Asylum Seekers and Refugees

Remove Australia from the U.N. Refugee Convention

At the end of World War II, policymakers believed Australia’s population of over 7 million people was too small to defend Australia, in another war. A mass migration program began in 1947.

Australia then became a party to the Refugee Convention in 1954 and recently flirted with signing the Global Compact on Migration.

Australia now has a population of 25 million people and there is clear evidence, in our major cities that we are unable to manage economically, socially or environmentally, with the rate of growth driven by immigration.

One Nation believes the annual permanent immigration target of around 250,000 people a year should be reduced to a number which would stabilize our population (estimated at 70,000-80,000 per year).

Every component of the current permanent immigration program would then need to be cut, including the Humanitarian quota which was over 20,000 in 2016-17.

One Nation wants Australia out of the United Nations Refugee Convention because it is no longer in Australia’s interests.

Travel Ban from Known Extremist Countries

The Australian Constitution prevents discrimination on the grounds of race or religion, but we believe we should ban travel (including migration) from known extremist countries. We support a travel ban of the kind implemented by President Trump in the United States. The countries involved may differ from those banned in America.

Additionally, we believe the ability to integrate into Australia should be an important consideration when granting any permanent visa, including under the Humanitarian Program.

Asylum Seekers

We believe asylum seekers, in general, should make an application for asylum in the first safe country they reach. Travel beyond the first safe country is, we say, for economic reasons and that economic migrants should be subject to normal immigration controls and not entitled to a permanent visa under the Humanitarian program.

It has been reported that over 70 refugees, now on Nauru, and ineligible to come to Australia have rejected offers of resettlement in the United States on the basis that the welfare benefits are inadequate. The suggestion that refugees can pick and choose the country of resettlement, based on the welfare benefits on offer, is rejected.

We believe genuine refugees would readily accept resettlement in the United States or any safe country, and that those who reject that offer are economic migrants and not in need of ongoing economic support.


Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. In 2017 it is reported that 14,093 individuals travelled to Indonesia from Afghanistan, Somalia, and Myanmar in the hope of getting to Christmas Island and obtain rights to asylum in Australia. These people await a change of government in the hope of travelling by boat to Australia.

Since 2014 the Australian government has placed a ban on resettling people who registered with the UNHCR after July 2014. We support the ban on resettlement for those who arrive by boat and apply for asylum.

Share this page to spread the word.
Share Tweet

Showing 10 reactions

  • Julia Mccormick
    followed this page 2021-12-02 19:45:53 +1000
  • Benjamin conway
    followed this page 2021-11-25 22:11:27 +1000
  • Deborah Morris
    followed this page 2021-11-20 09:34:31 +1000
  • Fiona Hyland
    followed this page 2021-09-27 14:08:06 +1000
  • Karen Gavin
    followed this page 2021-09-25 08:46:55 +1000
  • Paul Hutchinson
    followed this page 2021-08-19 10:49:29 +1000
  • Heinz Reiser
    followed this page 2021-06-19 18:33:38 +1000
  • Grant Lelliott
    followed this page 2021-03-01 18:33:16 +1000
  • Konrad Von Dorfen
    followed this page 2020-10-06 00:20:38 +1000
  • Tom Auriac
    published this page in About Our Policies 2020-08-26 10:26:21 +1000