EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The Australian Government's consular services, mainly provided by
the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), offer a broad range
of services to Australians who travel or are resident overseas. DFAT
receives as many as 400,000 consular contacts in a year, ranging from
telephone enquiries to management of complicated cases.
2. The matter of consular services was referred by the Senate to the
Committee for inquiry in August 1995. The inquiry was advertised immediately
in the national press and most submissions were received in the latter
part of that year. However, the need to finalise several other inquiries
and the federal election in March 1996 delayed the start of hearings
until 9 September 1996.
3. The Committee's inquiry covered not only the broad issues of consular
assistance but also a number of case studies, some of which were included
in the terms of reference for the inquiry, and others which were brought
to the attention of the Committee through written submissions.
4. The Committee formed the opinion that DFAT's consular services had
been fairly narrowly focussed on Australians in trouble overseas with
much less attention given to their families back in Australia. DFAT
responded to Australians in need overseas but devoted little attention
to the prevention of problems. Even when DFAT entered the electronic
age by installing its own Internet web site, Travel Advices were until
recently buried among press releases rather than being highlighted under
a separate heading.
5. The Committee believes there is now in DFAT a recognition that not
only should more attention be devoted to helping families in Australia
of victims overseas but also to the promotion of DFAT services, especially
travel advice, to help Australians avoid trouble overseas. This new
outlook is exemplified by the establishment of a new information unit
in Canberra; the release of a new publication; and inclusion of information
in industry seminars and courses, these will all help to promote consular
services. The Committee believes it is important that Australians who
intend to travel overseas or who have actually gone abroad know where
they can get up-to-date travel information to help to ensure their personal
safety.
6. Following the establishment of the inquiry, DFAT engaged a consultant,
Mr Tim McDonald, to review its consular services. A number of recommendations
contained in his report of September 1995 have been implemented. The
Committee's inquiry itself has already given impetus to further change
in a number of areas. The inquiry has also brought together senior DFAT
consular officers and representatives of national organisations, such
as the Australian Federation of Travel Agents, the Insurance Council
of Australia and the Australian Funeral Directors Association, to increase
awareness of, and benefit from, each others services. However, DFAT
should do more to forge broader relations with relevant industries and
specialist organisations, the coronial system and State and Territory
Government services which could help distressed families.
7. The year 1994 was probably a watershed year for DFAT's consular
services. A number of high profile cases put the media and public spotlight
on them. It was the year Kellie Wilkinson and David Wilson were kidnapped
and murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia; Dr John Flynn was
detained in India; Ben Maresh died in a hotel fire in Kupang, West Timor;
Bob Bowra was placed in custody following a boating accident in Abu
Dhabi; and James Peng's incarceration in China was a continuing consular
problem. As many of these cases were being handled simultaneously, the
relatively small consular staff in Canberra was being placed under considerable
pressure. This must be kept in mind when considering these individual
cases.
8. Although the Committee has sought changes and improvements in a
number of areas of consular services, and has criticised some actions
taken in some of the case studies, the Committee wishes to place on
record the untiring and valuable work, which is done in Australian posts
around the world and in the Consular Branch in DFAT in Canberra, to
assist Australian travellers abroad.
9. In these times of financial stringency, with cutbacks in staffing
of overseas posts, DFAT has been seeking, with fewer resources, creative
means to expand access to consular services overseas for Australians.
DFAT has recently expanded the Honorary Consul system and is planning
the appointment of further Honorary Consuls. This system is both effective
and relatively inexpensive in providing a range of consular services
in areas where there is no official Australian representation. The Committee
recommends that DFAT expands the Honorary Consul system. The Committee
also recommends that DFAT provide staff for Honorary Consuls who have
a heavy consular workload.
10. DFAT has entered into a sharing agreement with Canada whereby 12
Canadian posts provide Australians with consular assistance in countries
where there is no official Australian representation and Australia provides
a reciprocal service to Canadians in 13 posts in countries where Canada
is not represented. DFAT is also considering sharing responsibilities
with posts of two or three other countries in the same city to make
more efficient use of consular staff at those posts. The Committee believes
these are sensible arrangements which either extend services or make
more efficient use of resources in the interests of Australians abroad.
The Committee recommends that DFAT continues to pursue such sharing
arrangements.
11. The Committee found that many Australians have unrealistic expectations
of what DFAT's consular services can provide Australians overseas. Those
services are constrained by international conventions and consular practice,
Australian laws and the laws of other countries. Many criticisms of
DFAT stem from this misunderstanding of the scope of consular services.
12. The Committee also found that DFAT can be flexible in its exercise
of consular assistance by using discretion and common sense to help
someone in special circumstances when such help is normally not available.
The Committee believes that this flexibility is commendable because
there will always be special cases which consular practice has not taken
into account. The Committee was also told about individual consular
officers in posts overseas going beyond the call of duty to ameliorate
the very difficult circumstances in which some Australians found themselves.
13. DFAT provides loans to travellers who, for one reason or another,
run out of money or who need repatriation to Australia. Rather than
continue with a flat maximum loan of $150, the Committee recommended
that the maximum loan reflect the basic needs of a person in that country,
given that the standard of living varies greatly among countries. The
Committee also recommended measures to recoup those loans from people
who do not repay them. Although the Committee believes that consular
staff overseas should help Australians in distress, the Australian taxpayer
should not be expected to pay for their repatriation to Australia. Every
encouragement should be given travellers to obtain travel insurance
before travelling overseas to avoid costly repatriation or medivac in
unforeseen circumstances.
14. The Committee considered a wide range of other consular services
during the inquiry which are dealt with in the report. A number of recommendations
are made aimed at improving consular services. The recommendations are
listed at the end of this overview. The Committee has also given guidance
in other areas where for one reason or another formal recommendations
were not made.
