“Those who use force to feign benevolence are tyrants; tyrants must have great nations. Those who practice benevolence through virtue are kings; kings need not be great—Tang ruled with seventy miles, and King Wen with a hundred miles. Those who subdue others by force do not win their hearts; their strength is insufficient. Those who subdue others through virtue win their hearts and gain their sincere submission, like the seventy disciples who submitted to Confucius!” 

—Mencius: Gongsun Chou

On June 21, U.S. warplanes crossed the Atlantic and launched precision airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—in an operation codenamed “Midnight Hammer,” shocking the world. Three days after the strike, the NATO summit in The Hague opened, and Europe finally approved an unprecedented plan to increase defense spending—NATO allies committed to raising defense spending to 5% of GDP over the next 10 years, far exceeding the current 2% guideline. Recently, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi stated that despite attacks on multiple Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States and Israel, Iran is likely to resume uranium enrichment “within months.” The complex consequences of the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities remain to be assessed over time.

Consequences of the strikes remain unclear

In addition to the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel carried out preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, military sites, and personnel between June 13 and 24, causing further damage to Iran. Recently, Israel has been negotiating with Hamas to reach an agreement. Mediators in the Gaza Strip are in contact with Israel and Hamas, hoping that Gaza can also follow the momentum of the ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Trump publicly stated that he believes both sides may reach a ceasefire agreement within seven days.

However, Iran does not seem to have responded positively to the possibility of the United States easing its “strong” sanctions. Instead, Khamenei issued his first public statement after the war, declaring “victory over the U.S. regime.” Since the war began, Khamenei has not been seen in public. Following this statement, Trump immediately abandoned all efforts to ease sanctions and other matters. The Iranian Foreign Ministry has not yet responded to this.

Following the “Midnight Hammer” operation, Trump stated at a White House press conference that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been destroyed and that he did not believe Iran would ‘quickly’ resume nuclear weapons activities. However, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Grossi stated that despite attacks on multiple Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States and Israel, Iran could likely begin producing enriched uranium “within months.”

After all, it remains unclear whether Iran was able to transfer part or all of its approximately 408.6 kilograms of highly enriched uranium stockpile before the attacks. This uranium is enriched to 60%, above civilian levels but still below weapons-grade. If further refined, it would be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs.

Trump insists that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back “decades.” Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif stated that the damage to the nuclear facilities is “severe,” but specific details remain unclear. What is even more concerning is that the bombing of Iran’s nuclear and military facilities may result in long-term ecological damage. Soil contamination in military conflicts is one of the most severe yet often overlooked environmental consequences of war. These harmful substances often remain in the topsoil for decades, severely damaging soil quality, including its fertility and natural regenerative capacity. The consequences of Iran’s last war already forced millions of people to migrate.

A wake-up call for China

Trump’s recent strikes against Iran not only demonstrate U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East but also highlight its role as the only global power capable of unilateral action: B-2 bombers flying thousands of miles from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to strike Iran showcase America’s global power projection capabilities. This strike reinforces the United States’ prestige as the global hegemon, reminding the international community that the United States remains the most powerful player today. If the United States can precisely strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are highly fortified targets, then by extension, it also has the capability to strike China’s military facilities to strengthen the protection of its allies.

China maintained diplomatic restraint after the U.S. airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and did not take any substantive actions to support Iran. As an ally of Israel, the United States has intervened militarily in Iran using its powerful military strength; as a close partner of Iran, China can only call for de-escalation, lacking substantive leverage to avoid being drawn into the conflict. This contrast highlights China’s lack of influence in the Middle East—despite its growing economic interests in the region, it is not a major security actor, limiting its role.

The resurgence of U.S. power has undermined the Chinese political elite’s claim of “the rise of the East and the decline of the West,” as well as the appeal of China’s proposed “alternative global order.” China’s restraint and low profile in the Iran crisis reflect the limitations of its global influence, which is also why China seeks to position itself as a stabilizing force, contrasting with Trump’s “America First” policy. Although the United States deployed B-2 bombers to demonstrate its military strength, the focus was on Iran and Israel, so China will not immediately alter its Taiwan strategy unless the United States explicitly links the two regions. The “Midnight Hammer” operation at most serves as a deterrent from the United States toward China.

