Decision 2010: Australian federal election

"The people have spoken, but it's going to take a little time to determine what they said."

~ Bill Clinton

These words describe perfectly the situation Australia faces in the coming week. Last night, Australia voted in a federal election, to decide how its 150 'divisions' would be distributed. The side that gets itself elected in 76 divisions is the side who gets to form government.

The election was being touted as the closest in Australian history, and it did not disappoint. I spent last evening watching the drama unfold on the ABC, and in the end, after two hours of analysis, the panel could only say, "We have no idea."

When I went to bed, the governing Australian Labor Party (ALP) was elected or leading in 72 divisions, and the opposition Liberal/National Coalition in 73. Needless to say, it would be the smallest margin between the two major sides, ever. It looks almost set to be the first hung parliament in Australia in 70 years.

73 and 72 add up to 145. The remaining 5 divisions are split between 4 independent members and the first Green ever to be elected into the Australian lower house. The Green and one of the independent members are likely to vote with the ALP. The other 3 have conservative backgrounds, and are more likely to side with the Coalition. If that's the case, left-of-centre members add to 74, and right-of-centre members add to 76. The Coalition has the upper hand; but at the end of the day, anything can happen, and nobody has a clue who will be the Prime Minister of Australia at this time next week.

This result was actually a bit of a shock. Every poll released on the last day before the election had the ALP ahead by a razor-thin margin. It would either be a Labor hung parliament or a bare Labor majority. The Coalition was only given an outside chance.

As a strange election, it had strange beginnings. Labor's term actually constitutionally lasts until November. Julia Gillard decided to call a snap election just weeks after deposing Kevin Rudd as Labor leader and Prime Minister. Indeed, it would seem her initial popularity was enough to steer Labor to an easy victory. But as the campaign progressed, Labor had what the media called a "disastrous" week, opening the door to Tony Abbot, leader of the Coalition.

With several very close seats, postal votes and recounts could still alter the makeup of the lower house. If the situation changes to 72 for the Coalition and 73 for Labor, and the other members split towards their "natural" leanings, then we would end up with 75 for the Coalition, and 75 for Labor. In such a case, neither party might be able to form a government. Parliament could then immediately dissolve, and a new election called.

Constitutional crisis, anyone?

UPDATE: Labor has won the backing of the Green AND 3 of the independents, allowing them to form government with a razor-thin majority of 76 to 74. Julia Gillard will continue as Prime Minister.

Justice will be served...in a few weeks...months...years...

A serial killer is caught when he's 40 years old. The trial comes after 2 years, takes 6 years, and sentencing comes after another year. He's sentenced to the legal maximum of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, but he's already served 9. He appeals, and the appeal takes up 7 years, with the same result. He files for a second appeal, which similarly takes up 7 years, and changes nothing. At this time, 23 years have elapsed. The serial killer serves the remaining 2 years of his sentence, and is then paroled on account of "good behaviour." He is now 65 years old, upon which he begins to collect pension from the government.

What is wrong?

That was all hypothetical, but I am, of course, talking about the Canadian judicial system, which is probably about as ferocious as...well...a bunny. I will use the case of Robert Pickton as a case study. By the way, if you're not feeling anger pulsating through your blood at the end of this, you have no soul.

Pickton was charged with 27 counts of murder in 2002. The trial started in January 2006. The first six counts were decided in December 2007: guilty. Pickton was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under Canadian law. In January 2008, the guilty verdict was appealed, stalling the trial of the other 20 counts (one had been thrown out on lack of evidence). By June 2009, the Supreme Court of BC finally announced its decision: the convictions would stand. So the appeal went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, in June 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada made the final decision: the convictions would stand.

The victims families waited for over 8 years from the time Pickton was charged to when he was convicted. Eight arduous, stressful, torturous years.

Oh, by the way, what happened to the other 20 charges?

Merely that, yesterday, they were stayed. Yes, STAYED. This is an affront to justice. It is a complete disregard of common decency. It is a slap in the face to the victims' families, who won't even get to at least hear the word "guilty" being pronounced. Worst of all, it is a gigantic, hulking middle finger to the victims themselves.

Oh, and I haven't even gotten to the weakness of the sentencing itself. Sure, human rights dictates that we must avoid handing out cruel and inhumane punishment, but at least make Canadian law have more teeth by installing consecutive sentences! Right now, Canada operates under concurrent sentencing: all sentences are served at the same time. Do we really want Pickton, or any other serial killer for that fact, free again, ever? At least, with consecutive sentencing, Pickton would have no chance to get out for at least 150 years.

Is it any wonder felons don't think twice before commiting a crime in this country?