If someone asked you today, “What are Australian values?” how would you answer?

Freedom? Fairness? The rule of law? Multiculturalism? Or speaking fluent English and respecting the local culture?

In recent years, “Australian values” has appeared increasingly frequently in political debate. From immigration policy and social integration to national identity, politicians have repeatedly argued that new migrants must embrace Australian values. Pauline Hanson, leader of One Nation, has even advocated for Australia to return to a “monocultural” society, arguing that new migrants should speak English, obey Australian laws, and assimilate into the mainstream culture.

Yet as “Australian values” has become an increasingly common political slogan, the most fundamental question is rarely discussed: what exactly are Australian values? Although the concept appears familiar, it is far more complex than it seems. People from different political parties, generations, and cultural backgrounds may all have different interpretations.

In fact, Australian values have never been a fixed or unchanging set of standards. They are a collection of shared values that have been shaped, revised, and redefined over more than two centuries of Australian history through the intertwined experiences of colonisation, immigration, multiculturalism, and the history of the First Nations peoples. To understand Australian values, we must first understand how Australia became the nation it is today. More importantly, in a multicultural society, how should Australia enable people from different cultural backgrounds to genuinely understand the country and build a shared set of national values together?

On 6 July, a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy strategic nuclear submarine successfully test-fired a submarine-launched ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead into international waters of the Pacific Ocean. The missile travelled across the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of several Pacific island countries before landing in waters near Tuvalu. Although China described the launch as a “routine training exercise”, Australia, New Zealand and several Indo-Pacific countries criticised the incident as a “provocative action that undermines regional stability”.

Coincidentally, on the same day as the missile test, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was beginning a three-day Pacific visit, during which he sought to strengthen defence, policing and economic cooperation with Fiji and other Pacific island nations. Australia not only signed the “Vuvale Union” with Fiji, which includes mutual defence commitments, but also signed the “Nakamal Agreement” with Vanuatu last month, further consolidating Australia’s role as a major security and aid partner in the region.

One side was China demonstrating its military projection capabilities across thousands of kilometres, while the other was Australia accelerating efforts to strengthen ties with Pacific island countries. Although these two events appear separate, they reflect an intensifying geopolitical competition. For Australia, the concern is not only the missile itself, but China’s growing influence in the Pacific through infrastructure investment, diplomacy, policing cooperation and security agreements, which is gradually challenging the security structure Australia has long regarded as its “strategic backyard”.

Australia No Longer Has a “Natural Security Distance”

For decades, Australia’s greatest defence advantage was not military strength, but geography.

Surrounded by oceans and located thousands of kilometres away from major powers, Australia also benefited from a natural buffer formed by Pacific island countries including Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji and Vanuatu to the north. This meant Australia faced few direct military threats to its mainland in the decades after World War II. Therefore, the idea that “distance equals security” has long been a key foundation of Australia’s defence strategy.

However, as China has continued to pursue military modernisation in recent years, this sense of security based on geography is gradually weakening.

Although the Chinese missile test was still some distance away from mainland Australia, the real concern for the Australian government is not where the missile landed, but the long-range military projection capability China demonstrated. Submarines have high levels of stealth, and their ability to launch long-range ballistic missiles indicates that China is gradually developing a more complete sea-based nuclear deterrence capability. It also shows that Chinese military power can now extend further across the Indo-Pacific region.

The Lowy Institute has also noted in its latest reports that as China continues to develop long-range bombers, ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and long-endurance drones, Australia’s “natural security barrier” based on geographic distance is gradually disappearing. The report argues that over the next decade, China may not only be capable of threatening Australia through naval power, cyberattacks, disruption of undersea cables and interference with maritime trade, but may also develop the ability to directly strike Australian territory. If Beijing establishes military bases in the Pacific or deploys longer-range weapon systems in the future, major Australian ports, airports, energy facilities and transport infrastructure could potentially become targets.

