Oh how I weep for the quality of Australian political debate.

Whilst the “Ditch the Bitch” campaign was probably the lowest point, much of the current political debate is insultingly stupid and some are sadly suggesting that intelligent political debate is almost extinct in Australia.

I don’t want to write a long essay about the topic. Instead, I think I’ll let these short political videos from the political parties do the talking.

I’ll start with this woeful effort from the Australian Labor Party, which won’t even convince a six-year-old that Labor are worth voting for:

Of course, the Liberals returned with the predictable conservative “faceless men” attack (done to death in the 1960′s):

In 2010, the Liberal Party produced the “Kevin O Lemon” clip which proved to be a minor hit. But then they took the theme five steps too far:

I’m not quite sure what the National Party had in mind with this fuzzy shot of Senator Barnaby Joyce waffling about cars and bicycles:

It certainly seems that Australian political parties are keen to use social media but have absolutely no idea how to make it work, or target their advertisements at people of voting age.

Not all is bad: This amusing parody on the famous Old Spice I’m on a Horse advertisements provides a laugh but then again, it’s not the work of a political party:

Yesterday the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, formally launched the government’s carbon tax policy to a packed media room and an anxious public. The environmental tax, which will take effect from 1 July 2012, aims to cut Australian carbon emissions by 5% from year 2000 levels by 2020.

Australia needs to take action to reduce CO₂ emissions if climate change is to be limited to a 2°C rise in mean global temperatures by the end of the 21st century.

Of course, this requires the co-operation of the rest of the world and whilst no global consensus has yet been reached on what should be done, many countries have already established emissions trading schemes (ETS) or introduced carbon taxes. In Australia’s case, the carbon tax will morph into an ETS in 2015. Hopefully a global agreement will be reached before then.

I don’t wish to delve into the comings-and-goings of this political issue, which I feel had been one of the most poorly-conducted public debates (both within and outside the Parliament) that I can recall. The discussion has certainly been of the “every man for himself” calibre and I have seen very little forward thinking and community-mindedness on any side of politics. Nevertheless, I have long believed that an Emissions Trading Scheme is the best way for Australia (and the world) to make a real difference.

From an environmental perspective it’s difficult to gauge whether this scheme really goes far enough or not, but my feeling is that it probably does so but with a soft start. Let’s not forget that at the failed Climate Change conference in Bali in 2007, the Australian Government said it supported a 25-40% cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020. Now we are to make a 5% cut on 2000 levels by the same period, although the new long term goal is to cut emissions by 80% by 2050. That is long enough for industry to make necessary adjustments and hopefully enough to prevent catastrophe.

For all the talk, it seems to me that many people don’t understand the point of a carbon tax or ETS. The bleating voices of large sectors of industry demanding “compensation” are becoming tiring.

Make no mistake: I am not anti-business and I understand fully that workers will be the first to suffer in bad economic times. But polluting industries also need to understand that there has to be an incentive for them to change their behaviour. For there will be no business with a dead environment and whilst dirty energy remains cheap, nothing will change. Something has to be done and the absence of a credible alternative, this is the best plan for Australia’s future.

We also need to recognise that every government policy has an impact somewhere. Governmental paralysis would set in if government attempted to guarantee “not one job will be lost” or “no Mum and Dad taxpayers will lose out” et cetera (these are the words of an impoverished debate). The challenge with all policy is to ensure the greatest number of beneficiaries.

From what I can understand, I am reasonably happy with the carbon tax scheme which has been developed jointly by Labor, the Greens and the three independent MPs. It seems to strike the right balance between providing an incentive and not destroying Australian industry. Hopefully this will mark the start of Australia’s green energy transition as carbon tax revenue is used to develop sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and wave.

The challenge (and the true indicator of whether the scheme will survive the next election) will be to monitor the rise on the cost-of-living. According to the government, a cost increase of $9.90 per week can be expected, which includes a rise of $3.30 for electricity and $1.50 for gas. Whilst I consider this to be a modest increase, it comes on top of massive utility bill increases that have eroded the public’s enthusiasm for any more price rises. An average household will receive $10.10 in compensation which will come in the form of various tax cuts and concessions.

