Category: Uncategorized

I was reading an email  tonight, from a distant relative, 3rd or 4th cousin removed or thereabouts, and we were comparing the outcomes of our respective local family history society annual meetings [the Sunbury equivalent was held yesterday, and thankfully my short lived role of acting President, didn’t need to continue, as a full committee was put together, and apart from a general committee position for this writer, I ‘escaped’ the need to put my hand up for any of the more executive roles].

Anyway, my email correspondent had been searching some old newspapers on line for me, and came across some reports concerning the two original ancestors who came out here to Australia, and other aspects of the family –  reports that actually answered a few unanswered questions that had been floating around for years!  I’m not going into the details now until I’ve seen confirmation of what I’ve being told – suffice to say, it’s the most amazing piece of ‘family history information’ I’ve come across in over 30 years. Details that seemed to have been suppressed down through the generations!

Actually, yesterday was a bit of a mixed day – had to take the day of paid work to undertake some tasks relating to my voluntary work, beginning with some banking responsibilities for the radio station, followed by the meeting of the Family History Society – most of the members of that group are retired or not working, so a meeting in the middle of the day followed by lunch at the football club suited everyone [except me] – however, because of the precarious position that the organisation was in, I took the time off, as I had promised to see the Society through to the AGM at least. Later in the afternoon, it was a ‘coffee date’ with a good friend whom I don’t catch up with much these days – she and her husband helped me out quite a bit when I was unemployed, and at the time my wife and I separated, but because I work out of town these days, and both of us have stopped our regular attendances at the church, we seldom catch up [except through Facebook, lol]. Anyway, that was a pleasant hours interlude,  and this time, I just had the one coffee  –  our meetings of this nature in the past, usually with a couple of other friends, generally revolved around coffee and cake  [try plural for the cake part!!].

I must have had an omen, for following that,  I had a doctor’s appointment –   my mood was a little low, from that point onwards. He more or less told me that I was not looking after my ‘diabetes’ problem, which was a bit disappointing, as I felt I have been working very hard on the various aspects of ‘care’ for that situation – not perfect, I know, but a vast improvement on a year or so ago!  I’d even been feeling better! Not according to Dr ‘Larry’!!  Oh well, back to the drawing board! Couple of his comments were not very encouraging, quite dispiriting in fact.

Of course none of that was helped by another ‘meeting’  I had earlier that morning – in the street, ran into one of my former bosses & his wife, both older than me, and who told me that they were not on any form of medication, both in excellent health. And he had been a smoker [and a heavy drinker]!!  Strangely enough, last night, I was not really feeling in the brightest of moods. Think that carried over into the office this morning, where I found myself alone for most of the day, my two co-workers elsewhere, and yours truly really wished he was somewhere else. Even came home to an empty house tonight, as Susie has gone into the city for a concert or something!!  Plenty to do, but think it’s the night for a book.

On Monday night, I made a little note on Facebook about a debate that was then starting in Federal Parliament, on the basis of a motion by the ‘Greens’ senator who was recently the first member of his Party to be elected to the House of Representatives – Adam Bandt.  The actual motion proposed by the Greens MP Adam Bandt calls on MPs to consult their constituents on the issue of gay marriage.  I think one of his platforms and aims [as it is of the Greens] was to get the law changed so as to recognise gay marriages in Australia, so that, amongst other things, people living in formal same sex relationships could be given the same legal rights as heterosexual relationships and marriages. I guess I was a little bemused as to why it was necessary for Parliament to devote too much time to the subject. I began my comments, earlier in the afternoon, in anticipation of the debate coming up that night,  with the following view on Facebook.

‘Later today, Federal Parliament will debate a motion in favour of same sex marriage in Australia. While not wishing to denigrate the importance of this issue to many people, I consider there are far more important national issues that our paid politicians should be devoting the brief time they currently actually allocate to ‘work’ in Parliament House’.

Now I realised that by that comment, I would probably attract some responses, which I anticipated would not be too favourable towards my opinion, but I decided to take that on board if it arose. What I did receive initially were a few remarks which I guess you could classify as cynical ‘tongue in cheek’ comments, in preference to directly supporting or attacking my contribution, then followed by one or two more considered but brief responses, while the main form of ‘attack’ [for the want of a better word] came from an unexpected source ‘much closer to home’ than I had anticipated. Now I’m not going to name any of my respondees, except with an initial, but I thought it might be interesting to record their reactions in bulk, on this little contributing blog………………..

[J] When you think about it, we’ve fixed the Boat-People issue, we have close to 100 percent employment, our nation’s economy is back in the black, not to mention the carbon issue, high electricity bills, Street violets, so hey, why not spend valuable time on Gay Marriage? 🙂

[M] Perhaps there are more important issues for our politicians to discuss, but I suspect they will spend precious little time actually debating anything as important as equal rights.

[R] Absolutely Bill- there should be no discussion time wasted over this issue- just immediately allow any combination of people and/or tapirs to get married when and how they please!

[Me] Adam Brand, the Green MP from Melbourne, is now giving his ‘Love knows no bounds’ and ‘the power of love’ speech in Federal Parliament in addressing his Private Members’ Bill. Mmmmmmm!  And first speaker to respond – the ‘grandfather of Parliament’ – Phillip Ruddick!! I wonder what his view will be, no prizes for guessing!

[S] I’m surprised you aren’t getting behind Gay marriage, Bill. Just think of all the marriage celebrants, churches, caterers, tourist spots, lawyers etc that will benefit from the pink dollar.

[Ro]  yeah I’m surprised as well, why shouldn’t Gay people be aloud their piece of paper?

[Me] Well, they will eventually, just let time and society in general take it’s course

[J] Cause it’s not (natural) maybe?  Or is it..

[S] I guess you’re right, Bill. And this debate should be an accurate reflection of how our society currently views this issue.

[Me] I agree with you S, and despite the ‘opinion’ polls, I personally believe the attitude of the two major parties currently reflects society’s views, it’s too early – irrespective of the statistics that Bob Brown, Adam Bandt & others are coming up with!

[S] Fair enough. Let’s see if the debate reflects that.

[Ro]  maybe it’s too early because most of our society is over 50!  or maybe we should just wait until my generation are in power because then it wouldn’t be an issue. what makes me angry is it takes a person over the age of 60 to have a Gay child who is in a long term committed relationship with someone of the same sex to realise that this issue is just as important as the next!   i wonder bill if one of your kids where gay, what would your opinion be then.

[Me]  Hi R, I think I’m regretting even raising the subject, but like everything else that happens in our public lives, I like to take an interest in what in going on! Unlike most people, I’m just stupid enough to open my ‘mouth’, when maybe I should just shut up, and grumble behind closed doors like Mr and Mrs Average does!!

The only opinion I have expressed on the subject to this point, was that I felt there were more important issues that our Parliamentarians should be dealing with, and that I didn’t think society was ready for full acceptance of the idea of a formalising of gay marriages. Everyone seems to be ‘assuming’ my views on the matter are completely one-sided, but I’ve spelt nothing out!! And those who know me, usually will be aware, that I always look at both sides of an issue – sometimes accused of ‘sitting on the fence’ – really, prepared to listen to the various viewpoints [not an attitude that the various lay supporters of our major political parties can generally be credited with!!].

Personally, I have no problem with the concept of gay relationships – [or for such partnerships to be allocated the same legal & financial rights, etc that hetro marriages attract, which seems to rightly be a major cause of grievance] – certainly, some of these relationships come over as far more successful and genuine than a traditional ‘marriage’ – I just have a conservative view, perhaps no doubt influenced by a Christian background for which I don’t apologise [and an environment in which your Mum was also brought up], that on the assumption that Australia is still regarded as a Christian society, [when in reality, we know it’s more secular these days than anything], my interpretation of marriage is based on the way the Christian Bible appears to represent it [between a man and a woman]. Anything else, can be called something else, how others live their lives is their business, I’m simply not comfortable with those relationships being called a ‘marriage’! But I acknowledge that eventually, that’s the way it will go. So be it! The world and our attitudes to a thousand things are changing all the time, and we will all change with them.