China seeks stability and opposes the use of military means to resolve any type of conflict or confrontation, regardless of the parties involved, and there are reasons for this. After all, over half of China’s crude oil imports depend on the Middle East, and China is the largest consumer of Iranian oil. A prolonged war would disrupt its oil supply, and an Iranian blockade of the strategically important Strait of Hormuz would have the same consequences. During this period, China’s greatest concern is avoiding the threat of “soaring oil prices” to its energy security. Only by positioning itself as a potential mediator and rational voice amid the escalating regional crisis can China indirectly safeguard its investments, trade, and business operations amid the turmoil.

Europe’s Ambiguous Shift in Attitude

European countries have sharp divisions over Israel’s actions in the Gaza war, with many European citizens strongly opposing them on humanitarian grounds. Over the past few months, Israel’s far-right government has been isolated in Europe, and Netanyahu has become the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court. Two ministers, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, have been sanctioned by the UK, with some EU countries planning to follow suit. However, European parties generally acknowledge that Iran’s nuclear program poses an existential threat to European security.

Since the airstrikes began, the UK, France, and Germany have publicly acknowledged that Iran’s nuclear weapons pose a threat not only to Israel but also to Europe. European countries have not issued major condemnations of the airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. For instance, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called for de-escalation but mentioned the UK’s “long-standing concerns” about Iran’s nuclear program. In this context, Iran has now placed the Gaza war on the back burner. This marks a major diplomatic victory for Israel in European strategic thinking, separating the Iranian nuclear issue from the Palestinian issue and paving the way for the Netanyahu government to gain some legitimacy on the European continent.

Actions speak louder than words. At the recently concluded NATO summit, NATO member states committed to increasing defense spending to 5% of their respective GDPs. Of course, European countries are attempting to balance the currently contentious US-EU tariff and trade issues by purchasing more US defense-related products. However, this commitment clearly signals that Europe tacitly approves of the U.S. airstrikes on Iran. This is closely tied to the EU’s deep dependence on the U.S., particularly in security matters. Even if the EU disagrees with many U.S. policies, including the imposition of significant tariffs, it is likely to seek compromise with the U.S. due to a “fear of the U.S.” and cultural affinity with it.

Of course, there are still voices claiming that the U.S.’s military action constitutes an outright violation of Iran’s sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity, and sends a wrong signal to the world that disputes can be resolved through force. Although Iran does not yet possess nuclear weapons, it is clear that it has the capability to produce them. Despite Iran’s repeated denials of any intent to develop nuclear weapons, certain aspects of its nuclear program, such as uranium enrichment, have raised concerns within the international community. Actions speak louder than words. Additionally, reports indicate that Douglas McGregor, a former U.S. Department of Defense advisor and retired colonel, stated on the social media platform X that the U.S. had warned Iran two hours before bombing its nuclear facilities that an attack was imminent.

Additionally, days before Trump decided to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledged that it had hundreds of sleeper cells within the United States, ready to launch attacks at any time. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the intent to infiltrate sleeper cells for terrorist attacks is classified as an “armed attack,” thereby acknowledging the right to self-defense. Iran’s acknowledgment a few days before Trump’s decision to destroy its nuclear weapons program easily provided a legitimate justification for the attack. The U.S.’s decision to severely damage Iran’s nuclear facilities at this time was “a natural consequence.”

The ever-present human conflict

The U.S. airstrike on Iran compels people to reflect on whether the use of force to end war remains an option that cannot be abandoned in today’s international society. Sociologist Charles Tilly once said that war creates nations, and nations create war. In international relations, there are naturally “rules of the game” such as international treaties, the principle of sovereignty, and the supremacy of human rights; however, the frequent conflicts between different political systems and the trends of various local wars in recent years have repeatedly forced those who harbor good intentions toward humanity to recognize the importance of “power.”

The airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, coupled with the safe withdrawal of all U.S. aircraft from Iranian airspace, once again demonstrates that the United States continues to play a significant role on the international stage, particularly in the military domain, and its formidable strength is widely recognized worldwide. Additionally, this operation marks Trump taking an action he had long vowed to avoid: military intervention in a major foreign war. In this interconnected age, complete non-intervention is impossible. The issue lies in whether intervention in war is controlled by political authorities such as nations or international institutions: whether the purpose is to end the war or to assist one side or the other in the war; and through what means the aforementioned purpose is achieved.

