THE rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney has continued with Melbourne planning a $20m lighting upgrade to its Westgate Bridge.

Roads and Ports minister Tim Pallas has said that it will rival and look even better than Sydney’s Harbour Bridge – which makes the competition between the two cities even bigger.

For years, Melbourne and Sydney have been in competition within sporting grounds, facilities and shopping centres.

Now it appears the battle of the bridges will be the latest topic of conversation between the two rivals.

But it would have to extra special to rival the Harbour Bridge; one of Australia’s most renowned tourist attractions.

Right now, the West Gate Bridge doesn’t really attact the tourists’ eyes.

Mrs Pallas told The Age that the bridge would be wired with more than seven kilometres of light-emitting diodes (LED) that could enable multi-coloured displays to mark special occasions, such as Australia Day and New Year’s Eve.

Mr Pallas said the lights would transform the 30-year-old bridge.

SERBIAN and Croatians are ruining it for Melbourne’s Australian Open in what is known as Melbourne’s biggest party event.

But party all you like as long as you don’t ruin it for others.

On the first day of action on Monday, several Croatian fans took it upon themselves to begin a fight with the Serbians before the opening match on court six.

And several were caught with weapons in their bags.

In the past three years, the two cultures have hit each other with plastic chairs, spat on each other and been in entrenched in massive fights that have seen a bloody affair.

Just two years a fight broke in a twilight match where I witnessed and sat just a couple of rows behind all the action.

The fighting between the two cultures broke out before police began spraying capsicum spray which landed in the eyes of innocent people like myself.

It was a fraccus that began vocally and ended in tears for many.

Something needs to be done in order to keep the Croats and Serbs away from each other.

The political rubble that is the Australian Liberal Party continues to self implode, this week with rumours there is yet again a leadership dispute within the party.

After a radio interview with John Laws on Tuesday afternoon, Jo Hockey revealed he had been approached by numerous members of the party, regarding taking over the leadership position from the current Malcolm Turnbull.

While Hockey did not mention names, and did say he was supportive of the job Turnbull is doing, the issue has been brought to life by the media.

In the numerous interviews and stories covering the issue since Tuesday, it has come out that the opposition’s stance on emissions trading had caused the rift between Turnbull and many other public servants.

Both Hockey and Turnbull fronted the media yesterday to extinguish the flames caused by the reports, but what they said did little to dismiss the doubt that the party is yet again on unstable grounds.

Sticking to his guns, Mr. Turnbull yesterday said he would not step down from his beliefs and would carry on with his political duties.

“You have a lot of critics in my line of work and ideally they are limited to people outside the party,” he said.

“Obviously we’ve had a few internal critics but I think people are starting to realise now that our job is to focus attention on the Government. The public are not terribly interested in politicians talking about themselves. The reality is that politics is a team business and we have to work together.”

“While we may disagree -- whether on policies or personalities -- we have to come to a common view. There has to be a leader. There has to be a policy.”

If Turnbull is stood down, it will be the third change in leadership for the Liberal Party this year.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNxivx-56A

WHAT’S YOUR OPINION?

Will we see yet another liberal leader in the next few weeks?

Will Turnbull step down? Will he be voted down? Who will replace him?

How does this affect the Liberal party in regards to the upcoming election?

The Australian Liberal Party has lost yet another high profile politician, with the announcement today former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has resigned from Parliament.

His decision, which comes after months of speculation, will now mean there will be a by-election in his seat of Higgins this year.

According to Costello, his call to quit politics was made at the right time, one which he felt gave the political party enough time to elect a new minister before the upcoming election.

Costello’s decision comes just months after former Liberal leader Brendan Nelson ended his reign in the political world, and it may see two by-elections on the same day with Nelson’s former seat of Bradfield still yet to be filled.

Asked what his plans were in retirement, Costello remained tight lipped but did reveal he expected to continue contributing his talents to public service in some form.

Current treasurer and long time political rival, Wayne Swann, gave praise to Costello’s services to the country and acknowledged his achievements.

“We haven’t always agreed and we’ve been sparring partners over the years, but I think there is no doubting Peter’s commitment to the country,” Mr Swan said.

Asked what his greatest achievement was in his years in parliament, he responded immediately in naming the Goods and Services Tax (the GST).

