Four in five Tuvaluans apply to move to Australia. Frayzel is among them
Midnight on Friday was the deadline for the Pacific island nation's 10,643 citizens to enter a ballot for a permanent residency visa. As of Friday afternoon, 8074 people in 2278 family groups had applied, in what the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade called 'an incredibly positive uptake'. Just 280 places are available in the first year.
The Tuvalu figures are on top of the 56,000 people from other Pacific nations who applied for 3000 places in the broader ballot for the Pacific engagement visa last year. The next round is due to open soon.
One of the applicants in the Tuvaluan lottery is Frayzel Uale, 18, who moved to Melbourne four years ago with his family when his mother came on a student visa.
Uale, who is working a packing job while studying information technology, remembers his homeland as 'peaceful and joyful' and still feels connected to his culture, but he doesn't see a future for himself in Tuvalu.
'There are more opportunities here,' Uale said. 'I hear stories from Tuvalu about how the weather's been changing a lot lately, with king tides going up, the streets are sometimes covered in water, and erosion is happening everywhere. Tuvalu has contributed so little to climate change, but we are one of the most affected countries.'
Tuvalu is a low-lying atoll nation, like Kiribati and the Marshall Islands in the Pacific and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, facing an imminent existential threat as sea levels rise.
Loading
The visa is part of the Falepili Union Treaty, which also includes a security pact and climate mitigation to support Tuvaluans to stay in their homeland. DFAT says that in 2025-26, an estimated $47 million in development support will contribute to important climate adaptation, telecommunications, infrastructure, health and education projects in Tuvalu.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
3 days ago
- Perth Now
Half this country desperate to live in Aus
More than half of the citizens of Tuvalu have applied for a visa to permanently migrate to Australia. Just more than a month ago, Australia opened the The Falepili Mobility Pathway ballot, a program to provide citizens of the tiny island nation of Tuvalu a permanent migration pathway to Australia. The country has a population of just 10,643, while at least 5157 of them entered the lottery, more than half of the nation's people. This was through 1466 registrations, with many of the people being included as family members on applications. The ballot, which closed on Friday, randomly selected up to 280 people each year to apply for the visa. It is open to all Tuvalu citizens, regardless of age, and visa holders do not need to gain employment in Australia before applying. Tuvalu's population is particularly exposed to the effects of climate change. Credit: Supplied If the pace of applications keeps up, it could mean the entire population of Tuvalu could live in Australia within 40 years. Selections for the ballot will take place between July 25, 2025 and January 25, 2026. The scheme allows successful applicants to live, work and study anywhere in Australia indefinitely, sponsor relatives to also migrate to Australia, and apply for citizenship once eligible. The population of the island nation is one of the world's most exposed to the effects of climate change, with this program providing a path to flee as the impacts worsen. The visa program is part of an agreement between Australia and the Pacific nation. Credit: Supplied The pathway is part of the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union that both countries signed on August 28, 2024, part of which is to build climate resilience. Also included in the union is a commitment of $38m to invest in climate adaptation measures on the island. Pacific Minister Pat Conroy said the ballot's opening was a 'landmark moment'. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia When the ballot opened last month, Pacific Island Affairs Minister Pat Conroy called it the 'most significant agreement' between Australia and a Pacific country since Papua New Guinea's independence in 1975. 'The opening of the mobility pathway ballot is a landmark moment for Australia and Tuvalu,' Mr Conroy said. 'Alongside the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme and the Pacific Engagement Visa, the Falepili migration pathway will strengthen relationships with our Pacific neighbours. 'It demonstrates how we are working in partnership with the Pacific to ensure our region remains peaceful, stable and prosperous.' Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the program provided a pathway 'as climate impacts worsen'. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Foreign Minister Penny Wong said 'as climate impacts worsen' the program allowed Tuvaluans to live, study and work in Australia. 'The pathway reflects the deep trust between our two countries, and we look forward to the contributions Tuvaluans will make to Australian society,' Senator Wong said.
