Australia's Mandatory Detention Policy: Stages, Empowerment, and Evaluation

This essay discusses Australia's mandatory detention policy, including its key stages, issues of empowerment and participation, and arrangements for evaluation.

Running Head: DEVELOPING SOCIAL POLICY 0
Developing social policy
10/7/2018

DEVELOPING SOCIAL POLICY 1
The essay brings about the discussion on the Australia’s mandatory detention policy,
and the stages related to it. The policy states that the Government of Australia has a policy
and practice of detaining in the immigration detention facilities in respect of the non-citizens
not holding a valid visa. It also includes people who are not the citizens of the country and
does not hold valid visa, or suspected of visa violations, or illegal entry or have entered
through unauthorised ways. It also includes people who are subject to deportation and
removal in immigration detention, until the time a visa is granted to them by the immigration
authorities and release them into the community. The essay thus includes the key stages of
the policy process in Australia, and the discussion of the issues of empowerment,
participation, and arrangements to evaluate the policy in Australia (Australian Human
Rights Commission, 2018).
Discussing about the mandatory detention policy of Australia, it requires analysing
the key points, history, requirements, applicability, and implementation process of the policy.
The introduction of the Australia’s mandatory detention policy was in 1992, by bi-partisan
support. This states that the under the sections 189, 196, and 198 of the migration act, it was
assumed that all non-citizens in Australia must be detained unlawfully. Moreover, these
people must be kept detained for their immigration until the time they are granted with the
visa or removed from Australia. It is stated that any person who is unlawfully non-citizen of
Australia and does not hold a visa (Fleay, 2015).
An individual who arrives without a visa is considered or included under this
immigration detention policy. It also includes those people who are asylum seekers, wanting
their protection, individuals as lawful entrants who have overstayed their visa, and those
people who have had cancelled their visa for several reasons, and liable to deportation.
Earlier, this policy of 1992, there were distinctions made between under the migration act
between the unauthorised border arrivals and illegal entrants and deportees. Unauthorised
boat arrivals were assumed to be deemed to have no entry in Australia, they were kept
detained in the open areas of migration centres, but they had no permission to leave the
centre. These people are also accountable on a daily basis to the Australian Protective Service
(Flynn & Flynn, 2017).
In contrast, it states that the illegal entrants who have entered in Australia by fraud,
deception or they had entered lawfully but subsequently overstayed their visa or breached
their conditions. It is a known fact this particular kind of group was detained for 48 hours, but

DEVELOPING SOCIAL POLICY 2
after that, permission is required for a period of seven days from the magistrate. In the year
1992, in respect to the migration Amendment act led to the formation of policy of the
mandatory detention of designated people, applicable to the persons who arrived by the boat
between 19th November 1989 to 1 September 1992 without the permission to live in
Australia. The policy was used just as a measure for a particular category of persons to state
about the requirements of the current situation. It was determined by the issue of the entrance
of a large number of immigrants or unauthorised boat arrivals, and the need to maintain a
control over the migration program. There were some changes in the mandatory policy of
Australia, as there were many calls for the detainees so in response to the long-term
detainees, there were some announcements made by the minister for immigration. The
announcement was made in respect of new measures to manage the case of long-term
immigration detainees who are not found to be known as refugees. The enquiry for the
mandatory detention is designed strictly for a limited period, to obtain important information
as the health, identity, security that supports a visa claim of the person. Mandatory policy
apply to those persons also persons whose visa the minister mainly based on their character
has cancelled detains those persons in immigration and deports them. Along with adults,
children also who enter into the country without visa and obtain the services of asylum are
also required to stay under detention. There is no time limit for this detention and very
limited reviews were available by the courts under the migration act 1958, (Cth) the
migration act (Phillips, 2015).
There are some of the key stages of the Australia’s mandatory detention policy, which
includes the stages of the policy formulation and implementation. The Australia’s mandatory
detention policy came into existence in the year 1992, mentions about the legal requirement
to detain all the non-citizens without a valid visa. There were some issues faced in Australia
regarding entry of the non-citizens, which directed for the formulation and implementation of
the immigration detention policy (Tulich et al., 2017).
The Government of Australia identified some of the issues, as people entering the country
through some unlawful means or without a valid visa. After identifying such issues, the
government set measures for the planning of the social policy stating that all the unlawful
citizens must be detained, until they are given permission to stay in Australia, through the
grant of visa (Wilsher, 2016). This issue led to the formation of mandatory detention policy,
which was set into legislation in the year 1992, and then endorsed through a major
parliamentary enquiry later in the year 1994. In the later years, 1998-1999 around 3574

