Domestic Politics Analysis on Australia Turning Back Boat Policy

Tara Kukuh Wardhani and Baiq Wardhani

Department of International Relations, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Airlangga

Keywords: ‘Turning Back the Boats’, Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, Domestic Opposition

Abstract: In general, foreign policy can be analyzed as a ‘two-level game’, namely in the form of analysis at the systemic

level or domestic politics. ‘Turning Back the Boats’ policy issued by the Australian government intended to

deter and return back refugees to a third country or country of origin, constitute concerns from domestic level

towards the foreign policy. Dominant parties in Australia then appeared to give specific statements related to

the measures taken by the Australian government. According to Hudson (2007), foreign policy is a

continuation of domestic politics by other means. Therefore, ‘Turning Back the Boats’ policy should be

regarded as a reflection and representation that resulted from cooperation, compromise, and coalitions among

domestic political parties. Neack (2008) also explained that the stance taken by political parties in the making

of foreign policy should not intersect with domestic agendas, so that there will be coherency between political

actors that is a mutual opposition in domestic level. Hence, in this paper, the authors aim to further analyze

the extent of influence exerted by the dynamics of domestic politics on foreign policy issued by the Australian

government.

1 INTRODUCTION

Australia's turning back the boats policy in 2013 is

part of the Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB), a

military response to the high flow of refugees into

Australia (ASRC, 2013). In retrospect, refugee flows

or mainly boat people have tried to enter the territory

of Australia from 1947-1952 where various IDPs

(Internally Displaced Persons) from different

countries in post-World War II conflict seek asylum,

including Australia. The number of refugees from

various countries continues to increase, including

Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, to

Syria. The Refugee Council of Australia noted that in

2015 there were 11,766 refugees hosted by Australia

(Refugee Council of Australia, 2015). Therefore, in

this policy it is also regulated on the ship return

mechanism of the Australian territory, which includes

the provision of resources and transit countries. In

addition, to prevent the arrival of boat people who

come along with SIEVs (Suspected Illegal Entry

Vessels), the Australian military forces will intercept

SIEV coming from Sri Lanka and surrounding

countries (ASRC, 2013).

Figure 1: Australia Refugee Origin 1956-2016. (Source:

Mooy, 2015).

Based on the data collection related to the arrival

of boat people or refugees, the Australian public

expressed disagreement over the presence of the

refugees. This is because in the last four decades, the

issue of unemployment has increased, so the arrival

of refugees has become one of the dominant topics in

the Australian elections (Philips and Spinks, 2013).

The arrival of these refugees has brought various

policy responses and political debates even since the

1970s. Hard-line policies, such as mandatory

detention of unauthorized arrivals, have come into

force since the reign of Paul Keating, the Prime

Minister of the Australian Labor Party. The response

to transmigration of refugees from Indochina in the

588

Wardhani, T. and Wardhani, B.

Domestic Politics Analysis on Australia Turning Back Boat Policy.

DOI: 10.5220/0010280700002309

In Proceedings of Airlangga Conference on International Relations (ACIR 2018) - Politics, Economy, and Security in Changing Indo-Paciﬁc Region, pages 588-594

ISBN: 978-989-758-493-0

1970-1980s in large numbers, received support from

two Australian bipartisan parties, the Labor Party and

the Liberal Party. Therefore, Australia continues to

focus on encouraging other countries and

international organizations in an effort to stop the

flow of refugees from their sources or to organize the

process of sending refugees to other areas.

The flow of refugees continues to be one of the

biggest problems in post-1998 Australia, the moral

panic of illegal migration continues to grow and soon

legitimately recognized. The occurrence of a

diplomatic deadlock with the neighboring countries

of Australia was then resolved with the establishment

of Pacific Solution in 2001-2007 (Fox, 2010). This

policy focuses on three central strategies. First, the

asylum seekers will be transferred to the detention

centers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea while their

refugee status being determined. Second, the

Australian Defense Force begins Operation Relex to

intercept the ship carrying the refugees. Third,

hundreds of islands are excluded from Australia's

migration zones or Australian territory. To date, the

principles of Pacific Solution remain the basis of

Australia's national immigration policy. The

effectiveness of the Pacific Solution policy is

demonstrated by the success of the Howard

administration to reduce the number of illegal

immigrants that come by sea for nearly a decade. In

2001, there were 43 vessels and 5,516 refugees

coming to Australia and between 2002-2007 there

was a substantial decline with the number of ship

arrivals of 18 vessels and 288 refugees coming to

Australia by sea.

