The Claim
“Spent $12 million trying to convince Sri Lanka to accept 2 boatloads of asylum seekers.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim contains significant inaccuracies.
The $12 million figure refers to the cost of holding 157 asylum seekers (not "2 boatloads") at sea for 29 days in mid-2014, not "trying to convince Sri Lanka to accept" them [1][2]. According to Fairfax Media's cost analysis based on Senate Estimates figures, the $12,020,778 expenditure included:
- Daily running costs of Navy frigate HMAS Perth (which intercepted the boat)
- Customs vessel Ocean Protector (where asylum seekers were held for 29 days)
- Accommodation at Cocos Island for 14 immigration officials ($5,345)
- Transfer of asylum seekers via three chartered flights to Curtin detention centre (~$600,000)
- Legal costs for High Court challenge (~$136,500)
- Immigration Minister Scott Morrison's trip to New Delhi with cricket bats for Indian officials [1][2]
Critical factual errors in the claim:
Wrong destination: The asylum seekers were to be returned to India (where their boat departed from Pondicherry), not Sri Lanka [3][4]. India ultimately rejected Australia's request.
Wrong number of people: The $12 million cost related to holding 157 asylum seekers on one boat, not "2 boatloads" [1][2]. There was a separate boat with 41 asylum seekers that was returned to Sri Lanka at a different time [3][5].
Wrong characterization: The money was spent holding people at sea and associated operational/legal costs, not "trying to convince Sri Lanka" [1][2].
Missing Context
The "enhanced screening" process was introduced by the previous Labor government. The claim omits that the rapid at-sea assessment process used for these asylum seekers was actually introduced by the Gillard Labor government in late 2012 [6]. According to Senate Estimates documents from 2013, the Department of Immigration stated this screening was brought in following "an unprecedented expansion of irregular movements from Sri Lanka to Australia" [6].
The asylum seekers departed from India, not Sri Lanka. The 157 Tamil asylum seekers had been living in a refugee camp in Tamil Nadu, India, and departed from the Indian port of Pondicherry [3][4]. Their boat developed an oil leak on June 26, 2014, and Australian maritime authorities were called for assistance [6].
The operation occurred under established legal frameworks. The Maritime Powers Act 2013, which authorized the interception and detention at sea, was introduced by the Gillard Labor government in May 2012 and passed by Parliament in March 2013 [6].
The government maintained its broader cost-saving narrative. The Coalition consistently claimed that stopping boats would save $2.5 billion by closing nine onshore detention centres [1]. The $12 million was portrayed as an exceptional cost for a specific complex case, not representative of typical operational costs.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), a Fairfax Media publication established in 1831. SMH is generally regarded as a mainstream, center-left publication with a reputation for factual reporting, though like all media outlets, it has editorial perspectives [1].
The specific article was written by Sarah Whyte and Fergus Hunter, citing Senate Estimates figures and official government data. The $12 million cost breakdown appears well-documented with specific line items [1].
However, the claim as presented in C0644 misrepresents the SMH article's content - the article describes costs of holding asylum seekers at sea and attempting to return them to India, not "trying to convince Sri Lanka to accept 2 boatloads."
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes - Labor actually established the foundational policies:
Offshore processing reinstated by Labor in 2012: In August 2012, the Gillard Labor government announced the resumption of transferring asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island (PNG) - reversing its 2008 closure of the "Pacific Solution" facilities [7][8].
PNG Solution by Kevin Rudd (July 2013): On July 19, 2013, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that "asylum seekers who come here by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia" - establishing the Regional Resettlement Arrangement with Papua New Guinea [9][10].
Enhanced screening introduced by Labor: The "enhanced screening" process used for at-sea assessments was introduced by the Gillard government in late 2012 [6].
Maritime Powers Act passed by Labor: The legislation authorizing maritime interceptions was introduced by the Gillard government in May 2012 [6].
Labor also returned asylum seekers to Sri Lanka: Former Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr stated on radio in July 2014 that "I remember repeatedly our High Commission in Colombo saying there is no evidence of mistreatment of those we are returning" - confirming Labor had also returned asylum seekers to Sri Lanka [6].
Cost comparison: Offshore processing has cost Australian taxpayers approximately $9.65 billion from July 2013 to 2021-2022 across both Labor and Coalition governments [11]. The policies have been consistently bipartisan in their harsh approach to boat arrivals.
Balanced Perspective
The full story:
The July 2014 incident was a complex operational and legal situation. The boat of 157 Tamil asylum seekers (including 37 children and 21 women) was intercepted in Australia's contiguous zone on June 29, 2014, after departing from India [3][6]. The government attempted to return them to India, not Sri Lanka, but India refused [1][2].
