The Claim
“Banned zoo visits for children in detention, deeming them 'inappropriate', and ruling that they must remain imprisoned instead.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim refers to a specific incident involving the Brigidine Asylum Seekers Project (BASP), a program run by Catholic nuns who had been taking children from the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation (MITA) on supervised day trips to locations including the Collingwood Children's Farm, adventure playgrounds, and occasionally the zoo [1].
Key facts verified:
- The BASP program operated for approximately four years (since around 2011) before being suspended in mid-2015 [1][2][3]
- The Australian Border Force (ABF) suspended the program in June 2015 citing a need for review [1][2]
- By December 2015, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection confirmed the program had ceased, stating the outings were "not deemed appropriate and there was limited supervision of the activities" [1][2]
- At the time, there were 17 children being held at MITA in Broadmeadows [1]
- ABF Regional Commander Don Smith explained the decision, stating: "the types of activities and the places they were taking them to, we had no visibility of and no control over" [1][2]
- Sister Brigid Arthur, who ran the BASP program, disputed that there were any security incidents during the four years of operation, stating: "We did this for four years and we never had someone who didn't turn up" [1][2]
Important correction to the claim: The claim states children were "banned" from zoo visits entirely. However, the Department confirmed that "Serco will continue to offer excursions and activities in a safe and controlled manner" [1][2]. The nuns were also invited to participate in Serco-organized excursions [1]. This was not a blanket ban on zoo visits or outings - it was the cessation of one specific volunteer-run program.
Missing Context
1. The program was not "banned" - it was transitioned to Serco management:
The claim's framing that children were "banned" from zoo visits and must "remain imprisoned" is misleading. The Department explicitly stated that the private contractor Serco (which operated the detention facility) would continue offering excursions [1]. The nuns were also welcome to join Serco-led excursions. This was a change in who organized and supervised outings, not a prohibition on outings themselves.
2. Security concerns cited by authorities:
The ABF and Department cited specific concerns about supervision levels and lack of oversight regarding where children were taken and what activities occurred [1]. While Sister Brigid disputed these concerns, pointing to four years without incident, the Department maintained that "limited supervision" was a factor in their decision [1][2].
3. The program included adults, not just children:
The BASP program included occasional outings for adults in detention as well [1]. The claim focuses exclusively on children, which while emotionally compelling, omits that the program structure involved both populations.
4. Context of mandatory detention policy:
The children were in immigration detention under Australia's mandatory detention policy, which has been maintained by both Labor and Coalition governments since 1992. The broader policy framework - not just this specific excursion program - has been the subject of extensive criticism from human rights organizations [4].
Source Credibility Assessment
ABC News (Original Source):
The original source is ABC News, Australia's national public broadcaster. ABC News is generally considered a reputable, mainstream news source with editorial standards. This particular article includes:
- Direct quotes from Sister Brigid Arthur (program operator)
- Direct quotes from ABF Regional Commander Don Smith (government representative)
- A statement from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection
- Multiple perspectives presented
The article appears to be straightforward reporting without overt partisan framing. The headline uses the Department's "not appropriate" language in quotes, which accurately reflects the government's position while also giving space to Sister Brigid's counter-arguments.
Credibility assessment: High credibility, mainstream media source, presents multiple viewpoints.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government children detention Australia offshore processing policy 2007-2013"
Finding: Labor maintained the same mandatory detention policy framework. Specifically:
- The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) maintained mandatory detention of children and adults [5]
- In 2012, the Labor government reopened offshore processing centers on Nauru and Manus Island [5]
- The Labor government's "Pacific Solution" and later "PNG Solution" policies also resulted in children being held in detention facilities [5][6]
- Both major parties have supported mandatory detention as a deterrent to unauthorized boat arrivals [4][5][6]
Key comparative point: The policy of mandatory detention itself - which places children in detention facilities - has been bipartisan since 1992. The specific question of who supervises excursions (nuns vs. Serco officers) is a relatively minor administrative detail within the much larger, bipartisan-supported system of immigration detention.
The broader context is that both Labor and Coalition governments have detained children in immigration facilities. The criticism about conditions in detention (including lack of stimulation and mental health impacts) applies equally to both parties' periods in government [4][6].
