IN THE 12 months since Kevin Rudd and Labor were elected to government, the political scene has changed completely. Though Labor is supposedly the party of change, this change is not Labor's work; Labor is, however, its beneficiary - thanks to Mr Rudd.

His first year has been divided into two parts by the global economic collapse. The first eight months can be seen as a continuation of the long period of economic growth which began under Paul Keating and consolidated under John Howard. Then things changed in September, when growing difficulties in the United States economy precipitated a series of catastrophic collapses which spread around the globe.

The style of the first part of this first year was prefigured on election night in Mr Rudd's victory speech: a strangely flat performance without flair or elegance, but showing, in the manner of its delivery, the kind of dogged determination which had brought him victory. His election strategy had been to imitate Mr Howard: younger, certainly, and with few of Mr Howard's Menzies-era preoccupations, but otherwise similar: a fiscal conservative; at times a populist.

Rudd the bureaucrat was a Labor version of Howard the suburban solicitor. The strategy was to reassure, so voters would not be frightened off changing governments. It worked well. But in consequence, once in government, Labor's program for reform was modest.

The high-profile items - ratifying the Kyoto Protocol; ending Work Choices; apologising to the Aboriginal stolen generations - were quickly achieved or set in train (though in the case of Work Choices, Mr Rudd has not gone as far as his backers in the union movement wanted). The Prime Minister's apology at the opening of Parliament was a great spectacle and a publicity coup, but - unsurprisingly - it changed nothing of substance.

Once it had scored those easy points, though, the Rudd Government had only bits and pieces left over in its swag of election promises. Its education revolution has been slow to get off the ground. The investment in broadband is yet to show results. Its solution was to set up inquiries - nearly 50 of them in its first three months.

It is a cautious, diligent way to proceed, befitting Mr Rudd's background, but it made the Government look unsure of itself. As one wit observed, the Government hit the ground reviewing.

To compound the impression of diffidence, the Government lacked a Senate majority, so controversial measures have tended to be held up there. After eight months of reviews and Senate rebuffs, voters might have been forgiven for wondering if there was much to the Rudd Government beyond hype.

The financial downturn, however, has provided an opportunity for it to show its mettle. The Government has grasped it. Its speed of action in approving spending measures, including benefits to lower-income households, in developing this week's assistance package to local government, and in accelerating infrastructure spending, has shown it to be quite the opposite of its previous image.

The response has not been error-free: the decision to guarantee all bank deposits, with hindsight, went too far and skewed market behaviour in a perilous way. The guarantee should have been capped. The assistance for the car industry will no doubt attract criticism for propping up a sector of manufacturing which might, in calmer circumstances, benefit from stronger market signals to prompt it to accept radical change. That inevitable adjustment may now have to wait. But in a fast-moving crisis, speed is needed, as the Government has realised.

The result, if polls are anything to go by, is that Australians now feel they have a government of genuine substance. Further challenges await. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, has yet to concede that the budget may go into deficit this year. He should get ready for it.

But as the skies darken and the seas rise around us, Australia under Kevin Rudd remains afloat. So far, so good.

Your call is well down our list of priorities

"YOUR call is important to us" has become one of those automatically suspect phrases, joining "the cheque's in the mail" and "your bank is pleased to announce service improvements". The Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman has announced a crackdown on phone companies that do not respond to complaints quickly or effectively. Is this a sensible use of resources? The problem here, surely, is not the technology, which is always going to be fiddly, or the contracts, which are incomprehensible by design, but the unreal expectations that phone companies encourage in their customers. Clearly a customer's call cannot be important or a computer would not be answering the phone. So why not be honest? "We couldn't care less about you or your call, frankly. Go away." It may not be terribly polite, but at least customers know where they stand. Any who persist can then be transferred with a clear conscience to the phone in the goods lift. Problem solved.