Features
Charles III’s visit to Australia
Published
11 months agoon
Charles III’s visit to Australia reminds me of the return of Hong Kong to China 27 years ago, when Charles, as Crown Prince, handed Hong Kong back to the Chinese leaders on behalf of the Queen, opening a new page in Hong Kong’s history.
I believe that Charles’s visit to Australia will probably be his last as King, given his age, his health and the demand of the Australian community to become a republic. Last week, I was invited by the Prime Minister’s Office to Canberra on Monday to attend a reception in the Parliament Hall to welcome King Charles, and to see for myself how Australia has welcomed him. The protest ‘performance’ by Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe at the end of the welcome ceremony was right in front of my eyes, and it got me thinking.
Charles’s love affair with Australia, 17 visits in total
Charles III became King of Australia last year, immediately following his accession to the British throne, and it is a misnomer for many Hong Kong newspapers to describe the visit of the King of England to Australia as a visit in his capacity as monarch of a foreign country. Charles arrived in Sydney on Friday evening, rested for a day and then visited the North Sydney Anglican Church for a service on Sunday, and then visited the NSW Parliament in the afternoon, where he presented an hourglass timer to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the NSW Parliament. The Commonwealth Universities Association (CUA) also announced that Charles had made a personal donation to establish a scholarship to help smaller developing countries face urgent economic, social and environmental challenges.
On Monday Charles attended the Canberra Parliamentary Welcome Reception and a number of charity events. In the afternoon Charles met with two climate scientists and Queen Camilla visited charities. On Tuesday, they met with Australian of the Year 2024 and fellow cancer specialists Professor Georgina Long and Professor Richard Scolyer to discuss cancer research. Later they met with Aboriginal leaders and attended an Australian barbecue. On Wednesday Charles III travelled to Samoa to open the Federal Heads of State Conference. It was not easy for King Charles, who began cancer treatment in February, to stop for nine days to visit Australia. Polls conducted in Australia during the period showed half of Australians were satisfied with the King’s visit, ahead of Prime Minister Albanese and Opposition Leader David Dutton.
This is the second visit by a sitting head of state to Australia since Queen Elizabeth’s visit in 2011. Charles first visited Australia when he was 19 years old and spent six months as a Year 9 student boarding at Geelong Grammar School’s Timbertop campus. This was his 17th visit to Australia (one more than Queen Elizabeth) and his first as King. In 1983 he visited Australia with the then Princess Diana and the newborn Prince William, with Princess Diana adding to Charles’ popularity.
Will he give up the headship soon?
In a sign of the importance Charles III attaches to his relationship with Australia, he took a break from his cancer treatment to visit Australia for five days before travelling to Samoa to preside over the Federal Heads of State Conference. He was met at the airport on Friday evening by Governor Sam Mostyn, Prime Minister Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minn, but all the Premiers declined to attend the State Welcome Reception on Monday, citing official commitments. I had thought that Australia might be speeding up its transformation into a republic as more immigrants from different countries become Australians, and that Charles’ trip would become a “farewell to Australia” tour. However, the polls conducted during this period show that most Australians do not want to change the status quo, so if Charles’ health improves, perhaps he will have a chance to visit Australia in the future.
Charles has always reiterated that he has no objection to Australia becoming a republic, and that he would be happy to fulfil the wishes of the Australian people. However, some of the organisations pushing for Australia to become a republic have argued that Australia is not really a ‘land without people’ and that it would be disrespectful to the Aboriginal people to have an Englishman as head of state through an election. However, it seems that there is no consensus in the community on whether an Aboriginal leader should be allowed to take up the role of the head of state, and it may not be accepted by the current multi-ethnic society. 1999 Australia held a referendum, only 45% of Australians would support a republican system, and the situation is still similar to that time in the opinion polls released on Tuesday. So it seems unlikely that the monarchy will be abolished any time soon.
The Monarch Who Won the Hearts and Minds of the People
After the British landed in Australia in 1788, the colonies were formed into state governments under the British Empire, with a democratic system of government whereby the King of England became the head of state, and between 1890 and 1900, the Australian states voted in a referendum to form the Commonwealth of Australia, with today’s constitution, no longer colonies but self-governing by the people of those states. It was the choice of the people of each state to become a Commonwealth, and on 1 January 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was formally established when the King of England, who was also the King of Australia, was voted into office by the British Parliament. For the Australians, it was not the British who conquered this part of Australia by military force and forced the Australians to accept the King of England as their head of state, but the colonisers fought for independence as a self-governing country, but after independence, Australia still maintained its ties with Britain and appointed the King of England as the King of Australia.
Queen Elizabeth was the first sitting monarch to visit Australia in 1954. After the Second World War, Britain pursued a policy of de-colonisation, with British Malaya and Singapore in the vicinity of Australia becoming independent states. Queen Elizabeth visited 57 Australian cities and towns during her 58-day tour. The trip involved 31 flights of over 16,000 kilometres by plane, and many trips by train, car and ship. It is estimated that 75% of the 9 million Australians who met the Queen in person at the time, made the Queen’s visit the only major event of its kind in Australia at that time. The visit made the Queen the Queen of Australians, and it is fair to say that the Queen gave the majority of Australians who had settled in the Commonwealth far from Britain an identity that connected them to British history and tradition. From that time until today, Australians have believed that they were not separate from the Asian nations from which they were so different, living in isolation in the Pacific in a Western society.
Charles’s visit to Australia today is not the same as it was in Elizabeth’s time. But the latest opinion polls show that Australians are not keen to speed up the establishment of a republic, indicating that although Australians have been in closer contact with Asian countries, it is clear that Australia is still reluctant to give up its historical ties with Britain. the establishment of AUKUS, which has become the centre of gravity of Australia’s foreign affairs and defence in recent years, shows that the Australian society is not willing to become a completely independent country from Britain in the near future. In all likelihood, Australia would like to strengthen its co-operative relationship with more ex-British countries. If this were to happen, there would be a market for the King of England to be the King of Australia, at least for a certain period of time.
A Different Concept of Monarch from the Chinese Empire
Due to historical factors, most European heads of state were not direct rulers of the country, but rather symbols of the country. This is a completely different concept from that of the emperors who have always governed China, and it is believed to have started in Britain.
