Taxpayers charged $6 million for Immigration Department telemovie

Date
    March 26, 2016
    Sydney Morning Herald

A movie costing $5.9 million has been produced by the Federal Government to deter asylum seekers coming to Australia.

The Immigration Department has made a $6 million telemovie to deter asylum seekers from coming to Australia – eclipsing the budgets of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, The Castle and Wolf Creek combined.   :(

The taxpayer-funded drama called The Journey made its debut on Afghanistan television on Friday.

Government tender documents reveal the Department of Immigration and Border protection paid the Sydney-based Put It Out There Pictures $4.34 million to produce the movie. It paid a company called Lapis Communications a further $1.63 million for to promote and advertise it, bringing the total to $5.97 million.




By contrast, Priscilla cost less than $2 million, Wolf Creek about $1 million and The Castle just $750,000. Even adjusted for inflation, the total budget of all three films works out at about $5.8 million in today's terms.   :(


Filmed across three countries, the ninety-minute drama tells the story of a small group of Afghan asylum seekers trying to get to Australia by boat. A trailer available on YouTube – which has about 1000 views – shows scenes of asylum seekers talking, arguing and crying in Afghanistan, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The film involved cast and crew from 13 countries and has already been screened in Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. It will be available in a variety of Middle Eastern languages, including Dari, Pashto, Urdu, Arabic and Farsi.


Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, whose department has produced a telemovies to deter asylum seekers.

It will not be available in English.

On its website, Put It Out There makes no secret of the film's intention.

"The film aims 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," it says.

The department said the movie was a "key part" of its anti-people smuggling strategy and had a potential audience of 50 million people.

It said market research had shown that telemovies are a proven way to reach and influence the target audience.

"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," a spokesman said. "Initial feedback from viewers has been positive."

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.

Put It Out There company director Trudi-Ann Tierney declined to be interviewed. However she has in the past had some interesting things to say about her own work, describing her films as "propaganda".

The former Australian TV executive and actress moved to Kabul to manage a bar but fell into the local TV industry and found herself producing a highly popular soapie, which she wrote about in her book Making Soapies in Kabul.

In the book she said she was ostensibly head of drama "but in truth I was nothing more than a propaganda merchant". She also says her work was part of the "psychological operations" NATO and its allies used to influence the values and behaviour of its Afghan audience in a way that  supported the war effort.

all they had to do was show re runs of  Baz Luhrmann's 'Australia' . ... if that didn't deter anyone nothing would.




I guess the budget emergency is over  :D :D :D

Labor's decision to stuff with the Howard government's border protection policies just keeps on burning the tax-payer.

Swagman wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Labor's decision to stuff with the Howard government border protection policies just keeps on burning the tax-payer.

yeah ... labor made the libs spend $6million on a video  :D :D :D :D

when will the libs grow up and accept responsibility for their own actions?

$6 million is nothing compared to the billions the retards in the Labor Party blew when they started up people smuggling again.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

$6 million is nothing compared to the billions the retards in the Labor Party blew when they started up people smuggling again.

........Leftists like Smithy have always have trouble comprehending cause and effect

So deflection is all the right have? ;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

$6 million is nothing compared to the billions the retards in the Labor Party blew when they started up people smuggling again.

libs are spending far more now keeping them out then labor spent  :D :D :D

Swagman wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:01pm: $6 million is nothing compared to the billions the retards in the Labor Party blew when they started up people smuggling again. ........Leftists like Smithy have always have trouble comprehending cause and effect

you should try and remember that the next time you deny the structural deficit :D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:09pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:01pm: $6 million is nothing compared to the billions the retards in the Labor Party blew when they started up people smuggling again. The Liberal party wouldn't be trying to keep people out if Labor didn't fa rk the thing up. libs are spending far more now keeping them out then labor spent  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:09pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:01pm: $6 million is nothing compared to the billions the retards in the Labor Party blew when they started up people smuggling again. ........Leftists like Smithy have always have trouble comprehending cause and effect you should try and remember that the next time you deny the structural deficit :D :D

The Liberal party wouldn't be trying to keep people out if Labor didn't fa rk the thing up.

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 5:58pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Labor's decision to stuff with the Howard government border protection policies just keeps on burning the tax-payer. yeah ... labor made the libs spend $6million on a video  :D :D :D :D when will the libs grow up and accept responsibility for their own actions?

$6 million?  Chickenfeed!

What will 12,000 Syrian refugees cost?

