The Claim
“Kicked 100 asylum seekers into the street, taking their income away with no notice, after preventing them from working.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core claim is substantially accurate. In August 2017, the Coalition government terminated welfare payments and housing support for approximately 100 asylum seekers who had been transferred from Manus Island and Nauru detention centers to Australia for medical treatment [1].
On Friday, August 25, 2017, the Department of Immigration notified affected asylum seekers that their welfare payments of $200 per fortnight would cease effective Monday, August 28, 2017 [2]. Simultaneously, they were given three weeks' notice to vacate government-supported housing [2]. This policy applied asylum seekers placed on a new visa category, the "Final Departure Bridging E Visa" [1].
The Human Rights Law Centre and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre both confirmed the "100 asylum seekers" figure as accurate for the immediate impact of the policy [1]. The UNHCR estimated "approximately 70 highly vulnerable people" were initially informed of the change [3].
Missing Context
However, the claim omits important context about the asylum seekers' status and the government's stated rationale. These individuals had been transferred to Australia from offshore detention specifically for medical treatment, with explicit assurance from the previous government that they would return to offshore processing once treatment was completed [4]. The Coalition government characterized the policy as ensuring that asylum seekers would not be settled in Australia, consistent with the bipartisan principle established by Labor's Kevin Rudd in July 2013 that boat arrivals would not be resettled in Australia [5].
The characterization of "preventing them from working" requires significant qualification. The previous visa status of these asylum seekers (transferred from offshore detention) restricted work rights. However, the "Final Departure Bridging E Visa" issued under the August 2017 policy actually granted work rights for the first time—reversing previous restrictions [1]. This represents a lifting of employment prohibitions, not their imposition. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton stated the government's position: "They will be settled elsewhere. That's what this is about" [2].
While the work permission was technically granted, the simultaneous removal of all income support and requirement to vacate housing within three weeks made securing employment practically necessary and difficult [3].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source, The New Daily, is a left-center mainstream news outlet founded in 2013 by Australian superannuation funds and led by former Labor Party minister Greg Combet [6]. According to Media Bias/Fact Check, The New Daily is rated as having "High Credibility" with "Mostly Factual" reporting, though it maintains a moderately left-leaning editorial perspective [6]. Most news stories originate from Australian Associated Press (AAP), with opinion content properly labeled [6].
The claim's facts were independently verified by SBS News (a major public broadcaster with minimal political bias), the UNHCR (United Nations body), and established human rights organizations including the Human Rights Law Centre and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre [1][2][3].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor adopt similar asylum seeker welfare policies?
Both major Australian parties have supported tough asylum seeker deterrent policies since 2001, though using different mechanisms [5]. Labor's Kevin Rudd (2013, his second term as Prime Minister) announced an even stricter framework than the Coalition ultimately implemented: all asylum seekers arriving by boat would be sent offshore indefinitely with no resettlement in Australia [5].
The Labor government under Julia Gillard (2010-2013) reversed Kevin Rudd's initial liberal approach and returned to offshore processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea in response to increased boat arrivals [5]. Both governments maintained detention and deterrent approaches.
However, no direct Labor equivalent to the August 2017 welfare removal policy has been identified in the research. Labor's tough deterrent approach focused more on offshore detention and people-smuggling disruption rather than income support removal for those in Australia [5]. The Parliamentary Library's comparison of Coalition and Labor asylum policies notes both parties support mandatory detention and offshore processing, but welfare removal as a coercion mechanism appears more specific to the Coalition's August 2017 policy [5].
Balanced Perspective
While critics argue that removing all income support without adequate notice left vulnerable people "at serious risk of destitution in Australia" (UNHCR statement), the government's justification was that these asylum seekers had been brought to Australia specifically for medical treatment with explicit understanding they would return to offshore processing [2][4]. Immigration officials characterized continued dependency on welfare as "exploiting the system" [2].
The claim frames the policy as exceptionally harsh ("kicked into the street"), and the 3-day notice period (Friday to Monday implementation) does appear minimal for practical relocation and employment decisions. Human Rights Law Centre executive director Hugh de Kretser characterized it as "with no notice whatsoever," capturing the advocates' perspective that three days provided insufficient warning [1].
However, three days notice is technically not "no notice"—it represents the government's position that the change was straightforward and required no extended transition period [2]. The policy did grant work rights (previously denied), though the timeline made employment practically necessary rather than a genuine choice [1].
Independent analysis suggests this reflects a broader bipartisan commitment to harsh deterrent policies on asylum seekers. The UNHCR criticized the approach as coercive, but mainstream Australian political consensus (Labor and Coalition) supports offshore processing and detention [5][3].
Key context: This policy is not unique to the Coalition in its toughness, but Labor's equivalent deterrent measures took different forms (offshore detention, people-smuggling prevention) rather than income support removal specifically.
PARTIALLY TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The August 2017 Coalition policy did remove welfare income ($200 fortnightly) from approximately 100 asylum seekers and required them to vacate housing with minimal (3-day) notice [1][2]. The characterization as "no notice" is advocacy framing for what was technically three days' notification, though minimal for practical purposes [1][2]. The claim about "preventing them from working" is misleading regarding the August 2017 policy specifically—the new visa status actually granted work rights—but historically accurate as these individuals had previously been prohibited from working in offshore detention [1].
The core narrative is accurate: vulnerable asylum seekers were abruptly cut off from income support and housing within a short timeframe, with government justification that they were being held to bipartisan policy that boat arrivals would not be settled in Australia [2][4][5].
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The August 2017 Coalition policy did remove welfare income ($200 fortnightly) from approximately 100 asylum seekers and required them to vacate housing with minimal (3-day) notice [1][2]. The characterization as "no notice" is advocacy framing for what was technically three days' notification, though minimal for practical purposes [1][2]. The claim about "preventing them from working" is misleading regarding the August 2017 policy specifically—the new visa status actually granted work rights—but historically accurate as these individuals had previously been prohibited from working in offshore detention [1].
The core narrative is accurate: vulnerable asylum seekers were abruptly cut off from income support and housing within a short timeframe, with government justification that they were being held to bipartisan policy that boat arrivals would not be settled in Australia [2][4][5].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
SBS News: "Shocking cruelty: Government launches welfare crackdown on asylum seekers in Australia"
The federal government intends to cut off a $200-a-fortnight welfare payment from asylum seekers and give them three weeks to move out of public housing.
SBS News -
2
UNHCR Press Release: "Australia should not coerce vulnerable people to return to harm"
Unhcr
-
3
The Conversation: "Spot the difference: Labor vs the Coalition on asylum seekers"
Following the Labor conference’s decision to leave open the option of turning back asylum seeker boats, are there any differences left between Labor’s asylum policies and the Coalition’s?
The Conversation -
4
Parliamentary Library: "A comparison of Coalition and Labor government asylum policies in Australia since 2001"
Research
Aph Gov -
5
The Conversation: "Australia's asylum seeker policy history: a story of blunders and shame"
Prime Minister Scott Morrison can learn from the pitfalls that contributed to the downfall of the Rudd and Gillard governments.
The Conversation -
6
Media Bias/Fact Check: "The New Daily - Bias and Credibility"
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording
Media Bias/Fact Check -
7
Human Rights Law Centre: "Asylum seeker welfare policy responses"
Humanrights Org -
8
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre official statements on 2017 policy
You can help refugees and people seeking asylum in Australia by making a generous donation or by taking action. There are many ways to help, join us today!
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.