However, in the era of Kevin Rudd's government

in 2007-2010, as Labor's representatives, there were

several policy changes compared to policies made by

John Howard, representatives of the Liberal party

(Philips and Spinks, 2013). In his reign, Rudd tended

to focus solely on the measurement of border security

in order to avoid human smuggling. This change in

foreign policy then became the beginning of high

tension debate over the dominant party position in

Australia related to the handling of refugees. In

contrast to Julia Gillard's reign, as Labor's

representative, the policy of blocking the return of

refugees was made. Gillard then attempted to propose

solutions regionally by establishing a regional

process of asylum seekers in East Timor. In Federal

Election 2013, Tony Abbott, a Liberal party

representative, also stated his position to tighten the

influx of refugees with the slogan "stop the boats" as

part of his campaign. So seeing the high dynamics of

the debate between two major parties in Australia

related to the flow of refugees, in this paper the author

will describe transmigration policy of refugees in

Australia, namely "turning back the boats". The

author will analyze the policy using domestic politics

level of analysis that focuses on the dynamics of the

policy-making process by major parties in Australia.

2 DOMESTIC POLITICS AND

FOREIGN POLICY

Domestic politics is an important part of explaining

the foreign policy of a country (Fearon, 1998). This is

because, foreign policy is shaped by the government

with the aim of achieving a complex domestic and

international agendas. If systemic theory in

International Relations describes the state as a unitary

and rational actor, then domestic politics will provide

an explanation wof how domestic political interaction

within a country can contribute to foreign policy.

Putnam (1988, in Hudson, 2005), describes the Study

of Foreign Policy Analysis as a 'two-level game',

where policymakers simultaneously try to 'play' at the

level of domestic politics as well as international

politics. Analysis of the influence of domestic

political dynamics on foreign policy of a country can

be identified into two part, namely at the level of elite

as well as public opinion. At the level of the elite, the

political system can be defined as a set of formal legal

institutions that are part of government. In the

political system, the political actors involved are not

only limited to policy supporters, but also include

opposition groups.

Rogowski (1998, in Fearon, 1998) suggests that

some propositions of variation in the influence of

domestic political institutions can influence the five

dimensions of a country's foreign policy, namely the

bias of foreign policy, the credibility of commitment

to foreign policy, the stability and coherence of

foreign policy, the ability to mobilize and project the

strengths, and strategies of domestic actors in

influencing foreign policy. He also argue that there

are a number of domestic considerations that

policymakers can use, such as which groups are

represented, electoral systems are majoritarian or

proportional, large from electoral constituencies,

duration of representative tenure, presidential and

parliamentary government positions, and veto power

in the domestic political system . On the other hand,

Hudson (2007) also argue that there are some

domestic propositions which may affect some

dimensions of foreign policy. These propositions are

the closeness of the relationship between political

actors and policy makers, the cohesiveness of each

Domestic Politics Analysis on Australia Turning Back Boat Policy

589

political voice, the number of people represented by

each political actor, the degree of dissent between

political actors and policymakers, the activism of

political actors in foreign policy issues, and the

significance response from policy makers.

In domestic politics, there are often two

opposition binary parties, like the Labor and Liberal

parties in Australia. Both parties have different

segments of society categorized because they

generally bring different interests, cultures, and even

ideologies. For example, the Labor party carries the

ideology of democratic socialism that tends to be left,

while the Liberal party carries a conservatist ideology

that tends to right (Political Australia, t.t.). However,

although the distinction between the two is quite

obvious, the boundaries between the two also often

lack a rigid definition. This is because policymakers

at the legislature level are not only considering their

own party membership position as policy

considerations. Briefly, Leach (1976, in King, 1986)

argues that the boundaries between parties in

influencing foreign policy often cross each other so

that the ideological division of the dominant binary

party is not very influential in relation to foreign

policy. In traditional studies, two dominant binary

parties are regarded as two separate or partially

related oppositions.

In foreign policy, however, Bliss and Johnson

(1975, in King, 1986) consider that domestic partisan

politics should not be included in foreign policy,

"Politics stops at the water's edge." Hudson (2007)

also states that foreign policy is a continuation of

domestic politics in another way so that suboptimal

policies that can represent domestic interests must be

adjustable. The bipartisan approach in the foreign

policy-making process then gives rise to paradox.