More than 800 years ago, the King of England signed the Magna Carta, handing over the power of governing the country to the aristocracy, and eventually developed the present democratic system. It can be said that the power of the king has long since passed away, and the monarch is no longer, and does not need to be directly responsible for the policies of the country. However, the emperors of the Chinese Empire (i.e. China in history) have always had the supreme power to govern the country. When an emperor failed to govern and the country was in turmoil, there was often a coup d’état or a popular revolt, leading to a change of dynasty and the Chinese would support the new emperor. It can be said that such a system, which advocated the supremacy of power, made the rulers unwilling and unable to give up the power they possessed. Whenever the Chinese nation was invaded by foreigners, the majority of the Chinese people would accept the new emperor’s rule, but in the end, the ruling system composed of scholars assimilated the foreign monarchs and nations. For example, the Manchurian dynasty was still ruled by the Han Chinese ruling class, and the Manchurians were eventually Sinicised to the extent that not many of them know much about Manchu culture today. Another example is that the Mongols refused to be Sinicised, and as a result, when their control over the society was weakened, they were driven back to the north by the Han Chinese, and their life has never been un-Sinicised.
From these different views on kingship, we can understand the situation of Charles III today. Though the kingship is inherited from history, the actual governing power is in the hands of the people, so the kings do not have absolute power and interests. Today, the British Royal Family is an alternative group of people in Britain who can contribute to the improvement of the country’s inequalities, or give hope to the neglected people, and thus provide strength to the stability of the society. Most of the activities of the British royal family are ceremonial and charitable, and the royal family has accumulated a great deal of wealth over the course of its history. Whether or not they continue to be members of the Royal Family is not an important issue for them. Moreover, while royalty is often the centre of public attention, there are some members of the royal family who are unwilling to take on such a role. Prince Harry, for example, who had no right of succession, gave up his position and became an independent celebrity, enjoying his leisure time.
Charles III knows what he’s doing
For me, still in Hong Kong, a visit from the British Royal Family means holidays, celebrations and good news. When the Queen comes to Hong Kong, she’s bound to be on holiday, and part-time workers are always hoping that the Queen Mother (Hong Kong people’s nickname for Queen Elizabeth) will come to Hong Kong more often. The royal family’s visits to Hong Kong are often to preside over the launching of large-scale construction or projects, and are a sign of Hong Kong’s prosperity, stability and development. Charles visited Hong Kong five times in his capacity as Crown Prince. Initially, it was thought that the Queen was too old for the Crown Prince to take over the throne, but the Queen’s longevity made Hong Kong people realise that he would not have the opportunity to preside over the handover as King in 1997.
But Charles did manage to get the British out of Hong Kong in style. Charles III left Hong Kong’s Queen’s Pier (which no longer exists today) on the HMS Britannia with the British flag lowered, signalling that the British had come and gone by ship. I believe that most people in Hong Kong at that time, as well as the rest of the world, were amazed that the British had turned this barren harbour into the richest metropolis in the world. Looking at the prosperity of Hong Kong, the quality of life of the people of Hong Kong at that time, who would say that the colonial government was a tyranny that exploited the people?
Charles summed it up as the contribution of the British in Hong Kong, and today, 27 years later, many Hong Kong people around the world would agree and still miss it. Charles’s ‘farewell to Australia’ is a low-key visit to a country where many have rejected him as king, despite the difficulties of fighting cancer, and where he insists on his duty as ‘King of Australia’ (many Hong Kong media have misrepresented his visit to Australia as the ‘King of England’). Charles III’s early public statement that he would let the Australian people decide whether to become a republic or not shows that Charles III realised that the era of the king as the head of state was over. By making the change known to the Australians, the hardliners, who had been in favour of retaining the royal system, had no reason to hold out any longer. But the Australians were in no hurry to change, and Charles did not have to accelerate the pace. Australia’s transformation into a republic has become a consensus that the Australian community needs to seek on its own, and this attitude shows Charles’s ability to know what to do and what to do not, as well as his political wisdom.
A Nation Grows
The attitude of the Australians towards the royal family also shows that a country has to grow. In the beginning, Australia was just a new continent discovered by the British, similar to the Americas. These two lands were too far away from Britain and not on the Asian trade routes to be of much trade value to the British Empire. India, Hong Kong, Singapore and some parts of Africa were different, they played the role of entrepot and supply port in the East-West trade, and as these places were already governed by established sovereign governments, the British had to become sovereigns through war as conquerors. However, the British did not colonise these colonies in large numbers. While the administration of these colonies brought benefits to Britain in terms of global trade and the plundering of the resources of these lands, at the same time, the administration of these colonies also brought great problems and costs to the British Empire. After the First World War, Britain’s power declined so rapidly that after the Second World War, Britain adopted a policy of decolonisation, allowing these colonies to become independent. To this day, many of these countries still maintain a good co-operative relationship with Britain and are part of the Commonwealth.
The situation in America and Australia was different. The opening up of America was driven by religious idealists who were dissatisfied with the British social system and soon formed self-governments in opposition to Britain. As a result, the United States of America was founded on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean with western democratic institutions but without the historical baggage of Britain, and with a strong belief in individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law, and has become the most powerful country in the world in the last few decades. Australia, on the other hand, because of its more remote location, only had settlers from the lower social classes and gold miners who pursued a free life, and up to 70 or 80 years ago, it was still a small country with a population that supplied Britain with wool, beef and dairy products for trade. Nevertheless, the lives of these oppressed people, who sought freedom and equality, were greatly improved by the richness of the land. The colonists quickly established self-government, honoured British traditions, and because the neighbouring countries were all undemocratic in Asia, Australian society was keen to maintain its close relationship with Britain until the Second World War, and naturally, the British king became the king of Australia.
Queen Elizabeth’s charisma, coupled with the White Australia policy that prevailed in Australian society for more than 50 years, has kept Australians from changing the present system of having the King of England as the head of state. However, over the past 30 years, Australia has absorbed a large number of immigrants from all over the world, and this generation of Australians is now a global citizenry with a global outlook, but still retains the old values of freedom, equality and tolerance of different perspectives. Australians are able to build co-operative relationships with different countries and ethnic groups around the world, and because of this, Australian society is capable of making institutional changes.
It can also be said that Australia has grown to become a democratic, free and lawful nation in the Asia-Pacific region, one that demands mutual respect and tolerance, and that resists the threat of force and oppression. In the face of the reorganisation of the world order, Australia will play an important role in the region, and perhaps it is a good symbol for a change in the system of national leadership.
Who will be the head of state?