I just feel it is a bit hypocritical of our Federal Parliament, where at the beginning of every day’s sitting, the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ is recited because it is traditional practice [but I’m sure that for 90% of members – and maybe the Speaker himself, although there, I’m assuming what Harry Jenkins believes, but may well be doing him an injustice – doing so, means nothing to them] – so long as that continues, then they in my view have no right to begin espousing interpretations of concepts spelt out in the Bible[ a document that most of them still ‘swear’ by when the need arises] to suit a few personal interests and pressure groups………

It was interesting listening to the various members who spoke on the issue last night – there was no clear denunciation ‘either way’ by anyone other than the initiator of the Bill, lambasting or supporting marriages – their speeches generally referred back to the respective existing policies of the main Parties. I guess the only way you are going to get Federal Parliamentarians to express what they each personally think is to have a ‘conscience’ vote on the matter – and I think that is the aim of some pushing the issue. I personally think such a vote won’t succeed – in 2010 – but it will come, sooner than you express R, before your generation is in power, but through the influence of your generation, no doubt!

[R] gee i hope so! i’m sorry for aiming it directly at you, some of the comments people left really peeved me off. Your right though as long as there is religion this will always take longer. given 15-20 years i really don’t know religion will have as big a hold on the way governments are run. when you think about it 25 years ago the whole family went off to Sunday church, the neighbours where like family and Granny lived with her kids and baby sat when needed, meanwhile the rest of the family never lived that far away. As i was saying to marc, the Gay marriage issue is not an issue in our generation and when we are in power i do wonder what will take its place. i mean what will we be accused of being cynical and taking an old world view of.   lol next time don’t fence sit on such a hot topic, not always a safe move.

[Me[  Advice taken 🙂 – it must have been a picket fence as well, ouch!!!
[For those wondering, R is my lovely artistic niece from the wonderful metropolis of Ballarat]

[R] That makes sense that one of your relatives would have such a well developed social conscience- I completely agree with her 🙂

And what was all that about, you might ask?   Well, this little report summarises what began my little ‘discussion’ on the net  –

“An impressive debate began in the House of Representatives tonight [Monday night]  on a motion by the Greens member, Adam Bandt, calling on parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality. This is part of the draft text of Adam Bandt’s speech on his equal marriage resolution:

“Love knows no boundaries.

Love knows no limits.

And love knows when it has found its partner.

Mr Speaker, there have been many attempts through history to limit love.

And all have failed.

And as we move further into the 21st century I am confident that attempts to limit love will fail again, that full marriage equality will become a reality.

Mr Speaker, this motion before the Parliament does not seek to overturn the Howard government’s change to the Marriage Act which sought to limit marriage to a few.

My colleague Senator Sarah Hanson Young has a bill before Parliament that when passed will amend the Marriage Act to enshrine the right for all Australian’s to marry regardless of their gender or sexuality.

And in time the Greens will move for that bill to be debated.

Instead this motion seeks to provide an opportunity for members of Parliament, the media and most importantly the community to discuss the importance of Marriage Equality.

The motion is not binding on Members of Parliament or the government its passage will not in itself legally endorse or ratify the right to marriage equality. Rather it will acknowledge the reality of community opinion in Australia which has changed.

The motion reads:

That this House:

(1) Notes that:

(a) There is a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and

(b) there is widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community.

(2) Calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.

In moving this motion The Greens want Parliament to acknowledge that Australian public opinion is changing.

We also want Parliament to acknowledge that change is happening around the world.

And we want those who are still stuck in the old way of thinking to go out and engage with the people in their electorates to find out where are now at.

And I welcome my colleagues who have chosen to participate in this debate today and I am encouraged by the fact that many more MPs would have spoken today if we had more time for speaking spots rather than the ten we were able to allocate.

I am also encouraged by the number of MPs including Ministers who have indicated their support for Marriage Equality through the media, some of whom have raised the prospect of the bringing forward their Party conference to change policy.

This is welcome.

However, I would say that there is no need for such delay. If the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader were willing to shift direction we could change the law right now.

And it is especially disappointing that the Prime Minister and the government continue to hold on to 20th century thinking on matters of love when the community is so far ahead of them.

Because we know that the community has progressed.

Recent polling shows the majority of Australians support a move to full equality for marriage.

When The Greens Marriage Equality (Amendment) Bill was considered by a Senate Inquiry over 25,000 submissions were received.

We know that there are many small groups who are well-organized and well-resourced and that they will continue speak out very loudly in favour of discrimination. But it is a mistake to think that because they speak loudly that they speak for everyone.

I would ask members concerned about those groups to have a look at today’s analysis of community attitudes appearing in the Fairfax press. What it suggests for those sitting in this house by virtue of a small margin is that the well-organized old-world lobby groups are not engaging the voters in your seats. Instead, what you will find there, as Mark Davis writes, is that “perhaps the marginal seats are not as fussed by gay marriage as the politicians think.” Which means the time is right to make this change.

There are now so many people wanting to marry or friends and family members of those whose love the law says can not be recognised.

And it is these people, Mr Speaker who this debate is ultimately about. The many, many, many people want to marry and can’t because there partner is of the same-sex. And the many, many, many people whose sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, grandmothers and grandfathers, friends and neighbours who all know someone who wants to be married but can’t because of this archaic legal discrimination.”

Well of course, that is all one man’s opinion, and when the matter eventually comes to be debated in full, as it probably eventually will, we will no doubt see equally ‘emotional’ stuff from various quarters. He makes it sound as though half the country is waiting for the law to change so they can be married!!   In fact we are talking about a minority group – that fact doesn’t mean they have any less claim on the rights enjoyed by  the majority, but let’s get this thing into context, for heaven’s sake.  We still have a population of Indigenous people in desperate need of proper assistance and recognition in this country, we still have thousands of refugees ‘locked up’ because they tried to find a way to save the lives of their families – let’s get back to debating properly, the issues that matter to this nation as a whole!

During tonight’s radio show, I played some tracks from a couple of recently released albums by two Australian girls – a debut EP from Charity Turner, called ‘Our Secrets’, and a second album release from Kate Rowe entitled ‘Nature’s Little Game’ – both  of a folksy nature, with Charity more ‘pop’ orientated, while Kate’s songs were of a  acoustic nature. I probably personally had a preference for the latter though enjoyed listening and playing the music of both girls. There were some great lyrics in Kate’s songs n- a couple of examples:

Coffee My Lover………………………..’They say I’m addicted/They say you’re bad for me/They say you keep me up at night/But I sense their jealousy/My caffeinated lover you make me so delighted/When your scent is in the air I get so excited’

Dragon Orchid [How David Attenborough Saved My Love Life]…………………….’The male wasp is fooled by the orchid/He tries to mate and gets the pollen stuck to his head/Next time he meets an orchid he passes pollen on/And this is how the Dragon Ochids spread………………I was watching David Attenborough explain this/Marvelling at nature’s little game/When all at once it hit me/Oh my God my love life’s just the same………….Science calls it sexual deception/But I would call it unrequited love/It cheers me up to think my failed romances/May have some greater purpose that I can’t conceive of………….’

I was driving home from the rado afterwards, and had changed the channel to the ABC parliamentary broadcast as I’m prone to do!  A lady Senator was giving a speech [in the Senate] about mental health issues, and she mentioned the name Dr Dax. That name rang a bell in my distant past – my days of working, as both a nurse, and later, in administration in Victoria’s then Mental Hygiene Authority, in Ballarat and Melbourne. Dr Cunningham Dax was a name often mentioned in those days  –  he was the head of  the Authority from 1952 to 1968 [my years in the area covered 1965 to around 1969]. He died a couple of years ago, just short of his ‘century’, having being born in England, and was described as having lived a life in two halves, the first spent in England and the second in Australia.  He arrived in Australia with his wife  in 1951, after having been successful in applying for the role of of inaugural Chairman of Victoria’s Mental Hygiene Authority (later the Mental Health Authority] after a successful career in England. Although I of course never met him personally [being right down the bottom of the employment scale at that change, what I remember about him fits in with this description I read – ‘Senior staff applauded his dynamism but quaked at his occasional autocratic outbursts’  – a very sincere ‘boss’ of sorts. In reality however, he achieved much in the field of mental hygiene, with the following just two brief comments made about his work in a Tribute Obituary written following his death in 2008.