Therefore, Australia’s heightened concern over the missile test is not because it believes China is about to attack Australia, but because the incident serves as a warning: the security advantage created by geographic distance is gradually shrinking. As China’s military projection capabilities continue to grow, combined with its expanding relationships with Pacific island countries, Australia must rethink how it maintains its strategic advantage in the South Pacific.

From “Strategic Neglect” to Re-engaging Pacific Island Countries

However, Australia’s real challenge is not only China’s growing military capability, but also its previous misjudgment of China’s expansion in the Pacific.

For a long time, Australia viewed Pacific island countries as its “strategic backyard”, but due to economic considerations, it adopted a cautious approach towards China’s increasing influence in the region, and at times underestimated the significance of these developments. Particularly over the past decade, China expanded its relationships with multiple Pacific island countries through the Belt and Road Initiative, infrastructure investment, foreign aid and people-to-people exchanges. Meanwhile, Australia remained more focused on trade cooperation with China and did not immediately view these developments as a security challenge.

It was only in recent years, as China’s role in the Pacific became increasingly visible, that Australia began adjusting its approach. In 2022, Solomon Islands signed a security agreement with China, allowing cooperation in policing and security areas, which raised significant concerns in Australia. The Australian government feared that Beijing could gradually establish a deeper strategic presence through what appeared to be economic and public security cooperation, potentially paving the way for future military deployments.

Against this background, the Albanese government has actively repositioned Australia’s Pacific policy by signing a series of strategically significant agreements with island nations to strengthen bilateral relations.

The recently signed Vuvale Union with Fiji represents an important step in Australia’s effort to enhance regional security cooperation. The agreement is not merely a standard diplomatic partnership, but includes a rare mutual defence commitment, requiring both sides to respond when either party faces security threats. It is Fiji’s first formal defence arrangement with another country and makes Fiji Australia’s fourth formal defence partner after the United States, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. The agreement also includes an “open clause” allowing other Pacific island countries to join in the future, reflecting Australia’s efforts to expand its regional security network and balance China’s influence.

Beyond security cooperation, Australia is also strengthening ties through economic assistance. The Vuvale Union covers cooperation in climate change, economic development and infrastructure, with Australia committing A$1 billion over the next decade to support Fiji.

Similarly, Australia signed the Nakamal Agreement with Vanuatu last month, establishing Australia as a major aid provider and policing partner for the country. The Albanese government hopes to rebuild Australia’s influence in the South Pacific through security training, infrastructure investment and economic support.

Pacific Island Countries Are Not Choosing Only One Side: China’s Influence Is Reshaping Regional Security

However, while Australia strengthens cooperation with Pacific island countries, it must also recognise a reality: these nations are not simply aligned with Australia, but maintain different levels of cooperation with China based on their own interests.

Facing long-term challenges including climate change, limited infrastructure and economic development needs, many Pacific island countries require external funding and assistance. This has created opportunities for China to expand its economic and diplomatic influence. For Beijing, Pacific island countries are not only development partners but also part of its efforts to challenge existing US influence in the region and break through the island chain strategy. For Australia, China’s deeper engagement with these countries is gradually changing a Pacific security order traditionally dominated by Australia.

In recent years, China has not only strengthened ties through infrastructure investment and economic assistance, but has also expanded cooperation into policing and security fields. Beijing has provided multiple countries with law enforcement equipment, including drones, patrol boats and police vehicles, while strengthening police exchanges with Pacific island nations. Solomon Islands has become the most closely watched example. In 2022, Solomon Islands signed a security cooperation agreement with China, the details of which have not been fully disclosed, raising concerns in Australia and other Western countries that Beijing could establish a deeper security presence.

Following the agreement, Chinese police personnel entered Solomon Islands to provide support including firearms training, riot control tactics and policing training. China has also provided similar cooperation to other Pacific nations through personnel exchanges, equipment assistance and policing programmes. Although Beijing insists such cooperation is mainly aimed at maintaining public security, policing cooperation could become an entry point for expanding China’s security influence and further weakening Australia’s traditional role in the region.

