Australia Signs MoU to Deport Former Detainees to Nauru under New Deal

Australia and Nauru have signed a new deportation agreement that will allow Australia to send formerly detained non-citizens—including people with criminal convictions and those without valid visas—to the Pacific island nation, setting up a costly, long-term arrangement that reshapes the country’s immigration enforcement. The memorandum of understanding was signed on Friday, August 29, 2025, in Nauru by Australia’s Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and Nauru’s President David Adeang. The deal follows the 2023 High Court ruling that ended indefinite immigration detention, a decision that forced the release of hundreds of people who could not be deported or granted visas.

Under the agreement, Australia will pay AU$408 million upfront once the first deportees arrive, and AU$70 million each year to support resettlement and ongoing management. The scope is wide: the government can deport people without valid visas, including the so-called NZYQ cohort—more than 350 non-citizens released after the court ruling—while refugee advocates warn the powers could reach far beyond that group. Some estimate that up to 80,000 people with unresolved visa status or prior criminal convictions could be at risk if the policy expands.

Minister Tony Burke said the arrangement “contains undertakings for the proper treatment and long-term residence of people who have no legal right to stay in Australia, to be received in Nauru,” arguing that a functioning visa system requires people without lawful status to leave. Nauru’s leadership, including President Adeang, is a direct party to the deal and a beneficiary of the financial terms, which extend a long history of paid cooperation between the two nations on offshore processing.

The agreement was tested in concept earlier this year. In February 2025, Australia tried to deport three violent offenders to Nauru with 30-year visas lined up. Court action stopped those removals. Officials now say the new MoU—and fresh legislation introduced to Parliament—are designed to remove those legal roadblocks, especially where Australia can point to a third-country arrangement that promises long-term residence and support.

The political stakes are high. The Albanese Labor government, returned to office in May 2025, has pressed ahead with offshore arrangements despite intense criticism from refugee advocates, legal bodies, and international observers. Critics say the deal is a step toward mass removals with fewer rights to challenge decisions. Supporters counter that the 2023 High Court ruling created a public safety and policy gap by releasing people the government considers too risky to keep in the community without a clear removal pathway.

Australia has used offshore processing since 2013, primarily on Nauru and Papua New Guinea, drawing repeated rebukes from human rights organizations and the United Nations. International bodies have said those systems breach global obligations, including the Convention Against Torture. The new deportation agreement reopens many of those debates, but with a different legal frame: deportation to a third country with promised long-term residence, rather than open-ended detention inside Australia.

Policy details and financial terms

The financial scale stands out even in the context of Australia’s past offshore contracts. The package includes:

• AU$408 million upfront (paid once the first deportees arrive)
• AU$70 million annually for resettlement and ongoing management

These funds are intended to cover housing, services, and administration, with Australia footing the bill. Officials say the money will support “proper treatment” provisions in the MoU, though the full monitoring and enforcement details have not been made public.

Key scope elements:

• Covers people without valid visas, including those released after the High Court decision and non-citizens whose home countries refuse to accept them or where return would risk persecution.
• The NZYQ cohort is the immediate focus, but refugee advocates warn the legal architecture could be applied widely—to overstayers, people with prior convictions, and those with complex nationality issues.
• The agreement sets out 30-year visas in Nauru for deportees; Australia will pay for resettlement, supervision, and services.

Concerns remain that paper guarantees (long-term status and funding) may not translate into safe, stable lives. Past offshore operations showed shortcomings in medical care, protection, and transparency.

Legal changes and human impact

Alongside the MoU, the government has introduced legislation aimed at expanding deportation powers. Briefings to Parliament indicate the new laws would:

1. Allow removals with limited notice
2. Provide fewer chances to challenge decisions when a third-country deal is in place
3. Curtail some natural justice protections used in previous court fights
4. Aim to close gaps exposed by the High Court ruling and prevent lengthy legal delays

Likely practical steps for people facing removal:

1. Identification of individuals without valid visas or those in the NZYQ group
2. Formal notice issued
3. Fast processing under the new laws (if passed)
4. Transfer to Nauru
5. Settlement on long-term (30-year) visas funded by Australia

The MoU promises proper treatment and long-term residence, but the public has not seen detailed oversight rules, a named monitoring body, or the remedies available if standards aren’t met.

Refugee and human rights organizations—including the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) and the Visa Cancellations Working Group—condemn the plan as discriminatory and dangerous. They argue that cutting legal review increases the risk of wrongful removal, family separation, and harm to people who fled persecution or cannot safely return home. They warn the wide net could sweep up people with long community ties in Australia, including parents of Australian-born children.

