Lewis, Tom --- "What do the Public Think? - about the Effectiveness of Australia's Offshore Surveillance and Interdiction Effort" [2002] MarStudies 12; (2002) 124 Maritime Studies 1

In a debate which has grown in the public arena in the last 20 years, it is difficult to know what the general public of Australia really think about the effectiveness of the massive and expensive government effort in operating surveillance and interdiction systems in Australian waters. Nevertheless, public opinion may be seen as a major driver of government policy. This article assesses public opinion within the area, with the intention of giving some idea of what the public understands is meant by ‘surveillance’ and ‘interdiction’; whether the public knows who is doing this, and whether the effort is effective.

The survey is limited in that it assessed people’s opinions at the time the survey was taken – in 1998. Further, the survey surveyed people in four capital cities spread across Australia. Therefore it is not indicative of people’s opinions in other areas, for example in rural Australia.

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Maritime Studies

Public attitudes are an important factor in modern democratic governmental systems. The ability to estimate public opinion has obviously been characteristic of anyone standing for a leadership position since humans first formed tribes. With the birth of democracies in ancient Greece it must have become more important, but it has not become a matter of scientific measurement until comparatively recently. The researcher Charles Booth, working over 100 years ago, is credited^[3] with having implemented what we understand by a modern survey. In 1886 he conducted an inquiry into poverty in London; the findings being published in 17 volumes towards the end of the century.

During the 1930s the United States Department of Agriculture set up a program of surveying farmers for their reactions to various programs (Parten: 1950). This federal approach was the forerunner of many other governmental survey campaigns. During WWII public opinion was constantly monitored in the US by such methods.

In Germany the nation had voted in Adolf Hitler as its leader and in the early 1940s had embarked on a systematic program of exterminating its enemies. In Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen makes the point that it was the will of the nation that allowed such a program to exist and operate:

And so – on a tide of public opinion – Hitler and his followers changed history. Could there be a more significant example of the force of feeling?

Measuring public opinion within the field of politics was deemed to be an important measurement of intention in the 1950s, with candidates for the United States Presidential elections being assessed as to their public standing by opinion sampling. Today it is a fact of life in both federal and state politics in many countries of the West; in consumer product design and marketing; in assessing whether a workplace’s employees are satisfied; whether university students are happy with lecturers – the list is lengthy. In some cases an opinion poll may be enough for a government to ‘go to the people’ – the polls which sought Australian public opinion after the Tampa incident may indeed have precipitated planning thoughts along these lines by the Howard government in 2001. In that scenario the poll indicators were extraordinary. The Sydney Morning Herald summed up the situation in one poll:

The level of public satisfaction with our surveillance and interdiction systems has, to the writer’s knowledge, has been tested previously in a limited way. Richard Wilson in 1984^[6] surveyed 125 people in two locations – Cairns and Canberra – about their knowledge of coastal surveillance. Unfortunately the questions he used were not defined in his published paper, but some reference will be made to Wilson’s findings later. The Tampa incident opinion poll was therefore one of the few other initial studies, and it consisted of generalized questions. While acknowledging those polls, this paper is concerned with a more in-depth analysis. What does the public really think about the whole scenario, and what effect will that have on government policy? To gauge in detail the level of satisfaction with our surveillance and interdiction systems a comprehensive survey of public opinion was carried out for this paper.

Public opinion exists in many forms. Perhaps the most immediate indication of how the public thinks on a day-to-day basis is presented by talkback radio. However, these expressions of public opinion are a doubtful measurement: the calls are screened;^[7] a very small sample of the listening public is able to get through; and an interesting range of psychological factors are at work – for example, how many callers actually agree with the host because they are in awe of the well-known public voice and face? Newspapers, although also flawed as a measure of uncensored opinion in that they are edited, provide a further means of expressing public opinion.

In this article, however, the conduct of the survey which questioned members of the public is outlined, as it was felt that this method of finding opinion was direct, straightforward, and not subject to various controls from the survey presenter. The results were then analysed to see how strong an indication they give about issues of national coastal surveillance and interdiction.

The survey was carried out on 23 March 1998 at four suburban shopping centres in Darwin, Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. The clientele surveyed is considered to be fairly representative of a cross-section of Australian society: the day in question was not a work day, and the hours chosen – between 8.30am and 4.30pm – can be considered to be the hours when a cross-section of adults are doing their shopping and conducting leisure activities.

An explanatory flyer was available for survey recipients to take if they wished. They were then asked to complete the survey. (The survey text is reproduced in Appendix 1.) A methodology was then carried out, which analysed the audience type; the validity of the survey, and described the way the survey was collated. For the sake of brevity this is omitted here. However, in summary we can say that the responses were from an educated public, with a fairly representative sample of the Australian population as regards sex and age. In terms of being representative, the sample size shows that the results are fairly indicative of what Australians think, with a possible deviation of 7.5 per cent each way.

The public’s knowledge of the role of surveillance agencies

Question One of the survey asked: ‘Who do you think carries out surveillance in or over our maritime areas under Australian jurisdiction?’

The respondents’ answers were quite complex and resulted in a large spread of possible answers. These have been divided into broader categories for ease of interpretation:

• 95 people suggested Coastwatch and another agency, and therefore knew one part of the correct answer, which is that surveillance is carried out by a mixture of Coastwatch and RAAF operations, largely the province of the former. 10 suggested ‘civil contractors’ – a partly right answer.

• Only five people suggested the RAAF carried out the surveillance in part; two alone suggesting the RAAF did the work by themselves.

• 72 people suggested that Customs carried out the surveillance, which as Coastwatch is a part of Customs is correct to a degree.

The rest of the answers for this first question were a mixture. The Navy was suggested as a part of 222 answers; 189 thinking that it was only the Navy that did this work. 57 people thought ‘a Coastguard’ carried out part of the surveillance, with 37 thinking only a Coastguard did this.

The public’s perception of how much surveillance is taking place in Australian waters is an important part in deterring this offence. If all Australians think we have a 100 per cent knowledge of what goes on in our Exclusive Economic Zone, then that knowledge will be widespread, perhaps deterring illegal fishermen and illegal immigrants from trying to covertly gather fish and gain entrance.

The perception of who carries out surveillance is continually confused by the media, and probably much of the general public’s confusion comes from that. For example, in the ‘Tampa incident’ of 2001 the media labelled the Federal Government’s increase in the forces for both surveillance and interdiction as just the former:

The naval ships would be of extremely limited use in surveillance: it is in interdiction they would be doubtless utilised; tasked for this by Coastwatch and/or RAAF assets.

The public’s knowledge of the role of interdiction agencies

In Question Two respondents were asked: ‘Who do you think carries out enforcement (if necessary stopping and arresting intruders) in our maritime areas?’

The ‘Royal Australian Navy’ was the most popular answer, with 279 respondents saying only the Navy did this, with another 31 saying the Navy and another agency. 10 people thought interdiction was carried out partly by Coastwatch; 91 thought it was carried out partly by Customs, with 36 believing it was only Customs. 77 people thought the Commonwealth Government was responsible. 38 people think we have a Coastguard already, an interesting finding especially coupled with the 57 answers for Question One suggesting that a Coastguard carried out part of surveillance duties, with 37 thinking only a Coastguard did this. 33 think the ADF is responsible for interdiction. Only 30 people were able to answer correctly that the Navy and Customs carry out the interdiction process. 87 people could not answer.

The high percentage of respondents who think the Navy alone carries out interdiction is probably due to the publicity surrounding the Navy’s role in this area. Many residents of northern Australia would be familiar with the television and newspaper pictures of Navy patrol boats towing captured fishing boats to port. Indeed, when that answer is broken down along the four survey areas that bias is immediately apparent:

Perhaps this suggests that the closer the public is to ‘the action’, the more accurate is their picture of what is happening in our offshore estates.

The public’s perception of how much our waters are being poached

The respondents were asked in Question Three: ‘To what extent, if any, do you think that Australian fish and other sea creatures are being illegally taken?’ The overall finding was that Australians think our waters are being heavily poached.

125 respondents thought our resources were ‘being taken in overwhelming quantities’; 311 thought they were ‘being taken in very high quantities’; 252 thought they were being ‘taken in quantity’; 81 respondents thought our resources were being ‘taken in limited quantities’ and eight respondents thought they were not being taken at all. 23 respondents did not answer that question.

The perceptions were skewed by State and Territory. 44 Canberra respondents thought our resources were ‘being taken in overwhelming quantities’; 86 thought they were ‘being taken in very high quantities’; 52 people thought they were being ‘taken in quantity’; 12 respondents thought our resources were being ‘taken in limited quantities’ with no respondents thinking they were not being taken at all. Six Canberra respondents did not answer that question. This response can be compared with the other three survey centres:

	Canberra	Sydney	Melbourne	Darwin
Taken in overwhelming quantities	44	19	31	31
Taken in very high quantities	86	50	94	81
Taken in quantity	52	71	55	74
Taken in limited quantities	12	44	15	10
Not taken at all	0	5	1	2
Nil response	6	11	4	2

It is interesting to note the similarity of the Darwin and Canberra responses compared to that of Sydney. Canberra and Darwin citizens – much more than Sydney residents – perceive that Australian fishing resources are being illegally taken in great quantity. It is probably the case that the residents of Darwin and Canberra are exposed to news of illegal fishing more than the residents of Sydney: both of the territorial cities have one newspaper, whereas Sydney has a multiplicity. Perhaps this too is an example of the ‘city versus country divide’ that is often perceived to run through Australian politics.

The public’s perception of how well offshore surveillance agencies are performing

Question Four offered the opinion: ‘The various agencies given the task of conducting surveillance in our offshore area for intruders are doing an excellent job’ and asked for a response. The finding in brief for this question was that most Australians think those who conduct surveillance are doing a good job.

32 respondents stated that they ‘Agree very strongly’ with that statement; 99 stated that they agreed strongly; 293 agreed, and 222 disagreed with the statement, while 154 either did not answer that question or stated they did not have an opinion. In percentage terms, 53 per cent of Australians think the agencies conducting surveillance in our offshore area are doing a good job. However, the dissatisfaction percentage is significant: over a quarter of those surveyed are not happy with our surveillance effort.

The public’s perception of how well offshore interdiction agencies are performing

When it came to interdiction the respondents were asked how strongly they agreed with the statement: ‘The various agencies given the task of apprehending possible offenders in our offshore area are doing an excellent job.’

Twenty-seven people very strongly agreed with the statement; 117 strongly agreed; 289 people agreed with the statement; 226 disagreed with the statement, and 142 could not give an opinion. The percentage response is very similar to the last question: 54 per cent of Australians are happy with our interdiction effort. However, again over a quarter of those surveyed are not happy with our interdiction effort.

This measure of opinion is quite similar to that expressed in answer to the previous question. A substantial degree of dissatisfaction can be seen, but overall the majority of people think those charged with interdiction are doing a good job.

The public’s perception of how effectively court processes are being administered

Question Six asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement: ‘The court process applied to possible offenders in our offshore area is being administered effectively.’

Seventeen people said they agreed very strongly with the statement; 61 said they agreed strongly; 274 said they agreed; 341 said that they disagreed with the statement, 34 gave no answer and 151 marked ‘No opinion’, giving a total of 185 who could not answer this question. These findings are shown graphically in Chart 5.

Of interest here is the large expression of disagreement with the statement, reflecting a large measure of dissatisfaction with the court process. If we look at the total agreeing as opposed to the total disagreeing we can see that they are almost the same.

This finding perhaps reflects general public disillusionment with the court system. There is some 1997 statistical evidence from Roy Morgan Opinion Polls^[9] that the general public does not rate lawyers highly, in that they received a rating of 29 per cent ‘for maintaining high or very high standards of honesty and ethics’. This rated down the scale after nurses (86%), pharmacists (80%), doctors (66%), bank managers (32%), Ministers of Religion (55%), opinion pollsters (29%) – here were lawyers (29%) – rating above TV reporters (11%), State Members of Parliament (9%), Federal Members of Parliament (9%), newspaper journalists (7%), car salesman (3%), newspaper journalists (7%) and advertising people (8%).