China’s Pacific strategy is not limited to security. Over many years, Beijing has used Belt and Road-related investments and aid to build roads, stadiums, government buildings and hospitals across several island countries, gradually establishing economic and political connections. For some Pacific island nations with small populations and limited resources, Chinese funding and development projects are attractive and provide more diplomatic options.

Therefore, Pacific island countries are not simply choosing between Australia and China. Many seek to maintain security cooperation with Australia while preserving economic ties with China, balancing different powers to maximise their own interests. For example, even after signing the Nakamal Agreement with Australia last month, Vanuatu stated that it was still waiting for Beijing’s approval of another development cooperation agreement, showing that some island nations wish to retain space for cooperation with China despite receiving Australian security support.

This diplomatic balancing strategy creates greater challenges for Australia. Even if Australia views China as its main strategic competitor, neighbouring island countries may not share the same position. The real risk for Australia is not simply that Pacific island countries maintain diplomatic relations with China, but whether Beijing can gradually establish a strategic presence through long-term economic dependence, security cooperation and political influence. If China builds deeper security networks in Australia’s “strategic backyard”, or gains access to ports, communications systems or other strategic facilities, Australia’s defence advantage based on geographic distance could further decline.

Therefore, Australia’s recent efforts to increase aid, deepen policing cooperation and promote defence agreements are essentially responses to the new security pressures created by China’s expanding influence. However, the question remains whether this strategic awakening has come too late.

Who Is China Really Sending a Message To?

Observers generally believe that the missile test was not solely a response to Australia’s recent security agreements with Pacific island countries. Its primary target was more likely the United States.

By launching a long-range ballistic missile from a strategic nuclear submarine, China demonstrated that its nuclear capabilities are no longer limited to land-based missiles, but are increasingly developing into a diversified nuclear deterrence system that includes sea-based capabilities. This indicates stronger long-range projection capabilities and reflects continued progress in China’s military modernisation.

Although China has long maintained a “no first use” nuclear policy, it has continued expanding its nuclear arsenal and developing advanced military technologies in recent years. According to the US Department of Defense’s China Military Power Report, China’s nuclear arsenal has grown rapidly in recent years and is moving towards a goal of possessing more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030.

If China further develops long-range bombers, strategic aviation forces and related weapons systems, it could gradually complete a “nuclear triad” structure — consisting of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air-launched nuclear platforms — creating nuclear deterrence capabilities across land, sea and air domains. This would not only represent an increase in China’s military capability but could also alter the long-standing strategic balance in the Indo-Pacific, which has been dominated by the United States.

However, what concerns Australia and other countries is not the missile test itself, but the gap between China’s rapidly expanding military capabilities and its limited strategic transparency. While Beijing continues to modernise its military, expand its nuclear arsenal and enhance long-range strike capabilities, it has not increased transparency at the same pace, making it difficult for other countries to accurately assess its long-term strategic intentions.

Therefore, while the test may not have directly targeted Australia, it remains an important warning. China demonstrated not just a single weapons capability, but an expanding strategic projection system. As these capabilities extend closer to Australia’s surrounding waters and the Pacific region, Australia’s challenge is no longer simply traditional security concerns created by geography, but how to respond to a China with increasingly expanding military influence.

How Should Australia Respond?

China’s continued military growth does not mean Australia is already in an irreversible disadvantageous position, but it does show that the era of relying on geographic distance for security is gradually ending. Australia’s future challenge is not only how to respond to one missile test, but how to build a more resilient national security system in a rapidly changing Indo-Pacific strategic environment.

The Lowy Institute has pointed out that China continues to expand its naval forces and plans to have around 25 nuclear-powered attack submarines by 2035, compared with an estimated nine currently. In comparison, although Australia is developing nuclear-powered submarines through the AUKUS security partnership, its future fleet size will remain relatively limited. Furthermore, China’s submarine construction speed currently exceeds that of the United States, meaning the maritime balance of power in the Indo-Pacific is gradually changing.

However, researchers also emphasise that this does not mean China is preparing to attack Australia. The key concern is not whether China currently intends to do so, but that it is gradually developing the capability to do so. Australia’s defence planning cannot focus only on whether another country currently has hostile intentions, but must consider whether that country would have the ability to act militarily if circumstances change. Therefore, Australia can no longer assume “distance equals security” and must establish a more comprehensive defence strategy.

