Politicians were warned to watch their words on the Middle East. Was Peter Dutton listening?
Politicians, watch your words, the Asio director general said in an interview on Sunday morning. When it comes to commentary on events in the Middle East, be careful what you say.
Three days on and the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, was declaring that the government is bringing people in from the Gaza “war zone” and “Asio is not conducting checks and searches on these people”. He demanded a blanket ban on Palestinian visas, full stop.
In response, the new home affairs minister, Tony Burke, implied that Asio is closely scrutinising everyone. Neither thing is wholly true.
First up, a couple of things to note. The only Gaza-based Palestinians considered for visas are those with proven family connections to Australia. And, for the past couple of months at least, very few people have been able to get out of Gaza at all. So we’re mostly talking about people who are already here.
Asked in parliament on Wednesday whether any visas had been issued without an Asio security check to people from Gaza since the 7 October Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, Burke gave a carefully worded response.
“There is a process which Asio is involved with which applies to every single visa – every single visa issued by Australia – whether you come from the United States or whether you come from the Gaza Strip,” Burke said in question time on Wednesday.
He said that was through the movement alert list, what Asio called its “watch list”.
“It is updated every 24 hours with every name that Asio puts forward that they are concerned about. Every single visa that has been issued by this government and by the previous government went through that check against Asio’s information.”
Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup
He was right to say every visa went through the process. But that doesn’t mean Asio scrutinised every applicant. And it can’t. It doesn’t have the capacity to do that.
When people trapped in Gaza seek visas to Australia, there’s a process that starts with the Department of Home Affairs conducting security checks. If someone’s name throws up a red flag – if they’re on a database of people of concern – their case goes to Asio for a more detailed security assessment, including checks with agencies in other countries.
Each flagged applicant’s potential security risk is assessed against specific criteria that are listed in the Asio act. A person can’t be rejected simply because they come from Gaza, or have flown the Palestinian flag, or called for statehood for their homeland.
As the Asio director general, Mike Burgess, explained on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, even expressing rhetorical support for listed terrorist organisation-Hamas is not automatically enough to see someone fail a security assessment, despite the shadow home affairs minister, James Paterson, suggesting on Thursday that it should be. If they have demonstrated more explicit support for violent extremist ideology, or provided financial or other kinds of backing, that’s a different story. Then they have a problem.
If Asio returns an adverse security assessment on an individual, their visa application is automatically rejected. Separate from this process, applicants who were not red-flagged are assessed by Home Affairs on character grounds, as per the provisions in the Migration Act. There’s a bit more grey in the “character” criteria and room for more subjective judgments. In the end a departmental official makes the decision.
So Dutton’s assertion that the government is not conducting checks is false. These checks were the same when he was the minister. On the numbers Burke has provided, most applicants have been rejected. It’s not clear how many of these were on security grounds. Burke did not specify reasons, but they can also include doubts about whether the application is for a genuinely temporary stay.
Are the checks going to guarantee that no person granted a visa will ever do Australia harm? No. But, as Burgess spelled out, currently Asio is most worried about folks who already live here, maybe were even born here, and who have nothing to do with Gaza, but who – in a volatile political climate and with social media algorithms feeding them extreme content – may suddenly, without warning, decide to commit violent acts.
Burgess said the war in Gaza was not the reason Asio recommended 10 days ago that the government raise Australia’s national terrorism threat level from “possible” to “probable”. That was about the risk of a broader kind of politically motivated violence.
He said that, since April this year, Asio and the Australian federal police had investigated eight serious incidents – violent acts that were carried out, planned or threatened – and that five had involved children, the youngest being 14.
“None of them were inspired by Gaza,” Burgess said.
But he warned that the 7 October Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel’s retaliatory war in Gaza had fuelled division in Australia, including both antisemitism and Islamophobia, both of which he described as “unacceptable”. In that kind of atmosphere, he urged everyone to choose their words with care.
It is perfectly legitimate to question the government on national security. But it matters how and why it is done. Dutton is demonstrating no regard for Burgess’ warning.
He is using the war to make a political point, to heighten the fear of violence and add to the pressure the government is already under in trying to walk the line between compassion for people being bombed in Gaza and national security.
And Burke is caught between the Coalition’s reductionist politics and the expectations of Labor constituents – including in his own electorate – who are already bitterly disappointed at what they see as the government’s inadequate Gaza response. But the prime minister would have known that when he appointed him.
The bottom line is, it’s hardly in the government’s interest to wave people through the visa process who may pose a threat to Australia.
There’s no evidence that the director general of Asio believes that process is inadequate but he’s clearly concerned about the trajectory of political debate.
On that, there is evidence that he’s being ignored.