The Claim
“Spent $20 million on an international campaign to discourage people from fleeing war crimes, genocide and other persecution.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core factual claim is TRUE. According to Senate estimates documents cited in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Coalition government planned to spend $19.9 million over four years on an international communications campaign to deter asylum seekers from attempting to reach Australia by boat [1]. The campaign was titled "No Way. You will not make Australia home" and targeted countries including Malaysia, Thailand, Iraq, Bangladesh, India, Lebanon, Burma, Somalia, and Sudan, in addition to traditional source countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam [1].
The spending breakdown included:
- $12 million on communications activity by December 2014
- $3 million over three years for the Community Liaison Officer program in Indonesia
- $5 million over three years for expansion of public information [1]
By January 2014, $1.3 million had already been spent on communication activities [1].
Missing Context
This was not a Coalition innovation. The claim omits critical context that advertising campaigns to dissuade asylum seekers from coming to Australia by boat have been running since 2001 when the Howard government first implemented them [1]. These campaigns have been a bipartisan feature of Australian asylum policy for over two decades.
Labor spent significantly on similar campaigns. In August 2013—just months before the 2013 election—the Labor government spent $6.5 million on its "no boat, no visa" advertising campaign created by global marketing company Universal McCann [1]. The Labor campaign used slogans including "Come by boat and you won't be settled in Australia," "Don't come by boat," and "Apply the legal way, instead of coming by boat" [1].
The $20 million was part of a broader deterrence policy. The communications campaign was one component of "Operation Sovereign Borders," the Coalition's broader border protection policy that included offshore processing (first reinstated by Labor in August 2012), boat turnbacks, and regional resettlement arrangements [2].
The framing is misleading. The claim's phrasing about "fleeing war crimes, genocide and other persecution" is emotionally loaded. While some asylum seekers were indeed fleeing persecution, the campaigns targeted economic migrants and those considering dangerous boat journeys, including people from countries not experiencing active persecution (such as India and Bangladesh) [1]. The campaigns were specifically designed to prevent dangerous maritime crossings organized by people smugglers, not to block legitimate refugee resettlement pathways.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), a major Australian metropolitan newspaper owned by Fairfax Media (now Nine Entertainment) [1]. SMH is generally considered a mainstream, reputable publication with center-left editorial leanings. The article cites Senate estimates documents—official parliamentary records—which adds credibility to the factual claims about spending amounts.
The article's author, Sarah Whyte, was the immigration correspondent for Fairfax Media at the time. The reporting appears factual and includes the government spokesperson's response providing official justification for the spending [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes—substantially similar campaigns were run by both major parties.
Search conducted: "Labor government asylum seeker deterrence campaign spending 2013"
Findings:
Labor spent $6.5 million in August 2013 alone on its "no boat, no visa" campaign [1]. This was just months before the election and represents approximately one-third of the Coalition's four-year $19.9 million commitment.
Labor reinstated offshore processing in August 2012 after initially dismantling the Howard government's Pacific Solution in 2008 [2]. The offshore processing policy—far more costly than advertising campaigns—has been continued by both Labor and Coalition governments since 2012.
Historical pattern: Advertising campaigns to deter asylum seekers have been a feature of Australian policy under both Howard (Coalition), Rudd/Gillard (Labor), and Abbott/Turnbull (Coalition) governments since 2001 [1].
The offshore processing policy costs dwarf advertising. The offshore detention facilities on Nauru and Manus Island cost billions of dollars over the years—far exceeding the $20 million advertising campaign. This policy was reinstated by Labor in 2012 and continued by the Coalition [2].
Balanced Perspective
Policy Rationale: The government explicitly stated the campaigns were designed to "inform potential illegal immigrants about the Australian Government's policies in an effort to strengthen ongoing efforts to curb illegal migration and prevent people smuggling to Australia" [1]. The messaging aimed to discourage dangerous boat journeys that resulted in hundreds of deaths at sea between 2008-2013.
Comparative Context: The $20 million campaign cost represents a small fraction of:
- The $180 million spent on the "Where the Bloody Hell Are You?" tourism campaign under the Howard government [1]
- The billions spent on offshore detention facilities (reinstated by Labor in 2012)
- The $6.5 million Labor spent on similar advertising in a single month (August 2013)
Broader Political Context: Asylum seeker deterrence has been a bipartisan policy in Australia since the early 2000s. The "Pacific Solution" began under Howard, was dismantled by Labor in 2008, reinstated by Labor in 2012, and continued by the Coalition. Both major parties have employed advertising campaigns, offshore processing, and boat turnbacks to varying degrees.
This is NOT unique to the Coalition. The $20 million campaign was consistent with longstanding bipartisan policy approaches to asylum seeker deterrence that have been employed by both Labor and Coalition governments for over two decades [1][2].
TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual claim that the Coalition spent approximately $20 million on an international campaign to discourage asylum seekers is accurate based on Senate estimates documents [1]. However, the claim's framing omits crucial context: (1) Labor spent $6.5 million on similar campaigns just months earlier [1]; (2) such advertising has been bipartisan policy since 2001 [1]; (3) the offshore processing policy (reinstated by Labor in 2012) cost billions more than advertising [2]; and (4) the emotional framing about "war crimes and genocide" obscures that the campaigns targeted all boat arrivals, including those not fleeing persecution [1].
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The factual claim that the Coalition spent approximately $20 million on an international campaign to discourage asylum seekers is accurate based on Senate estimates documents [1]. However, the claim's framing omits crucial context: (1) Labor spent $6.5 million on similar campaigns just months earlier [1]; (2) such advertising has been bipartisan policy since 2001 [1]; (3) the offshore processing policy (reinstated by Labor in 2012) cost billions more than advertising [2]; and (4) the emotional framing about "war crimes and genocide" obscures that the campaigns targeted all boat arrivals, including those not fleeing persecution [1].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (2)
-
1
It costs $20 million to say: 'Don't call Australia home'
The federal government is spending nearly $20 million to tell potential asylum seekers from some of the poorest and most desperate countries not to come to Australia, new documents show.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2PDF
Kaldor Centre Factsheet: Offshore Processing
Unsw Edu • PDF Document
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.