fingerprinting would fix the problem

To get out of Gaza and into Egypt, Palestinians must first pass through Israeli checkpoints where the Israeli military is on the lookout for Hamas operatives (and is much better at identifying them than anybody else) and then must pass Egyptian authorities who reportedly do check biometrics against a database they hold.

Australian immigration officials taking biometrics would be fine but unless we have a biometric database of Hamas operatives (highly unlikely), there is little value in those biometrics at this time.

Myth #3: Face-to-face interviews would fix the problem

Face-to-face interviews are sometimes conducted by visa processing officers but these are not for security checking purposes. For a visitor visa application, a face-to-face interview may be used to check whether a genuine visit is intended or to help with confirming identity.

But these are conducted on a targeted basis. For example, there would be little point in doing a face-to-face interview with a visa applicant who has visited their family in Australia many times and has always complied with the conditions of their visa.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) does not have an overseas network to be able to conduct face-to-face interviews with visa applicants. Its security checking work is largely done in the background.

Dutton denies parliamentary reproach — but if the 'racist' cap fits

The Opposition attempted to pick a fight over immigration in Parliament recently, only to suffer a backlash from many quarters.

Myth #4: All visa applications from Palestinians should be referred to ASIO

Given the high refusal rate of Palestinians applying for visas to Australia, it would be an extraordinary waste of resources to refer applications headed for refusal on other grounds to ASIO. Applications from people who are on the Migration Alert List and are not headed for a refusal anyway would almost always be referred to ASIO.

There will be other cases that raise red flags to the visa processing officer, which would be referred to ASIO based on its guidance. But referring cases that aren’t on the Migration Alert List and do not raise red flags would be an extraordinary waste of ASIO’s resources at a time when the agency is flat chat keeping up with its existing caseload.

It is important to note that a visitor visa only gives the visa holder three months in Australia. If they apply to extend their stay, particularly if they apply for asylum, the applicant would be subject to very extensive further checks, including security checks.

The Coalition’s panic at the grant of a visitor visa and its demand that every application be referred to ASIO is more about scaremongering than the efficient use of resources.

Myth #5: Australian politicians have never expressed support for terrorist organisations

A number of Coalition politicians and Murdoch journalist Greg Sheridan have expressed surprise at the ASIO Director-General’s statement that generalised support for Hamas does not automatically lead to visa refusal.

Sheridan says:

‘I can never remember any previous minister or official saying it was okay to support a terrorist group.’

He has a short memory.

During the “troubles’ in Northern Ireland, the IRA was declared a terrorist organisation. Many Australians, including politicians, expressed support for the Irish Republican cause but not for the use of violence.

Dutton dotes on Israel during visit organised by pro-Israel lobby group

Australian politicians – lately, Peter Dutton – have enjoyed political junkets to Israel more than any other destination. Very few of them go to Gaza to see what’s really happening.

In terms of visa processing, Australia did not refuse visas for people from Northern Ireland, or anywhere else, for expressing support for the IRA, although one or two top officials of Sinn Féin were refused visas on character grounds.

Similarly, Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC) were declared terrorists. Many Australian politicians, including Prime Ministers Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke, expressed support for the release of Mandela and for the ANC’s demands for an end to Apartheid.

I do not recall anyone who expressed support for Mandela and the ANC being refused visas on those grounds.

Myth #6: Neighbouring countries don’t take Palestinian refugees

This is a Tony Abbott and Murdoch press myth that could not be further from the truth. The fact is there have for years been hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, driven out by the impact of policies of the Israeli Government.

Yes, these countries are controlling their borders and currently limiting the flow of Palestinians. But another very large outflow of Palestinian refugees into these nations would be playing into the hands of the ethnic cleansing policies of the Netanyahu regime. That has been Netanyahu’s objective for decades.

Myth #7: No like-minded country is providing visas for Palestinians

This is complete nonsense. Several countries in Europe, particularly Belgium, are providing visas for Palestinians.

New Zealand has co-ordinated visa processing for all Israeli and Palestinian nationals into the one office and set up a dedicated mailbox for such applications to request prioritisation. Between 7 October 2023 and 13 August 2024, NZ received 635 applications from Israeli nationals, granted 524 and refused 19. It received 153 applications from Palestinians, granted 91 and refused 31.

While its overall numbers are smaller, NZ is granting visas to Palestinians at a higher approval rate than Australia.

Canada is the country most like Australia from an immigration policy perspective. In May this year, the Canadian Government announced it would provide 5,000 places for a special humanitarian visa for Palestinians to join family in Canada. It would have been better if Australia had followed this approach rather than using visitor visas. But the Dutton and Murdoch press attack on that approach would have been deafening.

The reality is that where Australia differs from like-minded countries is that no leader of a major party in those countries has announced a ban on visas for Palestinians. In that, Dutton has made us very different.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul.