The claim refers to a specific incident involving the Brigidine Asylum Seekers Project (BASP), a program run by Catholic nuns who had been taking children from the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation (MITA) on supervised day trips to locations including the Collingwood Children's Farm, adventure playgrounds, and occasionally the zoo [1].
**Key facts verified:**
- The BASP program operated for approximately four years (since around 2011) before being suspended in mid-2015 [1][2][3]
- The Australian Border Force (ABF) suspended the program in June 2015 citing a need for review [1][2]
- By December 2015, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection confirmed the program had ceased, stating the outings were "not deemed appropriate and there was limited supervision of the activities" [1][2]
- At the time, there were 17 children being held at MITA in Broadmeadows [1]
- ABF Regional Commander Don Smith explained the decision, stating: "the types of activities and the places they were taking them to, we had no visibility of and no control over" [1][2]
- Sister Brigid Arthur, who ran the BASP program, disputed that there were any security incidents during the four years of operation, stating: "We did this for four years and we never had someone who didn't turn up" [1][2]
**Important correction to the claim:** The claim states children were "banned" from zoo visits entirely.
The program was not "banned" - it was transitioned to Serco management:**
The claim's framing that children were "banned" from zoo visits and must "remain imprisoned" is misleading.
Security concerns cited by authorities:**
The ABF and Department cited specific concerns about supervision levels and lack of oversight regarding where children were taken and what activities occurred [1].
While Sister Brigid disputed these concerns, pointing to four years without incident, the Department maintained that "limited supervision" was a factor in their decision [1][2].
**3.
Context of mandatory detention policy:**
The children were in immigration detention under Australia's mandatory detention policy, which has been maintained by both Labor and Coalition governments since 1992.
The broader policy framework - not just this specific excursion program - has been the subject of extensive criticism from human rights organizations [4].
This particular article includes:
- Direct quotes from Sister Brigid Arthur (program operator)
- Direct quotes from ABF Regional Commander Don Smith (government representative)
- A statement from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection
- Multiple perspectives presented
The article appears to be straightforward reporting without overt partisan framing.
The headline uses the Department's "not appropriate" language in quotes, which accurately reflects the government's position while also giving space to Sister Brigid's counter-arguments.
**Credibility assessment:** High credibility, mainstream media source, presents multiple viewpoints.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government children detention Australia offshore processing policy 2007-2013"
**Finding:** Labor maintained the same mandatory detention policy framework.
* * * *
Specifically:
- The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) maintained mandatory detention of children and adults [5]
- In 2012, the Labor government reopened offshore processing centers on Nauru and Manus Island [5]
- The Labor government's "Pacific Solution" and later "PNG Solution" policies also resulted in children being held in detention facilities [5][6]
- Both major parties have supported mandatory detention as a deterrent to unauthorized boat arrivals [4][5][6]
**Key comparative point:** The policy of mandatory detention itself - which places children in detention facilities - has been bipartisan since 1992.
The criticism about conditions in detention (including lack of stimulation and mental health impacts) applies equally to both parties' periods in government [4][6].
**The government's position:**
The ABF and Department maintained that the BASP program was ceased due to concerns about supervision and lack of oversight over activities and locations.
The Department stated: "The welfare of all detainees, including children, is of paramount importance to the department" [1].
**The criticism:**
Sister Brigid Arthur and advocates argued that the cessation of the nuns' program was unnecessarily harsh, removing a valuable source of stimulation and normalcy for children in detention.
Senator John Madigan called the decision "bewildering" [1].
**The broader context:**
The real issue here is not whether nuns or Serco officers supervise zoo visits - it is that Australia has a policy of mandatory detention that places children in closed facilities.
* * * * 批判 nounHihan : : * * * *
This policy has been maintained by both major parties for over three decades.
The specific dispute over the BASP program is a symptom of a much larger bipartisan policy framework that has been repeatedly criticized by the UN, human rights organizations, and medical professionals for its impact on children's mental health and development [4][6].
**Is this unique to the Coalition?**
No.
The administrative decision about volunteer-led excursions vs. contractor-led excursions is a relatively minor operational matter within a detention system that both parties have supported and maintained.
The claim frames this as a particularly cruel Coalition action, but the policy framework detaining these children was established long before the 2013 election and continued after the 2022 election under the Albanese Labor government [4][5][6].
The framing as children being forced to "remain imprisoned instead" is hyperbolic - they remained in detention because of mandatory detention policy (bipartisan since 1992), not because of this specific program change
The claim exploits emotional sympathy for children to suggest a uniquely cruel Coalition policy, when in reality:
- Both parties have detained children in immigration facilities
- Both parties have maintained mandatory detention
- This specific decision was about who supervises excursions, not whether excursions occur
- The cessation of one volunteer program, while maintaining excursions through the detention operator, is being presented as a blanket ban
The claim is technically true that the nuns' program was stopped, but the framing is designed to elicit outrage by suggesting children were maliciously denied all stimulation, which is not accurate.
The framing as children being forced to "remain imprisoned instead" is hyperbolic - they remained in detention because of mandatory detention policy (bipartisan since 1992), not because of this specific program change
The claim exploits emotional sympathy for children to suggest a uniquely cruel Coalition policy, when in reality:
- Both parties have detained children in immigration facilities
- Both parties have maintained mandatory detention
- This specific decision was about who supervises excursions, not whether excursions occur
- The cessation of one volunteer program, while maintaining excursions through the detention operator, is being presented as a blanket ban
The claim is technically true that the nuns' program was stopped, but the framing is designed to elicit outrage by suggesting children were maliciously denied all stimulation, which is not accurate.