CHINESE national Chang Liqin, a resident of Australia for the past three years, and a tertiary-trained computer expert, works illegally as a cleaner. So, too, does former Bank of China employee Suo Yi whose financial plight has become more pressing since his wife became pregnant. A friend and colleague William Lu is a little luckier. He is a machinist in a factory but his circumstances have resulted in a break-up with his girlfriend and the development of the uncertain demeanour of a person under extreme stress. These are just three examples of the plight of 17,000 Chinese nationals who have sought refuge in Australia since the June 4 Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989. At present they exist as refugees because the Australian Government is making a decision on their applications on a case-by-case basis. If they are rejected at the end of the process they will be repatriated to an uncertain future in China. Their situation, they feel, is made the more unpalatable by the treatment fellow pro-democracy supporters have received in Canada and the United States. Both these countries have granted protection to fleeing dissidents but Australia has chosen to set a date of entry prior to June 20, 1989 as the essential qualification for the granting of permanent Australian residency to the Chinese applicants. The decision was preceded by the then Prime Minister Mr Bob Hawke's tearful promise to shelter pro-democracy dissidents after the June 4 crackdown and his pledge that no Chinese nationals would be required to return to China against their will. In December of the same year, the Government announced that Chinese nationals who were in Australia on June 20, 1989, could apply for an extended eligibility entry permit until January 31, 1991. Fourteen months later, the Government said it would grant permanent residence to these temporary residents if they could prove they would suffer ''serious and lasting consequences'' without resettlement in Australia. Last June the Government, after being subjected to pro-democracy lobbying, said that Chinese nationals in Australia before June 20, 1989, whether legal or illegal residents, could remain in Australia for another four years under a specially-created temporary permit. The new classification allowed the immigrants to work, obtain social security benefits, government medical treatment and bring family members into Australia for the length of the four-year permit. For the refugees, however, who arrived after June 20, 1989, there is no such security. They cannot work. They cannot leave Australia. They are not eligible for welfare benefits and they cannot sponsor other family members into Australia. They believe they are being treated unfairly and the Government has been unrealistic in imposing an entry deadline two weeks after the June 4 crackdown. ''Students studying overseas might have participated in demonstrations or other supportive movements, but the danger to them is lower, relatively, than those who participated in pro-democracy activities in China during the June 4 crackdown,'' Mr Chang said. ''The Australian Government is not protecting those who really need protection.'' Lindsay Xu, a scholarship student in Australia at the beginning of 1989 who has been granted permanent residence status because of his involvement in pro-democracy activities, said: ''Those who have sincerely fought for democracy inside China have not been given protection after they left to seek sanctuary in Australia. ''These Chinese [refugees] need to eat to live. I can't understand why they are deprived of the basic right to earn a living.'' Mr Lu is an example of that dilemma. He has received no answer from the Government on his status since he submitted his application for residency in 1990 but he is worried that he will be prosecuted for working illegally. He said: ''Despite the fear of being caught for working illegally, I have to do it since I couldn't possibly become a thief. I don't have a choice. If I could choose, I still want to be a history teacher. ''We have the ability and qualifications to take up jobs similar to those we had in China, if we do language training, but that is impossible in our present situation.'' Stress, too, is a factor. Mr Suo, 38, who grew up during the Cultural Revolution, said the last three years have been the most painful. ''I went through poverty and hunger during the Cultural Revolution. But this kind of mental suffering caused by uncertainty and worry is really difficult to withstand. I know some have become mentally unstable because they have been under stress for so long,'' he said. ''The emotional trauma of separation from relatives is also very great. I could not even go back to attend my grandmother's funeral although she had always loved me most,'' he added. Mr Lu has had to break up with his girlfriend for he does not know if he has a future. Although he is the only child in his family, he cannot see his parents and his parents cannot visit him. Mr Xu said: ''They cannot make any long-term plans. They cannot leave Australia and they cannot go back to China.'' Last year, under the new system, student Xing Jiandong was repatriated to China when he neglected to lodge an appeal after his original application for residency was rejected. He had not participated in any kind of democracy activities in China but he was imprisoned for nine days after being deported. His travel documents have been confiscated, he is not allowed to work and he does not qualify for government housing. Both Mr Chang and Mr Suo have appealed against an initial ruling that they did not have the facts to support their fears of persecution in China. Mr Suo was imprisoned for 20 days for writing articles and poems which condemned the Chinese Government after June 4, and he made his way to Australia after bribing officials in exchange for his freedom. ''This [appeal] is the last chance I have to protect myself. After this, I do not know what to do,'' Mr Suo said. ''If I am sent back to China, I know I will be imprisoned immediately.'' Mr Chang helped to raise money for Nanjing students and to liaise with students in Shanghai. ''The Australian Government is reluctant to offend China since economic benefits are at stake. We have become political pawns. I would not be surprised if the Australian Government sacrifices us in return for a better relationship with China,'' he said. This weekend Mr Xu will attend the first joint meeting in Los Angeles between two of the largest overseas democratic organisations, the Federation for a Democratic China and the Chinese Alliance for Democracy. He is one of 30 representatives from Australia. He hopes the meeting will prove to be a milestone for China's democratic movement since the two organisations are set to merge to form a strong and united voice against the Chinese Government. ''The Australian Government can contribute to China's democratic movement by providing protection to those who really need it,'' he said.
