Abstract
The notion of dark networks has recently received attention in the literature on policy network analysis. Dark networks are defined as illegal and covert, in contrast to bright networks which are legal and overt. In this article, we suggest a third category - grey networks - which are characterised by their use of secrecy and concealment despite their ostensibly legal status. These networks are subject to contradictory imperatives. They employ methods that cannot be openly acknowledged within the larger legal and social framework in which they function. In this article, we illustrate this concept through an interview?based study of Australia's immigration detention network. This network enacts a deterrence policy which has been widely condemned as breaching Australia's obligations under international law. At the same time, it is required to maintain a façade of lawfulness and respect for human rights.
Extract
[...] Beyond Australian immigration detention, the social movements literature has broader relevance. At a time when the cooperation of government cannot be taken for granted and evidence and reasoned argument appear to be under increasing threat, it recognizes that health, justice, and human rights often have to be fought for.6 Factors leading to health care exclusion among refugees in Australia Developed countries that accept refugees are obligated, under the UN Convention for Refugees, to integrate refugees into host communities, with inclusion in the health system being pivotal. [...]
[...] Studies conducted among Afghan, Iraqi, and African refugees in Australia have uncovered several health care inclusion barriers, including mistrust of service providers, low health literacy, and low cultural competency of service providers, all of which impede participation. In Australia, however, show a strong desire to help others among African migrants, though many do not know how to donate, are misinformed about the consequences of donating, or do not understand the process. Furthermore, that Australian study does not identify culture or religion as a significant barrier; instead, it suggests that some traditional values have an influence, such as needing approval from family and community elders. [...]
[...] Doctors4refugees is one such example of an organization that has taken vocal action. They have not only acted as advocates but have effectively used the media in cases of substandard care and abuse, exposing such treatment (or lack thereof) and prompting the government to act.3 Individual clinicians have used their experiences working within detention to bring to light the devastating consequences of these policies, even breaking the law to do so; others have called for clinicians to boycott the centers.4 Clinicians have also effectively acted to disrupt the system, refusing to discharge children from hospitals and return them to detention.5 Such actions show not only how clinicians may leverage their power by using the media, but also how they may use their positions to disrupt or resist these policies. [...]
[...] In this article, we suggest a third category - grey networks - which are characterised by their use of secrecy and concealment despite their ostensibly legal status. These networks are subject to contradictory imperatives. They employ methods that cannot be openly acknowledged within the larger legal and social framework in which they function. In this article, we illustrate this concept through an interview-based study of Australia's immigration detention network. This network enacts a deterrence policy which has been widely condemned as breaching Australia's obligations under international law. [...]
[...] For example, Australia's acceptance of13,000-14,000 refugees per year is already on the rise. Most refugees represent vulnerable communities and therefore need substantial assistance to integrate into their new host country's economic and social systems. Inclusive service programs must also ensure the effective allocation of resources, as such initiatives often have significant budgetary cost. For example, the 2015-2016 Australian Federal budget included several funding initiatives targeting migrant and refugee social inclusion, including AUD$149.5 million for settlement services, AUD$283.1 million for adult education, and AUD$26.2 million for asylum seeker assistance. [...]