The philosophical debate over the relationship between “purpose” and “means” has never ceased. Taking war as an example, the party that initiates the war is naturally unjust. If the opposing side then resists with force, being drawn into this forced war, their resistance is an unavoidable response, and their purpose is to stop the war. Is such resistance a necessary—or even moral—means? Contemporary conflicts and wars are endless and difficult to resolve, as if trapped in a circular argument of “the chicken or the egg,” unable to escape.

War has never completely disappeared from human history; various forms of conflict and violence have continued to occur. Any rational person opposes war. Therefore, the focus should not be on “anti-war” rhetoric, but on how to confront war—especially “war that is forced upon us.” The vast majority of people yearn for peace. The problem is that no matter how much we advocate against war or emphasize peace, there will always be those who seek to wage war for personal gain. This forces us to confront war that is forced upon us. The first priority in facing such a war is prevention. However, if prevention fails and war breaks out, the ability to resist war still lies in strength.

Article/Editorial Department, Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

In the Australian federal election on May 3, 2025, the Liberal Party suffered a crushing defeat, marking its worst election loss in 70 years. This party, which had long dominated Australian politics, was defeated at the polls, leaving party morale at an all-time low and the future direction uncertain.

Amid this low point, Sussan Ley was elected as the new party leader, becoming the first woman to lead the Liberal Party in its history. Her appointment not only symbolizes a breakthrough in terms of generation and gender but is also seen as an opportunity to rebuild the party’s image and political positioning. Whether she can regain voter trust and lead the Liberal Party to a fresh start has become a focal point of public attention.

Last Wednesday, she delivered her first major speech since taking office at the National Press Club. From her words, demeanor, and policies, it is becoming clear that she aims to shape the Liberal Party into a more open, more willing to listen, and more representative of diverse voices.

From grassroots to politics

Sussan Ley was born in 1961 and spent her childhood in Nigeria, the Middle East, and the UK before immigrating to Australia with her parents during her teenage years. Her professional background is diverse, having worked as a pilot, air traffic controller, farm cook, and tax officer. These experiences have given her a deep understanding of grassroots life and policy operations. As a result, she is not as distant as traditional political elites but is closer to ordinary people. She is not a typical politician but has entered the political arena through her own efforts and learning.

In the early stages of her career, she worked while pursuing further education, obtaining qualifications in accounting and taxation. She then joined the Australian Taxation Office, gradually gaining an understanding of policy and public sector operations. These early experiences have enabled her to better understand the realities of ordinary Australians’ lives compared to most politicians who come from party systems, and to establish a practical and people-friendly image.

She also pursued a master’s degree at Charles Sturt University and briefly worked in academia and the field of agricultural policy. This diverse background enables her to excel in parliamentary discussions on rural and regional policies and to build long-term trust with her constituents.

After being elected to the House of Representatives in 2001, she held key positions in the health, education, and environment sectors and served as deputy party leader in 2022. Following her election as party leader after the 2025 federal election, her ascension signifies that the Liberal Party is contemplating how to redefine its values to align with the times. Ley did not rise to power through party factional maneuvering but rather through stable public support and a cross-factional image that earned her the trust of party members, making her a choice to stabilize morale in times of crisis.

It is worth noting that in 2016, she sparked controversy by purchasing a property during a business trip and claiming reimbursement of travelling expenses. Although she did not break the law, she resigned from ministerial position in 2017. The incident shook her reputation for integrity and became a challenge in her political career. However, she retained her parliamentary seat and returned to the policy core, gradually rebuilding her political influence and laying the groundwork for her eventual leadership role.

A leadership style and philosophy distinct from Dutton’s

Although Sussan Ley has only been in office for a very short time, the leadership style she has displayed so far is markedly different from that of her predecessor, Peter Dutton. During his tenure, Dutton was known for his hardline conservative stance, advocating for cracking down on immigration, reducing the size of the federal civil service, and proposing controversial policies such as expanding nuclear energy investment and significantly downsizing the public sector. He also faced criticism for his frequent public gaffes and inconsistent policy positions, further damaging the Liberal Party’s image.

In contrast to Dutton’s authoritarian style and tendency to exclude internal party discussions, Sussan Ley has adopted a markedly different leadership approach. Since taking office, she has emphasized collective participation and party consensus, striving to return the Liberal Party to its traditional “team decision-making” approach. For example, on the highly controversial energy and climate policy, Ley led the establishment of a task force, inviting several shadow cabinet members and backbench MPs from different factions to participate, coordinating the Liberal and National Parties’ positions on “net-zero emissions.” The task force, led by opposition energy spokesperson Dan Tehan, included members such as the shadow treasurer and the head of resources and environmental affairs, reporting directly to Ley and National Party leader David Littleproud, and jointly developing a new direction that balances stable, affordable energy supply with carbon reduction responsibilities. Such a collaborative mechanism not only helps mend internal rifts within the coalition but also demonstrates her willingness to return policy discussions to institutional procedures and collective participation, rather than a one-person dictatorial style.

