August 30, 2024
The Albanese government is in salvage mode after being exposed for its policy folly over the entry of people from Gaza to Australia. Labor, losing on the immigration/security issue, is trying to snatch a win by pivoting to brand Peter Dutton a leader who “divides deliberately, almost pathologically”. The attack on the Opposition Leader is inspired by Labor weakness.
The more Labor’s standing as a government deteriorates, the more it moves to denigrate Dutton, seeking a repeat of its successful assault on Scott Morrison’s character before the 2022 election. But there are two problems with this tactic.
First, it merely perpetuates the migrant-entry issue from war-torn Gaza, a losing issue for Labor with polls showing more support for Dutton than Labor on this question – it is obvious that what Labor needs to be doing is defusing the Gaza debacle as effectively as possible rather than treating it as a smoking gun for a Dutton racist tag.
Second, while Dutton is hardly popular and is seen by many as divisive, he is projecting as a conviction politician – the opposite of Morrison’s image – while Anthony Albanese increasingly is seen as a leader for compromise, trading off competing interests, running the risk Dutton will be seen as the stronger leader, his tough stand on Gaza merely the latest evidence.
Labor’s tactic defies history. Border protection security is the Coalition’s single greatest political strength of the past 25 years – and one of Labor’s greatest vulnerabilities. New Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke knows this first hand given he had to reverse Labor’s policy in 2013 after a recalled Kevin Rudd put him into the immigration portfolio.
Labor’s problem over Gaza entry became a full-scale embarrassment in the final fortnight of the recent parliamentary session because the government was unable to enunciate the entry policy it had followed, its principles and guidelines, and offer any convincing assurances to the public. Indeed, Labor hid behind the issue of ASIO security vetting in a transparently implausible ploy.
Forget all the nonsense generated by ASIO chief Mike Burgess’s interview weeks ago on the ABC. Contrary to much of the media bleating, Burgess does not make immigration entry policy. He does not decide who comes to Australia. That’s not his job and it is not ASIO’s brief – it is the government’s job.
The government has seriously blundered and seems trapped. That became apparent on the last sitting day when Liberal backbencher Julian Leeser twice asked the Prime Minister: Does supporting Hamas pass the character test for an Australian visa? What did Albanese say? He dodged the question. He couldn’t answer. Incredible.
Why? The reason is surely obvious – it’s because under the government’s policy some of the people who came to Australia would obviously support Hamas given the extent of political support it enjoys in Gaza.
It will fall to Burke, somehow or other, to extricate the government from this mess. At present Burke is assessing people on a case-by-case basis and essentially moving people on to bridging visas as their tourist visa expires. He is doing this low key. His aim is to keep the issue away from the headlines.
In the government’s response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, 2922 people have been granted visas although only 1300 have been able to leave. The border is now closed. Just more than 7000 applications have been rejected. In recent months approval rates have stalled. Labor has been under pressure from Palestinian interests to take more people.
Almost nothing is known about the government’s originating decision. Was this authorised on submission by the national security committee of cabinet, as the only proper decision-making body? Was an overall entry number agreed? Why were tourist visas used? What security provisions were authorised? Why didn’t the Prime Minister make a formal, detailed statement on the decision and related questions?
This was an invitation to political trouble. The upshot is a chaotic situation that pleases virtually nobody. Education Minister Jason Clare said this week he didn’t think anybody coming from Gaza had “any sympathy for Hamas”. That’s bravado. But he wouldn’t know. What measures did the government require to achieve this? As new minister Burke knows, with the tourist visas expiring the government needs to outline the next step – presumably new visas based on fresh assessments.
The conflict between Labor and the Coalition threatens to become ongoing – Dutton attacks the policy basis on which people were given entry from Gaza. Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson told Inquirer that in the next stage after their tourist visas expire, arrivals “will need to be assessed in terms of the character provisions of the Migration Act and vetted by ASIO, and if identified support for Hamas comes up then their visas should be cancelled”.
Burke says “no country in the world is sending people back to Gaza”. Does this mean anyone here will stay permanently? Burke won’t answer that question. But if he is genuinely tough on national security any assumption of permanent residence for all cannot be assumed.
Meanwhile, the deliberately created confusion that has plagued this row – the separate issues of entry policy and security checks – needs to be clarified.
