The Australian (and Australia’s) propaganda war against boat people

boat peopleI was dismayed – no gutted – to read a story in The Australian newspaper last week.

The story ran under the headline “Lowy Institute poll shows strong support for asylum-seeker policies”.

It’s first paragraph said: “More than 70 per cent of Australians support the Abbott government’s Sovereign Borders Policy, including the idea that boats should be turned back when safe to do so.”

This information was correctly reported and seemed to confirm that, depressingly, most Australians have bought the propaganda – dished out regularly from both sides of politics about asylum seekers.

This is, that asylum seekers are queue jumpers, possibly terrorists and that if they want to come to this country, they should get in line and wait their turn – regardless of the circumstances in their home country. If they arrive by boat, they should be sent back to where they came from.

This sentiment was spelled out 13 years ago when former prime minister John Howard said in his election victory speech: “We will decide who comes here and the circumstances under which they come.”

He was referencing the Tampa affair, where a Norwegian freighter carrying rescued asylum seekers was denied access to Australia. This hard line attitude has been stamped into the heads of the voting public ever since.

But The Australian article conveniently forgot to mention another finding of the same Lowy Institute survey.

This was that the majority of Australians (57%) polled disagreed with the former Rudd government and current Liberal Party government policy that ‘no asylum seeker coming to Australia by boat should be allowed to settle in Australia’.

This statistic is nowhere to be found in Rowan Callick’s article – and which, if it were included, might have led to a different headline or at least told the full story.

Now, the margin of error in the poll was 3% so it could be that as many as 60% of Australians believe that asylum seekers who arrive by boat should be allowed to come and live in Australia, should there claims be genuine.

At worst 54% of Australians are opposed to the policy which is seeking to settle asylum seekers who arrive by boat on Papa New Guinea, Nauru or possibly even Cambodia in grubby cash-for-people deals.

So the end result is that I feel a little bit better about my country (of adoption) and my fellow countrymen.

But then again, reading numerous other articles and following the social media conversations, it is clear there are many Australians who feel like I do – that we are behaving abominably to the most desperate and needy in society.

For more balanced views, try:

Sadly though too many people appear to have been brainwashed following years of propaganda and believe – against all factual evidence – that asylum seekers arriving by boat are the first wave of potential invading hoards.

boatproportion

Source: Crikey.com.au

This is in no part due to the aforementioned article in The Australian, but also do to News Corp popular columnists like Andrew Bolt who regularly rounds of his tirades against Labor, the ABC, Fairfax, the Greens etc with thoughts like: “it is grossly irresponsible to allow thousands of illegal immigrants from countries very different from our own to crash our borders when we know it exposes Australians to extra risks they don’t want and never accepted.”

Or comments like this: ” Tens of thousands of ‘refugees’ would swarm each year through the Greens’ open door, more than we could safely accept, and the thousands rejected as refugees would not just go home.

All designed to stir up fear and hysteria of invading hoards and keeping John Howard’s 2001 message alive and well.

Reject the propaganda and form you own, educated view. Don’t be an ignorant fool.

(For more of my articles on this topic, go here.)

“Girt by sea” and yet we fear an invasion of the desperate

“Our home is girt by sea”

So rings out the fourth line of the Australian anthem, Advance Australia Fair.

visa policy

“Girt” that awkward, uncomfortable word meaning “surrounded”.

But now the line is firmly planted in my head as the national debate about our hardline approach to asylum seekers continues.

I flicked on the radio last weekend and found myself tuning into a conversation on ABC Radio National (3RN) about the new immigration policy announced by our prime minister Kevin Rudd, which will see genuine asylum seekers settled in Papau New Guinea (PNG), a place he says is “an emerging economy with a strong future; a robust democracy which is also a signatory to the United Nations Refugees Convention”.

Not so says the government’s own travel advisory website, Smart Traveller, which has an “Exercise a high degree of caution” warning about PNG and has a list of things to be careful of that includes “high levels of serious crime”, public gatherings that may turn violent, “heightened risk of armed robbery and attack at well-attended shopping centres in urban areas” and an “increase in reported incidents of sexual assault, including gang rape [where] foreigners have been targeted”.

The list goes on and on making me wonder if the South African government should not have stepped in and offered my old town of Johannesburg as an alternative off-shore centre. It actually seems a lot safer and certainly offers better opportunities for economic advancement than PNG.

This apparent government contradiction on the merits of travelling to and residing in PNG fits in just about perfectly with our feverish, illogical, national obsession with asylum seekers who arrive by boats.

