But finally in Australia:

Indigenous people are still undergoing intervention with the added indignaty of the rationing of welfare.
The state of hospitals and health in Australia is still chaotic with Rudd already giving more money with no result.
The States are consulting with Rudd on the introduction and on 'who's paying' for computers in schoools. Given the uselessness of those governments ... well we might see the introduction of the current model of computers in the far distant future and I'll bet they won't funded for updating nor replacement.
Traffic congestion in our major cities is in crisis.
Gunns are still building their factory.
New AWA's have been banned but little else has changed and won't change easily.
Small employers are afraid of the proposal to return to the old draconian Unfair Dismissal laws.
Interests rates are still rising.
Petrol prices are still rising.
The cost of living is still rising.
Oh and the Japanese will still go on whaling and we'll still be in Afghanistan in 10 years and Iraq will have been long returned to peace. Ironic eh?
The Unions have formed a committee to oversees the introduction of Labor Party policy into Australia's Parliament but

Rudd's a wonderful performer on the world stage eh? Oh and Tibet what about Tibet?

Rudd certainly needs to build up a track record of practical measures before he has any chance of achieving international confidence in him and his government. Kevin's sorry speach was well recieved and it is reported that some European leaders even shed tears.

What else could our PM do?

He needs to adopt a good mix of the proven strategies to quit coal.

He needs to market and implement our green technology to 'show how we did it' to the other major coal consumers. As a current major coal exporter, we need to not only stop coal plants now, but stop coal exports now.

Regrettably, the early signs are that Rudd will thow up his hands and proclaim that he has no silver bullet, as he did with the Murray-Darling deal with the states.

It seems that only Dr Bob Brown's Greens Party have the bold policies that can make Australia a respected member of the world community.

Rudd's priorities will go nowhere whilst he remains 'hands off' on fundamental constitutional reform to steamline government and cut out the inefficiencies and massive costs under current federal-state relations.

By tweeking Howard legacies, Rudd indicates that on the political spectrum his conservative economic and social views would appear to appease the supporters of the Liberal Party and media network owners. All we have so far from Rudd is a repackaging of the staus quo.

To those of us who expected true leadership in policy direction, with a genuine new deal for Australian families, the disillusionment is already setting in. To stop the dry rot in his credability, Rudd needs to develop some bold, cohesive and innovative new policies and action plans following his 2020 Summit.

Failure to start delivering substantial reform across the board will be seen at home and abroad as a monumental wasted opportunity by a gand-standing diplomat who lacks the substance that Australia urgently needs to find its respect in a world facing numerous daunting challenges.

A well set out & argued article, thank you. The blairist tendency is too appalling to contemplate bad enough but spare us the default mode of managemental blather - Bomber was prolix but Krudd has youthful stamina and less shame. I hope that some of the glossorrhoea is just playing with the media.
The Japan omission was not a mistake but the reaction to the media attention was weak & will be counterproductive - their current PM won't be there long and the issues, from whales to wheat, are too important. Your evaluation "lack of respect and an arrogance that is not useful or constructive " is often overlooked by Australians when considering that country.
On Afghanistan I agree that any military action there is doomed and negotiation is vital. I wonder whether the new politics forming in Pakistan will act constructively?

Ludwig, dear, you have been talking the same mindless tripe for years, you have been told for years that you are wrong but still persist in the nonsense about border protection.

All Howard did was waste the resources of the army, navy and airforce to break Australian and international law in the name of winning the votes of redneck fools.

Kapeesh?

There is not much point debating the issue with you because you always claim you are right and you simply are not.

Aaaaah hahahaha haaaaaaa. Thanks Marilyn for winning my bet: that yes you would respond and no you would not be in the slightest bit nice about it.

You attribute an extreme position to me, which you have apparently gained from half-reading a few of my post on other threads. And I am tempted to attribute the opposite extreme position to you – one of completely open borders with nothing to prevent millions of people flooding into Australia. I’m sure you are not quite that stupid and I would really like to find out just where you are coming from, if you would just set your abject hatred aside and concede to have a tactful discussion.

But nooooo, not in a fit eh. I just needed to look at a few of your posts to very quickly realise what sort of a hopeless intolerance you have for other peoples’ views when they are different to yours.

In my opinion you are the very worst respondent on this forum. Just look at your previous post on this thread; A very strong infringement of the forum rules with direct flaming of a poster who had not in any way addressed you or caused you to respond in that manner.

And you apparently write under your own name, so that anyone who knows you can witness the awfully unintelligent and grossly unbalanced manner in which you think and communicate. Wow!

.
Rudd should most definitely uphold the Howard policy of strong border protection. A slackening of this policy, leading to an escalation in the arrival of leaky boats and hundreds of desperate people, would simply not be acceptable. The vast majority of the Australian citizens would strongly agree with this.

continued

But he should deviate from Howard policy by way of boosting our refugee intake to double its current number, while reducing immigration to a number only a little higher than this – about 30 000 per annum.

And he should put a great deal more effort into international aid programs, especially directed at refugee hotspots and sustainability / population growth issues. He should start by immediately increasing our genuine international aid commitment to the UN recommended minimum of 0.5% of GDP per annum.

This is the sort of thing that Rudd needs to do to boost Australia’s humanitarian effort on the world stage, and be seen to be doing so. But of course, it is not going to happen is it.

So what do you think of this Marilyn? Is there actually some stuff here that you can agree with?