China says Australia military plane in S. China Sea threatens sovereignty

China said on Tuesday that its military has identified Australian military aircraft and warned them to leave after Australia said fighter aircraft intercepted one of its military surveillance planes in the South China Sea.

Tan Kefei, spokesman at the Chinese defence ministry, said Australian military aircraft seriously threatened China’s sovereignty and security and the countermeasures taken by the Chinese military were reasonable and lawful.

Yes, that kind of happened, but it's been massively exaggerated to sound like it means something it doesn't mean at all.

Parts of the United States had very similar rules - and still do from what I can find online - to most of the rules we had in parts of Australia - but I see Americans claiming Australia has somehow gone down a road to totalitarianism that they are not claiming happened in America.

Let me explain that situation - you still may not like it - but you may find it's a great deal different from what you've been lead to believe was happening.

The situation we're talking about took place in the Northern Territory which is one of Australia's eight internal divisions - we have six states and two territories, all of which are largely self governing on many issues. One important thing to understand is that under Australia's constitution, the federal government (properly referred to as the Commonwealth government) is deliberately weaker than the state governments except in areas specifically listed in the constitution as being under Commonwealth control. When it comes to 'public health' the state and territory governments have nearly all the power, and the Commonwealth government cannot direct their decisions, or overrule their decisions in that area. Until just over two weeks ago (we've just had an election), we had a conservative (Liberal/National coalition - Liberal means something different here from the US) Commonwealth government lead by Prime Minister Scott Morrison. But the states and territories were divided into conservative states, and socialist states (lead by elected Labor Party governments) and the two territories were both Labor held. I mention this because a lot of people outside Australia think that the conservative Commonwealth government is in charge of everything and can overrule the states and territories - well, they are not, and they can't, except in areas specifically under Commonwealth control - throughout the pandemic, the state and territory governments have been controlling everything, and where we have had some cases where they went way too far down an authoritarian path, that was nearly all done by the socialist governments, not by the conservative Commonwealth government. A failure to understand that leads to a lot of people outside Australia (and even some within it) blaming the conservative Commonwealth government for things it did not do, and opposed.

Now, the thing you've heard about - the 'forced quarantines' and 'internment camps' relates specifically to something that happened in the socialist controlled Northern Territory. It was a fairly isolated incident where special circumstances applied - it didn't happen anywhere else in Australia.

Let's start with the 'forced quarantine' argument. What that involved was people who actually had tested positive for COVID, or who were close contacts with people who had COVID (which generally meant they lived with a person with COVID) have had to quarantine for about two weeks. The thing is - that happened in parts of the United States as well but I don't see people saying that that means America has collapsed into totalitarianism in the way some people are claiming Australia has. For the record, we haven't - everything here is basically back to normal at this point.

The 'internment camps' - OK - there was precisely one and only one place in Australia that could be described that way. A lot of people seem to have been given the impression there were multiple 'camps' all over Australia - simply not true. As I say, there was one place, you can realistically use that term about, but that situation was unusual - it was/is the Howard Springs facility just south of Darwin, the capital city of the Northern Territory. And what happened there was unusual on a number of levels.

First of all, you need to understand the Northern Territory - there is a reason it is a territory and not a state. The Northern Territory is about twice the size of Texas - not much smaller than Alaska in fact. And it is almost all empty desert. It is sparsely populated - less than a quarter of a million people, well over half of whom live in or near Darwin. Besides Darwin, there's only one town in the entire territory with more than 10,000 people, Alice Springs, and only a small number of places with populations even in the thousands. This leaves somewhere around 50,000 people who are living in small settlements ranging from 20 people to a few hundred people, often hundreds of miles from any larger settlements. Most of these people are aboriginal Australians who have chosen to remain on their ancestral lands.

Because of this very sparse and scattered population, it has been normal and accepted practice in the Northern Territory for decades now, that if somebody needs medical attention, they are flown by the Royal Flying Doctor Service to either Darwin or Alice Springs - more often Darwin, but some do go to Alice. This is the alternative to trying to have hospitals in really isolated areas. Territorians are used to the idea that if they get sick they will be picked up and flown to Darwin. It is expected. And not just expected - if it didn't happen, they would be outraged. In particular, if the Territory government left sick aboriginal people in their tiny settlements, they would be condemned by both the aboriginal community, and probably internationally - for not providing medical care.

When it came to COVID, the Northern Territory government had to work out how it would accommodate potentially much larger numbers of sick people than normal. Understand that even Darwin Hospital only has about twenty intensive care beds - Alice Springs has about five. These are the only ICUs in the Territory - normal practice in the past was to fly people to other capital cities of other states if necessary, but states were closing their borders so that option wasn't there.