Indeed I have blogged about this very issue before – on Crikey.

This point was put most eloquently by professor Michelle Foster, director of the International Refugee Law Research Programme at Melbourne University, who said on the same radio program on 3RN that we have this strange fear of being invaded when in reality – surrounded or “girt” by water – it should be low down on our list of national fears.

Perhaps we should also consider some of the other lines of the anthem:

For those who’ve come across the seas
We’ve boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.

Sadly, the spirit encompassed in these words seem to have been forgotten or discarded when it comes to the most desperate in society seeking a new life on Australian shores.

The prime minister says we are punishing the “scourge of people smugglers” by effectively making their illegal trade null and void, but it is refugees who are being punished – banished to a strange island, rife with social problems, and according to this opinion piece in the Fairfax papers, where they will be left to fight for survival in squalid urban conditions, with no rights to own land due to their foreign-born status.

None of this makes any sense and must surely confound human rights advocates looking in from overseas who can only wonder what we mean by a “fair go”.

Asylum seekers are a small problem made huge by something in the national psyche that’s turned it into an enormous political minefield.

For those Australians who say these people will take their jobs – this is apparently the burning issue in the key Western Sydney electorate – consider the facts and do some research.

Official Department of Immigration figures show that 6,004 refugees came to Australia in 2011-12, less than 5% of the 190,000 economic migrants who arrived courtesy of ‘official’ migration programs.

So if anyone is going to take their jobs and jump queues it’s skilled migrants and their families, not refugees arriving by boat or any other means.

Indeed if you have $5 million to invest in Australian bonds or managed investment schemes, the Australian government will give you a visa to stay, without even the requirement that you learn the national language. Just hand over the dosh and the government will throw out the welcome mat, complete with a jar of vegemite and a bowl of lamingtons.

But for those who are the most desperate, who risk their lives on rickety boats, they will be dumped on an inhospitable island, one deemed by our own government to be dangerous and rife with crime to be forgotten.

Shameful!

(For more on this debate, these are some excellent opinion pieces worth reading from former Howard-era immigration minister Amanda Vandstone and Victoria Stead is a researcher at RMIT University’s Globalism Research Centre.)

Why are we obsessed with boat people?

This article first appeared in Crikey (sister publication to the website I write for Property Observer) and behind the pay-wall. I’ve also included some of the comments my story generated underneath.

For all the eight years I have lived in Australia — I am now a permanent resident — I  have never understood the obsession we have with people who arrive by boat and the apparently desperate need for some sort of policy that “stops the boats”.

“Stop the boats” — these three words make me think of an invading horde, not a group of mostly desperate people taking extreme and dangerous (often life-threatening) measures to make a life in Australia.

There’s talk in the so-called expert asylum seeker proposal from Australian defence force chief Angus Houston of a “no advantage” policy for boat people. As if there really is some kind of “advantage” gained by arriving in a derelict craft across choppy seas to be placed in detention for an indefinite length of time with the hope of being granted the right to stay.

The only people who are advantaged are people such as me, who come to Australia with an education, skills, find a job, get a visa and are able to call Australia home and fit into society like the proverbial hand in a glove.

But I have never understood the near hysteria (raised to maximum pitch by the media) of so many people in this country opposed to people who arrive by boat. Governments seem to come and go based on how good they are at deterring boat arrivals just as much as by their ability to manage the economy and keep the unemployment rate down.

“Illegal” boat arrivals are a tiny “problem” that hardly makes a dent in the fabric of our society, except to give us the opportunity to expand our multicultural tapestry.

The recommendations in the asylum seeker report by Houston recommends increasing Australia’s intake to 27,000 within the next five years from current level of just 13,000.

Figures from the Department of Immigration reveal Australia received 168,000 new migrants through its various visa schemes in 2010-11 with 185,000 expected in this financial year. Up until July 9 this year 5459 people made the journey to Australia via boat, last year there were 4565 and in 2010 there 6555. Figures released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics put the number of humanitarian visas at less then 10,000 for 2009-2010.

So we are talking about less than 10% of all visas being granted on humanitarian grounds and less than 5% all migrants arriving in Australia via boat.

We are a rich country, with jobs for nearly everyone (an unemployment rate the envy of the First World) and a proud history of building out culture on the backs of waves of migrants from all parts of the world. If you visit a suburb such as Footscray in Melbourne, you’ll find east African restaurants, many of which would have been started by refugees, alongside the popular Vietnamese eateries.