This is because, the two dominant parties that

opposed each other in determining domestic policy,

can cooperate in terms of foreign policy. So Hagan

(1993, in Kaarbon and Beasley, 2008) assumed that

the creation of this coalition could provide conditions

for promoting a more aggressive foreign policy

because of the 'constraint free'. In addition, according

to Neack (2008), the coalition can shape and maintain

the political power of government, where domestic

goals are then attempted to be achieved through

foreign policy but foreign policy decisions remain

unrelated to the domestic agenda. Therefore, in

relation to Australia's 'turning back the boats' policy

adopted in 2013 by the Australian government

coalition, the authors argues that the strong

enforcement of the policy is possible due to strong

support from Australia's dominant parties working

together, compromising and co-ordination in

preparing foreign policy.

3 GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION

PARTY AND THE HANDLING

OF REFUGEES

The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) in its

summariy outline refugee policy coined by three

dominant political parties in Australia - the Labor

party, the Liberal-National coalition party and the

Green party in federal elections in 2013. First, the

Australian Labor Party ALP) or the Labor party since

the 2010 election in Australian government

institutions have implemented some policy changes

related to refugee issues and asylum seekers. The

Labor Party focuses on land-holding capacity in

Darwin, Pontville, Curtin, Scherger, Northam, and

Melbourne (RCOA, 2013). Refugees who have

arrived at immigration detention will be facilitated by

Bridging Visa in order to join the community so that

the Labor party can upgrade Australia's Refugee and

Humanitarian program from 13,750 places to 20,000

places per year. The number of humanitarian aid is

projected to be progressively added up to 27,000

places. Cooperation with several countries, such as

New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, and Nauru, is

undertaken to help Australia receive the coming

stream of refugees, where all costs will be borne by

Australia. The Labor Party also announced it would

increase the amount of ten million dollars of funding

for regional capacity-building activities, including

support for UNHCR (United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees).

Second, the Liberal-National coalition makes

promises during federal elections that the coalition

parties will form a military-style response to the

movement of refugees and asylum-seekers coming to

Australia via Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB)

(RCOA, 2013). This military response will be

followed by direct reporting to the Immigration

Minister. Support in the form of providing sources

and transit countries, such as Sri Lanka and

Indonesia, to ships crossing Australian coastal

boundaries will also be provided. The Liberal-

National Coalition will also assist and advise on the

assessment process and also provide training for

Nauru and Papua New Guinea as an offshore

destinations destination country. In the Regional

Deterrence Framework, the Liberal-National

coalition will integrate external interference,

detection, and interception of boat arrivals and the

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

590

detention of asylum seekers in the locations of third

countries where refugee status will be determined.

Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) will then be given

to refugees who come to Australia at the time of the

election. The temporary visas that last for three years

are followed by the right to work, access to health

services, and other benefits. Unlike the Labor party,

however, the Liberal-National coalition will reduce

the Refugee and Humanitarian programs from 20,000

places to 13,750 places and not allocate places for

refugees who come by boat and seek asylum.

Third, the Australian Greens or green parties

contest the attitudes of the Refugee and Humanitarian

program, where they will increase humanitarian

acceptance by up to 30,000 places, including 10,000

UNHCR recognized emergency receipts from the

Asia-Pacific region (RCOA, 2013). There will be at

least 3,800 refugees transmigrated from Indonesia, so

that 70 million dollars of emergency funding aid per

year will be allocated to provide refugee shelters and

welfare services. As for the protection of regional

refugees, the Green party will appoint the

Ambassador for Refugee Protection, which serves as

a driver of cooperation in the protection of refugees

on a regional basis. So the Green party will then open

a safer transmigration path from countries like

Malaysia and Pakistan. All asylum seekers will be

processed on the beach and allowed to stay in the

community together with the right to work. As for

asylum seekers who can not work will also provide a

reasonable level of assistance. Especially for refugee

children, transfer will be made from the Immigration

Minister to the Independent Guardiant for

Unaccompanied Children. In addition, the Green

party will form an independent panel of mental and

medical health experts to provide a public health

monitor. Then a sum of two million dollars will be

allocated for the establishment of the panel.