Balanced Perspective
The government's position:
The ABF and Department maintained that the BASP program was ceased due to concerns about supervision and lack of oversight over activities and locations. They emphasized that children would continue to have access to excursions through Serco, the contracted detention operator [1][2]. The Department stated: "The welfare of all detainees, including children, is of paramount importance to the department" [1].
The criticism:
Sister Brigid Arthur and advocates argued that the cessation of the nuns' program was unnecessarily harsh, removing a valuable source of stimulation and normalcy for children in detention. Sister Brigid described the conditions as "worse than a prison" and noted that children "need a lot of stimulation" [1][2]. Senator John Madigan called the decision "bewildering" [1].
The broader context:
The real issue here is not whether nuns or Serco officers supervise zoo visits - it is that Australia has a policy of mandatory detention that places children in closed facilities. This policy has been maintained by both major parties for over three decades. The specific dispute over the BASP program is a symptom of a much larger bipartisan policy framework that has been repeatedly criticized by the UN, human rights organizations, and medical professionals for its impact on children's mental health and development [4][6].
Is this unique to the Coalition?
No. The mandatory detention of children occurred under Labor governments as well. The administrative decision about volunteer-led excursions vs. contractor-led excursions is a relatively minor operational matter within a detention system that both parties have supported and maintained. The claim frames this as a particularly cruel Coalition action, but the policy framework detaining these children was established long before the 2013 election and continued after the 2022 election under the Albanese Labor government [4][5][6].
MISLEADING
4.0
out of 10
The claim contains factual distortions and omits critical context. The specific program run by the Brigidine nuns was indeed ceased, but:
- Zoo visits and excursions were not "banned" - they continued through Serco, the detention operator [1][2]
- The claim ignores that nuns were invited to participate in Serco-led excursions [1]
- The "inappropriate" quote refers to the specific BASP program's supervision levels, not zoo visits generally
- The framing as children being forced to "remain imprisoned instead" is hyperbolic - they remained in detention because of mandatory detention policy (bipartisan since 1992), not because of this specific program change
The claim exploits emotional sympathy for children to suggest a uniquely cruel Coalition policy, when in reality:
- Both parties have detained children in immigration facilities
- Both parties have maintained mandatory detention
- This specific decision was about who supervises excursions, not whether excursions occur
- The cessation of one volunteer program, while maintaining excursions through the detention operator, is being presented as a blanket ban
The claim is technically true that the nuns' program was stopped, but the framing is designed to elicit outrage by suggesting children were maliciously denied all stimulation, which is not accurate.
Final Score
4.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim contains factual distortions and omits critical context. The specific program run by the Brigidine nuns was indeed ceased, but:
- Zoo visits and excursions were not "banned" - they continued through Serco, the detention operator [1][2]
- The claim ignores that nuns were invited to participate in Serco-led excursions [1]
- The "inappropriate" quote refers to the specific BASP program's supervision levels, not zoo visits generally
- The framing as children being forced to "remain imprisoned instead" is hyperbolic - they remained in detention because of mandatory detention policy (bipartisan since 1992), not because of this specific program change
The claim exploits emotional sympathy for children to suggest a uniquely cruel Coalition policy, when in reality:
- Both parties have detained children in immigration facilities
- Both parties have maintained mandatory detention
- This specific decision was about who supervises excursions, not whether excursions occur
- The cessation of one volunteer program, while maintaining excursions through the detention operator, is being presented as a blanket ban
The claim is technically true that the nuns' program was stopped, but the framing is designed to elicit outrage by suggesting children were maliciously denied all stimulation, which is not accurate.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
abc.net.au
A program run by a group of Catholic nuns that took children in immigration detention on outings is deemed "not appropriate" by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
Abc Net -
2
buzzfeed.com
Immigration authorities say the excursions for children being held in a Melbourne detention centre were inappropriate.
BuzzFeed -
3
mamamia.com.au
Mamamia -
4PDF
Policy Brief 11 Offshore Processing
Kaldorcentre Unsw Edu • PDF Document -
5
asrc.org.au
More than 130 people are still trapped offshore after being sent there by the Australian Government — with no plan for the vast majority of people there, no resettlement, and no end in sight.
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre -
6
amnesty.org.au
On the 12th anniversary of Australia’s offshore processing and detention policy, Amnesty International Australia is urging the Australian Government to
Amnesty International Australia
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.