Thankfully there are many humanitarians in this country who actually believe in the plight of desperate refugees, not an unrecognisable Labor government (on this issue anyway), who is intent on adopting any policy that may revive its fortunes in the polls, no matter how far its strays from its humanitarian principles.

As I understand it, Labor is in favour of circumventing our pledge on human rights under UN agreements to get the Malaysia people swap deal through — all in the name of politics, votes and power.

People swap — as if we’re trading gold, silver or cotton.

But at least I can understand the politics. I don’t get the core reason we are so obsessed with these desperate people, who make up a tiny proportion of new immigrants to Australia

Perhaps I have not been here long enough. Perhaps I am too much of a lefty. Perhaps I am soft.

People talk about refugees applying through the normal channels and not “jumping the queue”. As if they were standing in line for tickets to the grand final.

But what queue are we talking about? Do those displaced in countless domestic conflicts around the world come to a crossroads with two arrows — one pointing to the left saying “Persecution this way” and the other point to the right saying “Australian humanitarian visa this way”?

Anyone who thinks a refugee is taking the easy way out by jumping on a boat and “jumping the queue” should watch the film In this world by acclaimed British filmmaker Michael Winterbottom about Afghan refugees journey fleeing a Pakistani refugee camp for a better life in London to get a sense of what it really means to be a refugee.

It includes a scene of families couped up in a cargo container, with not enough air so that when the ship arrives at its destination in western Europe, most of the people are already dead.

Surely there is space for the tiny numbers of people who come by boat, without all the political game playing, which has been going on long before I landed on these shores.

Perhaps you can let in fewer of my kind in future and make room for those who don’t really have any choice.

Comments from Crikey readers.

  1. ELIZABETH THORNTON

Posted Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

That is silly Larry.You have not read the rules.

Media requires stimulation of tired brain cells.

Media inflicts great pain on anyone who introduces ethical discussion.

media run Australia mostly by courtesy of Rupert murdoch.

Murdoch plays with very nasty persons

Boat people are “Catchy”

Boat people make great pictures especially children.

Boat people sound like terrorists and often look like terrorists {Leaving aside certain Norwegians and Americans who are exceptions to the terrorist rules}

The war against the Axis of Evil has created an opportunity for all the Bigots and Racists to feel free to express their contempt of anyone not like them.

  1. TINMAN_AU

Posted Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

I don’t get why we don’t process these people at our embassy in whatever country they are in and then just fly them here once cleared.

Be a whole lot cheaper than the Naru thing…

  1. ARTY

Posted Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

Larry , you can get a response to your question if you can be satisfied with slogans and abuse.

Otherwise don’t bother waiting.

  1. MERLOT

Posted Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

Larry, the political game playing is because “stop the boats” means 3 completely different things to the 3 different parties with infinite variations in between.

For the Greens and your sense of the phrase – “stop the boats” means denying legitimate refugees the right to claim asylum on Australian soil

For the ALP “stop the boats” means a specific preventative measure to cut down the 500+ death toll from drowning.

For the Coalition “Stop the boats” means stopping refugees from coming by boat.

A pox on all 3 parties I say.

The ALP as the governing party should have negotiated with the Greens after the pattern of boat deaths became obvious instead of trying to wedge the coalition which was futile.

The Greens had a proven opportunity to pass the Malaysian solution with a sunset clause and an increased intake, but they chose to ignore the short term problem of people drowning because for them allowing Malaysia was like Meg Lees voting for the GST; political suicide.

The Coalition chose to oppose the ALP because in good faith they believe the John Howard solution worked, and cynically because they know that every day the issue is in the headlines is a good day for them.

It’s proven almost impossible for me to have a conversation with people about the need to stop people drowning now without being put into an anti-refugee box which I’m not since I support a liberal refugee intake policy. I find the discussions with the left exactly the same as trying the convince the right on the need for action on climate change; it’s like arguing with an immovable object and my motives get questioned. None of which particularly helps refugees who are now stuck with a ‘free range’ Nauru solution with no expiry date and no end in sight.

A pox on all 3 political parties AND their members who can’t differentiate between short term problems and long term solutions.

  1. ARTY

Posted Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

I am with you Merlot.

Even the simpliest conversation is impossible, unless it is a conversation with one’s self. With anyone else it soon descends into the the sickening fog of hatred.

What would Jesus do?

Weep.

