Paying tax - why?

I received my tax assessment today. Before you stop reading - tax is hardly the most thrilling subject - I want to talk about what else was in the envelope.

There's a tax receipt which explains where my tax dollars were spent. It shows how much and what it was spent on. I think this is an excellent way to educate about the value of paying tax, but for some reason it feels like a cynical exercise.

The first thing I noted was that the level of Australian Government gross debt has increased from $257 billion to $320 billion. That increase has happened under PM Abbott and Treasurer Hockey who used to talk about a "debt and deficit emergency" but now they say there isn't one.

Unsurprisingly, welfare is the biggest proportion and payments to unemployed people is the smallest share (apart from "other").

Health is second highest, then the list gets interesting. Defence received more of my tax dollars than education ($5 more to be precise). I'd like to know more about health spending - for example how much of it goes on subsidising private health insurance for people with money compared to mental health services.

Recreation and culture gets the smallest amount. Luckily I prop them up by paying to go to art galleries, concerts, plays and other cultural activities.

Any mention of the environment is screamingly absent and I can only hope that some of the money going to "fuel and energy" is for development of renewable energy.

There's more information on the website. I love their commitment to plainspeaking:

Understanding tax

Australians pay tax so the government can provide services to the community.

Good to know.

Immigration is the category that upsets me because I know that I have no choice but to financially contribute to the immigration detention centres where innocent people are kept in concentration camps.

I wonder what would happen if tax payers could direct where our share of taxes was spent? I know that it wouldn't necessarily be practical, but it would be interesting to ask people. My decisions would be very different from those of the current government, but I don't resent paying tax.

Thanks to the Australian Government for the information!

Justice and fairness - casualties of fear

Funny how fundamental principles of justice and fairness are threatened whenever something like yesterday's siege in Sydney happens.

The gunman was out on bail.

First thing this morning I received a request to sign a petition to tighten up bail laws.

That didn't take long, I thought.

Extraordinary situations happen. Sadly. It's quite frightening to think about what our legal rights would look like if the laws were based on the rare event.

I think about Peter Greste, the Australian journalist currently in an Egyptian prison. He was denied bail. We signed petitions for him to be released on bail.

It seems that the presumption of innocence is the first thing that is easily thrown out when something terrible happens.

Maybe I'm a bleeding heart, but the presumption of innocence is precious to me.

Then again, we have dozens of innocent people locked up in offshore prisons, their only transgression, the temerity to seek asylum and protection. I suppose in this context,  what was done yesterday by a dangerous man known to police is very hard to accept.

The world is so out of balance.

It's interesting how all actions devalue or enhance. That balance is so delicate and now there's no balance at all.

As I despair, I remember the story behind "#illridewithyou" and a little bit of hope is restored.

Where's the transition industry policy for agriculture in Australia?

It's a sign of the times when newspaper headlines refer to something that went viral on social media. I think back to my journalism studies and it was never envisaged within the definition of news. We were still dealing with the dog bites man/man bites dog paradigm.

Because of personal circumstances, I've been taking a particular interest in the commercial realities and challenges of agriculture in Australia and I came across this article in the Toowoomba Chronicle: Darling Downs Vet's "corporate terrorism" blast goes viral.

It's well written, coherently argued and raises some striking points.

There's also last week's announcement from one of the big four banks of a 12 month moratorium on penalty interest and foreclosure action against drought affected farmers. None of the others have followed.

This prompted me to think about these problems from a public policy point of view.

Living in Melbourne (or any city) it's easy to forget about what it's like to be on a farm during drought. It's one of the most depressing and soul destroying things you can experience. The endless blue skies, unblemished by clouds, become oppressive, rather than welcome. A few years ago when Melbourne was in drought, people complained about water restrictions that meant they couldn't water their gardens every day. On a farm, vegetation disappears and the ground is just bare dirt. Animals are skin and bone. Everything is covered in dust. Hope is burned away under the relentless sun.

Not only is there no water or vegetation, there's no money. Income dries up too. We might feel the impact with an increase in food prices, but they'll creep up without being noticeable.

