August 20, 2024
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning. The government has serious questions to answer today about their rushed process for granting visas to Gaza residents now that it has emerged that Australia is among the most generous in the developed world, settling more people from Gaza then almost any other like minded partner or democracy, more than our friends in the United States or the United Kingdom or New Zealand or Canada or France or Italy or Germany or Japan or South Korea, or many, many others. Why has Australia granted 3,000 visas in just over six months, when countries like the United States have only granted 17? Why have we adopted an approach of handing out tourist visas with much less stringent checks, not insisting on face to face interviews or biometric tests, and why are we bringing in so many more than so many of our like minded partners? It's up to the government to step up today and explain this disparity.
JOURNALIST: When the Coalition was in power. You issued 1,000, more than 1,000 visas to Palestinians in similar circumstances. What's different here?
PATERSON: Well, the circumstances were very different. And that's ,1000 visas over about nine years, or roughly at a yearly rate of just over 100 per year. On this government, we're talking about 3,000 visas in six months, or a yearly rate of about 6,000 per year, if those trends continued. I think the Australian people can see the difference between an average of about 100 a year, and an average of about 6,000 a year on this government's watch. They have rushed this process. And they've done so trying to get people out of a war zone controlled by a terrorist organisation. That's very different to what the former government did.
JOURNALIST: The circumstances have also changed, after the terror group Hamas began the war on Israel on October 7, many people need somewhere else to go. The systems are the same as when the Coalition was in power, and the same ASIO boss is in place. So are you saying that ASIO has the system wrong?
PATERSON: No. The systems are different because government policy has changed when dealing with similar circumstances in Syria and Afghanistan. The former government insisted on processing people in third countries so that they could be interviewed in person, so that biometric tests and other checks could be done before they were granted a visa and brought to Australia. In this case, visas have been granted to Gaza residents without any interviews, without biometric testing, and they've come to Australia without those checks taking place. That's a question of government policy, not a question for ASIO or Mike Burgess, and it's the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs who have to take responsibility for that.
JOURNALIST: What is the implication then for those people that you refer to that are here, what do you think should happen to them? If you don't think they have been sufficiently vetted?
PATERSON: Well, the government is now contemplating offering those people permanent places in Australia because they were granted tourist visas improperly. They have no intention of returning to Gaza. They can't return to Gaza. The government is now contemplating permanent visas. We don't think permanent visas is the right approach. We think temporary protection visas under the former government was the right approach. That allows people to be safe and stay here while they can, but to return home when it's safe to do so. But this government has abolished temporary protection visas. And so I think there's a very grave concern that people who've now come to Australia can stay permanently where they never should have been entering under those circumstances.
JOURNALIST: On the question of returning home when it is safe to do so. I believe these people have come here because they no longer have homes, so is that still the appropriate policy response if there realistically isn't a home for people to return to?
PATERSON: Well, that's exactly why they shouldn't have been granted a tourist visa in the first place. When you apply for a tourist visa, one of the conditions is you intend to return to where you have come from. It's a temporary visa. And so frankly, they never should have been granted temporary visas. They should have been granted temporary protection visas and gone through all the appropriate checks. I mean, Ed Husic really belled the cat on behalf of the government on Sunday, when he admitted they opted for tourist visas instead of refugee visas because that was a much faster process. We think, like our allies, we should have been doing this carefully, deliberately and appropriately.
JOURNALIST: So given that they are now here on these visitor faces, what do you think should happen? Are you calling for people to go into immigration detention? Are you calling for people to be deported? What is the process that you think is most appropriate at this point?
PATERSON: We think people should be assessed for temporary protection visas if they're already here in Australia that would allow them to stay for so long as it is unsafe for them to return if they meet the criteria and pass all the security checks for a temporary protection visa. If, on the other hand, there's evidence that some among these cohort are supporters of Hamas or other terrorist organisations then their visas should be cancelled on the character grounds, and they should be removed from Australia.
JOURNALIST: So do you think there should be any path to permanency for the people who are here now?
PATERSON: No. I think the great virtue of temporary protection visas is it offers people a safe haven when it is unsafe to return to their home. But when the circumstances change, they are able to return. It's a policy approach which has worked very successfully for example, with Sri Lankan migrants to Australia in the past. There was a civil war in Sri Lanka. There was a good reason why people wanted to leave. They were granted temporary protection visas. They stayed here for that period and many have successfully returned and reintegrated into Sri Lankan society. That's evidence of the system working well.
JOURNALIST: Realistically, looking at the conflict, do you think that will be available to people from Gaza?
PATERSON: Well, yes I do. I think Gaza will have to be rebuilt. There will be a ceasefire. The conflict will end and the objective must be for it to be a place where people can live again. I mean, there are millions of people now living in Gaza. For their sake, as well as the ones who might wish to return, we should make sure Gaza is a place that can be peaceful and safe and habitable again.
JOURNALIST: The government says the policies are the same. What policy are you saying this government has changed specifically?
PATERSON: Well, the government is not telling the truth. In the case of Syria and Afghanistan, people were evacuated to third countries for processing before their visas were issued. For example, they were taken to Northern Iraq or Turkey, or to Lebanon. In the case of Afghanistan, they were taken to the United Arab Emirates. In those countries, we have Australian government officials on the ground, which we obviously don't have in Gaza. Those people were interviewed, their biometric tests were taken, they were checked against international holdings of our intelligence partners, and when it was deemed that they met all the requirements, then they were brought to Australia. That hasn't happened in this case. Visas were granted to residents in Gaza before they left Gaza, they could only cross at the Rafah crossing with a valid visa to a final destination and Australia has taken a globally unique approach to this. Our closest intelligence partners have not done the same thing, and I think that's very revealing.
JOURNALIST: So you're saying that's a policy change?
PATERSON: Yes.
All right, thanks everyone.
ENDS
