An Intersectional Analysis of Australian Partner Visas
By Tatiana Parkhomova (she/her)
Content warning: discussions of discrimination
The Australian partner visa process is a long, exhausting journey marked by rising fees, bureaucratic complexity, and unpredictable waiting times. Despite a low refusal rate of 7.4%, applicants are still subjected to lengthy delays, with processing times fluctuating from 10 to 24 months.
Many couples attempt to shorten their separation by entering Australia on a three-month tourist visa before applying for a provisional partner visa onshore. However, with partner visa wait times exceeding the three-month stay limit, this approach can make it difficult for applicants to make long-term plans, like purchasing property or finding employment.
The situation is equally frustrating for those applying offshore, with months of waiting and minimal updates from Home Affairs. The high costs of this visa only adds to the emotional and financial burden on applicants who are forced to live away from their loved ones. With the current system’s backlogs and rising fees, it is clear that the partner visa process creates unnecessary hardships for families.
The process has long needed reform, but to understand why, it is essential to look at the inequalities within the partner visa system through an intersectional lens.
What is the Australian partner visa?
First, it is important to define the requirements of the partner visa. Applicants must be married or in a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen, a permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. This visa is granted in two stages: the provisional visa (subclass 820) and the permanent visa (subclass 801). Applicants must demonstrate that their relationship is genuine and ongoing. Couples are assessed based on four categories: financial, social, nature of the household, and genuineness of relationship.
The financial aspect requires evidence like joint bank accounts, bills, leases, mortgages, and other documents proving shared financial responsibilities of the couple.
The social aspect can be demonstrated through evidence of joint travel, attendance of events, and photographs, showcasing the couple’s integration into society. Testimonies from family and friends can also be included.
The nature of the household aspect requires proof that a couple lives or has lived together and shares household responsibilities. This includes mail, utility bills, leases or mortgages, and sharing chores.
Lastly, the nature and development of a relationship require proof of a mutual commitment to a shared life together. Evidence can include personal correspondence, marriage/civil partnership certificates, joint wills, photographs, and children’s documents (if applicable).
In addition to satisfying these requirements, applicants must also provide a birth certificate, national identification, and a police clearance certificate. Moreover, they must provide at least two statutory declarations from Australian citizens or permanent residents who testify to knowing the couple and can provide details of their relationship. Applicants must also pass a health examination and be ready to provide additional documents upon request.
The provisional visa is granted initially and allows applicants to live in Australia temporarily while their permanent visa is processed. The permanent visa is generally granted after two years if the relationship is still deemed genuine and ongoing.
The burden of proof for genuine relationships
While the refusal rate for partner visas remains relatively low, meeting the substantial evidence requirements is challenging and often complicates the path to approval. The task becomes even more complex for applicants from marginalised or diverse groups, who struggle to provide the required amount and quality of proof.
According to the Law Council of Australia, refusals often stem from applicants’ lack of guidance on what counts as adequate evidence, not necessarily from concerns about genuineness. Requirements to show cohabitation, shared finances, and social integration can be challenging for couples with limited resources, including low-income households or those from countries where certain forms of relationship evidence are difficult to gather. For example, many countries do not legally recognise same-sex or de facto partnerships, making it difficult to prove that a relationship is established. Even if a lack of evidence may not result in an immediate refusal, requests for more proof delay processing and add to uncertainty.
Undoubtedly, the requirement to prove a genuine relationship is a crucial criterion that prevents misuse of the immigration system. However, its complexity places a significant emotional and financial strain on applicants, who often find it overbearing. For those with limited support and resources, navigating these requirements can pose a real barrier to obtaining the visa.
The waiting game and intersectional vulnerabilities
Intersectional factors can amplify existing vulnerabilities, especially for offshore applicants. Some partners reside in less safe countries while waiting, limiting access to social and financial support systems and causing social isolation. In some countries, women and LGBTQIA+ applicants face severe discrimination, and long wait times can potentially put them in danger. Applicants have reported that uncertainty has taken a serious toll on their mental health and overall well-being, forcing them to put their lives on hold. Waiting separates partners and children, resulting in emotional strain for the whole family. Some applicants also develop depression and severe anxiety, as waiting can last years.
The excessive waiting times for Australian partner visas are exacerbated by backlogs. Applications increased by 245% between 2010 and 2020 and continue to rise (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, 2022). Moreover, there is no guaranteed maximum waiting time for visa processing, with estimates changing frequently on the Home Affairs’ website. Delays are worsened by an outdated IT system that fails to support timely processing, as well as a lack of policy to deal with delays and backlogs. Unlike other modern immigration systems, Australia lacks online tracking, leaving applicants with little information. Instead of updates or real-time tracking, applicants experience silence for months on end.
Financial and legal burdens
The upfront cost becomes a serious barrier to many applicants, often requiring extensive savings or loans to cover the fees. With the basic application fee set at AUD $9,095, total costs typically exceed AUD $10,000 when accounting for additional expenses such as medical exams (AUD $500), translation and certification of documents, biometric appointments, and other country-specific fees. These burdens disproportionately impact applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds, adding expense and complexity. For instance, obtaining documentation in developing countries may require bribery and prolonged waiting. If any of the documents expire by the time the application reaches the caseworker, new copies must be obtained, leading to more expenses and delays. The high application fees contribute minimally to reducing wait times, while they could be reinvested into the system and used to hire more case workers.