Australia’s future approach should not only involve increasing defence spending or purchasing advanced weapons. It must also improve maritime surveillance and early warning capabilities, protect undersea cables and critical infrastructure, deepen security cooperation with allies, and continue strengthening long-term partnerships with Pacific island countries. Only through these measures can Australia maintain strategic initiative in an increasingly complex Indo-Pacific environment.

Winning the Pacific Requires More Than Security Cooperation

In recent years, many Australian Pacific policies have focused on balancing China’s influence. However, if Australia views Pacific island countries merely as pieces in geopolitical competition, it risks overlooking the issues these nations actually care about. For many island countries, climate change, infrastructure shortages, healthcare limitations, youth unemployment and economic development are far more urgent than great power competition.

Taking Solomon Islands as an example, the country currently faces challenges including youth unemployment, pressure on public healthcare and rising financial burdens. Compared with geopolitical rivalry between major powers, local communities are more concerned about whether living standards can improve and whether their countries can achieve sustainable development. Australia’s previous malaria prevention programmes in Solomon Islands, which significantly reduced infection rates, provide an example of successful cooperation. Such initiatives gained local support because Australia responded to practical development needs rather than using aid purely as a strategic tool.

This demonstrates that if Australia wants to maintain long-term influence in the South Pacific, security cooperation and financial assistance alone are insufficient. More importantly, Australia must build trust. Only by responding to island nations’ development, climate and social needs through equality, respect and mutual benefit can Australia become a partner they genuinely rely on. After all, Pacific island countries are not limited to choosing between China and Australia, but will continue seeking cooperation that best serves their own interests.

China has not “won” the South Pacific, and Australia has not completely lost its influence. This will be a long-term competition for regional influence. Facing China’s growing military capabilities and expanding diplomatic and security presence in the South Pacific, Australia must redefine not only its defence strategy but also how it builds a long-term approach that protects its own security while earning the trust of regional partners in an Indo-Pacific environment where competition and cooperation coexist.

Supporting Vocational Training

Over the past six months, I have been designing and implementing a workplace readiness training program for young people with high-functioning autism. In addition to being funded through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) for eligible participants, we also hope to offer it as a workplace internship program in the near future.

Traditionally, Chinese communities have placed relatively little emphasis on systematic vocational training. As a result, many people are surprised by Australia’s diverse vocational education and training (VET) system after they arrive. What many may not know is that the Australian Government and various vocational training organisations have been promoting Australia’s nationally recognised vocational training system in China for many years.

Australia’s vocational education sector offers nationally recognised Workplace Skills certificate courses designed primarily for secondary school students preparing to enter the workforce and adults returning to employment. These courses help participants develop the fundamental skills needed to function effectively in the workplace. For new migrants unfamiliar with Australian workplace culture, they also provide an excellent introduction to Australian employment practices while teaching practical workplace skills.

Many of the units offered in these courses are particularly valuable for autistic individuals who have little or no work experience or who have not yet developed these workplace competencies. With time and step-by-step learning, most participants can acquire a solid foundation of workplace skills through structured training.

Unfortunately, these courses are generally not designed specifically for autistic individuals. At Rejoice, our vision is to provide a practical, workplace-based training program that helps autistic people develop the essential skills needed to navigate working life successfully.

How Do People Learn?

Society is constantly changing. Over the past three years, rapid advances in artificial intelligence have led many people to question what knowledge students should learn to prepare for the future. Whether or not people use AI themselves, most would agree that today’s students will enter workplaces requiring very different skills and knowledge from those needed today. As a result, educators and society alike are debating what students should actually be learning.

In reality, education researchers have been asking this question for decades. The issue simply received less public attention because people largely trusted the existing education system. An even deeper question worth asking is: How do people learn throughout different stages of life? This is a critical consideration for any program supporting autistic individuals.