This image is from the Bureau of Meteorology and shows areas that have had below average rainfall in the last two years. Those red areas are Australia's prime farming areas. From their website: www.bom.gov.au

As I've watched my family's (mis)fortune on the land, I've come to the conclusion that farming, grazing, and any agricultural business is a mug's game. The investment required is enormous and the conditions required for a return - even to break even - are completely uncontrollable. The weather is central, yet is so uncertain. What other business has this challenge as central to its standard operating procedure? Add to this the impact of climate change and "free market" agreements which make market conditions even more difficult the need to borrow money is the only thing that's certain. Banks will lend it too, but have no tolerance for the natural vagaries of the industry. Call it corporate terrorism or at the very least, it's the modern equivalent of the unctuous snake oil salesman or travelling tent evangelist. The hands go out to take the money, but there's no one there when you need help.

One of the things we take for granted in the city is the ability to go to the supermarket and buy whatever food we want. Some of us are conscious about origin and try to buy local, but anyone who has ever tried to buy Australian garlic will know how hard this can be. We have a secure food supply. I don't think its continuity is assured. As more farmers are forced off the land and fewer people take it up, the real question is "who will grow our food"?

My Dad talked to me the other day about how his father was able to raise a family of four on a reasonably small farm. That's not possible anymore. What surprises me is that this is an industry going through the kind of transition that the automotive manufacturing went through in Australia, yet the support for the people who have no choice but to leave is just not there.

One bank promising not to foreclose on drought affected farmers for 12 months is not going to cut it. Where's the comprehensive public policy response? There isn't one. Farmers aren't sexy in the way cars are. They're also not concentrated in particular towns. Most regional towns and villages in Australia feel the flow on effects when the farms surrounding have no money to spend. While 12 months might bring welcome relief for farming families who are affected, it does nothing to solve the problem. What happens at the end of the 12 months? Farm debt will have grown even more and the capacity to pay still won't be there. Perhaps the banks hope that the issue will have faded from public view and they can quietly go about the business of evicting families.

The other aspect is the actions of the supermarket duopoly which distorts the market and puts further pressure on farmers.

Food is pretty important. A safe and reliable food supply is critical. It might be hard to imagine these are under threat, but without a comprehensive public policy response, we're in trouble. Some may argue that the market is operating as it should and weeding out inefficient businesses. That's probably true, but there are plenty of examples where a pure market response has been abandoned and the government has intervened.  Surely feeding the nation in a secure, sustainable way is a priority.

ETA: Today's Daily Telegraph newspaper has a comprehensive story and photographs about the situation in Walgett in NSW's west.

The Commonwealth Bank is running an appeal. Donations can be made here.

This uncertain world

The world feels so unsure right now.
On television, politicians defend laws that deprive us of liberty in the name of terrorism.
On television, the same politicians ignore the global threat that climate change poses to the whole world.
On television, the suffering caused by Ebola in Africa seems distant and apart from us.
On television, we are reassured that the Royal Melbourne Hospital is trained and ready for Ebola.
Going through security for domestic flights, the security seems no more onerous than usual; sometimes they wish to unfurl my umbrella.
Most of the time they are happy to leave it furled in the bottom of my bag.
They are polite.
Except for the man at a small regional airport who said he would need to rearrange my bag because it was a "complete mess".
I looked at him and blinked, not daring, where the air is tense with unrealised threat, to tell him to pull his head in.
Until recently this airport had no security; one just walked across the tarmac to board the waiting plane.
I wanted to go home, not to a white room with a chair, a table, greying linoleum, no windows and no lawyer.
The radio broadcasts reports of attacks, arrests and mysterious packages.
I am transported back to that place where mysterious packages and powders were easily spied.
I arrive home to discover the front security gate has been torn from its hinges.
What uprising took place while I was gone?
Walking around the neighbourhood while the AFL grand final is being played across town at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, the streets were deserted.
I crossed the road easily, for there were no cars.
Periodically, synchronised roars would arise from separate houses, punctuating the play.
I hope the crowd is safe, not vulnerable.

