The “electoral mandate” serves a useful function as a political weapon in competitive party democracies, notwithstanding the ambiguities, multi‐layered complexities and uncertainty of many of the issues which the concept involves. The diverse uses of “mandate” indicate competing ideas in Australian politics about the responsibilities of parties to pursue commitments made during campaigns and the extent of rights to govern. This article portrays mandate not as a “theory” or “doctrine”, but as a rhetorical device that needs to be examined in the context of “contested word use” in political speech. The renewed interest in the study of rhetoric reflects the usefulness of examining multiple and layered meanings that exist under what ostensibly may appear as “empty rhetoric”, and to understand how rhetoric is used to persuade an audience of the validity of a particular action or viewpoint. While mandate often comes under attack as “meaningless”, it is a useful persuasive tool employed by politicians to consolidate their legitimacy and justify their rights to implement a political agenda and, as such, it contributes to public discourses relating to the nature of political representation.

The urban focus of crime- and street-based crime in particular- has for eons attracted the attention of criminologists. A geographic bias did not exist in all scholarly fields: anthropologists and geographers, for instance, gave greater consideration to issues and differences across locations (Donnermeyer 2014). Yet internationally, until the end of the 20th century, rural criminology "received little attention in the research literature beyond occasional descriptive glances" (Weisheit & Wells 1996, p 379; see also Barclay et al 2007; Coventry & Palmer 2008; Jobes et al 2000; Donnermeyer, Jobes & Barclay 2006). "One of the significant shortcomings of the criminological cannon", as Carrington, Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy (2014, p 464) identify, "has been its urban-centric bias': Internationally, Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy (2014, p 2) assert that "rural crime has ranked among the least studied social problems in criminology': Criminological literature has typically focused explicitly on the urban context or, at the very least, overlooked or downplayed contextual variances in geographic settings.

The election of John Cain’s government 30 years ago in April 1982 broke Labor’s 27 year electoral drought in Victoria, but the party’s elevation to the treasury benches brought with it a decade of trials and tribulations for a party intent on enacting its social and economic policy agenda. Only limited academic literature exists on this period of governance in Australia’s second most populous state. This article seeks to address this deficiency by analysing the inhibiters to executive government in the bicameral Victorian parliament by its second chamber, and by examining other impediments which confronted the governments of Cain and Joan Kirner between 1982 and 1992.

Whilst rural offending has hitherto been largely overlooked, the canon of scholarly examination of rural crime - including farm crime literature - is slowly growing. In addition to bearing financial costs for farming communities, rural crime bears significant social impacts. Implementation of crime prevention tactics and techniques is, therefore, essential to reducing farmer victimisation. Focussing on property theft from farms in Victoria, Australia, this article draws upon interviews with rural police members and survey data obtained from farmers, and considers the opportunities presented to offenders - often unwittingly by farmers themselves. It considers the situational crime prevention categories of increasing effort, increasing risk and reducing rewards - although developed for urban environments - for farmers and police in rural areas; and argues that improved capable guardianship on farms through human and electronic means, although difficult to achieve, can address farm victimisation and offending rates.

Crime devastates lives and communities: not only in cities, but in remote settings, provincial towns, smaller urbanised regional areas and on the urban fringe. Offending on farming sites has, regrettably, been hitherto a largely forgotten frontier of crime but one that warrants considerable further attention, not least because of the financial implications for farming communities but also for its sociological impacts.
This chapter will pursue pertinent issues in relation to farm crime, examining the types of thefts from farms, and the reluctance of some communities to report different types of crime. It will draw upon primary interviews conducted with Victoria Police members (interviews with author November 2013), and survey data collected between October 2013 and September 2014 (Victorian Farm Crime Survey 2014). The role and effectiveness of Victoria Police’s Agricultural Liaison Officers will be considered, challenges for contemporary rural policing explored, and how to address ingrained reticence in country communities to report crime, seek assistance when needed and overcome fear.

Revelations of the theft of firearms from Victorian MP Peter Crisp’s farm draws attention to a genuine but often overlooked link between farm crime and criminal events in urban communities.
Discussions with farm communities and Victoria Police over recent months show there is a growing trade in firearms stolen from farms across rural and regional areas by criminal elements. Police in Western Australia are also aware of the link between guns stolen from rural properties and their use in crime in the city.