While it seems there is no pressing current high profile news about this issue, I feel it is worth exploring some perspectives on the matter.
Perhaps it's good that there are no major influxes now, so we can discuss it more rationally.

Hypertheticals.

AFGANISTAN
is still under the Taliban, and the Buddhist statues have just been blown up. Buddhists are being hunted down, and beheaded for 'idolatry'.. some have turned up on Australia's shores claiming a well founded fear of persecution which by this time is well documented.

RUSSIA.
A new zeal has overtaken the government, to cleanse the country of all 'criminal' elements who are loosely defined as those of Chechen background. Systematic persecution based on race is occurring and there is strong evidence to support this. On the same boat are some Chechens from Russia.

GERMANY.
A powerful Left Wing government has been elected in a landslide.
They had a platform of ridding the country of all vestiges of National Socialism, and the Interior Minister happens to be of (atheist)Jewish background with strong connections to marxist radical groups.
He has unofficially started to round up all National Socialists, and imprison them under the newly beefed up Internal Security Act which allows indefinite detention without trial.
Some Germans are also in the same boat as the Afgan Buddhists and Russian Chechens.

None of the above have been convicted of any crime.

Do we accept all of them on the basis of the UN charter?

If not, why not?

If your question is "should the UN interfere in internal issues?" which seems to be your basic point.
- firstly the UN constitution cannot go into any country without invitation
- or Security Council approval and in all cares the Veto would be applied.
- the UN are peace keepers not expiditionary forces.
Simply put it the UN is not desgned for that.
Any other multi national force of UN members would need a UN resolution which they would be unlikely to get.
Therefore any force would probaby be led by the US and thereforehave some particular self interest at its base but based solely onthe information supplied it would all be much like the mating of sterile elephants lots of grunting and screaming at high level for no result just look at Zimbarbwe.

Thankyou examinator.. the question I'm exploring is really whether Australia should accept or not accept any of the exampled refugees.(based on the UN convention meaning)

The only connection with the UN is reference to the convention on refugees....

We are signatories to it..and thus, I'm asking if, on the basis of that UN convention, which mentions that legitimate refugees are persons who have a well founded fear of danger for political, or religious ideas, or ethnicity etc.

Thus, this question invites people to examine the political ideas of the applicants and question whether, on the basis of those ideas, we should or should not accept them into this country.

Recall we have 3 examples.

1/ Buddhist from Taliban run Afganistan
2/ Chechen from Russia
3/ National Socialist from Germany.

Keep in mind that a person might simply hold such ideas, faith (or be of a particular race-Chechen), and not have carried out any criminal or violent act by our law.

So, we are seeking to assess "Buddhism by religious ideology, Chechens by 'racial inclination' (perceived or real) and National Socialists by ideology.

One aspect of this issue is "While to be a member of a particular group may be illegal in the country of origin, it may not neccessarily be illegal in Australia",

So, while it might be argued by those 'against' accepting them that "They have committed a crime" (by belonging to a particular group) in their country, those advocating acceptance may also argue that to belong to such a group is not a crime in Australia.

I'm really not asking for 'mere opinion' here..but sound input based on the actual meaning of the UN convention. So, this post should tighten up the question a bit. Not 'do we think'...but 'by law/convention should we?'
cheers.

Polycarp,

If the UN Charters are to have meaning, they must, at their core, protect the rights of people from oppression, etc. So, your three hypotheticals should qualify such people to be deemed refugees. Being a refugee should have absolutely nothing to do with one's beliefs, ideology or religion, just that the person is fleeing unfair persecution of some kind.

That's the ideal.

A problem I can see in reality, however, is that, in order to make the situation manageable, Governments create artificial restrictions, as much to make it easier for their staff in their Immigration Departments as to control the numbers coming in. The problem I can see in widening the definitions of refugees is that a well-ordered country could have a deluge on its hands. So, in order to counteract that, even if there was a widening of the definition of a refugee, there always would be "flavour-of-the-month" refugees that would get in to the exclusion of others. But at least it's a start.

The UN charter lists four purposes and seven principles. The seventh of which states, "The UN accepts the principle of not interfering in the actions of a member nation within its own borders..."

So as RobP suggested, Australia can decide which refugees it will accept and why.

Hopefully it will chose on humanitarian grounds, in keeping with the sustainability of the population size, its continent can support.

Of course pressure can always be applied on the Government from
various sources, if there is a disagreement on the decisions made.

Polycarp your question was easy to understand should we except such as migrants.
Well yes ,but, Nazis? sorry no way for me, that is not PC is it? but no way can I say in the name of humanity we except groups as migrants who do not share our ideals, who in fact do not believe in humanity.
We must confront the fact each new Iraq or even Zimbabwe will see more migration.
Each case should be judged on its Merritt, but if the UN was even worth treating seriously they would have a real role to fix things like Zimbabwe and we know they are useless.