1. Rebecca J Gittos
1
Social Policy and the Power of Language
By Rebecca J Gittos
Language and metaphor is a part of everyday life and is used everywhere for a range of
purposes (Haigh, 2012: 66-67). It is used to persuade, argue, challenge, and also to
conceptualise or make sense of the world (Haigh, 2012: 66-67). Language and metaphor can
be found in social policy and is particularly useful in the understanding and development of
policy areas. This essay will examine language techniques including rhetoric, spin, framing,
and metaphor found within policy with a particular focus on the asylum seeker and border
protection policy area. By applying these language techniques to this policy area and the
policy document “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013), this essay aims to
show the implications of language on policy development.
According to McMaster (2001), policy surrounding the asylum seeker and border protection
policy area has become increasingly preoccupied with “stopping the boats”, thus neglecting
the rights of people from foreign countries and diminishing Australia’s image of a
compassionate and fair country (vi). The Australian government, for more than 20 years, has
implemented different policies to “stop the boats” and currently it is mandatory for asylum
seekers and refugees arriving by boat to be placed in immigration detention as they are
processed (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013: 4; McAdam, 2013: 435; McMaster,
2001: vi). Asylum seekers and refugees have been labelled as “non-citizens” who pose as a
national security risk to be feared by the Australian public (Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2013: 4; McAdam, 2013: 435; McMaster, 2001: vi). However, under
International Law people have the right to seek asylum and cannot have penalties imposed
upon them if they enter a country without relevant paperwork (McAdam, 2013: 435-448).
McMaster (2001) suggests that Australia’s obsession with “stopping the boats” can be traced
back to European settlement and the fear of “boat people” and mass migration can be
attributed to Australia’s close proximity to Asia. The Immigration Restriction Act (1901), also
known as the White Australia Policy, is one example of Australia’s long history of border
protection and was only completely removed in 1973 (McMaster, 2001: vi). In more recent
times, Australia’s immigration policies have been described as one of the most restrictive as
evidenced by “Operation Sovereign Borders” (2014). “Operation Sovereign Borders” (2014)
was a military-led border protection operation created under the Abbott government with
“zero tolerance” on “boat people” (McMaster, 2001: vi). McMaster (2001) states the fear of
“boat people” is unfounded as only a small percentage of the global intake of asylum seekers
and refugees come to Australia but the fear exists nonetheless (vi).
The policy document, “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013), takes on a
different approach by outlining the asylum seeker and border protection policy area from a
human rights perspective. Byusing ahuman rights approach, this policy document challenges
previous policies addressing border protection and immigration detention (Australian Human
Rights Commission, 2013: 3). This policy document, instead, proposes changes to be made to
the policy area of asylum seekers and refugees arriving by boat in Australia and urges the
government and general public to take on a more human rights approach (Australian Human
Rights Commission, 2013: 3). Thepolicy document highlights issues surrounding human rights
and border protection within Australia which fails to uphold the human rights obligations

2. Rebecca J Gittos
2
outlined under the United Nations Refugee Convention (Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2013: 2). In this policy document, asylum seekers and refugees are stated to be
a vulnerable group facing mistreatment and persecution as a consequence of Australian
policy (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013: 3).
A study between 2012 and 2013 showed “there were 846 reported incidents of self-harm”
across immigration detention facilities which suggests there is a strong correlation between
immigration detention and mental health deterioration (Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2013: 3). In other words, Australia’s strict border protection policies have a
negative impact on asylum seeker and refugees’ state of mind. The “denial of work rights”
for asylumseekers and refugees is another breach in human rights, preventing families from
supporting each other financially and putting people at risk of poverty (Australian Human
Rights Commission, 2013: 6). Indefinite detention is also damaging to people’s mental health
because, under the Migration Act (1958), there is no limit to the duration asylumseekers and
refugees are held in detention and this uncertainty means refugees have no way of knowing
whether they will remain in detention for months or years with restrictions placed on their
movements and independence (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013: 6-7). According
to the “AsylumSeekers, Refugees and Human Rights”policydocument, people in immigration
detention feel a sense of powerlessness due to little or no understanding of their rights in the
legal system and, as a result, are unable to challenge their situation (Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2013: 6).
