The claim conflates two separate cases that occurred approximately one year apart, involving different asylum seekers with different circumstances:
**Case 1 (August 2015):** A 23-year-old Iranian asylum seeker was allegedly raped on Nauru in May 2015.
The Immigration Minister's office stated that "medical professionals have advised that the individual does not require a medical transfer" and that she was receiving "appropriate medical and mental health support and care in Nauru" [1].
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young alleged the government overruled a decision to bring the woman to Australia [1].
**Case 2 (April-May 2016):** A separate case involving an African refugee (identified as "S99") who became pregnant after being raped on Nauru in January 2016.
绿党 lǜ dǎng 参议员 cān yì yuán Sarah Sarah Hanson Hanson - - Young Young 声称 shēng chēng 政府 zhèng fǔ 推翻 tuī fān 了 le 一项 yī xiàng 将 jiāng 该 gāi 女子 nǚ zǐ 带到 dài dào 澳大利亚 ào dà lì yà 的 de 决定 jué dìng [ [ 1 1 ] ] 。 。
This is the case where Peter Dutton's statement about "exceptional circumstances" emerged.
According to The Guardian and Federal Court proceedings:
- S99 had complex neurological, physiological and psychological conditions including suspected epilepsy and severe PTSD [2][3][4]
- Five separate medical experts (neurologists, psychiatrists, and GPs) advised that the abortion procedure required specialized expertise available in Australia [3]
- The Border Protection Act allowed medical transfers to Australia in "exceptional circumstances"
- Department official David Nockels testified that the government had a policy not to bring asylum seekers to Australia unless circumstances were exceptional, stating: "That's why we have Nauru and Manus" [3]
- Nockels did not believe S99's case qualified as exceptional and arranged transfer to Papua New Guinea instead [3][4]
- Abortion was illegal in PNG (punishable by up to seven years imprisonment) and local hospitals lacked required neurological equipment and expertise [3][4]
- Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found on May 6, 2016, that Dutton breached his duty of care by exposing S99 to "serious medical and legal risks" [2][4]
- The Court ordered Dutton to facilitate a safe and legal abortion in a country with appropriate medical facilities [4]
- Dutton announced on May 10, 2016, that he would not appeal the Federal Court ruling [2]
**Key Distinction:** The "not exceptional" statement attributed to Dutton directly relates to the 2016 S99 case, not the August 2015 Iranian asylum seeker case.
Policy Framework:** The "exceptional circumstances" test was part of the Border Protection Act framework governing offshore detention medical transfers.
In the 2016 case, there was a dispute between five IHMS medical experts recommending Australia transfer versus one PNG obstetrician with a financial interest in the Pacific International hospital who said the procedure could proceed in PNG [3].
**3.
Legal Risk in PNG:** The Federal Court found that sending S99 to PNG exposed her to potential criminal prosecution for abortion, which carries penalties of up to seven years imprisonment [3][4].
Broader Policy Context:** The 2015 case occurred after a leaked IHMS document suggested asylum seekers in Nauru would be flown to PNG rather than Australia for medical care not available on Nauru [1].
The claim presents these incidents without the context that (a) they involve two separate cases, (b) the "exceptional circumstances" framework was statutory policy, and (c) the government ultimately complied with court orders in the 2016 case.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
The offshore detention policy was established by the Labor government.
* * * *
Key Labor precedents:
- **Nauru and Manus Island established under Labor:** The offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island were reopened by the Gillard Labor government in August 2012 following a recommendation from the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.
The "no advantage" principle and regional processing framework were Labor creations.
- **Labor's "exceptional circumstances" framework:** The same Border Protection Act and "exceptional circumstances" test for medical transfers that applied in 2015-2016 was established and operated under Labor's 2012-2013 administration.
The statutory framework remained unchanged when the Coalition took office in September 2013.
- **Medical transfer numbers:** Under Labor (2012-2013), medical transfers from offshore detention to Australia occurred, but the government also faced criticism for delays and for maintaining the "exceptional circumstances" threshold.
The policy framework was consistent across both governments.
- **Legal obligations:** The Federal Court's 2016 finding that the Minister owed a duty of care to S99 established a legal precedent that applied to subsequent cases.
This judicial interpretation was new in 2016 and had not been tested under Labor.
**Key difference:** Labor operated the offshore detention system from 2012-2013 before the full scope of medical transfer obligations was established through case law.
**Criticism of government handling:**
Both cases drew significant criticism from human rights advocates, medical professionals, and opposition politicians.
In the 2016 case, the Federal Court found the government exposed a vulnerable victim of sexual violence to additional legal and medical risks by sending her to a country where abortion was criminalized [4].
The decision to prioritize policy adherence (avoiding Australia transfers) over individualized medical advice from five specialists was criticized as bureaucratic rigidity that put a trauma survivor at additional risk [3].
**Government position and policy rationale:**
The government maintained that:
1.
The "exceptional circumstances" test was a statutory requirement under the Border Protection Act, not discretionary ministerial policy [3]
3.
政府 zhèng fǔ 坚持 jiān chí 认为 rèn wéi : :
Sending S99 to PNG rather than Australia was consistent with the legislative framework designed to maintain the integrity of offshore processing [3][4]
4.
The government ultimately complied with the Federal Court's order without appeal, facilitating appropriate medical care [2]
The "not exceptional" characterization came from testimony by department official David Nockels, not directly from Dutton, though the Court found Dutton responsible for the decision [3][4].
**Comparative context:**
The offshore detention medical transfer framework was a bipartisan construct.
The 2016 Federal Court ruling establishing ministerial duty of care obligations was a judicial development that clarified obligations under existing law.
4 4 . . 政府 zhèng fǔ 最终 zuì zhōng 遵守 zūn shǒu 了 le 联邦 lián bāng 法院 fǎ yuàn 的 de 命令 mìng lìng 且 qiě 未 wèi 提出 tí chū 上诉 shàng sù , , 协助 xié zhù 提供 tí gōng 了 le 适当 shì dàng 的 de 医疗 yī liáo 救治 jiù zhì [ [ 2 2 ] ]
The 2016 case (S99) did involve a refusal to transfer a pregnant rape victim to Australia based on the "exceptional circumstances" statutory test, and the Federal Court found this breached the Minister's duty of care.
The same offshore detention framework and medical transfer policy was established by Labor and continued by the Coalition
The government's handling of the 2016 case was found by the Federal Court to breach ministerial duty of care, but the claim presents these incidents without the legal and policy context that explains both the original decision and its ultimate resolution.
The 2016 case (S99) did involve a refusal to transfer a pregnant rape victim to Australia based on the "exceptional circumstances" statutory test, and the Federal Court found this breached the Minister's duty of care.
The same offshore detention framework and medical transfer policy was established by Labor and continued by the Coalition
The government's handling of the 2016 case was found by the Federal Court to breach ministerial duty of care, but the claim presents these incidents without the legal and policy context that explains both the original decision and its ultimate resolution.