Sussan Ley and Dutton also hold markedly different positions on the “land acknowledgment” ritual. Dutton has criticized the ritual for being abused and avoided it multiple times during the election campaign; in contrast, Ley proactively performed the acknowledgment in her first major speech after taking office, emphasizing that it holds significant meaning at appropriate times and should not be reduced to a mere formality or completely excluded, demonstrating a more pragmatic and respectful attitude toward multiculturalism.

Sussan Ley has also demonstrated a more open and inclusive leadership style since taking office. In her speech, she emphasized that the Liberal Party must respect and reflect the diversity and vitality of modern Australian society. “This society is composed of people from all over the world, including families raising children in the suburbs, young people striving to develop their careers, renting while pursuing homeownership, and elderly individuals with rich experience who care about the nation’s future.” She also mentioned that professionals, small businesses, volunteers, entrepreneurs, and the working class should all be valued and recognized. Her attitude shows that she values and is willing to listen to the ideas of different groups, respecting the contributions of every Australian.

Sussan Ley has also actively engaged in dialogue with various sectors of society, particularly focusing on reconnecting with young voters who were lost in the previous election. She was interviewed by The Daily Aus on June 15. *The Daily Aus* is one of Australia’s most influential online media outlets, targeting young readers with over 620,000 Instagram followers, and Dutton had previously refused to be interviewed by the media outlet. During the interview, Ley discussed student loan policies (HECS), how young mothers balance family and work, and climate change—issues of concern to young voters. She acknowledged that these are important and urgent challenges, not only critical for young people but also closely tied to the broader Australian society. She emphasized that all political parties should take young people’s voices seriously.

Additionally, she pointed out that for Australians today, the cost of living and rental pressures are the most pressing livelihood issues. Through these concrete actions, Sussan Ley is attempting to convey to the public that the Liberal Party is striving to be more in tune with the general public and to make up for past mistakes in failing to truly understand and represent young people and grassroots voters during elections.

Key policy issues: women, children, and defense

Sussan Ley also clearly articulated the policy issues she prioritizes in this public speech.

Her policy proposals are closely tied to the current international landscape. In the face of escalating conflicts and geopolitical instability, she emphasized that Australia must confront reality and address security challenges head-on. She criticized the Labor government for being insufficiently proactive in defense preparedness, urging Australia to increase its defense budget to 3% of GDP, accelerate the development of military capabilities such as drones, missiles, and space technology, and address the shortage of personnel in the Australian Defense Force. At the same time, she also addressed Australia’s stance toward China, stating that bilateral respect and good relations should be maintained, but that provocative actions such as Chinese military ships patrolling around Australia must be met with a firm response. She emphasized that Australia must confront the competitive and threatening world it now faces and deepen cooperation with its allies.

As a female leader, she also turned her attention to long-neglected social issues. She emphasized that domestic violence and gender-based violence are a national disgrace. Drawing on her personal experiences, she spoke out on behalf of women, expressing understanding for the fear, control, and self-blame they feel, and promising to incorporate this empathy into future decision-making. She also called for the government to allocate more resources and encourage male groups to participate in reforms, arguing that men’s health policies are also part of women’s safety.

Additionally, she has highlighted the challenges children face in the digital age, criticizing tech giants for profiting from addictive designs. She has urged the government to stand with parents to prevent harm from internet addiction, misinformation, and AI abuse. She has specifically pointed out the growing harm deepfakes pose to women.

Internal Reform Challenges

However, Sussan Ley’s reform efforts will face challenges. The Liberal Party remains deeply influenced by the conservative values of the “Robert Menzies era,” with many senior party members holding conservative views on gender equality, climate change, and immigration policies, creating a significant gap with modern voters. The party’s culture has long favored maintaining the existing power structure and traditional values, lacking proactive willingness for institutional reform and ignoring the current trend where voters prioritize social justice, the environment, and inclusivity. This misjudgment has made the Liberal Party’s policies appear outdated, leading to a significant loss of votes from young people and minority groups.

