The Claim
“Directed that asylum seeker families shall be given the lowest priority for processing, even those who've lived in Australia for years.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is factually accurate. In December 2013, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison issued a ministerial directive to Immigration Department officers directing that "irregular maritime arrivals" (IMAs) who now hold permanent visas be given the "lowest priority" for family migration visas [1].
According to an email sent to migration agents in January 2014, the directive stated: "family migration visa applications sponsored by IMAs will be given the lowest processing priority" and "Applications sponsored by IMAs who hold a permanent visa will not be processed until all applications of higher priority have been finalised" [1].
The policy applied to refugees already on permanent protection visas (PPVs) in Australia, some of whom had been in the country for years [1]. The directive was later formalized as part of processing priority frameworks, with the JRS Australia policy brief confirming that refugees on PPVs who arrived without valid visas were accorded lowest priority for family reunion under Australia's annual humanitarian intake [2].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important contextual elements:
Policy Rationale: The Coalition government explicitly stated this was a deterrence measure. Morrison said: "The Coalition does not believe IMA claims should be prioritised above those who come to Australia through legitimate means" and that the policy would ensure "the limited places available under our family reunion program are not taken up by IMA families at the expense of other applicants" [1]. The deterrent rationale was part of the broader "Operation Sovereign Borders" policy architecture.
Precedent: The directive replaced an earlier ministerial direction created by former Labor Immigration Minister Chris Evans in 2009 [1]. This indicates the policy framework existed before the Coalition, though the specific prioritization criteria were changed.
Duration and Reversal: The policy remained in place for nearly a decade until February 2023, when the Albanese Labor government formally reversed it by replacing Ministerial Directions 80 and 83 [3]. The reversal was expected to benefit "tens of thousands of family members" awaiting visa processing [3].
Scope Limitations: The policy did not apply to refugees arriving through regular channels or those who arrived by boat but were assessed through different visa pathways. It specifically targeted those who had arrived as "irregular maritime arrivals" and later obtained permanent protection visas.
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source is The Guardian, a mainstream international news organization with a center-left editorial stance. The article provides direct quotes from:
- The ministerial directive itself (linked via Google Drive in the article)
- Immigration Minister Scott Morrison
- Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young
- Children's advocacy group ChilOut
- Refugee Advice and Casework Service
The Guardian is generally considered a credible mainstream source, though it has been described as having a center-left to left-leaning editorial perspective. The article includes the government's justification alongside criticism from refugee advocates and opposition figures, providing a balanced presentation of perspectives.
Additional corroboration comes from the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Australia policy brief [2], which independently documented the lowest priority designation as part of their advocacy work, and SBS News [3], which reported on the policy's reversal in 2023.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Precedent: The Coalition directive replaced an earlier ministerial direction created by Labor Immigration Minister Chris Evans in 2009 [1], indicating that both governments used ministerial directions to manage family reunion processing priorities.
Reversal: The Albanese Labor government elected in May 2022 explicitly reversed this policy in February 2023, with Immigration Minister Andrew Giles replacing Ministerial Directions 80 and 83 [3]. This demonstrates clear policy divergence between the parties on this specific issue.
Broader Context: Both major parties have historically supported deterrence-based asylum policies. The Rudd/Gillard Labor governments implemented offshore processing on Nauru and Papua New Guinea, and the mandatory detention policies that preceded the Coalition's family reunion restrictions. The Albanese government has maintained boat turn-back policies while reversing specific visa processing restrictions [3].
Comparative Scale: The policy affected an estimated 19,000-31,000 refugees on temporary and permanent protection visas who were separated from family members for over a decade [2][3].
Balanced Perspective
Government Position: The Coalition maintained this policy was necessary to maintain integrity in the refugee program and deter dangerous boat journeys. Morrison stated the policy reflected "the Coalition's long-standing policy in relation to irregular maritime arrivals" and was designed to prioritize those who arrived through legitimate channels [1]. The policy was framed as protecting limited visa places from being consumed by those who arrived irregularly.
Criticisms: Refugee advocates argued the policy was unnecessarily cruel, particularly affecting refugees who had already been found to be genuine refugees and granted permanent protection. The JRS Australia policy brief documented significant mental health impacts from prolonged family separation, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, and what they termed "constructive refoulement" - where conditions become so intolerable that refugees consider returning to persecution [2].
Expert Assessment: The policy created a significant backlog of family reunion applications. The 2023 reversal by the Albanese government acknowledged that many refugees had been "separated from family for over a decade, exacerbating mental health issues and imposing great and enduring uncertainty on their lives" [3].
Key Context: This policy was part of a broader bipartisan approach to asylum seeker deterrence that included offshore processing, boat turn-backs, and mandatory detention. While the specific family reunion restriction was a Coalition policy, the underlying deterrence framework had roots in earlier Labor policies.
TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate. The Coalition government, through Immigration Minister Scott Morrison in December 2013, did direct that asylum seeker families (specifically those who arrived as irregular maritime arrivals and later obtained permanent protection visas) be given the lowest priority for family migration visa processing. This applied to refugees who had lived in Australia for years. The policy remained in effect until 2023 when the Albanese government reversed it.
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The claim is factually accurate. The Coalition government, through Immigration Minister Scott Morrison in December 2013, did direct that asylum seeker families (specifically those who arrived as irregular maritime arrivals and later obtained permanent protection visas) be given the lowest priority for family migration visa processing. This applied to refugees who had lived in Australia for years. The policy remained in effect until 2023 when the Albanese government reversed it.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (5)
-
1
theguardian.com
Scott Morrison's order means refugees already on permanent visas, who may have been in the country for years, will face an uphill battle
the Guardian -
2PDF
Family Reunion Policy Brief June 2021 Updated
Aus Jrs • PDF Document -
3
sbs.com.au
The change is expected to benefit tens of thousands of family members awaiting the outcome of visa applications.
SBS News -
4
immi.homeaffairs.gov.au
Find out about Australian visas, immigration and citizenship.
Immigration and citizenship Website -
5
parlinfo.aph.gov.au
Parlinfo Aph Gov
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.