**Claim Element 1: Four mainland detention centres were closed.**
TRUE.
* * * *
On January 14, 2014, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison announced the closure of four mainland detention facilities: Scherger (Queensland), Port Augusta (South Australia), Leonora (Western Australia), and Pontville (Tasmania).
真實 zhēn shí 。 。
The announcement stated these facilities were "remote, relatively small and expensive" and would close between mid-2014 and mid-2015 [1][2].
**Claim Element 2: Budget savings were cited as the motivation.**
TRUE.
2014 2014 年 nián 1 1 月 yuè 14 14 日 rì , , 移民部 yí mín bù 長 zhǎng Scott Scott Morrison Morrison 宣布 xuān bù 關閉 guān bì 四座 sì zuò 本土 běn tǔ 拘留 jū liú 設施 shè shī : : Scherger Scherger ( ( 昆士蘭 kūn shì lán ) ) 、 、 Port Port Augusta Augusta ( ( 南澳 nán ào ) ) 、 、 Leonora Leonora ( ( 西澳 xī ào ) ) 和 hé Pontville Pontville ( ( 塔斯 tǎ sī 馬 mǎ 尼亞 ní yà ) ) 。 。
Morrison explicitly stated the closures would save the budget $88.8 million annually (approximately $90 million/year), with total savings of $280 million over the closure period [1][2].
The minister's official statement cited "significant financial savings for the government and the Australian taxpayer" as the rationale [2].
**Claim Element 3: Offshore processing costs almost twice as much as onshore processing.**
MISLEADING/UNDERSATED.
According to the National Commission of Audit (May 2014), the cost comparison was actually far more stark than "almost twice":
- **Offshore detention**: $400,000 per person per year
- **Onshore detention**: $239,000 per person per year
- **Community detention (onshore)**: Less than $100,000 per person per year
- **Bridging visa (community)**: Approximately $40,000 per person per year [3]
Offshore processing cost approximately **1.7 times** (not "almost twice") onshore detention costs, but **10 times** community detention and **10 times** bridging visa arrangements [3].
* * * *
The claim understates the disparity by using "almost twice" when the actual comparison depends on which onshore metric is used.
真實 zhēn shí 。 。
If comparing offshore ($400,000) to community-based onshore processing ($40,000-100,000), offshore costs were **4-10 times higher**, not merely "almost twice."
**The closures were a direct result of reduced boat arrivals.** The claim omits that the Coalition government's Operation Sovereign Borders policy had successfully reduced asylum seeker boat arrivals by January 2014.
Morrison stated: "It's always our preference with families to locate them in community detention" and the closures were possible because "the other measures" (turnbacks, offshore processing) were "proving to be successful" [1][2].
**Detainees were not simply "moved offshore"** - they were transferred to other onshore facilities or community detention.
The claim creates an impression of a direct transfer from mainland to offshore, but the closures were part of a broader system rationalization.
**The government explicitly acknowledged the cost disparity.** In Morrison's ABC interview, he conceded: "Although it is cheaper to process asylum seekers on the mainland... it doesn't stop the boats" [1].
Generally reliable for factual reporting but has advocated for refugee rights [4].
- **The Big Smoke**: Commentary/opinion website - presents advocacy perspectives rather than neutral reporting [5].
- **National Commission of Audit (NCOA)**: Official Australian Government audit body - authoritative, non-partisan source for cost data [3].
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government offshore processing Nauru Manus reintroduced 2012"
**Finding**: The Labor Government (Kevin Rudd) actually **reintroduced offshore processing** in August 2013 - five months before the Coalition took office.
* * * *
Labor's "PNG Solution" sent asylum seekers to Manus Island (Papua New Guinea) and resumed transfers to Nauru [6].
The 2010-2013 period saw massive expansion of both onshore and offshore detention capacity under Labor [6].
**Key distinction**: Both parties engaged in facility closures when demand decreased.
The difference was policy framework - Labor maintained onshore processing as the primary pathway while expanding offshore, whereas the Coalition prioritized offshore processing as a deterrent.
The claim presents a contradiction: closing expensive mainland facilities while operating even more expensive offshore facilities.
然而 rán ér , , 這一 zhè yī 表面 biǎo miàn 上 shàng 的 de 矛盾 máo dùn 忽略 hū lüè 了 le 所述 suǒ shù 的 de 政策 zhèng cè 理據 lǐ jù 。 。
However, this apparent contradiction ignores the stated policy rationale.
**The Coalition's stated position**: Morrison explicitly admitted onshore processing was cheaper but argued "it doesn't stop the boats" [1].
The closures of expensive, underutilized remote facilities were presented as pragmatic cost-saving measures while maintaining the broader offshore processing architecture as a deterrent.
**Critics' perspective**: The Greens and refugee advocates argued that community detention was the cheapest option ($40,000 per person vs. $400,000 offshore) and should be prioritized [2][3].
They characterized the closures as creating artificial scarcity in onshore options to justify offshore transfers.
**Economic reality**: The Commission of Audit found detention costs had skyrocketed 129% annually, rising from $118.4 million in 2009-10 to $3.3 billion in 2013-14 [3].
This explosion in costs occurred across both Labor and Coalition governments as both expanded detention infrastructure in response to boat arrivals.
**Comparative context**: This is not unique to the Coalition.
The claim is factually accurate regarding the closures and cited budget savings, and the cost comparison between offshore and onshore processing is real (though the "almost twice" figure understates the disparity when comparing offshore to community-based alternatives).
However, the claim mischaracterizes the detainee movements (not simply "moved offshore") and omits crucial context about why the closures were possible (reduced boat arrivals due to Operation Sovereign Borders) and the government's explicit acknowledgment that offshore processing was more expensive but served a deterrent function.
The claim is factually accurate regarding the closures and cited budget savings, and the cost comparison between offshore and onshore processing is real (though the "almost twice" figure understates the disparity when comparing offshore to community-based alternatives).
However, the claim mischaracterizes the detainee movements (not simply "moved offshore") and omits crucial context about why the closures were possible (reduced boat arrivals due to Operation Sovereign Borders) and the government's explicit acknowledgment that offshore processing was more expensive but served a deterrent function.