Government ‘No Visa’ campaign draws fire for being politically motivated
The Federal Government’s new ‘No Visa’ campaign is drawing from criticism from media buyers, politicians and political activists alike, who say the Government has launched a politically motivated campaign funded by taxpayers ahead of the upcoming federal election.
The first two days of the national campaign which so far features print and radio advertisements, apparently declaring to asylum seekers arriving without a visa by boat: “You won’t be settled in Australia”, is estimated by media buyers to have cost taxpayers up to $400,000. However the media schedule for the campaign appears to be targeting middle Australia rather than asylum seekers.
“The average government campaign is four weeks and will extend over print and digital,” said a senior media buyer. “For just a weekend campaign across the five News Corp metro newspapers you’re looking at at least $200,000, the ads in Fairfax will be another $120,000. So at least $320,000 in just two days.”
“Once you go regional and radio it becomes a lot more murky but the general rule is you add 25-30 per cent on top of what you spent on metros, so at least another $100,000.”
The Daily Telegraph today reports the ‘No Visa’ campaign is part of a wider advertising blitz that could see the government spend as much as $65m in the coming three months. When approached for comment the Department of Immigration today confirmed the campaign is currently being run in print and radio but would also be run digitally and on television in the coming weeks.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon told Mumbrella he would be making a formal complaint to the Auditor-General about the ‘No Visa’ campaign arguing it is “blatantly political advertising”.
“I’m making a formal complaint to the Auditor-General about the ads because they’re a cheap way for the ALP do its blatantly political advertising at taxpayers’ expense. I mean really—how many people-smugglers in the outer suburbs of Jakarta subscribe to the Adelaide Advertiser?,” said Senator Xenophon.
Over the weekend Treasurer Chris Bowen defended the campaign on the grounds it was important to advertise the new policy, of sending asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea, domestically, because recent migrants from countries including Iran, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan would communicate it back to their home countries. “And tell them, look the policy has changed in Australia, the law’s changed, please don’t come by boat because you’ll get resettled to Papua New Guinea,” Bowen told Sky News.
Jana Favero, director of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, rejected the Government’s strategy. “I’m sceptical in terms of who they are trying to reach, they got the campaign up very quickly, and it was shown that it didn’t go through their normal channels for approval,” said Favero.
“I have only seen the ads in English so if they’re aim is to get messages back to people in home or transit countries, as they have with previous campaigns, then by putting ads in The Daily Telegraph or on shock jock radio they are probably not reaching the audience they are trying to reach.”
Senior media buyers also cast doubt on the strategy. One buyer who declined to be named told Mumbrella: “I’m not sure I understand the strategy behind this campaign, if you wanted to reach the target audience why not go spend the money in The Times of India, the largest english language circulation newspaper in the world?”
A spokeswoman for Australia’s Customs Service, which has responsibility for overseas advertising, said an advertising campaign had begun but at this stage the media component was confined to social media and the “wide-spread distribution of media materials via Australian Embassies and High Commissions, who have distributed material focussed on delivering messaging on migration policy in key source and transit regions for people smuggling activities. These areas include South-East Asia and the Middle East.”
Senator Xenophon said the creative involved in the campaign clearly showed the political strategy behind the advertising. “For Chris Bowen to say these ads are written for recent arrivals to communicate back to their families is ridiculous: the ads don’t say ‘tell your families’ they say ‘you won’t be settled in Australia’,” said Xenophon.
Update: Immigration spokesman Sandi Logan this afternoon confirmed the first week of the Government campaign would cost a total of $2.1m.
“The minister has approved $2.1m in the first week and has not resiled from approving further spending in the following weeks,” said Logan.
“The campaign was only certified on the 19 July and went live on July 20, the research from a previous campaign informed the direction we have gone with this campaign so that it not just ethnic media.”
Nic Christensen
I understand the commentary and I understand that it is easy to believe the advertising is politically motivated, but I don’t think there is any point to Nick Xenophon making a formal complaint.
The ALP would argue there are many avenues for the information to reach potential asylum seekers and this strategy is the first part of a wider reaching strategy.