Lawyers have been steadily falling in the public’s estimation, according to Roy Morgan,^[10] since polling began:

Year	Approval
76	43
79	41
81	38
83	41
84	44
85	41
86	39
87	41
88	41
89	41
90	37
91	38
92	34
93	32
94	30
95	32
96	29
97	29

Although dissatisfaction with lawyers in not showing beyond doubt general dissatisfaction with the judicial process as a whole, perhaps it is indicative of some disquiet.

Question Seven asked for opinions on the statement: ‘The penalties applied to arresting illegal fishermen in our offshore area are effective in deterring repeat offences’.

17 respondents agreed very strongly with the suggestion; 26 agreed strongly; 143 agreed that ‘the penalties applied to arresting illegal fishermen in our offshore area are effective in deterring repeat offences’. However, 463 disagreed with the suggestion, while 110 marked ‘No opinion’ and 31 left the question unanswered. In summary, we can say that Australians in general think penalties applied to arrested fishermen are not effective in deterring further offences.

Question Eight asked respondents to what extent they agreed with the statement: ‘The costs involved in arresting and detaining illegal fishermen in our offshore area are an effective use of government funds’.

68 agreed most strongly with the statement; 116 agreed strongly, with 253 agreeing. 248 disagreed with the statement; 79 marked ‘No opinion’ with 36 not answering at all. In percentage terms, 55 per cent agree with the statement. On a comparison of agreement with the question to those who disagreed, we can see that Australians in general think spending money in this area is right and proper:

The public’s perception of the effectiveness of penalties applied to illegal immigration

Question Nine asked respondents how strongly they agreed with the statement: ‘The penalties applied to arresting suspected illegal immigrants in our offshore area are effective in deterring repeat offences’. The result was a polarization towards the negative: 16 agreed very strongly with the statement; 40 agreed strongly, while 131 agreed. However, 484 people disagreed with the statement. 95 marked ‘No opinion’, and 34 did not answer the question. These results are shown graphically in Chart 6.

As with illegal fishing, Australians think the penalties applied to illegal immigrants do little to dissuade further immigration attempts.

The public’s perception of the effectiveness of the costs applied to illegal immigration detection and arrest

In Question 10 respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement: ‘The costs involved in arresting and detaining suspected illegal immigrants in our offshore area are an effective use of government funds’.

The answers were a strong sentiment of agreement, but an almost equally strong sentiment of disagreement. 50 respondents agreed very strongly with the statement; 74 agreed strongly, and 258 agreed. 293 people disagreed, and 89 said they could not express an opinion, while 36 did not provide any answers. These numbers are shown graphically in Chart 7.

In interpreting this answer, it is interesting to ponder that a statement of disagreement does not necessarily mean the respondent thinks government funds should not be used in this manner. They may think that methods used are not effective enough, for example. This might be the case throughout this question and the previous five.

The public’s feelings on spending more money on the problem

Question 11, the final question, asked for respondents’ feelings on the question: ‘Presuming it was spent on more patrol time or the purchase of more equipment, how would you feel about spending more government money on patrolling our offshore area?’

460 respondents (58%) said: ‘Yes, we should spend more money’; 166 said: ‘The amount of money spent is about right’, and 106 respondents said: ‘No, we should not spend more money’. 62 respondents did not answer the question.

Broken down by State or Territory, the feeling was almost equally strong in Melbourne and the Northern Territory, with the strongest feeling being in the ACT and the lowest in NSW. Again, this strong response within the nation’s capital may indicate an awareness of Australia’s situation as a nation, as opposed to an insularity within Sydney residents.

It should be noted that a response of ‘No, we should not spend more money’ does not necessarily mean that the respondent thinks the money is foolishly spent or that illegal fishing and/or immigration is a good thing for Australia. For example, Sydney respondent #32 commented: ‘Should cut down spending as it’s not effective’. This seems to indicate a degree of resignation towards the problem.

