As a
discretionary and humanitarian act to an individual with ongoing needs,
it is in the interests of Australia as a humane and generous society to
grant this person a tourist visa."
That’s Peter Dutton, then
immigration minister, in the official document by which he intervened to
allow an au pair to enter the country.
Illustration: Andrew Dyson
And
what an incredible sentence it is! A humanitarian act. An individual
with ongoing needs. A humane and generous society. So … a tourist visa?
What humanitarian situation serious enough to require intervention from
the immigration minister himself can be relieved by a spot of tourism?
The
whole thing is absurd. Not truly scandalous, given Dutton acted within
his legal power and that politicians doing favours for people is hardly
unprecedented. But absurd and important for precisely that reason. This
episode reveals just how hypocritical and disingenuous our approach on
immigration in this country really is.
The story here isn’t that
Dutton did a favour for a mate (or a mate’s mate, or a Liberal Party
donor). It’s that in this tiny episode, Dutton revealed himself to be
happy to violate the very principles on which he has based his entire
position on immigration. Dutton's political trade is based squarely on
being a tough, uncompromising applier of rules; a kind of maniacal
preserver of order. He will not be bowed or be swayed except in the most
extreme cases, and even then, probably not.
Sob
stories tend to find their tears turned to ice upon making contact with
him. You could be a suicidal 10-year-old kid on Nauru who desperately
needed psychiatric care. Dutton would refuse to let you come to
Australia to access it. Indeed, he’d spend plenty of taxpayer dollars
fighting in court to stop it, until finally a judge ordered him to
relent. You could even be an Aussie Digger, desperate to get an Afghan
man who acted as your interpreter into Australia as a refugee because
his life is now in danger after having helped Australian troops. Dutton
won’t even meet you to talk about it.
Au pair case 'a bit rough': Dutton
The
Home Affairs Minister has told 2GB he intervened in the case of a
French au pair being deported because it was a 'common sense' decision.
In
a perverse way, it’s the very heartlessness of it that’s the appeal.
Dutton believes in the law. He believes in policing it harshly. It’s not
humanitarian causes that move him. It’s people who don’t obey and
respect our rules.
Peter Dutton
Peter Dutton intervenes in au pair visa case connected to AFL boss Gil McLachlan
That’s
why the key aspect of the au pair saga is the bit that’s receiving the
least attention. Namely that Dutton has personally waved through someone
who has broken our laws and was about to do so again. Moreover, he was
told he was doing this. But he chose to ignore the advice of his own
department. Don’t take my word for it. Here are the department’s: “There
are clear indications that [name redacted] is intending to work in
Australia and thus, the grant of a visitor visa is of high risk." What
were these indications that she was about to work illegally under a
tourist visa? “The ABF [Border Force] also notes that [name redacted]
has been counselled previously with respect to work restrictions, when
suspicions with respect to her intentions were aroused on her previous
arrival. On 31OCT 2015 she also advised ABF officers of her intention to
work during her intended stay in Australia on this occasion."
So, this au pair had clearly been flagged before. A source familiar with the case told my colleagues at The Project
she had been warned over her previous tourist visa that she shouldn’t
do paid work on that visa, and that, if she did, she would be banned
from Australia for three years. That’s why she was detained when she
tried to enter the country a few months later.
Peter Dutton
Leaked emails show Peter Dutton acted against advice in saving au pair from deportation
The
source says the au pair simply told the Border Force about the
arrangement: accommodation in exchange for babysitting, cooking and
riding the family horses. The officers also found information on her
devices confirming this, and making them strongly suspicious she was
going to be paid money as well.
Separately,
Dutton was told by email that there was detail "which does not support
the minister intervening". Dutton nonetheless intervened. His insistence
that all this is unremarkable because he has intervened in hundreds of
immigration cases simply sidesteps the remarkable features of this case.
It
ignores that it is actually very rare for a minister to intervene for
the sake of a tourism visa. It ignores that this rare intervention was
made for someone who had already flouted the law. And it ignores that it
was for someone apparently determined to do so again. A source close to
the Immigration Department told us it is utterly humiliating for staff
to be put in the situation of allowing people who have broken the law
back into the country. I’d imagine that’s especially true for staff
working under someone like Dutton, who has them primed to regard that as
the highest sin.
Peter Dutton: Chose to ignore the advice of his own department.
Photo: Alex EllinghausenI
don’t know the story of this woman. Maybe she really does have unique
humanitarian circumstances that would melt my heart. After all, I have
nothing against her. But is this what our humanitarian cases look like?
Is the bar really set so that the Iranian asylum seeker nearing death
who has broken no laws cannot even be allowed into the country to access
medical treatment, but a French woman simply must be allowed to be an
au pair if we are to be a “humane and generous society"?
Is there
some principle being applied consistently that accounts for both cases?
Or can we now admit that this posturing of law and order, of national
sovereignty, of the solemn duty to banish “unlawful arrivals" is just so
much bullshit, conveniently dropped for the right kind of people?
I’m
not saying this is the scandal of the decade. I suspect this will all
soon pass without much cost to Dutton and that’s probably fair enough.
But if it passes without a clear verdict of hypocrisy, not just on
Dutton but on the way we frame our public discussion of immigration, it
will only be because we’ve long since abandoned any approach to the
subject that has anything to do with principles.
Waleed Aly is a Fairfax columnist and a presenter on The Project.