If Australia ever becomes a republic, how will she elect her head of state? Australia’s most powerful Governor-General has always been an elected head of government, nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the King of Australia. Most of them are respected members of the community, come from a wide range of backgrounds, and are seen as representatives of fairness and justice. Most of these nominees are knowledgeable people, but if we recognise that Australia did not start out as an uninhabited land, but was inhabited by Aboriginal people for more than 60,000 years, does it mean that the Australian community should consider an Aboriginal leader to be the head of state?
No Aboriginal person has ever been appointed as the Governor-General of Australia. Douglas Nicholls was appointed Governor-General of South Australia in 1976, the first Aboriginal person to hold such a position. Mr Le Van Hieu, an immigrant from Vietnam, also served as Governor-General, but they were appointed by the King and had no real power.
But if the head of Australia is elected by the people on a one-man-one-vote basis, how much power should he have? Is it possible to elect an Aboriginal head of state? Or should the Aborigines be the head of state of Australia? It seems to be very difficult for the Australian community to reach a consensus on these issues.
As I attended Charles III’s welcome reception in Parliament on Monday, I observed a number of things of interest.
You’re not my king, you’ve committed genocide
Before the King got off the bus and arrived at Parliament House, there was an Aboriginal welcome, a sign of respect for Aboriginal people, and a parade of Australian soldiers. I saw Charles III stop to talk to the soldiers, some of whom were obviously not white. On entering the parliamentary chamber, the sign language interpreter, sitting on the far left hand side of the room, conveyed a very clear message. I don’t think many people in the room would have needed a sign language interpreter, but rather a way to express to the Deaf people of the country that they too are part of this country and can be seen on the TV news. Before the start, Auntie Violet Sheridan gave the Aboriginal welcome to the King, and then the Prime Minister’s speech, which showed that the Australian government recognises that this land belongs to the Aboriginal people.
The Prime Minister’s and King’s speeches also mentioned how Queen Elizabeth won the hearts of all Australians on her first visit to Australia as King. The Prime Minister also praised King Charles for his many visits and interest in Australia’s development and charitable work during his years as Crown Prince. Prime Minister Albanese recognised the positive role Charles has played in Australia’s development and growth to date. Charles spoke about his first time living in Australia and how the Aboriginal culture has had a huge impact on his life over the past 58 years. He also expressed his concern about the recent fires and natural disasters that have occurred in Australia in recent years, and was pleased that Australia has grown to become such an influential country in the world.
It could have been a perfect farewell visit. The guests did not come as kings to a land of exiled convicts, the hosts did not bow and scrape as vassals, and we all parted in a courteous manner, with the Prime Minister saying that Australia would continue to play an active and important role in future federal meetings of states. It could be said that this visit was the perfect prelude to Australia’s entry into a republic. However, immediately after the speeches, Aboriginal Senator Lidia Thorpe rushed forward and shouted, ‘You are an exterminator’ and ‘You are not my king’. Her action absolutely disrupted the harmony of the whole welcoming ceremony, and all the participants shook their heads and sighed. Bringing politics into the ceremony was not recognised and supported by the participants and Australians. Lidia was later criticised by many Aboriginal leaders for insulting the king she claimed to be loyal to, losing her integrity and bringing shame to the Aboriginal people.
Aboriginal people are being ignored?
Are Lidia’s demands reasonable? Firstly, Lidia wants to get back the bones of the Aborigines. Many Aboriginal skeletons were brought to Britain during the colonial era, and some museums have returned them to Aboriginal communities in the past.Lidia’s request is reasonable, but should it have been made at the King’s welcoming party, or is there a better way?
Secondly, Lidia says the King is responsible for the genocide of the Aborigines, which is a difficult question to answer. When the British first landed in Australia, not many people would have thought that the Aborigines were living in a highly civilised society at that time. Since the Australian continent had been isolated from the world for tens of thousands of years, when the known civilised society developed into the Industrial Revolution, the British encountered the Aborigines and regarded them as undeveloped and did not regard the land as inhabited. However, inhabited land can also become colonies of other countries through wars. It is not uncommon for the original inhabitants to die in large numbers after the invasion of a new nation.
In fact, under such circumstances, the British did not carry out genocide against the indigenous people to a large extent. This was not because the British were not aggressive, it was believed that it was only because of the vastness of Australia and the distance between Australia and Britain that the British did not colonise on a large scale. After the conflict between the British colonisation and the Aborigines, the Aborigines settled in the more remote inland of Australia. It was not until the discovery of gold mines in Australia in the 60s and 70s that more Britons emigrated to Australia, and Lidia’s assertion that Charles or the King of England carried out genocide in Australia is clearly not true.
The British colonial government set up loyalist governments in each state, recognising the King as the head of state was their choice, and there is no law in each state that says that Aborigines must be citizens of each state. However, there were Aboriginal Protection Officers in each state to protect the rights of the Aborigines in case of conflicts between the Aborigines and the citizens of the state, so that the Aborigines could be treated fairly in the society. You can say that the colonialists stole the land by claiming that it had no owner, but this is the view of the post-World War II world on respecting national sovereignty. During the colonial era, when it was a common belief in the world that military might was the key to determining who belonged to a territory, it was considered progressive for the colonisers to ignore the rights of the aborigines instead of exterminating them.
Perhaps the officials who dealt with the Aborigines at that time did not know how to do the job well, but at least the Australian society did not completely ignore the Aborigines.Lidia can say that the British colonialists initially ignored the cultural heritage of the Aborigines, or they did not respect the rights of the Aborigines, but it is far-fetched to think that they had occupied the Aborigines’ land. At that time, the Aborigines did not have a life style of settling on a piece of land for a long period of time. It can also be said that they were not a people who settled in a fixed place, but a people who travelled around a certain place for a long period of time. The Aboriginal people also did not have any concept of property rights (settlement) or who owns a certain piece of land, and naturally, there was no such thing as encroachment.
A Free, Democratic and Rule of Law Australia
When the state and federal governments of Australia were formed, Aborigines were not initially included in national statistics. The intention was that Aborigines would be denied the responsibility of state protection, and that they would not be taxed or provided with welfare benefits by the state and federal governments, not that the state or federal governments would not recognise their existence and right to exist. The fact that Aboriginal people could only live on land that no one else owned or used was not a big problem, as there was plenty of land in Australia in the first place. The Aborigines had the right to deny that they were nationals of either the British Empire or the Commonwealth of Australia, but in doing so, they also denied the responsibility of Australia as a nation to protect them. Senator Lidia Thorpe’s behaviour is therefore clearly contradictory.
