On April 3, 2016, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton announced that "all asylum-seeker children from detention centres on the Australian mainland" had been released [1].
The Australian Human Rights Commission's 2014 "Forgotten Children" report defined detention as locked environments, explicitly excluding community detention [3].
However, Amnesty International noted that families in community detention still faced significant restrictions—including requirements to stay at specified addresses, obtain permission for overnight visitors, and maintain curfews [2].
ABC Fact Check investigated similar claims in February 2016 and found that whether children on Nauru should be counted as "in detention" depended on definitional interpretation.
While the Nauru facility became an "open centre" in October 2015, experts disagreed on whether this constituted freedom or continued detention given visa restrictions and the inability to leave the island [3].
The claim omits several crucial contextual elements:
**Definition specificity**: The government specifically claimed all children were released from "mainland detention centres," not "all detention everywhere" [1][4].
This careful phrasing was technically accurate while creating a misleading impression of complete resolution.
**Reclassification vs. release**: The Guardian reported that some families were simply reclassified from "held detention" to "community detention" without physically moving, with one Immigration Department source describing it as "more bureaucratic sleight of hand than emancipation" [2].
Families at Villawood received letters reclassifying their status while remaining behind steel fences [2].
**Historical trajectory**: When the Coalition took office in September 2013, there were approximately 1,392-1,773 children in detention (depending on whether Nauru is included) [3].
By April 2016, this number had been reduced to zero on the mainland, representing a significant reduction of over 1,300 children from closed detention facilities [3][4].
**Return policy unchanged**: Despite the mainland releases, the government's policy of returning medically transferred children to Nauru remained active, affecting approximately 150 people including children [4].
The specific article includes direct quotes from government officials and acknowledges the definitional complexity [1].
**ABC Fact Check** provides the most authoritative analysis here—an independent, rigorous fact-checking unit with transparent methodology and expert consultation [3].
**Amnesty International** is a human rights advocacy organization with a clear pro-refugee advocacy position.
While factually accurate, their framing emphasizes ongoing restrictions and challenges rather than the reduction in closed detention numbers [2].
**Sydney Morning Herald** is mainstream Australian media with established journalistic standards [4].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government children detention Nauru offshore processing"
Finding: The offshore processing regime that enabled detention on Nauru was actually **reintroduced by the Labor government** in July 2013 under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
* * * *
The Nauru Regional Processing Centre was re-opened under Labor's "Pacific Solution" after being closed by the Rudd government in 2008 [5][6].
When Labor left office in September 2013, there were approximately **1,392 children in held detention** according to then-Immigration Minister Scott Morrison [3].
During the caretaker period before the election, Labor Immigration Minister Tony Burke was actively releasing unaccompanied minors from closed detention, with 200 released from Pontville, Tasmania in late August 2013 [3].
**Comparative analysis**: Both governments detained children in immigration facilities.
The Coalition government, however, achieved the reduction of mainland detention numbers to zero—a policy goal neither Labor nor previous Coalition governments had accomplished.
The government's announcement represented a genuine policy achievement: for the first time, no children were held in closed detention facilities on the Australian mainland.
By emphasizing "mainland detention" while remaining silent about Nauru, the government created an impression of comprehensive resolution that did not match reality.
The reclassification of some families to "community detention" without physical relocation raised questions about whether this constituted genuine freedom or merely a change in bureaucratic designation [2].
Families still faced significant restrictions on movement, employment, and settlement [2].
**Key context**: This is **not unique to the Coalition**—the detention of children in immigration facilities has occurred under both major parties.
The difference is one of degree and location: the Coalition reduced mainland detention to zero while maintaining offshore detention; Labor had higher mainland detention numbers while also operating offshore facilities.
The government specifically and accurately stated that all children had been released from "mainland detention centres"—which was factually true [1][3].
However, this carefully crafted statement created a misleading impression by omitting that approximately 50 children remained in detention on Nauru and that some mainland "releases" were actually reclassifications to community detention [2][4].
The government specifically and accurately stated that all children had been released from "mainland detention centres"—which was factually true [1][3].
However, this carefully crafted statement created a misleading impression by omitting that approximately 50 children remained in detention on Nauru and that some mainland "releases" were actually reclassifications to community detention [2][4].