I have not been impressed with Julia Gillard since she became Prime Minister and I have been even more scathing of the Labor Party at the state level who forgot who they represented and selfishly increased the price of electricity for households well beyond inflation. That said, Tony Abbott’s confusing “Direct Action” plan worries me greatly, as does his threat to destroy the carbon tax and ETS. Imagine what that would do for business confidence!

I genuinely hope this new scheme works as intended. I believe it is now Julia Gillard’s job as Prime Minister to convincingly sell this plan to the many doubters within the Australian community. She also needs to demonstrate her leadership skills and lead Australia on a positive campaign for change. Finally, lower income earners and the poor need to see that they aren’t the ones paying.

The Lowy Institute has released a poll which shows that a record number of Australians are unwilling to tackle carbon emissions if it means that they’d have to pay additional electricity prices.

The poll showed that the number of Australians who agreed with the statement that “Global warming is a serious and pressing problem (and) we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs” has fallen from 68% in 2006 to 41% in 2011.

When asked “If it helped solve climate change how much extra would you be willing to pay each month on your electricity bill?“, the most popular response is nothing at all (39%), which is up from 21% in 2008.

Only 19% of Australians were prepared to pay even $10 more a month.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Electricity prices in Australia have been steadily rising.

According to research by the Institute of Public Affairs, electricity prices in parts of Australia have increased at nearly four times the rate of inflation over the last 5 years. Between 2005 and 2010, electricity prices rose by 61.3% in Sydney, 56.8% in Melbourne and 50.7% in Brisbane. Perth had the lowest capital city price rise of ‘just’ 35.8% over that period.

Electricity is an essential service and hence in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory the electricity market is government-owned (with varying degrees of private competion). In the Australian Capital Territory, electricity is semi-privately controlled and is fully privatised in Victoria and South Australia.

There has been much discussion lately about the introduction of a Carbon Tax, following Julia Gillard’s narrow win in the 2010 election. The government believes that in the absence of an Emissions Trading Scheme, a Carbon Tax is the most effective mechanism to provide a commercial incentive for industry to reduce carbon emissions and promote the development of a ‘green electricity’ sector.

Many people recognise that the introduction of a Carbon Tax will lead to energy price rises, including in electricity generation which in Australia is predominantly powered by burning coal. As I write, the details of the proposed Carbon Tax (and associated concessions) are being negotiated between the government, the Greens and the three independents. Nothing is certain.

Yet below the hysteria and the debate, electricity prices have been rising sharply. Many people mistakenly assume that the price rises are the result of the not-yet-introduced Carbon Tax. Others believe that  it reflects the “rising cost of electricity”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, your State Government is to blame. It’s called deregulation.

In 2007 and again in 2008, the Australian Energy Market Commission recommened that the State Government of Victoria should cease regulating electricity prices as there was “sufficient competition” in the sector. There was quite a push for this to happen, from the Council of Australian Governments to the OECD. Whilst the other states were still developing plans to remove price caps, Victoria’s Labor government under John Brumby deregulated electricity prices in 2009 and from thereon in, it became a free-for-all.

Other states have followed. Yet it need not be.

In most States and territories, the electricity sector is government-owned with a mixture of government and private retailers. In Victoria’s case, the former State Electricity Commission (SEC) was broken-up and privatised. The state’s elecricity industry was transformed from a vertically-integrated state monopoly (the SEC mined the coal, generated the electricity, distributed it across the state and retailed the final product) to a fragmented privately-run affair.

The SEC was profitable, yet it’s agenda was social rather than financial. In the states that have state-owned utilities, most of these are profitable too. Yet politicians speak of a need to “promote investment” in the sector and promote green energy. Yet surely this is no easier than in a profitable industry that the government principally owns and regulates? I am convinced that it is ideological blindness that prevents state governments from using their utilities for community good.

