On February 4, 2019, Morrison told Sky News host Alan Jones that he would "simply ignore it and we'll get on with business" regarding the Medical Evacuation Bill (Medevac Bill) [1].
This statement was made after Parliament voted to pass the Medevac Bill—legislation that granted doctors authority to recommend medical evacuation of asylum seekers from offshore detention centers on Nauru and Manus Island to Australia for treatment [2].
Rather than openly violating the Medevac law, the government used this facility as a destination for medically evacuated refugees instead of mainland hospitals, thereby circumventing the law's intended purpose [4].
The claim presents Morrison's initial statement without important context about what actually transpired:
**The Medevac Bill's Origins and Intent**: The bill was introduced after the Australian Medical Association and international medical organizations documented serious health consequences from offshore detention, including untreated mental health crises, infections, and chronic conditions [2].
The bill required doctors—not politicians—to make evacuation recommendations based on medical grounds.
**Morrison's Political Framing**: Morrison made false claims about the bill's consequences, stating it would force Australia to accept "paedophiles and rapists" [7].
The Australian Medical Association rejected these claims, noting that under international refugee law, persons with serious criminal convictions cannot be granted refugee status [8].
This was political theatre rather than legitimate legal analysis.
**What Actually Happened vs. the Claim**: The claim suggests Morrison simply violated the law.
This represents undermining through legal process (repeal) rather than open defiance of an enacted law.
**Labor's Comparable Positions**: Labor also pursued offshore detention policies during their government (2007-2013).
This suggests offshore detention represents a bipartisan approach to asylum policy rather than uniquely Coalition overreach.
**International Legal Obligations**: The UN Human Rights Committee in 2025 ruled that Australia remains responsible for arbitrary detention in its offshore facilities, finding violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [11].
However, these obligations exist under international law rather than Australian domestic law, which complicates questions of legal violation versus policy disagreement.
The second source reports on Kerryn Phelps' criticism of the government's response, which is legitimate reporting of political opposition but should be understood as presenting an opposition perspective rather than objective analysis.
The claim should also be understood in context: it comes from mdavis.xyz, a Labor-aligned source, meaning the selection and framing of this claim may emphasize aspects that present the Coalition negatively.
More directly comparable: When Labor pursued mandatory detention and PNG processing, they did so through legal frameworks rather than threatening to defy laws.
The difference is one of method (legislative change vs. threatened defiance), not necessarily substance (both pursued offshore detention strategies).
**Current Labor Position (since 2022)**: The Albanese Labor government has shifted policy, granting visas to previously stranded families like the Biloela family who spent years in detention [12].
However, this occurred after winning office, not through preventing offshore detention while in opposition.
**Key Difference**: Labor changed detention policy once in power; Morrison maintained it while threatening legal defiance.
While critics argue that Morrison's statement represents undemocratic defiance of Parliament and circumventing legal obligations to vulnerable people [13], the government's actual actions were more legally complex than the claim suggests:
**The Government's Perspective**: Morrison believed the Medevac Bill was dangerous policy that would undermine border security and refugee deterrence [1].
His political strategy was to (1) oppose it publicly, (2) claim it would cause catastrophic outcomes, (3) circumvent its intent through Christmas Island, and (4) repeal it once his government had parliamentary numbers in December 2019 [6].
This represents robust political opposition using legitimate legislative process, even if the strategies employed were controversial.
**Critical Assessment**: Refugee advocates and human rights organizations characterized the Christmas Island reopening as "theatre" designed to frustrate the law's implementation without openly defying it [14].
The $185 million spent on reopening the facility (including renovations that had to be completed) was criticized as wasteful given the facility was only used for 10 months before the law's repeal [14].
**Key Context**: This occurred in 2019, during a period when bipartisan support for offshore detention was stronger.
This suggests public and international opinion changed the political calculus more than systematic Coalition wrongdoing.
**The Legal/Constitutional Question**: Whether Morrison actually "violated" a law is a technical legal question.
Morrison did declare he would ignore the Medevac Bill and stated his opposition in clear terms: "I will simply ignore it and we'll get on with business" [1].
Rather than openly violating the law, Morrison's government circumvented its intent through Christmas Island strategy, then repealed it in December 2019 [6].
Additionally, Labor pursued comparable offshore detention policies during their government, suggesting this represents a bipartisan approach to asylum policy rather than uniquely Coalition wrongdoing.
Morrison did declare he would ignore the Medevac Bill and stated his opposition in clear terms: "I will simply ignore it and we'll get on with business" [1].
Rather than openly violating the law, Morrison's government circumvented its intent through Christmas Island strategy, then repealed it in December 2019 [6].
Additionally, Labor pursued comparable offshore detention policies during their government, suggesting this represents a bipartisan approach to asylum policy rather than uniquely Coalition wrongdoing.