The Claim
“Exempted Navy personnel of workplace safety obligations to treat asylum seekers safely, and gave them legal immunity for criminal acts which are committed by order of the government.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
Workplace Safety Exemption: The core factual basis is confirmed. In December 2013, Chief of the Defence Force General David Hurley issued an exemption under the Work Health and Safety Act that removed Navy personnel's obligation to take "reasonable care" for their own safety and that of others (including asylum seekers) during border protection operations [1].
The explanatory statement noted this would ensure personnel "would not face individual criminal sanctions under the Act for giving effect to Government policy" [1]. The change was made on December 19, 2013, in consultation with Employment Minister Eric Abetz, and effectively put sailors on a similar footing to military personnel in combat situations [1].
Legal Immunity Claim: The claim's wording regarding "legal immunity for criminal acts which are committed by order of the government" overstates the scope of the exemption. The exemption specifically applied to workplace safety laws (Work Health and Safety Act), not criminal law generally. The provision protected personnel from prosecution under workplace safety legislation only, not from all criminal liability [1][2].
Renewal by Labor: Notably, the Albanese Labor government renewed this exemption in 2024 with minor modifications. Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt justified the renewal as "necessary to ensure that individuals can act confidently and quickly in the diverse and unpredictable circumstances that might arise in the operational environment" [2].
Missing Context
Operational Context: The exemption was enacted as part of Operation Sovereign Borders, the Coalition's military-led border protection policy introduced in September 2013 [3]. The policy involved inherently dangerous activities, including boarding wooden boats at night in rough seas, dealing with potentially violent situations, and retrieving people from water when vessels were damaged or destroyed [2].
Rationale: The government argued that personnel needed legal protection to act decisively in unpredictable maritime environments without fear of personal liability under workplace safety laws. This was framed as necessary for both operational effectiveness and personnel protection [1][2].
Other Legal Frameworks Apply: As noted by Minister Watt in 2024, other safety frameworks remained in place, including maritime laws requiring officers to ensure safe conditions, and defence laws carrying punishments for negligence [2]. The exemption was specific to the Work Health and Safety Act and did not provide blanket immunity from all legal accountability [2].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is the Sydney Morning Herald, a mainstream Australian newspaper with a center-left editorial stance. While generally reputable, the article's framing ("war footing," "quietly stripped") suggests critical editorial judgment rather than neutral reporting. The SMH has historically been critical of Coalition border protection policies, which is relevant context for assessing potential bias [1].
The 2024 SMH article covering Labor's renewal of the same exemption provides additional perspective, confirming the policy's continuity across governments [2].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government asylum seeker boat operations legal protections Navy"
Finding: Labor has maintained and renewed this specific exemption. The Albanese government renewed the workplace safety exemption in 2024, with Minister Murray Watt defending it as necessary for operational safety [2]. This demonstrates bipartisan acceptance of the policy framework, at least regarding workplace safety exemptions.
Historical Context: The 2013-2014 period built upon the "Pacific Solution" framework, which was originally introduced by the Howard government (2001), dismantled by the Rudd Labor government (2008), then reintroduced by the Gillard/Rudd Labor government in 2012-2013 [4][5]. The Rudd Labor government in 2013 adjusted the policy to require all boat arrivals to be transferred to offshore processing facilities [4].
Labor's 2013 version of the Pacific Solution included transfer of asylum seekers to Nauru and Manus Island, and crucially involved resettlement in these countries for those found to be refugees [5]. This suggests that both major parties have employed legally complex and operationally dangerous asylum seeker policies requiring careful legal protections for personnel.
Comparative Scale: The Coalition's Operation Sovereign Borders (2013-2021) resulted in 38 boats and 873 people (including 124 children) being turned back [3]. Both parties have pursued hardline border protection policies with similar legal and operational complexities.
Balanced Perspective
While critics argue the exemption removed important protections for asylum seekers and placed personnel "above the law" [2], the government contended it was necessary for personnel to act decisively in dangerous maritime environments without fear of personal liability [1][2]. The 2024 renewal under Labor suggests this position has bipartisan support.
Key context: This is not unique to the Coalition. The Albanese Labor government's 2024 renewal of substantially the same exemption demonstrates that both major parties view such legal protections as necessary for border protection operations. The human rights committee (Labor-chaired) questioned the necessity of the exemption in 2024, noting no other defence workplaces had similar exemptions [2]. However, the government and Coalition opposition supported its continuation.
The claim's assertion of "legal immunity for criminal acts" is an overstatement. The exemption applied specifically to workplace safety legislation, not criminal law generally. Other legal frameworks (maritime law, defence law) continued to apply [2].
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The claim contains factual elements that are accurate: the Coalition did exempt Navy and Border Force personnel from certain workplace safety obligations regarding asylum seeker safety. However, the claim overstates the scope of this exemption as "legal immunity for criminal acts," when it actually applied only to the Work Health and Safety Act. Furthermore, the claim omits that this exemption was renewed by the subsequent Labor government (2024), indicating bipartisan acceptance of the policy. The framing suggests a uniquely Coalition action when it has actually become a bipartisan operational standard.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim contains factual elements that are accurate: the Coalition did exempt Navy and Border Force personnel from certain workplace safety obligations regarding asylum seeker safety. However, the claim overstates the scope of this exemption as "legal immunity for criminal acts," when it actually applied only to the Work Health and Safety Act. Furthermore, the claim omits that this exemption was renewed by the subsequent Labor government (2024), indicating bipartisan acceptance of the policy. The framing suggests a uniquely Coalition action when it has actually become a bipartisan operational standard.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
Navy sailors now on 'war footing' to turn back boats
Navy personnel carrying out border protection were quietly stripped of some workplace safety protections and obligations last month in an apparent preparation for dangerous operations such as turning back boats.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
The rule that puts Border Force workers above the law when dealing with asylum seekers
The government has renewed a rule that exempts Operation Sovereign Borders staff from the need to take “reasonable care” not to harm asylum seekers at sea.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
3
Boat turnbacks
Asylum Insight
-
4PDF
Australia: Offshore Processing of Asylum Seekers
Tile Loc • PDF Document -
5
Australia's 'Pacific Solution'
Onlinelibrary Wiley
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.