Speaker 1: From Sports Media. I'm Daniel James. This is seven am.
Speaker 1: The treatment or mistreatment of refugees fleeing to Australia has
Speaker 1: been the wellspring of Australian politics for almost quarter of
Speaker 1: a century. This time it's Peter Dutton with his call
Speaker 1: for Palestinian's flying gaza to be banned from coming to Australia.
Speaker 1: Language designed to make the government look soft when it
Speaker 1: comes to national security. It comes at a time when
Speaker 1: Asio has called for politicians to dial down the heated,
Speaker 1: a divisive rhetoric consuming national conversations with fear it could
Speaker 1: spark violence within the community. Today, former Deputy Secretary of
Speaker 1: the Department of Immigration Abol Risve on the new law
Speaker 1: we've reached and why Peter Dutton's ban makes no sense
Speaker 1: is Tuesday August twenty a. Well, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 1: You are a senior official at Department of Immigration for
Speaker 1: decades and responsible for the migration program for ten years.
Speaker 1: Can you describe to me what level of support the
Speaker 1: Australian government has offered Palestinians flying gaza and how that
Speaker 1: compares to people fleeing past conflicts.
Speaker 2: To date, the only thing the government has offered to
Speaker 2: people fleeing gaza is the opportunity to apply for a
Speaker 2: visit a visa. We need to remember absolutely anybody can
Speaker 2: apply for a visita visa, and so those visit divisas
Speaker 2: are the minimal offering that a government can make, or
Speaker 2: indeed it's probably the most minimalist offering we have made
Speaker 2: to people fleeing war and conflict, at least in the
Speaker 2: last thirty years. In the last thirty years, in every
Speaker 2: instance we have offered some form of humanitarian pathway to
Speaker 2: people fleeing war and conflict. So in the late nineteen nineties,
Speaker 2: about nineteen ninety eight, there was the Balkan War and
Speaker 2: there was significant bombing of places in Kosovo, and the
Speaker 2: whole world was saying, this is an appalling situation. Something
Speaker 2: must be done. Australia under Prime Minister John Howard at
Speaker 2: the time, eventually offered seven to eight thousand places for costs.
Speaker 3: Of our refugees to come to Australia.
Speaker 2: Those people were taken directly out of refugee camps where
Speaker 2: they had just escaped. In terms of the documentation, many
Speaker 2: of those people would have had some of them would
Speaker 2: have had passports, many would not have had passports. Our
Speaker 2: ability to check or do the normal security checking in
Speaker 2: those circumstances was minimal. Nevertheless, it was recognized by the
Speaker 2: Howard government that these people were facing severe peril and
Speaker 2: they had to be evacuated quickly. What we did was
Speaker 2: we arranged for flight out of that war zone back
Speaker 2: to Australia.
Speaker 3: We didn't offer them visitor visas. We said, we will
Speaker 3: let you.
Speaker 2: Get onto a plane, we will give you these special
Speaker 2: humanitarian visas. We will feed you and house you until
Speaker 2: that war subsides, which is what we did. In other words,
Speaker 2: we offered those people far, far more than anything that
Speaker 2: we have offered people fleeing Gaza today. I think that
Speaker 2: contrast between the views of mister Dutton contrasting with what
Speaker 2: mister Howard did at the time is just quite extraordinary.
Speaker 3: Now, that's not the only time that happened.
Speaker 2: We did similar things when a year later the Indonesian
Speaker 2: Army was invading East Timor and we were trying to
Speaker 2: protect these t Marese. The Coalition government did something similar
Speaker 2: when the Taliban returned to Afghanistan. It shows what Australia
Speaker 2: can do when it puts its mind to it.
Speaker 1: As you say, the government has offered visited visas, and
Speaker 1: there has been a lot of criticism about the level
Speaker 1: of security screening that happens under these visas. So can
Speaker 1: you describe that screening process and how it compares to
Speaker 1: something like a permanent humanitarian visa?
