The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (under Immigration Minister Peter Dutton) commissioned and produced a telemovie titled *Journey* at a total cost of approximately **$6 million** (specifically $5.97 million) [1].
The cost breakdown, confirmed by government tender documents and Senate estimates, was:
- **$4.34 million** paid to Put It Out There Pictures (Sydney-based production company) for film production [1]
- **$1.63 million** paid to Lapis Communications for promotion and advertising [1]
The 90-minute telemovie was filmed across three countries with cast and crew from 13 countries.
- - * * * * 434 434 万美元 wàn měi yuán * * * * 支付 zhī fù 给 gěi Put Put It It Out Out There There Pictures Pictures ( ( 悉尼 xī ní 制作 zhì zuò 公司 gōng sī ) ) 用于 yòng yú 电影 diàn yǐng 制作 zhì zuò [ [ 1 1 ] ]
It premiered on Afghan television in March 2016, and was also screened in Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq [1][2].
Regarding the language availability claim: The film was produced in and made available in **Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Arabic, and Farsi** - languages spoken in the target source countries [1][3].
This was an intentional decision since the target audience was potential asylum seekers in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq, not English-speaking audiences.
The claim omits that this telemovie was part of a larger, ongoing communication campaign under "Operation Sovereign Borders." The Department stated the film was a "key part" of their anti-people smuggling strategy and was designed to reach a potential audience of 50 million people [1][2].
The claim fails to mention that **the Labor government also commissioned similar communication materials**.
该 gāi 说法 shuō fǎ 未能 wèi néng 提及 tí jí * * * * 工党 gōng dǎng 政府 zhèng fǔ 也 yě 委托 wěi tuō 制作 zhì zuò 了 le 类似 lèi sì 的 de 宣传材料 xuān chuán cái liào * * * * 。 。
According to the Sydney Morning Herald's reporting: "It's not the first time the department has strayed into drama. **Under Labor, it commissioned a radio drama, but that was much less expensive**" [1].
This demonstrates that using dramatic media for deterrence messaging was not unique to the Coalition - though the scale and cost differed significantly.
The film was specifically targeted at populations in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan - where the languages used (Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Arabic, Farsi) are spoken.
The government defended the expenditure as necessary for "saving lives" by discouraging dangerous boat journeys.
### ### 4 4 . . 政策 zhèng cè 理由 lǐ yóu
The production company's website stated the film aimed to "educate and inform audiences in source countries about the futility of investing in people smugglers, the perils of the trip, and the hardline policies that await them if they do reach Australian waters" [1][2].
Fairfax was generally considered a reputable mainstream media organization, though the Canberra Times had a smaller circulation than the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age.
该 gāi 文章 wén zhāng 似乎 sì hū 与 yǔ 《 《 悉尼 xī ní 先驱 xiān qū 晨报 chén bào 》 》 的 de 报道 bào dào 相同 xiāng tóng 或 huò 类似 lèi sì 。 。
The article appears to have been syndicated or similar to the SMH reporting.
**YouTube** - A YouTube link without specific context makes this source difficult to assess for credibility.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
**Yes - though at a smaller scale.**
According to Sydney Morning Herald reporting on this exact issue: "It's not the first time the department has strayed into drama.
* * * *
Under Labor, it commissioned a radio drama, but that was much less expensive" [1].
Additionally, the **Rudd Labor government introduced the "PNG Solution" in July 2013**, which was the foundational policy that established that asylum seekers arriving by boat would never be settled in Australia [4][5].
* * * *
This policy was later continued and reinforced by the Coalition's "Operation Sovereign Borders."
The use of communication campaigns to deter asylum seekers was not a Coalition invention - both major Australian parties have employed deterrence messaging, though the specific $6 million telemovie represented a significant escalation in spending and production values compared to previous efforts.
Labor's offshore detention policy (which began in 2012-2013) cost over **$1 billion annually** by 2015-2016 [4], far exceeding the cost of this telemovie, demonstrating that deterrence-based approaches were bipartisan, even if the specific methods differed.
人权 rén quán 组织 zǔ zhī 和 hé 难民 nàn mín 倡导者 chàng dǎo zhě 提出 tí chū 了 le 合理 hé lǐ 的 de 关切 guān qiè : :
Human rights organizations and refugee advocates raised legitimate concerns:
- **Amnesty International** criticized the expenditure, with Refugee Coordinator Graham Thom stating: "That money could have been spent to address the root causes of why people are forced to flee their homes, used to support people in transit, or put towards increasing and improving the efficiency of resettling people to Australia" [2][3].
