Pauline Hanson calls for ban on migration from ‘do not travel’ countries
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has called on the Australian government to stop accepting migrants from countries designated "do not travel" by Smartraveller, accusing Anthony Albanese's Labor government of failing to properly vet new arrivals and protect national security. The proposal, announced in a social media statement on Saturday, would also apply to refugee and humanitarian visa applicants, whom Hanson said should only be admitted if authorities can give an "absolute assurance" they pose no security risk. The suggestion drew a sharp rebuke from Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who likened it to policy "stolen from Donald Trump" and said several of the listed countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, had produced valuable migrants who had built businesses and contributed to Australian communities.
The "do not travel" list, DFAT's highest-risk advisory category, currently includes Afghanistan, Iran, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ukraine, North Korea and Syria, among 26 countries in total, based on factors such as conflict, arbitrary detention risk and terrorism threats. Hanson argued the government could not credibly warn citizens away from these countries while still admitting migrants from them on a routine basis, citing concerns over returning ISIS brides and foreign fighters. Bowen countered by highlighting groups such as Assyrians, Yazidis and Lebanese Australians who fled ISIS and would be affected, asking Hanson to justify excluding them. The row comes as Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke's planned unveiling of broader migration reforms, expected at the National Press Club, was recently postponed.
- Hanson wants migration halted from Smartraveller "do not travel" countries
- Bowen calls it a Trump-style policy and rejects it outright
- 26 countries currently carry the highest-risk travel advisory
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters may argue that migration policy should give substantial weight to conditions in countries facing extreme conflict, instability or security threats, especially where authorities may find identity checks and background screening more difficult. They may see a precautionary restriction as a temporary way to protect public safety and preserve public confidence in an immigration system that is expected to manage risk carefully. This case rests on the view that a state’s first duty is to its existing residents and that exceptional circumstances can justify tighter entry rules.
The case against
Opponents may argue that travel warnings assess the danger of visiting a place, not the character, intentions or eligibility of people fleeing it, and therefore make a poor basis for excluding individuals. They may contend that a blanket ban would punish people precisely because they are escaping persecution, war or state failure, while overlooking established case-by-case security screening and Australia’s humanitarian obligations. This case rests on equal treatment, refugee protection and the principle that individual risk should be assessed individually rather than inferred from nationality.