15. As mentioned above, the Committee examined a number of individual
cases in the inquiry. Some of these are included as case studies in
the report while others are used to illustrate particular points in
discussion of various issues. Comments about three particular cases
to which the Committee devoted considerable time are set out below.
The Case of David Wilson
16. The Committee gave particular attention to the case of the kidnapping
and murder of David Wilson by the Khmer Rouge in 1994. It was this case
which prompted the establishment of this inquiry.
17. This was a case where it was clear from the outset that the Committee
could not possibly satisfy all the expectations of those members of
the Wilson family who made submissions and appeared before the inquiry.
The Committee has addressed in the report the main questions which they
raised in their evidence. However, it was not possible for a Senate
Committee to take evidence from many people, especially senior Cambodian
officials, about their role in the David Wilson case. The Committee
did try to meet General Chea Dara, the main Cambodian negotiator, but
a meeting could not be arranged.
18. Although it is indisputable that David Wilson and his two companions
were murdered by the Khmer Rouge, it is not known why they were murdered.
Were they murdered because the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces decided
to shell Phnom Voar, where the Khmer Rouge camp was situated? Was it
because the ransom negotiations broke down? Were there other factors
or some combination of factors? It is not possible to conclude definitively
what factors contributed to the deaths of the three hostages.
19. There are also other unanswered questions about the role of the
Cambodian Government in resolving the hostage crisis. Despite some expectations
that the Committee could resolve these vexed issues, it was clearly
beyond the powers of the Committee to do so.
20. The Wilson family and the Australian journalists who gave evidence
to the Committee thought that the Australian Government should have
taken a tougher stance with the Cambodian Government against the shelling
of Phnom Vor. There was agreement at the start of the crisis that this
would not happen. To what extent the Australian Government could have
unilaterally done much more than it did is not clear. As the three Governments
were acting in unison, it would have been difficult for the Australian
Government to have adopted a different approach to the other two Governments.
Similarly, as the three Western Governments had a 'no ransom policy',
they were in no position to push the ransom issue with the Cambodian
Government when its ransom negotiations appeared to break down. Ultimately,
the Cambodian Government, representing a sovereign country, which had
responsibility for handling the crisis, has to take responsibility for
its actions.
21. The Committee believes that DFAT's total media 'no comment' policy,
either on or off the record, was a mistake, even though it was agreed
among the three Governments. If the Department is unhelpful to the media,
and unprepared to guide and work with the media, as happened during
the Wilson hostage crisis, the Department is in no position to criticise
the media for what is broadcast or written. The Australian journalists,
at least, were prepared to be guided by the Embassy and DFAT, and sought
co-operation from the outset. Nevertheless, their overtures were rebuffed
by DFAT. The Committee believes that DFAT should enter into more co-operative
arrangements with the media in any future hostage crises or similar
serious events and that the DFAT should explain that media strategy
to families.
The Case of Ben Maresh
22. The Committee also spent much time considering the case of Ben
Maresh. Ben died in a hotel fire in Kupang, West Timor, Indonesia in
April 1994. The Kupang Police concluded that the death was accidental
but Ben's family alleged that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding
the fire and that he may have been murdered.
23. It was not the role of the Committee to inquire into the cause
of Ben's death. The nub of this case for the Committee is whether the
then Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Department made the right
decision in not seeking the co-operation of Indonesian authorities in
re-opening the investigation into the death of Ben Maresh. The then
Minister and the Department have claimed that they did not have new
evidence to put before the Indonesian authorities to justify seeking
a re-opening of the case. That claim is based on a review of the investigations
into this case by the Australian Federal Police, which came to a similar
conclusion arrived at earlier by the Victorian Coroner.
24. Both the Victorian Coroner and the AFP Review returned open findings
although they leaned towards accidental death. There is no doubt, however,
that there are loose ends and inconsistent evidence in this case. The
Maresh family has focussed attention on these factors. They also claim
that information obtained by Mr Robert Maresh in his own investigations
in Kupang has been disregarded by Australian and Indonesian authorities.
25. Senator Evans claimed that he could not ask his counterpart to
re-open a case of a suspicious death unless he had a sound basis for
making such a request. All of the Australian authorities which had reviewed
the case came to the conclusion that there was no new evidence that
would warrant seeking a re-opening of the police investigation. The
Minister would rely to a large degree on the advice of Government authorities,
especially in such a detailed and technical area. The Committee believes
it is understandable and acceptable in the circumstances that the Minister
would be reluctant to approach his Indonesian counterpart when the relevant
Australian authorities had not supported such an approach.
The Case of Dr John Flynn
26. Dr Flynn was arrested by Indian authorities on his departure from
India in June 1994 for allegedly taking with him a quantity of old coins.
He was not brought to trial but given a two-year administrative detention.
It was not until March 1996 that the High Court of India threw out all
the charges laid against him. Dr Flynn claimed that DFAT and the Australian
High Commission in New Delhi did not do enough to help him.
27. Although the tempo of Government representations on behalf of Dr
Flynn increased significantly from about mid 1995, the Committee considers
that not enough was done before then to support Dr Flynn. The Committee
believes that many justifiable complaints lodged by Dr Flynn against
the Indian authorities were not addressed by the High Commission or
DFAT with the degree of seriousness which they deserved, particularly
in view of Dr Flynn's age and medical condition.
Acknowledgments
28. The Committee wishes to express its appreciation to all those who
made submissions and gave evidence during the inquiry. In particular,
we thank those family and friends who gave evidence about difficult
and tragic events. The Committee also appreciates the contribution of
the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in providing detailed submissions,
responses to other evidence and answers to questions on notice.