Former ASIO head Dennis Richardson told Inquirer: “ASIO is a statutory authority and its responsibilities are defined in legislation. When ASIO makes an assessment about someone seeking to enter Australia, that assessment is based on security threats as defined in the ASIO Act. What Mike Burgess said in his television interview was accurate in relation to ASIO’s responsibilities.
“But that’s separate to entry policy – that’s a decision that governments make about the sort of people it wants in this country and it goes to the issue of character. So there is no inconsistency between ASIO saying a person is not a security threat to Australia under the act and a policy decision taken by government on character grounds that a person has a set of values incompatible with our society and that we would have difficulty in accommodating.
“My personal view is that the fewer people in Australia who sympathise with and support Hamas the better. I would prefer no one coming into the country who sympathises with or supports Hamas.”
Obviously, this is not Labor’s position or policy. If it were, then Albanese would have told the parliament in unequivocal terms. Indeed, he would have sung it from the rooftops. Labor has failed on two counts – it has been unable to enunciate its policy on Gaza entry and its security checks have been grossly inadequate. It is an astonishing situation and the government needs to make an urgent clarification of its position. The longer this lasts, the more ground Dutton will gain.
Let’s understand the issue. When it comes to entry policy ASIO is not the guardian of Australian values. Since when did we want a security and intelligence agency with that task? It is the government’s job to deliver an entry policy that safeguards the Australian community, promotes community cohesion and has the public’s confidence.
Paterson told Inquirer that because the Coalition had no confidence in Labor’s actions in terms of security or entry policy from Gaza, until the government could demonstrate such confidence the Coalition would support a pause on people from Gaza – a stance that seems to transcend the question of the current closed border.
Paterson said: “As a matter of policy it is completely unacceptable that we would be bringing supporters of Hamas or anti-Semites into our country. The government is hiding behind security and ASIO on this issue.
“Their position lacks public confidence and the public doesn’t trust them. They are using ASIO as a political shield to try to protect themselves.”
In his answers in parliament, Albanese said: “Everyone who applies for an Australian visa is subject to the same security standard set by the same agencies and the same personnel as under the former government. Our intelligence agencies make those decisions. Our intelligence agencies have the confidence of this side of the house and so does Mick Burgess.”
Paterson said: “I think the Prime Minister has transparently misled the parliament by repeatedly claiming they’re doing what we did.
“The difference is, first, we didn’t use tourist visas. Second, in Gaza, we don’t have any Australian government officials on the ground, and that means it’s not possible to do either face-to-face interviews or any biometric testing as distinct from just sight unseen, online granting of tourist visas.
“In both Syria and Afghanistan we did help people get immediate help by evacuating them to third countries, where they could be assessed on the ground by officials including face-to-face interviews. It was only when we were completely satisfied people met the criteria for a refugee or humanitarian visa and that they posed no security risk that they were able to enter Australia.”
Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Justin Bassi, former national security adviser to Malcolm Turnbull, told Inquirer: “It is absolutely the responsibility of the government to make it clear – as a matter of policy and principle – that any support, violent or non-violent, for a terrorist organisation is unacceptable and you should not be given a visa. That is a policy issue.
“We have to deal with these issues before they get to the intelligence community. The community focuses on security and intelligence matters. But the government and the policy agencies have to make it crystal clear what the policy is and the policy must be that people cannot be supporting a terrorist organisation.”
Interviewed by Inquirer, Tony Abbott rejected Albanese’s “same standards” claim and said the process his government followed with refugees from Syria was far different – the NSC made the decision, set the number and Abbott made a formal announcement.
“My government announced we were taking 12,000 people in family groups from persecuted minorities from the Syrian war zone,” Abbott said. “In the end, about 90 per cent were Christians. All of them were chosen by our officials, not the UNHCR. They were interviewed by our people in Jordan, they were biometrically tested and security assessed. These people have settled pretty well in the Australian community.
“Gaza is a different situation. What the Albanese government has done in bringing in up to 3000 people from a terrorist-controlled war zone on tourist visas is contrary to precedent and common sense.”
In reply, Burke issues several disclaimers. He says the Coalition used both tourist visas as well as humanitarian visas from war zones. He says every person coming to this country from Gaza had to be checked against an ASIO watch list. If they failed that test, an automatic ASIO referral followed.
Albanese and Jim Chalmers have tried to turn political defence into attack. Albanese said: “Peter Dutton has promoted division his entire political career. He always looks for what will divide Australians rather than what will bring Australians together.”
