Australian Nationalism and Refugees as the "Other"

A national government maintains a set of assumptions, especially in immigration and refugee policy, that are primarily based in the nuances of identity. Such responses to refugees and asylum seekers by various governments of nation-states around the world are fundamentally underlined by interactions of national, ethnic and social identities and mentalities (Herzog 2009). From a sociological point of view, Australia is a very interesting case for the interplay of nationalist identity and refugee policy. In Australian national discourse and governmental policy there appears an intrinsic dichotomy of “us”, Australian citizens of Anglo-Western European Christian heritage, and “them”, Immigrants, refugees, Asians, Muslims (Said 2003). In the Australian context of nationalistic discourse those that constitute “them” or the “Other” are expressed as “Un-Australian” (Mummery 2007). This phenomenon of the “Un-Australian” transcends all nominal identities, such as class, gender and politics, except those identities of nationality and ethnicity. Such a sociological phenomenon of national identity discourse is at the forefront of border protection politics and refugee treatment policy and has been rooted in Australia government since the White Australia Policy. Since the termination of the White Australia Policy in the later middle of the twentieth century, nothing has been as contentious as the introduction of the policy of mandatory detention and offshore processing of refugees and asylum seekers in 1992 (Waxmana 2002). This set of policies was formulated by the Labor Government of the time and expanded by the Coalition Government of Prime Minister John Howard as the “Pacific Solution”. Such have coincided with a rise in nationalism, exemplified by conservative former Prime Minister John Howard statement in 2001; the formation of the ultra right wing One Nation Party by Pauline Hanson in 1998; and the excessive and derogative use of the term “boat people” in the media. This essay response will seek to expound the intrinsic dichotomy in national identity by looking at the three aforementioned exemplifications of nationalistic and populist rhetoric in reference to refugee policy as to explain and critique the assumptions and interplay of identity that are founded in the Australia’s policy of the treatment of refugees and reaction to asylum seekers.

The famous statement and piece of nationalist sentiment by Prime Minister John Howard of “we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” during the Federal Coalition election campaign of 2001 was a hallmark in the discourse of nationalist identity and in government policy towards immigration and refugees (Marr 2005). It epitomises the dichotomy of “us” and “them”, began a phenomenon of populist rhetoric, and coincided with a step up in harsh policymaking for refugee arrivals by boat. Within the backdrop of an already well established system mandatory detention and offshore processing, the “Tampa affair” in 2001 was a stark exemplification of the consequences of Howard’s statement. The Norwegian freight ship MV Tampa rescued a number of Afghani refugees but was refused to enter Australian waters and Australian military forces were ordered to board the ship to prevent such actions. The “children overboard affair”, also of 2001, is another fundamental instance of populist rhetoric and the consequences of exclusive national identity (Piper 2004). Federal ministers made inaccurate statements to mislead the public about how refugees were inhumane enough to throw their children from their boats in order to secure asylum. The primary and underlying assumption that allowed and accepted the harsh, unethical and debatably illegal actions of the Howard government are based in the exclusivist concept of the “Other” and propagated by overt national pride and populist rhetoric. An extreme manifestation of Australian nationalism culminated with the formation of the ultra right wing One Nation Party in 1998. With the election into federal parliament of Pauline Hanson, the leader of the One Nation Party, was a wave of xenophobic and racist rhetoric (Jupp 1999). Hanson saying in her maiden address in parliament: “I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.” Such rhetoric fundamentally underlies the phenomenon of the “Other” and clearly displays the nationalistic sentiment present in Australian policymaking thought (Waxmana 2002). The term and concept of “boat people” plague Australia’s national discourse on refugees through its continual perpetuation and propagation in the media and in politics. Be it on the airwaves of talk back radio, on the television screens of commercial channel current affairs programs or in the speeches of the federal opposition in parliamentary debates, “boat people” maintains a niche in the discourse of national identity (Mummery 2007). Espoused predominately by the leader of the opposition Tony Abbott as a populist rally call, the rhetorical terminology of “boat people” represents a fundamental response supported by, arguably, the mainstream demographic of Australians to illegal immigration, refugees and asylum seekers (Piper 2004). By labelling legitimate refugees that attempt to seek asylum in Australia that come by means of boat transportation as “boat people”, it becomes much easier and acceptable to dehumanise such refugees and distort Australia’s legal and moral obligations. Moreover, the continual focus on so called “boat people”, who in reality represent a small percentage of refugees, enables an easily identifiable scapegoat for the perceived decrease in the “Australian way of life” due to the increase in foreign migration and multiculturalism.

The effects and implications of the intrinsic dichotomy in Australia national discourse on immigration and refugees are profound. As Said (2003) propounded, the perpetuation of the “Other” in the case of refugees stems from the crux of national identity and, in Australia, has led to inhumane and unethical policies for and portrayals of refugees. The assumptions by the Australian government are underlined by the nuances of nationalism and national identity and these are the causation for the bigoted discourse in society.

References

Herzog, Ben. (2009). Between nationalism and humanitarianism. Nations and Nationalism. 15(2): 185-205.
Jupp, James. (1999). The Politics of Australian Immigration. Carlton: Melbourne University Publishing.
Marr, David and Marian Wilkinson. (2005). Dark Victory, 2nd Ed. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Mummery, Jane and Debbie Rodan. (2007). Discursive Australia: Refugees, Australianness, and the Australian Public Sphere. Journal of Media and Cultural Studies. 21(3): 347-360.
Piper, Margaret. (2004). Australia’s refugee policy. The Sydney Papers. 12(2): 78-88.
Said, Edward. (2003). Orientalism, 3rd Ed. London: Penguin Books.
Waxmana, Peter. (2002). The shaping of Australia’s immigration and refugee policy. Journal of Immigrants and Minorities. 19(1): 53-78.