DEVELOPING SOCIAL POLICY 3
people were held in detention, and amongst them 926 people were the boat people and then
further some more people were detained. This included the asylum seekers as they also
arrived unlawfully therefore, on 1st September 1994 the policy came into force, i.e.
implemented (Rae, Holman & Nethery, 2018).
The implementation or regulation of the policy in the country stated that about detaining
all those non-citizens found without a valid visa, and are held responsible for the unlawful
entry in the country. In addition, for all those non-citizens the 273-day detention limit was
also removed (Parliament of Australia, 2018). The stage of the policy implementation
demonstrated that such people, who were detained under this act or social policy are charged,
i.e. the person is responsible to bear the costs of his/her immigration detention. Therefore,
these points states about the emergence of issue due to some social and political concerns
leading to the formation and implementation of the act or the policy of mandatory detention
in Australia. After the initiation of the detention policy formulation and implementation, it
was clear that just by simply arriving in the country a person could not get migration to
Australia. (Sanggaran, Haire & Zion, 2016).
The participation and empowerment in the process of formulation and implementation
stated that when the policy of detention came into existence in Australia, it clarified the status
of the unauthorised entry of people in the country. The aim or objective behind this policy
was to ensure the maintenance of the integrity of the country in fulfilling the responsibilities
of the society. The social policy was meant to serve the purpose of equality, and justice to the
people living in the country, who are sustaining their lives through lawful means. The
objective of the policy implementation was to ensure the security of the border control and
the protection of the people or citizens of the Australia from any possible external threats.
The social policy of detaining unauthorised arrivals served to conclude a number of public
policy outcomes, listed below (Illingworth, 2018).
Ensuring that people with unlawful means or the unauthorised arrivals do not enter the
Australian community. It was done until their claims were not properly evaluated by the
internationally agreed standards. It also ensures that no person with any unauthorised way
enter the country until they are assessed for their health and essential identity and character
and other security issues. Therefore, the policy states about the equality to the people living
in Australia and served for the equal treatment and justice to the citizens of the country.
Australian government has also claimed and stated that after the formulation and

DEVELOPING SOCIAL POLICY 4
implementation of detention policy the system of the country has achieved a greater degree of
balance between strong immigration control and the respect for the liberty of individuals.
The policy first looks for the individual’s protection and liberty as the primary goal or value
for the formulation and implementation. The policy of detention in the country has other
objectives as well which included that deterrence of the people who are involved in
smuggling activities came into the country with a false objective or to harm the country. This
means that it serves the virtues of dignity and integrity of individuals, justice, and equality of
their citizenship in Australia (Pless, Maak & Harris, 2017).
To conclude the above discussion on the social policy process or formulation of the
policy of detention in Australia few things have been analysed. In respect to the country,
people who are non-citizens arrive into the country and do not hold a valid visa or some visa
violations. This led to the formulation of the mandatory detention policy that mentioned
about detaining all the unlawful citizens in the country and Australia has been found as the
only country where the mandatory detention is included in the legislation. The legislation or
the policy of mandatory detention was found to deter the smuggling activities of the unlawful
citizens and protecting the rights and individual’s dignity in the country. Hence, the policy
must be properly implemented and evaluated for the Australia’s immigration program.

DEVELOPING SOCIAL POLICY 5
References
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2018). Australia’s Immigration detention Policy and
Practice. Retrieved from: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/last-resort-
national-inquiry-children-immigration-detention/6-australias-immigration
Fleay, C. (2015). The limitations of monitoring immigration detention in
Australia. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 21(1), 21-45.
Flynn, M. J. & Flynn, M. B. (2017). Challenging Immigration Detention: Academics,
Activists, and Policy-makers. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Illingworth, R. (2018, April). Durable solutions: refugee status determination and the
framework of international protection. In The Refugees Convention 50 Years On:
Globalisation and International Law (pp. 91-108). United Kingdom: Routledge.
Parliament of Australia. (2018) The Detention of Boat people. Retrieved from:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0001/01CIB08
Phillips, J. (2015). Boat Arrivals and Boat'turnbacks' in Australia Since 1976: A Quick Guide
to the Statistics. Australia: Canberra Parliamentary Library.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T. & Harris, H. (2017). Art, ethics and the promotion of human
dignity. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 223-232.
Rae, M., Holman, R. & Nethery, A. (2018). Self-represented witnessing: the use of social
media by asylum seekers in Australia’s offshore immigration detention
centres. Media, Culture & Society, 40(4), 479-495.
Sanggaran, J. P., Haire, B. & Zion, D. (2016). The health care consequences of Australian
immigration policies. PLoS Medicine, 13(2), 1001960.
Tulich, T., Ananian-Welsh, R., Bronitt, S. & Murray, S. (2017). Protection seekers and
preventive justice: Immigration detention in Australia and the United Kingdom.
In Regulating Preventive Justice (pp. 117-138). United Kingdom: Routledge.

DEVELOPING SOCIAL POLICY 6
Wilsher, D. (2016). Immigration Detention: The Migration of a Policy and Its Human
Impact. Refuge, 32(3), 153-155.