Taking the assault to a new intensity, Chalmers in his John Curtin Oration – devoted overwhelmingly to his economic vision – said of Dutton: “He is the most divisive leader of a major political party in Australia’s modern history – and not by accident, by choice. At a time when most sane people see political divisiveness around the world and want to reject it, he wants to embrace it. It is the only plank in his political platform. His divisiveness should be disqualifying.”
This is a touch ironic since the recent week saw a high tide of Labor-Coalition agreement in parliament to pass the CFMEU legislation, reform of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and a possible negotiated deal on aged-care reform.
On Gaza entry – the current issue purporting to reveal Dutton’s unacceptable divisive character – polls suggest Dutton has more support than Labor. Last week the Essential poll published in Guardian Australia showed 44 per cent supported Dutton’s call for an entry pause with 30 per cent opposed and 26 per cent undecided. On the issue of immigration generally the Coalition has a strong lead, with the Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll on August 20 showing the Coalition leading Labor on immigration and asylum 41-24 per cent and leading 44-24 per cent on defence and national security.
The Essential poll also asked about Dutton’s motivation, with 54 per cent saying he took this position because “he genuinely cares about national security”, while 46 per cent said “he is more interested in driving division for political purposes”.
The most recent Newspoll showed the Coalition and Labor split 50-50 per cent in two-party-preferred terms. On the better prime minister measure, Albanese leads Dutton 46-39 per cent but that lead is gradually eroding. In the AFR/Freshwater survey Albanese’s lead over Dutton on this question is 45-41 per cent, getting tighter.
Dutton will only double down on his hard line. It comes against a wider backdrop – that Labor is vulnerable on border security and susceptible on immigration security issues; witness the entire detainee saga. It is no surprise, therefore, that in his initial interviews Burke said: “I don’t make compromises on national security, I never have, never will. I don’t put other issues ahead of community safety.”
He needs to translate that statement into policy action.
Labor points to the statement from Burgess in the Insiders interview making it clear that people offering violent extremist support for Hamas pose a security threat. Everyone agrees with that. There is, however, a subtle but distinct Labor-Coalition difference on Hamas. The Coalition opposes any Hamas supporter, violent or non-violent, entering Australia. But Labor recognises that Hamas is also a civil organisation running Gaza and many people participate in or support the civil organisation without being politically active.
This is a fine but decisive line.
On the politics, Labor’s attack on Dutton should get traction among Palestinian voters in southwest Sydney and in the teal-held seats where upper-class progressives readily subscribe to virtue-signalling accusations of racism.
Claims that Dutton is a racist for his insistence that nobody come from Gaza because security protections are inadequate follow an entrenched pattern. This has become a political reflex. Indeed, it is entirely predictable that in recent days among Dutton’s alleged racism, his remarks have been raised criticising the Fraser government’s chaotic blunder in the 1970s in allowing the entry of Lebanese Muslims into Australia.
In this situation, the government abandoned normal entry criteria in relation to skills, qualifications, language and character. As the author pointed out (The Australian, March 27, 2019), quoting former minister Philip Ruddock: “The Lebanese Concession was recognised to have been a policy mistake and was closed down in a relatively short time.”
The Immigration Department advised cabinet that too many Muslims were being accepted without “the required qualities” for successful integration, the cabinet being told many entrants had questionable character and health standards. The Fraser government miscalculation constitutes one of the worst blunders in immigration policy over several decades – but even to speak that reality merely triggers the “racist” put-down.
Dutton had been unwise enough to say in 2016 there had been an “overrepresentation” of such people who had been “radicalised”, a remark almost certainly true yet provocative. He apologised but was accused of making racist remarks, another manifestation of the inexhaustible “racist” branding applied to many accurate statements about our immigration policy that are deemed to be too true to be tolerated.
The default position for an Australian government in bringing people from Gaza to Australia should be prudent judgment about security and acceptability. Paterson lays a charge against Labor: that its policy was motivated by domestic politics.
He said: “They were under obvious political pressure from pro-Palestinian elements in the community, from the communities in southwest Sydney and on the left, from the Greens in inner-city seats. Clearly, if you support a terrorist organisation you should not be able to pass a character test. I think they put their political interests ahead of the national interest.”
Labor rejects that accusation. The trouble is its refusal to articulate at any point a considered policy framework explaining what it was doing and why exposed the government to this precise charge. We await Labor’s next steps.