As Aborigines, Lidia has the right to deny the existence of the Commonwealth of Australia because the Aborigines did not become Australian citizens in 1900 when they voted in a referendum to accept the Commonwealth’s constitution. They became part of the Commonwealth of Australia in a referendum in the 67th century, when the original colonisers and their descendants were accepted into the Commonwealth of Australia. Since then they have enjoyed the privileges, benefits and Aboriginal land rights of living in Australia, and Lidia was born after the constitutional changes that made all Aboriginal people Australians, and naturally, a subject of Charles III of Australia. Since her birth, she has enjoyed the welfare and education provided by the Australian government, and has become part of the Australian government by running for election, being elected, and swearing allegiance to the Australian government. However, Australians enjoy freedom of speech, and simply stating publicly that you are not a subject of Charles III is not treason or sedition, nor is it a criminal offence, as long as you do not take any specific action. She is a democratically elected member of Parliament, and the Parliament does not have the power to remove her from office.
Lidia’s behaviour demonstrates that Australians today enjoy a great deal of freedom, and that they use this freedom ‘unreasonably’ to promote their own political ideas without fear of being suppressed by the government. This is all because Australian society practises democracy and the rule of law, and allows its citizens to enjoy freedom. Whether they are descendants of the original British colonisation, Aboriginal people, or people who have immigrated from outside the UK and settled in this country, they all enjoy these rights, and this is the most valuable change that some of us, the first generation of immigrants to settle in this country, have experienced.
King Charles has gone, but his visit to Australia has made Australians think again about who they are and how Australia should go forward. How should Australia go forward? I’m sure it will be discussed amongst Australians for some time to come.
You may like
Features
What Is the Significance of Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan’s First Visit to China?
Published
4 days agoon
September 29, 2025
Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan embarked on her first visit to China since taking office, from September 14 to 19, lasting five days. Her itinerary included Beijing, Shanghai, as well as Victoria’s sister cities Nanjing, Chengdu, and Deyang. Accompanied by Labor MPs, she met with Chinese officials and business leaders. The focus was on boosting trade, promoting education exchanges, expanding the tourism market, and attracting more Chinese students and investment, with the aim of raising Victoria’s profile in China.
Is Victoria’s Relationship with China Over?
China has long been Victoria’s largest trading partner and the main source of international visitors. Allan’s office framed this trip as “the beginning of a new golden era” and emphasized that the purpose was to rebuild friendship with China.
Looking back, former premier Daniel Andrews had strongly promoted cooperation with China and even signed the “Belt and Road” agreement in 2018. However, the federal government later exercised its power under the Foreign Arrangements Scheme Act for the first time, canceling two agreements Victoria signed with China, citing inconsistency with Australia’s foreign policy or harm to foreign relations. This move provoked strong dissatisfaction from Beijing, with China’s Foreign Ministry harshly criticizing Australia for having “no sincerity in improving China–Australia relations.”
Subsequently, relations between China and Australia deteriorated further due to multiple controversies. Australia criticized Beijing’s actions regarding Hong Kong protests and human rights issues in Xinjiang, and supported the World Health Organization’s independent investigation into the COVID-19 outbreak. Meanwhile, Australian intelligence agencies exposed China’s attempts to influence local politics through political donations, sparking national security concerns. These events further strained bilateral ties.
Even so, Victoria tried to maintain exchanges with China, establishing sister-city relationships with several Chinese cities and consolidating ties through education and business cooperation, attempting to preserve collaboration within an otherwise tense climate.
But compared with Andrews’ “pro-China” image, Allan faces a more delicate situation. After stepping down two years ago, Andrews turned to private business, becoming a consultant with close links to Chinese enterprises. More recently, he even appeared at a military parade in Tiananmen Square and was photographed with President Xi Jinping and other Chinese leaders, sparking controversy. As the current premier, Allan has said, “”Victoria is an old friend of China and these connections are so valuable for our state,” but she must strike a far more cautious balance between cooperation with China and domestic political sentiment.
Judging by the arrangements of this visit, China’s reception of Allan was clearly not on par with that of Andrews in the past. She only met with Minister of Education Huai Jinpeng, and her first policy speech was held merely at a hotel. This treatment was far less prestigious than Andrews’ high-level invitation to witness the Tiananmen parade just a week earlier. Observers speculate that Beijing attaches limited importance to the current Victorian government, possibly because the “Belt and Road” agreements were overturned by the federal government, or due to the broader backdrop of strained China–Australia relations.
The Contradictions of Education Diplomacy
One major highlight of this trip was to deepen education cooperation. In its newly released Victoria’s China Strategy: For a New Golden Era, the Victorian government pointed out that in 2024 the international education industry contributed as much as AUD 15.9 billion to the state’s economy, remaining Victoria’s largest service export for more than two decades. Among this, Chinese students numbered 64,000, making China the largest source country. The document listed “continue to strengthen our reputation as a preferred destination for Chinese visitors, students, researchers, and investors” as a strategic priority, emphasizing the need to further consolidate Victoria’s image as a global destination for Chinese tourists, students, researchers, and investors.
When meeting Chinese Education Minister Huai Jinpeng in Beijing, Allan repeatedly stressed Victoria’s welcoming attitude toward Chinese students, hoping to expand bilateral exchanges through stronger educational cooperation and demonstrating the importance she attaches to “education diplomacy.”
However, this proactive approach sharply contrasts with federal policy. In August 2025, the Australian federal government announced a new student quota system, capping the total number of international students nationwide at 295,000 in 2026. Although this figure was 25,000 higher than the current year, industry insiders believe that due to persistent restrictions in the immigration system, actual numbers are unlikely to reach the cap. This runs counter to Victoria’s slogan of “saying yes to international students,” revealing a clear policy gap between the state and federal levels.
Under this contradictory framework, Victoria’s efforts to deepen cooperation with China through education remain constrained by federal policy, making it difficult for the state to achieve significant breakthroughs on its own. With the failed Belt and Road experience still fresh, it is understandable why Beijing did not devote much attention to the current premier. Against this backdrop, Allan could only meet with China’s education minister, raising doubts about how much real progress could be made.
Underwhelming Economic and Trade Outcomes
Just as politics offered little warmth, business results also proved lackluster. Many expected one of Allan’s key goals would be to seek Chinese funding for the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) project, which faces a massive AUD 34 billion funding shortfall. This expectation was heightened by the fact that the rail line runs through electorates represented by several members of the delegation.
