Chapter 21
Into the New Millennium
In This Chapter
Focusing on border protection and the threat of terrorism
Apologising to the Stolen Generations and continuing the spread of wealth
Australia finished the old millennium with the Sydney Olympics in 2000, when the whole world got to watch a two-week party in Sydney (apparently there were some athletic contests as well). The events seemed a good omen — an opening ceremony viewed by millions throughout the world (exactly what they made of the hundreds of Ned Kelly helmeted figures jumping around is anyone’s guess), the Olympic Flame lit by Cathy Freeman (see Figure 21-1), the indigenous athlete who would go on to win gold in the 400 metres, and thousands of Australians happily enlisting as volunteers and guides to help the games go off without a hitch.
The beginning of the new millennium in 2001, however, contained darker portents and divisions. During a dispute in August over boat people on the Tampa, the issue of border protection revealed a deeply divided nation. And the terrorist attack in the US on 11 September (which became known as ‘9/11’) brought shock and a subsequent ‘war on terror’, which Australia would join, sending military forces to Afghanistan and Iraq. By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Australia had still to resolve the problems implicit in border protection, and still had forces serving in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, a social movement got underway, demanding a national apology to Indigenous Australians who had been forcibly removed from their families in childhood — the Stolen Generations. Australia was benefitting from the economic reforms introduced in the 1980s and 1990s — the economy was going ‘gangbusters’ — but the nation still had problems to resolve.
In this chapter, I chart some of the key events and watershed moments in Australia’s first decade of the new millennium.
Figure 21-1: Cathy Freeman lighting the flame at the Sydney 2000 Olympics.
Still Dealing with the Outside World
Australian challenges in the new millennium included unresolved problems from previous decades as well new and unexpected threats. The question of how best to deal with unauthorised arrivals on Australian shores (often referred to as ‘boat people’) continued to vex opinion, as it had in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s. The worldwide clash between the west and Islamic extremists after 9/11 drew Australian troops into Afghanistan and Iraq, and lay behind the Bali Bombings of 2002, where many Australians died.
Protecting the borders
The first boat arrivals of people claiming refugee status in Australia was in the late 1970s after the Vietnam War (refer to Chapter 20 for more on this). Indochinese refugees were received then but, crucially, the vast majority of them were processed offshore in other countries first. From the late 1980s, new waves of people claiming refugee status began to arrive in boats on the Australian coast and the government was far less friendly. The Keating Government introduced mandatory detention of all unauthorised arrivals, a policy which John Howard strengthened when he became prime minister. Border protection policies were pivotal in the 2001 election held shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York.
Many observers have noted the contradiction at the heart of modern Australian society. The nation that has arguably the most successful migration program of the last 60 years, which has proved remarkably tolerant of practically all new arrivals of migrant groups in government-controlled migration programs, is largely hostile to the arrival of any unauthorised refugees in boats. Exactly who is in the boats — Cambodians, Chinese, Iraqis, Sri Lankans, Somalis — doesn’t seem to matter. It’s the fact of them arriving without proper processing that does. This goes back to the unofficial compact struck between the government and the people in 1947, when Labor’s Chifley Government began bringing in large numbers of non-British migrants without first asking the Australian people (who would have probably said No — refer to Chapter 17). The compact runs something like this — Government: ‘OK, we may not let you decide who is allowed to migrate to Australia, but we promise that migration will be highly regulated and tightly controlled’; People: ‘Oh, all right then. But you mind those borders!’
During the 1980s, the Immigration Department held unauthorised arrivals in a very loose sort of custody. Old migrant hostels in major cities were used as the officials made a quick decision on whether the refugee applicant could stay or go. But a 1989 High Court decision (and a dramatic increase in the number of people arriving in boats) changed the situation. The High Court found that an official’s decision in processing one of these applications was ‘an improper exercise of the power to determine refugee status’. This increased the incentive to appeal any adverse decisions on a refugee’s status made by immigration department officials. The number of refugee advocates and lawyers lodging appeals grew exponentially: By 2007, 72 per cent of all appeals in the Federal Court related to migration.
