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:

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 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?

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.

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.

In March, a state election in Tasmania yielded a hung parliament. Later in August, a federal election delivered another hung parliament. In September, the Australian Football League’s Grand Final delivered a rare draw. So perhaps it should not have been too much of a surprise that Victoria’s state election last Saturday might have also delivered a similar result.

^{Image by Simon Rankin. Used under a Creative Commons Licence.}

This time, however, the scales have tipped just that bit further and the Liberals have won, with a majority of 1 seat. John Brumby and his 11-year-old Labor government have been voted out of office.

From the beginning of the election campaign, John Brumby acknowledged that it would be a “tough contest” to win a record fourth term for Labor. To his credit, Brumby didn’t once refer to himself as an “underdog”, but I had the feeling that whilst he believed he’d lose a few seats, he didn’t think that the Liberals under Ted Ballieu could seriously threaten his government.

John Brumby probably reasoned that his was a good government: Crime was falling, the budget was in surplus and Victoria’s growth was steady. These may be correct, but his judgement certainly wasn’t.

Within an hour of tuning into ABC1’s election coverage, swings of between 6% and 9% were apparent in some seats. By 10PM, it appeared that Victoria would either have a hung parliament, or the first Liberal government since 1999.

On the night of the election, John Brumby told the Labor faithful “I know we have been sent a loud and clear message… To the people of this state who sent that message, we have heard that message, and I know we can do better in government”.

What that message was, we’ll never know because Mr. Brumby never got around to telling us. In any case, it was too late. The people of Victoria had made their decision.

Initially, Labor ministers dismissively stated that voters simply craved a change, as if there was nothing more to it than the proverbial “It’s Time factor” and nothing more. It almost suggested that the change was a whim. To me, this response is symptomatic of a government out-of-touch with its community.

For the most part, John Brumby’s (and before him, Steve Bracks’) administration were not that bad in themselves. The budget was kept in surplus, the state’s economy has continued to grow and service spending had continued to rise. But the government had managed to progressively irritate, almost offend, a large section of both rural and urban communities and seemed to show less and less willingness to admit to problems.

Brumby’s biggest problem was with his government’s water policies. Having left the water crisis to the proverbial last minute, there was almost a panic attack when Melbourne’s water supply reached 29% as a result of the drought. There was little concern when the water supply of the regions fell equally low, and the government seemed happy to place rural folk on Stage 4 restrictions. Melbourne, on the other hand, was treated to the dubious and less-onerous Stage 3A restrictions, which I have previously written about.

To ‘solve’ the water crisis, the government commissioned a massive desalination plant in Wonthaggi. Whilst the costs and secret contracts with the private operator became a political issue, Victorians seemed divided on the merits of the desalination plant itself.

In contrast, the “North-South Pipeline” is arguably Victoria’s most detested infrastructure project ever.

The idea was that the open agricultural channels in the state’s north would be enclosed. A costly process, the state would pay for this and share the resulting water savings between the growers and Melbourne. To achieve this, a $700 million pipe was constructed to transport water from the Goulburn district to the city. Rural folk, whose very livelihoods depended on water for agricultural irrigation, were furious that their water was being piped to Melbourne to keep people’s gardens green. City folk were equally outraged that they were forced to take the ‘stolen’ water, and pay for it with massive increases in their water rates.

The authoritarian manner in which the government proceeded with the north-south pipeline project included sending in the police to arrest uncooperative landowners and a network of spies to monitor Plug The Pipe protesters. This didn’t go down well with the electorate and within months of the pipe’s completion, the drought ended and it is currently idle. I could make a witty ‘money down the drain’ pun at this point, but I shall resist.

If water raised emotions, transport wasn’t far behind.

Whilst in its first years in office Labor re-opened several regional rail lines that had been closed by Jeff Kennett’s government, they botched a fast rail project that was supposed to deliver a high-speed link between Melbourne and the regional cities of Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong and Traralgon. Fast Rail was budgeted at $80 million (a ridiculous estimation) but ended-up costing $1 billion and the “fast” trains could only travel at 160km/h instead of the 300 km/h Japanese commuters are accustomed to. Worse still, sections of single-track were constructed where previously there had been two!

But the word that epitomises failure for John Brumby’s government is “Myki”.