Electricity is an essential service and one cannot feasibly live without it in Australia. The electricity sector is also a natural monopoly. I do not believe that essential services nor natural monopolies should be privately-owned.

But even if you don’t share my social democratic views, surely it is difficult to argue that the Victorian model of a privately-owned sector subjected to price caps was less desirable to a laissez-faire free-for all, if one truly cares at all about the the cost-of-living. As others have validly pointed out, how can governments lament significant rises in the cost-of-living whilst their own companies are primarily responsible?

It really doesn’t matter how competitive an industry is, nor how many competiting companies operate in a sector if the prices for everyone rise at such an alarming rate. Governments have chosen to inflict these price rises on the public. This was done by choice.

The bad news is that prices are forecast to rise evern further now that there are no price caps, and that’s before a Carbon Tax is introduced! No wonder the appetite of the public to pay a carbon tax on electricity is fast disappearing.

I am convinced that we collectively need to address the challenges of climate change, by reducing carbon emissions. I also believe that we need to look after all members of our society by ensuring that essential services are managed for the benefit of all.

The rises in the price of electricity since 2006 have hurt lower income earners and promoted inflation, but done nothing to help the environment. With massive prices rises associated with the rental crisis, the housing affordability problem and petrol prices, one is forced to ask to who’s benefit these reforms were made?

Australia Day can be a controversial matter these days.

The date of 26th January, is the anniversary of the arrival of the First Fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain, and the raising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove by its commander Captain Arthur Phillip, in 1788. From there, the population grew from a prison camp into a series of independent self-governing colonies and ultimately into the modern Commonwealth of Australia that we know today.

This is a marvellous story of success.

Aside from the technical achievement of sailing half way around the world in a small wooden hulk to establish a nation in the New World, there are many inspirational tales of survival from those early days where the British struggled against the odds in a rugged country that has never been easy to tame. Despite the vast challenges our nation faced, we managed to unite into a single country with the stroke of a pen following a democratic vote, rather than by sacrificing blood in a needless war.

This should be a source of great pride for all Australians, because there are few outer nations that share such a boast.

Of course for Australia’s aboriginal population, First Settlement was a disaster, both culturally and environmentally. Few would deny that Aboriginal Australia has generally been treated very poorly. I cannot blame some Aborigines for referring to 26 January as “Invasion Day” and treating it as something to mourn, not celebrate. As a statistical average, their standard of living remains well below what the rest of the community enjoys.

Yet, Australia Day is not controversial merely because of the treatment of indigenous Australians. I think the deeper controversy stems from the fact that modern Australia is suffering an identity crisis of sorts. I still don’t think we truly know who we are.

I am relatively young, but I am widely read on Australian history and politics. When I look back, I see a nation that was once so comfortable with its own identity. Yet since the 1990’s, Australia has seemed more confused and uncertain. We still aren’t quite sure what it actually means to be Australian.

Whilst we seem to have settled the nonsensical debate about whether we are or aren’t a part of Asia, some amongst us are still uncomfortable about the changing face of our population. Some people cling to old images and concepts of Australia as if the Wide Brown Land has been sullied by modernity and changing demographics.

Perhaps, instead of worrying about what divides us, we need to look at what unites us.

We need only look across the Pacific Ocean to see that the Americans suffer none of our angst. Like ourselves, the United States is a settler-society and like ourselves had to deal with a dispossessed indigenous population. Unlike us, they also had the legacy of slavery to recover from. Yet it seems to me that despite the diversity of American society, they know what it means to be an American.

I suggest that is because Americans focus on what unites, rather than divides. They also focus on the great achievements of their nation over the course of its history. We should do the same.

Australia has a great story to tell.

Despite being a nation of just 21 million people and a mere 223 years old, we have the thirteenth largest economy. We are considered the sixth most democratic nation on earth. According to the “Human Development Index”, which considers life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living, only Norway is ranked more highly than Australia. That is a fantastic achievement!

Australia is a truly beautiful place to live too. We have tropical rainforests, deserts, savannah, open forests, grasslands and alpine regions to explore. Our flora and fauna is unique. We have a magnificent architectural heritage too.

