Secrecy over security checks on Gazans arouses suspicion

For the best part of a week in parliament, Anthony Albanese and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke ducked and weaved over the government’s decision to grant tourist visas, rather than refugee visas, to Palestinians fleeing war-torn Gaza. Applicants for tourist visas generally face less stringent security vetting than those who register for refugee visas. Australia’s generosity to those wanting to leave Gaza, as we reported earlier in the week, has far outstripped that of comparable countries.

From October 7, the date of Hamas’s terrorist slaughter of Israelis, to July 31, the US had accepted 17 Palestinian refugees, Britain 168 and New Zealand 153. By June, Canada had taken about 300 Palestinians and France just 260 up to April.

Given widespread but by no means universal support for Hamas in Gaza, Australians are entitled to a clear explanation from the government as to why the Department of Home Affairs granted 2992 visas to holders of Palestinian Authority travel documents.

On Thursday, under opposition questioning, the Prime Minister repeatedly refused to say that support for Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group, would fail the security “character test” and deny entry to Australia. That was “a critical point for security assessments, immigration policy and the political debate’’, as Dennis Shanahan writes. A day earlier, Mr Albanese revealed that some visitor visas granted to Palestinian refugees fleeing Gaza had been cancelled. He also said he played no role in reinstating visas that were cancelled.

The Australian understands 43 visas were cancelled and 20 of those have been revoked.

The secrecy surrounding the issue is unacceptable. From a conflict as dangerous as that triggered by Hamas, which never hides its intention of wiping Australia’s longstanding ally Israel off the map, Australians are entitled to know the basis on which Gazans are being admitted, why some of their visas were cancelled and why some were reinstated. Concerns about Hamas supporters entering Australia are legitimate.

On Wednesday, Sky News reported that police sources in NSW expressed concerns over tourist visas being issued to Hamas supporters. More rigorous checks were done on the young children of ISIS brides, the police sources said, than on Palestinians arriving in Australia from “terrorist hotspots”.

As Henry Ergas writes, the primary responsibility for admitting Palestinians rests with the government, not with ASIO director-general Mike Burgess, who differentiated recently between material and rhetorical supporters of Hamas. As Ergas writes, after emphasising that anti-Semitism has no place in Australia, “how then could it possibly issue visas to people who sympathise, however ‘rhetorically’, with a movement based on a psychotic hostility to Jews? Is this country’s social cohesion worth so little that it deserves to be shredded for the sake of a few votes?’’

Palestinian envoy to Australia Izzat Salah Abdulhadi told The Australian that many Gazans looking to flee the war were highly educated and could make a “substantial” contribution to the Australian economy.

A fact sheet from the consular registry about 250 Palestinians granted a visa showed 25 per cent were Christian and 75 per cent Muslim; 80 per cent had an undergraduate degree, Mr Abdulhadi said.

That information is of interest to Australians and relevant to the debate. And it underlines the government’s mistake in trying to conceal the details about how Gazans being allowed to enter Australia are being selected and what security checks are being carried out. Too much is at stake for such important processes to be carried out in haste and in secrecy.