One Nation’s headline immigration commitment is to deport 75,000 undocumented migrants. There are no operational details attached to the figure, but the party has stated it would adopt the “action and style” of US President Donald Trump. While there is a legitimate, noble intent behind enforcing immigration law, namely, maintaining the integrity of Australia’s borders and the rule of law, translating that intent into reality collides with serious legal, logistical, and financial challenges.
To remove 75,000 people in a single parliamentary term would require an average of roughly 25,000 removals per year, a dramatic escalation of current compliance activity. Delivering that would demand a massive expansion of detention capacity, including thousands of additional beds, expanded guarding contracts, transport logistics, medical services, and court resources.
What would it cost?
Public data suggests that immigration detention in Australia costs approximately $350,000–$500,000 per person per year, with higher figures in offshore or legally complex cases. Using a conservative estimate of $400,000 per detainee annually, even holding 8,000–10,000 additional people in detention could cost:
- $3.2–$4 billion per year, and
- $12–$16 billion over a four-year term, before factoring in capital expenditure for new facilities.
Additional costs would include expanded court and tribunal workloads, increased Australian Border Force staffing, charter flights, legal aid, and potential compensation payouts for unlawful detention — a cumulative financial exposure that could exceed $15–$20 billion.
Legal constraints
The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) restricts detention to lawful, administrative purposes. High Court decisions have made clear that detention cannot be punitive or indefinite. Where removal is not reasonably practicable, detention may become unlawful, exposing the Commonwealth to legal challenges and compensation claims.
One Nation has proposed withdrawing from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. While technically possible under Article 44 of the Convention, no country has ever withdrawn, and doing so would trigger unprecedented domestic and international legal challenges.
Unlike the US, where the President can issue executive orders to adjust asylum procedures, Australia cannot unilaterally override international treaties through executive action. Any withdrawal from the Convention would require our Parliament to pass legislation amending the Migration Act and related statutes. Even then, existing asylum seekers (~120,000 people) could not easily have their rights removed, as retrospective stripping of protections would almost certainly be litigated.
Practical barriers
Removals depend on cooperation from receiving states. Many governments do not prioritise accepting returned citizens or residents, and disputes over identity or documentation can prolong detention indefinitely. Even an accelerated legal process could be bottlenecked by international negotiations.
Noble intent — but achievable?
There is real merit in a well-resourced, lawful immigration compliance system: it protects borders, enforces the rule of law, and ensures fairness for those in Australia legally. But the scale and speed implied by a target of 75,000 deportations in one term raise serious questions:
- Is it legally achievable? Existing laws, treaty obligations, and High Court precedent place limits on mass removals and prolonged detention.
- Is it operationally feasible? Thousands of additional beds, personnel, and coordination with foreign governments would be required, all under tight legal scrutiny.
- Can we afford it? Conservative estimates put the cost in the tens of billions, with additional exposure to compensation claims for unlawful detention.
Bottom line
- Legally: Withdrawal from the UN Refugee Convention is possible but would face extreme domestic and international constraints. Parliament must pass legislation; Australia cannot simply issue an executive order like the US. Existing rights cannot easily be undone, and Australia would remain bound by other treaties.
- Financially: Direct legislative and administrative costs could be hundreds of millions, with operational costs in the billions per year, plus potential legal liabilities.
- Politically and diplomatically: Australia would be the first country in history to leave the Convention, with significant international backlash.
Context on the US: The United States has not withdrawn from the UN Refugee Convention. Instead, the Trump administration sought to bypass asylum protections through executive orders, administrative restrictions, and changes to the asylum system, while remaining formally bound by the treaty. This highlights that even with aggressive policies, a state cannot fully bypass the Convention without formally withdrawing, and doing so carries enormous legal, fiscal, and diplomatic costs.
Legally, Australia cannot replicate the US approach. Unlike the US President,Australian governments cannot simply sign an executive order to bypass treaties. Withdrawing from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which One Nation has suggested would require Parliament to pass new legislation, amending the Migration Act and related statutes. Even then, rights accrued by around 120,000 existing asylum seekers could not easily be removed, and retrospective changes would likely face High Court challenges.
In short, while enforcing immigration law is a legitimate and noble goal, a mass deportation program of 75,000 people over a single term, modelled after US-style “action and style”, is unlikely to be legally sustainable, operationally feasible, or financially affordable. Aspiration alone cannot substitute for careful planning, legal compliance, and realistic budgeting.