The Labor party caucus has unanimously agreed

to oppose the government's planned refugee ban on

offshore detainees entering Australia. Bill Shorten, a

Labor's leader, considers refugee detention policies to

preclude entry of tourists or business travel from

other countries to Australia (Karp, 2016). The

rejection of the Labor party marks the first division of

the bipartisan consensus in refugee policies since

Labor's party adopted offshore detention and boat

return at a national conference in 2015. Shorten added

that Labor's party agreed to avoid the entry of people

smuggling as a business practice, but the detention of

refugees is considered as a solution that seeks the

problem, "We are on a unity ticket with the

government to stop the people smugglers, but we are

not on a unity ticket to stop the tourists". Similarly,

the Green party, in which Sarah Hanson-Young as

Senator of the Green party refused the policy to return

the refugees who came to Australia. The emergence

of opposition from these parties shows that

Australia's foreign policy is not 'constraint free'.

The issue of refugee flows is one of the most

contentious areas of policy in Australia, evident in the

fragmentation of dominant party positions in

response. This is because, among the dominant

parties there is a high degree of dissenting opinion so

that the compromise can not be achieved. Norman

(2013) argues that there are at least three similar

policy proposals between dominant parties in an

effort to strengthen measures to prevent refugees

from gaining ships, but at different intensity levels.

First, mandatory detention is mandatory for all

irregular maritime arrivals. This detention is

necessary to maintain the integrity of Australia's

immigration system so that the government operates

ten detention centers on the Australian mainland.

Second, community detention, which allows removal

of vulnerable children and families into community

based accommodation while claims are being

processed. Thirdly, offshore processing or offshore

processing, which is one of the key policies of the

coalition party, is due to the possibility of expanding

the capacity of offshore processing facilities within

one hundred days of Tony Abbott's victory following

a federal election.

4 AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT

FOREIGN POLICY DECISION

MAKING

The Liberal-National coalition still rejects the

proposals offered by Labor and Green parties. This is

because, according to Australian migrant census data,

the number of refugees coming to Australia is 32 per

cent of the labor force while 45 per cent is not a work-

lift (Dutton, 2016). However, only less than 20

percent of refugees collect tax payment forms so that

refugee-paid taxes are only about 25,000 dollars

while the national average taxpayer is around 50,000

dollars. Considering this situation, the Australian

government should be able to provide migrants with

homes, jobs, health and integrative services so that it

takes a relatively long time to be realized. Therefore,

the annual doubling of the Refugee and Humanitarian

program as proposed by the Labor party would add to

the government $ 2.5 billion in government

expenditures and the Green Party's proposal would

increase the government's expenditure by seven

Domestic Politics Analysis on Australia Turning Back Boat Policy

591

billion dollars. So the proposals submitted by both

Labor and Green parties will only add to the risks and

endanger the government's settlement of refugees.

The 33 percent composition of refugees can not speak

English, 17 percent are unable to read, 15 percent

have never been in school, and 46 percent have never

worked. They have to get appropriate aid prospects to

improve the welfare of refugees as well as maintain

Australia's security.

Malcolm Turnbull, the Liberal Prime Minister's

representative, warned of a possible chaos on

Australia's border if Labor's representatives were

elected in federal elections 2016 (Massola, 2016).

Turnbull also dismissed the fact that ultimately the

Labor party had officially changed its policy in 2015

to be linear with the Liberal party to restore the

already adopted refugees, assuming the Labor party

lacks the power to do so. This is because the Labor

party has a track record of 50 candidates, members

and senators rejecting the Liberal Party's border

protection policy. So even though it has been in

alignment with the Green and Independent parties,

the Labor party can not make a contradiction to its

own rejection. The Labor party's plan to abolish the

TPV (Temporary Protection Visa) also means that as

many as 30,000 refugees and asylum seekers who

come to Australia under the Labor government will

then get the right to stay permanently. This can be a

strong signal for people smugglers that anyone who

enters Australia's territory can stay in Australia

permanently so that it can become tool of aggressive

human smuggling marketing.

The Turnbull Government made a more

aggressive arrangement for refugees and asylum

seekers by planning to ban all refugees who come to

Australia to obtain all kinds of visas (McKeith, 2016).

