Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Refugees will be an election issue

By Graham Young - posted Monday, 12 July 2010


For most Australians there are many more important issues than asylum-seekers, so how is it that the arrival of refugees by boats so dominates today's news coverage? And is it a sign that voters in entrenched pockets of incipient racism will dictate the result of the next election, or something else?

One reason is that it is an ideal subject for media coverage with good visuals, handy and archetypal story lines, and plenty of colourful talent ready, willing and able to argue their side of the case.

This of course forces politicians to address the issue, but doesn't explain why, when it ceases to be novel, they keep returning to it.

Advertisement

In our most recent survey on the issue only about 10 per cent of people nominated it as a top-of-mind "most important issue". (This is from a weighted sample of 599.) Of these, 7 per cent used a variation of "immigrant" to describe the arrivals, while only 2 per cent called them refugees and 1 per cent asylum-seekers.

The choice of words is significant. Supporters of more liberal immigration laws almost always use "refugee" or "asylum-seeker" and tend to be Labor or Greens voters, while Liberals, Nationals and others favour "immigrant".

The first group tends to focus on compassion and humanitarian issues, the second on population policy more broadly as well as the legality of informal population movements. Yet, when we specifically asked respondents how important the issue was to them in determining their vote at the next election it seemed to dramatically increase in significance with 50 per cent saying it was important and only 25 per cent unimportant.

What is its true significance?

Looking at all the data it appears to be a marker of voting allegiance. The refugee story neatly encapsulates some of the philosophical themes that underlie the two sides of our political debate.

So it typifies a deep cultural debate which can be boiled down to an argument about two different types of equality - outcome and opportunity - mixed in with conceptions of cultural and national identity.

Advertisement

You can almost judge a person's voting intention by what they say when you force them to take a position on asylum-seekers. It is not an issue on which they are consciously voting, but it exemplifies the deep reasons why they vote the way that they do.

And as equality of opportunity is more associated with the Coalition, and is more favoured by Australians in general, every time the issue comes up, it promotes a vote for the Coalition.

A slight policy advantage turns into a large thematic one.

Supporters of a tougher policy concentrate on the process and whether it is lawful that people "jump the queue". They rarely argue that Australia should not accept refugees, but they do argue that we should have control over who we accept. It is an argument about what is fair, given the vast number of refugees in the world and limited domestic resources.

Opponents also talk about fairness, but their fairness is modulated by "compassion", and the immediate problem of people on our doorstep with needs. So they are focused on the outcome, not the process, and our common humanity with the new arrivals. They want to see everyone enjoying what we enjoy.

Of course there is some xenophobia and isolated concern that the refugee groups harbour terrorists and criminals, and will refuse to integrate.

There is also a subsidiary theme, and that is one of the competences of the government. When Kevin Rudd was riding high last year Labor and the Coalition were ranked almost evenly in their ability to handle this issue.

Then, when Rudd was imploding, the Coalition suddenly gained a substantial lead. The evidence suggests this was not because of anything the Coalition said, but because each additional refugee arrival became further proof of government incompetence.

Neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott is likely to unilaterally raise the issue in the election contest. But that probably won't matter. This is the sailing season, and they'll both have an eye on the horizon. Unless the people smugglers are extraordinarily sensitive to Australian political conditions, it's odds-on refugees will inject themselves into the next federal election, and that's bad for Labor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published in The Australian on July 10, 2010.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

115 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Graham Young is chief editor and the publisher of On Line Opinion. He is executive director of the Australian Institute for Progress, an Australian think tank based in Brisbane, and the publisher of On Line Opinion.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Graham Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Graham Young
Article Tools
Comment 115 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy