Public Policy Failure in the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affair - Case Study Example

Name: xxxxxx Tutor: xxxxxx Title: The case of Public Policy Failure in Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affair Institute: xxxxxx Date: xxxxxx Case of Public Policy Failure in Australia Introduction Public policy as the action of the government is the guide that is principled to action taken by executive or administrative branches of the state concerning a category of issues in a manner that is consistent with institutional customs and laws. It is an effort by the government to address a public issue. The government regardless of its form comes up with public policy in terms of laws, decisions, actions and regulations. According to Jupp (2002), public policy shaping is a multifaceted and complex that constitutes the interplay of numerous interest groups and individuals collaborating and competing to influence policymakers to act in a particular manner. Groups and individuals apply a variety of tools and tactics to bring forth their aims that will include advocate publicly for their positions, educating opponents and supporters, and mobilization of allies on the issue. Advocacy is an attempt to influence public policy by means of lobbying, political pressure or lobbying. Groups engaged in advocacy often will educate the general public together will public policy makers concerning the nature of problems, the required legislation to address the problems, and the proper funds that are needed to conduct research or provide services. Public policy in many circumstances is influenced by advocacy. Data from research that is sound can be applied to educate the general public together with the policy makers and in so doing the public policy process is improved. Despite all the efforts to see public policy being a success there have been many instances when the public policy put in place have failed miserably. This has been occasioned by lack of thorough research on the issue and absence of support from the relevant players or executors of the instituted public policy. In this paper a case of public policy failure in Australia government will be examined with an insight into the events that led to the public policy failure (Markus, 2010). The case of Public Policy Failure in Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affair The demonstration of public policy failure in the Australian government occurred in the mid-2000s in the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affair. The department experienced an internal breakdown of basic procedures of operation, leadership and culture. The department had gotten a high profile owing to the government focus on keeping immigrants who are illegal out and deporting and locating those who had already arrived in Australia. According to Wilson (2008), governance failure in the department was brought forth by means of succession of public inquiries into handling of the citizens detentions. The public service head described the cases as the worst that had ever happened in recent times and attributed them to a failure of executive leadership and public administration. A reform agenda was instituted to address the extensive deficiencies. The case has implications that are broader for other departments and generally public administration. It is exposed publicly through numerous public inquiries to have undergone of internal operating culture, governance and procedure. The case was represented officially as a systematic failure of public administration and leadership. The policy failure is portrayed as ubiquitous with a variety of projects, public works and programs. There is also a unique ‘system failure’ that is evident in departs of governments, but normally of a nature that is specialized. The report looks at how a state department experienced failure. Secondly is the consideration how explanatory factors interacted to reinforce the magnitude of failure. The more fluidity of principles of operations under continuing and comprehensive reform has translated to the fact that the potential of conflict is massive. Case interpretation The state department is ingrained in a set rules and practice that are highly elaborated that are consistent through out the public service system. The system maintenance revolves around relationships that ensure more oversight and accountability involving parliament and central agencies. Moreover there factors that relate to the responsibilities of the department, and they dictate in huge part how it functions: how it is organized, the character of its tasks, the local convections and traditions entailing how it handles and interprets its responsibilities, how leadership is carried out which will include the political distance from the minister. Departments in system of Australia have had main responsibilities devolved to them, where the secretary of the department is responsible; this level assumes a particular importance (Marginson, 2003). During traditional public administration, the relationships were greatly defined; hierarchy and rules were well understood. Following the introduction of the reformed public service, this was not usually the case. The interaction between the centre and the department, political executive and with its customers and agents, create a scope for fault lines to come up and relationship breakdown to happen. Relationships that are performance based are a characteristic reason for such issues. O’Connor et al. (1999) argues that several framework of interpreting are available. Transformative perspective looks at external internal factors that direct change by means of approach that put emphasis on dynamics and complexities of the manner in which they interplay. Interpretive approach is preferred for analysis of fiascos in a historical-institution analysis offering advantages for the required context understanding. New public management (NPM) was put in place more that ten years, and constituted the devolution elements, risk management, outsourcing, principal/agent and outcomes. Political management has put more emphasis on relationship that is dynamic and interactions between public servants and politicians, and has centered around the more dominant and persuasively role of the political executive and the manner in which is has demonstrated control. New public management came into being in the 1990s. The great commitment to neo-liberal reforms, in the wake of a conservative Coalition advent in 1996, resulted in the public service becoming highly marketed, privatized, contractualized and decentralized. Political management revolves on the relationship between the public service and the political executive and the departmental secretary and minister. Although political appoints that were overt were not greatly applied in Australia, practice suggest that the desire of the government for more control was realized. The Australia National Audit Office defines corporate governance as a process through which agencies are controlled directed, and held accountable. It encompasses accountability, authority, stewardship, control, direction, and leadership (Wilson, 2008). Context and case of governance failure The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affair (DIMA) was in 2005 and 2006 realized to have experienced an internal breakdown of basic procedures of operating, leadership and culture. The department was mandated with keeping illegal immigrants out and deporting and locating those who had already arrived in Australia. Governance failure in the department was brought forth following succession of inquiries into the handling of the detention of Australian citizens. The failure was attributed to deficiencies in public service by the head of public service. He pointed out that it showed failure in systems of IT, public administration and record keeping. The first investigation involved the Inquiry into the circumstances of the Immigration that led to Detention of Cornelia Rau, which came about as a result of illegal detention of permanent resident. The second case involved the detention and removal which was unlawful from Australia of Vivian Alvarez who was an Australian citizen (O'Flynn & Wanna, 2008). An astounding range of disconnects, flaws and weaknesses in an overall approach of management that was ‘outcome poor’, ‘process rich’ and operating in an ‘assumption culture’ that did not pose questions concerning assumptions that were flawed. In the wake of Alvarez and Rau affairs, more 247 cases involving improper and unlawful activity by Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affair were referred to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for investigation in period 2005-06. In several reports the Ombudsman examined where and how the department committed mistakes, and in synoptic statement reviewed ten lessons public administration, that involved adequate controls on coercive power exercise, management of complexity in decision making, control of administrative drift and warning signs of bigger problems (Rooney, 2003). The case in immigration occasioned a process of scrutiny and reflection across the public service in the period of three years owing to the fact that the case had implications that were broader for other departments. It resulted in a program that is centrally-driven for highlighting the governance of challenges. To the department, the scrutiny gave a major reform agenda to rectify the deficiencies that constituted staffing changes that were substantial in specific the replacement of the entire top executive department and almost half of the senior executive service. The department was argued to go back on track under the new leadership. Immigration is for a long time contentious. This is due to attitudes in Australia community whereby there have been vocal detractors and supporters of most policies of immigration for a long time. Immigration law has been a contentious area of public policy (Marginson, 2003). The department of immigration was formed in 1945 with the mandate of protecting the borders of Australia by means of entry controls that are tight, and of enabling entry to populate the nation by means of migration. The role of the border control was targeted at excluding ‘colored’ and Asian and later on as a control of ‘aliens’, while the role of facilitation aimed at increasing the population of through attracting and encouraging migrants from few selected countries in Europe particularly Britain. Jupp (2002), notes that the role that were opposing each other of encouraging other people to enter while keeping unwanted people out of Australia created tension in the department. The migration policy that was divisive in nature was perpetuated in the community whereby other sections opposed further settlement of people, and others lobbying for open borders to permit ready entry to the country. The outcome has been consistent and substantial public critique and debate of the department for both decreasing and increasing programs (O'Connor et al., 1999). The questions of border protection and asylum-seekers became issues during the 2001 elections owing to several cases involving boat people. The external issues of terrorism and security dominated both the international and domestic landscape with the main political and strategic challenges being found in areas on domestic security, counter-terrorism and border protection. This followed the September 11, 2001, terrorists’ attacks in America and subsequent Australia participation in the war in Iraq. The operating environment of DIMA provided vulnerabilities in the department. There were several contributors to the departmental culture that was absence in the other agencies. First there was an existing problem with the purchase of coercive services. This constituted fee payment for people detainment, and consequent need for encouragement of controls and behaviors to ensure that vulnerable persons whose freedom was removed, were appropriately treated. Secondly the involvement of a private firm in detention matters in the deliverance of the detention service on behalf of DIMA. Thirdly, staff of DIMA was making decisions that in other contexts would have been argued to be contrary to law in Australia (Markus, 2010). As a matter of fact the officers of DIMA were expected to make decisions that in other contexts would have been considered to be contrary to the law in Australia. In particular there were refugee and migration programs that discriminated on religion, gender, disability and race. Unless care was observed in distinguishing between other law and immigration law this would encourage staff within the organization to take part in organizational behavior that treated the law in less strict manner as compared to other organizations. Kraft & Furlong (2007), argue that another related factor was the expectation that officers that were quite junior will interpret law with inadequate executive leadership and inadequate training. Matters that are contrary to Australian laws are taken into account routinely in making migration decisions. Illustration is those suffering from HIV/AIDS or TB faced more difficulty to get a visa. Strong and clear leadership was needed to address the tension that had precipitated by ambiguous legal mandate. The interpretation of what was in the interest of the public was hardly communicated to lower level staff who were given the task of administration of this and decision making, and this characterized repeatedly in their reports as staff that exercised power without adequate training and leadership (Kraft. & Furlong, 2007). One result of the New Public Management was that the department became more independent. This encouraged and enabled re-establishment of an insular culture in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affair of not listening to the outside views. This kind of culture has been systematically and consciously corrected in a decade of departmental reform that commenced in 1985. Risk management and Devolution encouraged departments to explore ways of independent operation, aimed primarily at efficiency improvement. The nature of the department administering outcomes that are opposing also provided difficulties in administration and corporate governance. The dual role of DIMA of simultaneously discouraging and encouraging people entry to Australia attracted quite diverse staff to work in the organization. The role of the gatekeeper, particularly in areas of compliance, attracted law enforcement professionals who more often held strong perspectives concerning Australia protection (Moran, Rein & Goodin, 2006). Conclusion In this paper a case study of public policy failure in Australia Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affair has been explore. It has been noted that for any public policy to succeed there is incorporation of several players that should work in coordination and synchronization. Policy on immigration that involved keeping at bay illegal migrants and detection and removal of those already in Australia, failed terribly when it was discovered some permanent residents and citizen of Australia had been erroneously detained. Events surrounding this anomaly have been looked at and subsequent rectification that were put in place to rectify the problem. Bibliography Wilson, C.A., 2008, Public Policy: Continuity and Change. Wisconsin: Waveland Press, Inc. Kraft, E.M. & Furlong, S.R., 2007, Public policy: politics, analysis, and alternatives. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Moran, M., Rein, M. & Goodin, E.R., 2006, The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marginson, S., 2003, Education and public policy in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jupp, J., 2002, From white Australia to Woomera: the story of Australian immigration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O'Connor, J.S., Orloff, S.A. & Shaver, S., 1999, States, markets, families: gender, liberalism, and social policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O'Flynn, J. & Wanna, J., 2008, Collaborative Governance: A New Era of Public Policy in Australia? Melbourne: ANU E Press. Rooney, D., 2003, Public policy in knowledge-based economies: foundations and frameworks. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Markus, A., Jupp, J. & McDonald, P., 2010, Australia's Immigration Revolution. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin. Read More