Opinion | Sarah Pickering 2 September 2024
(Photograph: AHMAD BADER on Unsplash)
“That war zone” is how Peter Dutton described the ongoing assault in Gaza. An irony sorely missed by many is his proposal to ban ‘tourist’ visas for ‘asylum seekers.’ Much of the international legal framework would agree. So, does labelling the ‘pursuit of safety’ anything other than ‘asylum seeking’ truly change our obligations?
My grandfather was one of Churchill’s million children who were exiled to Australia fleeing WW2. He was lucky to have friends of family who raised him as their own. Many others did not. If that had happened today, they may have had a very different story.
In a recent interview, Australia’s former immigration official, Abul Rizvi, considered the plight of two orphaned children trying to leave Gaza. In his account, they have Australian relatives to stay with. But because temporary tourist visas are their only offer, these children are likely to be denied. Australia’s assessment is that they might not wish to be “unlawfully refouled” to the rubble where their parents have died. So, they remain there alone and under attack.
Tourist visas deny access to rights such as health, work, and study. This further neglects arrivals of the trauma care, financial, and social stability that people fleeing atrocity desperately need. After only offering asylum seekers tourist visas – rejecting 70 per cent of applications and cancelling approved visas mid-flight – Amnesty International has called this a “shocking abrogation of Australia’s responsibility.”
In comparison to other nations who are offering refugee settlement or residency, Australia’s intake of Palestinians has been slight. Less than half of Australia’s 3000 approved short-term visa-holders have found safe passage here, and an unknown number of people under Australia’s judiciary have died waiting to get out.
Attempting to flee the blockade requires three security checks from well-equipped nations: Israel, Egypt, and the visa host country. This means those arriving from Gaza have been triple-vetted before arriving on Australian soil. By distorting this process as a “security risk,” Mr Dutton seems to think there is the slightest chance Israeli authorities would let a suspected Hamas-operative out of their sights.
Dutton’s Liberal teammate, Joe Hockey, whose Palestinian father fled the 1948 Nakba, is one of countless Australians who have relied on our humanitarian program. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Afghanis have found safe ground here, with a humanitarian visa uplift that continues today.
Despite the horrors and hardships to get here, Palestinian asylum seekers from Gaza continue to be mislabelled. The art of using incorrect words – Malapropism – is an Australian proclivity for which it is infamous. Former MP Tony Abbott became an international butt of the joke with his “suppository of all wisdom” speech, and Kath & Kim construed the Australian dream of affluence, with “I want to be effluent!” Well, as Kath would respond, “I’ve got one word to say to you – You are effluent, Australia!” – At least when it comes to asylum seekers.
Seeking asylum is a protected human right under international law. This steely canon (sic) of loopholes to rename these people [illegals, boat people, detainees, transferees, trespassers, over-stayers, unlawful arrivals – and now tourists and terrorists] doesn’t negate any legal responsibilities as a nation.
Thankfully, ordinary Australians are providing necessary health and housing to fulfil Australia’s mandate. You can help by supporting their work or sign here to demand equal treatment and meet our legal duty – to ensure Australia is a safe ground for all.