The Policy Process of Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy
Write a Report on the policy process based on Australia’s mandatory detention policy.
The policy process refers to the manner in which public programs are planned, enacted and implemented. The process ensures that the policy created addresses fundamental issues related to the general population; an example is the health care. The policy process is continuous, interactive and dynamic because it involves identifying public problems and creating new approaches to reform the situation. This paper examines the planning, formulation, implementation, and evaluation of Australia’s mandatory detention policy; and the fulfillment of its objective.
In most cases, the policy process involves problem identification, policy options, implementation, and evaluation. The first step encompasses identifying and clearly defining the issue. In this stage, the cause of the problem appears via objective and empirical analysis. An example of a problem is the high rates of unemployment in Australia following the “boat arrivals.” The second stage involves exhaustively enlisting possible solutions to the problem. The outlined solutions become legislation during the implementation stage. The evaluation stage consists in estimating the viability of the policy. In this stage, specific parameters allow measurement of the effectiveness of the implemented regulation.
According to (McAdam, 2013) the policy is a legal requirement allowing detention of immigrants who lack a valid visa. The procedure began during the Keating (Labor) government to address the unlawful influx of non-citizens following the Vietnam War in 1992. In this case, the government required nationals from other countries to possess a valid visa. The immigrants who lacked the permit would undergo detention or receive bridging visas as they prepare to depart the country. Further, the policy explained that unlawful non-citizens who refused to leave depart voluntarily would undergo removal from the state. The primary aim of the system was to prevent illegal immigration of people without background checks on their health, security, and character. Further, it would create a platform for the removal of unauthorized non-citizens within the country. Notably, the problem emanated from the increased boat arrivals; however, the importance of detaining people seeking asylum is debatable. Australia’s mandatory detention policy underwent planning, formulation, implementation and evaluation stages.
According to (Atkinson, 2014) policy planning involves identification of the problem and creating guidelines or programs based on a particular structure. The concept engages the local agencies, the private sector and non-governmental organizations to coordinate and identify long-term objectives of integration of the policy. Mainly, policy planning involves the development of strategic guidelines to address the problem. Planning for the mandatory detention policy began as early as 1975 when the first boat arrived carrying people seeking asylum following the Vietnam War. Initially, the Australian public reacted with sympathy, and the immigrants received hospitable refuge. However, as the immigration increased, the public outcry began on issues such as the high rate of unemployment and crime. The mandatory detention policy was initially a temporary measure to deal with Indochinese arrivals of questionable moral standings. Subsequently, the detention extended to unlawful immigrants following establishment of the Migration Reform Act in 1994. Planning and passing of the policy occurred at the Australian parliament with the general public and non-governmental organizations involved, and an example is the Refugee Council of Australia (Henderson, 2014).
Planning Stage of Mandatory Detention Policy
From (Harris & Killedar, 2017) policy formulation entails development of acceptable solutions to address the issue. The concept proposes a solution, which must be valid and implementable. Further, it should be fair to the decision makers and the general public. The Australian policy involved mandatory detention of “boat immigrants” until granted a visa, or allowed to depart the country. Also, it included people who breach their permit or overstated. The detention was administrative, rather than punitive because the goal was to identify the identity, health and security check for asylum seekers. In this way, the government mitigated potential risks on the Australian citizens (Collins, 2013). Notably, the Keating government formulated the policy.
Policy implementation refers to what happens after the formulation and adoption of the regulation. It involves actions undertaken by the government to enact the policy. Mainly, the actors in the implementation stage include the judiciary, legislative departments, and administrative agencies. However, sometimes the scene fails because of lack of resources, organizational problems, politics or communication challenges between policy implementers and makers. The mandatory detention policy was implemented primarily by the immigration department; however, the Supreme Court played a vital role in preserving the rights of asylum seekers (Henderson, 2014). For instance, in 2013, the court ruled against the offshore detention of boat arrivals. Another policy implementer was the local police who investigated and arrested personnel alleged to have immigrated illegally.
Motta (2012) explains that policy evaluation is the last stage of the policy process. It involves assessing the implementation, design, and outcomes of accepting a public policy. The final step allows stakeholders to review the policy content; formulation; implementation; and determine the how it attains its goals or affects the citizens. The process occurs at different times, during the policy process because the positive and negative policy outcomes undergo the review. However, the process faces numerous challenges; an example is an uncertainty over policy goals or lack of oversight bodies (Hugo, 2014). The Australian mandatory detention policy was meant to mitigate the detrimental effects of illegal migration. However, a close review by non-governmental agencies indicated that the system violated the right to personal liberty because asylum seekers stayed in cells against their will. After presenting the petition, the Supreme Court judges ruled that detention was unconstitutional and prohibited interception of sea travelers. Further, it explained that the arrest must be temporary.