Yet, only a handful of business meetings were reported, with few major corporations participating. The visible results amounted to just two announcements: a solar energy cooperation project at the beginning of the trip, and at the end, the purchase of four tunnel boring machines (TBMs) from Chinese manufacturers for the SRL project.
The former was limited in scale and faced local criticism—during construction the project would create only about 60 temporary jobs, and after completion just six permanent positions, with minimal local employment benefits and potential environmental impacts.
The latter, although Allan made a point of visiting tunnel works in Deyang, Sichuan, and staged photo opportunities to emphasize Victoria’s cooperation with China, was essentially “spending money on imports.” While buying Chinese TBMs secured equipment for the SRL, it raised questions: why not develop or support such technology domestically, creating local jobs and industries, instead of sending huge sums abroad?
In other words, these arrangements mostly involved one-way capital outflow, without bringing in real foreign investment or capital inflows. The outcomes fell short of expectations for “attracting Chinese investment,” leaving only purchases and symbolic cooperation. With political recognition lacking and economic results unimpressive, what substantive benefits did this trip actually deliver for Victoria’s economy?
Economic Diplomacy or Electioneering?
For Allan, the trip was something of a dilemma. As premier, she could not avoid going to China during her term. But at the same time, she surely knew it would be hard to achieve real breakthroughs. The result was like a salesman being ignored despite enthusiasm, or a poor relative knocking on doors only to be turned away. Why, then, did Allan still lead a high-profile delegation to China?
Funded by taxpayers at an estimated cost of several hundred thousand dollars, the delegation did not include a single minister—only MPs from electorates with large Chinese or multicultural populations. They included Parliamentary Secretary and Box Hill MP Paul Hamer, and four Labor backbenchers: Meng Heang Tak (Clarinda), Mathew Hilakari (Point Cook), Matt Fregon (Ashwood), and John Mullahy (Glen Waverley).
According to the 2021 census, Victoria has around 500,000 residents of Chinese descent, a significant share of the state’s 7 million population. In these key electorates, Chinese voters number in the tens of thousands, enough to influence electoral outcomes. While these accompanying MPs may have little policy influence, they are politically important. This raises questions over whether Allan’s visit was more about connecting with the Chinese community ahead of the November 2026 state election, consolidating a large and crucial voter bloc. Rather than an economic diplomacy mission, it may have been a campaign-style political tour.
The trip delivered limited results, with symbolism outweighing substance. Allan brought back no new investment and no major corporate commitments, while her accompanying MPs became the focus. What can these powerless backbenchers actually bring to Victoria? Do they signal attention to multicultural communities and bolster diplomatic credentials? Or was this merely a “taxpayer-funded election show,” with taxpayer money spent on photo ops in China to build momentum for the next election? Anyone with a bit of political sense can see through it.
Multicultural Development
Just before the trip, the Victorian government released the Victoria’s Multicultural Review, regarded as the most significant policy reform in decades. Led by George Lekakis AO and an expert advisory group, it drew on 57 community meetings, consultations with over 640 residents, and input from more than 150 organizations and community groups. The goal was to strengthen social cohesion and rebuild trust between the government and multicultural communities. The report was released on September 11 by Allan and Minister for Multicultural Affairs Ingrid Stitt.
Core recommendations include establishing a new statutory agency, Multicultural Victoria, headed by a Multicultural Coordinator General, supported by two deputies (one from a rural area), and advised by a five-member commissioner panel. This structure would replace the largely ceremonial Victorian Multicultural Commission (VMC), which for years was limited to public relations without significant policy impact.
Following the review’s release, Allan quickly linked “multiculturalism” with the Chinese community. On September 12, in her hometown Bendigo, she announced nearly AUD 400,000 in funding to upgrade the Golden Dragon Museum into the “National Chinese Museum of Australia.” This symbolic move not only highlighted Bendigo’s historical ties to Chinese immigrants during the gold rush but also aimed to strengthen the cultural status of the Chinese community in Victoria.
Other funded projects included the Mingyue Buddhist Temple in Springvale South, the Avalokiteshvara Yuan Tong Monastery underground car park in Deer Park, the Museum of Chinese Australian History in Melbourne CBD, and infrastructure and lighting upgrades at the Chinese Association of Victoria Inc in Wantirna. These investments enhance cultural facilities and directly address community needs.
Is Multiculturalism a Political Tool or Genuine Goal?
This raises the question: are Allan’s initiatives genuinely aimed at fostering social cohesion, or are they part of political calculation? Victoria has long led the country in multicultural policy, but its political functions are also significant. During Andrews’ era, “multiculturalism” was used to package economic cooperation with China, drawing criticism of “national security risks” and “overdependence.” Allan now continues this approach but faces cool responses from Beijing and skepticism from the opposition and media at home.
Still, Allan’s strategy is not identical to Andrews’. Unlike the 2016 version of the “China Strategy,” her policy no longer emphasizes export figures or the economic benefits of the Belt and Road, but instead focuses more on cultural exchange and community engagement, encouraging Chinese-Australians to actively shape interactions with China. This shift highlights interpersonal and cultural connections rather than purely commercial transactions.
She has repeatedly wrapped her policies in “personal stories”: from Beijing to Nanjing to Shanghai, she promoted not just Victoria’s universities, tourism, and agricultural products, but also the importance of shared history, language, and culture. When meeting Education Minister Huai Jinpeng, she mentioned that her 13-year-old daughter is learning Chinese, to foster relatability.
Thus, Allan’s “multicultural strategy” carries two possible meanings: on one hand, it shows a sincere wish to improve social cohesion and strengthen ties with the Chinese community; on the other hand, it inevitably serves political calculation and election mobilization. As the 2026 state election approaches, Allan’s ability to convince both the Chinese community and the broader electorate that this is more than just political maneuvering but a genuine social vision will be a critical test of her leadership.
Still Unresolved: Practical Needs of Multicultural Communities
Even if Allan today offers small grants or gestures of goodwill toward the Chinese community, they pale in comparison to Andrews’ campaign promises in 2014 and 2018, when he pledged nearly AUD 20 million for the Chinese and Indian communities to purchase land for building aged care facilities. These two groups are now Victoria’s largest multicultural communities, and both place high cultural importance on caring for elders. Whether the elderly receive proper care in later life is a vital issue.
In 2018, the Australian government noted that as people live longer, the number of dementia patients is surging. For non-English-speaking elderly migrants—many of whom either never learned English or lose it due to dementia—the need for care in their native language and cultural context is especially acute. Yet mainstream services remain unwilling to provide such care. Therefore, the government has a responsibility to help minority communities build appropriate aged care facilities. Andrews recognized this situation and made it a campaign pledge.