In 1992, Keating tried to swing the balance away from the courts and back in favour of the government. Mandatory detention was introduced and tribunals established to try to re-assert executive control over the judiciary. The High Court upheld mandatory detention, but only on functional grounds — if people were being held for long periods of time purely as a deterrent against other would-be refugees, this was in contravention of basic human rights.
Flashpoint Tampa
After the introduction of mandatory detention in the 1990s, the next flashpoint in Australian border protection occurred in 2001 under the Howard Government. More than 8,000 boat arrivals had turned up in the three years previous, and sources indicated the numbers would only increase. Australia lacked the kind of well-thought-out treaty agreement with nearby nations (like Indonesia) that had served Fraser well in the 1970s. The detention centres were full.
Then, in August 2001, a Norwegian boat, the MV Tampa, picked up refugees whose boat was sinking in Indonesian waters. (The refugees were trying to reach the Australian territory of Christmas Island.) The Tampa skipper began plotting course for nearby Indonesia when there was a kind of mutiny. The refugees demanded the captain take them to Christmas Island, Australia or another western country.
The Tampa reached Christmas Island but Howard refused to let them land. The SAS (elite Army forces) boarded the Tampa from rubber dinghies and took control of the ship. Howard then had to find countries that would be willing to take and process the refugees, as he swore they wouldn’t be landed in Australia. Eventually, the Pacific Island nations of Nauru, Manus and New Zealand agreed to take most of the people. Later, a proper detention and processing centre was set up on Nauru, and the system was dubbed the ‘Pacific Solution’.
Howard went on to comprehensively win the 2001 election, partly from the strong stand he’d taken on the Tampa.
Critics said Howard had exploited the Tampa crisis for electoral purposes. The government’s refrain ‘We decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come’ was repeating nothing more than what had been said by both Labor and Liberal prime ministers since Federation, but with the background of Tampa, it took on a new resonance.
In 2010, under a Labor Government, government decisions on boat people were still leading to long-term incarceration of unauthorised arrivals, a violation of human rights. The basic conundrum — how to maintain effective control over Australia’s borders while maintaining universal human rights — was again a major issue in the 2010 election and continues unresolved, without any indication it is likely to be resolved any time soon.
Dealing with the Bali bombings
On 12 October 2002, a terrorist attack was carried out by Islamic militant extremists in Kuta, the tourist district of Bali — an island in the Indonesian archipelago. Bali had long been regarded by Australians as a holiday haven, and the nightspots were targeted because they were seen as a site of ‘western decadence’ — men and women out drinking, dancing and having a good time. (One man’s western decadence is another man’s good night out, it would seem.)
An initial bomb went off inside ‘Paddy’s Pub’, driving people in the bar outside onto the street, where a car bomb went off. The damage and casualties from this second bomb were considerable because the blast was massive — it left a one-metre deep crater in the street.
Overall, 202 people were killed, of whom 88 were Australian, the highest number of any nationality. Many burns victims were kept submerged in local hotel swimming pools, then flown to special burns units in Perth and Darwin.
Six years later, on 9 November 2008, three men convicted of organising and carrying out the bombings — Amrozi Nurhasvim, Imam Samudra and Mukhlas Ghufron — were executed by firing squad in Indonesia.
Facing Up to Challenges at Home
Australia’s economic life in the 2000s went from strength to strength. The hard and often painful decisions taken in the 1980s and 1990s to scale back industry subsidies and deregulate the financial and labour markets (refer to Chapter 20) were paying off. The Asian financial crisis of 1997 and the global financial crisis of 2008 were both weathered by a robust and open economy. China’s development boom boosted demand for key Australian commodities as the ratio of export to import prices hit 60-year highs.
Yet, the nation still clearly felt it had unfinished business on the domestic front in relation to the treatment of Indigenous Australians, many of whom had in previous generations been unwillingly removed from their families as children. After a landmark report in the late 1990s, this broad group of people became known as the ‘Stolen Generations’. A national apology seemed in order, but Liberal Prime Minister Howard refused. After a Labor Government was elected in 2007, the new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, issued a national apology in parliament.
In tandem with this was a feeling that, despite the creation of more wealth for more Australians and a greater access to more products and services, people weren’t necessarily happier.