I'm rereading "Slaughterhouse-Five" by Kurt Vonnegut. In chapter four, Billy Pilgrim is in a train car, being held prisoner by the German army:

"When food came in, the human beings were quiet and trusting and beautiful. They shared."

If only life was like that.

Calm sanctuary in a mad world.
© 2014 divacultura

During the week I visited one of the psychiatric hospitals for which I work. The gardens are beautiful and I've already decided to book in if I should fall apart. This was my view as I ate my lunch.

Not if you're poor

Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey says that poor people don't have cars and if they do, they don't drive them much as justification for increases in the fuel excise.

I hope his press secretary is furious, but we've been lucky to gain insight into how our Treasurer thinks.

We've just learned that if you're "poor" in Australia, the Treasurer is working to keep you down, not lift you up. It seems that if Hockey is right and you're poor and don't have a car, his policies are not going to help you get a car or afford fuel if you do have a car. You are dismissed.

How about the poor people who live in outer suburbs or regional areas away from good public transport infrastructure? Life will get harder. Put this together with proposed job search requirements for people receiving unemployment benefits and the burden just got heavier.

$510.50 is the maximum fortnightly Newstart Allowance payment for a single person with no dependents. I guess that qualifies you as "poor" if you have no other resources. And don't forget if you're under 30 years old, the Abbott Government proposes no financial support for you for six months if you're not "earning or learning". I suppose if you have no income at all, you'd be considered poor.

People driving cars aren't the only people paying fuel excise. How about the trucks that deliver our food and other goods and services? These increased costs will surely flow on to the community where poor people live and need to eat and clothe themselves and send their kids to school.

Regardless of the underpinning policy merits of taxing petrol, it's awful to hear such contempt being displayed to people who are struggling. I don't expect to agree with much that the Abbott Goverment says or does, but I do expect the people who have been elected to govern, do so for ALL people, not just the rich.

What I'm wondering

I'm wondering why I keep receiving notification that peak hour train services have been cancelled due to "driver training". Surely there's a better time to train.

I'm wondering why big organisations pass the buck and fail to take responsibility and help customers (ie citizens, the public).

I'm wondering how to extricate myself from a whirlpool of buck passing.

I'm wondering why hotel bathrooms are lit to make me look at least thirty years older than I am.

I'm wondering why caterers think that luke warm water is any way to make a decent cup of tea.

I'm wondering why rice paper rolls marked as "nut free" contained walnuts - the nut to which I'm most allergic. (I can answer this one, partially...because the chicken mix from the sandwiches was used to make the rolls and the chicken mix from the sandwiches contained walnuts. Still doesn't explain the sign.)

I'm wondering why there are still people in the catering business who think that food allergies are not serious, that is potentially life threatening.

I'm wondering why a person who has requested "fructose free" food is served a plate of fruit at morning tea. Sigh. It is marginally better than cake.

I'm wondering why I have to fight so hard to be paid for my services on a regular basis.

I'm wondering why I didn't decide sooner to call it quits with a couple of clients who are bad payers.

I'm wondering why people (ie politicians) don't take responsibility for their decisions to do something different from what they "promised" in the election campaign.

I'm wondering whether there's a definition of "promise" of which I'm unaware.

I'm wondering why people don't listen.

I was wondering why a nurse working in a health care organisation was doing theatre reviews until I realised that I'm the only embedded creative and that her theatre always involves blood, while mine involves blood only sometimes.

What are you wondering about?

* Posts will be erratic this week due to other commitments. *

Cold season - excuse for TV marathon.

This weekend has been a write-off. I left the house once, today, in search of food and cold medication. I've got one of those really annoying head colds; the kind where your head feels full of fluid, your ears are itchy and every time you sneeze, it's both a relief and a violent act. It started with a sore throat yesterday. That's gone today, so hopefully I might feel reasonable by tomorrow morning.

