Space invaders
Are there any limits to who can apply for asylum?
Jacob Oldfeld 15 June 2013
Yesterday morning 10,000 Chinese soldiers arrived in Bateman’s Bay, NSW, claiming they were asylum-seekers. They were ferried to the beach during the night from six naval vessels anchored off shore. The post master, the only Commonwealth official in the town, told them he could not process their applications and suggested they apply to the Department of Immigration in Canberra. After breakfasting from their packs, the soldiers assembled into a long column and marched off along the Canberra road.
An emergency meeting of Cabinet was held in Canberra later in the morning. Copies of the departmental submissions, to which are added ‘talking points’ supplied by ministerial staffers, have fallen into my hands. They are reproduced below.
Chief of the Navy
Questions may be asked as to how six naval vessels could unload these asylum-seekers undetected. All Defence White Papers have declared that the threats to Australia will come from the north. Accordingly ships and resources are concentrated in that region. Plans have regularly been made to relocate the ships berthed in Sydney Harbour to Jervis Bay (which is Commonwealth territory, close to Bateman’s Bay) but they have never been actioned because governments of both parties have accepted it would constitute hardship to require the wives of senior naval officers to move from Sydney to Jervis Bay.
Talking point: It is fortunate that the Coalition is not in power for it may have attempted to stop these boats, with disastrous consequences.
Chief of the Army
Most of our infantry battalions are stationed in Townsville and Darwin. Only a small force of 1,000 men, lightly armed, could be assembled in the next few hours. They could attempt to stop the progress of the asylum-seekers at a strategic point where the Canberra road ascends through the coastal range. If the asylum-seekers persisted with their intention of reaching Canberra, they would have to be resisted by force. A holding operation awaiting the arrival of heavier weaponry would nevertheless involve casualties. It should be considered whether the Australian people are ready to see sacrifices of, say, 100 or 200 service personnel in such an operation. It has become the practice of the Prime Minister and leader of the opposition to attend funerals of all service personnel who die in action. Attendance at this number of funerals might be thought too serious an interruption to the business of government. There would also be an increase in the number of cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. At a time of cutbacks to the defence budget, we are under pressure to keep these to a minimum.
On balance, the Army considers that even if the government’s legal advisers decide that these soldiers can be considered an invading force, it would be more advisable to treat them as asylum-seekers and not impede their march to Canberra.
Talking point: If any person or group calls these asylum-seekers an invading force, they should be criticised as racists and xenophobes.
Department of the Attorney-General
There is nothing in the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees or its 1967 Protocol that would prevent soldiers in uniform carrying weapons from making a claim for asylum. It is certain that the High Court would adopt this position if the matter were litigated there. The leading refugee advocacy group has been informally consulted. It confirms that it would run a case on behalf of any soldier whose claim for asylum was not considered. It would seek special government funding in order to run what would be a landmark case.
Talking point: Australia would be failing in its international obligations if it did not treat the Chinese soldiers as asylum-seekers and consider their claims. There is no such thing as an illegal arrival.
Department of Immigration
An assessment has been made of facilities for accommodating 10,000 asylum-seekers in Canberra. Option 1 is the oval, grandstand and exhibition sheds of the Canberra Showgrounds. Option 2 is the largest building in the city, Parliament House.
The facilities at the Showgrounds would be adequate, but since tyrannical regimes have often used sports stadia to hold detainees, this option might cast doubt on whether the government’s policy of a humanitarian treatment of asylum-seekers was being followed. No such objection could be made to Option 2. It will be remembered that the Chinese President addressed a joint sitting of the Houses so a strong association between this building and China already exists. Fortunately parliament is not in session and only a skeleton staff remains. If these were re-located to the Showgrounds, the whole building would be available to the asylum-seekers. It is assumed they carry some form of bedding and cooking equipment. The asylum-seekers would have to be supplied with rice but the cost of staffing the restaurants, coffee lounges and so on would be avoided.
Talking point: Only the Labor government with its policy of accommodating asylum-seekers in the community could think of housing 10,000 Chinese soldiers in Parliament House.
Forum
Pages: 1 
