The core factual elements of this claim are accurate:
**Red Cross Job Losses Confirmed:** In September 2014, the Australian Red Cross announced that 500 of its 800 staff working in migrant support programs would lose their jobs over the following 10 months [1][2].
Australian Red Cross chief executive Robert Tickner confirmed the job losses in a leaked email to staff, stating he was "deeply saddened and disappointed" by the decision [1][2].
**Immigration Department Funding Changes:** The job losses resulted from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's decision to slash client numbers in the Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS) program from 12,000 to 5,000 by June 2015 [1][2].
The Red Cross had been one of seven organizations administering the asylum-seeker assistance scheme and community assistance support program since 1992 [2].
**Service Model Restructuring:** The changes were part of a broader restructuring of asylum seeker support services.
A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison stated the government had "put in place a new team of service providers to get better value for money" [2].
The new model replaced individual case workers with a hub-based system where asylum seekers would deal with rostered-on staff [1].
**Continued but Reduced Contract:** The Red Cross signed a new government contract to provide services for up to four years, but with significantly reduced scope—supporting 5,000 clients instead of 12,000 [1].
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison's spokesperson stated the restructure was designed to "get better value for money" and noted that the government was "spending $2.5 billion less because we are stopping the boats" [2].
The government position was that the previous model was inefficient and expensive.
**Service Continuity for Clients:** While 500 jobs were lost at Red Cross, the government maintained that asylum seeker support services would continue through a "new team of service providers" [2].
The programs still helped asylum seekers access healthcare, counselling, accommodation, clothing, furniture, education, legal services and social support—just through a different delivery model [1].
**Long-term Government Partnership:** The Red Cross retained a four-year contract with reduced scope, indicating the government did not completely terminate the relationship—rather, it restructured it [1].
The charity continued to provide services to 5,000 clients rather than the previous 12,000 [1].
**Broader Policy Context:** These changes occurred within the Coalition's "Operation Sovereign Borders" policy framework, which aimed to reduce both maritime arrivals and associated onshore processing costs.
While it maintains professional journalistic standards, it has openly acknowledged its center-left orientation and has been criticized by conservatives for selective framing on refugee and asylum seeker issues [3].
AAP is an Australian news agency that provides syndicated news content to Australian media outlets and generally maintains neutral reporting standards.
The Yahoo News article covering the same story similarly reports the facts but includes the government's rationale about "better value for money" and stopping the boats [2].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government asylum seeker support funding cuts", "Labor government SRSS program changes", "Rudd Gillard asylum seeker services funding"
**Labor's Record on Asylum Seeker Support:**
The Rudd-Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) also implemented significant changes to asylum seeker support services.
* * * *
In 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard took a "tougher approach to border protection" and branded herself as a "border protectionist" [5].
Labor governments maintained—and in some cases expanded—offshore processing and detention policies that had significant cost implications for support services.
The Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS) program itself was established under the Howard Coalition government but continued under Labor with periodic reviews and adjustments.
Both major parties have made changes to asylum seeker service delivery models based on policy priorities and budget considerations.
**Labor's Position in 2014:**
Labor criticized the Coalition's 2014 changes.
However, Labor had previously implemented its own cost-cutting measures in immigration and asylum seeker services when in government.
**Comparison:**
Both major Australian parties have reduced asylum seeker support funding at various times, typically linking such reductions to:
- Reduced arrival numbers (justifying reduced support needs)
- Budget efficiency measures
- Policy shifts toward deterrence (offshore processing, temporary protection visas)
The Coalition's 2014 changes were part of a broader pattern where both parties adjust support services based on policy priorities and fiscal constraints.
The specific scale of the 2014 Red Cross job losses was notable, but the underlying pattern of restructuring asylum seeker support services is not unique to the Coalition.
**The impact on Red Cross and workers:**
The loss of 500 jobs was significant for the Australian Red Cross, representing a 62.5% reduction in staff working on migrant support programs (from 800 to 300) [1][2].
Chief executive Robert Tickner acknowledged staff would feel "shock and dismay" [1].
**The government's position:**
The Coalition argued the restructuring was necessary for fiscal responsibility and program efficiency.
Key points from the government's perspective:
- The new service model would provide "better value for money" [2]
- The $2.5 billion reduction in spending was linked to reduced boat arrivals through the "stop the boats" policy [2]
- Service delivery continued through a "new team of service providers" [2]
- The Red Cross retained a contract for 5,000 clients rather than being completely defunded [1]
**Impact on asylum seekers:**
About 12,000 people—mostly families with children—had been relying on the Red Cross for financial assistance, healthcare, protection visa support, and health and character checks [2].
Under the new model:
- 5,000 clients remained with Red Cross [1]
- Basic living expense payments moved to Centrelink [1]
- Individual case workers were replaced by a hub-based roster system [1]
- Other service providers took on some of the remaining caseload [2]
Critics, including the Greens, argued that asylum seekers could "fall through the cracks" due to the changes and that the safety net was being compromised [1].
**Is this unique to the Coalition?**
No.
Both major parties have restructured asylum seeker support services based on:
- Arrival numbers and processing needs
- Budget priorities
- Policy shifts (offshore processing, deterrence measures)
The specific scale of the 2014 job losses was significant, but the underlying pattern of adjusting support services based on policy and fiscal priorities has been consistent across governments of both parties.
The claim contains accurate factual elements but presents them without important context:
1. **TRUE:** The Coalition government did significantly reduce Red Cross funding for asylum seeker support services in 2014, resulting in the loss of 500 jobs [1][2].
2. **TRUE:** The changes reduced client numbers from 12,000 to 5,000 [1].
3. **MISLEADING:** The claim frames this as "scrapping funding," implying complete termination.
The government restructured the service delivery model rather than eliminating it entirely.
4. **OMITS CONTEXT:** The claim does not mention the government's stated rationale (cost efficiency, better value for money) [2], the broader policy context of reduced boat arrivals [2], or that services continued through other providers and Centrelink [1][2].
5. **OMITS COMPARATIVE CONTEXT:** The claim implies this was uniquely harsh treatment by the Coalition, when in reality both major parties have made significant changes to asylum seeker support funding based on policy priorities and fiscal constraints.
However, the framing as "scrapped funding" overstates the nature of the change, and the omission of context about continued (reduced) funding, service restructuring, and government rationale makes the claim misleading.
The claim contains accurate factual elements but presents them without important context:
1. **TRUE:** The Coalition government did significantly reduce Red Cross funding for asylum seeker support services in 2014, resulting in the loss of 500 jobs [1][2].
2. **TRUE:** The changes reduced client numbers from 12,000 to 5,000 [1].
3. **MISLEADING:** The claim frames this as "scrapping funding," implying complete termination.
The government restructured the service delivery model rather than eliminating it entirely.
4. **OMITS CONTEXT:** The claim does not mention the government's stated rationale (cost efficiency, better value for money) [2], the broader policy context of reduced boat arrivals [2], or that services continued through other providers and Centrelink [1][2].
5. **OMITS COMPARATIVE CONTEXT:** The claim implies this was uniquely harsh treatment by the Coalition, when in reality both major parties have made significant changes to asylum seeker support funding based on policy priorities and fiscal constraints.
However, the framing as "scrapped funding" overstates the nature of the change, and the omission of context about continued (reduced) funding, service restructuring, and government rationale makes the claim misleading.