Speaker 2: Sure, So, a visita visa is only a visa that
Speaker 2: is going to allow someone to stay in Australia for
Speaker 2: three months. The person will initially be screened in terms
Speaker 2: of what is known as the genuine visit requirement, and
Speaker 2: I suspect the vast majority of people who are being
Speaker 2: refused are being refused because they do not fit the
Speaker 2: requirements of being able to demonstrate that they intend a
Speaker 2: genuine visit. If the person is possibly headed for an approval,
Speaker 2: they will be checked against what is known as the
Speaker 2: Movement Alert list, and if the individual is on the
Speaker 2: Movement Alert list, there will be a discussion with ASIO
Speaker 2: and the person is most likely to then be refused
Speaker 2: on security grounds. If there are other flags that come
Speaker 2: up that suggest there may be a security or a
Speaker 2: character issue, the case would be referred to ASIO, and
Speaker 2: ASIO would undertake their own background checks, including things like
Speaker 2: checking with partners in the Five Eyes, checking with relevant
Speaker 2: other governments where appropriate, checking what kind of things they've
Speaker 2: been saying on social media, and Asia will then make
Speaker 2: a decision. I think it's important to understand here that
Speaker 2: if the person expresses support for some of the objectives
Speaker 2: of HAMAS, Asio Director General has said, that will not
Speaker 2: necessarily lead to a refusal. For example, one objective of
Speaker 2: a HAMAS is an independent Palestinian state. If a person
Speaker 2: expresses support for that objective of a mass clearly that
Speaker 2: would be just about everybody in Palestine, so that won't
Speaker 2: lead to a refusal. However, if the person expresses support
Speaker 2: for hamas's violent objectives of using violence to create a
Speaker 2: Palestinian state, that may well lead to a refusal on
Speaker 2: security grounds.
Speaker 1: The government has collpeted that now in the coalition's own
Speaker 1: use of these visitor visas, can you tell me how
Speaker 1: the coalition has used these visas in the past and
Speaker 1: if there's any difference between how they're being used now.
Speaker 2: I think a good example is the Ukraine crisis, where
Speaker 2: this divisas were used for people initially fleeing Ukraine who
Speaker 2: were getting into places like Poland or Hungary and then
Speaker 2: applying for this divisas to Australia Australia was providing those
Speaker 2: individuals with VI divisas and then also providing them with
Speaker 2: a humanitarian pathway for extended stay in Australia. In that instance,
Speaker 2: there were no concerns raised about security checks. Now, security
Speaker 2: checks would have been taking place for people where red
Speaker 2: flags were raised and they would have gone through a
Speaker 2: very similar process. So in that instance, concerns were not raised.
Speaker 2: In this instance, concerns are being raised, and it's not
Speaker 2: clear what the difference is.
Speaker 1: Would you take a swing out what the difference might be.
Speaker 2: I think I think the politics of this is very
Speaker 2: different to the politics of people coming from Ukraine. The
Speaker 2: Australian government and the opposit position were at one in
Speaker 2: terms of the Ukrainian Russian War. I think on the
Speaker 2: issue of Gaza there is a difference between the two
Speaker 2: major political parties and I suspect that is driving the
Speaker 2: difference in approach.
Speaker 1: Coming up after the break, what is Peter Dutton's own
Speaker 1: record on immigration abil We've talked about the visa application process,
Speaker 1: both for visitors and for people coming into Australia on
Speaker 1: permanent humanitarian visas. What ex actally is Peter Dutton proposing?
Speaker 1: What has he actually said what's his solution here?
Speaker 2: Well, when he was initially interviewed on this, he used
Speaker 2: the words at all.
Speaker 1: I do want to ask you about the security checks
Speaker 1: on Palestinians coming in from Gaza.
Speaker 3: Your thoughts on that this morning.
Speaker 4: Well, I just think every Australian would be shocked to
Speaker 4: think that the government's bringing in people from warzone.
Speaker 2: In other words, they shouldn't be getting visas at all.
Speaker 4: I don't think people should be coming in from that
Speaker 4: war zone at all at the moment. It's not proven
Speaker 4: to do so, and I think it puts out national
Speaker 4: security at risk.