  1. DAVID HAND

Posted Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

Larry,
You write a classic piece of left elite prose, that adds nothing. I can dig out a piece written by any luminary last year, the year bfore that or even earlier that puts out all the points you make. So I’m not sure why Crikey put this up for publication, apart from an editorial decision to campaign for the Greens.

The flaw in left elite thinking, as exemplified by you, is that you know better, that you are morally superior and that somehow the Australian public have been duped by some shock jock into being afraid of boat people.

Let me state this very simply so you can understand it. Middle Australia does not want the boats to come. I’ll repeat it so we are clear. They don’t want the boats to come. Your article sheds no light whatsoever on why that is. It rests on an elitiist view that it is some sort of irrational obsession. While the left continues to believe that, I will be assaulted almost daily by shrill, superior, self righteous and smug rants such as yours.

In contrast, both major parties know that adopting the Greens policy of on shore processing and letting anyone who turns up into the country is electoral death. Most people don’t want it.

You have no insight at all about why that is so. Here’s a possible insight. The entire basis of left elite thinking about who are actually on the boats is not what everyone else thinks. Most people think customers of people smugglers are like you. Oh, and like me. I’m an economic migrant too.

  1. COL CAMPEY

Posted Thursday, 16 August 2012 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

The refugees on boats issue is another addition to a long list of reasons why we’d be better off with non-partisan government. See
colflower.blogspot.com.au

  1. NOODLE BAR

Posted Friday, 17 August 2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink

I’m from middle Australia. Born here. I have never comprehended the whole “stop the boats” thing either. I did write a letter to the Government for Get Up suggesting that they be re-named “potential tax payers” and welcomed. Also pointed out that anything when applied to a group with “solution” in the title sounds somewhat final.

  1. KEVIN TYERMAN

Posted Friday, 17 August 2012 at 3:18 am | Permalink

David Hand responded:
Let me state this very simply so you can understand it. Middle Australia does not want the boats to come. I’ll repeat it so we are clear. They don’t want the boats to come. 

I am afraid that I am not an economic migrant – can you please define “Middle Australia “, and why you/they/whoever think it is “elitist” to be concerned by the needs of other humans in a much worse situation than themselves?

  1. CML

Posted Friday, 17 August 2012 at 3:23 am | Permalink

Good try Larry, but for once I agree with DH. The majority of
Australians do not want refugees, particularly of the boat variety,
coming willy-nilly to this country. I think its an equity thing, an
orderly process thing, whatever.
Having followed the asylum seeker “problem” for many years, I think
it is more a dislike of fundamentalist religious types, rather than anything
to do with racism. There are known religious groups who do not readily
integrate into western societies – witness what is happening in places
like France – and maybe many people here in Oz do not want to see
the same social problems erupt here.
There is also the so-called economic versus genuine refugee debate,
the security thing and the huge costs involved. Seems strange to me
that there are so few asylum seekers refused entry. Then we pay for it
later with people smugglers gaining entry along with those who
attempt terrorist attacks and those who preach jihad – or something
similar. Its a bit late to undo this kind of damage once these people
have gained citizenship (or permanent residency).
I think we can do all this stuff much better, and more carfully, than just
an open slather approach.

  1. DAVID HAND

Posted Friday, 17 August 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink

Kevin,
“Middle Australia” is a loose description of Australian’s who are not rusted on Labor/Green supporters or Liberal/National supporters. They’re the people who reduced Labor to 7 seats in the last election. They are firmly in the coalition camp at the moment, giving Jilia’s government the most dismal polling in living memory. Some of them might shift a bit now as the boat people issue has become bi-partisan with Labor re-embracing much of coalition policy.

Being concerned about the needs of other humans is not elitist. Having a view that the majority of voters are too stupid to make up their own mind about an issue and labeling them as “hysterical” is elitist. The left has made its mind up that middle australia has been duped by shock jocks.

Larry here even believes that Labor has moved simply because of votes and power, missing completely the possibility that the Houston panel, by finding in favour of deterrence, may actually be promoting good policy and Julia has been handed a chance to back down and bow to the will of the people.

Don’t forget that one in twenty people who get on a boat drown. Greens policy perpetuates that outcome.

  1. DAVID HAND

Posted Friday, 17 August 2012 at 9:06 am | Permalink

Here’s a great example about what gives so many of us the shits. Front page of ttoday’s Australian. An asylum boat puts out a distress call. A container vessel is asked by Australian authorities to rescue them, the passengers are transferred off the “distressed” boat and the Indonesian crew promptly sail off to Indonesia in a boat that is suddenly not “distressed” any more.

We are being had.