The “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” policy document argues that the best
interests of children held in immigration detention should be a priority because detention has
negative effects on child development and mental health (Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2013: 7-9). According to the Human Rights Commission, children in immigration
detention have been placed in remote areas, have not been provided with adequate
recreational areas or stimulating activities, and have not received adequate education which
contribute to negative mental health and developmental effects (2013: 7-9). It is the Minister
for Immigration’s responsibility to guarantee the safety and welfare of unaccompanied
children arriving by boat and to become their legalguardian. However, according to the policy
document, the Minister for Immigration fails in his duties as legal guardian because these
children have not been made a priority and their needs have not been met (Australian Human
Rights Commission, 2013: 19). The policy document therefore suggests there is need for
policy change in the asylum seeker, refugee and border protection policy area.
Public perception of the asylum seeker, refugee and border protection policy area is
influenced by language (McMaster, 2001: vi). Rhetoric is a language technique that has
motive behind it to either convince or influence others which makes it a tool of persuasion
and a part of all language (Bessant, 2012: 12-22; Haigh, 2012: 67). In the case of the asylum
seeker, refugee and border protection policy area, rhetoric has been used over time to create
negative imagery and stereotypes of people arriving by boat. Border protection policies have
referred to refugees as “unauthorised” and “non-citizens” which creates imagery of illegal
and unlawful people attempting to enter Australia and threaten people’s way of life
(Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013: 4). It is this imagery that influences the
Australian public to fear asylum seekers and refugees and feel protective towards Australian
borders. Although, in reality, the “unauthorised” asylum seekers are not illegal and break no

3. Rebecca J Gittos
3
laws by arriving in Australia without relevant documents on the condition they are refugees
seeking asylum (Burnside, 2004: 69-78). The policy area has been focussed on the threat of
“boat people” and the phrase “stop the boats” which is an example of rhetoric in language.
Hence, rhetoric in the “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013) policy document
aims to position asylumseekers and refugees arriving by boat as threats and illegal inthe eyes
of the Australian public (McAdam, 2013: 435).
“Operation Sovereign Borders” (2014) is another policy document addressing the asylum
seeker, refugee border protection policy area and was developed under the Abbott
Government. The policy document includes phrases such as “the crisis on our borders” and
“national emergency” in reference to asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat. The
purpose of these phrases is to spark fear into the public and to create a collective sense of
protection for Australia and its borders (McMaster, 2001: vi). This example alone shows the
power of rhetoric in shaping people’s perception of issues without the need to be based on
fact because the language is convincing enough. In other words, the language used in the
policy area controls the debate and influences people’s view to a desired position. In the
policy document” Operation Sovereign Borders” (2014), people are positioned to fear asylum
seekers and feel protective towards Australian borders. “Asylum seeker” and “refugee” are
both broad terms applied to a large group of people and are used in policy discussions to
create imagery of a mass of people rather than considering them to be individuals (Australian
Human Rights Commission, 2013: 6; McMaster, 2001: vi). This language serves the purpose
of dividing us, the Australian public, and them, the asylum seekers and refugees (McAdam,
2013: 435; McMaster, 2001: vi). The “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013)
policy document, in contrast to “Operation Sovereign Borders” (2014), appears to challenge
this rhetoric.
Rhetoric in policy has, in the past, been negative towards asylum seekers and refugees
arriving by boat in Australia. The “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013) policy
document challenges this history of negative rhetoric towards asylum seekers and refugees
and, instead, uses rhetoric to evoke feelings of sympathy for these people through counter-
spin. Spin is defined as the way in which an argument is put together and there are many
different ways to spin an argument, each of which are used for a particular outcome or
reaction (Haigh, 2012: 67). As previously stated, there is a history of policies that have spun
a border protection argument where asylum seekers and refugees are viewed as threats to
Australian borders. However, the “Asylum seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013)
policy document takes on a more human rights approach through the use of language and a
counter-spin of the dominant view (Haigh, 2012: 67). The policy document begins by stating
it is taking on a more human rights approach to asylumseekers and refugees arriving by boat,
implying current policy does not take human rights into account (Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2013: 2). In the policy document, asylum seekers are positioned as vulnerable
people who have been victimised under harsh policy and this is evident through the discussion
of “detrimental mental health” impacts of people within immigration detention (Australian
Human Rights Commission, 2013: 3). The language used within the document has the
purpose of spinning its language or rhetoric to create sympathy towards people in
immigration detention.