Apologising to the Stolen Generations
The term Stolen Generations refers to Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders who were removed from families by federal and state governments in the years 1869 to 1969. For much of the period Indigenous Australians didn’t have full rights as Australian citizens. Aboriginal Protection Acts, Aboriginal Protection Boards and ‘Protectors of Natives’ could remove Aboriginal children from parents and families without needing to establish the neglect or maltreatment of the children.
In 1997, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission published their report ‘Bringing Them Home,’ condemning past government policy of forcibly removing Aboriginal children from their parents. Public support grew for the idea of an official apology, and an annual ‘Sorry Day’ began to be held. The Howard Government disputed the validity of the term ‘Stolen Generations’ and rejected any government apology. The Rudd Government took power in December 2007 and declared an apology would be one of the first orders of business in the new parliament.
The Federal Parliament’s apology was given by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at 9.30 am on 13 February 2008: ‘Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing culture in human history. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations — this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country. For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry. To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry. And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.’
Creating more wealth for more people
Australia’s survival of both the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global financial crisis illustrated the twofold causes of its economic success. To begin with, Australia had done a good job getting its economic house in order in the 1980s and 1990s, and so was less susceptible to crisis as other previously booming nations proved to be in 1997. Secondly, China’s economic development took off in the early 2000s, and carried Australia happily in its slipstream. For as long as China’s demand for Australia’s commodities remained at its current level (that is, voracious), an extended period of economic boom seemed secure, for the first time in some 40 years.
In the light of Australia’s economic security, the main questions were
Will the windfall be wasted?
How come we’re not satisfied and happy?
In the 1980s and 1990s, Australia adopted international ideas and implemented them according to Australian values. A core Australian value had always been egalitarianism. In the new approach, this translated as ‘equity’: Fairness of opportunity and reward for people willing to work hard and apply themselves.
In the modern era, the main way in which successive Australian governments have sought to apply this equity is via the tax system, which has been made highly redistributive for middle- to lower-income brackets. This means that while less than the OECD average is spent on social security benefits, more effective wealth redistribution takes place in Australia than under some of the more ‘welfare-state’ European nations. This is due to
Welfare payments being means-tested and not simply given out to everyone regardless of their wealth
Very low taxes paid by the poor
Very high family subsidy payments provided
The poorest 20 per cent in Australia now receive more in government support than any other OECD country. The proportion of children who didn’t have either parent in employment dropped from 18 per cent in the late 1990s to 13 per cent in 2007–08. Suicide — a classic indicator of breakdown in social cohesion — fell in the same period, with the rate of suicide for men aged between 20 and 24 (a traditional high-risk category) halved. A definite positive indicator of strong social networks — the rate of volunteering in the community — jumped from 24 to 35 per cent in the 11 years from 1995 to 2006.
At the same time, the open economy was proving highly effective at producing more wealth. Between 1992 and 2007, real income per head rose more than 40 per cent, while real wealth per head doubled. This has been helped by what Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens described as ‘the largest mineral and energy boom since the late 19th century’, a direct product of Chinese demand. But the strength of the economy was already in evidence during the Asian financial crisis of 1997. Australia’s open markets, strong institutions, competition, balanced budget and independent central bank now became a model for others to follow. A technology boom, a property boom, a financial services boom and a resources boom have all been built on these essential strengths.
But, increasing prosperity hasn’t made us more satisfied as a nation. Issues such as the vulnerability of the world’s environment and (closer to home) decreased housing affordability cause anxiety. Australians are finding, just as they have at other moments of high-boom prosperity — the 1880s and the 1950s are two good examples — that wealth doesn’t make your problems go away, especially if it only serves to increase your desires.
Social commentator and demographer Bernard Salt has commented on the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Measures of Australia’s Progress 2010 by saying that the prosperity and wealth delivered throughout Australian society hasn’t made us more satisfied. ‘We’re rich beyond our wildest dreams compared to 20 years ago and yet it’s still not enough. It’s very different to the Depression generation or the war generation, who were very satisfied with their lot and didn’t expect much. We can have plasma TVs, we can have holidays in Bali, we can have mobile phones, we can go to restaurants every night of the week . . . and yet the national sport is despair.’ Or in other words: Sometimes the real challenge is realising that you’ve never had it so good!