“‘It nearly killed me,’’ he said.

Mr Costello will step down the week after next. He will hand his resignation to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on October 19.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgd-Rb-8BoM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3zcDTt5_GM

WHAT’S YOUR OPINION?

Will Mr. Costello follow the path of Dr. Nelson and be offered a job by the government?

Will the political world ever see Costello return?

Will his decision affect the Liberal Party? How?

The $43 billion Gorgon gas project has finally been given the green light with Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett signing off on the deal at a meeting with the major stakeholders today.

The project, based at Barrow Island off the north coast of WA, will be the largest in the country’s history and make a significant contribution towards the nation’s economy.

First approved under the Howard Government in 2007, The Gorgon gas project was returned for further environmental assessment in 2008 when natural wildlife and species were put at risk by the project, including the Barrow Island mouse and the threatened flat back turtle.

With Mr Garret passing it of its 36 environmental conditions, the project will now create thousands of jobs and underpin a massive expansion of liquefied natural gas production across Australia.

WA Premier, Colin Barnett, said the deal will see massive benefits for the state as well as the nation.

“(the deal) Will see significant contribution towards WA’s prosperity over the next 30 years,” Mr Barnett said.

“The project will create about 10,000 jobs during the peak construction phase with more than 3500 direct and indirect jobs sustained throughout the life of the project.”

Chevron general manager, Roy Krzywosinski, also said the project will see a major influx of multi million international deals.

“To date the project has committed to $2 billion in contracts,” Mr Krzywosinski said.

“In the coming weeks and months we expect to commit upwards of $10 billion in contracts and purchase orders.”

But despite the positives, there are still those who are disappointed by the passing of the bill, viewing the decision as one which will cause even more harm to our nations habitat and outback serenity.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtSNmGhy5g

Do you think the go ahead of the Gorgon gas project is a good or bad decision?

Do you think the government has compromised environmental factors for economical benefits?

Former opposition leader Brendan Neilson has announced today he will step down from his parliamentary obligations and quit politics at the end of the month.

An emotional Dr Nelson fronted the media in Sydney, confirming the speculation that has brewed since he announced in February this year he would not contest the next election.

The 51 year-olds decision has shaken his Liberal Party, forcing a by-election for the Australian House of Representatives seat of Bradfield, which he currently holds.

Dr Nelson said that it was in the best interest of the party and the up coming electorate that he makes the decision now, rather than just prior to the nearing election.

“I feel at the moment, having decided not to return to the frontbench of the Liberal Party, nor indeed to seek the leadership of the Party at any time in the future, that the best thing that I can do … is now give the people of Bradfield an opportunity to choose the new, energetic member,” Nelson said.

A doctor by profession, Nelson rose to prominence as the Federal President of the Australian Medical Association in 1993 and was elected into Parliament three years later, serving as Minister for Education, Science and Training in the Howard government.

Following Howard’s defeat in the 2007 federal election, Dr Nelson was elected as new leader of the Liberal party, but he lasted less than a year after a spill motion by the party saw him replaced by Malcolm Turnbull.

Despite media reports claiming he had ill feelings towards Turnbull and the Liberal government, Dr Nelson was today all supportive and urged his colleagues to get behind the party and its current leader.

“I think it’s important that all Liberals do whatever we can to support our Liberal leadership,” Nelson said.

“It’s been a great honour for me to have worked with John Howard and Peter Costello and a team of men and women who oversaw and undertook the economic and social reconstruction of Australia after the last Labour government.”

Nelson’s announcement comes just months after popular Liberal figure Peter Costello’s decision to step away from politics.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nPS2mmC9o0

WHAT’S YOUR OPINION?

Do you think Brendan Nelson was a good politician?

Did he make a good opposition leader?

Will he be missed in politics?

THE FACTS:

After 16 months of deliberation by 10 health policy experts, the final report by the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission was released yesterday, with PM Kevin Rudd welcoming the proposed changes to Australia’s health care.

The report has laid the foundations for the biggest overhaul to Australia’s health care system since the introduction of Medicare in the 1980’s, with plans for a full federal government takeover of health care.

It will signal the end for Medicare and replace it with a “Medicare Select” system, where Australians will be able to have more of a say, choosing from a range of plans and health packages from different providers.