‘His more immediate concerns were to scrub the smell and dirt from over 150 wards throughout Victoria’s mental hospitals and training centres, and curb the excesses of some of his medical officers whose enthusiasm for new drug therapies he viewed with some alarm. Working through journalists such as Bill Tipping of The Herald as well as other interest groups, he battled under-funding and political apathy, gaining unprecedented government support for upgrading the amenity of institutions and broadening the services and treatments available to patients.’

‘He was not a fighter for patients’ rights in the modern sense of the term, working in an era where psychiatrists made diagnoses and ordered treatments with little regard for recipients’ views. But he challenged many ingrained community attitudes to the mentally ill and intellectually handicapped, stimulating wide-ranging public discussion. In so doing he exposed prejudices and promoted a more optimistic outlook about the prospects for improvement or recovery of former institutional ‘inmates.’ His attitude to staff was similarly top-down and some complained that he micro-managed, even to the extent of ordering the seating in one mental hospital cafeteria to be re-arranged in a more casual way.’

Of particular interest was one aspect of his work in England before he came out here. As described in Wikipedia – ‘In 1946, while the Medical Superintendent of Netherne Hospital, Dax pioneered the use of art programs as part of mainstream psychiatric treatment. He began a collection of artworks produced by psychiatric patients^. The Cunningham Dax Collection has become one of the largest collections of its type in the world, and is located in Parkville, Victoria, Australia’.  There a wide range of areas covered in the exhibition, including an  exhibition of artwork by survivors, child survivors and the children of survivors of the Holocaust. While there are apparently some quality works of art in the exhibition, they are,  along with others, supposedly better viewed as clinical records or historical artefacts, but the exhibition considers that regardless of the quality of the work in the exhibition,  there was a unity of shared of trauma. Trauma shared across generations is  well documented by this exhibition.

As to how all this reference to Dr Dax came about – well, the address I heard in Parliament this evening was obviously part of a Bill relating to additional funding for mental health work in Australia, something that arose out of the Federal Election campaign, and hearing it mentioned, reminded me of one part of my working career. That included 18 months in the then Ballarat Mental Hospital as a ‘Ward Assistant’ [my father worked there as a Psychiatric Nurse], followed by a number of years working in administrative roles, including some months in head office of the Mental Hygiene Authority, where Dr Dax was located, and in a couple of the outer suburban mental institutions – Janefield Training Centre, to the north of the city, and the Kew Children’s Cottages & Kew Mental Hospital in the ‘classy’ inner suburb of Kew. It was a few years after I left that department, that the major mental institutions as they existed, were eventually disbanded, and many of the inmates infiltrated into the broad community.  This had been one of the aims of Dr Dax, but I think in many instances, this did not prove to be very beneficial to many of the original patients who would finjd the integration process and acceptance by the broader community, extremely difficult to cope with. That’s another story. My first longterm job in Melbourne where I was able to develop friendships and relationships with staff and others, was at the Kew Cottages. These days, I find it difficult to recall all the names – I was the purchasing officer, and later, payroll officer in those days – Des Nugent [the boss – Secretary, whose young family lived in the house adjoining the office], David [the Deputy, who I drove up to Wangaratta one night to watch a car rally come through the area at midnight],  Penny [my little English ‘girlfriend’, who led me astray with my first ever drink drink of beer on my 19th birthday!! – still have that notorious photograph],  Phyllis [who religiously went to the Australian Open Tennis every year, because that was ‘the done thing’], and Eli [tall good looking European guy, who was afraid of intimacy with girls, but was still infatuated with Penny] are a few of the names I recall from those days  –  haven’t seen any of them for over 40 years, apart from Penny, whom we met on the badminton courts at Albert Park in Melbourne, one night about 30 years ago. I often wonder where they have all gone to, what has happened to them  – there we go, off wandering in the past  again………………………………………..

 

It was Mark Webber’s ‘team mate’, Sebastian Vettel who eventually came from behind them all, to get up and win the last race for the year in the Abu Dhabi F1Grand Prix, and in so doing, take the lead in the 2010 World Driving Championship,  for the first time this year – at the time when it counted!  Unfortunately, Australia’s big hope, Mark Webber could only manage 8^th position, and he ended up finishing 3^rd in the Championship outcome.

As described in one article this morning,  ‘Mark Webber was always going to struggle to win the Formula One Championship with his impressive form turning sour at the back end of the year.  Webber led the series midway through the season until losing it to Fernando Alonso when he committed an unforced error and crashed out of the recent Korean Grand Prix. He made up a little ground on the Ferrari driver with second place in Brazil in the penultimate round, but the bad luck which has haunted him throughout his career, returned with a vengeance. Webber trailed Alonso by eight points heading into the season finale in Abu Dhabi but virtually surrendered when he could find no qualifying pace and found himself fifth on the grid for the start of Sunday’s race. Then, on lap eight, Webber ran wide on turn 19 and smacked a safety barrier, forcing him into the pits. He lost precious time as did Alonso, who was called in too early by Ferrari, leaving Vettel to stretch his lead over the pair and take the front running in the championship’.

Despite that, he had a great year in which he won four grand Prix races, and at one stage as indicated, lead the series. This was after years of bad luck plagued by poor performing cars, accidents and mishaps, and if he maintains his current form, the future looks promising.

Mark Webber

‘Mark Webber refused to wallow in his own misery and preferred to celebrate his Red Bull team’s double title triumph after he finished a disappointing eighth in Sunday’s season-ending Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. The 34-year-old Australian, who went into the race as one of four drivers with a chance to lift the drivers’ championship, congratulated his close rival and team-mate German Sebastian Vettel on winning the title. “I fully congratulate Seb on the world championship,” he said. “It didn’t turn out and it’s a shame. There’s good time to reflect in the next few weeks and to look at the highs and the lows, but that’s the way sport is sometimes’ [from the ‘Age’ newspaper].

I was pleased with the news this weekend that Burma’s most famous democracy campaigner had been released by the country’s military from her seven years of house arrest, from a total of almost 15 of the past 21 years that she has been under such restrictions. Aung San Sun Kyt ha been a world symbol  against the oppression and rule in that country for two decades, and while this latest act of ‘generosity by the country’s rulers comes with no apparent guarantee that her ‘freedom’ will last, or whether there will remain restrictions imposed upon her by the regime, it at least gives the appearance of a move in the right direction.  Of course, there are still over 2000 ‘political’ prisoners which she wants to see released but it is difficult to swee the regime bowing to that kind of demand.

Aung San Suu Kyi was the daughter of Burma’s independence hero, General Aung San, who was assassinated in 1947 and after being educated at Oxford University, she returned to Burma where she was caught up in a revolt against the country’s dictator leader at the time, and in 1989, was first put under house arrest when the Burma junta declared martial law. Various periods of release and re-arrest followed for this woman who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. Strangely, for a country that has been so dominated by the cdurrent regime for so long, she has massive support base throughout Burma. Even so, just last week, the regime in Burma, in conducting socalled free elections for the people, once again managed to manufacture a landslide victory for the ruling junta.  But I guess one can only continue to hold out hope that the kind of world pressure that the Burmese leaders have so refused to acknowledge and ignored, will begin to eventually take affect.

On matters not so world shattering or serious, the two rugby matches I mentioned were taking place overnight, resulted in defeats on both occasions to the Australian teams. In the Rugby League Four Nations final,  New Zealand eventually got up to defeat the Kangaroos 16-12, while over in the UK, it was a more convincing win by England over the Wallabies 35-18 in what was a rather surprising outcome. The English team looked inspired.  As for Mark Webber’s chances of winning the F1 Motor Racing Championship they took a bit of a dive yesterday, when he qualified only 5th on the starting grid for tonight’s final championship race – it looks at though he will need his best drive of the year, to have any hope of achieving his ambition. I might see the race later tonight!