During the 29 days at sea, asylum seekers were held in windowless rooms with limited sunlight, separated by gender, while the government explored options [1]. A High Court challenge was launched, and the government eventually had to bring the asylum seekers to Curtin detention centre in Western Australia, then transfer them to Nauru [1][2].
Legitimate policy context:
The Coalition's Operation Sovereign Borders, launched in September 2013, had successfully stopped boat arrivals - by July 2014, there had been six months without a successful people smuggling venture [6]. The government maintained that preventing deaths at sea (an estimated 1,200 people died during the previous Labor government's tenure) justified the hardline approach [5].
Criticism of the specific operation:
Human rights organizations, legal scholars from 17 Australian universities, and the UNHCR raised concerns about the legality and ethics of the at-sea screening process [3][5]. The UNHCR stated that "shipboard processing has generally not been positive" and "rarely afford[s] an appropriate venue for a fair procedure" [5].
Comparative context:
This incident was not unique to the Coalition. Both major Australian parties have implemented increasingly restrictive asylum seeker policies since 2012. The key difference is operational style - the Coalition maintained secrecy around "on-water matters" while Labor was generally more transparent [5][7]. The fundamental policy architecture (offshore processing, enhanced screening, maritime interdiction) was established by Labor and continued by the Coalition.
Key context: The claim frames this as wasteful spending to "convince Sri Lanka," but the reality was a complex operational challenge involving a boat from India, utilizing legal frameworks established by the previous Labor government, with costs inflated by legal challenges and the need to hold people at sea while diplomatic options were exhausted.
MISLEADING
3.0
out of 10
The claim contains multiple factual errors: (1) the $12 million was spent holding asylum seekers at sea for 29 days plus associated costs, not "trying to convince Sri Lanka"; (2) the asylum seekers were to be returned to India, not Sri Lanka; (3) the cost related to 157 people on one boat, not "2 boatloads"; and (4) the foundational policies and legal frameworks were established by the previous Labor government. While the dollar figure is accurate, the characterization is fundamentally wrong.
Final Score
3.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim contains multiple factual errors: (1) the $12 million was spent holding asylum seekers at sea for 29 days plus associated costs, not "trying to convince Sri Lanka"; (2) the asylum seekers were to be returned to India, not Sri Lanka; (3) the cost related to 157 people on one boat, not "2 boatloads"; and (4) the foundational policies and legal frameworks were established by the previous Labor government. While the dollar figure is accurate, the characterization is fundamentally wrong.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (10)
-
1
$12 million: The high cost of not stopping the boat
The Abbott government's failed attempt to return the 157 asylum seekers to India cost taxpayers more than $12 million, as passengers were kept captive on the high seas for nearly a month before being brought to the Australian mainland.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Sri Lankan asylum seekers held at sea cost $12m
The federal government's failed bid to return 157 asylum seekers to India cost taxpayers more than $12 million, as passengers were held at sea for nearly a month before being brought to the Australian mainland.
SBS News -
3
Australia forced into concession over Sri Lanka asylum seekers
Tamil asylum seekers on board a boat intercepted by Australian authorities will not be sent to Sri Lanka without 72 hours' written notice to the high court, government says
the Guardian -
4
Fact file: Why the fate of 153 asylum seekers is in the hands of the High Court
The Federal Government has confirmed the existence of two boats carrying Sri Lankan asylum seekers. The passengers of one have been returned to Sri Lanka. The others are under the control of Australian officials. Fact Check takes a closer look at the situation and why the fate of 153 asylum seekers is now in the hands of the High Court.
Abc Net -
5
Australia admits holding 153 Sri Lankan asylum seekers at sea
The Australian government has admitted it has 153 people, including children, in custody at sea while it fights a High Court challenge to any plans to send them back to Sri Lanka.
CNN -
6
Nauru Regional Processing Centre - Wikipedia
Wikipedia -
7
On Sri Lanka, the New Labor Government Balances Border Security and Humanitarianism
The new Labor government has proactively engaged with Sri Lanka as its domestic situation deteriorates. But Australia has been at pains to note that its assistance does not mean a weakening of its borders. [...]
Australian Institute of International Affairs -
8
Pacific Solution - Wikipedia
Wikipedia -
9
Rudd's Boat People Policy: All Asylum Seekers To Be Sent To PNG
Text, audio and video of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's announcement of the PNG solution to Australia's asylum seeker boat arrivals.
AustralianPolitics.com -
10PDF
The Cost of Australia's Asylum and Refugee Policies: A Source Guide
Kaldorcentre Unsw Edu • PDF Document
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.