Of course there is political gain from the advertising but ANY policy on a hot topic will gain a political advantage. You can’t stop advertising because of positive knock on effects and you’ll never be able to prove that political advantage was the primary intent.
User ID not verified.
Since when are Iranians fleeing persecution and death? Getaway did a travelling special on Tehran recently!
User ID not verified.
Asylum seekers and their travel agents regard ethnic and country-specific advertising as PR and dismiss it. In fact, they view it as evidence that Australia is weak.
They make their plans based on the attitudes and plans in Australia, including the political environment. That is why the advertising is perfectly appropriate.
User ID not verified.
The ads scared me to death. I was not game to catch the Manly ferry to work this morning in case I ended up in Papua New Guinea.
User ID not verified.
Great expose article, well done Mumbrella. This is a disgrace. Millions of taxpayers dollars spent to sell a hypocritical, brutal policy to buy votes from racist people. Shame Rudd, shame Labor.
User ID not verified.
@ Daniel… Too bloody right, mate! The SMH travel section called Iran the friendliest place on the earth just a couple of weeks ago!!!! As for the Sri Lankans, Lonely Planet called it the hottest travel spot on the world and is fast becoming Australians “place du jour” to travel to. Utter nonsense and we’re all being had a lend of by these shonks. Look at most of these “asylum seekers” – they’re obese! They’re hardly escaping famine that’s for sure.
http://www.smh.com.au/travel/t.....2o116.html
User ID not verified.
KR= Kevin Rudd= King Richard. He is behaving in the vein of Richard of Gloucester.
Every motivation is a political one, every action is to build his image and perceived credibility.
He plays with the Australian people as if he were at a chess table or directing a puppet theatre.
He has, like Richard of Gloucester, pulled together his supporters, routed his perceived enemies, changed the rules to secure his throne and is now waving smoke and mirrors to create a vision of the world that suits his description of it.
Bread and Circuses? You bet your life. He has started referring to the office of PM as the “high office” of PM and has claimed that the people will get the Prime minister they voted for, which is absolutely untrue.
It has always been untrue in Australia and anywhere else that the Westminster style of government operates. We vote for a local member to represent us in Government and the party elects the PM or “first among equals” to lead the party in office.
The highest office, is the office of Governor General, who stands in place of the head of state.
Rudd is only a local constituent who has been elected by some of the people and has been given the post of PM by a few party members (independent of the people) and has now closed the door on that process to guarantee his seat on the throne of first among equals.
Awake Australians, see the Emperor and his lack of clothes.
Sadly perhaps, but this is not a Republic and we do not vote for a President who is also the head of state. We do vote for a local member of parliament to (supposedly) represent our local community.
User ID not verified.
Nice try Richard (Moss) but I’m afraid the mechanics barely reflect the majority of voters and their capability to identify any policy of their local members. They just turn up to the local school when the News tells them to, they look for the Party Logo, vote for what ever name is next to it, have a sausage and go home.
If that wasn’t the case then Rudd wouldn’t be in the MPs chair.
User ID not verified.
From Amnesty International.
The facts are simple:
Asylum seekers are not ‘illegal’ – it is a human right to seek asylum by boat in Australia (UN Refugee Convention and Australian Migration Act 1958)
Asylum seekers arriving by boat make up less than 3% of Australia’s annual immigration
The majority of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are found to be genuine refugees fleeing persecution, torture and violence.
Now, back to your Chardonnay and line caught snapper
User ID not verified.
I meant PMs chair. Silly phone autocorrect got me. 😉
User ID not verified.
These facts are simple: Australia has every legal right to protect its borders and set the number of “refugees” it takes per year. Now back to my chardonnay and line-caught snapper…
User ID not verified.
Another suspected 100 drowned today. Camps in flames. Claims of rape and torture at refugee camps (and refugee advocates wanting these people released into the community for god’s sakes.) This is Australia in 2013? Bloody hell! It’s a total, unfathomable disaster on an epic scale…
User ID not verified.