The Liberal Party’s recent election defeats have been particularly severe in some areas, especially in suburban regions that were once long-standing strongholds for the party but are now experiencing voter defections. This indicates a growing disconnect between the party and local grassroots communities. If Leah wants to reverse this trend, she must rebuild substantive relationships with local communities. Sussan Ley has indicated that she will reallocate resources to regional branches to enhance their autonomy and training capabilities, but this will require significant long-term investment.

Moreover, an increasing number of Australian voters, particularly those from multicultural communities and immigrant backgrounds, no longer identify with the “white middle-class” as the mainstream culture. Instead, they expect policies that reflect their diverse identities and experiences. In this context, the Liberal Party’s long-standing political image is gradually losing its influence. The core values of “hard work, family, and entrepreneurial spirit” that were once emphasized must be reinterpreted in today’s diverse immigrant society; otherwise, they will become hollow rhetoric disconnected from the lives of most voters. If Sussan Ley is to successfully lead the Liberal Party through this transformative period, she must actively integrate diverse ethnicities, genders, faiths, and social experiences into mainstream values to create a more inclusive political image.

In recent federal elections, the Liberal Party has clearly lost the support of the majority of multicultural immigrants. To regain their support, the party cannot simply focus on policies to manage immigration numbers but must instead develop concrete plans to assist immigrants in effectively participating in and contributing to multicultural Australia within a short timeframe. In this regard, both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have yet to propose any concrete solutions. The previous government proposed the Multicultural Framework Review, but no concrete implementation plans have been put forward. If Sussan Ley’s Liberal Party can take the lead in proposing specific policy implementations within this framework, it may have the opportunity to rebuild the Liberal Party’s recognition within the immigrant community.

However, Sussan Ley also faces pressure from hawkish factions within her party, who emphasize “free markets,” “spending cuts,” and “national defense and security first.” This makes any open stance toward immigration risk being viewed as compromise or even betrayal within the party. Ley needs time and strategy to persuade these conservative voices to understand that if the party does not adjust its mindset, it will be left behind by the times.

Additionally, the Liberal Party has long faced criticism over Indigenous affairs, particularly for its conservative stance during the “Indigenous Voice” referendum, which has left the party lacking an effective platform for dialogue with Indigenous communities. While Sussan Ley has not publicly supported this reform, she has stated that the party should establish more substantive partnerships with communities. How she handles this issue in the future will also serve as a key indicator of her leadership’s inclusivity.

Opportunity in Crisis

Sussan Ley adopts a calm and rational communication style, avoiding inflammatory language and shunning media sensationalism. She advocates that the Liberal Party must become more inclusive, truly reflecting the voices of Australia’s diverse modern society. She emphasizes teamwork, thoughtful policy-making, and gradual reform.

In the current context of a diversifying electorate and shifting values, the Liberal Party will struggle to rebuild social trust if it cannot fully shed its past ideological and cultural baggage. As the first female party leader, Sussan Ley’s emergence undoubtedly symbolizes a new beginning for the Liberal Party, but to truly turn the tide, institutional outcomes and policy actions are needed. Whether she can transform her personal experiences into organizational reform momentum will determine the trajectory of her political career and the future of the Liberal Party.

She must actively promote cultural transformation within the party, combining incentive mechanisms with policy support to create space for diverse political participants to thrive. Additionally, addressing global climate issues, digital economic transformation, social inequality, and Indigenous justice requires the Liberal Party to propose more forward-thinking and inclusive policy solutions.

This challenge is not only a test of Sussan Lee’s personal leadership but also a rigorous test of whether the Liberal Party can transform itself into a modern political party.

Article/Editorial Department, Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet

As a signatory to human rights conventions, Australia has a protection visa system that allows people who are persecuted around the world to apply for asylum after arriving in Australia legally. However, this system is currently being abused, with the number of protection visa applications increasing significantly, resulting in applicants often having to wait for years. Whether the Australian government’s reforms to the protection visa application process will be successful remains to be seen.

Who is eligible?

Following the 2019 anti-extradition movement, hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong residents have left their homes in search of a freer and more stable future. As one of the countries operating under a democratic system, Australia boasts a robust social welfare system and a high standard of living, attracting many young people to come to Australia through student, working holiday, or short-term work visas. However, as their original visas approach expiration, many individuals, lacking sufficient information or driven by emotional anxiety, are misguided toward another “immigration shortcut”—the Protection Visa (Protection Visa, Category 866).

