Bridging visas are granted to holders of visas who wish to change their visa category while in Australia . The number of international students who are seeking Bridging visas would represent only a percentage of those on Bridging visas. You would need to have disaggregated data on Bridging visas to assess the number of international students seeking asylum status.
They include those on temporary skilled visas ( which have quotas) and tourist visas, as well as others with visa expiry dates. A change in visa status does not necessarily guarantee residency. International students are limited in hours of employment, so would need to be cashed up (and probably need to afford to pay immigration agents to process their claims)
As to those on temporary skilled visas, the skill points to achieve visas are very low for construction workers , extremely high for IT. Student visas are capped, more recently tightened,. There is no cap on tourist visas. My guess is that tourists would probably account for the highest number of those seeking asylum.
International student visas have been significantly tightened, with little to no opportunity to stay in Australia on completion of studies unless they can change to another visa category ( such as the temporary skilled, often requiring an employer sponsor).
As from 1 July, it is no longer possible for holders of other visas in Australia to transfer to an international student category. No onshore processing. Offshore, you must show that that you have access to at least $29,710 to cover living expenses in Australia. There has been a collapse in offshore student visa applications.
Last I heard (as of yesterday) is that its going to the fair work commission for them to arbitrate and determine what the wage rise shall be.
VPS generally has an upper mandate of 3% but they may find other ways to provide increases greater than this (such as one off cost of living payments).
I don’t think the police will get 6%, I don’t think they will get 3% either. I think it will settle around 3.5-4%. Having said that though the Commission under its powers has been quite generous for workers in how it determines pay rises under these types of disputes when private enterprise is brought before the commission. Not sure if they will be a bit more lenient towards the govt however.
For whatever reason the police association has failed in securing better wage rises. I think VicPol is feeling the brunt of the govt having to pay up big in other areas.
What goes around comes around. My grandfather was in Victoria Police, stationed at Bourke Street West, which building is now a pub. He went on strike in 1923. The State Government broke the strike. All the striking policemen got sacked, and their jobs were handed over to scabs. My grandfather lost all respect for the police force after that. He got a job as storeman in the railways which he kept for the rest of his career. I wonder if the present “Labor” state government under the member for Bendigo has learnt their history ?
As important as Ukraine is, a Taiwan war must be Australia’s biggest worry
30 Sep 2024 - Paul Dibb"
Other than the Middle East, the world faces the possibility of two major wars escalating in Europe and East Asia, over Ukraine and Taiwan.
Australia must worry about either of those wars, but ultimately it’s the possible loss of Taiwan to China that could be the front-and-centre issue for our national security.
Ukraine and Taiwan each face a military threat from a large neighbouring great power that is nuclear armed. In Ukraine’s case, Russia has already invaded, and the two have been at war for more than two-and-a-half years. In Taiwan’s case, communist China’s President Xi Jinping is making increasing threats that China should integrate Taiwan, and he reserves the right to use force to occupy it.
In Russia’s case, Putin is bogged down in a slow war of attrition, which he did not expect. And he is making increasing threats of the use of nuclear weapons. Ukraine’s recent occupation of Russian territory in the Kursk oblast (region) is the first time that a non-nuclear power has invaded the territory of a nuclear superpower. One of Putin’s self-proclaimed advisors, Sergei Karaganov, has recently said, ‘Any attack on our territory must get a nuclear response.’
There are, however, some obvious differences between Ukraine and Taiwan. First, Ukraine is an internationally recognised independent state, and we should remember that post-communist Russia recognised it as such in the 1994 Minsk Agreement.
In the case of Taiwan, there is no such recognition that it is an independent country. To the contrary, nearly every major power in the world does not recognise Taiwan as a separate independent nation state. Even so, more than 70 percent of Taiwanese identify themselves as being Taiwanese—not Chinese.
This leads us to another significant difference. Ukraine cannot yet be recognised as a full democracy free from corruption and having an independent judiciary. Quite the opposite. After Ukraine became a separate country, it suffered prolonged instability and violence due to the rise of oligarchs and widespread corruption involving criminal gangs. Corruption continues to be a major impediment against it joining the European Union.
By comparison, Taiwan is not only a much longer established democracy, but it does much better in surveys about corruption and has a basically independent judiciary.
Both these countries have a chequered recent history. Ukraine declared its independence from Russia in 1990. Yeltsin was so anxious to be president of a separate Russia that despite being reminded by one of his senior advisers to raise the issue of Crimea with the new Ukrainian president, Leonid Kravchuk, Yeltsin hastily remarked that Crimea could be settled later.
In January 1994, Ukraine agreed to cease being a nuclear power; it transferred 1300 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia in exchange for security reassurances from the US and Russia about Ukrainian sovereignty. Had Ukraine retained some nuclear weapons, it would probably not have faced the humiliation of being invaded by Russia.