On an even lighter note, I had a very pleasant two hours on the radio this afternoon – with a local resident and his Thai wife – Jack and Orr spend 6 months in year in Thailand [our winter months] and the other six months here in Australia, the best of both worlds it might appear. They joined me in my ‘musical matinee’ program today – with a collection of cds featuring star Thai singers, as well as a collection of jazz and blues music, as composed and created by none other than the King of Thailand [great stuff, I could play that all night!!], much of  it sung in English, as I gather he has a great music market in the USA. As well as playing some of their music for our listeners, my guests had plenty to say [well, mainly Jack, as Orr was a little shy earlier on, though as the program moved on, her on air confidence grew] and some great stories about both their lives in Thailand [the Land of Smiles] and about the country itself, and it’s peoples.  Next time I bring them him, I must make sure, that ‘they’ are familar with what is on their cds!! Before we went on air, I was removing the original wrapping from the discs, lol, so we did have the occasional difficulty in informing the listeners as to who or what they were listening to!! Hopefully, I was the only one who noticed that ‘problem’, and soon adjusted to the flexible nature of the program [rather different to my normal structured and organised to the minute planning!!].  We are actually trying to get Jack interested in presenting his own program – he’s interested, just needs to get around to the enquiry and training part!

Disappointment for all the sporting organisations, and other local outdoor activities planned for  today –  it’s been raining overnight, and was doing so steadily this morning under a heavy overcast sky. I think that since the local cricket season began at the beginning of October, they have only had two days of actual weekend play – Saturdays seem to be the time when it decides to rain!!  I noted a message on Facebook from my son, late morning, advising the members of his cricket team that today’s play was off – though you didn’t did to be a weather forecaster to work that one out.

Also a bit of a disappointment for the radio station this morning – a planned outside broadcast over  a 6 hour period at the premises of a new sponsor, had to be called off at the last moment [in fact after all set up procedures were in place] because of an  as yet undetermined reason, the necessary telephone connection had been withdrawn [rather necessary for an outside broadcast!]. While this was totally out of the control of our small dedicated band of  technical volunteers, it unfortunately was not a good look for the station, and a bit of a blow to the promotional plans for the day of the business venue in question – such plans further disrupted by the weather!!

So while I did have some time planned to be devoted to that station activity, I ended up back home much sooner than anticipated, and with the rain continuing outside, a chance to catch up on some indoor tasks – including a bit of reading. Currently, I’m getting stuck into  John Howard’s recently released biography, a book called  ‘Lazarus Rising’, and while it is quite a lengthy book as might be expected, and I’m less than a 6^th of the way through it, I am finding it to be quite a comfortable, and interesting read. I admire his style of writing – dare I say, in my own style, though of a much more professional nature of course!  Over the last year or so, there has been a bit of media attention given to the views of former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser [1975-1983] and his anguish at the way his beloved Liberal Party of his days has changed –  Howard kind of acknowledges that, soon after Fraser’s ascendancy to the Prime Ministership, late in 1975, when he writes that “Malcolm Fraser and I have had our differences over the years and our relationship became very distant after I became Prime Minister, but I will always be grateful for the opportunity he came me back in December 1975. It was a generous promotion at a critical time’ [p91] [Fraser had appointed the young Howard as Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in the first Fraser Government].  Two years later, following the 1977 election which saw the Liberals returned with a 48 seat majority [compared with 55 in 1975], there was further advancement for Howard who wrote “Thus, at the age of 38 years and 4 months, I became, unconditionally, Treasurer of the Commonwealth. Again, I had every reason to be grateful to Malcolm Fraser for giving me what was a huge promotion”. [102].  As I read through this biography, I have no doubt that I shall find other little quotations worthy of  mention in these pages!

Just a couple of statistics on the State election, due in November – on November 27, there will be 5,582,232 Victorians able to vote [and unlike some other countries, voting is compulsory] – this number is some 20,000 more than were eligible to vote just a few months ago in the Federal election.  There are 88  Lower House seats, and 40 Upper house positions. In all, a total of 711 candidates, of which some 86 are independents, while the remaining 624 come from the 10 endorsed political parties, the majority from the Labor, and Coalition Party [Liberals and Nationals] – Labor and The Greens have candidates in all seats, while the Coalition are represented as a body in all seats, although the Liberals are only contesting 79 of the Lower House seats. According to the electoral polls, with two weeks to go, the result is ‘up for grabs’, and while Labor is slightly ahead, and probably the favourite,  the Opposition could win government in an alliance with the Greens, which party could in fact end up with the balance of power, similar to the Federal Senate, after June.

I see that international but now ‘infamous’ world champion golfer, Tiger Woods is back in town, competing in Melbourne in the Australian Masters, the event he conquered s a ‘hero’ last year, just before ‘all hell broke loose’ in his personal life. After yesterday’s play, he was well off the pace [9 shots behind the leader, Australia’s Adam Bland], a different player to last year, and with this steady rain all day in Melbourne & district today, I doubt he will get the chance to his improve his positioning before Sunday. In retrospect, as it turned out, the golf did proceed – perhaps the persistence of the rain in that part of Melbourne was not as relentless as here. Whatever, it didn’t do Tiger Woods much good, and at the end of the day, he remained 10 shots behind the Australian leader – in fact a number of the international visitors were placed around the Tiger Woods score of 1 under, while a whole group of Australians ahead of them, meant many chances for an Aussie winner.

Meanwhile, one or two other international sporting contests happening this weekend of interest to us Aussies, none of which I will probably see because of the TV screening times on Free to Air TV. In Rugby Union, the Australian Wallabies come up against the old enemy, England, over at Twickenham [at 1.30am tomorrow morning our time]. The Australian coach, Robbie Deans concedes that the elements are working in favour of the English team, after the Wallabies have suffered several days of training in torrential rain, with more expected during game time, but the team is on a winning streak on this tour, including wins over the All Blacks [New Zealand] and Wales.  I’d love to watch that match, but  think sleep is a higher priority after three bad nights of broken sleep in a row.

Typically, the opposing channel here in Melbourne has decided on a late telecast of the Rugby League Four Nations Final, between the Australian Kangaroos and New Zealand – putting it on after midnight, in direct competition with the other match – totally unnecessary in my view, as there are enough interested viewers here in Victoria who like myself, would like to see a direct telecast in place of some useless Saturday night movie or drama program! Although having said that, I see another newspaper suggests a 7.30 telecast – we will wait and see, if I’m being unnecessarily harsh!!  No I’m not, I think that for the viewers in the northern states – Victorians are not regarded as interested in rugby, we have to wait until midnight!!!

On a different scale of things, Australian Formula 1 racing driver Mark Weber is attempting to win the World Championship this weekend.  He comes to the final race of the Formula 1 season with a genuine chance to win the World Drivers’ Championship; the current point scores show: 1. Fernando Alonso – 238pts;  Mark Webber – 281 pts; and Sebastian Vettel [Weber’s Red Bull ‘team mate] – 231 pts; with Lewis Hamilton – 222 pts. Assuming that Webber comes out of the qualifying rounds in a satisfactory position at the front of the  grid, the potential outcome is well summed up by the ‘Roar website’ writer:-

“With limited opportunities outside pit stops and barring major mishaps, the final laps could well see Vettel, Webber and Alonso racing to the wire.  In that order, and considering the winner receives 25 points, second receives 18 points, and third getting 15 points, neither Red Bull driver would win the WDC. Alonso would go from a double world champion to a triple world champion.  Vettel would have to pull over for his rival Webber to win to ensure a Red Bull victory, surely a decision that would grate. Still, Red Bull have left it to the drivers, and Vettel has teased the media by not saying what he will do – but for him not to pull over would be one of the most arrogant acts ever seen.  In a testament to an incredible season, there are so many tricky permutations and combinations that could see any of the top four come out a winner. Indeed however unlikely, Lewis Hamilton could pinch it from the lot of them should major mishaps occur”.

Once again, to watch this, I’ll have to be watching midnight TV, tomorrow night,  for the deciding race in Abu Dhabi, as Webber attempts to become the first Australian driver since Alan Jones in 1980. Prior to that, our Jack Brabham  won the championship three times, in 14959, 1960 and 1966.

Was I suggesting a couple of days ago that winter had definitely past, and we were moving towards the real Spring/Summer climate?  I don’t think our weather knows what it is doing!  Tonight, it is actually quite cold, after raining all day – in fact still is, and I can see a nice chilly start to my morrow, getting up for the radio! Oh well, at least it won’t be dark!