The new ‘smart’ electronic ticketing system was supposed operate on trains, trams and buses, cost $494 million and commence operation in 2007. Instead, Myki was plagued with problems, cost $1.35 billion and only commenced on trains and trams several months ago. Many people questioned whether $1.35 billion could have been invested more wisely somewhere else.

Whilst water and transport policies were John Brumby’s biggest deficiencies, law-and-order isn’t ever far from any state election campaign.

Constant complaints about the lack of safety on the suburban rail system, as well as perceptions of inadequate policing started to resonate with many voters who felt unsafe when walking in the city at night or taking the trains after hours.

Perhaps as destructive for Labor as the policy failures were the numerous scandals, especially during the its last term.

The revelations that resulted from leaked memos describing how the Minister for Planning intended to hold sham public consultations as justification for rejecting a proposal to build a tower over the Windsor Hotel scandalised the state.  Many Victorians were upset that the Windsor Hotel would be threatened, but were outraged at what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to sidestep normal processes. John Brumby’s refusal to establish an anti-corruption commission didn’t help to quell community suspicions that rot was starting to set-in.

Another scandal revolved around the proposed mandatory 2AM “lockout” from all pubs and clubs in Melbourne which attempted to see if something could be done about alcohol-fuelled violence.

With their income threatened, many pub and club owners took the government to VCAT and won, thus exempting themselves from the lockout. In the end, less than half of the licensed venues were involved and the project failed. Such an outcome could so easily have been avoided if the government had been strong and legislated away any right of appeal, but they didn’t, effectively sanctioning failure. Many people concluded that the government was more interested in alcohol taxes than tackling a serious social problem.

What finally damaged the government’s standing was the massive gas and electricity price rises (as much as 45%) that hit people where it hurt them the most. Combined with the horrendous stamp duty that home buyers pay on top of their over-inflated house prices and the massive rises in rents, the Victorian government failed to protect the people it was supposed to look-after.

Speaking to Jon Faine on ABC Radio 3LO this morning, former Labor Premier Steve Bracks said that the Victorian government had failed to respond to the issues of a growing population in Melbourne: “I think if there’s any lesson out of (the election result), it’s that we should have done better. We could have addressed the concerns of Victorians better. I think (voters) were saying, particularly down in the south-east corridor that … they wanted more back, they wanted less congestion (and) more opportunity to have a better lifestyle and I think that’s a fair judgement and we understand that.”

Bracks can see what it appears that Brumby can’t: That the quality of life of the average Victorian is being diminished, and the government was the main contributor. John Brumby became arrogant, believing that these concerns were no longer important. Now he’s paid the ultimate political price for taking the people for granted.

The new Premier, Ted Ballieu, has promised to do things differently. Having been sworn-in today by the Governor of Victoria, he will seek to recall the Parliament before Christmas in order to get some of his legislation passed. One item of business will be the formation of a Public Transport Authority to co-ordinate the state’s public transportation system.

Whether Ballieu succeeds or fails will depend on a range of factors. If he is wise, he’ll look at the lessons from Jeff Kennett in 1999 and John Brumby in 2010: That a Premier who becomes arrogant will lose touch, and a Premier who loses touch, loses office.

The Labor Government has been trying to get several bills passed in Parliament that would enable Telstra’s wholesale and retail arms to be structurally-separated. This would facilitate the sale of the copper-wire and exchanges network back to the Commonwealth Government as part of the implementation for the National Broadband Network (NBN).

A number of independent Senators, as well as the Liberals and Greens are demanding that a report into the business case for the NBN be tabled in Parliament prior to them voting on the bills. The government is refusing, instead insisting that the Opposition and minor parties vote in support of the Bill before receiving the report.

^{Photo: Max Milne. Published under a Creative Commons licence.}

Whatever excuses the government might raise about commercial-in-confidence concerns, asking politicians to “vote first and ask questions later” on a $43 billion project which effectively re-nationalises a large part of the telecommunications industry is a big ask. With just three days until Parliament rises for the year, the government’s line of argument is becoming difficult to sustain. Some would say impossible.

In an attempt to get the bills passed, Julia Gillard offered MP’s a briefing of the NBN’s business case but only with the signing of a confidentiality agreement. Originally the Government demanded silence for seven years, but that was reduced to three years, and by yesterday it was just two weeks. With the exception of Victorian Senator Steve Fielding, all MP’s have refused to sign an agreement.

