(AUSTRALIA) Nationals Senator Matt Canavan has backed One Nation leader Pauline Hanson’s call for the Labor government to cancel temporary visas for Palestinians who arrived during the recent Gaza conflict and to send Gaza asylum seekers home when their current permissions expire. Hanson has written to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese seeking an immediate halt to new visas for people from Gaza and the repatriation of those on 12‑month visitor visas once those visas run out. Canavan says he supports that push, arguing the policy settings carry national security risks and could weaken the integrity of Australia’s immigration system.
Hanson’s pitch to the Albanese government is direct: stop issuing visas to Palestinians who fled the conflict, and require those already here on short-term visas to return to help rebuild Gaza. She frames the proposal as both a security measure and a humanitarian expectation, saying people should go back to “restore their lives” once conditions allow.
Canavan, aligning with Hanson and other Nationals, has argued that Labor’s decision to allow about 3,000 people from Gaza to come to Australia during the conflict could open the door to infiltration by hostile actors — even if such risks sit at the outer edge of the cohort.
Government response and numbers
The government has pushed back. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has said the exact number of arrivals from Gaza remains unclear, but recently estimated that between 600 and 700 people had been issued visas and had not yet arrived.
Burke has stressed that those granted entry have undergone extensive checks. Officials say the current process reflects Australia’s humanitarian commitments while keeping security front of mind.
No official announcement has been made to reverse or cancel visas already issued as of October 14, 2025.
The wider debate: security vs humanitarian obligations
This clash sits within a broader debate about how Australia weighs urgent protection needs against domestic security and social cohesion. Right-leaning and populist figures, including Hanson and Canavan, are pressing for tighter border settings and deeper scrutiny of humanitarian pathways.
Their core argument:
– In a time of conflict and heightened tensions, the system must err on the side of caution.
– This may mean fewer visas or faster removals when temporary permissions end.
The government counters that:
– Strong vetting is already in place.
– Australia has a long record of helping people displaced by war and disaster.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, public debates like this often revolve around three points:
1. Safety checks
2. Visa integrity
3. The balance between compassion and control
That is the fault line now visible in Parliament, where senators are trading barbs over the correct response to Gaza asylum seekers and the long-term settings of Australia’s humanitarian intake.
Policy stakes and political pressure
Hanson’s letter to Prime Minister Albanese and Canavan’s endorsements signal a coordinated push in the Senate to force a harder line.
Key demands from Hanson:
– Stop issuing new visas to people from Gaza.
– Ensure those on temporary visas depart at expiry.
For Canavan and other Nationals, this is part of a broader case that the Labor government acted too quickly to approve visas tied to a live conflict. They are asking voters to judge the government on risk tolerance as much as on compassion.
Burke’s response highlights two points:
– Limits on what the government can confirm publicly while cases are in motion.
– His estimate (between 600 and 700 visas issued but not yet activated by travel) suggests a smaller immediate intake than some critics imply — but numbers can change as cases are processed or travel becomes possible.
His emphasis on “extensive security checks” is intended to counter claims that vetting has been light-touch.
What the government says is in place
The Department of Home Affairs states that all applicants undergo identity, character, and security screening before a visa is granted. While the government has not released detailed case data specific to Gaza, Burke’s assurance aligns with Australia’s standard screening practices.
For more information, readers can consult the department’s public guidance on humanitarian and protection pathways at the official site: Department of Home Affairs.
Human impact and practical consequences
For families already here on temporary visas, the debate creates uncertainty:
– Some have children in school and relatives in medical care.
– Others are waiting on news about loved ones still in Gaza.
If visas are allowed to run their course with no extensions or follow‑on options:
– Those families will need to prepare for departure when permissions end.
– If the government later offers a different route — something not announced as of today — personal plans would change again.
This is the human side of a policy fight often framed in numbers and risk ratings.
Arguments for and against blanket measures
Canavan’s warning about potential “infiltration” echoes past debates over intakes from war zones.
- Critics of mass cancellations argue that blanket measures can punish people who have cleared checks and followed the rules.
- Supporters say the scale and complexity of the conflict justify tougher blanket rules now, even if they are revisited later.
Under Hanson’s plan:
– Australia would move toward a narrower intake and faster removals.
Under the government’s stance:
– The door remains open with thorough vetting.
VisaVerge.com reports that in previous disputes over emergency intakes, governments face strong calls from both sides — some urging faster pathways and others demanding tighter controls. Today’s exchange fits that pattern, amplified by intense political attention on Gaza.
Community needs and legal considerations
Community groups and service providers need clarity:
– Schools, employers, and service agencies want to know how long people can stay, whether renewals are likely, and what support exists during the visa period.
Legal considerations:
– Lawyers note that if temporary visas lapse with no follow‑on route, people must depart or risk breaching conditions, which can affect future applications.
– Advocates argue that forced returns should not occur while conditions on the ground remain unstable.
Current status and next steps
- No new legislation or ministerial direction has been announced to implement Hanson’s proposal.
- The status quo remains: case‑by‑case assessments, checks before grant, and travel subject to logistics and safety.
- Political pressure is ongoing; as the Senate resumes, right‑leaning and populist voices are expected to press for repatriations and cancellations in line with Hanson’s plan and Canavan’s support.
Ultimately, the outcome will shape Australia’s role in responding to the Gaza crisis and send a message about the balance between security and care in emergency settings. If the government stands firm on current processes, supporters will cite duty and due diligence. If it shifts toward stricter controls, critics will warn of harm to families who fled war and complied with the rules.
For now, the government says the checks are robust, the numbers are limited, and humanitarian obligations are being met, while opponents insist those assurances are not enough in a tense global climate.
This Article in a Nutshell
Pauline Hanson has demanded the Albanese government stop issuing new visas to Palestinians who fled the Gaza conflict and repatriate those on 12‑month visitor visas upon expiry. Nationals senator Matt Canavan supported her call, arguing that allowing roughly 3,000 arrivals during the conflict could pose national security risks and undermine immigration integrity. The government, represented by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, contested the scale and stressed extensive identity, character and security checks; he estimated 600–700 visas issued but not yet activated. No cancellations or new directives had been announced by October 14, 2025. The dispute underscores a broader debate between stricter border controls and humanitarian responsibilities, with community impacts for families already in Australia and legal considerations around visa expiry and potential departures.
