By The Guardian (World News) | Created at 2024-10-04 15:15:16 | Updated at 2024-10-04 17:24:59
2 hours ago
It was one of the most potent talking points during the Coalition’s campaign against “rushed” visas to Palestinians fleeing Gaza.
“It is not appropriate to give 3,000 tourist visas to people leaving a war zone controlled by a terrorist organisation in an average of 24 hours,” the Liberal senator James Paterson told Sky News on 20 August.
Versions of the same claim have been used by a range of Coalition politicians, and rose in frequency in August as the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, escalated his political attacks on the government over national security.
But Guardian Australia has confirmed with informed sources that the Department of Home Affairs’ median processing time for Palestinian visitor visas in the period October 2023 to August 2024 was much higher: four months.
If you drill down just to the initial period 7 October to 31 December, the median time was quicker – seven days – but even that is seven times as long as the 24-hour claim, and there is more to it than meets the eye.
Guardian Australia understands the quicker processing time in the months immediately after the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks on Israel was a function of the prioritisation process, rather than any fundamental change in approach in 2024.
Home affairs officials dealt first with applications that were considered likely to have a higher prospect of success, such as children who have visited Australia before and have family connections in the country.
Officials left other applications that were considered to be incomplete, questionable or potentially fraudulent until later on to assess the information and make a decision. The rejections tended to be finalised later in the process.
Australia granted 2,922 visas to Palestinians and rejected a further 7,111 visa applications between 7 October 2023 and 12 August 2024, according to previously released figures. Only an estimated 1,300 Palestinians who had been granted these visas have so far been able to make it to Australia.
The Coalition’s use of the 24-hour talking point ramped up in August when Dutton called for a temporary pause on all arrivals from Gaza – even though the Rafah border crossing had been closed for departures since May.
But across the whole of the period October 2023 to August 2024, even though some applications were handled relatively quickly, the majority took more than a week.
Where did the 24-hour figure come from?
The claims can be traced to a short exchange between a senior home affairs official and Paterson, the shadow minister, during a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra on 12 February.
Paterson was asking the department official, Michael Willard, about Palestinian visa applications approved to date and then asked: “What’s the average processing time for a visa like this?”
Willard replied: “Globally, for a visitor visa the median processing time is one day.”
It is notable that the answer began with the caveat “globally”; he wasn’t answering specifically about Palestinian applicants. This caveat would fall away in subsequent reporting and political debate.
As the 12 February hearing continued, Paterson pointed to an ABC story that included one anecdotal report that a Palestinian-Australian man who lived in Melbourne had managed to secure a visitor visa for his mother, aged in her 70s, in one hour.
Paterson asked: “Does that sound right to you? Is it possible that a visitor visa was approved in a single hour?”
Willard did not respond definitively but agreed that “it is possible”. Willard said the Department of Home Affairs held “a vast range of information” and “apply that information to the circumstances presented in a visitor visa application”.
Continuing in the abstract, Willard said: “There could be circumstances where someone, for example, has a strong travel record, is well known to us and has a routine that we’re familiar with, where the visitor visa could be granted in that time frame.”
Paterson rounded off the line of questioning by asking: “Was anything about the process expedited or modified in any way to facilitate applications?”
Willard was emphatic. “No,” he said. He said the department was “taking a similar approach to what we’ve taken in previous situations” and applying “priority processing to people who have strong Australian connections who are seeking to travel”.
‘Unacceptable’
Seven days later, the Sky News Australia host Sharri Markson seized on the exchange to blast the government’s handling of the matter.
“Foreign minister Penny Wong assured us, repeatedly, in multiple television interviews that rigorous security checks were being done,” Markson told viewers of her primetime program on 19 February.
“Well, her comments were incorrect. Because officials have revealed in Senate estimates that far from rigorous security checks, which as Asio has said can take months, these visas were being approved in a single day. One day. Have a look.”
The program then broadcast a clip of exchange, which did include Willard’s disclaimer that the one-day median processing time figure was “globally”.
after newsletter promotion
Markson continued: “One day. And that was, by the way, shadow home affairs minister James Paterson doing that questioning – he did a sensational job. But if that’s not disturbing enough, one day, some visas for Palestinians were apparently granted in an hour.”
Markson concluded: “It’s unacceptable that visas are being approved within one day, and potentially one hour.”
The following day, Paterson raised the alarm himself in an interview with another Sky News host, Peta Credlin.
“Not only did they say that on average these visas are approved in 24 hours, they concede it was possible that in at least one case, a visa was granted in a single hour,” Paterson told Credlin. “Now, how on earth is it possible to do any security checks at all if it is being turned around in just one hour?”
On ABC Radio National Breakfast, Paterson was asked by Patricia Karvelas: “Why don’t you trust our intelligence agencies to properly vet people being granted these visas?”
He replied: “I do trust our intelligence agencies, but they’ve been given an impossible task. And that task is to approve people from a war zone controlled by a terrorist organisation in as little as 24 hours, on average.”
Use of this talking-point ramped up in August, with Guardian Australia identifying at least 12 Coalition interview transcripts that included the 24-hour-average claim in that month.
They include the Coalition’s Senate leader and foreign affairs spokesperson, Simon Birmingham, who told Sky News on 14 August that the average 24-hour claim was “a statement of reality”.
Birmingham told ABC Radio National on 19 August that he “completely rejected” claims that Dutton was using the visa issue to whip up fear and spread division. Birmingham repeated the figure.
Mr Dutton wrote in an op-ed for the News Corp Sunday tabloids on 18 August: “[The] hopeless former immigration minister, Andrew Giles, granted tourist visas to 3000 Gazans – an entirely inappropriate visa for people coming to Australia from a war zone and territory controlled by terrorists. These visas were granted in 24 hours, on average.”
Paterson says officials should ‘correct their evidence’ if ‘not accurate’
Guardian Australia asked Paterson on Friday whether he accepted his commentary had created a false or misleading impression on a factual matter, why he had interpreted the “global” figure as applying to the Palestinian applicant cohort specifically, and whether he had done any further due diligence on the claim.
He responded that the only information available on the public record and to the opposition about the average processing time of Gaza visitor visas “was the evidence given by Home Affairs officials in estimates”.
“The Senate’s standing orders are clear [that] officials must correct their evidence as soon as they become aware it is not accurate so that senators and the public can rely on it,” Paterson said.
“It is up to the government to explain why they have not provided this updated estimate earlier.”
Guardian Australia is not suggesting that officials misled the estimates committee, given that Willard included the caveat “globally” rather than specifically referring to Palestinian applicants.
Paterson reiterated his view on Friday that the Albanese government had presided over a “rushed and risky visa process” and applicants “should have been assessed offshore for humanitarian visas with full checks as occurred with the Syrian and Afghanistan intakes”.
A spokesperson for the Department of Home Affairs said: “In order to be granted a visa, every person must satisfy the requirements of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, including health, security and character criteria.
“All Palestinian visa applications were individually assessed by a departmental officer. An officer considers the individual circumstances of the applicant to decide if they have demonstrated they meet all requirements.”
Dutton and Birmingham were also contacted for comment. Markson was offered the opportunity to respond regarding her Sky News coverage of the same matter.