So what is one to do when it's cold and wet outside and you're sick? Fire up the Blu-Ray player and surrender.

Yesterday started with The Master, starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams. It's apparently about the beginnings of Scientology. It's a curious film, with fine performances and a very slow pace. The slow pace suited the cotton wool in my head. I'm not sure I would have coped with the 144 minute duration otherwise.

Next came the first three episodes of The Americans, a television spy drama about Russian sleeper spies living in the US while Reagan was President. I was a bit non-plussed and was beginning to wonder whether I should abandon watching anything while ill.

Then I dusted off the Danish political drama, Borgen (Danish for "government") and was gripped from the very first moment. It's the story of a woman's rise to be Prime Minister after negotiating complex deals with coalition partners to lead a minority government. Sound familiar? I kept thinking about our former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard and wondered if she's seen it. I suppose it's a bit like a Danish version of The West Wing. (I had to swap my knitting for something I can do without watching or thinking, so I can read the subtitles.) I don't know why I waited so long.

Now, I'm waiting for The Voice to start and the latest dose of cold tablets to stop my nose running, the sneezing and the blocked ears.

Off to facilitate a leadership program tomorrow. Early to bed.

How are you?

Union corruption inquiry - what's it really for?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's announcement of a Royal Commission to investigate corruption in the union movement is hardly surprising. He can't very well legislate to bring down unions in the way the Howard Government's Work Choices was designed to do, so instead he's done something even more potent. The frame for discussion whenever unions or union officials is mentioned is that fundamentally both are corrupt and they have to prove that they are not. This is probably politically more effective than resurrecting the "dead, buried and cremated" Work Choices legislation.

As a former union official, I know the effort, dedication, sacrifice and commitment that I brought to my work. I also saw it in those around me. I didn't see corruption and believe that I would have stood up if I had. I hope so - I was never confronted with that situation, so it's hypothetical anyway.

Today I agreed with Tony Abbott when he said: ""Honest workers and honest unionists should not be ripped off by corrupt officials and honest businesses should be able to go about their work without fear of intimidation, corruption (and) standover tactics."

Listening to union leaders and Labor parliamentarians respond to news of the Royal Commission is less than inspiring; to me, they sound defensive. The only possible answer is to say "Yes! bring on the Royal Commission. We are confident about our governance. If you do find corruption then we'll say thank you because we are not corrupt. Fundamentally, we are good people doing noble work, ensuring workers have a voice." I suppose it's hard to answer that way when you know that there's an agenda to destroy you and the organisations of which you are a custodian.

The practical problem arising from the Royal Commission is the cost of being involved. There won't be financial assistance for unions required to give evidence, surrender records and be represented. These costs will come from members' dues as members' dues are the main income for most unions. While unions are busy complying with the directions of the Royal Commission they'll be stretched thin and distracted from the business of representing members, negotiating agreements, enforcing agreements and so on. Eventually, the whole thing makes them look self-interested.

It's also interesting to hear the Government rhetoric about breaches of trust and officials inappropriately using money given to them by the people they represent. Goodness me, but that's how I describe Liberal parliamentarians going to social events like friends' weddings and claiming tax payer funds in the form of travel allowance to cover their costs. I can only hear tumbleweeds when this is mentioned. I doubt we'll ever hear Prime Minister Abbott say that honest tax payers and honest citizens should not be ripped off by corrupt parliamentarians using funds to attend social events - especially if they're on his side of the House.

The worst thing is that corruption within the union movement has the ability to cause deep harm to people who are vulnerable. When Malcolm Turnbull used the term "workers" on ABC TV's Q and A last night, it sat very uncomfortably - they are not the party of the workers.  Unions are important in a just (Capitalist) society.

If I was leader of the union movement at the moment, I'd be organising two things: firstly, a coordinated plan to share the burden of the Royal Commission and secondly, buying SPC Ardmona at Shepparton and establishing it with workers as the shareholders (ie a cooperative). The first is practical and is probably happening; the second would be both brilliant PR and have a practical effect, keeping employment and opportunity in a regional town which relies on fruit growing and canning as the mainstay of its economy. It would be pretty hard to think unions are evil when they're the only ones who've done anything to save jobs.