This more aggressive proposal was announced in

October 2016, Turnbull said that the Australian

government would ban all refugees and asylum

seekers from entering Australia permanently. The

government announces that it will introduce

amendments to legislation in parliament to amend

migration measures, where irregular sea arrivals will

be brought back to the home country to make valid

Australian visa applications. The new law prohibiting

refugees and asylum seekers from living and staying

in Australia is expected to affect about 3,000 asylum

seekers from Nauru and Manus, who are receiving

medical care from the Australian government. Petter

Dutton, as Immigration Minister, stated that these

new ways must be pursued as Australia is currently

working to improve the problems caused by the Labor

immigration policy, which resulted in the abundance

of boat people who died in the ocean. So Dutton

reiterated that through this new law, all parties

concerned with Australia should not provide an

option for asylum seekers to come to Australia by

boat.

On one occasion to share immigration policy

related information along with European countries,

Tony Abbot points out that:

"Effective border control is not for the overly

sensitive minds, but it is essential to save lives and

protect the nations. The only viable option is to stop

the boats, and thus, stop the open water casualties –

(no wonder that) there has been no ships arriving

illegally to Australia, and no one drowned in the sea

along the way. By stopping the boats, we can take

more real refugees needing protection, since the fate

of applicants is decided by Australia, and not by the

people smugglers" (Abbott, 2016 dalam March dan

Stephanie, 2016).

Turnbull also added to the UN Refugee Summit

2016 that by halting ship arrivals Australia could

focus more on providing assistance to refugees

(March and Stephanie, 2016). The various responses

from the international community regarding

Australia's strict refugee policies were resolved by

establishing cooperation with the Philippines, Canada

and Malaysia. Australia provides an estimated $ 55

million to support Australia's third-party refugee

placement program by Australia.

5 CONCLUSION

Despite opposition from Australia's dominant

opposition party, the 'turning back the boats' policy

remains firmly undertaken by the government. Thus,

it can be concluded that domestic political dynamics

can not explain the policy of 'turning back the boats'

as a form of cooperation, compromise, and coalitions

between dominant parties in Australia to formulate

foreign policy. There are several factors leading to the

inability of the proposition of domestic political

exposure in explaining the Australian government's

decision on the arrival of refugee flows. First, the

dominant parties in Australia, such as the Labor,

Liberal-National, and Green parties have a track

record of different ideological differences and

positions related to domestic and foreign policy. The

political parties are still trying to bring the domestic

political agenda into foreign policy. For example,

there are differences in the proposed refugee

settlement mechanisms of each political party and

they become one of the emphases of the federal

election campaign of each party. So it can be seen that

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

592

the political parties can not relinquish domestic

interest from the proposed process of foreign policy.

Second, despite the existence of constraints or

internal barriers, the government continues to

promote foreign policy as proposed by institutions

within the government. In fact, there is the issue that

opposition parties of government are coalescing to

raise the voice of the people to influence the

proclaimed foreign policy. This issue then creates a

bipartisan approach that allows the dominant

opposition parties to compromise on foreign policy

unfulfilled. Rejection from opposition parties, such as

Labor and Green parties, against the policies taken by

the government continue to take place.

Representatives of opposition parties, both

candidates, members, and senators, have relatively

the same position to reject the government's policy-

making process. Obstacles and responses from the

international community regarding the tightness of

border closures by the Australian government also did

not make the government begin to consider the

proposals presented by the opposition party.

Thirdly, the disagreement between opposition

parties and the government does not make the

government consider the proposals and arguments

brought by the parties. This is indicated by the

increasing aggressiveness of Australia in carrying out

the detention and return of refugees to third countries

or countries of origin. The government seems to

criticize and illustrate the worst possibilities when

proposals submitted by opposition parties are

accepted and implemented. The removal of visa

holdings by refugees and asylum seekers is one form

of increased aggression created by the government.

The refugees and asylum seekers are increasingly

prohibited from entering Australia permanently.

Regardless of input from opposition parties, the

government continues to move to amend the

immigration law. In addition, cooperation with other

countries, such as the Philippines, Canada and

Malaysia, is also increasingly enhanced to avoid

settling refugees and asylum seekers within

Australian territory. Therefore, it can be concluded

that although there are various obstacles from the

dominant opposition party, the policy of 'turning back

the boats' is still applied and enhanced by the

Australian government.