4. Rebecca J Gittos
4
The “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” policy document describes immigration
detention centres as “cruel, inhumane or degrading” in its treatment of detainees (Australian
Human Rights Commission, 2013: 10). Other descriptions used to highlight the conditions
found within immigration detention centres include “extreme heat”, “overcrowding” and
“lack of privacy” which emphasise the discomfort and harsh conditions felt by refugees, a
sharp contrast to the basichuman rights expected by the Australian public (Australian Human
Rights Commission, 2013: 17). In this scenario, self-harm and rioting by detainees is not
viewed as criminal behaviour but viewed as signs of desperation and mental health issues.
The use of language in the policy document works to humanise asylumseekers and refugees
and it becomes possible to see these people as individuals rather than a stereotyped group.
The policy document has therefore spun a human rights view to create sympathy towards
asylum seekers and refugees rather than spin fear and suspicion. Sympathy towards “boat
people” is strengthened through discussions of children within immigration detention. The
Minister for Immigration is described as the “legal guardian” of unaccompanied children,
making them his responsibility and positions him to act in the child’s “best interests”
(Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013: 9). The terms “legal guardian” and “best
interests” are both examples of language used to position the Minister for Immigration as a
parental figure which allows the policy document to suggest the Minister’s role as guardian is
being neglected. Children can be viewed as symbols of innocence and trust and any abuse of
that trust is a powerful spin, persuading people towards a human rights argument over a
border protection one.
Different spins of the asylum seeker and refugee policy area are emphasised using language
and this language frames the policy area or issue (Haigh, 2012: 65). A frame is used to gain
public attention and shapepeople’s perception of the issuethrough languageand the imagery
it creates (Haigh, 2012: 65; Lakoff, 2004: ix, 4). Meaning is then made from imagery to
influence and change the way people view issues suchas theasylumseeker and refugee policy
area (Lakoff, 2004: xv). The words themselves are not important, rather it is what the words
signify and the imagery associated with the words that is important (Lakoff, 2004: ix). For
example, the American Conservatives, a political party, frame issues to gain support from the
general public (Lakoff, 2004: ix). The American Conservatives have used different terms such
as “tax relief” to construct imagery and frame debate surrounding tax in the United States.
For an effectivepolicy document, the general public should be positioned to view policy areas
in particular ways (Haigh, 2012: 63-65). In the case of asylum seekers and refugees arriving
by boat in Australia, a border protection view is most emphasised through language including
“security risk”, “national emergency” and “illegal” which have connotations and imagery
attached (McMaster, 2001: vi). The “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013)
policy document instead emphasises a human rights perspective. Human rights is a relatively
new frame attached to asylum seekers and refugees that has been created through the use
of new language. The purpose of this policy document is, therefore, to reframe and change
the Australian public’s view of asylum seekers and refugees arriving by boat (Lakoff, 2004:
xv).
Metaphor is a part of framing and is closely linked to rhetoric (Haigh, 2012: 68). It is a
language process whereby the attributes of one object or concept is transferred to another
and is most effectively understood by people who share common language, ideas, values and
norms (Haigh, 2012: 68). “Tax relief”, coined by the American Conservatives, is a metaphor

5. Rebecca J Gittos
5
suggesting tax is something that needs to be relieved and is an example of a pedagogical
metaphor (Lakoff, 2004: ix-4). A pedagogical metaphor introduces and clarifies new ideas of
old knowledge in order to make new understandings (Bessant, 2002: 12-22). Relief is a
concept that is generally felt by people after some form of pain is removed. By combining the
word relief with tax, it suggests tax is an affliction and problem in need of treatment.
Therefore, “tax relief” is framed as positive for the general public. The American
Conservatives harnessed this metaphor to position themselves as the political party with the
American people's best interests at the heart of their policies by supporting “tax relief” and,
in doing so, position other political parties as oppositions (Bessant, 2002: 12-22). In the
“Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013) policy document, the two most
prevalent types of metaphor include space and heuristic metaphors. A space metaphor is
based on the physicalworld and is experienced differently from multiple perspectives (Lakoff
and Johnson, 2003: 57-68). An example of a space metaphor in the policy document can be
seen in the following quote which states there is “asignificantgapbetween Australia’s human
rights obligations…and their current treatment of asylum seekers and refugees” (Australian
Human Rights Commission, 2013: 2). The word gap suggests there is a distance between
Australian human rights obligations outlined under the United Nations and the treatment of
asylumseekers and refugees in reality. This also suggests there should not be a gap between
human rights and the treatment of asylum seekers and that the gap should be closed.
