2002 cabinet papers: Bali bombings aftermath revealed

Cabinet documents of 20 years ago, released on Sunday by the National Archives of Australia, show clear resolve and confidence in the Australian officials on the ground after two bombs were detonated by terrorist organisation Jemaah Islamiyah killing 202 people, including 88 Australians, and injuring hundreds more.

Intelligence officials briefed a "fluid and uncertain international security environment" with potential flashpoints in east and south east Asia. The west was marching towards war in Iraq, trying to peg weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

To those in the cabinet room with John Howard twenty years ago, the bombing of the Sari Club and Paddy's Bar brought it all back home.

"It was a real smack in the face with a hot iron. Wow, this is here," Ms Vanstone recalled.

"911 happened. If it could happen there it could happen here and that's a pretty big burner to your backside, to focus on border control and protection from terrorists. So you don't need to galvanise yourself. It happens. And then the Bali bombings really galvanised."

The cabinet documents reveal a further "securitisation" of Australian politics. New terrorism offences and penalties of life in prison, boosting the AFP, linking border control to airline reservation systems and the use of facial recognition technology. There were also hardline immigration responses to the earlier highly politicised Tampa standoff and the false claims in the "children overboard affair" - by 2002 known as a "certain maritime incident".

"That is just the practice of looking at every opportunity you can take to keep Australia safe," Ms Vanstone told The Canberra Times.

"Now people can call that securitisation if they like, I wouldn't put it that way. But that might mean you tighten up security measures. Yes, because what else are you going to do?"

MORE ON CABINET PAPERS:

But cabinet that year was also considering a "specific deprivation power" to remove citizenship from convicted Australian terrorists, even citizens by birth. 20 years later, Ms Vanstone has an issue with the discussion, "that's a really big decision. I just don't remember that."

2002 is the year of the first SARS outbreak in China, the year East Timor regains independence and the worst drought in 100 years hits Australia, with parched large cities Sydney and Melbourne under heavy water restrictions.

Mr Howard was settling into his third term although there was no Senate majority. He and his team were buoyed by the 2001 win over Kim Beazley and were facing off Labor leader Simon Crean in the unenviable task of opposition leader.

The Nationals presented as a vocal, muscular Coalition partner demanding better regional services and exceptional circumstances.

"I think there was a great focus on the regions," Ms Vanstone said. "I'm hesitant to attribute that just to the National Party because the Liberal Party had a lot of rural members, in many cases more than the national party.

"And you know, I think it's a fair point that they get forgotten by the agendas of people in the big cities. You know, they're entitled to services and to be treated the same way."

The Christmas Island detention centre was being built and cabinet was seeking more money to build it and an extra $81.4 million to manage offshore boat arrivals, as any less security could be viewed, according to the then immigration minister Philip Ruddock, as a "magnet rather than a deterrent".

Cabinet considered offsetting some of the cost with the 2002-03 aid funding for Nauru.

"I feel very strongly that a government needs to control its borders. It does need to decide who comes here and the circumstances under which they come," Ms Vanstone said.

"I don't think it's unfair to call those people, offshore arrivals, queue jumpers, because they did get ahead of a lot of people who are in refugee camps.

"It's a bitter thing to be dealing with when you are a minister trying to do the right thing and you and your government's portrayed as mean and nasty when you think you're actually doing the right thing. And the more compassionate thing, frankly,"

And ministerial intervention was being discussed as Australia and Russia had difficulties negotiating the use of Christmas Island for a still yet to be realised space port.

Australian "enemy combatant" David Hicks makes an appearance in the 2002 documents after his capture in Afghanistan in December 2001. Cabinet discussed his detention by US authorities in Guantanamo Bay, noting his detention was lawful and that the government was allowing US processes to be completed before any possible Australian prosecution. Cabinet was moving then to stop Mr Hicks from making money off any account of his experiences.

He was eventually released in late 2007 after a protracted public campaign and pleading guilty to a single charge of "providing material support for terrorism".

But one of the biggest decisions, with ramifications for Australian power prices to this day, in the cabinet documents for 2002 rates a small mention.

The sale of liquefied natural gas to China by an Australian-based consortium, a contract worth up to $25 billion over 30 years. Australia's biggest single export deal at the time, but based on current global gas prices, the time frame for the deal, and there being no clause to raise the historically low price, it is clear China is the winner.

The submission notes that the "government should continue efforts to maximise the cohesion of the consortium and to encourage the consortium to remain sensitive to Chinese concerns over price, equity and security of supply."

Consideration of a royal commission into child abuse in 2002 did not go far.

The Howard cabinet noted that issues relating to child abuse fall mainly to the states and territories and a royal commission with commonwealth powers "would not have the capacity to review these issue fully".

Indigenous reconciliation was being pursued, but the term "self-determination" was actively opposed by the Howard cabinet as it "implied separate nations or separate laws".

Any move towards a First Nations treaty or apology to the Stolen Generations was seen as "divisive" and "inappropriate", with the government "deeply concerned" about a "recipe for ongoing disputation and litigation as has happened elsewhere in North America and elsewhere.

Constitution recognition in a preamble was also rejected, only for an about face by Mr Howard five years later. A review into the representative body ATSIC was announced, amid a "difficult" relationship with the government, which soon led to its demise. And the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was about to "refocus" and limit its powers further to become the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Demographic change was identified as a key priority for the government in this term and debt recovery from welfare or childcare over payments was a "serious political problem" for the government. Older Australians needed incentives to stay in the workforce.

And disability funding, well ahead of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, was fraught, particularly with the states and territories. The government was trying to restrain growth in the Disability Support Pension and was limiting "inappropriate" access. Those who could "benefit from rehabilitation and other assistance to increase word capacity would be shut out from DPS."

"Like that was one of the most difficult times for me in politics," the then families and community services minister Amanda Vanstone said.

READ MORE 2002 CABINET PAPER NEWS:

"You've got disabled people saying 'recognise us for our ability' and others saying 'she's a terrible mean person' or the government is a terrible mean person. I think we all understand if you can get someone a meaningful job, that gives them satisfaction, they're better off. There's no doubt about it."

The Howard cabinet maintained opposition to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, even though Australia had negotiated a generous target to increase emissions to 108 per cent over 1990 levels.

As the United States and key developing nations were not on board it was seen as "not in Australia's interest to ratify" as such a move risked local industry, but the Howard cabinet also noted that the Kyoto impact would be "very small" compared to what is needed to stabilise the atmosphere, and there was a longer term need to go beyond Kyoto targets through technological change.