I have a problem with governments handing gifts of money to large, overseas owned companies (in this case Coca-Cola Amatil). I don't think it should happen. However, if there's a flood of people onto the dole queue, then the $25 million sought by Coke will soon be overshadowed by the welfare bill, social costs and flow-on effects to other businesses in the region.

I'm not leader of the union movement, so I'll have to wait and see along with the rest of you. I'd be surprised if these these ideas are not being considered. In the meantime, I have changed the way I describe my past experience. I will now be describing myself as a "community campaign leader" as I see no benefit in carrying around the smelly baggage I've been lumped with as a former union official.

Today's serving has 6 priorities, 5 pillars, no boats and no substance.

Finally, I've received a copy of the Liberal party's "six key priorities", one of which is a "5-Pillar economy".  Still nothing from Labor or the Greens in my letterbox.

I'm trying to be objective as I read it.  It looks good.  It looks expensive.  There are no claims about it being printed on recycled paper or being environmentally friendly. I've never voted Liberal in my life, so objectivity is tricky.

The claim to build a "more diverse" 5-Pillar economy by building on the stuff we already do seems thin.

The pledge to save me money - "Carbon Tax gone" - seems crazy.  Has everyone forgotten the steadily increasing electricity bills that were coming in long before the carbon tax was introduce?.  What's even more interesting is the absence of any mention of their Direct Action plan to combat climate change.  Clearly this is of no consequence to the Liberals.  (How are all the farmers going to run viable farms if climate change isn't addressed, I wonder?)  It's also worth remembering that we have a price on carbon as part of a carbon trading scheme.  This is different from a carbon tax.

Point 3 is about ending the waste and debt.  This is hilarious in light of the enormously over the top Paid Parental Leave scheme.  And the loss of income from the abolition of the carbon tax.

Point 4 is about better roads and services and is accompanied by a logo of a train track!  Tony Abbott is on record saying that he won't fund urban rail, instead preferring to fund more roads.   There is not a single mention of public transport in the entire document - another clue about their attitude to climate change.


"Stop the boats" waits until point 5 with the new tag line "stronger borders".  In the following pages of the leaflet there are statements of costs under Labor but no mention of the boat buy back scheme announced last month.  What was that about ending waste?

My preferred policy position on refugees and asylum seekers is "drain the moats".

Finally the sixth priority is they'll create two million new jobs. There is absolutely no information about how this will done.

Apart from the absence of climate change and public transport, the other glaring omission is industrial relations.  I do not trust that elements of the dreadful, punitive, mean and unfair Work Choices legislation will not be introduced by an Abbott government.

It's fair enough to like or not to like the leaders of the parties, but I think it's really important to remember that they are just one person in the context of a whole party that forms government. As we've seen in recent times, there's no guarantee that the leader you vote for is the leader you get for the duration.  My hope is that people take an interest, read information and dig deeper to think about the claims being made by anyone seeking election.

A friend of mine suggested to me that we should remove personality from politics and vote purely on policy.  I don't think that's realistic.  Politics is about people as much as it's about policy and personality does matter; but it's not the only thing.

Since yesterday's post, I've been directed to a couple of handy sites to assist with the arduous task of voting in the Senate.  Below the Line provides a breakdown of how the preferences flow when you vote above the line.  (Thanks Mousicles.)

If you're not happy, Cluey Voter helps you create your very own how to vote card based on your views of the squillion parties and candidates standing.  Even if you don't decide to vote below the line, the process of thinking about each party is worthwhile.  (Thanks to Lynne for that tip.)

And if you're curious to see the propaganda being distributed in your electorate visit the Election Leaflets site.  You can upload the stuff you've collected.  They also have a "this is not an election leaflet" leaflet.

Are you still paying attention to the election?  Are you undecided?  If you're overseas, is the Australian election even on your radar?

What your letterbox reveals about politics.