If it only deters 1,000 people, it will be money well spent.

What price for those already drowned under Labor policies?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:11pm:

What will 12,000 Syrian refugees cost?

probably not as much as the $55 million spent for 4 refugees  :D :D :D

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:09pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:01pm: $6 million is nothing compared to the billions the retards in the Labor Party blew when they started up people smuggling again. ........Leftists like Smithy have always have trouble comprehending cause and effect you should try and remember that the next time you deny the structural deficit :D :D The Liberal party wouldn't be trying to keep people out if Labor didn't fa rk the thing up.

no need to keep them out. Fly them in and everyone saves money

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:09pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:01pm: $6 million is nothing compared to the billions the retards in the Labor Party blew when they started up people smuggling again. ........Leftists like Smithy have always have trouble comprehending cause and effect you should try and remember that the next time you deny the structural deficit :D :D

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/structural%20claytons.jpg

There's no use arguing with this chimp John Smith guys. He always has an answer even when he is wrong. How could anybody back Labors  fa rked up reputation when it comes to border control?? One would have to be spasticated .

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:11pm: What will 12,000 Syrian refugees cost? probably not as much as the $55 million spent for 4 refugees  :D :D :D

I see you got the point.

8-)

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:11pm: What will 12,000 Syrian refugees cost? probably not as much as the $55 million spent for 4 2 refugees  :D :D :D

Fixed

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

There's no use arguing with this chimp John Smith guys. He always has an answer even when he is wrong. ....

You catch on pretty quick, don't ya!

You haven't met greggery yet.

He's got this stutter, see. It goes like this:

Apologist! Apologist! Apologist!

He's very 'special', most stutterers get stuck on one syllable. John, on the other hand, can almost manage a complete paragraph before something similar kicks in.

I believe he's undertaking therapy to expand his communicative skills but his intransigence is presenting problems.

Once these basic problems have been solved, I believe that the work will centre on 'quoting' and 'linking'. His 'cut and paste' skills also need work.

We all look forward to the day when John is cured and returned to us.

We have our doubts about greggery. We think he's a lost cause.

We DO care.

8-)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:12pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:11pm: What will 12,000 Syrian refugees cost? probably not as much as the $55 million spent for 4 refugees  :D :D :D I see you got the point. 8-)

except that I'm not sure you do

John Smith wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 7:07pm:

except that I'm not sure

...you finally said something true   :D

Swagman wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 7:07pm: except that I'm not sure ...you finally said something true   :D

That I'm not sure about you? been saying that a long time Swag

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

There's no use arguing with this chimp John Smith guys. He always has an answer even when he is wrong. How could anybody back Labors  fa rked up reputation when it comes to border control?? One would have to be spasticated .

Who, exactly, is backing Labor's reputation on border control/asylum seekers?

I'm not, and John certainly isn't.

In fact, I can't remember seeing anyone in here supporting their disgraceful policies.

So, who are you talking about?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 6:35pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:15pm: There's no use arguing with this chimp John Smith guys. He always has an answer even when he is wrong. .... You catch on pretty quick, don't ya! You haven't met greggery yet. He's got this stutter, see. It goes like this: Apologist! Apologist! Apologist! He's very 'special', most stutterers get stuck on one syllable. John, on the other hand, can almost manage a complete paragraph before something similar kicks in. I believe he's undertaking therapy to expand his communicative skills but his intransigence is presenting problems. Once these basic problems have been solved, I believe that the work will centre on 'quoting' and 'linking'. His 'cut and paste' skills also need work. We all look forward to the day when John is cured and returned to us. We have our doubts about greggery. We think he's a lost cause. We DO care. 8-)

Me and pecca are well acquainted Lionel. Pecca takes his frustrations out on his blow up goat after I've out debated him.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:36pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:15pm: There's no use arguing with this chimp John Smith guys. He always has an answer even when he is wrong. How could anybody back Labors  fa rked up reputation when it comes to border control?? One would have to be spasticated . Who, exactly, is backing Labor's reputation on border control/asylum seekers? I'm not, and John certainly isn't. In fact, I can't remember seeing anyone in here supporting their disgraceful policies. So, who are you talking about?

Oh don't lie. We know you love any political policy that floods Australia with Muslim migrants. You love lefties in the labor party and greens.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:36pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:15pm: There's no use arguing with this chimp John Smith guys. He always has an answer even when he is wrong. How could anybody back Labors  fa rked up reputation when it comes to border control?? One would have to be spasticated . Who, exactly, is backing Labor's reputation on border control/asylum seekers? I'm not, and John certainly isn't. In fact, I can't remember seeing anyone in here supporting their disgraceful policies. So, who are you talking about? Oh don't lie. We know you love any political policy that floods Australia with Muslim migrants. You love lefties in the labor party and greens.

