Seventy-seven out of 78 asylum seekers surveyed on Nauru say the Australian government's $260 fortnightly living allowance is not enough to prevent hunger, according to a new report by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.

The ASRC's report, Hungry For Freedom, surveyed 78 people between February and April 2026. The findings, published on July 20, show the support payment does not come close to covering the cost of living on Nauru. The $260 a fortnight is meant to cover food, drinking water, supplies, phone credit, and internet. Every part of that budget is under strain (The Guardian).

Here is the maths. Nauru's main phone and internet company, Digicel, charges $112 a month for its cheapest data plan. That is about 20% of the monthly allowance gone before a single meal is bought. Then there is the food. Nauru is a tiny island of about 13,000 people that imports more than 90% of what it eats. Tomatoes, capsicums and onions cost around $18 a kilogram, up to three times what they cost in Australia. A single banana has gone from $1.50 to about $4 in recent months, according to one person held on the island. A rice shortage meant waiting two to three months for a supply ship to arrive.

The people receiving this allowance are asylum seekers, mostly from China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, who tried to reach Australia by boat after 2023. Under a policy both Labor and the Coalition support, they will never be permanently resettled in Australia, even if they are officially recognised as refugees. Asylum seekers are people fleeing danger in their home countries who are asking another country for protection. Offshore processing means holding them in a facility outside Australia, in this case on Nauru, while their claims are dealt with. The Nauru centre was empty in mid-2023 but now holds roughly 100 people after boat arrivals resumed.

What makes the ASRC's findings especially striking is how much the arrangement costs on the other side. Home Affairs budget statements from May 2026 show the government spent $971.6 million on offshore management in the 2025-26 financial year. Spread across roughly 100 people on Nauru, that is about $9.6 million per person. The gap between that figure and a $260-a-fortnight food allowance raises serious questions about what the system delivers for the money (The Guardian).

The money side has also caught the attention of Parliament. A submission to a parliamentary inquiry, dated July 17, says a deal to send refugees and asylum seekers to Nauru cost taxpayers $2.5 billion. Another submission from February 2026 refers to a 2025 agreement between Australia and Nauru covering detention payments. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been running an inquiry into offshore processing on Nauru and in Papua New Guinea, with part of its report looking specifically at the costs (Parliamentary submission, 17 July 2026; Parliamentary submission, 13 February 2026).

ASRC deputy chief executive Jana Favero did not mince words. The report's findings showed the offshore detention system was "completely broken," she said (The Guardian).

The broader context is that offshore processing has always been sold to the public as a deterrent. The argument is that stopping boats from arriving is worth whatever it costs. Both major parties have stuck with that line through changes of government. What the ASRC survey does is shift the focus from the big spending numbers to what life is actually like for the people held on Nauru, and whether the support they get meets any reasonable standard. When 99% of people surveyed say they cannot get enough food on the allowance provided, and a basic data plan eats up a fifth of it, the question of whether the system works in any sense beyond deterrence is one the parliamentary inquiry will have to face.

The government says offshore processing is necessary, expensive, and non-negotiable. The ASRC report does not argue with that framing. It just makes the cost of the arrangement visible at the level of a single banana.