Constructions of racism in the Australian parliamentary debates on asylum seekers (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ethics and exclusion: representations of sovereignty in Australia’s approach to asylum-seekers
Review of International Studies, 2006
From 2001, the Australian government has justified a hard-line approach to asylum-seekers on the basis of the need to preserve its sovereignty. This article critically evaluates this justification, arguing that the conception of sovereignty as the 'right to exclude' involves a denial of responsibility to the most vulnerable in global politics. We particularly focus here on the ways in which the Australian government has attempted to create support for this conception of sovereignty and ethical responsibility at the domestic level, through marginalising alternative voices and emphasising the 'otherness' of asylum-seekers and refugees. We conclude by suggesting what this might mean for the treatment of asylum-seekers in global politics and for statist approaches to global ethics.
Review of International Studies, 2006
From 2001, the Australian government has justified a hard-line approach to asylum-seekers on the basis of the need to preserve its sovereignty. This article critically evaluates this justification, arguing that the conception of sovereignty as the ‘right to exclude’ involves a denial of responsibility to the most vulnerable in global politics. We particularly focus here on the ways in which the Australian government has attempted to create support for this conception of sovereignty and ethical responsibility at the domestic level, through marginalising alternative voices and emphasising the ‘otherness’ of asylum-seekers and refugees. We conclude by suggesting what this might mean for the treatment of asylum-seekers in global politics and for statist approaches to global ethics.
IDENTITIES: GLOBAL STUDIES IN CULTURE AND POWER, 2016
Dilemmas around how to deal with asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat have been a key driver of political and public discourse for over a decade. In 2012, an ‘Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers’ was established to provide advice to the Australian government about how to deal with the increasingly embar- rassing issue of asylum seekers drowning at sea and a parliamentary stalemate on the matter. Using frame analysis to understand how national and post- national identities are being recruited in this debate, this paper analyses submissions to the Panel. We demonstrate how arguments for and against asylum seekers are constructed around nationalism, regionalism and globalism (cosmopolitan). Australia was variously framed as having an alternative national character from that promoted by politicians, as having a key regional role, and hence identity, and as a global citizen (both in reality and in appearance). Contrary to expectations, we found that each frame served as a vehicle through which progressive arguments were articulated, indicating the utility of each in arguing for more humane treatment of ‘Others’.
How far and in what ways have migrants been ‘securitized’ in Australian political discourse?
Whilst humans have been migrating for a variety of purposes for most of our history, in recent decades, and in particular, in the post 9/11 era, the political discourse surrounding migrants and asylum seekers has become increasingly securitised. Securitisation is defined as the process in which certain issues are transformed into security threats, and this is mostly achieved through the implementation of extraordinary legal and political measures. The alteration of immigration policies, processes, and the language within political discourse has occurred, reflecting a political priority upon maintaining national security. The United Nations recommends nations only use extraordinary methods in necessary situations, and in a proportionate manner. However, in the context of Australia, it is clear these measures have been applied in large amounts. Hence, this paper will argue that the Australian political discourse surrounding migrants has been securitised to a large extent, and as a result, has severely and negatively impacted upon the human rights of migrants. Preceded by the laying of a theoretical foundation base, this will be argued through analysis of the political actions taken following the Australian government’s 2013 “Stop The Boats” campaign, the militarisation of border protection exemplified in “Operation Sovereign Borders”, the recent conglomeration of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service into the Department of Immigration, as well as discussion of the resulting human rights violations faced by migrants, both within Australia, and in offshore detention centres. Within this paper, the word “migrant” will be used as a general term, encompassing asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants.
Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees, 2021
This article draws upon content analysis of Australian parliamentary transcripts to examine debates about asylum seekers who arrived by boat in three historical periods: 1977–1979, 1999–2001, and 2011–2013. We analyze term frequency and co-occurrence to identify patterns in specific usage of the phrase “boat people.” We then identify how the term is variously deployed in Parliament and discuss the relationship between these uses and government policy and practice. We conclude that forms of “discursive bordering” have amplified representations of asylum seekers as security threats to be controlled within and outside Australia’s sovereign territory. The scope of policy or legislative responses to boat arrivals is limited by a poverty of political language, thus corroborating recent conceptual arguments about the securitization and extra-territorialization of the contemporary border. Résumé Cet article s’appuie sur une analyse de contenu de transcriptions de débats parlementaires austr...
Australia, Asylum-seekers and the Normative Limits of the Copenhagen School, AJPS, 2011
Australian Journal of Political Science, 2011
In the lead-up to the Australian federal election in 2010, both major political parties represented the ‘unauthorised’ arrival of asylum-seekers as a security issue. This article explores the dynamics of this resecuritization of asylum in Australia, suggesting the case has important implications for both the securitization framework and Australia's treatment of asylum-seekers. The relationship between securitization and calls for an open debate about asylum-seekers challenges the securitization framework's normative claims about political debate and deliberation as a progressive development illustrative of desecuritization (the removal of issues from the security agenda). This case also illustrates that without political leadership to engage with the social and cultural context that allows the securitization of asylum to resonate with large segments of the Australian population, the exploitation of this issue for short-term political gain will continue.