Interestingly, in another survey, relating to the Tampa incident of 2001, the attitudes of respondents in NSW were significantly closer to the attitudes of the ‘border states’ of Western Australia and the Northern Territory. 2058 respondents were asked by phone the question:

There are significant differences across the States, with the ACT and Victoria more likely to oppose the decision, and Western Australia and Queensland the most strongly supportive.^[11]

	Agree	Disagree:
WA:	82%	14%
Qld:	79%	17%
NSW:	78%	20%
SA/NT:	76%	22%
Tas:	75%	25%
Vic:	73%	24%
ACT:	51%	47%

Respondents’ Further Comments

The final category of respondents’ opinions was the comment they could make at the end of the survey. As explained in the previous chapter, those comments have been sorted into seven different categories. Those categories gave the following numerical response:

The number of respondents who made a comment out of the total number surveyed is only 18 per cent of the whole. However, out of those a large percentage of the respondents wished to see heavier penalties against illegal fishermen and illegal maritime border transgressors. A slightly higher number wanted the agencies charged with our coastal protection to be better managed.

To summarize, Australians (in the survey period) are largely confused about who conducts Australia’s surveillance. They also have some strong feelings on it.

• A majority of Australians think those charged with interdiction are doing a good job.

• Most people think the court process as applied to possible offenders in our offshore area is being administered effectively.

• Australians in general think penalties applied to arrested fishermen are not effective in deterring further offences.

• Australians in general think spending money in the area of detecting and apprehending illegal fishermen is right and proper.

• Australians think the penalties applied to illegal immigrants do little to dissuade further immigration attempts.

• Australians think the costs involved in arresting and detaining suspected illegal immigrants in our offshore area are an effective use of government funds.

• Presuming it was spent on more patrol time or the purchase of more equipment most Australians feel we should spend more government money on patrolling our offshore area.

• A large percentage of Australians wish to see heavier penalties against illegal fishermen and refugees.

• A large percentage of Australians wish the agencies charged with our coastal protection to be better managed.

First, one implication of this finding is that a deterrent factor in patrolling the EEZ is important. For example, if certain members of the general public are in doubt about the effectiveness of surveillance and interdiction, then they might cooperate in the construction of an illegal immigration ‘racket’. It would seem to be the case – as indicated elsewhere in this paper – that suggestions of this nature have been made in the case of Chinese illegal immigrants. The scenario might be likened to that of the visibility of police on the streets – if the police are visible then crime is contained.

Secondly, the public are vehemently opposed to anyone illegally fishing in Australia’s waters or bringing in illegal immigrants. Further, the public thinks that the judicial system is too lenient on such offenders.

Thirdly, the public wants something done about the situation, and it is willing to see governments spend money on the problem.

It is interesting to examine whether indeed such public reactions are indeed drivers of government policy reaction and change. John, citing Heclo and Widavsky (1974), says that ‘policy emerges through the roles and values of the participants rather than through debate in the wider democratic process’ (p.82). If this is the case, perhaps all of the opinions of the public expressed in opinion vents such as those used here, and furthermore the editorial opinions promulgated by the media are indeed worthless. But how to measure whether this is the case?

Perhaps a measure of the importance of public opinion pressure may be seen in recent times in the changes made to the Business Activity Statement (BAS) component of the Goods and Services Tax introduced under the Howard Government’s second election. The BAS, as it became known, was introduced in a quarterly fashion, with businesses required to return a statement once every three months to the Australian Taxation Office.

The Statement itself, apart from being intrusive in that it was ‘more work’ for a business, was also seen as being too long, with statistical evidence also gathered within the same report. Within the extent of the second BAS – that is, within a six-month^[12] reporting period, the pressure of public opinion on the Howard Government was so strong that it announced a double change to the statement. The requirements of the BAS would both be simplified and also required merely once a year.

Such is the measure of the power of public and the media opinion on the modern governments of Australia.

This paper is part of a thesis, and for brevity’s sake the full List of Works Consulted cited in that thesis is not included here. However, a selected List of Works is included below.

List of Works Consulted

Australian Bureau of Statistics. ABS CATALOGUE NO. 6202.0. Web site: http://www.abs.gov.au

Bryce, James (1889), ‘The Ubiquity and Power of Public Opinion’, in The American Commonwealth, in Christenson and McWilliams, 1962, Voice of the People.

