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

Liberal Party fails to recognize multiculturalism

The Liberal Party suffered a massive defeat in the federal election, with Leader Dutton losing the Dickson seat he held for 24 years. The Liberal Party elected Sussan Ley as leader and Ted O’Brien as deputy. Ted O’Brien, who has lived in Taiwan for many years to learn Chinese and managed his family’s business in China, is one of the few Liberal leaders who is familiar with Chinese culture. After his election, Ted said that the Liberal Party needed to renew itself and propose policies that would meet the needs of modern Australia, including rethinking its policies on youth, women, migrants and the environment, or else the Liberal Party would be unable to build a relationship with the Australian electorate and its survival would be in doubt.

The Labor Party, which aims to reform the society, regards migrants, especially those from poor countries, as a disadvantaged group. Therefore, the Labor Party’s policies occasionally help migrants to adapt, and most of the leaders of the Labor Party have a more open attitude towards supporting migrants. The Liberal Party has always emphasized on small government and fairness of the system, and its leadership has little experience with immigrant communities, and basically has little understanding of the difficulties migrants encounter in adapting and integrating into the society, and therefore is not enthusiastic in supporting migrants in its policies.

Over the past two decades, Australia has absorbed more than 200,000 immigrants every year. These new migrants have found that the Labor Party has more policies that benefit migrants, and this has been reflected in the fact that migrants have been more supportive of the Labor Party’s governing in the past elections. In this year’s federal election, the Liberal Party’s Dutton blamed migrants for Australia’s economic pressures and housing shortages, and demanded a drastic reduction in the number of migrants, and senior Senator Jane Hume called Chinese Australians “spies”, which made many migrants detest the Liberal Party. If the Liberal Party still fails to recognize and respond to the reality that Australia has become a multicultural society, we can foresee that the Liberal Party is likely to disappear from the Australian political scene.

Lack of multicultural experience among societal and political leaders

Before the abolition of the White Australia Policy in the 1970s, Australia was a white society, and even the Aboriginal people, who were the owners of the land, were denied and ignored. The Chinese used to make up more than 15% of Australia’s population during the Gold Rush era, but under the White Australia Policy, less than 1% of Chinese Australians remained in the 1970s. In terms of today’s universal values, the Australian government had implemented a “non-violent” policy of genocide. In fact, the Stolen Generation’s policy of handing over Aboriginal babies to white people for upbringing and education was similar. The Racial Discrimination Act of the 1970s officially ended this phase of Australia’s history, but it did not mean that Australia immediately entered a multicultural society.

Australians born before the 1990s grew up with very little contact with people of other ethnicities in their communities and lives, so racial discrimination was rampant at that time. Nowadays, most of the Australian leaders in their 40s and 50s were born in the 1980s or before. Although they accept the diversity of the Australian society today, they have never had much personal experiences with multicultural communities or migrants, and therefore seldom consider things from the perspective of a multicultural society in their policy implementation or management. For example, many managers of mainstream organizations or enterprises deeply understand that they need to enter the multicultural community in order to continue their current market or organizational goals, but they do not know how to intertct with hese communities. In Australian society, the Australian Football League (AFL) have demonstrated a determination and experience to become multicultural, as many of the AFL’s past leaders have come from multicultural backgrounds.

Similar scenarios are reflected in politics and social management, that is, when the government implements a policy, it often fails to get a response from the whole society. For example, the NDIS, which was legislated in 2013, still has less than 9% of participants from multicultural backgrounds, which is less than 40% of the original expectation. Obviously, a policy that aims to benefit people with disabilities across the country has failed to reach out to ethnic minority communities, and has resulted in many cases of abuse and misuse. It  is totally unacceptable but little complaints has been made by neither mainstream Australians nor ethnic communities. Other example is services to help families troubled by gambling, which have not been used by many migrants for a long time. For many years, the organizations concerned thought that the problem was that migrants were reluctant to use their counseling services, but the truth is that these services are provided according to the Western individualistic medical model, rather than seeing gambling as a social problem that brings difficulties to the family members, let alone dealing with the problem by promoting it to the multicultural community. During the Covid pandemic, the Victorian government’s publicity of anti-epidemic measures neglected the role of multicultural media, which initially led to a situation where the infection and death rates of overseas-born people were twice as high as those of local-born people in the.early days.

Diversity in Australian Society

The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently announced that the proportion of overseas-born Australians in the population has increased to 31.5%, in response to the large number of migrants to Australia over the last 20 years. Until the early 1990s, the proportion of foreign-born people was not as high as this, and most of these people came from the United Kingdom, which was close to their cultural background, so the Australian society was not pluralistic, and it could be said that Australia was a monocultural British society at that time. At the time of the founding of the Liberal Party, Robert Menzies was confronted with such a monocultural society. Nowadays, Australia is the most multicultural society in the world. Obviously, the design and implementation of policies must take this factor into consideration.

The Labor Party’s support for multiculturalism basically allows immigrants to continue to retain their native customs, festivals and celebrations, and to tolerate each other in order to maintain respect and peace among communities. Such a society does not mean that there is communication or integration between communities. In fact, a society with no communication or integration will easily be segregated nto competing and opposing groups. It is not easy to maintain harmony and cohesion in such a society.

Last year, the Labor Party released the Multicultural Framework Review report, which was the Australian government’s first attempt to explore what kind of multicultural society Australia could become. The Commonwealth Government has so far indicated that it is also willing to provide funding support to take forward the report’s recommendations to further the realization of the framework. The report’s emphasis on the creation of a multicultural society in Australia, beginning with the recognition that Australian society started from Aboriginals, rather than solely a colonial society created by the British, is a progressive perspective in which migrants of different cultures are welcomed and accepted as part of the Australian society and culture. This means that Australia should not be a society divided by different cultural communities, but rather a modern Australia that integrates and embraces cultures from different places.

Integration into Intercultural

In order to build an integrated and inclusive society, the government has a responsibility to help migrants from all sides of the world, especially those from authoritarian societies, to experience Australian values that are different from their own, including freedom, equality, the rule of law, and human rights. Of course, migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds need to learn English and try to engage with the wider community, rather than being isolated in a culturally homogeneous migrant community.

For young migrants, this is not too difficult. Through the work environment, through life contacts, through community involvement, we see that the new generation is integrating without great difficulty. But for first generation immigrants, it is the government’s responsibility to create opportunities for them to gain exposure and experience in integration. This does not mean that the government is giving resources to migrants as a form of welfare, but rather as an investment by the community in migrants to integrate them into Australian society in the short term, so that they can contribute to Australian society as soon as possible. Such a policy would bring positive returns to the community, and would enable the migration program to maximize the social contribution of the elite settling in Australia.

Another group that has been neglected for a long time is those who were born and raised in the mainstream society. The government should also provide opportunities for them to develop through exposure to multiculturalism. For example, many traditional churches in Australia have been unable to absorb multicultural Christians and have eventually shrunk or even closed down. This is the result of not being able to keep up with the societal changes.

The unwritten expectation of Australian society has always been that newcomers will become mainstream Australians. I believe this is impossible. The challenge for Australia today is for all Australians, immigrants and native Australians (including Aboriginal Australians), to transform and integrate into modern Australians.

Mr. Raymond Chow