Australia excels in medicine and science and we have developed such world-changing inventions as the black box flight recorder, the bionic ear, the notepad, plastic optical lenses and mechanised postal sorting as well as more iconic inventions such as the stump-jump plough, rotary clothesline and lawnmower.

Whilst these are worthy things to celebrate, they still don’t characterise what it means to be Australian. Only values can truly characterise a people.

I firmly believe that there are key values that unite us as Australians, regardless of our ethnic heritage, religion, gender or place of residence. We tend to brush these aside but we shouldn’t: they define who we are as a people.

First of all, Australians are democratic in the fullest sense of the word.

We value our democracy, and live it in our daily lives. Last year, the deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard challenged the sitting Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to his job in a night-time coup, and won. This was hugely controversial, and four months later we were given an opportunity to have our say at the ballot box. As it turned out, we collectively couldn’t decide and so voted-in a Hung Parliament. In the end, we had to rely on our constitution to sort it out, and the constitution delivered stable government. There was no violence. There were no threats. In many parts of the world chaos would have ensued in such a situation, but here we can afford to take it for granted that “she’ll be right”.  It was the same during The Dismissal of 1975.

I also believe that Australians are fair-minded and tolerant. We love the “fair go” and as clichéd and blokey as that phrase may seem, I actually think it beautifully encapsulates an Australian attitude that can be applied as much to court cases and industrial relations negotiations as a game of sport or how we treat new immigrants. In one sense, it is democracy in its purest form: That a person should be given a reasonable opportunity to succeed in whatever pursuit they wish to follow. In essence, we believe in justice.

I think the rest follows from there.

One trait that I notice about Australians that is seldom mentioned is that we are a very efficient and organised people. Our penchant for forming a neat orderly queue is legendary, and the response to the recent Queensland floods where armies of people worked tirelessly to help clean up their neighbourhoods is inspiring. Some will tell you that is just mateship, a “uniquely Australian trait”, but I reject such nationalistic drivel. Australians are not the only people who will band together in times of trouble. However, Australians are good at public administration. We make sure that our government, our economy and our society are as organised and efficient as they can be and that is something we should be proud of.

To my mind, Australia Day is about reflecting on what it means to be Australian in the full sense. What defines us as a nation and a people? What is it about Australia that makes this nation such a great place to live?

Whilst there is always room for discussion about the difficult or ugly aspects of our history, Australia Day is not about the “Black Armband View of History” any more than it is about “Aussie Pride” in Cronulla. It’s time the tiresome History Wars came to an end. Our national day is about celebration, not guilt.

If we are to truly be our best as a nation, we need to be happy with who we are as Australians. To be happy with ourselves, we need to understand and appreciate what unites us, rather than divides us.

That way, we can truly impress the world, and be comfortable collectively within ourselves.

Today, the Victorian Ombudsman released a damning report into the issuing of infringement notices to public transport users on Melbourne’s trains, trams and buses. The report describes how Metro-employed ticket inspectors (or “Authorised Officers”) have been recorded assaulting passengers in the name of preventing or dealing with fare evasion.

Additionally, footage provided by the Ombudsman (see below) demonstrates the thuggish culture that many such ticket inspectors seem to inhabit.

^{Four ticket inspectors confront one alleged fare evader. This photographed exchange was entirely professional and courteous.}

For most Melburnians, the brutality of ticket inspectors isn’t new. Such stories go back years.

I am not a regular commuter these days, but for many years I took the train to work every day. During that period, I saw several assaults committed by ticket inspectors, and have had my own share of verbal altercations with Authorised Officers.

In his report, the Ombudsman identified several issues with the recruitment of ticket inspectors, including the failure of Metro Trains to perform background checks prior to employing them. The Ombudsman wrote of the use of “excessive force” which “demonstrates that authorised officers and their managers are clearly not aware of the limitations on the appropriate use of their powers, or are ignoring them”. The Ombudsman has also revealed that some of the inspectors have criminal records.