But to this day, the Victorian government has only “purchased” the land and has not handed it over to community groups to build facilities—an 11-year failure that could be seen as the biggest “betrayal” of minority communities in Victorian history. By appealing to immigrant communities that value elder care, Andrews gained their votes to govern Victoria, but apparently never intended to deliver on his promises. It was a shameless act. Yet after Allan took over, she did not address the issue. Worse, last year she changed project rules, stripping Chinese and Indian community organizations of eligibility to apply to build aged care homes.
Clearly, the Allan government’s actions today sharply contradict its rhetoric about promoting multicultural development. This is likely to become a key concern for multicultural community voters in next year’s state election.
Features
From Everyday Pressure to Identity Anxiety: The Social Fault Lines Behind Anti-Immigration Marches
Published
3 weeks agoon
September 11, 2025On August 31, major Australian cities, including Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide, Hobart, and Perth, simultaneously saw anti-immigration demonstrations under the banner “The March For Australia.”
The organizers rallied around the slogan “Oppose Mass Immigration”, claiming that immigrants were crowding housing and economic resources. In Melbourne, about 1,000 people participated, while Sydney saw a much larger turnout of 5,000 to 8,000 people. Marchers waved Australian flags, chanted “Australia”, and some shouted exclusionary slogans like “Go back” and “Stop the invasion.”
For newly arrived immigrants—or even residents who have already settled—such scenes were not only confusing but also alienating. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pointed out in an interview that apart from Indigenous Australians, all Australians are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Australia’s history is rooted in Indigenous culture for tens of thousands of years, while large-scale European colonization has profoundly shaped modern Australian society. In other words, many of the demonstrators themselves may be descendants of immigrants—so why do they hold such strong anti-immigrant sentiments?
Anti-Immigration Marches Driven by Far-Right Ideology
The “March For Australia” was partly triggered by the “March for Humanity” pro-Palestinian demonstrations on August 3. On that day, Sydney saw 200,000–300,000 participants, with similar rallies in other cities. The marches were marked by Palestinian flags, some waving Hamas banners, and even portraits of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei. These scenes stoked anxiety among some citizens about “foreign immigrants,” setting the stage for the anti-immigration march.
The organizers of “March For Australia” identified themselves as “patriots” or “ordinary Australians,” advocating against “mass immigration” and for the protection of national culture and identity. They heavily promoted the event on social media platforms like TikTok, X, and Facebook, emphasizing “only wave the Australian flag, no foreign flags” and using “Defend Australian values” as a slogan.
However, the march quickly drew criticism from the government and public opinion as “spreading hatred and dividing society.” One reason is the organizers’ links to far-right forces. According to the ABC, their website once cited the far-right white nationalist concept of “remigration”—calling for the large-scale deportation of non-European immigrants—and even featured pro-Nazi and Hitler memes. Although later removed, this suggested underlying far-right tendencies.
Controversy deepened with the public involvement of the neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network (NSN), which promotes white supremacy and anti-Semitism and openly idolizes Hitler. While organizers claimed they were only encouraging various groups to participate, NSN rhetoric and online platforms were easily co-opted by neo-Nazis and racists. On the day of the march, some NSN members shouted “Australia is for white people” and stormed Melbourne’s “Camp Sovereignty,” a symbolic Indigenous protest site, trampling flags and extinguishing sacred fires, accompanied by blatant racist slogans. This led mainstream media to label the march as far-right or even fascist.
A glaring contradiction arose: if the march’s core concern was social pressure from too many immigrants, why did some participants target Indigenous Australians and ethnic minorities? What could have been a debate on immigration policy turned into a stage for neo-Nazis exploiting social anxieties to promote white supremacy.
Moreover, the anti-immigration marches, under the guise of “patriotism,” unwittingly made some participants tools of neo-Nazi propaganda. For extremist groups, the immigration issue is just the easiest emotional lever; their true goal is to incite racial hatred and further divide society.
The Complexity of Participants’ Motives
The crowd was not monolithic. Besides hardline nationalists, there were residents genuinely concerned about the cost of living, including long-settled immigrants. In Sydney, when a speaker emphasized that “defending culture and lifestyle is not hatred,” the crowd cheered. But when a self-proclaimed “Australian white” leader called for a “new wave of nationalism,” some immediately voiced disapproval, shouting “This is hate speech!” and many left early. This demonstrates that even under the same “patriotism” slogan, legitimate grievances and extremist ideology coexist—highlighting the deep divisions within Australian society.
Notably, some first-generation immigrants participated in the anti-immigration march. They often distinguished between “low-skilled” or “illegal” migrants, whom they claimed could not integrate into Australian society, versus high-skilled or wealthy immigrants, whom they welcomed. This selective standard reveals hypocrisy: criticizing vulnerable groups from a position of relative advantage is still a form of xenophobia, and essentially, hate.
Perceptions vs. Reality of Immigration in Australia
Concerns over “mass immigration” were amplified during the “March For Australia”. Organizers emphasized worries over housing and economic resources but never clearly defined what “mass immigration” means. Australia has always been a nation of immigrants, and the perception of “too many immigrants” may not align with reality.
Data shows immigration has not continuously surged. According to the 2021 census, there were about 550,000 residents born in China, a 72% increase over a decade—but growth slowed to just 8% in the past five years. The Muslim population rose 70% between 2011 and 2021, but only from 2.2% to 3.2% of the total population. These groups remain a minority nationally, though their concentration in Sydney and Melbourne amplifies social perceptions.
The pandemic also played a role. Border closures temporarily reduced the number of international students and immigrants, but once borders reopened, net overseas migration (NOM) spiked to 340,000, mostly concentrated in Melbourne and Sydney. This compounded housing shortages and rising living costs, fueling social anxiety.
The Lowy Institute’s June 2025 national survey found that 53% of Australians believed immigration levels were “too high,” up 5% from the previous year; 38% saw it as “appropriate,” and only 7% said “too low.” Anxiety about “too many immigrants” is real—but the root issue may lie in chronic shortages of housing and infrastructure.
Population Growth and Pressure on Social Resources
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, net migration reached 446,000 in the year to June 2024, including 207,000 international students mostly on temporary visas. This population inflow strains public healthcare, education, transport, and social services: emergency wait times rise, classrooms are overcrowded, and public transport becomes congested. These pressures fuel public concern and skepticism of government planning.
