What's in a word? Quite a lot if you ask Immigration Minister Scott Morrison. He instructed department heads and agencies to refer to people who come by boat to Australia to seek protection from persecution as illegal maritime arrivals, not as irregular arrivals. People detained after seeking protection are to be called detainees, not clients.
At one level harsh public language does not matter. It can sometimes clarify reality. It would, for example, be clearer to describe the condition of all people who are deprived of their freedom in secured premises as imprisoned, the places of detention as jails, and themselves as prisoners. The differences of treatment between different categories of people are not significant when compared to their deprivation of freedom.
But at another level such language matters a great deal. It is designed to create the stigma of criminality, which can then colour our attitudes to people who come to Australia to seek our protection. This stigma has consequences for their lives and reputation, and for the workings of the places where they are held. It also has consequences for the quality of Australian society.
This can be seen best by a thought experiment. Suppose the media, shocked to the core by what seemed to them a cavalier approach to politicians who claim allowances for travel and other perks, unanimously decided henceforth always to refer to our parliamentary representatives not as Members and Ministers, but as Rorters and Archrorters.
Such branding would quickly attach a stigma to political life. It would be reflected in the judgments and expectations that people have of politicians. Imagine how the change of terminology would affect people's response to such ordinary announcements as, 'the Prime Archrorter of Australia today announced a parliamentary enquiry into corruption', 'the Archrorter for Immigration is in Sri Lanka to do a deal on asylum seekers', or 'the Archrorter for Finance today appointed three new members to the Gambling Regulation Board'.
The stigma attached to politicians would be reflected in a diminishment of the high level of trust in which they are currently held by the Australian public. Voters might even be tempted to spoil their ballot papers at election time.
People would also see politicians as the disreputable other, and no longer ask what effect government decisions would have on the welfare of the nation, but, what is in them for the relevant ministers. Then, disillusioned, they would withdraw from engagement with public life