Tourist who overstayed his visa by 78 days among three Aussies kicked out of Bali in renewed crackdown on foreign nationals
Bali authorities deported three Australians for breaching immigration rules, as Indonesia steps up enforcement against foreign nationals working or doing business without the correct permits. The cases highlight scrutiny of visa conditions and the activities visitors undertake while in the country.
Jason Anasta was deported after continuing to run a business whose licence had been revoked, while Nigel Jay Annesley was found to have provided false information about his work contract and lacked evidence of his investment. Arran Hubbard overstayed his visa by 78 days. In a separate operation, 10 foreign nationals were deported last week and blacklisted from returning to Indonesia; Bali deported 342 people in the first six months of 2026.
- Three Australians were deported from Bali for immigration breaches.
- One had overstayed his visa by 78 days.
- Bali deported 342 foreign nationals in the first half of 2026.
New here? Start with this
Bali is part of Indonesia, where foreign visitors must follow the conditions of their visas. A visitor visa does not automatically allow someone to work, run a business or stay beyond the permitted period; different activities may require different permits.
Indonesian immigration authorities check whether foreign nationals have the right documents for their work or business and whether they leave before their visas expire. They can deport people who breach these rules and may bar them from returning. The rules matter to visitors and businesses because an unauthorised activity or an overstay can lead to removal from the country.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Indonesia can reasonably argue that enforcing visa and business rules protects the integrity of its immigration system, ensures foreign visitors compete on fair terms, and upholds decisions such as revoked licences. Consistent enforcement may also deter overstays and misrepresentation while making clear that visitors must follow the conditions of their stay.
The case against
Critics can reasonably argue that a broad crackdown risks treating distinct cases as evidence of a wider problem and may impose severe consequences without enough attention to individual circumstances or proportionality. They may also question whether deportation and blacklisting are the fairest responses where breaches vary in seriousness, especially if rules or procedures are unclear to visitors.