|
Subject: Holes in Australia And Timor-Leste's Fishing Nets (Comment on
immigration procedures)
Holes In Australia And Timor-Leste’s Fishing Nets
Pat Walsh, 11 November 2009
In recent times, two individuals allegedly responsible for violations
of human rights in Timor-Leste have freely and legally entered Australia
and Timor-Leste respectively. Both were issued visas. The two individuals
in question were Guy Campos, an East Timorese who entered Australia from
Indonesia at the time of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit in 2008, and Maternus
Bere, an Indonesian from West Timor who entered Timor-Leste on 9 August
2009. Though neither has been convicted of human rights violations, both
men are credibly accused of such violations in Timor-Leste and both were
involved in militia activity at different times. In addition, Guy Campos
was found guilty of maltreatment resulting in the death of a Timorese
minor in 1979.
Like any other visitor to Australia, Guy Campos was required to
complete a visa application which contains no fewer than eleven questions
relating to character background. The questions include: ‘Have you been
convicted of a crime or offence in any country (including any conviction
which is now removed from official records)?’ ‘Have you left any
country to avoid being removed or deported?’ ‘Have you committed, or
been involved in the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity
or human rights?’ ‘Have you served in a military force or state
sponsored/private militia?
To get through this tightly woven net, one assumes that Guy Campos
either ticked no to each box or ticked yes to some but was given a visa
because his name was not on an independent, up-to-date alert list against
which his claims could be checked. As a result, a person with a criminal
record and a suspect human rights background entered Australia. His
presence caused considerable stress to the families of his victim and the
expenditure of taxpayer money on futile investigations (he has freely
returned to Indonesia). The case has left the impression that Australia is
harder on carriers of swine flu and asylum seekers than the likes of Guy
Campos.
Though most Australians are unaware of it, Australia is a world leader
in this aspect of border control. Few other countries have followed
Australia’s lead and question intending visitors on their human rights
background. The Guy Campos case, however, prompts questions about the
management of the system. How well publicised is the existence of the
system? Do applicants from countries with bad human rights records know
about it? How is the data-base, a sort of reverse blacklist of the type
used in Indonesia during the Soeharto years, managed and maintained? How
many people have been denied entry because of their human rights
background? Who were they and from which countries? Does the alert list
contain the names of those indicted by the Timor-Leste Serious Crimes
process or those listed in Chega!, the report of the CAVR?
Entry to Timor-Leste is much easier than Australia. Timor-Leste’s net
is woven loosely and its arrival card requires visitors to address only
two of the 11 questions asked by Australian immigration. Like any other
visitor to Timor-Leste, Maternus Bere filled in a form which required him
to answer yes or no to the following two questions: ‘Have you been
convicted of a criminal offence in any country?’ and ‘Have you ever
been deported, extradited, excluded from, expelled from, or required to
leave any country for any reason?’
It is not known how Maternus Bere completed his application. It is fair
to assume, however, that he either ticked no to the questions above or the
duty officer ignored, for whatever reason, any yes ticks. Either way, the
system failed and Timor-Leste was left with a huge rumpus it needs like a
hole in the head.
To its credit, Timor-Leste has acknowledged that Martenus Bere’s visa
was issued in error. The question now is what can be done to avoid a
repetition of this error. What is required, one might suggest, is a more
tightly woven net that comprises (a) a more comprehensive set of questions
like those asked of visitors to Australia and (b) a data base – using
Chega! and Serious Crimes information – against which border control can
check entrants and their claims.
More effective screening and publicity in both Australia and Timor-Leste
will also communicate a key message that both societies have zero
tolerance of human rights violations. As the CAVR report Chega! urges in
its recommendations, more effective ways of discouraging human rights
violations are needed. Denying perpetrators easy access to human rights
friendly countries is one way of reminding those who continue to enjoy
impunity that that’s not the end of the story. It will also discourage
military and other potential offenders by reminding them that there will
be a price to pay for their inhumanity, even if they manage to avoid
formal justice.
Comment on immigration procedures
Back to November Menu
October
World Leaders Contact List
Main Postings Menu
|