As of 2024, over 580 people from Hong Kong have applied for this Protection Visa, with only 5 successful approvals. This indicates that many applicants lack understanding of the visa requirements and relevant legal standards. Under Australian law, only those who can prove they face clear and specific risks of persecution—such as threats to personal safety, imprisonment, or torture—qualify for asylum under the Refugee Convention. What constitutes such risks varies from person to person. The Australian Department of Immigration advises those considering this option to seek professional immigration lawyer assistance rather than making unilateral assumptions or being influenced by unlicensed immigration advisors.

Many young people who participated in the 2019 protests have considered applying for this visa. They may currently be in Australia on various visas, but they fear political retaliation upon returning to Hong Kong, even if they have not faced explicit threats to their personal safety. They are experiencing a form of “psychological persecution” that is difficult to quantify—a long-term fear of the future and restrictions on freedom of speech, as well as concerns about potential reprisals upon returning to Hong Kong. However, these subjective feelings, without concrete evidence to support them, often fail to meet official approval standards.

The “persecution” criteria for protection visas are clearly defined in the system, but some applicants conflate personal psychological stress with systemic persecution, leading to a gap between expectations and actual outcomes. This misunderstanding sometimes stems from misinformation within the community and is also influenced by certain intermediary agencies that package and promote it as a “strategic maneuver” to replace immigration.

The “business” of immigration

The situations in China and Malaysia are different. In recent years, the number of protection visa applications in these two places has significantly increased. Some applicants from China were originally students or tourists, and due to their limited English proficiency, they often view this pathway as “low-threshold immigration option.” This is because applying for this visa does not require an English proficiency test or any technical skills; it only requires a fee of $45, making it a low-cost option. This has led many Chinese students to apply for the 866 protection visa when their student visas are about to expire, as they lack other immigration options. Meanwhile, some Malaysians use this visa as a stepping stone for legal employment. They typically submit protection applications before their student or tourist visas expire, not to seek asylum, but to extend their stay and work in Australia through a bridge visa. Although most of these applications are ultimately rejected during the approval process, the process is often time-consuming, tying up review resources and sparking concerns about the abuse of the protection system.

From Hong Kong residents’ ignorance and misunderstanding of protection visas to Chinese and Malaysian applicants disregarding the visa’s original purpose and using it to extend their stay and work legally, the credibility and legitimacy of the protection visa system have been gradually eroded. What was intended as a humanitarian aid system has gradually evolved into what some view as an “immigration backdoor.”

The Original Intent and Degeneration of the Asylum System

The Protection Visa (Protection Visa, Category 866) is intended to provide asylum and permanent residency opportunities for those who face the risk of persecution in their home countries due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. As long as these individuals are already in Australia, they may apply for asylum. If they provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that returning to their home country would expose them to life-threatening risks, torture, imprisonment, or other severe human rights violations, they may be granted asylum and permanent residency in Australia.

Such a system was originally intended to safeguard human dignity. However, over time, it has begun to be viewed by some as a “tool for extending stay.” . The approval process is already cumbersome, with each case requiring individual investigation, document verification, and interviews, often taking years to process. During this period, applicants are issued a Bridging Visa, allowing them to legally reside, work, and live with the same freedoms as ordinary residents.

This “waiting period,” from a certain perspective, has become a form of “alternative residency period” that does not require eligibility review.

What is even more concerning is that even if the application is ultimately rejected, the applicant may appeal, and the case will then enter the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) process. If dissatisfied, the applicant may further appeal to the Federal Court, extending the process by several years and once again prolonging the residency period. While the openness of this legal pathway is intended to be a safeguard of democratic institutions, it has, in practice, become an abused “delay tactic.”

Among various visa categories, the protection visa, which does not require skill, language, or financial thresholds, has become the “easiest to apply for and most likely to be extended” option in the eyes of many students and short-term workers in Australia. Compared to the technical immigration visa, which requires academic qualifications and occupational assessments, or the business investment visa, which demands substantial financial guarantees, the protection visa appears to require only a $45 processing fee, a statement, and some supporting documents to initiate the process. However, this “low-threshold” appearance often masks the high review standards behind it. The actual approval process still relies on the definitions in the Refugee Convention and international law to determine whether the applicant faces genuine and unavoidable persecution risks. The reviews conducted by the immigration department and courts are even more rigorous, often taking years and consuming significant resources.

