The Claim
“Spent $480 million merging the Department of Immigration and Customs into Border Force, which won't have to follow public service or Defence Force laws and protocols of conduct.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim that the Australian Border Force (ABF) merger cost $480 million is verified. Budget documents from May 2014 confirm the merger between the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Department of Immigration was allocated $480.5 million, with an estimated 480 jobs to be lost in the integration process [1][2].
However, the claim about legal exemptions requires significant clarification. The Australian Border Force Act 2015 established the ABF with two distinct categories of workers:
APS employees within the ABF - These employees ARE subject to the Public Service Act 1999, including the APS Code of Conduct [3][4].
Uniformed "sworn officers" (Border Force Officers) - These officers are NOT employed under the Public Service Act 1999 [5]. However, they are subject to a specific Direction requiring them to conduct themselves "in accordance with Professional Standards consistent with those required of Departmental employees and other Australian Public Service employees under the Australian Public Service (APS) Values, APS Employment Principles and the APS Code of Conduct" [5].
The claim's reference to "Defence Force laws" is misleading - customs and immigration officers have never been subject to Defence Force laws or protocols. The ABF was not militarized; it was consolidated under a single operational command structure [6].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical pieces of context:
Policy rationale: The merger was recommended by the National Commission of Audit (NCOA), an independent body established by the Abbott government to review government expenditure [6]. The stated rationale was to create "a single, integrated border agency" to improve efficiency and coordination at Australia's borders.
Cost per employee: The $711 million total integration cost (slightly higher than the initial $480.5 million figure) represented approximately $52,000 per public servant affected [2]. This was for a department with approximately 13,600 staff merging with Customs' operations.
Historical context: The creation of a consolidated border agency followed similar models in other countries (US Customs and Border Protection, UK Border Force). The concept was not unique to Australia or the Coalition government [6].
Legal framework: While sworn officers are not APS employees, they operate under the Australian Border Force Act 2015 with specific professional standards that mirror APS requirements. The claim implies a complete absence of oversight, which is incorrect [5].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original sources provided with this claim have significant credibility concerns:
The Guardian piece (First Dog on the Moon cartoon): This is a political cartoon/opinion piece, not factual reporting. The Guardian has a documented left-leaning editorial bias according to Media Bias/Fact Check and AllSides media bias ratings [7][8]. While The Guardian's factual reporting has improved significantly (upgraded to "High factual" rating), its opinion and commentary pieces maintain a progressive orientation.
Green Left: This is an explicitly left-wing activist news outlet. Green Left describes itself as a "socialist newspaper and website" and is openly partisan. It is not a neutral or mainstream news source and should be treated as advocacy journalism rather than objective reporting.
Neither source provides primary government documentation or independent audit findings to substantiate the claims made.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government immigration department restructure customs merger"
Finding: The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) did not merge the immigration and customs departments. However, Labor implemented significant border protection policies including:
- The "Pacific Solution" re-establishment under Gillard (offshore processing on Nauru and Manus Island)
- Resumption of boat turnbacks (after initial dismantlement by Rudd in 2008)
- Creation of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service as a separate agency
The departmental merger and ABF creation was specifically a Coalition government initiative following the National Commission of Audit recommendations in 2014 [6]. There is no direct Labor equivalent to this specific structural reform.
However, both parties have engaged in significant border protection restructuring:
- Labor: Established the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service as a separate agency (2010), increased offshore processing capacity
- Coalition: Merged Immigration and Customs into ABF (2014), expanded maritime enforcement capabilities
Balanced Perspective
While critics argued the ABF merger reduced accountability by creating a para-military structure exempt from standard public service oversight, the government maintained the restructure would improve border security coordination and operational efficiency [1][6].
Key factual clarifications:
The claim about exemption from "Defence Force laws" is a false comparison - immigration and customs officers were never subject to Defence Force protocols to begin with. The ABF does not operate under military command.
While uniformed ABF officers are not APS employees, they are subject to equivalent professional standards through the Australian Border Force (Immigration and Border Protection Worker) Professional Standards Direction [5].
APS employees within the ABF remain subject to the Public Service Act 1999 and APS Code of Conduct [3][4].
The $480 million figure represents the cost of integrating two large government departments with approximately 13,600 staff - a significant administrative undertaking involving IT systems consolidation, workforce retraining, and operational restructuring.
Comparative context: This type of departmental consolidation is common across Australian governments of both parties when seeking administrative efficiency. The Coalition's approach was more extensive than Labor's previous border protection reorganizations, but the concept of restructuring border agencies is not unique to either party.
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The $480 million figure is accurate based on 2014 Budget documents. However, the claim about exemption from "public service or Defence Force laws" is misleading. While uniformed ABF officers are not employed under the Public Service Act (technically true), they are subject to equivalent professional standards through specific legislation [5]. The reference to "Defence Force laws" is a false comparison - these laws never applied to immigration or customs. APS employees within the ABF remain fully subject to public service laws. The sources provided (Guardian opinion piece and Green Left) are left-leaning/partisan and do not constitute objective factual reporting on this issue.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The $480 million figure is accurate based on 2014 Budget documents. However, the claim about exemption from "public service or Defence Force laws" is misleading. While uniformed ABF officers are not employed under the Public Service Act (technically true), they are subject to equivalent professional standards through specific legislation [5]. The reference to "Defence Force laws" is a false comparison - these laws never applied to immigration or customs. APS employees within the ABF remain fully subject to public service laws. The sources provided (Guardian opinion piece and Green Left) are left-leaning/partisan and do not constitute objective factual reporting on this issue.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (8)
-
1
aph.gov.au
Research
Aph Gov -
2
mondaq.com
Increased spending on border protection shows a change in focus in Australian customs, creating uncertainty for industry.
Mondaq -
3
homeaffairs.gov.au
Home Affairs brings together Australia's federal law enforcement, national and transport security, criminal justice, emergency management, multicultural affairs, settlement services and immigration and border-related functions, working together to keep Australia safe.
Department of Home Affairs Website -
4
apsc.gov.au
Apsc Gov
-
5PDF
direction professional standards
Homeaffairs Gov • PDF Document -
6
anao.gov.au
Anao Gov
-
7
mediabiasfactcheck.com
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words
Media Bias/Fact Check -
8
allsides.com
Allsides
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.