An Examination of Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees

This essay provides a comprehensive overview of Australian punitive policy responses to refugees, tracing the historical evolution from the White Australia Policy to contemporary measures. It examines key events like the Tampa Affair and the implementation of the Pacific Solution, including offshore detention centers. The essay delves into the impacts of these policies on refugees, including mandatory detentions, family separations, and psychological trauma. It then applies the labeling theory and conflict theory to analyze the motivations and consequences of these policies. The essay discusses how labeling theory explains the stigmatization of refugees and how conflict theory highlights the competition for resources. It concludes by discussing the implications of these theories for understanding the Australian refugee policy landscape. This essay, like other resources on Desklib, offers valuable insights for students studying political science and related fields.

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 1
Australian punitive policy responses to refugees
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course Name
Date

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 2
In absolute figures, Australia is the 50th country that receives the most refugees, but
paradoxically the 3rd country with the most refugees in its own territory. As for asylum seekers,
Australia is the 20th country that receives the most and the 28th most accepted. With a current
population of 24 million people, Australia hosted a total of 786,000 refugees during the period
1901-2010. But what is the policy behind the data?
Australia is a Federation of very young states, whose unification dates back to 1901. We
say young people because at that time it was not even 125 years since the British invasion (1788)
and the aboriginal territorial conception was (and is) in a logic outside of Comparison with the
western one (Cameron, 2013). A virgin territory of exploitation of resources and that wanted to
(re) be constructed by obviating and exterminating the past: a favorable scenario for emigration.
In 2011, it was estimated that only 3% of the Australian population was aboriginal (Muytjens
and Ball, 2016).
But when it comes to deciding who can enter the country, there have always been
discriminations. Already in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, a law that would form the
cornerstone of what is known as the White Australian Policy (WPA), the preference for English
and white migrants (from northeastern Europe) was discriminated. Throughout the twentieth
century, the WPA remained in force, but the restrictions were eased, first receiving 170,000
people released from Nazi concentration and extermination camps and subsequently receiving
political refugees from central and eastern Europe during the War Cold
But the biggest change took place in 1975 when, due to the arrival by sea of 2,000
Vietnamese to Australian lands and 100,000 in total to nearby countries , the government
decided to end the WPA. Non-Westerners / Europeans also came to be welcomed, and Australia

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 3
made a great effort for the first time when it came to resettle them, because it was the one who
coordinated the regional action.
But 14 years later, in response to another wave of migration - in this case, China - the
Migration Legislation Amendment Act was approved , whose objective was to deter future
entries. Arrivals in Australian territory became considered illegal and, in the same vein, in 1992
the first 'mandatory detentions' began to be made while verifying the authenticity of the asylum
application. Australia then became the first country considered democratic that carried out this
type of action, thus violating the agreements of the Convention on the Status of Refugees. Some
actions that form the axis of current policies on migration
In 2001, after the one known as Tampa Affair , Australia decided to launch the Pacific
Solution . This plan (2001-07; 2012-13) consisted of three axes: l imitate Australian migratory
zones; prevent the entry of ships with immigrants into Australian waters through marine frigates;
and complement the existing offer with the opening of two immigration detention camps on the
islands of Manus (Papua New Guinea) and Nauru, which are known as Offshore Detention
Centers .
In 2007, the arrival of the Labor Party (which had supported the Liberal Party's policy
until then) meant the closure of Nauru and Manus and was aimed at resolving all asylum requests
in 3 months. Likewise, it was decided to subsidize the countries where the ships loaded with
immigrants (Indonesia, basically) came from with money destined to fight against those that
were designated as mafias smugglers of people. But in 2012, a new escalation in the number of
arrivals by sea led to a turn of the government and the return to the Pacific Solution and the
reopening of the fields.The refugees have undergone immense and unavoidable suffering in the
hands of these people. Those seeking their protection from the government are referred as the

