Answer To: SOC 103A - AB, Report – T1, 2015 Page 1 Assessment Brief Program Bachelor of Applied Social Science...
Tanaya answered on Jul 11 2021
Running Head: AUSTRALIA’S MANDATORY DETENTION POLICY 1
AUSTRALIA’S MANDATORY DETENTION POLICY 2
POLICY PROCESS USING AUSTRALIA’S MANDATORY DETENTION POLICY
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy Process and Stages of Policy 3
Critical Discussion on Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy 4
The Systematic Evaluation of the Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy 5
Issues of Empowerment and Participation, Equality, Justice and Fairness in Policy Process 6
The Extent to which the Policy Fulfils this Objective 7
Conclusion 7
References 9
Introduction
The Australian Mandatory detention is a legal requirement for most of the non-citizen in Australia, lacking valid visas. This was introduced by Keating Government in the year 1992 while responding to the wave of the penetration of Indochinese boats. Within this policy it was crucial that the unlawful citizens without a valid visa within the migration zone of Australia will be detained unless they are been afforded under the temporary lawful status by granting bridging visa. In most of the cases, it is observed that most of the detainees were granted with temporary visa with a lawful status (Zion, 2019). However, in some cases of unlawful non-citizen, it is considered as “security and flight risk” and they are refused to leave Australia voluntarily. Moreover, they can even be refused from attaining a bridging visa.
Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy Process and Stages of Policy
The Australian government differentiates in between the asylum seekers based on the Migration Act 1958 even though the asylum seeker has not been included explicitly in the Act, there are terms utilised as lawful and unlawful (Hedrick, Armstrong, Coffey & Borschmann, 2019). The lawful arrival of the asylum seekers in Australia are protected by DIAC who are eligible for application assistance, Medicare, work assistance and rights. Although, unlawful has not been considered as criminality, however, it has been considered under the breach of Australian contravention of s14 related to unlawful stay and entry (Jackson, 2018).
Hence, the process the immigration officer follows includes detaining the pursuant under section 189 (1). Further, in case the individual has not been presented within the migration zone they are suspected of being unlawful citizen and can be detained under section 189 (2) (Parliament of Australia, 2013). The assessing of the claims of refugee is flexible. After being interrogated by the officer, they undergo a health screen. This followed by an interview in case the detainee states that he is a refugee so that the officers can ascertain that the individual will not interfere in the protection obligation (Parliament of Australia, 2007).
The difference between an offshore entry and an asylum seeker is the treatment process under the section 5(1) Migration Act where the asylum seekers are been taken to the immigration detention and then they are assessed by the DIAC personnel in the detention facility under the Australian law. Further, the policy also differentiates the asylum seekers from other non-citizens like stowaways, overstayers, deserters who are equally liable for detention under the section 189 (1).
Critical Discussion on Australia’s Mandatory Detention Policy
There have been several arguments, which have been opposing the policy on the grounds of fairness. The fairness in terms of needs, rights and desert-based justifications were provided by the Australian government. Although there are no disagreements with the government’s decision on protecting the borders with the refugee resettlement programme, which will preserve the rights as well as interest of the citizen (Refugee Council of Australia, 2018).
According to some critics, the detention was identified to be a legitimate function by the immigration controlled as well as protected the community from various threats. However, there were a certain group of critics who stated that sovereignty have certain limits. Australia have faced litany of conventions in terms of human rights relinquishing their sovereignty (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2017). According to the Refugee convention and two Optional protocols, the Australian government is incapable of legitimately control any individual entering in to the country.
Moreover, the Australian...