Critical Analysis of Australia's Mandatory Detention Social Policy

This essay examines Australia's mandatory detention policy, focusing on its impact on refugees and asylum seekers. It analyzes the policy's objectives, implementation, and criticisms, including concerns raised by human rights organizations and the United Nations. The essay explores the historical context, the policy's evolution, and its effects on different groups, such as those from Islamic and Asian countries. It critiques the policy's theoretical basis, arguing that it often neglects social needs and real-life situations. The essay references various academic sources and concludes by suggesting alternative approaches, such as mandatory detention only upon initial arrival and regular reviews of detention decisions. The essay highlights the importance of aligning social policies with social needs and international standards, advocating for a more humane and equitable approach to immigration detention.

ESSAY

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
The project report defines about the social policy in the aspect of issues faced by refugees
and asylum seekers like mandatory Detention from Australia. Eventually, the social policies are
based on the theoretical viewpoints by neglecting the social needs. Under the project report, a
selected social policy on the above topic is mentioned in terms of different viewpoints.
MAIN BODY
In the context of issue which is faced by refugees and asylum seekers in Australia, a
social policy is selected that is mandatory detention policy (About social policy of mandatory
detention, 2019). This is a policy which is related to a kind of concept in which anyone who
enters in the Australian migration zone in the absence of Visa then that person is being placed in
the process of security and health check. As well as that person's claim to be asylum is also
checked by department of immigration and citizenship. This policy is widely implemented in the
context of Australia. This policy was introduced in year 1992 with an objective to detaining all
those person who enter in country without having a valid visa. Along with this policy's main goal
is to prevent illegal entry in the Australia. This policy is also applicable on those whose visa is
cancelled by Minister.
This policy of mandatory detention has been criticised by different kind of organisations.
It is so because they have their various views and opinion on the social policy (Maylea & Hirsch,
2018). In the context of it, Head of immigration department of Australia said that this policy is
not good in relation to reputation of Australia in other countries. This is so because if there will
be too much restriction for refugees and asylum seekers then political relation of Australia will
be collaborate with other countries. While on the other hand, some parties are in the favour of
this policy. It is so because if Australian government will not allow refugees and asylums seekers
in their country without visa then there will be a strong message to all those who have intention
to perform any illegal activities. In some ways their opinion is right because of stopping illegal
activities in their country.
Basically, this policy of mandatory detention has been considered as one of the
Australia's controversial policy. Many debates have been done on this policy. As per the above

description about policy the use of temporary detention of arrives as accordance to determination
of health and security has been only a secondary consideration.
As per the professor Maley, this social policy was introduced in year 1992 and in this
year about 78 people arrived via boat. Further in the end of this year more then 156 people also
arrived. In year 1994-95 almost 1071 people entered by boat. It indicates that this social policy is
not effecting to the refugees and asylums as they are coming in large number.
It was the scenario of starting year after implementation of this policy. As time passed
this was changed. In year 2001, this was stated that asylum level in Australia' fell down by 74%.
Along with number of refugees from Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq have been
decreased continuously with huge criteria. The application of Afghan asylum decreased by 83%
while the application from Iraq also deceased by 80%.
As per the inquiry of Mr. Burnside QC, it is stated about this policy that the procedure of
mandatory detention is hard to identify (Essex and Isaacs, 2018). It is so because those people
who have failed to submit any offence then they are locked up indefinitely for months or years.
Additionally, it is not known that how long that person will be prison. In fact, this policy
enforces lifetime detention of an innocent person. In against of this issue, the government of
Australia stats that this policy is only for stopping entry of asylum seekers and it is working
effectively in minimising number of refugees.
Apart from it, some witnesses stated that there are a wide range of issues in the aspect of
laws of immigration detention policy. This is so because as per the Australian law and
international law, any incidence of national dominion the state can decide which non citizens can
enter in the Australia. It says that movement of person across the border is a global phenomena.
Hence, any country specific policy can not be applied individually. As well as these cases should
be sort out at the global level by taking opinion of both parties.
In the context of this social policy, the united nations have provided some guidelines in
the aspect of detention of asylum seekers. These nations are against of current social policy of
Australia in the aspect of refugees and asylum seekers. As per their opinion, the Australia should
follow some steps before taking any action against those who do not have the Visa. Firstly, it is
important to verify the identify then determine elements of claims. Further, they should deal
with issues in which person have destroyed the documents. In the end, they should protect the
national security.

Same as, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees guided that as per the
general human values the asylum seekers should not be detained without any investigation
(Marston, 2017). As well as there should be a fixed time period to keep them in lock up and
should be given a chance to gather legal document. This will not only enhance the procedure of
social policy but also it will be in the favour of everyone.
Apart from it, United nation high commissioner for refugees stated that Australia's policy
of mandatory detention is different for seekers who comes without proper document. This is so
because of various international standards. In broad sense, if seekers are from Islamic countries
then they will be treated in a different manner. On the other seekers from Asian countries are
being treated in a reliable manner. It indicates the partiality in this social policy of Australia
which is related to refugees and asylum seekers.
So these are the opinion of different parties in the context of social policy of Australia.
Mostly parties are against of this policy because of their own perceptions and views (Bansak,
Hainmueller and Hangartner, 2016). Along with as per the above description, it can be said that
this policy is not based on the social needs or real values. It is based on the theoretical values and
norms which are fixed from the time when this policy was implemented. This is so because in it
seekers and refugees are treated in a similar manner as per the theoretical rules and regulations
by ignoring the real life situation. Such as per the above mentioned opinion of Burnside QC,
there is no specific time for which seekers are being kept in the prison which is difficult to
understand. So this is how the social policy of Australia in relation to the refugees and seekers is
based completely on the theoretical values without considering the real life situation and social
needs. In addition, this social policy is not as per the Australian laws and regulation which shows
that this policy is based on own theoretical values.
So overall, this theory is not accepted by most of the parties. Hence, there should be
alternative of it which is that mandatory detention should be applicable when an asylum seeker
arrives first time in Australia with an objective of health or any other (Li, Liddell and Nickerson,
2016). Further, it is suggested that in the case in which mandatory detention is needed to carry on
then process should be keep in place to detention decisions reviewed automatically. Apart from
it, there should not be any partiality in the aspect of any kind of international standards that is
mentioned above. Such as the the Islamic seekers are treated in a strictly manner while the Asian
are treated in flexible way so this partiality should be removed.

CONCLUSION
As per the above project this has been concluded that social policies are linked with the
each and every aspect of society. Hence, this is important that these policies should be designed
as per the social needs not accordance to theoretical values. In the project report, social policy of
mandatory detention is concluded in broad sense in respect of opinions of various kind of people
on it. As well as it is concluded that most of opinions are against of this policy just because it is
not as per the social needs and real life.

REFERENCES
Books and journals:
Maylea, C., & Hirsch, A. 2018. Social workers as collaborators? The ethics of working within
Australia’s asylum system. Ethics and Social Welfare, 12(2), 160-178.
Essex, R. and Isaacs, D., 2018. The ethics of discharging asylum seekers to harm: a case from
Australia. Journal of bioethical inquiry. 15(1). pp.39-44.
Marston, G., 2017. Constructing the meaning of social exclusion as a policy metaphor. In Social
constructionism in housing research. (pp. 71-92). Routledge.
Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J. and Hangartner, D., 2016. How economic, humanitarian, and
religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science. 354(6309).
pp.217-222.
Li, S .S., Liddell, B .J. and Nickerson, A., 2016. The relationship between post-migration stress
and psychological disorders in refugees and asylum seekers. Current psychiatry reports.
18(9). p.82.
Online:
About social policy of mandatory detention. 2019. [online]. Available through :
<https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/legal_and_constitu
tional_affairs/completed_inquiries/2004-07/migration/report/c05>