I am a strident supporter of the NBN, and I firmly believe it is a critical piece of infrastructure for Australia. I’d even go as far as saying it’s implementation as a government project is visionary. But I also understand that $43 billion is a lot of money and the Parliament is well within its rights to demand some accountability from the government.

Today it was revealed that Shadow Minister for Telecommunications (and former Liberal leader) Malcolm Turnbull owns $10 million worth of shares in Melbourne IT, a company that would benefit nicely from the implementation of the NBN. The Liberal Party, and Mr. Turnbull in particular, have opposed the NBN from the beginning.

Believing she had stumbled upon hypocrisy of the highest order via a tacit financial endorsement of the NBN, Ms. Gillard challenged the Member for Wentworth on the floor of the House of Representatives today with this witty one-liner:

“Most politicians get asked to put their money where their mouth is. We simply ask the member for Wentworth to put his mouth where his money is.”

Brilliant, Julia!

It didn’t take long for Mr. Turnbull to respond:

“The disgraceful suggestion that I should act corruptly and dishonestly by, and I quote, ‘putting his mouth where his money is’, speaks volumes about the standards of those who have made that disgraceful suggestion.”

And disgraceful it is. I cannot fathom why a Prime Minister would even contemplate encouraging an MP to commit an act that would fit the very description of corruption, even if in jest. What beggars belief is that Mr. Gillard didn’t even consider how Mr. Turnbull would reply. Surely, his response was as predictable as it is reasonable?

But it got worse as Mr. Turnbull quoted Julia Gillard’s own words after it was revealed that she’d strongly opposed pension increases in Cabinet, during the last election:

“I am the person who will say ‘Let’s look at it. Let’s cost it. Let’s think about it. Let’s question it. Let’s turn it upside down. Let’s hold it up to the light. Let’s ask a million questions. Does it add up? Is it affordable?’ ”

After imploring Mr. Turnbull to act corruptly then having her own hypocrisy revealed, the Prime Minister was effectively left without an argument.

I struggle to believe that Kevin Rudd, John Howard or Paul Keating would have so easily allowed themselves to be cornered like this.

But Julia Gillard’s lack of political acumen doesn’t stop there.

Even during the election, Julia Gillard’s lack of political nous was evident. After knifing first term Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in a shock night-time coup, Gillard called a federal election where she led what could possibly be described as the dullest election campaign in Australia’s history. For me, the worst moment was her announcement mid-election that we’d now see the “real Julia Gillard”:

“I want to throw away (the) rule book, be out and about, meeting people, talking to people, making myself available. Up to this point I’ve gone with the standard campaign model… very risk averse… (but) my style is to play my own again, to be out there taking a few risks.”

Obviously, this prompted the question ‘If this is the real Julia Gillard, who was the one that we saw before?’. Like the examples above, it showed an appalling lack of political judgement.

In some ways, it shows an inability to take an intelligent or principled stance and argue a case to its logical end. These days, Ms. Gillard seems keen to use annoying witticisms or analogies to make her point rather than just articulate her view.

Yet Julia Gillard is no fool.

I have been watching the former lawyer since she was an unknown back-bencher. All the way up, she had impressed me greatly. Even as she was serving under Kevin Rudd as the Deputy Prime Minister, she handled her twin portfolios of industrial relations and education admirably, with barely a hiccup.

So what has happened? Was the knifing of Kevin Rudd an abrupt and premature end to her political apprenticeship? In some ways, I believe it was. After all, it was inevitable that Julia Gillard would succeed Kevin Rudd as leader of the Labor Party and as PM if Labor held power long enough.

Now that she’s Prime Minister, it seems more evident that it’s Julia Gillard who’s lost her way. Perhaps she’s out of her depth?

Julia Gillard now leads a minority Labor government with the support of the Greens (a rising force in politics) and two independents. There’s only one vote between government and the political abyss.

A smart person in her position would do all in her power to cultivate those crucial relationships. She can still afford to be difficult with the opposition, but she can’t afford to be difficult with the Greens or Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott.

The Labor party has always prided itself on being the party of reform and vision. If Gillard doesn’t reform her ways and demonstrate some vision, let alone deliver some outcomes, Labor will be swept from office and the NBN will be nothing more than a momentary fantasy tangent.

There is only one previous example of an Australian first-term government being swept from office. There are plenty of examples of second-term governments being swept from office.