My letterbox at home is not where I receive my mail.  For that I have a post office box.  I do have a "no junk mail" sticker on there, but was unsurprised to open the letterbox this afternoon and find various pieces of political propaganda, election related information, an ad for some local cleaners and an invitation to join a gym.

Of the political propaganda one comes from Family First (a how to vote card with no policy information), one from Palmer United Party (a one page 7 point policy statement) and one from the Liberal party.  This one is interesting because it does not mention the Liberal party at all.  It's a slag off against Labor.  The only way I know it's from the Liberal party is that it is authorised by "D. Mantach".  I had to google that to discover that he's Liberal party director.  Sneaky.

So based on the information I've received, PUP is by far, the most helpful.  But I won't be voting for a big kid who has lots of money and makes no sense.  And the negativity of the Liberal campaign is very unappealing.  Maybe that's why they didn't overtly put their name to it.

Family First's how to vote instruction is scant on detail.  I've gone hunting to find how they are preferencing in the Senate election.  This is really hard to do.  For any party.  People who receive postal votes have told me that the Senate's ballot paper is as long as the kitchen table.  I don't like voting above the line without understanding the way the parties have organised their preferences, but the thought of voting below the line fills me with trepidation.

The real information is from the Australian Electoral Commission giving information about voting requirements.  It's easy to identify the real stuff from the guff because the real stuff is wrapped in plastic.  They explain how to complete the ballot paper.  You can even practise voting on their website.

A quick visit to the AEC website reveals the list of registered political parties.  Well that's an eye opener.  There's a party for everything it seems.  How about the Stop CSG Party, the Pirate Party, the Smoker's Rights Party (their website is all about asking for money...maybe they could donate the price of a pack of ciggies)?  The best name must go to the Coke in the Bubblers party.  They have a nice looking website, some appealing headline positions, but no substance.  According to their website, they're still looking for candidates!  Um, someone should tell them the election is on Saturday.

It must be tricky if you're undecided, but I think undecided voters are generally also the politically disengaged.  I've completed the Vote Compass and received the same result as last time.  It's an interesting exercise in thinking about the various policy issues and how you stack up when compared to the various policies of the major parties.  Why not head over and see what you discover?

There's a referendum on with this election too.  It's about whether local government should be recognised in the constitution.  I've received nothing about this and don't really know why it's a good or a bad idea.  If I can't find out something easily before Saturday, I'll be conservative and stick with the status quo.

The Greens and the Australia Labor Party are absent from my letterbox.   I live in a safe Labor seat, but that's no reason to ignore me.  Or maybe they are the only parties to respect my request for "no junk mail".

I'm off to fall asleep in front of a political interview now.

My first political poll

I was just polled!  It's the first time in this election campaign.  It was all automated too.  I just had to press buttons on my phone.

The first question was about whether I am eligible to vote in the seat of Melbourne.  I'm not.  I expected the survey would finish but it didn't.

I was asked about my voting intentions and how firm I am in relation to those intentions.

I was asked about how I voted last time.

Then I was asked what I thought of the job done by sitting Green member for the seat of Melbourne, Adam Bandt.  Clearly they missed that first bit where I said I wasn't eligible to vote in that seat.

Lastly they asked me how old I was and for my gender (press "two" for female...always second).

Curiously, I have a silent number at home which is where they rang me.  Wonder how they got the number?

Have you been polled?  Do you do the survey?

If I'm yelling at the TV, it must be an election year.

I wasn't going to write about politics again.  But it's all that's in my brain today.  It was all the tweeting during last night's episode of Q & A and being home today with the radio on and reading Kerry-Anne Walsh's book, The Stalking of Julia Gillard...so here we are.

This week's new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has announced a proposal to reform the Australian Labor Party's rules governing the election of leader, putting more power in the hands of members.  Ordinarily I'd be thinking this is a good thing, but its announcement was tainted when Rudd stated it would prevent a leader being told, "OK sunshine, it's over."