Sky News AU
4 days ago
- Sky News AU
Australia's strategic naivety must end and Albanese's six-day festival of flattery in China shows why
Whatever the failings of China's Communist government, its ability to roll out red carpets to foreign dignitaries is second to none. Mr Albanese got the full treatment this week, beginning with the motorcade from the airport, light poles adorned with the Australian flag, a private tour of the Great Wall, a lavish banquet, serenades of Australian rock anthems, glowing coverage in the state press, and countless other choreographed gestures to make him feel honoured. When China turns on the charm for foreign leaders, the recipients would be wise to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism. What appears to be gracious hospitality is in fact a carefully orchestrated performance, an exercise in image control for both domestic and global audiences. This is not just diplomacy - it is a ritualised assertion of symbolic superiority rooted in China's imperial past. To resist the choreography is to risk awkwardness, tension, or even diplomatic reprisal. What seems like an over-elaborate show of politeness is, in truth, a system of soft coercion. It is a stage upon which foreign leaders are cast in subordinate roles, encouraged to reciprocate not only with courtesy but with political restraint. It is both a performance and a test: imperious in tone, strategic in purpose and deeply psychological in effect. Let us hope the Prime Minister received a full and frank briefing from officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade before embarking on this six-day charm offensive. Let us hope, too, that he kept a cool head and did not mince his words behind closed doors. Maintaining a functional relationship with Beijing is a legitimate objective. But it must not come at the expense of Australia's vital national interests: the strength of the US alliance, support for Taiwan's democratic sovereignty and the security of our critical infrastructure. The timing of the trip was less than ideal. Accepting six days of Chinese hospitality ahead of a meeting with the leader of our closest ally sent mixed signals. Beijing's red-carpet rollout was an opportunistic move, aimed at exploiting the perceived awkwardness between the ANZUS partners. A more seasoned leader might have postponed the visit for a more auspicious moment. China's propaganda machine wasted no time. State media warned against "third-party interference" that could derail Australia's improving relationship with China - a thinly veiled swipe at the US. In an editorial reproduced in other Chinese media, the 'China Daily' gushed that 'today's China-Australia relationship is like a plane flying in the 'stratosphere' after passing through the storm zone'. Faced with this media wall of self-congratulation, the Prime Minister's task was to hold the line. He needed to explain, firmly and politely, why the relationship is not as cosy as Beijing wishes to portray. The unannounced dispatch of Chinese gunboats to conduct live-fire exercises off the Australian coast with Australia's exclusive economic zone is not the behaviour of a friendly nation. We know the Prime Minister raised the issue and that President Xi Jinping told him that China would engage in exercises just as Australia does. In other words, get used to it. Equally, it was incumbent upon the PM to reassert Australia's sovereign right to revisit the 2014 lease of the Port of Darwin to Landbridge Group. What appeared at the time to be a straightforward commercial transaction now looks like a concession of breathtaking naivety. Landbridge is no ordinary private investor. Its chairman is a member of a high-level Communist Party advisory body. The company has an internal CCP committee, a "people's armed militia" linked to the PLA, and a structure that offers little insulation from state influence. That such an entity holds the keys to a critical infrastructure node less than 25 kilometres from a US military facility would today be dismissed out of hand. To its credit, the Morrison government recognised the shifting strategic environment. It called for an inquiry into the origins of Covid-19, barred Huawei from Australia's 5G network, and enacted laws enabling Canberra to review and cancel foreign investments that threaten national interests. The Darwin lease may have escaped scrutiny, but future projects should not. What Australia needs now is a policy of clarity. The Darwin lease cannot be allowed to stand while China continues to act with strategic belligerence, attempting to secure dominance in the Pacific. Australia must be prepared to act decisively: by developing redundant military infrastructure or revoking the lease outright in the national interest. China respects strength and exploits ambiguity. To vacillate now is to invite pressure later. Our policy must evolve with the times. Strategic naivety can no longer be tolerated. Which brings us to Taiwan. The Prime Minister's insistence that sensitive topics be kept behind closed doors is problematic in the face of potential misrepresentation. Chinese state media claimed Albanese assured President Xi that Australia does not support Taiwanese independence. If accurate, this would be a grievous distortion of Australian policy. Australia's ambiguity on Taiwan stems from the December 1972 communiqué signed by Gough Whitlam, which recognised the PRC as the sole legal government of China, acknowledged Beijing's claim over Taiwan, and closed our embassy in Taipei. It contained no reciprocal commitments and no