 

 

It seems we have just four candidates who have nominated for our local State seat of Macedon, for the State election on the 27 November.  The Labor candidate, MP Joanne Duncan, has held the seat for 8 years. The seat covers the township of Sunbury and adjourning towns such as Lancefield, Gisborne, Wooden and Romsey. Her main opposition will hopefully come from the Liberal candidate, a policeman named Tristan Weston, whom I admit to having communicated with and wished him luck, as I believe it is time this part of Victoria had a different perspective at the political level placed upon it. For too long now, our politics has been dominated at the Federal and State level [and to some degree, unofficially at the local government level] by the one political viewpoint. I believe those representatives have become too comfortable, and over recent elections, have not had to work very hard to retain their seats, thereby becoming complacent, and perhaps in some areas, not crediting the electorate due respect.

Not surprisingly, Tristan’s emphasis seems to be on law and order, and to a degree, concern for the gaining of appropriate infrastructure to adequately meet the needs of a growing community.  Joanne Duncan has had plenty of opoortunity to support these things when it suits her, and to claim responsibility when gains are made, it’s all very well saying she will support everything now, just prior to an election, things that could have been pushed for with more effort during her 8 years.  I think she has been an effective member in term of her regular presence within the electorate, and in attending mosrt functions and activities that it is appropriate for her to do so, but I feel that a much more effective and  stronger political voice is needed in the actual parliamentary scenario. I wonder whether many people in other parts of Victoria are even aware of her existance, because of what to me seems to be a relatively low profile in Parliament House. A popular local member I don’t doubt, but your motto promoted as ‘Making It Happen’ – well, I see that as appplying more to the party machine rather than the efforts of the individual member.

Of the other two candidates, we have a young 21 year old student, Nicky Haslinghouse, standing for the Greens  – deserved or not, she will pick up quite a few votes, simply because the Greens are the ‘flavour of the month’ currently. She too talks about transport and infrastructure. The 4th person is an Independant candidate, Lorraine Beyer, who was the only onje of the four, to make direct reference to the future use of the Victoria University site here in Sunbury – where, amongst other community organisations, our radio station is located. That site has been under a cloud for over a year now, since the university vacated it, and while the present Labor Government has just announced a new major educational project for the site, one has to wonder whether this is just a sweetener just prior to the election. On this issue, I’m not sure at this point, what the Liberal’s attitude to the site is, so that is certainly an aspect that Mr Weston needs to be queried about.  Jackson’s Hill, as the area is known, is a focal point of the Sunbury township, an ideal location with it’s many heritage buildings and structures to develop major community and educational facilities, and to encourage those that currently exist, to maintain their presence. Our management team is currently working very hard to try and get some more precise answers in respect to their future plans for the university site.  As for the law and order aspect [a major component of both major party’s approach to the election], I see there is a community forum planned here in Sunbury for next week on that subject, to which it is hoped to attract all four Macedon candidates. I hope they will all be encouraged to attend.

Anyway, those are just my views, and I will be content to support whoever wins the seat, I just feel a change of personality and focus is needed. I see that one of our local lads, who attended the secondary college that my daughter attended a few years ago, and also had a brief role at the radio station, has got himself on the Upper House ticket for the Labor Party. While I may not agree with his views, I do wish him well in the beginnings of a parliamentary career that he seems destined to eventually achieve.

Meanwhile yesterday, we were speaking briefly of Remembrance Day. On the TV tonight, there was a documentary entitled ‘As It Happened: The Last Day of World War I’.  This was a British production, and basically dealt with the number of casualties [deaths, wounded, missing] that occurred on that last day – the 11th November, 1918 – and in particular, the six hours from the signing of the Armistance in the railway in the French woods at approximately 5.10 am that day, and the official cease fire, at 11 am. Some estimates have quoted figures of up to 10,000 casualties that day – 663 Commonwealth forces [men & women] died that day [and perhaps many others in the days, weeks and months thereafter], and up to 3,000 Americans were killed. Some of the American generals were not prepared to accept the Armistace, and led their troops into situations and towns on the offensive, when in just a few hours time, they could have walked in peacefully. The attitude in some quarters was that Germany had to be proved to have been defeated, and their forces driven back to Berlin, with the rather prophetic claim, as it would eventuate, that Germany had not lost, merely agreed to a ceasefire. There were repercussions back in America at the high number of late casualties, but the reports of subsequent investigations were not released, with the feeling that to do so would tarnish the victories that had been achieved by their Americans from the time of their late entry into World War I. Interestingly, many of the French deaths on the 11th, were to be officially recorded as having died on the 10th November!

In conclusion, the comment was made by the program presenter, Michael Palin, whose great uncle died at the Somme, earlier in the war –  what does it matter what day a soldier is killed – it is all a waste of life, and for what real purpose!  A bit like a death in the family on Christmas Day – it seems more of a tradegy because of the date, but the loss to those around, is just as great, whatever the date!

In Flanders fields

The poppies blow

Between the crosses

Row on row,

That marks our place;

And in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid

The guns below.

One of today’s newspapers described the Red Poppy as growing “wild across northern France and Belgium, the bloodiest battleground of WWI. The poppy became the symbol of remembrance after a Canadian doctor, Major John McCrae, had spent 17 hellish days in 1915,  treating Canadians, British, Indians, French and Germans maimed by artillery fire. McCrae was distraught when he saw a close friend killed. He jotted down a poem while sitting in the back of an ambulance.  In Flanders Fields describes the poppies blowing between rows of crosses, marking the dead, and is one of the most famous wartime poems ever”.

Yes, today is Remembrance Day – in Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa – at 11 am this morning, marked one minute’s reflection in silent tribute marking the anniversary of the end of World War I [1914-1918] – the exact time that the guns stopped firing,  after years of terrible fighting, and millions of lives lost. Suggested by some that this ‘was the war to end all wars’ but sadly that was not to be, and wars continue to plague humankind, and even today, the Australian Defence Force is active in conflicts throughout the globe.

From today’s ‘Age’ newspaper, e read that ‘The fighting began when Britain and Germany went to war in August 1914. Australia was eager to help. From a country of less than five million people [at the time], 416,000 volunteered for service. Most were young men who were keen to see the world [my grandfather on my mother’s side was one of them] and defeat the enemy. [and most had no idea what they were getting into!].  By the end,  more than 60,000 were dead, and 156,000 wounded, gassed or prisoners of war. More than 45,000 Australians had been killed on the Western Front alone, a battle line of muddy trenches stretching from Belgium to the Swiss border. At Gallipoli in Turkey, more than 8,000 died”.  Terrible statistics, and of course, those kind of statistics didn’t end with World War I.

 

I actually wasn’t very well today, well more overnight actually – woke after only about an hour’s sleep, and soon began to wonder whether I was coming down with some element of food poisoning, after last night’s pub meal with the Heritage Society. Couldn’t really imagine that was the case however, as what I’d eaten had been fairly harmless I thought, a bit of fish with salad, after a rather spicy pumpkin & herb soup. However over the next couple of hours, that is certainly what I was feeling – quite ill in fact, and for a while wondered if it was something to do with the heart [one of the many advertised symptoms of heart problems], although more likely, simply a diabetes related problem!  Anyway, I adjourned to the loungeroom, where I reclined in one of the chairs there – was still there at 2am, when daughter Susan went to bed [her normal time!!], and eventually must have dosed off, woke about 4am, feeling slightly improved, enough to encourage a return to bed. Certainly, at that point, a trip to work seemed unlikely for Thursday, although there was a commitment that I really needed to be there for [as usual]!  Alarm at 6.15, ignored that and went back to sleep, waking again at 8.30 [at which time I would normally be at the office!].

We eventually did get to the office, not feeling perfect, a bit light headed but at least the nausea  feelings had subsided, my main concern was the drive in the traffic – the late departure eased that a little, and we had no problems. Not quite so easier on the early afternoon return, very tired, and didn’t enjoy the trip at all. Obviously needed some more sleep, which the early return home allowed.