This little post-script made it clear that the rush of reformist's zeal gripping the nation's PM had less to do with democracy and was more about himself; after all, he's had the last three years to raise such ideas.  If they'd been adopted though, Julia Gillard may still be Prime Minister which wouldn't have been very convenient for Rudd.

Thought I'd share my tweets from last night when there was a lot of discussion about the proposed changes.

9:42pm: Rank & file members need honest reporting to make decisions on leadership. Um, anyone seeing the flaw? #qanda

9:45pm: Unions are made up of ordinary working people. Don't get much more grassroots than that v #qanda

That was in response to Malcolm Turnbull's assertions that the Liberal Party is a grassroots party.

9:48pm: Is now the time to talk about a Republic where we can truly choose our head of state? #qanda

Again, in response to cries about the Australian people's "right" to choose our Prime Minister.  We don't have that right.  We elect a local member to the House of Representatives.  The party which has the most local members wins government!  Whoever is the leader of the party with the most members is the Prime Minister.  The leader of the both major parties is chosen by a collegiate vote of the parliamentary party.  Last time I checked.

9:50pm: Stop the quotes. #qanda

In response to sloganeering ("Stop the Boats") rather than policy making on the vexed issue of asylum seekers.

9:57pm: This discussion wouldn't be needed if position of PM should never have been cheapened in the first place. #qanda

Well that one was obviously composed in a hurry! But you get my drift.

9:58pm: The PM is NOT chosen by the people whichever party is elected Malcolm! #qanda

See above.  "Malcolm" refers to Malcolm Turnbull.

10:04pm: Haven't we been in an election campaign since we elected a hung parliament? #qanda

Again, Mr Turnbull moved me to this tweet as he said that the ALP should either be governing or be campaigning.

10:10pm: I don't watch parliamentary debates. Too much shouting. #qanda

Turnbull again as he defended his leader, Tony Abbott's refusal to debate the Prime Minister anywhere but in the parliamentary chamber.  Seriously.

10:11pm: Remote/regional health education and service requires symmetrical broadband. #qanda

Six months ago I had never heard the term "symmetrical broadband", now the lack of it keeps me awake at night.  Malcolm Turnbull's belief that there isn't a need for fast speeds for both upload and download to the internet is just plain wrong.  A mental health education program I am currently managing provides education to nursing, medical and allied health students in a regional area.  We currently limp along on domestic broadband and often the service fails.  This needs to be fixed.

10:23pm: What colour was the army in Egypt? #qanda

Ok, this one was lost in translation.  As they talked about opposition plans to tackle climate change by killing emissions trading and introducing a green army, I visualised the green army turning on the government demanding action.  See the link?

10:30pm: The questions are making more sense than the answers tonight. #qanda

I tuned out, frustrated at the lack of clarity in thought, speech and action.

So that was my night.  No tweets up on the screen this week (I had one the previous week).  It's an interesting way to interact and see others' reactions.

Are you on Twitter?  What do you tweet about?

You can follow me @divacultura

Observations from the balcony of a Shakespearean drama - aka Australian parliament

Sitting on the tarmac at Adelaide airport waiting for the plane's doors to close, I received a text message from a friend.  The gist was that my friend was watching the news and couldn't believe this was happening again.  I barely had enough time to read it before I was instructed to turn my phone off.  I guessed the news to which she referred was probably about the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. I'd briefly caught up on the news while waiting for my flight and it seemed that the leadership rumblings were gathering steam.

The moment we landed and were given permission to turn phones back on, I dived for mine.  My phone went crazy with messages about what was unfolding.  My friends and I often talk politics and as a former union leader they often ask my opinion.

I couldn't contain myself and announced to fellow passengers that Australia had a new Prime Minister and his name was Kevin Rudd.  Again.

