Year 2010 will be remembered as the year of inconclusiveness.

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.

Julia Gillard today confirmed for-once-and-for-all that she lacks the necessary political acumen required of a party leader, more so a Prime Minister.

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?

After an arduous 17 days of political uncertainty, where the spectre of a hung parliament has dominated our collective conscience, we finally have an election result.

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.

In what has possibly been the tightest election in Australia’s history, the country seems headed for its first-ever hung parliament.

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.

I have been arguing about the need to protect Melbourne’s heritage architecture in The Grapevine for years. In recent times, it has appeared that the State Government and particularly the Victorian Heritage Council are far more interested in “job creation” than “heritage protection”. Three recent examples highlight the immediate problem at hand: the demolition of Lonsdale House, the gutting of Hamer Hall and the proposed 40% demolition of the Windsor Hotel.

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!