Unfortunately, by being unwell today, I’ve missed the 3^rd Concert performance for the year by the Australian String Quartet [ASQ]. Despite having a ticket, as usual,  I felt it would be unwise to try and sit through  a classical concert of ‘strings’ music, feeling as tired and lethargic as I was. Luckily, this particular concert was to be broadcast direct, by ABC Classic FM, so I was in fact able to listen to the music, and feel comfortable at the same time.

Long time readers will be aware that I’ve be listening to, and attending the concerts of the ASQ for some years now – four girls – Sophie Rowell and Anne Horton [on violins], Sally Boud [on viola] and Rachel Johnston [on cello]. Tonight, Sally would be missing, apparently a minor medical procedure meant she couldn’t travel, so she was ‘back home’ with her little she gave birth to last year. In her stead for tonight’s performance was  Irina Morozova, on the viola.

I rather enjoyed ‘listening’ in tonight –  Beethoven began the program – the ASQ played his String Quartet in B Flat Major,  written between 1798 and 1800, it was published initially between 1800-1801 when it was presented to the saloons of one Count Lichnowsky. Traditionally with Beethoven’s quartets, it was in four movements beginning with a very robust opening movement, followed by a traditionally slow and beautiful adagio, an extremely short 3^rd movement, followed by what has been described as a delicate tender introduction to the finale with it’s famous ‘malinconia’ [or the melancholy]. Interestingly listening to the audience noise coming through the ABC microphones during breaks between movements, don’t generally pick those up so clearly as a part of the audience oneself.

Peter Sculthorpe [the 80 year old Australian composer] wrote his String Quartet No. 6 between 1963-1965, the earliest of the 18 quartets of his that are generally played these days – earlier ones were written in his student days.   It  was first performed in Sydney by the Austral String Quartet during the 1965 Musica Viva Subscription Series.  Sculthorpe was born in Launceston, Tasmania on the 29 April, 1929, and began composing at the start of 1938, after his first piano lesson, aged just 9 years!

This quartet also introduces a bit of a melancholy aspect though of a more searing nature. It was described in the following manner by one critic: –   “The intact No. 6 is an occasionally harsh but predominantly lyrical, if melancholy work. It has three movements, with lento being the frequent and operative word used to describe most of its duration. This is austere but not forbidding music, revealing at this stage a profound spiritual element that pervades all Sculthorpe’s greatest works (of which there are many). The closing bars of the piece are a truly cathartic listen”.  Perhaps a reason for that closing remark can be attributed to the fact that the final movement was dedicated to Sculthorpe’s mother, Edna. Meanwhile, the descriptions applied to the work of austere, spiritual, and a hint of dark and forbidding thoughts, come over rather well, particularly during the 3^nd movement.  But then, as a contemporary composer, one can expect much of Sculthorpe’s music to contrast sharply with many of the traditional composers – I’ve played many of his works on a Sunday morning, through the radio. Tonight’s composition was written when he was aged about 35, in his ‘younger’ days!

During the interval. It was great to hear an interview with cellist, Rachel Johnston – the cello players don’t usually get a great deal of prominence, yet are an essential part of any string quartet – I think she described her role as the ‘engine room’ of the quartet!   I’ve never even heard Rachel speak on stage during a concert – that task was generally left to Sophie or Sally – so I was pleased to learn more  about and from this ‘quiet’ member of the quartet [as far as on stage was concerned]. She’s been with the ASQ [originally the Tankstream Quartet] for 6 years, joined about 4 years after the other three girls.  She was highly praiseworthy of the guest viola player for tonight’s concert.

The third and final selection for tonight’s concert Mozart’s  String Quartet No. 19 in C Major, which has been allocated the nickname ‘Dissonance’ on account of it’s perceived unusual slow introduction. It  is probably the most famous of Mozart’s quartets [completed in January 1785], and the  last in the set of six quartets composed between 1782 and 1785 which he dedicated to the composer Joseph Haydn [who once told Mozart’s father that his son was the greatest composer he’d met!]. Now, I’m no expert on the technical and compositional side of classical music, I just enjoy listening to it –  but the opening of this work, described as a ‘mix of extraordinary harmonic colours’ has apparently astounded musicians and musicologists since it’s premiere, even baffling Haydn himself. Described in one sense as the moment of chaos been converted to order! Well, my listening of it, didn’t really depict all of that – yes, the music seemed to be going off in different directions from one moment to the next, but you get that between movements, and occasionally within movements. But as I said, I’m no expert, but I quite enjoyed the so-called ‘chaos’.  I wonder what those critics would think about the ‘literally chaotic’ music of modern day Polish composer, Penderecki  [whose unusual, and at times, quite violent music, I have played of a Sunday morning, and been subsequently told by a couple of fans of the traditional composers, that ‘that was a bit too much to take’ after listening to Mozart, etc]. Anyway, Mozart’s quartet was in his normal four movements, and the longest of the quartets played tonight by the ASQ.

The other advantage of listening to tonight’s concert, rather than being there – when it finished, I was already home, had just managed to eat a meal,  and could relax in the absence of a one hour drive home.

.

This is the Address I referred to yesterday, as delivered by the Federal President of the Liberal Party of Australia,on the 10th November,  which I’ve decided to retain for future reference. It’s quite lengthy, as might be expected, that gives readers the option to continue reading, or bypasss this entry 🙂

Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am grateful to the National Press Club for the opportunity to discuss one of the most remarkable election campaigns in Australian history.

On the 21^st of August, for the first time since 1931, a Government was denied a majority after its first term. The reasons for this result are complex and I would like to take the opportunity today to set out in some detail, aided by research the Party has done since the election, the factors which influenced the result. The campaign was an important influence on the result. But it was far from the only influence.

To properly understand what happened on the 21^st August we must begin with the community expectations that Labor itself created in 2007.  Despite significant hesitations, the community gave Labor a mandate in 2007 to implement what Australians considered significant promises to help make their lives better.   However doubts about Labor’s commitment to deliver on their promises quickly began to appear.  We first saw those hesitations emerge in our research prior to Labor’s first Budget in 2008. Understandably however, people found reasons to put off making a judgment believing the Budget would be the moment Labor would start to deliver on its promises. You may recall the Prime Minister and Treasurer at the time raising expectations with their talk of tough decisions.

The 2008 Budget was a failure for Labor and marked the beginning of its electoral decline.  Australian’s were underwhelmed by the Budget and by the lack of any significant action on the issues Labor had sought and been given a mandate. The failure of the Budget was quickly compounded by Labor’s ambivalence towards rising petrol and grocery prices and manifested itself in the result of the Gippsland by-election. Brendan Nelson’s reply to the Budget in May 2008 captured the mood of ordinary Australians and was the beginning of the Coalition’s re-emergence as a viable alternative after the 2007 election.   Brendan Nelson deserves great credit for instinctively understanding and clearly articulating both the expectations of Labor and the disappointment widely felt with the Government across the community. 

By mid 2008 our research was showing that while support for Mr Rudd was apparently high, behind these top-line numbers were very deep frustrations. Labor appeared to ordinary Australians to be ignoring their legitimate concerns and obsessed with their own priorities and interests.  This was particularly true of Kevin Rudd.  Just seven months into office Labor had begun to lose its way. The Government did receive some initial credit for its approach at the beginning of the global financial crisis.  However, as the stimulus rollout occurred throughout 2009, concern within the community quickly developed. Australians believed schools could use additional funding but were frustrated at the bureaucratic and poorly considered edict that the money had to be spent on school halls when, in many cases, there were obviously other clear priorities for their school.

The concern in the community at Labor’s level of waste was deep.  The school halls and insulation fiascos cut through as practically every community in Australia had examples of mismanagement and waste and this was made worse by the Government’s exaggerated rhetoric and refusal to admit any level of problem.  The community reaction to the 2009 Budget was that the Government lacked a clear strategy to manage the economy and in particular, to begin to repay debt. A sense began to grow that the Government was losing control of the nation’s finances with little to show in return.  The time had come to begin delivering practical results on the ground, but instead the rhetoric continued, the debt grew and interest rates began increasing.

