In August 2017, the Coalition government terminated welfare payments and housing support for approximately 100 asylum seekers who had been transferred from Manus Island and Nauru detention centers to Australia for medical treatment [1].
On Friday, August 25, 2017, the Department of Immigration notified affected asylum seekers that their welfare payments of $200 per fortnight would cease effective Monday, August 28, 2017 [2].
This policy applied asylum seekers placed on a new visa category, the "Final Departure Bridging E Visa" [1].
该 gāi 政策 zhèng cè 适用 shì yòng 于 yú 被 bèi 划分 huà fēn 为 wèi 新 xīn 签证 qiān zhèng 类别 lèi bié " " 最终 zuì zhōng 离境 lí jìng 临时 lín shí E E 类 lèi 签证 qiān zhèng ( ( Final Final Departure Departure Bridging Bridging E E Visa Visa ) ) " " 的 de 庇护 bì hù 寻求 xún qiú 者 zhě [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
The Human Rights Law Centre and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre both confirmed the "100 asylum seekers" figure as accurate for the immediate impact of the policy [1].
These individuals had been transferred to Australia from offshore detention specifically for medical treatment, with explicit assurance from the previous government that they would return to offshore processing once treatment was completed [4].
The Coalition government characterized the policy as ensuring that asylum seekers would not be settled in Australia, consistent with the bipartisan principle established by Labor's Kevin Rudd in July 2013 that boat arrivals would not be resettled in Australia [5].
The previous visa status of these asylum seekers (transferred from offshore detention) restricted work rights.
然而 rán ér , , 2017 2017 年 nián 8 8 月 yuè 政策 zhèng cè 下 xià 颁发 bān fā 的 de " " 最终 zuì zhōng 离境 lí jìng 临时 lín shí E E 类 lèi 签证 qiān zhèng " " 实际上 shí jì shàng 首次 shǒu cì 授予 shòu yǔ 了 le 工作 gōng zuò 权利 quán lì - - 取消 qǔ xiāo 了 le 之前 zhī qián 的 de 限制 xiàn zhì [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
However, the "Final Departure Bridging E Visa" issued under the August 2017 policy actually **granted** work rights for the first time—reversing previous restrictions [1].
This represents a lifting of employment prohibitions, not their imposition.
移民 yí mín 部长 bù zhǎng 彼得 bǐ dé · · 达顿 dá dùn ( ( Peter Peter Dutton Dutton ) ) 表达 biǎo dá 了 le 政府 zhèng fǔ 的 de 立场 lì chǎng : : " " 他们 tā men 将 jiāng 在 zài 其他 qí tā 地方 dì fāng 定居 dìng jū 。 。
Immigration Minister Peter Dutton stated the government's position: "They will be settled elsewhere.
这 zhè 就是 jiù shì 这个 zhè ge 政策 zhèng cè 的 de 目的 mù dì " " [ [ 2 2 ] ] 。 。
While the work permission was technically granted, the simultaneous removal of all income support and requirement to vacate housing within three weeks made securing employment practically necessary and difficult [3].
The original source, The New Daily, is a left-center mainstream news outlet founded in 2013 by Australian superannuation funds and led by former Labor Party minister Greg Combet [6].
据 jù 媒体 méi tǐ 偏见 piān jiàn / / 事实 shì shí 核查 hé chá ( ( Media Media Bias Bias / / Fact Fact Check Check ) ) 评级 píng jí , , The The New New Daily Daily 具有 jù yǒu " " 高信 gāo xìn 赋度 fù dù " " , , 报道 bào dào " " 大多数 dà duō shù 为 wèi 事实 shì shí " " , , 尽管 jǐn guǎn 其 qí 编辑 biān jí 观点 guān diǎn 呈现 chéng xiàn 适度 shì dù 左倾 zuǒ qīng 倾向 qīng xiàng [ [ 6 6 ] ] 。 。
According to Media Bias/Fact Check, The New Daily is rated as having "High Credibility" with "Mostly Factual" reporting, though it maintains a moderately left-leaning editorial perspective [6].
The claim's facts were independently verified by SBS News (a major public broadcaster with minimal political bias), the UNHCR (United Nations body), and established human rights organizations including the Human Rights Law Centre and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre [1][2][3].
