The Australian federal government plans to introduce national standards for Men’s Behaviour Change Programs, with the aim of having all states and territories implement the standards by the end of 2026. The move is intended to improve program quality and strengthen efforts to prevent family violence against women and children.

The proposed standards would require service providers to conduct risk assessments and ensure victims and children have access to appropriate support during and after the programs. The programs cover a range of approaches, including one-day sessions teaching boys about respectful relationships, as well as months-long intervention programs for men who have used violence against their partners or children.

The sector has broadly welcomed the introduction of national standards. Jesuit Social Services’ Men’s Project said consistent standards would improve program quality, strengthen accountability and better protect victim-survivors. Relationships Australia Victoria also said national standards could improve consistency across different organisations providing these services.

However, several family violence prevention organisations warned that standards alone would not be enough. They said the government must increase funding for frontline services and prevention programs to meet growing demand. The federal government is currently developing the second action plan under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, which is expected to be released in the first half of 2027.

Commentary:

In the past, the quality and content of Men’s Behaviour Change Programs varied between states and service providers. Establishing national standards could improve consistency and ensure participants are properly supported to recognise and change harmful behaviours.

However, family violence is a complex issue that cannot be addressed through counselling programs alone. Greater investment is also needed in frontline services, victim support and early education.

At the same time, these programs need to balance accountability and support. Their purpose is not to reduce responsibility for perpetrators, but to help them address their behaviour while keeping the safety of victims as the priority and reducing the risk of further violence.

Australia will hold its 2026 Census on 11 August. According to the ABC, several Hong Kong community representatives have called on the government to include “Hongkonger” as a separate ancestry option, rather than categorising it under “Chinese”.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) said ancestry classifications are currently based on the Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG). As “Hongkonger” is not an independent category, responses are coded as “Chinese”. However, people can still reflect their background through questions on place of birth, parents’ place of birth, and languages spoken at home.

Some Hong Kong community representatives argue that Hong Kong has a distinct history, culture and language, and that Hong Kong identity should not simply be classified as Chinese. They say many Hong Kong migrants in Australia want their cultural identity to be recognised in official data. Some also point to Hong Kong’s more than 150 years under British administration, which shaped different education, legal and social systems from mainland China, as well as the increased desire among some Hong Kong people to preserve their identity following the 2019 anti-government protests.

The ABS said ethnicity classifications are not fixed and have been updated over time, with new categories added since the previous census, including “Israeli” and “Edo”. This year, respondents can also list up to four ancestries, increased from two previously.

For birthplace information, China is not included as a default checkbox option. The ABS said this is intended to encourage respondents to provide more specific answers, such as China, Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan, to improve data accuracy.

Commentary:

From the ABS’s perspective, categorising Hong Kong under “Chinese” is based on the current classification system, and Hong Kong is legally part of China. Therefore, the approach has an administrative basis.

However, one of the purposes of a census is to accurately reflect Australia’s diverse population. If some Hong Kong residents believe their identity is shaped by distinct historical, linguistic and cultural experiences, their calls for separate recognition also raise questions about whether current classifications fully capture Australia’s multicultural society.

After all, census categories are not just technical labels — they can influence whether communities are recognised and whether government policies and services are able to respond to different groups’ needs.

Australia’s prolonged waiting times for parent migration visas have raised concerns among many families. According to the latest data from the Department of Home Affairs, 1,536 parent visa applicants died while waiting for their applications to be processed between July 2024 and the end of March 2026, highlighting the severity of the backlog.

Currently, non-contributory parent visas, which cost around AUD 9,000 to apply for, have an estimated waiting time of about 33 years. Contributory parent visas, with application fees close to AUD 50,000, still require a wait of around 15 years. By the end of the 2024–25 financial year, the parent visa backlog had exceeded 157,000 applications, while the annual parent visa allocation was reduced from 8,500 to 7,060 places this year.

Many applicants say the lengthy delays not only prevent family reunification but also create significant pressure when caring for elderly parents. A Sydney-based doctor said his parents have already waited more than three years, and under the current processing pace, they may not receive approval until 2038, when his grandchildren would be nearly 15 years old. He said grandparents often play an important role in helping new migrant families care for children and establish their careers.

Meanwhile, the Australian government is considering tighter family migration rules, including restrictions on parents, spouses and children of Australian citizens or permanent residents entering on visitor visas and applying for visas while already in Australia, in an effort to prevent people from using bridging visas to remain in the country long-term.

Migration policy experts say Australia’s parent visa system is among the strictest in comparable countries. A previous government-commissioned review of the migration system also found that waiting periods of 30 to 50 years effectively leave many applicants with little realistic chance of success, suggesting the system requires reform.

Commentary:

For many migrant families, parents are not only relatives but also provide essential childcare and emotional support. If Australia aims to attract and retain skilled migrants while making family reunification extremely difficult, it may reduce the country’s appeal to overseas talent.

At the same time, the government must balance public resources, healthcare costs and population policy considerations, as parent migration places pressure on government services. However, when some visa categories require decades of waiting and applicants may never receive a decision, questions arise over whether the current system creates unrealistic expectations.

Regardless of whether the government chooses to increase quotas, adjust fees or tighten eligibility requirements, it should establish a clearer and more predictable system. A transparent and reasonable migration framework would better balance national interests with the importance of family reunification.