Speaker 1: That's Peter Dunney.
Speaker 2: The problem with that position is that what he is
Speaker 2: recommending is unlawful. There is nothing in the current law
Speaker 2: which says people from Palestine should never be eligible for
Speaker 2: a visitor visa. I think it wouldn't be an easy
Speaker 2: law to change. I think there would be serious issues
Speaker 2: that would arise. I suspect we'd be looking at high
Speaker 2: court challenges and that sort of thing. But let's assume
Speaker 2: that's what mister Dunton wanted to do. He'd have to
Speaker 2: go through that legal process. In the meantime. I get
Speaker 2: the impression that after the initial interview, further consideration has
Speaker 2: been given to what should happen.
Speaker 1: David little Browd, welcome to the program.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thanks for having me. So.
Speaker 2: For example, mister little Proud has said we should be
Speaker 2: looking at biometrics.
Speaker 1: With biometric testing and doing it in third country, and
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton made that very clear that that's a sensible
Speaker 1: way that's worked previously for Australia.
Speaker 2: To Now biometrics are things like fingerprints etc. Taking fingerprints
Speaker 2: from these applicants, well, firstly would be very difficult. But
Speaker 2: let's assume you could take fingerprints. That doesn't actually help
Speaker 2: you in deciding the visa unless you can run the
Speaker 2: fingerprints and match them against a fingerprint database presumably of
Speaker 2: people who are members of Hamas. Unless we've got such
Speaker 2: a database, taking fingerprints doesn't actually help it all. The
Speaker 2: second suggestion has been face to face interviews. Now we
Speaker 2: need to remember ASIO doesn't conduct generally face to face
Speaker 2: interviews with visa applicants. Face to face interviews with visa
Speaker 2: applicants are conducted, if they're conducted at all, by the
Speaker 2: visa processing officer from the Department of Home Affairs. They
Speaker 2: are not looking at security issues. They are looking at
Speaker 2: whether the person meets the criteria of a genuine visit.
Speaker 2: If there are flags regarding character or secure already, then
Speaker 2: that will be referred to ASIA. Face to face interviews
Speaker 2: don't actually help a lot in terms of assessing national
Speaker 2: security risks.
Speaker 1: Well, Peter Dutton was Immigration Minister from twenty fourteen to
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. He would know full well how a lot
Speaker 1: of these political machinations you've talked about actually work. So
Speaker 1: how does his rhetoric match up to his record?
Speaker 2: His rhetoric has been quite hardline, that's undoubtedly true, and
Speaker 2: he has He did make changes to the migration intake
Speaker 2: in terms of its size, the permanent migration program and
Speaker 2: after the twenty thousand special allocation for people fleeing ISIS
Speaker 2: that was administered when he was Minister for Immigration. He
Speaker 2: didn't announce that. That was announced by Malcolm Turnbull. He
Speaker 2: had to administer it. He would have gone through the
Speaker 2: checking processes that are currently being used by ASIA, so
Speaker 2: he would understand how those checking processes work and he
Speaker 2: would know that there wasn't a blanket refusal there. But
Speaker 2: twenty thousand people were visaed largely whilst he was Immigration
Speaker 2: Minister at the same time, and I think many Australians
Speaker 2: would not be aware of this. Whilst he was Immigration minister,
Speaker 2: there took place the largest labor trafficking scam in Australia's history,
Speaker 2: abusing the asylum system.
Speaker 1: You want to tell us about that.
Speaker 2: So what happened is that from about twenty fifteen onwards
Speaker 2: until COVID, we had a massive increase in people being
Speaker 2: brought into the country, initially from Malaysia on vis divisas
Speaker 2: and subsequently from China on vis divisas. Those people were
Speaker 2: being assisted by traffickers. Those traffickers were bringing those people in,
Speaker 2: helping them to apply for asylum, which gave them work
Speaker 2: rights for a period, then putting them to work on farms,
Speaker 2: in sex shops, on construin duction sites, and the trafficker
Speaker 2: would take a cut out of those people's wages in
Speaker 2: order to profit from that business. We need to remember
Speaker 2: labor trafficking of that sort is the second biggest criminal
Speaker 2: industry on the planet behind drug trafficking. That took place
Speaker 2: when mister Dutton was Immigration Minister. The bulk of the
Speaker 2: people who were trafficked into the country at that time
Speaker 2: are still here.
