New England Online > History of New England > Shadows of Dissent
Shadows of Dissent
From the late 1990s, the impact of globalisation began to bite hard and the Shadows of Dissent emerged. A drought struck the region in 1994, and devastated the local agricultural industry still recovering from the recession of 1991. Many farmers and small businessmen went to the wall as the banks foreclosed in ever-growing numbers. Such hardship led to a strong current of dissent emerging in the community and by the turn of the century this had manifested itself into a political force. In New England, the most significant organisation to emerge was the New Australia Party or NAP.
The NAP was a political organisation founded by Michael Williams, Jonathon Braddock and others in 2003. Williams and Braddock had left the National party in the late 1990s over the weak willed response the party gave to the metropolitan neoliberal agenda that had gripped the major parties in the 80s and 90s. Initially the NAP had strong connexions to the One Nation Party of Pauline Hanson, but after that party imploded, the two organisations went their separate ways.
Origins
The movement aimed to re-establish a sense of nationhood based on: community participation; national financial independence; decentralisation; religious and political conviction; honour, duty and service to the state. The movement was always strongest in the bush and a particularly appealed to those that had previously flirted with One Nation and independents. What made this movement different was its capacity to organise grass-roots activism without attracting the harsh critical glare of the cynical metropolitan media. The movement became strongly anti-urban in policy. It called for end to the immigrant ghettos the major cities and lobbied the government to pay new migrants to move to the bush, particularly high skilled professionals. At the same time the movement understood the hostility that many bush people had towards immigrants and therefore it pushed hard for assurances that strict English dictation test will begin permitted.
In the 2004 federal election the NAP formed a political branch known as the New Australia Party or NAP. It was registered by the AEC with 2,500 members and stood candidates in twenty-five seats across regional New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, but none were elected. The best result was in the seat of New England, where the NAP candidate polled 16% of the primary vote. The seat was retained by a prominent local independent with a solid reputation and better local connexions. Disappointed by the results, more radical elements in the movement (mostly former one nation members), began to make plans for a radical attack upon their perceived enemies.
US Military Base Controversy
In late 2004, the United States and Australia signed a revised ANZUS treaty, known as the South-West Pacific Treaty Organisation or SWPTO. The treaty called for the establishment of a large US-based in Australia the training and stopover facilities for American troops en route to trouble spots in Southeast Asia. Australia was seen as the most secure nation in the region, still close enough to the rapid deployment of troops by offering a safe and secure place for GIs to get some rest and relaxation. Australia was also the obvious choice because it was big enough for a large-scale training base and US administration camps for the troops and aircraft.
After much deliberation, a site was chosen near Wongwibinda, about forty kilometres north-east of Armidale. Legislation was brought before Parliament, but was forced to committee after a National Party revolt on the issue who wish to extract some concessions. In New England the choice of location provoked a hostile outcry. Polls indicated that 91% of people in Armidale opposed the base. Several protests were held drawing more than 10,000 people to locations across the region. The NAP campaigned vigorously on no basis policy, believing that the promise of economic benefit was a lie, and that in fact the bases would be an economic burden on the region. The party drew studies from overseas which indicated that bases caused increased crime and prevented economic and social diversity. Despite the outcry, the Federal government pushed on with its plans to build base.
In response, protest meetings on civil disobedience were carried out throughout 2005. The NAP now took a lead in opposing the facility and had goals to prevent the establishment of the base at any cost. It also sought to preserve its original aims and objectives. In late 2005, the AIN was somewhat over run by more radical elements. They sought permission to use force if necessary to achieve the movement's goals. This was opposed by many including Williams and Braddock, but a majority of members voted in favour of a motion that the movement train itself in the use of arms and continue to explore using any means to achieve the goals of the movement. The movement now came under close watch from the various National Security organisations. They fear that the group may become militant, and that there would be a risk of terrorist attacks. As a, wordy and largely ambiguous report was tabled before the government in November 2005. Deciding to use the group as an example, a dawn raid arrested the genial Braddock and several others. The same morning the Attorney General announced that the NAP would be listed as a terrorist group. The Attorney General conceded that while he couldn't ban the NAP, he warned voting for it was akin to voting to terrorists. He portrayed it in much in the same way as British leaders had stated that voting for Sinn Fein had been a vote to the IRA.
