About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

8 Aust. YBIL 213 (1978-1980)
The Singular Plight of Sea-Borne Refugees

handle is hein.journals/ayil8 and id is 237 raw text is: The Singular Plight of Sea-borne Refugees R.P. Schaffer Legal Adviser, Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office Introduction On 17 June 1980, the RAN destroyer escort, HMAS Swan, en route from Singapore to Hong Kong, encountered seventy-two Vietnamese refugees on a dangerously overloaded vessel in the South China Sea. According to a report of a statement' made by a representative of the Royal Australian Navy, the refugee boat was so over-crowded that the deck was only 30 cm above the water and the vessel rolled considerably under the weight of the people on board, even in fairly calm conditions. The refugees had such obviously limited chances of survival should they have encountered bad weather that the officer commanding the HMAS Swan decided to take them on board. When the Swan berthed in Hong Kong harbour, the refugees were transferred to a transit camp. The then Australian Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Ian MacPhee, announced shortly after the rescue that Australia would accept responsibility for the refugees in accordance with current international arrangements in terms of which the country where the rescue vessel was registered was obliged to offer guarantees for the resettlement of all the refugees in the group.2 It appears, though, that not all governments can be taken to be in agreement with the Australian Minister as to what constitutes 'current .international arrangements' in this regard. Doubts concerning this practice surfaced as early as December 1979, when the British tanker, Entalina, rescued 150 Vietnamese refugees from a vessel that was in the process of sinking in the Java Sea. When the Entalina attempted to disembark the refugees at Darwin, the Australian Government stated that it was prepared to offer the refugees temporary accommodation at the Darwin Quarantine Station on condition that the British Government accept responsibility for their eventual resettlement.3 Refugees with serious medical conditions were immediately allowed ashore, but those not ill enough to be admitted to Darwin hospital were forced to remain on board the Entalina pending the outcome of negotiations between the Australian and British Governments. These negotiations proved to be rather protracted. Part of the problem arose from the British Government's reluctance to guarantee that it would resettle the refugees. The British Government made it quite clear to the Australian authorities that it did not regard the practice of flag state resettlement as an established 1. Sydney Morning Herald 27 June 1980. 2. The Canberra Times 18 June 1980. 3. Sydney Morning Herald 5 December 1980.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most