In Taiwan’s case, it was effectively under ruthless martial law from 1949 under the dictator Chiang Kai-shek until the demise of the KMT single-party system and the rise of the democracy movement in the 1980s. Martial law was eventually lifted by Chiang’s son, president Chiang Ching-kuo, in 1987, and constitutional democracy was restored.
We have now seen a vibrant democracy in Taiwan with routine, peaceful changes of government over the past 37 years. The success of democracy in Taiwan has contradicted an old assertion that Chinese people, including those in Singapore and Hong Kong, would never be able to make democracy work properly.
This brings us to the crucial issue of all-out military contingencies involving the survival of both countries and their differing strategic implications for Australia. In the case of Ukraine, the big question is what Australia would do if Russia’s war with Ukraine escalated into a full-blown military confrontation between Russia and NATO. From a moral and international legal perspective, there would be pressure on us to make some sort of contribution. But Ukraine is not in our region of broader strategic concern in the Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, if the war in Europe were to escalate to include Russian attacks on neighbouring NATO members, such as Poland and the Baltic countries, it would involve high intensity land-based military conflict for which the Australian Defence Force is not structured. We could make no more than a limited military contribution.
But such an escalated European war might create an opportunity for China to attack Taiwan. China could perhaps attack Taiwan at the same time as Russia expanded its war to neighbouring NATO countries. Although Taiwan itself is not in Australia’s area of immediate strategic interest (Southeast Asia and the South Pacific) a successful conquest of Taiwan and defeat of America by China would raise potentially first-order strategic threats to Australia, and our own survival as a fully independent state, for the following reasons.
First, if China decisively defeated the United States in such a war, then there might be nothing to stop China from expanding southwards and establishing military bases in our immediate vicinity. And a beaten US might retract into one of its historic phases of isolationism. Australia would then be strategically isolated and without a protector. Southeast Asia and the South Pacific would effectively come into China’s sphere of influence.
Second, such a shock defeat of the US would have grave consequences for Japan and South Korea. It would involve them conceding sea and air control of the East China Sea and the South China Sea to China. A China commanding the island of Taiwan would have military dominance over the South China Sea and Southeast Asia. A new China-centric geopolitical order would then most likely prevail throughout East Asia. Such a crisis might reasonably drive Japan and South Korea into acquiring a reliable retaliatory nuclear strike capability of their own.
Third, Australia would have to consider where its future lied under the jackboot of a dominant Beijing. Without the US alliance and our critical access to American intelligence, surveillance, targeting, weapon systems and world-beating military platforms, we would no longer have credible military capabilities. Would we then retreat into a neutral posture with only the pathetic remains of a credible military force?
Fourth, the truly nightmare scenario would be a conjoining of Russian military successes against contiguous NATO members such as the Baltic countries and Poland with China’s defeat of America over Taiwan and the resulting dominance of Japan and South Korea. This wicked brew then drums up the ultimate contingency of an all-out nuclear war.
Those Australians who carelessly proclaim that the United States is finished, that China will inevitably dominate the entire Asia-Pacific region and that our only survival will be to get out of the ANZUS partnership need to think again. Theirs is a value-free world where we would be on the receiving end of communist China’s dominance.
So, in the event of a US war with China over Taiwan, what could Australia contribute? Our defence force is of a modest size but we have considerable potential to defend ourselves if, instead of just waiting for AUKUS submarines, we rapidly acquire sufficient long-range anti-ship missiles with ranges of more than 2000km.
We would, however, require access to airfields and ports—for example in Okinawa, which is less than 600km from Taiwan. But a more credible military mission for us would be to deny the narrow straits of Southeast Asia (Malacca, Sunda and Lombok) to China’s maritime traffic—including the 80 percent of its oil imports.
The purpose of this analysis has been to demonstrate the dangers of listening to those who focus only on the risks of resisting and deterring China. Instead, my analysis here concentrates on the dangers of not resisting and not deterring China.
Moreover, when strategic push comes to shove, we need to recognise that, unlike Ukraine, Taiwan may become directly important in our defence planning priorities. Even so, we do have a strong national interest in seeing Ukraine liberated from Russia’s illegal invasion and we should do what we can to bring that about.
Paul Dibb is emeritus professor of strategic studies at the ANU. He is a former deputy secretary of defence and director of the Defence Intelligence Organisation.
Why would we get involved with China taking Taiwan ? I realise that we are deeply in bed with USA, but seriously China is no threat to us.
I hope you’re right @Bacchusfox , the world has turned into an ugly place to be leaving our children and grandchildren.
Not having your nation at war can only be a good thing.