⚖️
工党对比
* * * * 劳工 láo gōng 党 dǎng 是否 shì fǒu 采纳 cǎi nà 了 le 类似 lèi sì 的 de 庇护 bì hù 寻求 xún qiú 者 zhě 福利 fú lì 政策 zhèng cè ? ?
**Did Labor adopt similar asylum seeker welfare policies?**
Both major Australian parties have supported tough asylum seeker deterrent policies since 2001, though using different mechanisms [5].
* * * *
Labor's Kevin Rudd (2013, his second term as Prime Minister) announced an even stricter framework than the Coalition ultimately implemented: all asylum seekers arriving by boat would be sent offshore indefinitely with no resettlement in Australia [5].
The Labor government under Julia Gillard (2010-2013) reversed Kevin Rudd's initial liberal approach and returned to offshore processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea in response to increased boat arrivals [5].
Labor's tough deterrent approach focused more on offshore detention and people-smuggling disruption rather than income support removal for those in Australia [5].
The Parliamentary Library's comparison of Coalition and Labor asylum policies notes both parties support mandatory detention and offshore processing, but welfare removal as a coercion mechanism appears more specific to the Coalition's August 2017 policy [5].
While critics argue that removing all income support without adequate notice left vulnerable people "at serious risk of destitution in Australia" (UNHCR statement), the government's justification was that these asylum seekers had been brought to Australia specifically for medical treatment with explicit understanding they would return to offshore processing [2][4].
The claim frames the policy as exceptionally harsh ("kicked into the street"), and the 3-day notice period (Friday to Monday implementation) does appear minimal for practical relocation and employment decisions.
Human Rights Law Centre executive director Hugh de Kretser characterized it as "with no notice whatsoever," capturing the advocates' perspective that three days provided insufficient warning [1].
However, three days notice is technically not "no notice"—it represents the government's position that the change was straightforward and required no extended transition period [2].
该 gāi 政策 zhèng cè 确实 què shí 授予 shòu yǔ 了 le 工作 gōng zuò 权利 quán lì ( ( 之前 zhī qián 被 bèi 禁止 jìn zhǐ ) ) , , 尽管 jǐn guǎn 时间表 shí jiān biǎo 使 shǐ 就业 jiù yè 在 zài 实际上 shí jì shàng 变得 biàn dé 必要 bì yào 而 ér 非 fēi 真正 zhēn zhèng 的 de 选择 xuǎn zé [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
The policy did grant work rights (previously denied), though the timeline made employment practically necessary rather than a genuine choice [1].
The UNHCR criticized the approach as coercive, but mainstream Australian political consensus (Labor and Coalition) supports offshore processing and detention [5][3].
**Key context:** This policy is not unique to the Coalition in its toughness, but Labor's equivalent deterrent measures took different forms (offshore detention, people-smuggling prevention) rather than income support removal specifically.
The August 2017 Coalition policy did remove welfare income ($200 fortnightly) from approximately 100 asylum seekers and required them to vacate housing with minimal (3-day) notice [1][2].
The characterization as "no notice" is advocacy framing for what was technically three days' notification, though minimal for practical purposes [1][2].
The claim about "preventing them from working" is misleading regarding the August 2017 policy specifically—the new visa status actually granted work rights—but historically accurate as these individuals had previously been prohibited from working in offshore detention [1].
The core narrative is accurate: vulnerable asylum seekers were abruptly cut off from income support and housing within a short timeframe, with government justification that they were being held to bipartisan policy that boat arrivals would not be settled in Australia [2][4][5].
The August 2017 Coalition policy did remove welfare income ($200 fortnightly) from approximately 100 asylum seekers and required them to vacate housing with minimal (3-day) notice [1][2].
The characterization as "no notice" is advocacy framing for what was technically three days' notification, though minimal for practical purposes [1][2].
The claim about "preventing them from working" is misleading regarding the August 2017 policy specifically—the new visa status actually granted work rights—but historically accurate as these individuals had previously been prohibited from working in offshore detention [1].
The core narrative is accurate: vulnerable asylum seekers were abruptly cut off from income support and housing within a short timeframe, with government justification that they were being held to bipartisan policy that boat arrivals would not be settled in Australia [2][4][5].