As the following clip from ABC News Victoria shows, some ticket inspectors are clearly ill-suited to a job that requires patience, respect and integrity as per Section 221C, Part 1B of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983.

Part of the problem with the ticket inspectors is that the Act actually gives some of these thugs as much power as the Victoria Police, but without the training.

Authorised Officers can imprison a person for refusing to provide a proof-of-identity or for refusing to speak without a ‘reasonable excuse’ (Sect 218B). The fundamental right to remain silent is extinguished on Melbourne’s public transport system, it seems.

Unlike the Victoria Police, the Authorised Officers are not employees of the State, but rather employees of the privately-owned transport companies which operate in Melbourne. They clearly have a conflict-of-interest to collect fines, rather than administer the law.

Under Section 221I of the Act, an officer must, if requested to do so, produce a valid identification card before demanding to see a ticket. I cannot tell you how often I have been insulted, ridiculed or questioned when I have made that simple request. Sometimes they will quickly flash a badge at me like a petulant child and I have had to remind them that they are required by law to show me their card, not a badge. I always make a point of reading their name.

In one case, a female ticket inspector simply bellowed at the top of her lungs “I think it’s clear to everyone else that I work for the tramways, can’t you see my uniform?”. Of course, I patiently reminded her that it is my right to demand an authorisation card from her. She then glared at me before thoroughly searching through her wallet to find it.

If nothing else, this simple right to know who is asking to see my ticket entitles me to know their name. This shifts the power balance considerably, and I urge any passenger to demand to see an officer’s card before showing their ticket. Unfortunately, most passengers are unaware that they have this right. The signs in the train explain the rights of the ticket inspectors, but not the rights of the travelling public.

Personally, I have nothing to fear from these people because I don’t fare-evade. Nevertheless, I have had occasional issues with rude inspectors.

On one occasion, I was asked by an Authorised Officer whether I had my concession entitlement card. Knowing what would happen next, I simply replied “No, I don’t”, which prompted the officer to pull out his ‘fines book’ and issue me with a fine. I then asked quietly whether I needed such a card if I was riding on a full fare. Suddenly, realising his mistake, he demanded to actually see the ticket which was, indeed, a valid full fare ticket. Red-faced, he cancelled the fine. This simple experience demonstrates how many of these officers operate; by targeting the young. He looked at my face, and made a decision without so much as actually looking at my ticket!

Time and time again, I have seen ticket inspectors walk into a railway carriage or tram and challenge teenagers or young adults first. They usually work in gangs of three, and corner individuals. Their body language is often confrontational.

Yet I have often seen the same inspectors, when confronted with an elderly woman who apparently ‘forgot to buy a ticket’, simply issue her with a verbal warning and facilitate the purchasing of a ticket, where an immediate fine would be issued to the youngster who committed the same offence. Such age-based discrimination is appalling, but commonplace.

I really believe that it’s time that the Department of Transport and the new State Government step back and consider what this is all about.

The maximum daily fare on Melbourne’s transport system is $10.60 for an adult travelling in Zones 1 and 2. That’s right, the very maximum a person can steal by fare-evading is $10.60. Is it really worth crash-tackling people, or assaulting them in other ways over such a small sum of money?

Of course I understand that Metro cannot just let everyone off over “a small sum of money”. And I know that they have to deter people from fare-evading so as to maximise their profitability. I understand that Metro don’t condone the behaviour displayed in the CCTV footage and I am sure they will do all in their power to prevent such issues recurring.

In terms of the bigger picture, there are other improvements that should be made. Ticket inspectors should be employees of the Department of Transport, to remove any conflict-of-interest. They also need to learn to be more courteous and professional, although I admit that improvements have been made in this regard. Finally, they need to administer the law equitably and fairly. Even grandma should pay her concession fare.

Hopefully the Ombudsman’s report will inspire the new Liberal-National coalition government to make corrective measures to improve the professionalism of ticket inspectors as part of their wider push to improve Melbourne’s public transport system.