Speaker 3: On any objective measure.
Speaker 2: Mister Dutton was the biggest failure in terms of border
Speaker 2: protection that we have had in our history.
Speaker 1: Given what we know about Dutton's record and how he's
Speaker 1: spoken about immigration for years, should it really be a
Speaker 1: surprise that we're hearing about this now.
Speaker 3: It does surprise me. It is unprecedented.
Speaker 2: I cannot recall a time in our history where any
Speaker 2: major party political leader said no, we will not accept
Speaker 2: anyone from this war zone. In the past, we have
Speaker 2: debated how we should respond, how quickly we should respond,
Speaker 2: what level of assistance we should provide, what financial assistance
Speaker 2: we should provide, what housing assistance we should provide. We've
Speaker 2: debated all of that, but no one, no major political leader,
Speaker 2: has ever said no, absolutely, not one person should come in.
Speaker 2: What Australia should have done is to create a humanitarian pathway,
Speaker 2: a humanitarian visa pathway for people who are escaping Palestine
Speaker 2: right now now. It could design that visa and set
Speaker 2: the criteria in such a way that you narrowed down
Speaker 2: the people that you helped. For example, you could narrow
Speaker 2: it right down to people who have some sort of.
Speaker 3: Familial link to an Australian citizen.
Speaker 2: You could also narrow it down to people who, for example, are.
Speaker 3: At extreme peril or extreme risk.
Speaker 2: For example, they could be people who have been orphaned
Speaker 2: but have a family relative in Australia no family at
Speaker 2: all in Palestine because they've been killed. They're young children,
Speaker 2: an obvious category for us to be assisting. That is
Speaker 2: the most sensible way of proceeding. It's the way we've
Speaker 2: proceeded always in the past. We've been successful at doing
Speaker 2: that in the past. Why we wouldn't be repeating that
Speaker 2: is really a function of politics, not a function of
Speaker 2: good policy.
Speaker 1: Finally, able what does our history of policies towards refugees
Speaker 1: say about us as a nation.
Speaker 2: We've run a refugee program since World War II. We
Speaker 2: were the first country to take Jewish displaced people out
Speaker 2: of World War II, when at a time when every
Speaker 2: other country in the world said, no, we're not going
Speaker 2: to take Jews, We're just not going to do it.
Speaker 3: We broke the logjam. It was Australia that, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Ever since then, we have consistently been at the front
Speaker 2: of developing good policy on how to help people fleeing conflicts.
Speaker 3: We are good at it. Why we're not doing that now.
Speaker 2: Is a really sad reflection on where our politics is at.
Speaker 1: What does that say about us?
Speaker 3: We are changing, We are changing as a nation.
Speaker 1: Abel, Thank you for your time. You welcome. Also in
Speaker 1: the news today, the Labor government has agreed to a
Speaker 1: coalition demand to put the CFMAU into a minimum three
Speaker 1: year administration. During the administration, the union will be barred
Speaker 1: from making political donations to see if. Meir was thrust
Speaker 1: into the spotlight in July over allegations of corruption and
Speaker 1: links to organized crime and Harmas has rejected the latest
Speaker 1: US proposal for a ceasefire and hostage deal with Israel.
Speaker 1: The group accused the Israeli Prime Minister of setting new
Speaker 1: proposals that ignored their long standing conditions. Earlier, Prime Minister
Speaker 1: Netanyahu told the Israeli Cabinet that he would remain firm.
Speaker 1: The Hammasfran Health Ministry reports the death told in Gaza
Speaker 1: has surpassed forty thousand. If you enjoyed today's show, we
Speaker 1: would appreciate you sharing it. I'm Daniel James. This is
Speaker 1: seven am. We'll be back tomorrow.