It is proposed that the ability to pick and choose between health service providers will create competition within the health system and offer reduced pricing for the public.

The public will be expected to play their part in the deal, paying higher taxes to cover the new budget.

However, there is a growing belief that the radical change will see Australia’s health care turn into a benign version of the United States highly criticized ‘managed Care’ system, where health is often compromised for profits.

THE VIEWS:

Christine Bennett, chair of the commission and chief medical officer for insurer BUPA

“’Medicare Select’ will not carry the same risks and limitations as US-style ’managed care’, because it will come with guaranteed universal service levels. The central idea is you don’t lose, you only stand to gain. We are backing the idea that quasi-market forces, and the power of consumer choice, will lead to a better and more responsible delivery (of health services).’’

Kevin Rudd in a media release:

“Before the election, I made this commitment: that we would end the blame game which had gone on for too long, and that with the reform of our nation’s health and hospital system, that the buck would stop with me. I said we were determined to improve health and hospitals right across the nation, not just in a few marginal seats here and there. Our mission is to end the blame game -- for a system where the Prime Minister can and should say that the buck stops with me. And these principles define the course of action that we have now embarked upon with this report -- and the decisions the nation must take to build the health and hospital system that Australia needs for the 21st century.”

BREAKING IT DOWN:

A) The Australian Government needs to ensure steps are made to avoid the reform heading in the direction of America’s “Managed Care” System.

The United States have for a long time been known to have the world’s worst health care system. There are fears the new reform will see Australia will head in the same direction. The Rudd government needs to learn from the mistakes made in the American version and use this knowledge to implement an effective new health care system.

B) Australian citizens need to take responsibility for their own health and understand that a level of control has now been handed to them.

The reform allows the public to pick and choose between differing health care services, giving them a level of power and control over their own health. At the same time, they are expected to pay extra taxes and need to inherit a level of responsibility for their own health.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwMMycUDXCY

WHAT’S YOUR OPINION?

THE FACTS:

The Rudd government yesterday announced the $75.8 million Carbon trust initiative would be based in Brisbane and headed by former Liberal defence and environment minister senator, Robert Hill.

The trust was designed to reduce Australia’s greenhouse footprint by altering the energy use by Australian businesses and households. The government plans to invest the capital over the next five years.

However the announcement of Senator Hill has not come without a backlash. While the Prime Minister claims his selection was based purely on portfolio and history on public policy, others have suggested the decision was made based on ulterior motives.

The executive director of the Australia Institute, Richard Dennis, feels the proposed model was flawed and speaks more about the Government’s desire to “wedge” the Opposition than to actually address the flaw in the current emissions trading scheme.

Others argue that Senator Hill has had a history of ignoring important climate change issues and feel the government has put trust in the wrong hands.

THE VIEWS:

Greens leader Bob Brown:

“Robert Hill, as Liberal Environment Minister, played a key personal role in weakening the Kyoto Protocol at negotiations in 1997, undermining global climate action for years afterwards and setting Australia up as a global climate spoiler by not ratifying the Protocol.”

Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull:

”There is some irony that the Prime Minister is paying a former Liberal to give him advice on global warming and he has unpaid Liberals in Parliament today ready to give him similar advice. I would urge the Prime Minister to not only listen to former Liberals but also to listen to current Liberals and sit down and negotiate the best outcome.”

BREAKING IT DOWN:

A) An ultimatum and agreement between all parties has to be made when dealing with significant policies such as the carbon trust.

Although the word ‘agreement’ is almost unheard of in the political world, the issue of climate change and Australia’s part in reducing greenhouse emissions is not only crucial for our nations future, but also for the world’s.

B) If senator Hill does have a history of ignoring climate change issues, what makes him the right man for the job?

The government must address his history and outline in more detail their decision on his appointment, while also acknowledging his past, not ignoring it.

WHAT’S YOUR OPINION?

Has the Rudd Government made the right decision in appointing Senator Robert Hill as head of the $75.8 million Carbon Trust initiative?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAbATJCugs

THE FACTS:

Former Australian Treasurer Peter Costello announced on June 15, 2009 that he would not contest his seat in parliament at the next federal election.

Mr Costello served as Federal Treasurer between 1996 and 2007 and has served the Higgins electorate since 1990.

Mr Costello has been under public and media pressure to declare his future since his government lost the 2007 federal election.