Wreaking devastation on Black Saturday
In late January and early February 2009, an intense heatwave hit south-eastern Victoria, with temperatures consistently registering in the low, mid and high 40s (degrees Celsius). These high temperatures, combined with dry, blustery winds, came on the back of a ten-year drought that had rendered the bushland of rural Victoria a tinderbox. On Saturday 7 February, the spark ignited and for a while it looked like the whole state might light up.
Winds of above 100 km per hour gave fires the velocity of firestorms in several parts of the state (see figure). The Marysville and Kinglake area, a popular weekend retreat just north-east of Melbourne, was one of the worst hit. In the early evening a cool change began finally blowing in from the south-west but this also proved devastating. Long flanks of slow-burning fire were suddenly swung round and became blazing fronts. Towns and areas that had been previously bypassed by the fires were now in the direct line.
Overall, 173 people died and 414 were injured. In addition to this, the fire destroyed over 2,000 houses, displaced more than 7,500 people and blackened 1.1 million acres of land. The Black Saturday fires were the eighth deadliest bushfire event in recorded world history.
New political directions
In December 2007, John Howard’s Liberal–National Party coalition was defeated after 11 years of power by the Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd. Kevin Rudd ended John Howard’s long tenure as prime minister by assuring the electorate that he was an economic conservative (like Howard) but a social and political progressive (very unlike Howard).
After taking government, Rudd immediately signed the Kyoto Protocol (an international treaty on cutting greenhouse gas emissions) and delivered an apology to Indigenous Australians who had been taken from their families by the state (see the section ‘Apologising to the Stolen Generations’ earlier in this chapter), both things the Howard Government had refused to do. Then the global financial crisis hit, which moved Rudd to declare that ‘the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed’, and his government oversaw an economic stimulus package that was largely credited (along with a continued resources boom) with helping Australia avoid the economic trough many north Atlantic countries fell into.
Oddly, the strongest parts of the Rudd Government’s initial success — a commitment to the environment and state-financed economic stimulus — also became key areas of criticism that helped bring about Rudd’s demise as prime minister. A government rebate scheme for domestic ceiling insulation was meant to be both environmentally innovative and provide instant employment. The reality often proved to be shonky installations by unqualified tradespeople with little oversight or regulation, with the result, tragically, being deaths from house fires and electrocution. After the new leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, refused to support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a key election policy, Rudd decided to delay the scheme until 2011, and his support in the community (previously very high) began to plummet. This was exacerbated by the announcement of a new ‘Super Profits’ tax on resource companies, Australia’s highest-performing sector, which was a public relations disaster.
At the same time, critics of Rudd inside his own party were growing increasingly restive, as he was criticised for not including government ministers in anything beyond the most cursory discussions about policy, preferring to do most of the planning within his own office with his own staff. On 23 June 2010, his deputy leader, Julia Gillard, confronted him. The next day, Rudd decided not to recontest in the party ballot on leadership when it became obvious that he’d get very few votes. Gillard became Australia’s first female prime minister.
From 2001, Gillard had played increasingly important roles in opposition as spokeswoman on population and immigration, indigenous affairs, health and industrial relations. As shadow minister for industrial relations, Gillard was instrumental in the campaign against the Coalition’s ‘Work Choices’ laws. This, backed by massive support from the head union organisation (the ACTU), was pivotal in the fall of the Howard Government. From December 2007, Gillard was deputy prime minister in the Labor Government, as well as Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Shortly after becoming prime minister in June 2010, Gillard called an election. The election campaign was tight, and the election result narrower than any other in 50 years. The Labor Party lost support in Queensland, Kevin Rudd’s home state, and in Western Australia (where the mining tax had been particularly unpopular). In affluent, inner-city areas, support went to the Greens (a party whose policies focus on the environment and social justice). Despite all this, after the election Gillard was able to secure a deal with rural independents, a Green-affiliated independent and the first Greens member of the House of Representatives to ensure that Labor retained government.
After being one of the first nations to grant women the vote, Australia saw its first female prime minister sworn in not much more than 100 years later. The country had come a long way, with undoubtedly more firsts still to come.