I've condemned the Labor Party's policies on asylum seekers at every opportunity.

So who, exactly, is backing Labor's reputation on border control/asylum seekers?

How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan?

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:42pm:

How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan?

Homo, and his rightard homies, don't recognise that word.

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:42pm:

How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan?

Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:47pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country.

Flood? Bit of an exaggeration isn't it?

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:51pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:47pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country. Flood? Bit of an exaggeration isn't it?

Nope. Wasn't it 50,000 in a few years. That's a flood to me.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:47pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country.

"flood"   ;D

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Homo.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:53pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:47pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country. Flood? Bit of an exaggeration isn't it? Nope. Wasn't it 50,000 in a few years. That's a flood to me.

Hardly. That number is easily absorbed.

mothra wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:57pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:47pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country. Flood? Bit of an exaggeration isn't it? Nope. Wasn't it 50,000 in a few years. That's a flood to me. Hardly. That number is easily absorbed.

Easily absorbed into the dole queue with the 90% of them. It would have been a 100,000 and climbing if it wasn't for the Liberal Party.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 9:02pm:

mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:47pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country. Flood? Bit of an exaggeration isn't it? Nope. Wasn't it 50,000 in a few years. That's a flood to me. Hardly. That number is easily absorbed. Easily absorbed into the dole queue with the 90% of them. It would have been a 100,000 and climbing if it wasn't for the Liberal Party.

Hang on, Homo.

You just said that they take all our jobs.

Which lie are you going to stick with?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 9:04pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:02pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:47pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country. Flood? Bit of an exaggeration isn't it? Nope. Wasn't it 50,000 in a few years. That's a flood to me. Hardly. That number is easily absorbed. Easily absorbed into the dole queue with the 90% of them. It would have been a 100,000 and climbing if it wasn't for the Liberal Party. Hang on, Homo. You just said that they take all our jobs. Which lie are you going to stick with?

There's asylum seeking and 3rd world migration nitwit.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 9:06pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:04pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:02pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:47pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country. Flood? Bit of an exaggeration isn't it? Nope. Wasn't it 50,000 in a few years. That's a flood to me. Hardly. That number is easily absorbed. Easily absorbed into the dole queue with the 90% of them. It would have been a 100,000 and climbing if it wasn't for the Liberal Party. Hang on, Homo. You just said that they take all our jobs. Which lie are you going to stick with? There's asylum seeking and 3rd world migration nitwit.

Focus, Homo.

Do they take our jobs, or do they take our welfare?

Which lie are you going to stick with?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 9:12pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:06pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:04pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 9:02pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:57pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:53pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:47pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country. Flood? Bit of an exaggeration isn't it? Nope. Wasn't it 50,000 in a few years. That's a flood to me. Hardly. That number is easily absorbed. Easily absorbed into the dole queue with the 90% of them. It would have been a 100,000 and climbing if it wasn't for the Liberal Party. Hang on, Homo. You just said that they take all our jobs. Which lie are you going to stick with? There's asylum seeking and 3rd world migration nitwit. Focus, Homo. Do they take our jobs, or do they take our welfare? Which lie are you going to stick with?

http://oi63.tinypic.com/xqb7ls.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:55pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:47pm: mothra wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:42pm: How many times do we need to say that our condemnation of refugee policy is bipartisan? Your only condemnation is that every country shopper headed for Australia isn't left to flood into the country. "flood"   ;D Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Homo.

Apologist.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 8:36pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 27th, 2016 at 6:15pm: There's no use arguing with this chimp John Smith guys. He always has an answer even when he is wrong. How could anybody back Labors  fa rked up reputation when it comes to border control?? One would have to be spasticated . Who, exactly, is backing Labor's reputation on border control/asylum seekers? I'm not, and John certainly isn't. In fact, I can't remember seeing anyone in here supporting their disgraceful policies. So, who are you talking about? Oh don't lie. We know you love any political policy that floods Australia with Muslim migrants. You love lefties in the labor party and greens. I've condemned the Labor Party's policies on asylum seekers at every opportunity. So who, exactly, is backing Labor's reputation on border control/asylum seekers?

Apologist. APOLOGIST!!!!!!