Many individuals who originally came to Australia for education, when their courses are about to end and their visas are about to expire, may choose to apply for a protection visa to extend their stay and secure legal work rights if they are unable to successfully apply for skilled migration or switch to another visa. Many of them come from countries such as China, India, and Malaysia, with some having been misled by intermediaries into believing this is a viable “residence strategy.” For some students with limited family financial resources, staying in Australia for an additional two or three years, working legally, and sending money back home may be sufficient to recoup their costs, even if they are ultimately denied and neither they nor their families can ever return to Australia. They may still feel it is “worth a try.”

Is there really no cost involved?

For those applying for the 866 protection visa, there are indeed costs involved. First, during the waiting period, they will obtain a bridging visa, but this does not necessarily grant them work rights. For example, individuals who originally held tourist visas without work rights must still cover their own living expenses, have no access to medical insurance, and face significant challenges in daily life.

Additionally, during the waiting period, they cannot leave Australia. Those approved cannot return to their original country of residence (this is understandable, as they claim to be persecuted and cannot simply return). Many are thus separated from their families for an extended period, something they did not initially anticipate.

If the application for a protection visa is unsuccessful and there are no other valid visas available, these individuals may be deported, and some may be required to stay in detention centers. Additionally, they may owe the Australian government certain fees upon departure, which must be settled before they can leave. Many have found that the income earned during this period is significantly reduced as a result.

Furthermore, applicants must pay substantial fees to intermediaries and immigration lawyers to represent them in their applications and appeals. This is precisely the scam employed by unlicensed immigration consultants. There have been unscrupulous intermediaries in Malaysia and other countries openly soliciting “customers” to come to Australia through this route. Ultimately, it is these young people seeking opportunities who bear the costs.

In the long term, those whose protection visa applications are rejected will have a permanent record on file with the immigration authorities, making it extremely difficult for them and their families to apply for other visas and return to Australia in the future. For many, this has a severely detrimental impact.

What are the chances of success?

According to the final approval data for permanent protection visas in the 2023–24 fiscal year, 304 applicants from China were approved, resulting in an approval rate of just 10.16%; Malaysia had 257 approvals, with an approval rate of 22.99%. In contrast, out of 900 applications from Myanmar, the approval rate reached a staggering 99.45%. This significant disparity indicates that the proportion of applicants from certain countries who genuinely meet the definition of the Refugee Convention is extremely low, highlighting the misuse or even abuse of the system.

Moreover, this “delay-based residency” mindset is beginning to influence short-term visitors who originally had no intention of immigrating. They may have simply wanted to earn money in Australia, but found that protection visas have become a low-cost, high-return workaround. Such abuse not only overloads the overall review system but also delays the approval of other cases.

The system was originally well-intentioned, but when loopholes in the system are exploited, that goodwill gradually deteriorates. Protection visas have evolved from a last line of humanitarian defense into a “de facto immigration channel” in the eyes of some. This leaves those who truly need assistance facing even longer and more burdensome waits.

What’s next for the government?

As the number of protection visa applications continues to rise and approval backlogs worsen, the Australian government has gradually recognized the potential misuse of the system and began implementing reforms and tightening measures in 2024 to reduce approval times.

The government has implemented multi-faceted policies to combat the abuse of protection visas. During the Liberal Party’s tenure, the number of applications surged from thousands to tens of thousands, yet the government ignored the situation, resulting in cases taking years to process, allowing abusers to exploit the system. However, starting in 2024, the government significantly increased the staff handling such visas and established the principle of prioritizing new cases, reducing the waiting time for visas to one-eighth of the original duration. Many cases were completed within weeks or months, significantly reducing the waiting time for applicants to remain in Australia.

The Australian government has also launched community outreach campaigns to educate prospective applicants for protection visas about the potential consequences of abuse and to avoid being misled by intermediaries. Additionally, the Australian government offers assistance to applicants who voluntarily withdraw their applications and communicates with their home countries to ensure they will not face punishment upon return.

Conclusion

A protection visa originally designed to assist individuals facing persecution and extreme hardship has been widely abused due to unscrupulous business practices, leaving those who truly need assistance unable to receive it, which is regrettable. However, as economic migration increasingly becomes the mainstream, this is an unavoidable reality. The Australian government must respond more sensitively to effectively implement its original immigration policies.

 Article/Editorial Department, Sameway Magazine

Photo/Internet