Gillard may like to consider what would cost her more: Releasing the NBN business case, or losing office?

The Australian Labor Party will form a minority government with the support of the Australian Greens, Tony Windsor (Member for New England) and Rob Oakshott (Member for Lyne). The other key independent Bob Katter (the Member for Kennedy) decided to support the Liberal/National coalition.

This is the first minority government to govern Australia since 1939.

It was clear before the election that Labor had lost its way.

The rot started when Kevin Rudd’s abandoned the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposal, a key Labor policy that had been a vote-winner for Labor in 2007 . Things only got worse following Julia Gillard’s middle-of-the-night party room coup against standing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a move that shocked a large percentage of the population.

Of course things weren’t much better on the Liberal side. Arch-conservative Catholic MP Tony Abbott had become leader of the Liberal Party by mounting a coup of his own against his leader Malcolm Turnbull, after Turnbull had agreed to support Labor’s ETS. Such moves are not so uncommon within Opposition, and compared to Gillard’s ‘knifing’ of Rudd, Abbott’s ‘knifing’ of Turnbull paled into insignificance. From there, Mr. Abbott worked tirelessly to promote his party as an alternative government with promises to ‘stop the boats’, cut the debt and abandon Labor’s ‘socialist‘ National Broadband Network.

What the voters were treated to was the dullest and least inspiring election in living memory, a sharp contrast to 2007. With that in mind, the electorate decided to give both Labor and the Liberals a swift kick up the posterior.

A clear message was sent to both major parties.

Following the election, the ‘three independents’  found themselves in a great position of power. And suddenly, everyone wanted to win their favour, as they collectively had the crucial votes on the floor of Parliament to decide whether Labor or the Liberals would be able to form government.

To their credit, the three independents handled their power responsibly. Windsor, Katter and Oakshott sought briefings from the Labor and Liberal parties as well as department heads, enabling them to make a clear and informed decision about which party to support. Individually, each member presented a ‘political wish list’ to Gillard and Abbott, and provided each leader with an opportunity to explain how their respective parties would respond to the matters raised.

Bob Katter, an agrarian socialist, was concerned about the future of agriculture and demanded better support for rural industries, including protectionist tariffs. Many commentators scoffed at his Protectionism, but one cannot deny Katter’s genuine concern for his northern Queensland constituents.

For Tony Windsor, another rural member concerned about agriculture, it was the National Broadband Network and equity for rural communities in the digital age that mattered most to him. Rob Oakshott was more concerned about parliamentary procedures and reform, and it is perhaps he who has been most successful in swiftly getting his demands met.

So what does this episode teach us?

1. There is a country-city divide in Australia: Perhaps I have been naïve, but the divide between rural and urban Australians in both a cultural and political sense has never seemed so stark. To me this is a great tragedy, but possibly stems from years of political neglect and a long drought. Perhaps in a similar manner to former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, who described country Victoria as the state’s “toenails” and suffered a subsequent election loss, the federal politicians need to learn not to take rural constituents for granted. Tony Windsor made this apparent in his speech today.

2. The arrogance of political parties has to cease: Clearly the electorate is tired of the spin, the lies and the cynicism that seems to form some sort of modus operandi for Labor and the Liberals. The massive lift in the Greens’ and National Party’s primary votes is surely an indicator of this sentiment.

3. We live in a robust democracy: The Australian system of Westminster parliamentary democracy and responsible government is our greatest asset, and has served us all very well. For whilst many nations would descend into chaos with such an uncertain outcome, our democratic institutions have ensured that we’re able to work through these political difficulties in a calm, civilised and productive manner. To this end, I think we can all be very grateful to live in such a lucky country and have parliamentarians of all persuasions who respect democracy above all other values.

What happens from here is anyone’s guess.

Whether Labor can progress their legislative agendum within the Commonwealth Parliament will depend largely on what they have learnt from this election, and how they deal with the minor parties and independents. This narrow victory will either mould a strong, productive and enlightened Labor party or condemn them to the political abyss in 2013.

The people of Australia have performed their duty, now it’s time for their government to perform its.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who ousted Kevin Rudd in a party room coup a mere 8 weeks ago because of popularity concerns, may go down in history as the politician who made Australia’s worst-ever political decision.

Her unpopular grab for power may have cost her government.

