War of the Semantic

The refugee swap deal with Malaysia has been sealed, and for the life of me I cannot see what this achieves. In what way was this necessary? It's as if the Government has engaged this process purely so they can win the semantic argument. The refugees are not 'boat people' 'because we've swapped them for people who will presumably arrive by plane. It's not a return to the Pacific solution because Malaysia is not in the Pacific Ocean, and it's not a solution because it's a one off. Basically, because 'The Indian Ocean One-Off Swap Thing' does not roll off the tongue, and is too long for headlines, it is thought that it will not take on the ignominy of the more pithy Howard-era policy title.

But really what is the point of winning the semantics game? It does provide your ministers with answers for hard questions, but those answers immediately make it sound like the minister in question is either dodgy or simple. Sure, a dodgy answer is better than a near soundless groan followed by mild infrequent drooling on Chris Uhlmann's shoes, but only marginally.

And what about the public, whose whims based semi-detached attention to the 6 o'clock news provide the basis for national policy directions? Is 'The Indian Ocean One-Off Swap Thing' enough to sate the wild cry of 'IMMIGRANT' in their subconscious?

Well….no.

Why would it?

This is not all about boats; you know…actual boats. People like boats generally I think. The dislike of boat arrivals is merely a cover for a broader mistrust of refugees. It's easier, and perhaps more ethically defendable, to ask "Why to they have to come by boat" than it is to ask "Why do they have to come at all?"

One thing that struck while watching SBS's 'Go Back to Where You Came From', was the need of the participants to interrogate every refugee they encountered. The tone of this interrogation was always of the 'Was it really all that bad?' variety. The subtext being; "Did you really have to come here?" This interrogation was not restricted to individuals who arrived by boat, but to those who where 'properly' processed at UN refugee camps as well. This reveals a broader problem of attitudes toward immigration in general. If individuals who simply have nowhere else to go are accommodated under such sufferance, then what of attitudes towards people who migrate for economic purposes or simply because they want to?

Playing the semantics game will not change attitudes or make problems go away. Let's say, for the sake of argument, this policy works, no more boats arrive here ever, and Australia simply takes it's refugees from an increasingly overextended Malaysia. What will happen?

A different problem.

Different argument.

Different, but the same.