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 4
‘’unlawful’’ arrivals and the government mandates their detention. Their families were separated
due to their detention and their children stayed for long without even attending school. They
were also physically and psychologically abused and these led to their panic and difficult in
seeking continued support. This act also affected negatively on the people’s self-esteem as well
as the human dignity.
One of the theories that can be used to describe the Australian policy is labelling theory.
The theory was developed by Emile Durkheim. The theory questions, first, the process of
defining the crime. The idea that criminal norms sanction the most socially reprehensible
behaviors is put in check, arguing that, in reality, those norms respond to the interests of
powerful social groups, often synthesized in moral entrepreneurs, with the ability to decide and
influence that is legally prohibited and what is allowed. What happens is, first of all, a
“qualification process”, in a context of interaction in which men attribute the deviant condition to
another. If a person fails to comply with these group normative mandates, it will surely be
considered diverted from the vision of those groups. Conversely, however, "From the point of
view of the individual who is labeled as deviant, (White, Haines & Asquith 2017). The deviant is
the one to whom that label has been applied successfully; Deviant behavior is the behavior that
people label (Taylor & Parsons, 2018). When this labeling process is successful, a criminal is
built (Vlase and Preoteasa, 2017).
The penalty is the culmination of a chain of degradation symbols and practices that
stigmatizes the offender with an irreversible status, to the point that he redefines his personality
according to the new assigned role assigned: the offender, who is assumed as such (McFadden,
2016). From the use of handcuffs, and prison rituals, to “preventive” gestures such as the
collections that justice operators adopt when a defendant appears before them (remove

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 5
paperweight, require police presence during the act), they are a function constitutive of social
control and an assignment of a new role: that of the offender, which is also accepted by him.
Evidently, labelling theory focuses on the role of social labelling in crime as well as
deviance development. This theory further assumes that if the people are labelled deviant they
face numerous problems that either begin from the self-reactions and others from the negative
stigma attached to the defiant label (Eyben & Moncrieffe, 2007). These problems that these
people face may further increase the chances of becoming deviant or even the criminal behavior
becomes more stable and chronic. However, there have been many critics of the labelling theory
and was referred as vague, simplistic as well as ideological and various test have failed to
provide evidence that labelling reinforces the deviant behavior (Menaldo, 2016). Deviant labels
are also associated with the stigma where the mainstream cultures attach specific images among
the deviant labels. The individuals that are labelled as criminals are also set aside from others
and negative characteristics are associated with them. People also presume that these people are
unwilling to act as moral beings and therefore the probability of breaking other important rules
are high. This theory can therefore lead to moral panic among the labelled people as there is
already distrust among the authorities. The most important argument of this theory is that the
more disadvantaged people are more likely to labeled deviant than others and considering the
refugees are one of the example of the disadvantaged in the society therefore this theory is quite
relevant. In terms of criminal policy, the theory of labeling implies a critique of the state's
punitive instances, based on the fact that, through its instances of criminalization (primary and
secondary), it favors the identity of the offender, making it visible as such and stigmatizing it as
such. so that the person ends up assuming himself as such, as the bearer of a new undervalued
role that forces him to initiate socialization processes in groups linked to deviant behaviors,

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 6
which only favors his insertion in the “criminal career”. Therefore, from the labeling strategies
are proposed based not so much on the recurrence to the criminal system as on decriminalization
measures, linked to the repair or restoration of the damages caused by the offender, avoiding the
stigmatization process that, irreversibly, it causes the criminal system through its norms, its
symbols, its practices and its daily grammars.
Labelling theory is cemented by moral panic and presence of at least powerful groups.
Refugees are often vulnerable to moral panic. They can be labelled immoral and since they are
helpless, they have no authority to defend themselves. Due to moral panic, the powerful groups
dictates their fate. Australian agencies can easily make any decision that may disproportionately
affect refugees but due to moral panic, refugee cannot complain. This is how labelling theory is
reinforced.
Another theory that can be used to explain the nature of Australian refugee policy is
conflict theory. Conflict theory was proposed by Karl Marx. K. Marx believed that the conflict in
society is due to the division of people into different classes in accordance with their position in
the economic system (White, Haines & Asquith 2017). The concept of class is central to
Marxism, where it is defined in relation to the means of production. Outside of Marxism , the
basis for the definition of classes (meaning strata) is based on criteria such as attitude to power,
property, income, lifestyle or standard of living, prestige (these are the main criteria of the theory
of social stratification) (White, Haines & Asquith 2017). Conflict theory can explain why
Australia is skeptical of refugees because it focuses on the aspect of competition with the for the
limited resources such as the material, social and political such as the education the housing, the
employment as well as the leisure time. Australian government is worried that the refugees may

