Deterring the ‘boat people’: Explaining the Australian government's People Swap response to asylum seekers

Abstract

This article examines why Australia has taken a tough stance on ‘boat people’, through an analysis of the Malaysian People Swap response. The findings support the view that populism, wedge politics and a culture of control drive Australia's asylum-seeker policy agenda. The article further argues that these political pressures hold numerous negative implications for the tone of Australia's political debate and the quality of policy formulation, as well as for asylum seekers and refugees themselves.

本文通过分析“马来人交换协议”的反响，探讨了为什么澳大利亚对“船民”采取了一种严厉的立场。根据作者的研究，民粹主义、极端政治以及控制的文化推动了澳大利亚的难民政策。作者指出，这些政治压力给澳大利亚政治辩论的定调以及政策制定的质量，对避难者和难民，都带来消极的影响。

Keywords:

• asylum seekers
• Australia
• People Swap

Notes

¹ Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106 of 2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. (2011). HCA 32.

²Under the Migration Amendment Act 1992 the Keating Labor government introduced mandatory immigration detention for asylum seekers arriving by boat. Prior to this, unauthorised boat arrivals were held in detention on a discretionary basis (Phillips and Spinks 2013: 12).

³There is a correlation between the asylum-seeker boat arrivals and Australian government policy, but the question of causation remains unclear. The debate over whether ‘push’ or ‘pull’ factors have driven the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat is beyond the scope of this article.

⁴The Coalition is a formal alliance between the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia. In this alliance, Liberal members have a numerical majority.

⁵This policy was not implemented as it did not have East Timor's support. The Australian government discussed the proposal with East Timor's president, but the Timorese parliament subsequently rejected the plan (Allard and Coorey 2010).

⁶We acknowledge that there are limitations in using this form of analysis to fully explain drivers of policy, political decisions and motives. Details of such strategies are ‘seldom given accurately or detailed publicly’ (Wilson and Turnbull 2001: 385), but we viewed content analysis as the most effective technique to scrutinise the government's justification for the policy and, in turn, to shed light on potential factors influencing the policy. Furthermore, there is strong precedent in using this methodology. For instance, McKay, Thomas, and Kneebone (2011) use thematic discourse analysis to better understand why the Australian public may hold particular views on asylum seekers.

⁷We do not dispute that ‘genuine refugees’ is a correct description of the 4000 people who would be resettled in Australia under the People Swap; rather, the suggestion that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are not genuine refugees is problematic.

⁸During the Offshore Processing Bill debate, the opposition emphasised Labor's backflip on offshore processing; during the Bali Process Bill debate, the focus shifted to Labor's backflip on the Refugee Convention.

⁹We limit our analysis of the Coalition's rhetoric and policies to the discourses encompassed in the parliamentary debates and Question Time; the Coalition's political strategies are beyond the scope of this article.

¹⁰In the first two months after the policy announcement, the Coalition devoted almost a quarter of its allotted questions during Question Time to dismissing the People Swap for being a ‘five-for-one deal’, but Coalition MPs used this phrase just once in their 81 questions after this point.

¹¹This comment also relates to tensions between the executive and judiciary, a further dimension of the ‘culture of control’ thesis.