From the gig economy and urban safety to migrant worker protections, a tragedy exposes systemic issues
On the evening of 6 November 2026, in Melbourne’s CBD, near Queen Victoria Market, a food delivery rider was found lying in a pool of blood on Frederick Way.
His name was Jianming Feng. He was 47 years old and came from Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, China. He had lived and worked in Australia for many years, making a living through food delivery. According to his family, he had always lived frugally, hoping to send as much of his income as possible back to his hometown to support his parents, wife and two children. For him, every delivery order was more than just a job. It was also a source of livelihood for a family living far away.
On the night of the incident, Jianming Feng and another delivery rider noticed someone tampering with their parked vehicles. The two approached the individual to confront them, and a confrontation subsequently broke out. Jianming Feng was stabbed and later died in hospital, while the other rider was also injured. Police subsequently arrested a 51-year-old man and charged him with murder and intentionally causing serious injury, among other offences. The case remains subject to judicial proceedings, and criminal liability must be determined by the court in accordance with the law.
The news sparked deep grief within the Chinese community. Members of the public and community representatives held memorial events and organised fundraising efforts for the victim’s family. Within a short period, the community demonstrated a moving sense of solidarity and compassion.
However, as we mourn Jianming Feng’s death, we should also ask a deeper question:
Why might someone who spends every day travelling through the city’s streets to deliver food to the public lack adequate safety protections while doing their job? Does our system truly recognise the circumstances these workers face?
A Criminal Case, or a Wider Warning to Society?
First, it is important to be clear: Jianming Feng’s death was a serious violent crime. Without sufficient evidence, the incident should not be reduced to the direct consequence of any particular social group, mental illness or individual policy.
Currently available public information is insufficient to establish whether the suspect was homeless, had a long-term mental health condition, or whether the case was directly connected to food delivery platforms’ deduction policies. These questions require police investigations, judicial proceedings and reliable evidence, rather than public speculation.
However, avoiding the treatment of unverified details as facts does not mean we cannot question the systemic issues behind the incident.
A tragedy can raise several issues that deserve serious attention from society: public safety in the CBD, mental health and homelessness support, occupational safety for platform workers, and the rights of temporary visa holders and migrant workers.
Government officials and the City Council have emphasised that people have the right to live and work safely on the streets. This is essential. But if public discussion stops at increasing patrols, strengthening law enforcement and cracking down on crime, we may overlook another important question: Do the people who work on our streets every day have adequate institutional protections?
Food Delivery Platforms: Flexible Work, or Risks Shifted onto Workers?
Food delivery platforms have made urban life more convenient and provided a source of income for many new migrants, international students and other workers. Workers can accept orders through their phones and, to some extent, arrange their own working hours. Platforms, meanwhile, connect customers, restaurants and delivery riders.
However, this model raises an important question: when platforms control mechanisms such as order allocation, ratings, income calculations and account management, while riders are classified as independent contractors, how should responsibilities be distributed between the two parties?
Independent contractor status should not become an excuse for platforms to avoid reasonable responsibilities. Riders have to bear the costs of their vehicles, fuel and maintenance, as well as the risks associated with their work. If an accident occurs, can they access adequate insurance and support? When problems arise with an order, are the platforms’ deduction and appeals systems fair and transparent?
These issues are not new. Previous surveys conducted by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia have already highlighted the difficulties food delivery riders face in securing workplace protections. A 2019 survey involving 234 riders found that approximately 75 per cent of respondents held temporary visas. A 2020 union survey also found that among respondents who had been injured, approximately 81 per cent said they had received no support from their platforms. These findings relate to specific years and survey samples and should not be treated as representative figures for all delivery riders across Australia today. However, they demonstrate that these problems have existed for some time.
From 17 August 2026, Australia’s first minimum standards order covering eligible food delivery platform workers officially came into effect. It covers matters including minimum income calculations, vehicle expenses, insurance, record-keeping, platform consultation and dispute resolution. This is an important development and reflects the government’s recognition that platform workers still require a certain level of institutional protection, even if they are not classified as traditional employees.
However, the new standards do not mean that all riders automatically become employees, nor do they guarantee protection for every working hour, accident or occupational risk. Having regulations in place is one thing, but are they being properly enforced? Is the insurance coverage adequate? Do platforms have clear support and reporting mechanisms when riders encounter dangerous situations? These are all issues that require ongoing scrutiny.
Following Jianming Feng’s death, the Transport Workers’ Union raised questions about platform safety responsibilities and deduction arrangements, and called on WorkSafe to investigate. The union also relayed reports from riders who said they had been charged for meals that were lost or stolen. HungryPanda, meanwhile, stated that the company did not have a policy automatically requiring riders to compensate for stolen meals, and that there was no evidence linking Jianming Feng’s death to its meal compensation arrangements.
We should not treat the union’s allegations as established facts, but neither should the platforms’ denials put an end to further questions. What needs to be clarified is whether platforms’ everyday management practices are fair, whether riders have safe and reasonable procedures to follow when facing theft, threats or other dangerous situations, and whether platforms place workers’ personal safety ahead of commercial efficiency.
“Migrants” Are Not a Homogeneous Group
Jianming Feng had lived in Australia for many years. However, there is insufficient publicly available information to confirm his specific visa category or work rights status. We should not assume that he was working illegally, nor should we portray all food delivery riders as illegal workers.
