Advertisement
Top banner ad slot - paste AdSense code here

Increase New Zealand's refugee intake from 1,500 per year to 2,500 per year

Open 98 official signatures 📡 RSS feed

Petition request

That the House of Representatives urge the Government to increase New Zealand’s refugee intake under the refugee quota programme from 1,500 per year to 2,500 per year.

Why this petition

I'm creating this petition to ask that we save more people from the conditions of places like West Papua, where I believe they are facing mass genocide but we can still help many people whose lives are in danger. I believe we have the capacity to take in 2,500 refugees per year and, in doing so, save many people's lives. I believe this is something that needs to happen, and that turning our backs on prospective refugees and their families becomes a death sentence for many.

📖 Background

Click to see details

What This Petition Is About

This petition asks the New Zealand Government to increase its annual refugee quota from 1,500 to 2,500 people. The refugee quota is a specific number of people New Zealand agrees to accept each year from around the world, separate from people who apply for asylum after arriving in New Zealand. The petition specifically cites the situation in West Papua, an Indonesian province, where the petitioner believes human rights abuses and violence are occurring, and argues that increasing intake would save lives.

Current Situation

New Zealand currently sets its refugee quota annually through the Refugee Quota Programme. In recent years, the quota has fluctuated, with the government setting it at 1,500 for the 2024/25 intake (per the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). The quota is determined based on factors like available funding, housing capacity, and international obligations. The petition exists because the author believes the current number is insufficient to address urgent humanitarian crises, particularly in regions like West Papua.

Arguments in Favour

  • Humanitarian Duty: Supporters argue that increasing intake directly saves lives by offering safety to people fleeing violence, persecution, or genocide.
  • Capacity: The petitioner claims New Zealand has the economic and social capacity to support an additional 1,000 refugees per year without significant strain.
  • Moral Obligation: Many view turning away refugees as a moral failure, especially when those individuals face life-threatening conditions in their home countries.

Arguments Against

  • Resource Strain: Critics argue that increasing the quota places additional pressure on public services, including housing, healthcare, and education, which are already under stress.
  • Integration Challenges: There are concerns about the ability to effectively integrate a larger number of newcomers into the community within a short timeframe.
  • Policy Consistency: Some argue that quota numbers should be based on long-term planning and fiscal sustainability rather than reactive responses to specific crises.

Relevant Context

New Zealand’s refugee intake is governed by the Immigration Act 2009 and managed by Immigration New Zealand. The government typically announces the quota for the coming year in the annual budget or through specific policy statements. While New Zealand is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the quota is a voluntary commitment beyond the minimum legal requirements. The situation in West Papua has been the subject of international debate, with various human rights organizations raising concerns about violence and displacement, though the Indonesian government denies allegations of genocide. Voters should note that increasing the quota does not automatically mean all applicants from a specific region will be accepted; selection is based on vulnerability and other criteria set by the UNHCR and New Zealand authorities.

Sign on parliament.nz →

Community verdict

0 support · 2 oppose

⚔ Battles (7 days each)

tie
👍 ForJade F.
An extra 1,000 refugees a year is one stadium spread across 12 months in a country of five million. Every refugee we resettle is one the UN has already vetted as among the most vulnerable on earth. This isn't about capacity — it's about whether our policy reflects the evidence or the mood.
2 votes
2 : 2
👎 AgainstJake M.
You keep reframing this as emotion versus evidence, but the evidence you cite is selection — the UN picks the most vulnerable and skips everyone else. Raising the quota doesn't just help those it takes; it pulls the most mobile and connected refugees toward New Zealand and away from the regions where most refugees actually are.
2 votes

Community arguments

👍 For Jade F. 15 Oct 2026
An extra 1,000 refugees a year is one stadium spread across 12 months in a country of five million. Every refugee we resettle is one the UN has already vetted as among the most vulnerable on earth. This isn't about capacity — it's about whether our policy reflects the evidence or the mood.
👎 Against Jake M. 15 Oct 2026
You keep reframing this as emotion versus evidence, but the evidence you cite is selection — the UN picks the most vulnerable and skips everyone else. Raising the quota doesn't just help those it takes; it pulls the most mobile and connected refugees toward New Zealand and away from the regions where most refugees actually are.
Advertisement
Sidebar / footer ad slot - paste AdSense code here