By chance - and it is simply by chance - the NT government had recently taken over the Howard Springs Accommodation Village which was built in 2010 to house workers who were building a new gas power plant which was completed by 2019. It's basically a mining camp. Faced with the potential need to suddenly accommodate people and having a less than ten year old purpose built facility just outside Darwin, they decided to use it. Frankly, I don't think that was a unreasonable or stupid decision.

Now, who winds up in that place - basically there were three groups. First of all, it was used to house aboriginal people brought in from tiny, isolated, settlements in the middle of the desert, when COVID reached those communities. These people were medevacked in the same way the NT has been dealing with health issues for years. They did not protest or object to this - they welcomed it. This is part of a detailed system that exists to allow these people to continue to live on their ancestral lands as they want to live, while still being able to access necessary medical services when required. Yes, because they were either positive with COVID, or close contacts living with people with COVID, they were required to quarantine for up to two weeks. They could have chosen to do this in their homes - but that would have meant not being to able access medical care if their situation deteriorated. So they were moved en masse to Howard Springs - and then returned home when the quarantine period was up. Three of these - boys, minors, whose parents had elected to come to Howard Springs, and their children had been brought with them - decided to 'escape' the facility - against their parents wishes and decisions - and that case was not accurately represented in the media.

The second group of people who were housed at Howard Springs were residents of Darwin who were either positive with COVID (but not sick enough for hospital) or who were close contacts of people with COVID. Most people in this situation were allowed to quarantine in their own homes, but they could choose to go to Howard Springs if they wanted to - and some people did make that choice. They were there voluntarily. Why would people make that choice? Some people found it more convenient to be in a place where they would be provided with meals, because if they stayed in their own homes and couldn't go shopping, things became awkward and sometimes expensive. Others chose to go to Howard Springs, because by doing that, they avoided people they lived with becoming close contacts who would have to isolate - basically stay at home and your entire household has to quarantine - or go to Howard Springs, and the rest of the house can go about their normal business. Again, these were people choosing to go there.

The third group - the smallest of groups most of the time - were those who were required to go there. That generally happened for two reasons - one, they had entered the Northern Territory knowing they would be required to quarantine - generally they'd flown in from overseas. Again, I know a lot of places in the United States where international arrivals had to quarantine. Australia did that as well. There were also a small number of people who were made to quarantine at Howard Springs, if they were positive cases or close contacts and for some reason, the authorities felt they could not quarantine at home - this included homeless people, and it also included people who threatened to break quarantine, or who lied about their status. One of the latter - a woman - decided to make a video about being locked up that went viral, but she didn't really explain that she'd got herself into that situation by repeatedly lying to authorities - if she'd been honest, she would have probably been able to quarantine in her own home.

I know this is long - but the point I making is that a fairly unusual and isolated situation - a relatively small number of people in one location that existed largely by chance - has been simplified and exaggerated as if it represents a norm in Australia - it doesn't. And I believe a lot of the reason that happened was deliberate propaganda, and frankly, I think the most likely source of that propaganda is China.

That isn't to say, there weren't real problems in parts of Australia - in particular, in my state of Victoria, the socialist state government lead by Premier Daniel Andrews, has acted in a very dictatorial and authoritarian way throughout this pandemic - things have eased up now, but only since late last year, and before that we experienced over 230 days of lockdown in the city of Melbourne which was completely over the top - but it was confined to one city, which has the hardest left, most-totalitarian government in the country, and it was done over the objections of the Australian government. If people want to argue specifically that Victoria is close to a totalitarian state at times - there's some truth to that. But again, that wasn't the norm here - and a lot of people overseas seem to have the impression it was. Most Australian states did nothing like that.

Would you like all of America to be defined by what happened in Los Angeles? Or even California as a whole? By the worst examples of decisions by the most left-wing governments, which are not typical of the whole country?

I’m curious about the tennis pro who had all that trouble prior to the open. I recall he might have misrepresented his situation to immigration authority but also some heavy handed treatment from the (local?) government.

That was a colossal screw up.

There were three interacting bureaucracies there. The commonwealth government, the state government (that of Victoria), and Tennis Australia, the company that runs the Australian Open which is owned by the combined state and territory governments of Australia, but generally operates as a private company.

While most aspects of Australia's pandemic response were, as I've said, under the total control of the state governments, the commonwealth government did have power over a few areas - including the power to determine under what conditions somebody could enter Australia. They had imposed a rule requiring anybody entering Australia to either be vaccinated against COVID or meet one of a number of exemption conditions.