Radicalisation
Rocked by the arrests, the NAP now sought to broaden support and also to use the NAP as a moderating position. A broad bipartisan grouping was brought together in December 2005. It consisted of the core NAP members, a number of other right-wing dissidents and some left-wing groups as well. All opposed the actions of the government. The group split on the use of force, with moderate opposing it under any circumstances, while others approved its use only if the organisation was attacked, and what others yet wanted a fully fledged rebellion immediately.
At a workshop meeting held over the Christmas break that year, the group sought to solidify its policy position on the use of force by using a series of scenarios to best map out a suitable reaction and also to allow the members to get a handle on the seriousness of their actions. The consensus model worked well, because everyone saw the need for agreeing in order to achieve the goals of the movement. Protocols were reached on dealing with the local police, tactical response group, military and intelligence personnel. These protocols now gave the movement compass and from there it was able to react as a clearly unified and capable body. However, before these could be fully brought into effect, a second wave of arrests followed in January 2006. The leader of the movement, Michael Williams, narrowly avoided arrest and fled into the wilderness of the Oxley Wild Rivers National Park. At the same time, the government indicated that it would ignore any demands placed upon it by the movement, citing the national interest as being more relevant than the local interest or opposition to the base.
The NAP now saw that it had no option but to openly defy the government. In late January it launched attacks upon the site by disrupting survey work and destroying access roads with explosives. The movement also asked local contractors to boycott the project, although most ignored the order. The attacks forced the government to deploy troops to the region. This proved to be the last straw from the NAP and the reformed itself locally as the United Militia of New England or UMNE, and warned that it would issue a unilateral declaration of independence. This alone was not expected to mean much, but it was meant to indicate the seriousness of the demands that the various movements had issued to the government over the last few months. The base itself was attacked for the last time on the sixth of February 2006. Sixteen militia members were shot dead, and four Australians also died. The next day the militia declared New England to be in rebellion and began to draft the UDI.
Unilateral Declaration of Independence
The UDI was issued in the militia stronghold of Kingstown about thirty kilometres southwest of Uralla. This hamlet of less than 50 was on the opposite side of Armidale to the proposed site of the US base. The declaration was announced by the militia on 19 February 2006 on the steps of Kingstown Memorial Hall. The immediate aim of the declaration was the superficial removal of New England from the control of Australian law. This was immediately effective, because at the point the Australian Army was unable to contain the militia outside the confines of the proposed base. Most of Australia's forces were in the Middle East fighting for the United States in Iraq or Lebanon.
The absence of Australian forces gave control of New England to the militia by default. The local New South Wales Police were offered commissions in the newly formed New England Police, although almost all refused and were stood down from active duty. Law and order was therefore maintained by the militia to carry out arrests and imprisoned offenders. The new nation, controlled by a Provisional Council was led by Michael Williams and a council of six others. The capital of the new nation (known as the Dominion of New England) was Kingstown. No nation anywhere recognised the independence of New England.
It took six months for the Australians to extract their forces from the Middle East and bring them back to fight off the rebellions that were now tightening their grips not just in New England, but in other regions across the country. Fully fledged revolts had now broken out in New England, North Queensland, Gippsland and the West Australian goldfields. All have similar aims to those that had been stated in New England, and the frustrations of globalisation were obviously contributing factor. But only New England had gone so far as to declared independence, and so it became the focus of the Australian military as it attempted to defeat the rebellion. The success of the militias in holding on would lead to five years of Civil War.
| Timeline of New England History | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by: Winds of Change |
Shadows of Dissent 2002 - 2006 |
Succeeded by: Civil War |
| History of New England | ||
| Timeline: Pre-History · Colonial Times · Proudly Australian · Winds of Change · Shadows of Dissent · Civil War Transitional Government · New Found Nation · Toil and Trouble · Five Day War · Engagement To Europe · Recent Times |
||
| Topics: Military · New State Movement | ||
