Challenges in Setting up Immigration Policies in Australia: Populism, Executive Control, Regional Relationships and Global Compacts

Introduction
The regime of global refugee protection is considered as a global public good under
which countries share the obligation of such protection. The idea of sharing responsibilities
among states underlies the refugee goals as indicated in article 35 of the refugee convention.
Even though Australia has been keen in presenting itself as the leading power on matters
concerning refuges, immigrants and asylum seekers in Asia-pacific regions. Therefore, we can
argue that setting up immigration policies in Australia is highly challenged by the Indonesia-
Australia cooperation in these matters.
Populism
The presence of populist ideologies in the Australian Government has had direct
consequences, either in terms of shaping the policies in order to reflect the views or prompting
them to backtrack through some electoral pledges. Populism is not something new. In Australia,
it has been a strong force to be reckoned with at least since the 1990s and a subject of
comprehensive studies up to date. Most of the studies have mainly focused on the impact of
populism a liberal democracy among other factors such as the ant pluralist approaches,
authoritarian features among others (Nethery, & Gordyn, 2014 p. 130-140). The definition
around which most of the consensus is held points out that, it is an ideology that perceives
society as separated into two homogenous and antagonistic factions: The good people against the
corrupt elite. In such circumstances, it is often argued that politics should be a reflection of the
peoples’ general will. The fundamental aspect is that the populist party argues that it represents
the people, while in real sense ventriloquizes (Betts, 2011 p. 79-89). By definition, populism is
exclusive while the other can variously be foreigners, elites, immigrants of even the entire
establishment.

The most fundamental and often shared by the populist factions is the nativist point of
view as well as the great preference for an exclusionist Asylum policy in Australia. In the
nativist point of view. constant immigration is a huge threat to the homogenous state. The
biggest concerns about immigration and asylum policies distinguishes the populist party family
from other parties (Klein, 2013 p. 113-113). Far-right populist often prefer restive policies that
are currently implemented in areas of immigrant admission as well as integration of the
immigrants. The central perspective of the asylum policies implies that, assessing its impact on
the output of the polices is imperative to the general evaluation of its performance (Moffitt, &
Tormey, 2014).
The indirect impact of populism on asylum polices results from the capacity of the party
to influence the party competition as well as its overall direction. Populism particularly has
influenced competition by presenting the issue of asylum seekers as a salient political matter and
mobilizing anti-immigration sentiments. The successful mobilization against immigration by
populist parties in Australia has hindered other mainstream parties from ignoring the restrictive
preferences of the media voter. Therefore, liberal policies about asylum seekers and immigrants,
become huge electoral risks to them. As a result, it is expected that the mainstream parties to
move towards policies that are perceived as restrictive.
It is important to note that, in immigration policies. Cultural conservatism and economic
liberalism split the populist parties in the country. While the protection of workers and the
universal concept of justice and equality divide the left-wing party. Moreover, populist parties
tend to share a moderate position on matters of immigrations in an effort to ensure that there is a
balanced framework for all internal factions with competing preferences.

The role played by populist parties and their association with the mainstream politics in
Australia, needs to be explored. Such parties, particularly those from the Centre-right, have
shifted further to the right on immigration, law an order, austerity and finally national security.
Sometime they do so base on their desire, propelled by internal dynamics to transform their
approaches, rather than being under pressure from the extremists. In most cases, populists often
exploit the challenge of the left in order to toughen their rhetoric as well as policies in
accordance with the themes and resolutions. This has, for quite a long period benefited the
populist, which in turn has pushed immigration policies further to the right. This means that the
new regulations are more restrictive. I this sense, the views of the populist might be considered
as reactions to the changing contexts rather than just a cause of the populist shift to far restrictive
policies.
Executive control
Executive control is framework in the government whereby all the key officials are
responsible of the administrative superiors often known as ministers within the Australian
government. The role of this framework is to ensure that all the senior officials are responsible of
all that goes on within his department (Hirsch, 2017). The model clearly points out that is an
error is made by a civil servant in a certain department, the senior official in charge of such
department are held responsible irrespective of whether they had knowledge about it or not. In
Australia, Misters have to resign for any wrongdoings made by the official within the
department.
Executive controls are considered as more important for their positive input towards
development and enforcement of laws in the actional operations under the substantive. The
provide a constructive and progressive guidance to the administration. This ensures that the

department are always alert. It can therefore be argued that the asylum policies Have been
characterized by the increasing powers of the executive (Betts, 2011). Such powers have been
accomplished through diminution of the powers bestowed upon the judiciary and the legislature.
Moreover, it has also been achieved through the dismissal of criticism about asylum policies and
practices from other non-government actors. In order to justify the increased executive control
over asylum policies and other immigration regulations. Consecutive Australian government
have articulated a populist ideology about matters of immigration (Tan, 2015). This is the
consideration that all migration matters ought to be determined by the Australian people through
an elected government and not through the judiciary process of Human rights establishments.
This view further extends that the executive is the most suited to implement the will of the
people, and that any immigration policy decisions ought not to be labored down through
constitutional liberalism and appropriate democratic checks and balances (Appleby, 2017).
One big challenge that has occurred is that most of the immigration programs have been
taken over by lawyers. Successive ministers of immigration have found it very challenging to
provide proper administration under their increasing responsibilities. Therefore, it is important
for the Australian government to ensure that the legal system does not preclude the government
as well as the executive control of the minister from exercising their obligations (Missbach, &
Tanu, 2016).