REFERENCES

ALP. t.t. "A Humane and Compassionate Approach to

Asylum Seekers" [Online], in

http://www.alp.org.au/asylumseekers, Accessed 10

Januari 2017.

ASRC. 2013. "Operation Sovereign Borders" [PDF], in

https://www.asrc.org.au/wp-

content/uploads/2013/07/Operation-Sovereign-

Borders-May-2014.pdf, Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

Dutton, Peter. 2016. "Labor and Greens jeopardise refugee

outcomes" [Online], in

https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-

news/2016/05/18/labor-and-greens-jeopardise-

refugee-outcomes, Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

Fearon, James D. 1998. “Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy,

and Theories of International Relations”, in Annual

Review of Political Science, (1).

Fox, Peter D. 2010. "International Asylum and Boat People:

The Tampa Affair and Australia’s Pacific Solution"

[Online], in

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcon

tent.cgi?article=1529&context=mjil, Accessed 10

Januari 2017.

Hudson, Valerie M. 2014. Foreign Policy Analysis, Classic

and Contemporary Theory. Rowman & Littlefield;

Ch.5.

Hudson, Valerie. 2005. "Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-

Specific Theory and the Ground of International

Relations", in Foreign Policy Analysis 1, Brigham

Young University.

Kaarbo, Juliet dan Ryan K. Beasley. 2008. “Taking It to the

Extreme: The Effect of Coalition Cabinets on Foreign

Policy”, in Foreign Policy Analysis, 4(1).

Karp, Paul. 2016. "Labor rejects government's proposed

lifetime refugee travel ban" [Online], in

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-

news/2016/nov/08/labor-unanimously-rejects-

governments-proposed-lifetime-refugee-travel-ban,

Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

King, Gary. 1986. “Political Parties and Foreign Policy: A

Structuralist Approach”, in Political Psychology, 7(1)

March, Stephanie dan Stephanie Anderson. 2016. "UN

refugee summit: Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton

tout Australia’s immigration policy" [Online], in

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-20/australia-

urges-un-nations-to-adopt-its-border-control-

policy/7860160, Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

Massola, James. 2016. "Election 2016: Malcolm Turnbull

launches boats scare campaign to counter Bill Shorten's

Medicare attack" [Online], in

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-

election-2016/election-2016-malcolm-turnbull-

launches-boats-scare-campaign-to-counter-bill-

shortens-medicare-attack-20160622-gpowxd.html,

Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

McKeith, Sam. 2016. "Asylum Seekers To Be Banned

From Australia 'For Life'" [Online], in

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/10/29/asylum

-seekers-to-be-banned-from-australia-for-life-report/,

Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

Mooy, Sam. 2015. "Fact check: Will Australia's refugee

intake in 2015-16 be the highest since WWII?"

[Online], in http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-

Domestic Politics Analysis on Australia Turning Back Boat Policy

593

29/fact-check-syria-largest-refugee-intake-julie-

bishop/6786074, Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

Neack, Laura. 2008. The New Foreign Policy- power

seeking in a globalized era. Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers Inc.

Norman, Jane. 2013. "Asylum seekers: where the parties

stand" [Online], in

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-

2013/policy/asylum-seekers/, Accessed 10 Januari

2017.

Page, Benjamin I. dan Barabas, Jason. 2000. “Foreign

Policy Gaps between Citizens and Leaders”, in

International Studies Quarterly, (44).

Phillips, Janet dan Harriet Spinks. 2013. "Boat arrivals in

Australia since 1976" [Online], in

http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentar

y_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2012-

2013/boatarrivals, Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

Political Australia. t.t. "Compare the Policies & Positions

of Labor, Liberal and The Greens" [Online], in

http://politicalaustralia.com.au/, Accessed 10 Januari

2017.

Refugee Council of Australia. 2013. "2013 Federal

Election: Refugee Policies of Labor, Liberal-National

Coalition And The Greens " [PDF], in

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/rpt/2013election.

pdf, Accessed 10 Januari 2017.

Refugee Council of Australia. 2015. "Australia’s response

to a world in crisis" [Online], in

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/, Accessed 10

Januari 2017.

Saideman, Stephen M. & R. William Ayres (2007). “Pie

Crust Promises and the Sources of Foreign Policy: The

Limited Impact of Accession and the Priority of

Domestic Constituencies”, Foreign Policy Analysis,

3(3).

ACIR 2018 - Airlangga Conference on International Relations

594