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 7
put pressure on the scarce resource. The government is also worried of possible competition on
the scarce resources. This competition is well reflected among the social institutions such as the
government, education as well as the religion that help them to maintain the unequal social
structure (Muir and Gannon, 2016). Some individuals are able to maintain these social
institutions by acquiring more resources than the others by use of their powers and influence.
The theory further illustrates that the cultural and ethnic conflict led to a state being identified
and defined by one dominant group. Conflict theory can be used in wars, all forms of injustices
and discrimination, violence by explaining the presence of the natural disparity in a society that
is causing the problems (Wärneryd, 2014). Following the argument of the conflict theory the
negative attitude towards the refugees is as result of the view of the immigrants as the threats to
the opportunities of the actual citizens by finding a well-paid job, getting education, or either
undermine the local cultural life. The theory of K. Marx, which assigned the role of the main
carriers of political antagonisms to the classes, as a whole correctly described the Western
European situation of the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. However, this does not mean its
unconditional applicability to the conditions of other eras and regions. At present, it is likely that
territorial (nations and other formations within nations) and corporate (professional and
paraprofessional) groups have begun to play an equally important role as participants in political
action. Thus, a person is especially acutely aware of belonging to a territorial group, therefore
conflicts between nations can be extremely fierce, surpassing even class ones in this.
For the case of Australia, it can be deduced that presence of the large group of the
immigrant into a country and the unfavorable economic conditions may lead to the perceptions
of threats among the citizens and consequently, negative attitudes and treatment to the
immigrants.

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 8
In order to limit their chances of getting into country and creating “competition”, the
powerful groups or agencies create stories about the refugees that paints them as “bad”. They
may associate them with terrorism and insecurity yet in reality the refugees are innocent, helpless
and needy. Such stories are used to persuade the public and the whole world that indeed refugees
identified do not deserve to be accommodated in Australia. This is how punitive policies are
created.

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 9
References
Abend, S. (2019). Contemporary Conflict Theory: the journey of a psychoanalyst. [S.l.],
IPBOOKS.
Cameron, M. (2013) ‘From “Queue Jumpers” to “Absolute Scum of the Earth”: Refugee and
Organized Criminal Deviance in Australian Asylum Policy’, Australian Journal of Politics &
History, 59(2), pp. 241–259. doi: 10.1111/ajph.12014.
Eyben, R., & Moncrieffe, J. (2007). Labelling people: how we categorize and how it matters.
London, Earth scan. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10178476.
McFadden, G. (2016) ‘The language of labelling and the politics of hospitality in the British
asylum system’, British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 18(3), pp. 599–617. doi:
10.1177/1369148116631281.
Menaldo, V. (2016) ‘Democracy, Elite Bias, and Redistribution in Latin America’, Political
Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 131(3), pp. 541–569. doi: 10.1002/polq.12486.
Muir, J. and Gannon, K. (2016) ‘Belongings Beyond Borders: Reflections of Young Refugees on
Their Relationships with Location’, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26(4),
pp. 279–290. doi: 10.1002/casp.2260.
Muytjens, S. and Ball, M. (2016) ‘Neutralising Punitive Asylum Seeker Policies: An Analysis of
Australian News Media During the 2013 Federal Election Campaign’, Journal of Australian
Studies, 40(4), pp. 448–463. doi: 10.1080/14443058.2016.1223153.
Taylor, S., & Parsons, C. (2018). Explaining crime. labelling theory [Part 2], [Part 2].
http://www.aspresolver.com/aspresolver.asp?MARC;4009738.

Australian Punitive Policy Responses to Refugees 10
Vlase, I. and Preoteasa, A. M. (2017) ‘Romanians’ current perception of threat from immigrants
in a context of co-ethnic migration: assessing the role of intergroup conflict and active/passive
contact’, Journal of Southeast European & Black Sea Studies, 17(3), pp. 421–439. doi:
10.1080/14683857.2017.1360250.
Wärneryd, K. (2014). The economics of conflict theory and empirical evidence. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, MIT Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?
docID=3339763.
White, R. D., Haines, F., & Asquith, N. L. (2017). Crime & criminology. Melbourne : Oxford
University Press