However, the problem isn’t simply “too many immigrants,” but the gap between population growth and infrastructure planning. During the pandemic, net migration fell below zero, yet housing prices continued to soar, and healthcare and education systems remained under pressure. The post-pandemic rebound pushed net migration above 500,000 in 2023, largely from returning students and temporary workers. The challenge is whether government planning and investment can keep pace with population change.
Following the anti-immigration protests, the federal government announced on September 2 that the 2025–26 permanent migration program would maintain 185,000 spots, focusing on skilled migrants and family reunification. To “manage student numbers more sustainably,” the international student cap will rise to 295,000 in 2026.
From July 1, 2024, the government ended the 485 visa extension policy: bachelor’s and master’s graduates can stay a maximum of 2 years, research masters and PhDs up to 3 years. English proficiency requirements and visa fees increased. Previously, many 485 visa holders could extend automatically, even without permanent residency prospects, swelling the temporary resident population. Many worked low-skilled, low-wage jobs, further stressing social resources and labor markets.
The Labor government is gradually addressing these issues to better align immigration levels with resources. If measures succeed, gaps between population growth and social infrastructure could ease.
The Role and Contribution of Immigrants
Three common complaints about immigrants are: they depress wages, take jobs from locals, and drive up housing prices. While simple and catchy, these claims do not hold up to scrutiny.
Immigrants support key sectors in Australia. Healthcare has long faced labor shortages; international medical staff fill gaps. Technology, engineering, and IT sectors rely on overseas graduates for skills and innovation. Immigrant entrepreneurship creates jobs, benefiting locals and other migrants, fueling economic growth. Immigrants often sustain employment markets rather than “steal jobs.”
New migrants do face challenges, including language barriers, cultural adjustment, and job competition. Attributing employment pressure solely to immigrants ignores the difficulties they endure.
Regarding housing, data shows that during the pandemic, when immigration was at a century-low, house prices still soared—indicating that low interest rates, investment demand, land shortages, and rising construction costs were the main drivers. Population growth contributes to demand but is not the primary cause of high prices.
Anti-Immigration Sentiment and Australia’s Challenge
Immigration policy in Australia is both an economic necessity and a sensitive social issue. The anti-immigration marches exposed this tension: peace and violence, legitimate concerns and extremist ideology coexist.
As Federal Minister for Multicultural Affairs Anne Aly noted, far-right and neo-Nazi groups exploit real anxieties about housing and cost of living to spread hatred and xenophobia. Historically, blaming immigrants for housing and infrastructure issues has precedents—without clarification, such tendencies risk repeating.
The government also bears responsibility. Immigrants from diverse backgrounds have long been part of society, and associated issues are not new. Overreliance on specific source countries, inadequate regulation of international students staying on temporary visas, and lack of systemic planning for third-country immigrants are policy gaps. These delays turn structural problems into simplified “immigration issues,” which extremists exploit. Without improving resource allocation and planning, anti-immigration sentiment will deepen societal division.
In the long term, Australia’s true challenge is not simply “too many immigrants,” but balancing population pressure with multicultural integration. The historical White Australia Policy left a deep xenophobic imprint. Today, the government must strengthen housing and infrastructure planning and promote education and multicultural understanding to genuinely achieve the ideal of a diverse, inclusive Australian society.
Features
“Medisafe” Award Sparks Controversy; Debate Lasts Several Months
Published
3 weeks agoon
September 11, 2025Medisafe, developed by Pan Xichun, daughter of international liver cancer expert and honorary professor of surgery at the University of Hong Kong Pan Dongping, has participated in multiple major Hong Kong and international innovation competitions and won awards. However, it was challenged by Hailey Cheng, a second-year student in Computational Mathematics at City University of Hong Kong, who questioned the originality of the project, suggesting that Pan commissioned an AI company to develop Medisafe and entered it into competitions. This sparked months of controversy over “ethics and authorship.” Recently, Pan Dongping and his wife Peng Yongzhi issued a statement expressing willingness to relinquish Medisafe’s awards, though it remains unclear if this will temporarily end the months-long storm.
A Talented Young Student
Last year, Pan Xichun, a first-year student at the prestigious Saint Paul’s Co-educational College (SPCC) in Hong Kong, won numerous local and international awards for her AI project Medisafe. She received the Hong Kong ICT Award: Student Innovation Award, the Jury’s Special Commendation, and returned with honors from the Geneva International Invention Exhibition, earning media recognition as a “prodigy” and “future star of AI in healthcare.”
Medisafe is an AI-driven web application designed to assist hospitals and clinics in processing large volumes of prescriptions and connecting different medical departments, providing cross-hospital AI-assisted services for patients. The system cross-checks medications and patient databases to automatically verify allergies, long-term medications, and clinical conditions. It alerts medical staff if potential prescription or dosage issues are detected. In interviews after winning awards in April, Pan Xichun stated that the idea for Medisafe arose from news about medication errors. She emphasized that no similar system exists on the market that automatically compares prescriptions with patient medical records, claiming Medisafe as a first-of-its-kind concept.
Pan Xichun’s broader talents also highlight her capabilities: at 13, she founded a volunteer organization serving the community and earned recognition for musical talents. Previously, she created a system linking smart insoles to a mobile app to monitor hikers’ conditions and issue alerts, demonstrating creativity. Her outstanding performance from a young age is likely influenced by her family background, as her parents are established social elites.
Traditional Chinese educational philosophy stresses the role of parents and teachers as cultivators: “If a child is raised without proper teaching, it is the parent’s fault; if the teaching is not strict, it is the teacher’s laziness.” Pan Xichun’s early talents suggest her parents invested considerable effort in nurturing her abilities. From this perspective, it is hard to see why Pan Xichun’s parents should face criticism.
From Winning Awards to “Ethics Controversy”
The situation shifted quickly. On June 13, Hailey Cheng, a second-year student in computational mathematics at City University of Hong Kong and an undergraduate researcher in computational biology, posted on Threads questioning whether the project was solely Pan’s work. She also raised concerns about potential patient data leakage to third parties, citing privacy risks. This drew public attention: logging into Medisafe directed users to the AI Health Studio (AIHS) website, indicating clients included Pan Dongping and his brother Pan Dongsong’s Hong Kong Hepatopancreatobiliary and Colorectal Minimally Invasive Surgery Center. Subsequently, Medisafe became inaccessible.