His leadership aspirations were well known and while some suggested the Coalition’s 2007 election loss was the ideal time for him to take the Liberal Party leadership mantle, others argued that his time had come and gone.

THE VIEWS:

Peter Costello in a June 15 media release on his website:

“Over the course of the last 18 months many constituents – and Australians from all over the country – have urged me to re-nominate. I have enjoyed the complete support of my Electorate Committee and the Liberal Party organisation in this regard.

Nevertheless my view is, as it was in November 2007, that it is time for me to pursue other interests and it is in the long term interest of the Liberal Party for others of ability and integrity to step forward and represent it.

I wish our Party and its Leaders – Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop – every success in the next election. I pay tribute to the work done by Brendan Nelson in the difficult aftermath of the 2007 Election loss.”

BREAKING IT DOWN:

A) Costello’s future has been an unwelcome distraction for the Coalition as it tries to gain momentum ahead of the 2010 federal election.

The Liberals and Nationals would have been better served if Mr Costello had cleared up the ambiguity earlier.

B) Costello’s decision to retire will allow the Liberal Party to look further for fresh political talent.

Mr Costello has been at the forefront of the party for two decades. His contribution to the party has been huge but his departure will give someone else an opportunity.

WHAT’S YOUR OPINION?

Has Peter Costello done the right thing by his party by retiring?

Should Peter Costello have taken the leadership after the 2007 election loss, when it was made available to him?

What direction will Peter Costello’s career take now?

Would you have liked to see Peter Costello as Prime Minister of Australia?

THE FACTS:

The OzCar affair is a political issue that occurred in June 2009 and refers to allegations that Treasurer Wayne Swan and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tried to secure special treatment for car dealer John Grant, who is also a friend of the pair.

Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull accused Mr Rudd of giving Mr Grant special attention on the back of an alleged email sent from the Prime Minister’s Office to the Federal Treasury.

A senior Treasury official, Godwin Grech, said at a senate hearing he thought he saw an email asking for extra attention to be given to Mr Grant’s case.

No such email has been located.

OzCar is a scheme that offers financial assistance to car dealerships in difficulty.

The Government has denied that any such email exists and the Federal Police are investigating whether the email has been made up.

Mr Rudd has asked the Auditor General to investigate the OzCar affair.

THE VIEWS:

Michelle Grattan for The Age:

“The OzCar affair is turning into a confusing battle of bluff and bluster, in which the real issues risk being obscured. Putting aside the setting of artificial deadlines and mutual calls for resignation, the core question is whether Kevin Rudd or Wayne Swan tried to secure special treatment for car dealer John Grant.

The Opposition is directing its attention to Swan, now that the evidence suggesting Rudd intervened is becoming flimsier by the day. The alleged email at the heart of the claim about Rudd cannot be found and the Government says it is a fake if it exists at all.”

Editorial in The Australian:

“Wayne Swan needs to fine-tune his response to questions concerning his interest in Mr Grant’s request for government assistance from the OzCar finance scheme for the motor industry. There is no doubting that the Prime Minister would be in serious, perhaps even terminal, trouble if the alleged email in which his staffer Andrew Charlton ostensibly asked Treasury to help Mr Grant turns up. Mr Rudd is obviously confident that it won’t. He stated in parliament that nobody in his office made representations to Treasury on Mr Grant’s behalf, he commissioned a search of office computers that could not find any such email and he has now asked the Auditor-General to investigate. If, as Mr Rudd obviously expects, the Auditor-General concludes it never existed, journalists who asserted it did will look foolish, as will Malcolm Turnbull, who demanded Mr Rudd’s resignation on the basis of alleged evidence he had not seen.”

BREAKING IT DOWN:

A) The Auditor General must be left to assess the case, and everything else is just politicians trying to score points.

There is no value in Australian politicians wasting taxpayers money by debating the topic in parliament. There are other things to focus on; let the police and the Auditor General conduct their investigations.

B) If there was no email sent, those who claimed there was one should be held accountable.

You cannot peddle rumours and get away with it.

WHAT’S YOUR OPINION?

Did Rudd or Swan offer Grant extra assistance?

Have either of these two government ministers acted irresponsibly and, if they have, should they resign?

Is too much time being spent focusing on this issue?

Should those who alleged the email be held to account?