The Victorian government, on the other hand, had no right to determine whether or not somebody could enter Australia, but had imposed widespread vaccine mandates on most people working in Victoria. But again, there were exemptions to this.

Victoria's widespread mandates automatically exempted people from vaccination if they had COVID within recent times. The commonwealth's generally much more limited mandate did not have such an automatic exemption - bear in mind, the rules were for different purposes - the commonwealth's rules were intended to keep new infections out of the country, Victoria's rules were about employment of people who were already here.

Up until December, the differences were moot - Djokovic was unvaccinated and didn't have grounds for an exemption under Australian or Victorian rules. The Victorian government said that he wouldn't be able to play, and the Australian government said that he wouldn't be able to enter under normal rules, although they were open to reconsidering that on a case by case basis - there is a particular visa available for people with 'world class' talents - actors, athletes, etc, that can be applied for on a case by case basis.

But then Djokovic got COVID - and suddenly he did have a valid exemption under Victoria's rules - recent infection.

Djokovic was dealing with Tennis Australia as the organisers of the tournament. It seems that he (or more accurately his people) contacted Tennis Australia and asked if he could now play under Victorian law. Tennis Australia checked the Victorian rules, and said "Yes, you can - you're exempt from Victoria's vaccine mandate."

At that point, Djokovic suddenly announced on Twitter that he was coming to Australia to play. Nobody had checked with the commonwealth government.

Suddenly, it was a news story - 'Djokovic says he is exempt from the vaccine mandate and he's on his way to Australia'. And this was happening in the evening here in Australia when the story broke - everybody senior in the Australian government had gone home. Border Security officials at Melbourne Airport saw the news, and were surprised - so they checked the rules to try and work out how Djokovic could have an exemption. So by the time he landed in Melbourne, they knew the rules and they waited for him to present the appropriate paperwork. And he didn't have it. Yes, he had an apparent exemption that would allow him to travel freely around Victoria and work (play tennis) once he had crossed the border - but he had no right to cross the border. He was attempting to enter Australia without a valid visa. And Australia takes that extremely seriously - we have very, very strict rules on entering the country and anybody who tries to circumvent them is in serious trouble. So he was taken into custody.

The thing is - if Tennis Australia had gone to the commonwealth government and said 'Victoria is now willing to let Djokovic play' it is entirely possible the commonwealth government would have issued him an exemption under the talent visa program. But that didn't happen - because either somebody at Tennis Australia didn't understand the rules, or deliberately tried to get Djokovic under the radar.

And if Djokovic had simply got on a plane and turned up at Melbourne Airport unannounced, Border Security might well have looked at the fact he had an exemption from the Victorian government to play, and not bothered checking whether that exemption applied at a commonwealth level - a couple of other tennis players had already come in in that situation. But he had attracted attention and so they'd checked the rules while he was in transit.

And if this all hadn't happened in the middle of the night, Border Security might have got onto the Minister for Home Affairs' office and asked "What do you want us to do?" and the Minister might well have said "Let him fill in the right visa on arrival and let him in." But that wasn't happening in the middle of the night.

But now we had a situation that Djokovic had attempted to enter the country illegally on the wrong visa.

He probably hadn't done this deliberately - but because somebody at Tennis Australia had mislead him - but he had done it.

So he was detained pending deportation or appeal.

His initial appeal was successful but only on procedural grounds - Border Force had made a minor error.

But during that hearing, he provided false information. And it also emerged that he had provided false information on his entry papers.

And that's what really screwed him up. He could no longer claim that this was all a genuine mistake made by Tennis Australia - if he had been able to make that claim, I suspect the commonwealth government would have let the matter drop at that point.

But faced with somebody who had attempted to enter the country on the wrong visa (an understandable mistake) and had, at least twice, provided false information - once to Border Force, and once in court - things became more difficult.

Especially seeing a lot of Australians were getting really angry at what they saw as people wanting special treatment for Djokovic.

Given more time, something still might have been worked out. But there wasn't time.

Basically it was a mess - and the ones most responsible for that were Tennis Australia in providing Djokovic with incorrect information. He was a victim of that - but we really can't have a situation where a private sporting body is giving people permission to ignore Australian border law, which is what would have happened if he'd been allowed to stay. Negotiating an exception in advance would have been one thing - getting one after illegally trying to enter the country - albeit, unknowingly - is something else.

But there were also domestic political concerns - it wasn't all law, some of it was pure public opinion - it looked like Djokovic was looking for special treatment, and Australians generally don't like that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.