A heuristic metaphor can be used to explain abstract issues such as the treatment of asylum
seekers and refugees through comparisons with concrete examples Bessant, 2002: 12-22;
Haigh, 2012: 68). In other words, heuristic metaphors help create understanding of
something relatively unknown to us through comparisons with a known example. One
example of a heuristic metaphor in the “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights” policy
document is “prison-like nature” and “life sentence in detention” (Australian Human Rights
Commission, 2013: 8-9). These examples make acomparison between immigration detention
centres, which are generally unknown to the Australian public, to prisons. By comparing
detention centres to a prison, it suggests asylum seekers and refugees arriving by boat are
being treated like criminals. This useof heuristic metaphor shows the unfairness of detention
centres for people arriving by boat. “Contagion effect” is another example of a heuristic
metaphor found within the policy document and it is used to describe the negative mental
health problems for people in immigration detention. Contagion is a disease that is passed
from one person to another and spreads uncontrollably. Therefore, a “contagion effect”
creates imagery of mental health issues, self-harmand violence spreading among detainees
uncontrollably like a disease or illness. This metaphor suggests that people who are confined
together in detention centres spread their problems to others, worsening cases of mental
issues and intensifying harmful behaviour.
Different language techniques and metaphor work together with the development of policy
to achieve a desired worldview of a specific policy area. Policy development is complex with
a complex and fluid cycle (Althaus, Bridgman and Davis, 2007: 34). Policies are written
guidelines with a purpose to steer groups of people towards a desired view that continues to
change and is dependent on political persuasion of a given government and the culture of a
society (Anderson, 2003: 40; Althaus, Bridgman and Davis, 2007: 34). As political power
changes, policies shift and issues of focus change (Althaus, Bridgman and Davis: 2007: 35).

6. Rebecca J Gittos
6
Meanings and interpretation of issues change over time as the thoughts, feelings, ideas and
attitudes of a society changes (Haigh, 2002: 66). The “Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human
Rights” (2013) policy document uses language and metaphor in an attempt to alter the
framework and view that has surrounded asylum seekers and refugees arriving by boat in
Australia. The language creates a rational argument that uses its scholarship as authority to
call for change in the policy area (McMaster, 2001: vii; Lakoff and Johnson, 2003: 57-68). In
this way, language can be very effective in changing or influencing the public’s view of policy
areas which leads to its development.
In conclusion, language techniques including rhetoric, spin, framing and metaphor affects the
way people view the world and issues found within it. Language can be used to influence
public perception of an issue, topic or group of people and has been, and continues to be,
effective in the development of policy. This is evident through the examination of the asylum
seeker and refugee policy area, with a particular focus on a more recent human rights
approach in the “AsylumSeekers, Refugees and Human Rights” (2013) policy document which
challenges previous ideas surrounding Australia and asylum seekers and refugees arriving by
boat.

7. Rebecca J Gittos
7
References:
Althaus, Catherne, Peter Bridgman, and Glyn Davis. 2007. Australian Policy Handbook, 4th
ed. St Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin
Anderson, James E. 2003. Public Policy Making: Am Introduction, 5th ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin
Australian Human Rights Commission. 2013. Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Human Rights:
Snapshot Report. Australia: Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Bessant, Judith. 2002. “The Politics of Official Talk About Welfare Reform in Australia”. Just
Policy: A Journal of Australian Policy, 28: 12-22
Burnside, Julian. 2004. “Doublespeak”. Word Watching: Field Notes from an Amateur
Philologist. Melbourne: Scribe
Haigh, Yvonne T. 2012. “Problem Definition and Agenda Setting”. Public Policy in Australia:
Theory and Practice. Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Lakoff, George. 2004. Don't Think of an Elephant: Know your Values and Frame the Debate.
Melbourne: Scribe Short Books
McAdam, Jane. 2014. “Australia and Asylum Seekers”. International Journal of Refugee Law,
25 (3): 435-448. DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eet044
McMaster, Don. 2001. Asylum Seekers: Australia’s Response to Refugees. Victoria:
Melbourne University Press