^{Will Tony Abbott become Australia’s next Prime Minister? (Picture: ABC Television)}

As I write, the Australian Labor Party has won 70 seats and the opposition Liberal/National Party coalition has 72 seats. The Greens have won 1 seat, and independents have 4 seats in the 150-seat parliament. The remaining seats remain uncertain.

It is possible that with Greens and independents’ support, the ALP may form a minority government. However, ALP support from the four independent MPs (Bob Katter (Qld), Tony Windsor (NSW), Robert Oakeshott (NSW) and Andrew Wilkie (Tas.) cannot be assured.

Depending on how the final numbers tally, and depending on which party the independents support, we may have a hung parliament. It is impossible for the Liberals to govern in their own right because they would also need the support of some independent MPs on the floor of parliament.

^{The predicted Australian Parliament. (Picture: ABC Television)}

Australia has had a minority government once before. In 1939, Robert Menzies’ United Australia Party formed a government with Country Party support. In that instance, the minority government was the product of changing allegiances in parliament, rather than an election.

If the final tally from the 2010 election delivers a hung parliament, the Governor-General will ask one of the party leaders to form a government, before testing their confidence on the floor of parliament. If that party cannot garner majority support, the other major party leader will be asked. If the numbers are still balanced, then the Governor-General will have no choice but to call another election and ask the people to decide again.

One must ask: Would a minority government work in Australia?

Sometimes minority governments work out well, sometimes they don’t. The Labor Party is running a minority government with the Greens in Tasmania, following their election of a hung parliament earlier this year. So far, that government has been a success (in a constitutional sense).

^{Live coverage of the election was broadcast on ABC1 and ABC News 24}

Personally speaking, I believe that a Labor minority government is the most likely outcome, with support from the Greens and some of the independents.

Given that the Greens are essentially an environmental-socialist party and the Liberals/Nationals represent the centre-Right, I don’t believe that a coalition between the two is sustainable. Since the Greens and Labor are both left-wing parties with various policy overlaps, a coalition between the two could work. Whether the ALP would give Greens MP’s any ministries is another matter, but that is the convention in such a situation.

Because of the tight results, it’s unlikely that the Australian Electoral Commission will be able to finalise the results for several days. In the interim, I expect that the independents will be receiving a lot of phone calls from Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott

Many have lamented the dullness of this campaign. Few would have expected such an ‘exciting’ outcome.

Yet these are the tip of the ‘iceberg’ of destruction that is likely to hit our city in the coming year.

Thankfully, I am not the only person concerned about taking some action to defend Melbourne’s built heritage.

In recent times, a new advocacy group called Melbourne Heritage Action has been formed, and I am proud to say that I am a founding member. Many of the people involved with Melbourne Heritage Action were previously associated with the Save Lonsdale House movement (I am not one of them). Whilst the group is still in it’s infancy, I am impressed with the breadth of expertise we have pooled, as well as the broad community support. Even the National Trust has come on board to lend a hand, which is fantastic! Community interest is growing, too.

^{The Windsor Hotel}

Melbourne Heritage Action seeks to promote an awareness of Melbourne’s built heritage, using a range of social media,  public submissions, public campaigns and demonstrations, where need-be. Through these mechanisms it is hoped that we will raise community awareness, which will entice the State Government (and other responsible agencies) to place a greater value on heritage protection.

At present there is a lot of work to do.

The beautiful Equity Trustees building stands to be gutted and altered, the Spencer Street Power Station is about to be skewered by the legs of a skyscraper which will stand over it, and the Scots Church Hall and Melbourne’s first multi-storey car park are to be levelled, but only if the developers get their way.

^{Melbourne Heritage Action founding members (L-R): Helene Athanasiadis, Katrina Grant, Rupert Mann (President), Adam Dimech and Jim Barrett. (Image: The Age)}

In an election year that has also been witness to the Planning Minister’s questionable handling of the Windsor Hotel saga, there is considerable public interest in heritage and planning matters. Today, the Sunday Age has published an online article about Melbourne Heritage Action, which I hope will help garner further interest from the public.

If you’d like to help defend Melbourne’s significant buildings, and raise community awareness about planning and heritage matters in Melbourne, go to the Melbourne Heritage Action website at http://www.melbourneheritage.org.au/.

If you think you can make a contribution or want to become more deeply involved, please send an email.

We’d love to hear from you!