This distinction is particularly important.
When discussing migration, Australian society often groups people from different backgrounds under the broad label of “migrants”. But migrants are not a group of people who share the same living conditions or enjoy exactly the same rights.
Some have obtained permanent residency, while others have become Australian citizens. Some hold student visas, others hold work visas, while some are on bridging visas or going through other specific immigration processes. Work rights, access to healthcare and eligibility for welfare benefits vary between visa categories and should not be treated as the same.
Some new migrants have professional qualifications, stable employment and established social networks. Others, however, may be restricted to unstable, long-hour and higher-risk jobs because of language barriers, difficulties getting their qualifications recognised, financial pressures or visa restrictions.
They are equally part of Australian society and play a role in keeping cities running every day. But do they have sufficient information to understand their rights? When faced with unpaid wages, deductions, workplace injuries or unfair treatment, do they know where to seek help? If they fear losing their jobs or affecting their visa status, would they dare to make a complaint?
These are questions that governments, unions, community organisations and platform companies need to address together.
More importantly, temporary visa holders should not automatically be equated with illegal workers, just as independent contractors should not automatically be regarded as having no workplace rights. Australia already has relevant laws and regulatory frameworks. What needs to be examined is whether these systems can effectively cover workers across different employment arrangements and immigration statuses.
Urban Safety Requires More Than Increasing Police Presence
Jianming Feng’s death has also renewed public attention on safety in Melbourne’s CBD.
Public safety certainly requires effective law enforcement, appropriate police deployment and a serious response to violent crime. However, a safe city cannot be built through policing and criminal penalties alone.
Accommodation support for homeless people, mental health services, crisis intervention, community services and public space management are equally important components of urban safety.
If people have been living on the streets for extended periods without access to appropriate accommodation and support, the government needs to examine whether existing services are sufficient. If someone experiences a serious mental health crisis, it is also worth asking whether medical and social support systems can intervene in time.
However, we must avoid drawing a direct link between mental illness, homelessness and violence. The vast majority of people with mental health conditions do not harm others. The real policy challenge is how to ensure that those in need receive appropriate treatment and support early, while also safeguarding the wider community.
Similarly, an overall decline in crime statistics does not mean residents’ safety concerns can be dismissed. Broad figures can help governments understand trends, but they cannot replace the lived experiences of residents, business owners and night-time workers. Governments need to address both the trends reflected in the data and the specific concerns raised by the community.
The Responsibility of the Media and Community: Mourning Must Be Followed by Questions
Following the incident, mainstream Australian media reported on the circumstances of the case, the suspect’s court appearances, community memorials and the government’s response to public safety concerns. Some reports also went further to examine working conditions on food delivery platforms and rider safety. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say that the media completely ignored these issues.
However, we can still raise another question: as media attention gradually shifts elsewhere, will the protections afforded to platform workers, the circumstances faced by migrant workers and the regulatory responsibilities shared between government agencies continue to receive attention?
A murder case may dominate headlines for several days, but institutional reform requires sustained public scrutiny. If, after the incident, people only remember a memorial, a fundraising campaign and a few promises to strengthen public safety, without continuing to ask how platforms protect riders, how governments regulate the industry and how workers can seek help, the public lessons of this tragedy may gradually disappear.
The Chinese community demonstrated a strong sense of solidarity during this incident, and that deserves recognition. However, the community’s role should not be limited to fundraising, memorial events and expressing grief to the government.
We also need to develop a more sustained capacity for advocacy: helping workers understand their workplace rights and visa regulations; ensuring that those in need know how to access legal, medical and social services; establishing communication channels with unions, community organisations and government agencies; and demanding that platforms make their safety and complaints procedures more transparent and effective.
The responsibility of community representatives is not only to speak on behalf of the community, but also to bring the circumstances of those whose voices are rarely heard into public discussion.
Re-examining Society Through the Life of One Individual
Jianming Feng’s death is, first and foremost, an irreparable loss for a family. His wife has lost her husband, his two children have lost their father, and his elderly father has lost his son. No matter how many policies the government introduces in the future, nothing can return this family to the way things were.
We should not use his death as a political slogan, nor should we assign blame to any particular group or institution before the investigation is complete.
But respecting the deceased means more than holding memorials and making donations. True respect means allowing his experience to remind us that, even in a prosperous city, there are still people who work long hours in all weather conditions, potentially without adequate protection. And in a society that takes pride in its multiculturalism, there are still migrant workers whose voices have not genuinely made their way into the centre of policymaking and public discussion.
Multiculturalism in Australia should not be reflected solely through festivals, food, languages and cultural performances. More importantly, it should be reflected in fair working environments, equal institutional protections, meaningful participation in society, and accessible avenues for seeking help when anyone encounters difficulties.
A truly inclusive society does not simply welcome people from different backgrounds to come here. It must also ensure that they receive the respect and protection they deserve when working, living and building families here.
Jianming Feng’s life cannot be brought back. But we can choose not to let this tragedy become just another fleeting news story.
Moving from mourning to accountability, and from sympathy to reform, is the least we owe him, his family and everyone who works tirelessly on the margins of our cities.