As society has gained a better understanding of autism, educators have continually explored how best to support autistic learners. Parents often notice developmental differences when autistic children are very young, but many do not know how to help them learn effectively. Mainstream primary and secondary schools rarely provide learning plans tailored to each student’s individual abilities and interests. Consequently, many autistic children become unsuccessful learners within the traditional education system.

Autistic individuals with stronger language skills often demonstrate remarkable learning abilities due to their intense concentration. They may excel in reading, communication, mathematics, creativity, or the performing arts. Therefore, it is inaccurate to assume that autistic people who struggle with communication or forming close social relationships lack the ability to learn.

The current school system emphasises following rules, acquiring knowledge through social interaction, and mastering a broad range of standard academic subjects. This structure often disadvantages autistic students. Nevertheless, some high-functioning autistic individuals receive additional support either at school or at home, enabling them to continue developing their strengths. Many successfully complete secondary school and university education.

However, even these high-functioning autistic individuals often continue to experience significant social difficulties and may not know how to build workplace relationships. For this reason, pre-employment training becomes especially important. Effective workplace preparation helps autistic individuals develop fundamental employment skills that can profoundly influence their future lives.

Developing a Positive Attitude

For workplace training to be effective for high-functioning autistic individuals, learners generally need three essential ingredients:

• a positive attitude toward learning,
• the ability to absorb new knowledge, and
• sufficient repetition to develop practical skills.

For many high-functioning autistic individuals, the second and third elements are not major obstacles. If they are willing to participate in training, their chances of success can be very high.

A positive learning attitude begins with the desire to learn. Employment training should first inspire autistic individuals to want to work.

When parents bring their children to discuss whether our program is suitable, I sometimes find that some young people have little interest in employment. Some have lost confidence after experiencing rejection within their communities and doubt their ability to work alongside others. Others simply do not believe they need a job. This can be surprising.

Many parents express frustration or helplessness because, throughout their child’s upbringing, they have often felt unable to change their child’s behaviour.

I fully understand these feelings. Every parent hopes their child can build healthy friendships, communicate effectively, and grow up surrounded by supportive peers. Many parents devote considerable effort to improving their autistic child’s social skills, encouraging more activities or language development from an early age. Unfortunately, these efforts often produce limited results, leaving parents discouraged and, in some cases, resigned.

If parents themselves become pessimistic about their child’s ability to change, it becomes even more difficult for the child to develop a positive attitude toward learning.

However, high-functioning autistic individuals often demonstrate exceptional ability in subjects they genuinely enjoy. Parents should therefore begin by recognising and celebrating their children’s achievements. By encouraging them to set higher goals, parents can help motivate them to pursue new learning opportunities with confidence.

The successful cases I have encountered all shared one common factor: parents consistently acknowledged and affirmed their autistic child’s strengths, encouraging them to persevere until they achieved their goals.

To make this possible, both parents and children need to regularly address and manage negative emotions.

Managing Negative Emotions

Because autistic children are frequently excluded by their peers at school, parents should create more opportunities for them to interact with people who understand and accept them. Adults are generally more mature and often provide greater emotional support and social acceptance. Many autistic children naturally prefer spending time with older people because they feel more accepted.

As autistic children grow, they often develop interests that differ from those of their peers or show little interest in activities that other children enjoy. Parents sometimes pressure them to participate in the same activities as other children or frequently compare them with their peers. In reality, such comparisons are unnecessary.

Every individual develops differently. People’s interests, strengths, and achievements naturally vary. As long as children are willing to make an effort, parents should recognise and encourage their progress. Doing so helps build self-confidence.

If children compare themselves with others and become discouraged because they cannot do what others can, parents should certainly provide support. At the same time, they should help their children accept their own unique strengths and limitations. This acceptance is an effective way to reduce negative emotions.

I believe that a child’s ability to accept their own limitations begins with their parents accepting that their child is different from others. In fact, this acceptance is one of the most important starting points in supporting autistic children.

For those interested in the program, contact raymond@sameway.com.au or 0422 871 799 for more details.

Mr. Raymond Chow