This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

The Home Affairs department has defended its border point policies after Four Corners reported at least two cases of Border Force officers at Sydney airport turning back Saudi women attempting to claim asylum.

The claims formed part of an investigation by the ABC into women from Saudi Arabia seeking asylum, and covered the case of teenager Rahaf al-Qunun.

Al-Qunun fled her family while they travelled to Kuwait, intending to get to Australia on her tourist visa, but was detained at Bangkok. She barricaded herself in her room to avoid deportation, and was granted refugee status by the UNCHR before being resettled by Canada. Australia had said it would consider resettling her but would give no special treatment.

Border force review finds staff subject to 'alarming' levels of sexual harassment and bullying Read more

Her case brought further attention on other Saudi women who are caught up in the country’s guardianship system – through which a woman’s life is strictly controlled by male guardians and relatives – and who seek to escape.

Germany-based Saudi activist Dr Taleb Al Abdulmohsen told the program he was contacted by one woman who attempted to enter Australia at Sydney airport in November 2017.

“They suspected she was going to claim asylum,” he said. “When they said she wasn’t going to be allowed entry and would be returned to Saudi Arabia, she did then ask for asylum. But they didn’t let her make that claim.'”

According to the Four Corners report, ABF officers allegedly also questioned young Saudi women about why they were traveling without a male guardian.

“They ask for his phone number to call him,” said Abdulmohsen. “They also ask her to give them her cell phone and read her SMS, WhatsApp and other chat messages and emails, searching for signs of asylum intent, and they meticulously search the luggage to find any signs of asylum intent such as school certificates.”

Human rights lawyer George Newhouse believed the questioning constituted discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act.

“If Australian government officials have been checking to confirm that a woman’s male guardian has approved her trip to Australia then it’s a shocking practice that the Australian public would find totally offensive and obnoxious in a modern world,” he said.

In a statement published on Tuesday, the home affairs department did not address the specific allegations, or the processes of its officers at Australian border points.

“[Airline liaison officers] are trained to identify individuals attempting to travel to Australia using fraudulent identity and travel documents, and those who are not travelling on the correct visa,” it said. “In recent years, they have prevented hundreds of travellers of concern and non-genuine visa holders from boarding flights to Australia.”

It said if an overseas person made a claim for protection while offshore, they would be directed towards the UNHCR and other NGOs, and pointed to Australia’s specific support in resettling women at risk of victimisation, harassment or serious abuse because of their gender.

Rahaf al-Qunun: Saudi teenager given refugee status by the UN Read more

“If these allegations are proved true, they represent a new low in Australia’s callous immigration policy, which has been heavily criticised by the United Nations for its offshore warehousing of asylum seekers and refugees in recent years,” said Human Rights Watch’s Middle East researcher Adam Coogle. “It is bad enough that Saudi women have nowhere to turn for help in their own country. Australia should not turn its back on them too.”

Daniel Ghezelbash, special counsel at the National Justice project and senior lecturer at Macquarie law school, said that under Australian migration law, people who are stopped before they clear immigration at the airport can’t apply for a permanent protection visa. However, they can apply for a temporary protection visa or safe haven entry visa.

“There is no grey area under international law, it’s very clear that when a person is physically present in your territory you cannot return them to a place they face harm,” he said.

Policy guidelines for screening interviews “make it clear that people in immigration clearance should be given an opportunity to put forward their asylum claims, and sets out the procedures for how those are to be assessed”, he said.

“If the person makes a prima facie protection claim that is not considered to be ‘far-fetched and fanciful’, they are considered to be a person who potentially engages Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, and further consideration of their circumstances is required as removal is not appropriate at the time,” the guidelines read. “The person will be screened in to the [protection visa] process and permitted to enter Australia.”

Ghezelbash said he believed the Australian government may be relying on a lack of oversight to avoid giving people the required opportunity to apply for asylum.

“It’s very hard to call the government out in this regard,” he said. “We’re left to hypothesise.”