- **Refugee Council of Australia** CEO Paul Power agreed that the money could have been better spent on practical support for displaced people [2].
- **Comparative budget context**: The film's budget exceeded the combined budgets of iconic Australian films *Priscilla Queen of the Desert* (~$2M), *Wolf Creek* (~$1M), and *The Castle* ($750,000) - even when adjusted for inflation (combined ~$5.8M in 2016 dollars) [1].
- **Producer's own words**: Trudi-Ann Tierney, the director of Put It Out There Pictures, previously described her work on Afghan television as "propaganda" and part of "psychological operations" in her book *Making Soapies in Kabul* [1].
The Coalition government defended the expenditure with several arguments:
- **Life-saving intent**: The stated purpose was to prevent deaths at sea by discouraging people from attempting dangerous boat journeys with people smugglers.
- **Research-based approach**: The Department cited "independent research in these countries has revealed misunderstandings and false rumours about Australia's policy, and a perception that Australia remains a preferred destination country for those seeking to travel illegally by boat" [1][2].
- **Effectiveness**: The government claimed "initial feedback from viewers has been positive" [1].
- **Scale of reach**: With a potential audience of 50 million and screenings across multiple countries, the per-viewer cost was relatively low.
- **Innovation**: The Department described this as the first time such "innovative methods" had been used to reach the target audience directly [3].
- - * * * * 制片人 zhì piàn rén 自己 zì jǐ 的话 de huà * * * * : : Put Put It It Out Out There There Pictures Pictures 总监 zǒng jiān Trudi Trudi - - Ann Ann Tierney Tierney 此前 cǐ qián 在 zài 她 tā 的 de 小说 xiǎo shuō 《 《 在 zài 喀布尔 kā bù ěr 制作 zhì zuò 肥皂剧 féi zào jù 》 》 中 zhōng 描述 miáo shù 她 tā 在 zài 阿富汗 ā fù hàn 电视台 diàn shì tái 的 de 工作 gōng zuò 为 wèi " " 宣传 xuān chuán " " 和 hé " " 心理战 xīn lǐ zhàn " " 的 de 一部分 yī bù fèn [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
Both major Australian parties have pursued deterrence-based asylum seeker policies.
### ### 政府 zhèng fǔ 理由 lǐ yóu
The Rudd Labor government (2013) and the Abbott/Turnbull Coalition governments (2013-2022) both maintained that asylum seekers arriving by boat would not be settled in Australia.
The telemovie represented a continuation and intensification of this bipartisan deterrence approach, using a higher-budget dramatic format.
**Key context:** This was **not unique to the Coalition** - deterrence messaging was a bipartisan approach, though the specific high-cost telemovie format was a Coalition initiative that significantly exceeded previous Labor efforts.
The claim accurately states that the Coalition government spent approximately $6 million on a telemovie (*Journey*) intended to deter asylum seekers, and that no English dubbing or subtitles were available (by design, since the target audience spoke other languages).
The lack of English was strategic targeting, not an oversight
4.
4 4 . . 戏剧性 xì jù xìng 的 de 措辞 cuò cí 遗漏 yí lòu 了 le 这 zhè 是 shì 具有 jù yǒu 两党 liǎng dǎng 元素 yuán sù 的 de 更 gèng 大规模 dà guī mó 、 、 持续 chí xù 反 fǎn 人口 rén kǒu 走私 zǒu sī 战略 zhàn lüè 的 de 一部分 yī bù fèn
The dramatic framing omits that this was part of a larger, ongoing anti-people smuggling strategy that had bipartisan elements
The claim is factually accurate on the core elements but lacks important context about precedent and the bipartisan nature of Australia's asylum seeker deterrence approach.
The claim accurately states that the Coalition government spent approximately $6 million on a telemovie (*Journey*) intended to deter asylum seekers, and that no English dubbing or subtitles were available (by design, since the target audience spoke other languages).
The lack of English was strategic targeting, not an oversight
4.
4 4 . . 戏剧性 xì jù xìng 的 de 措辞 cuò cí 遗漏 yí lòu 了 le 这 zhè 是 shì 具有 jù yǒu 两党 liǎng dǎng 元素 yuán sù 的 de 更 gèng 大规模 dà guī mó 、 、 持续 chí xù 反 fǎn 人口 rén kǒu 走私 zǒu sī 战略 zhàn lüè 的 de 一部分 yī bù fèn
The dramatic framing omits that this was part of a larger, ongoing anti-people smuggling strategy that had bipartisan elements
The claim is factually accurate on the core elements but lacks important context about precedent and the bipartisan nature of Australia's asylum seeker deterrence approach.