Developing Social Policy

This paper examines the planning, formulation, implementation, and evaluation of Australia's mandatory detention policy; and the fulfillment of its objective.

Running Head: Developing Social Policy
1
Developing Social Policy
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Developing Social Policy
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................2
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy.........................................................................................3
Fulfillment of the Policy Objective.................................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................8

Developing Social Policy
3
Developing Social Policy
Executive Summary
The following is an outline of the policy process based on Australia's mandatory
detention policy. For sound policy processes, the government must engage the general public in
decision-making –this makes the reform more effective and acceptable to the citizens. Since
inception, the policy has continually affected the immigration, creating border control for the
government and exposing asylum seekers to health hazards.
Introduction
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

Developing Social Policy
4
consists in estimating the viability of the policy. In this stage, specific parameters allow
measurement of the effectiveness of the implemented regulation.
Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy
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

Developing Social Policy
5
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).
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

Developing Social Policy
6
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

Developing Social Policy
7
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.
Fulfillment of the Policy Objective
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.

Developing Social Policy
8
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.

Developing Social Policy
9
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).

Developing Social Policy
10
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.