As the controversy grew, AIHS co-founders issued a statement clarifying that in March of the previous year, they had been commissioned by Pan Dongping’s wife, Peng Yongzhi, to produce a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for Medisafe. They emphasized the product was developed from scratch, with Pan Xichun providing only the initial idea, and that they were never informed it would be submitted to competitions.
Concerns arose over why an American AI company was hired. Peng Yongzhi explained that to prevent the concept from being copied or commercialized by others, she independently contacted the company in March of last year to explore developing a commercially viable product. In the same month, they were commissioned to develop the MVP for business feasibility verification. Competition organizers stress that entries must be original concepts created in Hong Kong, with participants holding intellectual property rights or legal ownership, and requested a full investigation by the Hong Kong Education City and the Standard Assurance Committee. Hong Kong Gifted Education Academy and Education City later confirmed that the platform was an original concept and that all awards would be retained. Nonetheless, controversies continued.
The Elite Mindset: Winning is Everything
In Hong Kong, a highly market-driven education system combined with entrenched social stratification makes competition extraordinarily fierce from the start. Children must not only learn early but also rely on substantial resources. Parental social status determines access to elite education, financial strength secures top-tier teachers, and extensive networks help package résumés. Education has become a precision investment: money, time, and strategy are invested, with expected returns in connections, résumés, platforms, and academic advancement. The Medisafe controversy offers a glimpse into this reality.
On a broader social scale, the Medisafe incident exposes a deep fissure in Hong Kong’s educational system: in a “competition-first” and “résumé-driven” environment, education becomes a theater for packaging success. The controversy is less about a “fallen prodigy” and more about public disillusionment with the “elite replication mechanism”—where awards reflect parents’ resources, connections, and wealth. Whether Pan Xichun is truly a genius or whether her family’s resources propelled her beyond societal expectations is now a topic of public debate.
Parents Step In
Recently, Pan Dongping and his wife announced they would relinquish all awards associated with Medisafe, citing their daughter’s mental and physical well-being as the priority. They acknowledged shortcomings in handling the situation, apologized for the disruption, and reaffirmed that Medisafe was Pan Xichun’s original concept. They also reserved the right to pursue legal action against false claims and malicious attacks online. Their statement reflects a protective parental stance, though it also reveals an elite mindset perceiving the world as being against their daughter.
In recent years, more than 4,000 Hong Kong students have participated in STEM competitions. Some schools even coach students “to win awards,” outsourcing development or fabricating research. This highlights the disparities in resources among families and raises questions of educational fairness. Education has become a contest of family background, capital, and packaging skills. The question arises: should children’s early growth aim to cultivate independent thinkers, empathetic and responsible individuals, or to produce elite performers following their parents’ scripts?
The Long Road Ahead
The most unfortunate aspect is the impact on Pan Xichun herself. Legally still a minor, she was thrust into a public controversy amplified by online discourse—a situation far beyond what a student should endure.
Online, critics labeled her actions as “academic fraud” or “winning awards through financial resources,” largely based on subjective assumptions without factual basis. STEM competitions are designed to encourage creativity and effort, not to judge minors by strict academic standards. Many online critics likely have no personal involvement in such competitions, but sensationalism elevated their importance beyond reason.
Pan Xichun’s parents hope relinquishing the awards will calm the storm, citing her extreme distress from online bullying. Rumors suggest she may take a year off school. Her recovery from this mental strain will vary and may leave long-term impacts. It is regrettable if public emotional venting hinders the development of an exceptionally talented young person.
However, the parents also criticized Hailey Cheng, asserting she was not a “well-intentioned whistleblower.” In reality, whistleblowers aim to raise public awareness, and their motives need not be “good-willed.” Critiquing social mechanisms often prompts backlash, but this does not invalidate whistleblowing. Cheng consistently updated the situation online since June, reportedly facing online and real-world harassment, including anonymous threats, which is also unacceptable.
After Pan’s parents announced relinquishing the awards, Cheng noted that their decision was not due to competition rules or originality disputes but primarily to protect their daughter’s health, highlighting how formal mechanisms often fail while online discourse pressures change. This reflection raises questions: can evidence, rules, and facts truly drive investigations, or only public pressure and online debate? Elite families may perceive rules and evidence as tools to climb social ladders—until public scrutiny, particularly online, challenges their arrogance.
When competitions intended to promote innovation and discover young talent become contests of academic resources and connections, one must ask: how much space remains for ordinary children to advance? Family legacy requires generational continuity, but when social mechanisms reinforce inequality and disregard basic fairness, whistleblowing deserves attention.
Listen Now

QantasLink Considers Closing Staff Bases in Canberra, Hobart, and Mildura
ACMA Issues Warning to “The Kyle and Jackie O Show”
British Primatologist Jane Goodall Passes Away
NSW Police Urged to Stop Strip-Searching People
Israeli Navy Intercepts “Global Sumud” Aid Flotilla; Greta Thunberg Detained

Fraudulent ivermectin studies open up new battleground

Cantonese Mango Sago

FILIPINO: Kung nakakaranas ka ng mga sumusunod na sintomas, mangyaring subukan.

保护您自己和家人 – 咳嗽和打喷嚏时请捂住

如果您出現以下症狀,請接受檢測。

U.S. Investment Report Criticizes National Security Law, Hong Kong Government Responds Strongly

China Becomes Top Destination for Australian Tourists, But Chinese Visitor Return Slows

What Is the Significance of Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan’s First Visit to China?

Albanese Visit to UK Focuses on Domestic Reform, Not Republican Debate

Optus Faces Another “000” Outage, Singtel Bonus Sparks Controversy
Trending
-
COVID-19 Around the World4 years ago
Fraudulent ivermectin studies open up new battleground
-
Cuisine Explorer5 years ago
Cantonese Mango Sago
-
Tagalog5 years ago
FILIPINO: Kung nakakaranas ka ng mga sumusunod na sintomas, mangyaring subukan.
-
Cantonese - Traditional Chinese5 years ago
保护您自己和家人 – 咳嗽和打喷嚏时请捂住
-
Uncategorized5 years ago
如果您出現以下症狀,請接受檢測。
-
Uncategorized5 years ago
COVID-19 檢驗快速 安全又簡單
-
Uncategorized5 years ago
在最近的 COVID-19 應對行動中, 維多利亞州並非孤單
-
Cantonese - Traditional Chinese5 years ago
保護您自己和家人 – 咳嗽和打噴嚏時請捂住