As he moved around the community Malcolm Turnbull heard these concerns and articulated them. By contrast, Mr Rudd and Labor continued to dismiss them, further fueling community concern.  Our feedback on Kevin Rudd in this period included representative comments such as: “marvelous vision but can’t put it into action”, “struggles to know how to implement things”, “badly targeted spending”, “always overseas”, “just waiting for an opinion poll”. After only two years in Government it was clear to us the community had deep reservations about Labor and Kevin Rudd, even if those reservations were not yet fully reflected in published opinion polls. The community was looking for a strong alternative and an opportunity was emerging for the Coalition.  However, the latter part of 2009 was one of the most difficult periods in the history of the Liberal Party.

Labor was attempting to use the ETS as an issue as much to divide the Coalition as to legislate what it considered to be important policy.  As a consequence of the public spotlight being on us the growing concerns of the community with the Rudd Government were ignored.  But they were there, they were real and they were growing. The community was actually more worried in this period with the inaction of the Government than they were with the Opposition.  This is why Tony Abbott was able to so quickly and effectively unite the Coalition and take the fight to Labor.  People wanted Labor held to account and wanted a strong alternative and  Tony Abbott provided that from the moment he became Leader.

It also helps explain the apparently sudden and dramatic collapse in support for Kevin Rudd.  From our perspective, the collapse was neither sudden nor dramatic. As I’ve said, the signs of trouble for Kevin Rudd were there as early as six months into his term as Prime Minister. Mr Rudd was cut an enormous amount of slack by the electorate. They wished him well. They wanted him to succeed. But Labor’s performance never matches its rhetoric. Australians were waiting for something to change but after two years the Government’s priorities seemed to be either overseas travel or on photo opportunities and process rather than outcomes to improve people’s lives.  In my view, in a professional political sense, Mr Rudd was one of the most effective framers of a message we have ever seen in this country. But this was both his strength and the basis of his failure.  He effectively positioned climate change as “the great moral challenge of our time”. People believed he was serious and that he would do something about it.  The failure of the Copenhagen climate change conference came as the wider frustrations of the community with Labor were coming to the surface.   Why take 114 people to a conference unless you were certain it was going to achieve something? And what did the much anticipated failure of the conference say about a leader’s judgment?   After Copenhagen people expected Mr Rudd to find other ways to take action.  But instead he abandoned the ETS and moved to introduce a new tax on the mining sector, considered by most Australians a critical driver of our prosperity.  This was the moment of no return for Mr Rudd and the final straw which broke the very strained bond of trust he had with the Australian community.

Even a few months before we would not have been able to use humour and ridicule against Kevin Rudd but community sentiment had moved so quickly that our Kevin O’Lemon advertisement accurately captured the mood.  We had obviously considered the possibility of Labor changing leaders before the election – indeed we had prepared for it – so our campaign was able to quickly adapt to Julia Gillard. What was surprising however was the speed with which the Gillard sky-rocket returned to earth. As Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard was directly linked to every major decision of the Rudd Government and as a Minister was personally responsible for a significant number of the major failures.  So while we thought the change would not fundamentally alter the community’s problems with Labor, we did think she would have a longer honeymoon.

But after only three weeks it was clear the community’s concern and frustration remained and that the way Kevin Rudd was removed by the faceless operatives of the Labor machine had in fact, created a new and very deep hesitation about Labor.  Labor itself was obviously finding that Gillard’s replacement of Rudd had not reversed its decline.  The decision of the Labor machine to call the election early seemed to us not to have been a considered strategic decision, but rather an attempt to move the focus from the day-to-day bungles which threatened to overwhelm the new Prime Minister.  Nonetheless, the task for the Coalition in the campaign was formidable:

–          Only one first term Government had lost its majority since 1931.

–          After the series of redistributions we needed to win 17 seats to obtain a majority.

–          And Labor, of course, had the full advantages of incumbency to support it, together with the additional resources of the industrial arm of the labour movement and various complicit so-called third party groups such as Get Up.

Despite this, and given the challenges we faced throughout the term of Parliament, our position at the start of the campaign was stronger than we would have expected even a few short months before. Tony Abbott’s principled and decisive leadership had put us in a competitive position and had staked out clear policy positions.  He had united the parliamentary team, seen off a first term Prime Minister, restored the party’s morale and established the Coalition as a credible alternative Government. We were therefore able to begin campaigning strongly from the moment the election was called.  Our success in setting the strategic direction of the contest in the first week of the campaign was very important. Had we not laid the basis then, Labor’s internal difficulties in the second and third weeks, while certainly not unhelpful, would have smothered any attempt by us to establish the terms of the contest.

Contrary to Labor’s attempts to write their own history, it was not the leaks per se that had such a catastrophic impact on their campaign. Rather, it was the subject matter of the leaks and the fact Julia Gillard failed to deny:

–                 That she had opposed the introduction of paid parental leave

–                 That she had opposed pension increases on the grounds that older Australians didn’t vote for Labor anyway

–                 That she had sent a relatively junior staff member in her place to meetings of the National Security Committee of Cabinet; and

–                 That she failed to consult Cabinet about her Citizens Assembly policy.

This focussed voters’ attention on the fact Julia Gillard was not the politician Labor spin doctors wanted Australians to think she was. Those responsible for these internal Labor leaks in fact exposed the real Julia. By contrast, Tony Abbott was seen as a person with strong principles, highly disciplined, intelligent, energetic and with an easy rapport with people on the campaign trail.

 In this campaign every day mattered. In 2007, 68% of voters told us they had made up their mind before the campaign. In 2010, only 49% had decided before the campaign.  In our pollin Labor had rebounded to a significant lead on primary vote immediately after Julia Gillard become Prime Minister.  This was reversed to a 6 point primary lead by the Coalition on election day.   Analysis of voter groups over this period shows it was younger voters under 35, and those with families who were most responsible for this movement.  Shortly after becoming Leader, Julia Gillard’s lead over Tony Abbott as preferred Prime Minister was over 25%.  By the last part of the campaign, however, Tony Abbott had drawn level as preferred Prime Minister – a remarkable achievement for an Opposition leader.  Interestingly, our research showed that during the campaign Gillard’s favorability fell below Rudd’s and it has remained below since.   There is no doubt community revulsion at the way in which the faceless powerbrokers toppled an elected Prime Minster influenced votes, and this was also shown in our research.

However, economic considerations were paramount: the economy, Budget management, waste and taxes were all cited in our research as major spontaneous for the way people decided to vote.  The Coalition built and maintained a strong lead on key economic issues during the campaign.  According to our research, our positive “action contract” advertisements featuring Tony Abbott were the most effective single advertisements of the campaign.  The positive nature of our campaign was particularly important in building momentum as our research showed 69% of voters chose to positively endorse a Party while only 28% were motivated to vote against a Party.   Our success in building this positive campaign was remarkable given the strength of our opponent’s negative campaign against us.  It is clear the ACTU, unions and other left wing groups were fully integrated into Labor’s campaign as an analysis of television advertising buy during the campaign shows.  There was a period of ten days – a life time in a political campaign – in the first half of the election in which Labor did not advertise at all except for a minor buy in one State. But during this period, the ACTU and unions were on the air attacking Tony Abbott and the Coalition.

Our post-election research showed that our Members and candidates added to the Party’s vote across Australia while Labor’s candidates were neutral or a negative influence on their vote. Considerable work and preparation went into our marginal seat campaigning and was important in securing 14 additional seats for the Party. Despite the massive opposition we faced, we held to our strategy and, I believe, clearly won the campaign by focusing on the key voter concerns: debt, deficit, waste, new taxes, lax border security, lack of competence in Government service delivery and integrity in Government.  Labor had no positive agenda to move Australia forward, thereby under cutting their campaign theme from the beginning. They could only resort to the same tired scare campaign they have used in previous elections.

It was naturally very disappointing for the Coalition not to be able to form Government after the election.  Despite the strong campaign the historic task of winning after just one term was ultimately insurmountable.  We are determined to win the next election whenever it may be held.  The Party has established a comprehensive review to ensure we build on the experience and lessons of the campaign and are in the strongest possible position to fight and win the next campaign.  We understand we cannot assume we will just fall into Government when the next opportunity arises. That is why we are reviewing our policies and reaching out to all sections of the community for new ideas to help meet the challenges ordinary Australians face as they go about their lives.  Labor and their allies are clearly going to use the advantages of incumbency to secure their position.