Besides the numerous benefits, the systematic analysis and reports indicate that the offshore detention policy resulted in suicide attacks, violence against women and death from the poor conditions of the detention facilities. In 2013, asylum seekers signed a petition to request their liberty and condemn the imprisonment for three years (Freay, 2015). The petition claimed that the Australians enjoyed numerous economic and political benefits including foreign aid from the detention. In recent years, no special allowance was made to evaluate the policy because preceding governments upheld the policy systematically. However, various modifications occurred during its initial formulation. For instance, initially all immigrants were detained, however, in recent times, only people who lack a visa card undergo imprisonment.
Formulation Stage of Mandatory Detention Policy
The primary objective of the policy was to maintain a secure border control and perform background checks on Indochinese boat arrivals. However, the mandatory detention of asylum seekers violates core human rights and liberal principles of justice, equality and fairness. The immigration control policy involved withholding boat arrivals without exception with their claims for protection depending on the immigration authorities. In this case, detention centers included women and children besides their exposure to disease and even death. In this way, the policy failed to achieve equality and fairness (Paul, Haire & Zion, 2016). The exposure to poor health conditions galvanized the masses with successive federal governments and international bodies appealing the system.
Notably, international statutory bodies condemn the imprisonment of asylum seekers especially in the event of war. The policy denied asylum seekers personal liberty. Also, the poor treatment of the immigrants in detention facilities disregarded the fundamental refugee rights. Newman et al. (2013) argue that the design and implementation of the mandatory detention policy failed to honor the government’s commitment to human rights. One violation is the imprisonment of children. In referring to notions such as fair treatment and protection of human rights, the policy failed to achieve its objective. However, studies indicate the competence of the Australian government to achieve border control and security for its citizens is a more fundamental issue compared to offering asylum.
Freay (2015) argues that the policy improved the border control for the Australian government, therefore, empowering its citizens. The argument here is that unlawful boat arrivals underwent preliminary health screening at the detention facility to determine their status and character. Also, the asylum seekers were not released until granted a visa, or removed from the country. In this way, the policy achieved immigration control. Another way the system reached its objective and empowered the immigrants was through the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). In some cases, the asylum application failed; however, the immigrants would contest the decision before the RRT or file for judicial review (Choi et al., 2012). Successful applications entered the country and would enjoy protection by the government.
Conclusion
The Australian mandatory detention policy underwent the general policy process: planning, formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Primarily, the process started by the Australian parliament, non-governmental agencies and international institutions such as the United Nations in 1992. Implementation of the policy helped achieve sufficient stability and security for the Australian citizens; however, it had detrimental effects on the asylum seekers. For instance, the poor condition of detention facilities affected their health. Also, the detention undermined their fundamental right to liberty. In this way, the Australian government failed to achieve fairness and equality.
References
Atkinson, C. (2014). Public policy processes and the environment: implications for a sustainable future. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5 (4), 457-475.
Choi, C. (2012). Immigration and Status Exchange in Australia and the United States. PMC , 30 (1), 49–62.
Collins, J. (2013). Multiculturalism and Immigrant Integration in Australia. Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal , 45 (3).
Freay, C. (2015). The limitations of monitoring immigration detention in Australia. International Journal of Human Rights, 21 (1), 21-45.
Harris, P. & Killedar, A. (2017). Australia’s refugee policies and their health impact: a review of the evidence and recommendations for the Australian Government. Wiley Online Journal, 41 (4), 335-337.
Henderson, C. (2014). Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers: From Human Rights Violations to Crimes Against Humanity. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 12 (5), 1161–1181.
Hugo, G. (2014). Skilled Migration in Australia: Policy and Practice. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 23 (4), 375 – 396.
Paul, J., Haire, B. & Zion, D. (2016). The Health Care Consequences Of Australian Immigration Policies. PLOS, 13 (2).
McAdam, J. (2013). Australia and Asylum Seekers. International Journal of Refugee Law, 25 (3), 435–448.
Motta, F. (2012). “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”: Australia’s Mandatory Detention of Asylum Seekers. Refuge, 20 (3).
Nethery, A. et al. (2016). Secrecy and human rights abuse in Australia’s offshore immigration detention centers. The International Journal of Human Rights, 20 (7).
Newman, L. et al. (2013). Seeking asylum in Australia: immigration detention, human rights, and mental health care. Australasian Psychiatry (21), 315 – 320
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