statement of Australia's independent view. By contrast, when President Nixon established ties with China earlier that year, the US acknowledged Beijing's position but also insisted on a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. The difference between acknowledgement and acquiescence mattered then and matters even more today. That foundational ambiguity has persisted for five decades, feeding a dangerous cycle of strategic vagueness. In the 1970s, this may have seemed inconsequential: China was a marginal trading partner, Taiwan an autocratic backwater. But the world has changed. Taiwan is now a thriving democracy, a technological powerhouse, and a key player in global supply chains. China, meanwhile, has grown more authoritarian and assertive. A forcible annexation of Taiwan would shatter regional stability, weaken the US alliance system, and threaten Australia's own security. The shift towards more cautious engagement with Beijing that began under Morrison must now be completed. That requires speaking plainly. Taiwan's future must not be decided by force. Australia, alongside its allies, must be prepared to resist any effort to alter the status quo through coercion. Prime Minister Albanese's visit offered an opportunity to deliver that message. Let us hope that he took it, rather than allowing it to be subsumed by a six-day festival of flattery. Nick Cater is a senior fellow at the Menzies Research Centre and a regular contributor to Sky News Australia
The Age
4 days ago
- The Age
The reach of climate change encircles the world
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. Reach of climate change Having grown up in London, I read with interest David Crowe's description of life there under climate change (' The heat is on in London and it's turned deadly ', 19/7). They have many problems with out-of-date infrastructure like buses and housing. It is encouraging that much is being done overthere, like conserving water and using more appropriate species of plants. My former home city is a case study in climate action and inaction. More could have been done sooner, but short-term political and financial interests often got priority. Now London has sweaty buses and hundreds of extra deaths in worsening heatwaves. There is also inadequate action in Australia and elsewhere. The Age on Saturday carries other relevant stories, including of Victorian farmers helping each other after a severe drought, withextra farm costs pushing up prices of lamb and beef in our supermarkets. Another article describes how the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is threatened by rising seas and coastal erosion. Many Tuvaluans want to migrate to Australia. Impacts of the climate crisis will be relevant more and more in our news, and in our lives. John Hughes, Mentone Out-of-touch Liberals The charmless and contrarian attitude of the Liberal Party is on full display with its claim that Anthony Albanese's trip to China is 'indulgent' (at least they didn't go so far as to call it a junket). It must really gall them that in a little over three years the relationship with China – our biggest trading partner by far and one with which we have a significant trade surplus – has so dramatically improved. But then it was Peter Dutton who said we must prepare for war, and although he didn't say it out loud, it seemed pretty obvious which country he was referring to. So I guess for them nothing has really changed, except that they have proven to be even more out of touch with what Australians want from their government. Brandon Mack, Deepdene Left behind Columnist Jake Niall has only scratched the surface (″ A fix to AFL's flawed fixture ″, 18/7). For a ″fair″ competition to exist there is only one way this can happen. Like virtually all other national team sport competitions, each team plays each other team twice, once at home and once away. In this respect the AFL is a national disaster, and the AFL should have been working towards something like this when it first formed decades ago. Increasingly it is moving further and further away. This dimension of unfairness within the competition (there are many others eg, variations in the interpretation of rules between and within umpires) is why I have no interest in the game now. It is so unfair. Ian Anderson, Maldon Not wild about this AFL Wildcard rounds exist in US professional sports as part of, or entry to, the competition's final series. Many of these competitions are split into conferences, and then divisions, with division winners typically gaining automatic entry to the finals. However, you can have the situation where the runner-up in one division has a superior record to the winner of another division. Wildcard games give well-performed teams who did not win their division a chance to play in the finals. The AFL sports media has been constantly raising a proposed extension of the current finals system by a week, with 7th playing 10th, and 8th playing 9th, prior to the regular finals and persist in calling this a ″wildcard″ round. There is nothing wild about it, it's just another week of finals in a competition without conferences. Pedantry aside, extending the AFL finals series to 10th would reward inferior teams. In the past 10 years, only two teams finishing 10th have won more than 50 per cent of their games – Fremantle last year (12 wins and a draw) and Geelong in 2015 (12 wins). In the same period, four teams finished 10th winning fewer than half of their games. Do we really want teams with a losing record to be playing finals? Mark Southby, Oakleigh