Everything we are doing military wise in Australia now is all about China and we will absolutely be the first ones in if war against Taiwan eventuates. We are strengthening ties with the US and will follow them in any altercations
Nah, those farking subs will never happen
Of course the subs will never happen. But the US sub bases in Australia will, and that’s what the US care about. And when the US goes back on the deal and we never get our subs, the Yanks will base their subs in Australia, and we’ll have exactly zero say over what they do, and the government of the day will tell us all to be thankful to our great allies for being protected.
Every Chinese missile aimed at Exmouth or Perth is one fewer aimed at Hawaii or the US West Coast, after all.
It’s more than the subs though. The sub bases are absolutely going ahead. We are expanding our NT bases so we can house US Nuclear bombers. We are moving our tank brigades up North to enable faster movement to the Pacific, we are tripling the amount of US servicemen that will be living on Australian bases. We are basically doing all this at the request of the Americans and are firmly in their pocket. All the ADF personnel I deal with have said that we will be the first ones in behind the Yanks to protect Taiwan
I suspect we’ll even be ahead of the Yanks. They’ll use us as proxies and then hang us out to dry when things look bad. Like when they egged that idiot Morrison into getting into China’s face about covid origins, and the Chinese promptly tanked a bunch of our export industries in retaliation, and of course US exporters were all too ready to step into the gap and cash in.
BV’s are granted to anyone in Australia who does not have lawful status, be they applying for a new visa, appealing a visa decision or even preparing for departure. Anyone not in immigration detention must hold a bridging visa if they don’t currently hold a valid visa.
Correlating a rise in bv’s to students applying for asylum is a big stretch, but is as the article says likely caused by student visa refusals in Australia who need to hold a bv while they appeal to the Aat.
I follow Abul Rivzi ( former Immi) on twitter, as the most reliable source. He also writes for independent media,
From what I’ve read on the international students, there are a few Phillipines on temporary graduate visas who have applied to transition to temporary skilled work visas.
A lot of them would be in the health sector, where there is demand.
It is estimated that there are around 7,200 on temporary graduate visas . There would need to be a a significant increase, by early 2025, in securing temporary skilled work visas if they are to avoid going home or appealing to the AAT ( which is swamped) , claiming asylum ( and then getting a bridging visa) .
I have met a lot of them in hospitals. They are first class . Hospitals are crying out for staff. They have paid a lot of money to come here and would be supporting their families back home .
Well maybe then we can all hope Trump becomes President and he lets Taiwan sink.
If I wasn’t so old, I would be getting my Kiwi passport.
Don’t we officially subscribe to the ONE China policy ? 
Don’t come the old soldier - you’re only just 70.
Anyway your paternal grandfather was born in Ireland, wasn’t he ? Get an Irish passport, then. Very useful in the EU, I found.
Studying your Ancestry is fraught with shock and some horror, and a degree of shame.
My Maternal Grandfather was born in Ireland but not in the south where my Mother was born in County Clare but in Belfast of Orange parents ! That was the shock, the horror was that my Paternal GrandDad, though of sound Irish stock from Cork, was actually born in New Zealand!
Further that both of my GrandMothers though born in Australia are of Pommy heritage. The shame of it all.
Was always going to get that Ériu passport, but never got around to it and they now have residency clauses, as does NZ.
I know nothing about “residency clauses” but if your mother was born in Co. Clare, that qualifies you for Irish citizenship, and therefore a passport. There are thousands of refugees living in Ireland at present - the authorities would make room for you. If residency is a problem, (though I don’t believe it is for some one claiming citizenship by descent) there are hundreds of houses going for half nothing in Co. Clare and other rural areas.
As for New Zealand: it’s a fine country which studiously avoids licking the Septic sphincter; their foreign policy sits more-or-less in the space we should be helping them to occupy, but tell that to Alboman and his claque of liberal-lite neo-conservatives. It’s a fine country, New Zealand, despite their recent election hiccough. A pal of mine (brother of Blainey the famous “historian,” so he’s not exactly a lefty) moved to the Bay of Islands about 8 years ago; he loves it there and is not coming back to Victoria ever.
The only surprise in our DNA analysis was there was a lot more Irish (mainly from Munster (in particular County Clare) than we’d expected, particularly as we knew my father’s paternal side could trace the lineage back to 1600 in the East End of London (Stepney). My paternal grandmother grew up in Newlyn, near Ballarat, but her immediate family were all Irish, and had been here since the famine in late 1840’s.
And there was a small percentage of Norwegian, which didn’t surprise as a maternal ancestor was sent out from York Assizes to Tasmania in 1828, and York is the capital of Viking England. She took the first opportunity to marry a man in Geelong, who was a direct ancestor of Barry Stoneham.
No other entitlements for citizenship, since the latest immigrants arrived Christmas 1868. My great-grandmother’s sister ended up marrying the richest man in Bendigo, whose son became a high-up member of the Colonial Victorian government.