I indicated in my address to the Press Club after the 2007 election that the Coalition was willing to work with the Government on serious campaign expenditure and disclosure reform.  It is regrettable Labor was unable to meet their commitment on this important issue in the last Parliament. I again indicate today that the Coalition is open to working with the Government on serious reform of campaign financing.  A new regime will only survive over time if it has the support of both the major parties. Regrettably, the Bill introduced by the new Special Minister of State, for whom I have a high personal regard, does not seriously address long term campaign finance reform. The Coalition cannot and will not support a proposal that does not cover the activities of third party groups such as trade unions. In the 2007 and 2010 campaigns, union advertising was fully integrated into Labor’s campaign.  To exclude the contributions of the unions makes a farce of any so-called reform.  Equally, the activities of other groups, such as Get Up, must also be included in any reform. Given Get Up’s new found interest in funding reform I call on them today to voluntarily disclose all aspects of their funding and campaigning in the lead up to and during the recent campaign.

I also re-iterate the commitment of the Liberal Party to take part in a series of Leaders’ debates during the next campaign and to having an agreed format for them established well in advance of the next election.  The success of the different debate formats in the recent campaign underscores the importance of any arrangements being sufficiently flexible to adapt to opportunities during a campaign.   It is therefore important any proposed Debates Commission facilitates, rather than prescribes the Leaders’ debates.  The true success of the debates format must be that they allow Australians themselves to form their own judgments based on the Leaders having the clearest and fairest opportunity to make their case.

I would like to conclude by making a few short observations about the current federal political scene. Australians are not confident minority government is good for the nation. In the two months since the election it is apparent Labor is a mess and that Julia Gillard is struggling. As a result Australia is drifting. At the core of Labor’s problem is that it is unable to put Australia’s interests first. Everything Labor does is driven by the need to survive:

• What do the Greens think?
• What do the Independents think?
• How will the factions react?

Political survival now drives the actions and decisions of the Government and it is the reason why we are getting so many bad decisions and, increasingly, why so many decisions are being deferred. Every decision or deferral is a compromise taken with an eye to what’s required to keep an inherently unstable alliance together.

Julia Gillard is no economic reformer. Between 1998 and 2007 Julia Gillard opposed every major economic reform introduced by the Howard Government

• She opposed the private health insurance rebate
• She opposed tax reform
• She opposed superannuation reform
• And she opposed successive Howard Government decisions designed to reduce government debt.

Now Julia Gillard is running the most economically incompetent government in living memory.  Having wasted billions of dollars mismanaging the school hall building programme and continuing to borrow over $100 million every day, the only economic reform Julia Gillard is interested in is imposing higher electricity prices on Australian families through a carbon tax.

A strong leader would set a strong direction, but Julia Gillard can’t do that.

• Everything is a compromise
• Everything is about survival

We’ve already seen the rumblings start. I had not heard the rumours of a senior Minister misbehaving as reported recently in the media and have no idea what they refer to. But what was significant to me were the comments by unnamed “senior Labor figures” that the rumours were being circulated as part of early leadership positioning within Labor – and this just two months after the election!  So it’s little wonder Julia Gillard has resorted to two tactics familiar to those who have observed failing State Labor governments.

Firstly, Julia Gillard is deliberately trying to lower expectations of her performance and that of her Government. We are told this will be a term of “consolidation”, that we don’t appreciate just how great the challenges are. Minor and procedural developments are being trumpeted as major initiatives and difficult decisions are deferred or sent for review.  Australia cannot afford another three years of weak Government with limited ambition. The Coalition will not let Julia Gillard and Labor get away with this. We will hold them to account and we will push them to do better because Australian families deserve nothing less.

The second tactic Julia Gillard has borrowed from State Labor is to avoid fronting the media when there is bad news. Instead, Julia Gillard and senior ministers regularly require public servants to handle the media on difficult issues. Apart from placing senior public servants in an impossible position, Australians are entitled to hear directly from their elected leaders when there are problems. The Coalition will use the revised Parliamentary arrangements to hold Ministers who won’t front the media to account.  After just two months, the contrast could not be clearer – between an ineffective government with no policies, no direction and weak leadership, and the Coalition with clear direction, good policies and strong leadership to make Australia a better country. Australia does need strong leadership and only one leader can provide it. Tony Abbott knows what he believes, will always make the right decision for the right reason and has what it takes to get Australia moving again to make life better for ordinary Australians.

As Campaign Director I have many people to thank and acknowledge  [this part omitted]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are in an unprecedented political situation. We have a weak and unstable Government which is in a mess and getting worse. We have a Prime Minister who is not up to the job. And we have a restless Labor Party which has already removed one Prime Minister and will remove another when desperation sets in. The Coalition is the only path to a strong and prosperous Australia. We have a great obligation to be ready to offer an alternative whenever the next election is held. Tony Abbott and the Coalition are determined to provide the leadership Australia needs and which Labor cannot provide.   I look forward to working closely with Coaliton supporters around Australia to deliver a great victory for all Australians when the opportunity arises”.

From time to time, we come across little bits of philosophy that ring a bell of sorts, kind of fit in with some of the reasoning one might have held at some point in time. The following was such an example – it was a response sent to an ABC Big Ideas forum a couple of days ago, and while I’ve not been able to clearly define what the original question was, the response tells it’s own story, and it went like this:-

“This just reinforces my belief that we humans are basically ignorant, unintelligent Stone Age or Neanderthal’s wearing suits and carrying Laptops. Our Technology has advanced thank’s to a couple percent of our numbers who are intelligent and can reason, the rest of us are just users and if the modern equivalent of the Library of Alexandria was destroyed (Our Computers etc) where all our information is stored then it would takes us more than 1,500 years to regain that knowledge. This is because very few of us are intelligent (able to reason).  I hold out very little hope for our tiny planet with so many deluded humans on board”.

Certainly, not much room for optimism there, nor is there much encouragement for, in faith in, those more than just a couple of percent of us, who might feel that they are a little more than a ‘mere ignorant Stone Age’ type, and have been able to contribute something to that store of knowledge!!

Putting aside theoretical concepts, I was more interested in an address to the National Press Club in Canberra, which occured today I think. It was delivered by the Federal Director of the Liberal Party in Australia, and basically spelt out the things that went wrong for the Rudd Labor Government from it’s election in 2007 – obviously, it will be immediately claimed as a biased load of Liberal spin, yet if you read it closely, there’s a high degree of factual material in there, which in this age of technology, we could all see happening as time went along. Nevertheless, I imagine the same topic, if addressed by the President of the Labor Party would sound very different  – or would it? Afterall, there were fairly sound reasons by Mr Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard – in her own words, the Rudd Government had lost it’s way’. The Press Club speech demonstrates how. I want to record it here, for future reference and comparison, with other opinions and theories that are sure to arise over the year’s ahead.  However, as it is a very long address, I’m reluctant to impose it in it’s entirety upon my readers, so I’ve decided to include it as a separate entry, on it’s own on the morrow!

Meanwhile, another address of a different nature I listened to tonight –  in attending, as an invitee, the Annual Dinner of the Sunbury Historical and Heritage Society, I gained the opportunity to hear the views from a representative of the Hume City Council, on the future prospects and anticipated changes to the town of Sunbury, and I found it both enlightening [and also a bit frightening] to hear of some of the hoped for developments in term’s of the town’s advancements in areas of shopping precinct improvements, traffic, parking, and the likely spread of residential expansions planned in most directions from the present town boundaries. So far, the success in levels of development around areas such as town streetscapes, shopping facilities and sundry services, restaurants, and sporting and cultural facilities,  in the 27 years since I have been here,  have also  created their share of negative aspects,  such as traffic congestion, lack of adequate parking, major  exit/entry problems for the town, and public transport inadequacies to many of the new expanding areas. With all the future plans of further expansion outlined tonight, one has to wonder whether the infrastructure side of things is going to be able to keep up [something which is not necessarily a problem common only to Sunbury].