VisaVerge.com analysis describes the deal as the most sweeping change to Australia’s deportation toolkit since the High Court ruling ended open-ended immigration detention. The government’s aim to create a legally durable “place to go” is framed as a way to defend removals in court.

International bodies have long criticized Australia’s offshore approach, citing harm, poor mental health outcomes, and rights breaches on Nauru and Manus Island. The concern is that turning Nauru into a long-term deportee destination—not just a processing site—could replicate old patterns, but with large public payments and less legal scrutiny.

Supporters argue the deal provides a solution for people who have finished criminal sentences, can’t get a visa, and can’t be returned home due to persecution risks or diplomatic refusal. They say the arrangement protects the community while offering a stable status elsewhere.

For families and communities, the stakes are personal. Many in the NZYQ cohort have lived in Australia for years and often have complex histories, trauma, or health needs. Community workers fear rapid removal will sever critical medical care and legal support. Lawyers expect further court challenges on issues like due process, proportionality, and whether the rights promised in Nauru meet Australia’s international duties.

What happens next

The government intends to pass the new laws in Parliament in the coming weeks. If enacted:

• Officials could start issuing removal notices rapidly, especially to those in the NZYQ cohort.
• Legal challenges are expected—from individuals whose February deportations were halted and from advocacy groups testing the limits of the MoU and proposed rules.

Uncertainties and scale:

• The government has not committed to a firm number beyond the NZYQ group.
• Advocates cite estimates of up to 80,000 non-citizens who could face removal if broad criteria are applied.
• The exact figure will depend on how the new powers are used and how courts interpret notice, evidence, and the definition of a “viable third country.”

Financial trajectory:

• The upfront AU$408 million payment is only the start.
• Annual AU$70 million allocations will continue as long as the arrangement remains active and deportees stay in Nauru.
• Previous offshore contracts ran for years and cost billions; critics warn of a similar long tail of spending without transparent outcomes.

Key unresolved operational issues from past offshore operations that remain relevant:

• Access to healthcare
• Independent oversight and inspections
• Education for children
• Safety for women and LGBTQ+ people
• Right to contact lawyers and family
• Public reporting and complaints mechanisms

Although the MoU refers to “proper treatment,” it does not publicly name an independent monitoring body with enforcement powers. Advocates call for independent inspections, public reporting, and a complaint process deportees can use without fear of reprisal.

Practical advice for people at risk

Lawyers and community groups advise:

• Gather identity documents, medical records, and proof of family or community ties.
• Seek timely legal advice.
• Keep contact details up to date with authorities to avoid missing notices or hearings.
• Prepare for fast timelines if the legislation passes.

The ASRC, which has supported many released individuals since the 2023 ruling, continues to offer help and referrals. The group warns the proposed laws could reduce access to legal aid at a critical time.

International and legal scrutiny

International scrutiny is likely to intensify. Human rights bodies have flagged concerns about due process and risks of harm in Nauru, given the island’s limited services and past reports from the offshore era. Diplomats will watch how the deal interacts with Australia’s treaty obligations, including:

• The Refugee Convention
• The Convention Against Torture

Advocates argue that Australia remains responsible for actions that risk harm—even with a third-country deal. They say sending people to places with weak services or danger could breach international law, regardless of funding or paper guarantees. Government officials contend long-term visas and the funding package meet the legal threshold by offering a stable, lawful status in Nauru.

The broader public debate remains intense. Some Australians view the agreement as restoring visa enforcement confidence after the High Court ruling. Others see it as a costly repeat of offshore policies that harmed people and damaged Australia’s international reputation.

What is new is the blend of law and logistics: laws designed to move people faster plus a partner nation prepared to receive them for decades. Courts will ultimately shape the scope and pace. Meanwhile, frontline workers prepare for hurried timelines, families brace for separation, and people with precarious visa status check their mailboxes daily.

Contacts and resources

• Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC): 03 9326 6066 (Mon, Tue, Thu, Fri 10am–4pm)
• Australian Department of Home Affairs: Official site
• Nauru Government: public statements and local channels for resettlement arrangements

Important: The Department of Home Affairs has not yet released the full text of the MoU. The precise standards, oversight arrangements, and enforcement mechanisms remain out of public view.

The real-world effects of the deportation agreement will hinge on several details: how notices are served, how fast the process moves, what rights people have to challenge decisions, and what life in Nauru looks like on a 30-year visa paid for by Australia. Those answers will determine whether this policy is a workable fix to a complex legal problem—or another chapter in a long, difficult story for people who hoped Australia would be their safe place.