Christenson, Reo M. and McWilliams, Robert O. (1962), Voice of the People. New York: McGraw Hill.

Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah (1996), Hitler’s Willing Executioners, New York, Abacus.

Wilson, Richard (1984), ‘Coastal surveillance: public opinion and government perceptions’, Maritime Studies, no. 18, Jul/Aug.

Endnotes

Appendix 1: - Survey - Is our Maritime Surveillance and Interception Effective?

• The aim of this survey is to evaluate whether you think Australia is being effectively served by those organisations which conduct surveillance and enforcement in the maritime areas under Australian jurisdiction and apprehend people acting illegally.

• When you have finished filling in the survey, please fold it once and then drop it into the box provided.

• the territorial sea (extending 12 nautical miles offshore and providing full sovereignty);

• the two hundred mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (which gives particular rights and responsibilities with regard to marine resources and protection of the marine environment), and;

To exercise this jurisdiction, Australia conducts surveillance operations to detect illegal activities in these offshore areas and enforcement against breaches of Australian law in these areas.

To enable answers to be grouped, please fill in this information about yourself:

1. Who do you think carries out surveillance in or over our maritime areas under Australian jurisdiction?

Your answer:............................................................................

2. Who do you think carries out enforcement (if necessary stopping and arresting intruders) in our maritime areas?

Your answer:............................................................................

3. To what extent, if any, do you think that Australian fish and other sea creatures are being illegally taken?

4. The various agencies given the task of conducting surveillance in our offshore area for intruders are doing an excellent job.

5. The various agencies given the task of apprehending possible offenders in our offshore area are doing an excellent job.

6. The court process applied to possible offenders in our offshore area is being administered effectively.

7. The penalties applied to arresting illegal fishermen in our offshore area are effective in deterring repeat offences.

8. The costs involved in arresting and detaining illegal fishermen in our offshore area are an effective use of government funds.

9. The penalties applied to arresting suspected illegal immigrants in our offshore area are effective in deterring repeat offences.

10. The costs involved in arresting and detaining suspected illegal immigrants in our offshore area are an effective use of government funds.

11. Presuming it was spent on more patrol time or the purchase of more equipment, how would you feel about spending more government money on patrolling our offshore area?

^[1] Lieutenant Tom Lewis RAN is currently posted to HMAS CRESWELL. He is undertaking a PhD at the University of the Northern Territory. This paper is part of his PhD thesis that concerns the effectiveness of Australia’s surveillance and interdiction effort in our northern waters. As one of the chapters of that thesis, this material was supplied on request in May 1999 to the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Coastal Surveillance and became part of the material used in subsequent published papers to demonstrate the general public’s attitudes towards surveillance and interdiction.

^[2] Bryce, James. 1889. ‘The Ubiquity and Power of Public Opinion’ in The American Commonwealth, in Christenson and McWilliams, 1962, Voice of the People

^[3] Parten, Mildred, Surveys, Polls and Samples, New York: Harper and Row, 1950.

^[4] Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah., Hitler’s Willing Executioners, New York, Abacus, 1996, pp. 455-6.

^[6] Wilson, Richard, ‘Coastal surveillance: public opinion and government perceptions’, Maritime Studies, no. 18, Jul/Aug 1984, pp. 8-11.

^[7] The writer worked in the early 80s for ABC Radio as a part-time researcher, and occasionally manned the switchboard for a talkback radio show. It was common practice to let some callers through; place persistent ‘low-value’ frequent callers on ‘hold’, and generally determine which callers to let through to create an interesting program.

^[9] Finding No. 2986. Released exclusively on television on the Nine Network and published in The Bulletin, cover date June 10, 1997. Roy Morgan web site, http://www.roymorgan.com.au

^[11] Sydney Morning Herald. ‘Margo Kingston – Dissecting the poll’ On-line edition. 4 September 2001.

^[12] In fact, the BAS was extended beyond its initial deadlines due to the complaints, and so the second BAS was required in the early part of February 2001 – some eight months after the GST’s introduction.