Applicants may also struggle with navigating the process due to limited legal literacy. Gathering evidence is a timely and expensive process, with challenges like opening joint bank accounts or obtaining official documentation. This forces many to seek support from immigration consultants, further raising the costs. Moreover, some applicants expect their case to be scrutinised due to religious, racial or cultural factors, prompting them to seek legal representation.
Reinforcing outdated relationship norms
It is apparent that the requirements of the visa urge applicants to conform to a Western heteronormative standard of a genuine relationship, which does not reflect the diverse realities of all applicants (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, 2022). This narrow standard limits caseworkers' ability to assess the authenticity of relationships due to strict guidelines that prioritise specific types of evidence.
One key example is the presumption that a relationship is not genuine unless it fits a specific model: shared financial commitments, cohabitation, and social integration. This stance can disproportionately impact applicants from non-Western countries, where societal norms may not align with these expectations. In many African and Middle Eastern countries, cohabitation before marriage is discouraged or even prohibited by law, and women may not be included in official financial documents or property ownership. This creates an unjust burden on applicants from such backgrounds who may find it difficult or impossible to provide the required evidence.
Research by Hoogenraad (2021) demonstrated how African-Australian couples, particularly relationships involving African men and Australian women, were put under higher scrutiny because of the assumption that such relationships are not genuine. These relationships involved alternative financial arrangements where the Australian woman might provide more financial support, not because the relationship is transactional, but because of different social and economic dynamics. Yet, these deviations from the ‘norm’ often led to requests for additional documents, interviews, and refusals.
The focus on these specific requirements can be seen as a form of structural discrimination, where entire groups of people are scrutinised more harshly because their cultural and socio-economic realities do not align with Australian views on authentic partnership.
Additionally, current guidelines fail to accommodate modern relationships. Many couples meet online and maintain long-distance relationships, which limits their ability to provide traditional evidence, such as shared utility bills or property leases. Other couples may choose non-traditional lifestyles, such as being digital nomads or remaining unmarried, which further complicates their ability to meet visa requirements. These choices do not reflect the authenticity of their relationship and should not prevent partners from settling in Australia.
Recommendations
The partner visa process requires significant reform through an intersectional approach. The process often demands a high volume of evidence that satisfies all the established criteria. Accepting alternative forms of proof that stretch beyond traditional markers of genuineness would add more flexibility. This can include shared cryptocurrency wallets and digital assets, co-managed social media accounts, co-owned subscriptions, recordings of shared experiences, and video testimonies from colleagues and friends. This approach would support couples who may not be able to provide all of the traditional documents, but whose relationships are nonetheless genuine and deserving of recognition.
The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) has previously advocated for clearer guidance and resources to reduce the risk of refusals and delays based on a misunderstanding of evidence requirements. Making the requirements more transparent, inclusive, and flexible could greatly expedite processing and benefit both applicants and case workers.
By lowering fees and speeding up processing, the visa would become accessible and reduce time families spend apart. New IT systems, similar to those in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, could bring much needed transparency, allowing applicants to track their application, submit additional documents, and receive updates. All of this would help alleviate the stress currently experienced by applicants and their families.
Making the visa process more transparent and inclusive directly aligns with core Australian values of fairness, equal opportunity, individual dignity, and compassion for those in need. Upholding these values means respecting the rights of all families to live together without unnecessary barriers and years-long waits.
Got a feminist opinion you want to share? We want to publish your work! Anyone can contribute to the OWP blog, no experience necessary! Find out more about being featured on our blog.
Resources
Department of Home Affairs, 2024. Visa processing times. Available at: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times
Department of Home Affairs, 2023. Migration Program Report 2022-23. Available at: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/report-migration-program-2022-23.pdf
Hoogenraad, H., 2021. 'Marriage migration from below: The assessing of ‘genuineness’ among binational couples in Australia', Australian Journal of Social Issues, [online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/taja.12415
Department of Home Affairs, 2024. Partner (Provisional) visa (subclass 309). Available at: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/partner-offshore/provisional-309
Department of Home Affairs, 2024. Partner (Onshore) visa (subclass 820). Available at: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/partner-onshore
Department of Home Affairs, 2024. Australian values. Available at: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/social-cohesion/australian-values#:~:text=%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B,want%20to%20become%20Australian%20citizens
Ho, S. I. & Rolfe, M. E. (2011). Same-sex partner immigration and the civil rights frame: A comparative study of Australia, Israel, and the USA. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 52(5), pp. 390-412. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715211425426.
Parliament of Australia. (2022). Family and partner visas: Final report. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/FamilyandPartnerVisas/Report
Australian National Audit Office. (2023). Management of the migration to Australia: Family migration program [Performance audit]. Australian Government. https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/management-migration-to-australia-family-migration-program