I shook my head and worried about the off-handedness with which the office of Prime Minister was being treated by the ALP;  surely changing leaders was the domain of the opposition party?  What would the Australian public think about this attitude?  Would we trust them to hold the high office again?  I worried.  Then I wondered about who would want to be leader in such a situation?  Some would argue that it's a selfless and necessary act to take it on, but that's not my view.  I'm watching a Shakespearean drama play out and believe that the fourth act will see Kevin Rudd sitting on the windswept opposition benches kept company by a few people who didn't resign and managed to hold their seats and some tumbleweeds.  But he'll be leader.  It feels like that's what it's all about.

When I arrived home and turned on the television I started to understand more about what had happened and where people had lined up.  Bill Shorten had previously been one of the leaders to oust Rudd and replace a Prime Minister in his first term with Julia Gillard, the first woman to hold the office.  He swore support for her right up until last night when he switched to back Rudd.  I'd be nervous if he was backing me.  Did he even stop to wipe the knife?

Labor leaders often seem to make their best speeches in defeat.  Julia Gillard was magnificent last night.  I tried to imagine how I would be feeling if I had gone through the same thing.  It was hard to imagine such composure.  The other thing that struck me about her speech was its lack of ego - service was truly at her heart.

The next day, today, former Prime Minister Gillard sat on the backbenches while colleagues sang her praises.  It's a bizarre business, politics.  Prime Minister Gillard was not a perfect leader.  Well the news is that no one is!  No one has been!  No one is likely to be!  Perfection is not required of our male leaders; they seem to be given space to err.  The bar for a woman in the role was set to an unattainable height.

Echoing many of the sentiments on twitter, I now wait for the moment when Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott is asked about whether their wives are gay, thereby questioning their own sexuality as endured by Julia Gillard. I know that it won't happen. It's not really the point either, for if it did happen it would mean all respect had gone.  I do like to cling to the thought that a new path has been cut and that our second female Prime Minister will not have quite as hard a time and she will have Julia Gillard to thank for that.

Being a woman in Australia today

It's a hard day to be a woman in Australia.  Yesterday, we were confronted with the disgusting and demeaning description of our Prime Minister Julia Gillard based on body parts with a nasty sexual undercurrent.  Today it's news of emails which are "derogatory and explicit" about women being circulated within the Australian Defence Force.  We're told that some of the perpetrators are senior leaders within the ADF.  All week the air waves have been filled with news about Jill Meagher's killer and his "career" of sexual violence against women and the failures of the parole system to keep violent offenders off our streets.  The coach of the Australian male soccer team also said that "women should shut up in public".

Last night I heard a female commentator effectively saying that while ever female genital mutilation and so-called honour callings exist, no right to be upset about the emails, the "jokes", the snide disrespect and behaviour exists.

Now I'm hearing a male caller to radio saying that sexism seems worse because women scream about it louder these days.

EXCUSE ME!  YES, I'M GOING TO PUSH BACK AGAINST SEXIST BEHAVIOUR AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT.  IT'S NOT OKAY.

When it happens to the Prime Minister and other men with power and authority to act against the perpetrators do nothing, then a general attitude of disrespect flows through the rest of our community.

To me, sexism and sexual harassment are as offensive and damaging as racism.  It hurts to be viewed as anything less than a person - a whole person with intelligence and emotions and talents.   Why should I be viewed differently, treated differently, shown disrespect, have my competence criticised, merely because I am a woman?  I can think of no good reason.

I remember turning up to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission once when I was a union official to represent a group of workers who were mainly men.  A dispute had been notified because of the employer's breaches of the enterprise bargaining agreement which laid out employment conditions.  Because of my capacity as a negotiator and advocate I was often sent to deal with things like this - I could solve the problem.  As I approached the front door I saw this tall, strapping man waiting for someone.  I thought there was a good chance that he was the workplace delegate.

I introduced myself and confirmed he was indeed the delegate.

His response was this: "Oh, so they sent us a girly," as he looked me up and down.

What a position to be put in.  I was reduced to being a vagina and breasts which in his mind seemed to mean I also had no brain.

Luckily I was sure of my capacities and knew that I had the backing and respect of the senior men within the union.  I gave him the opportunity to recover: "Sorry?  I didn't hear you..."

He repeated the same statement.

I shook my head and told him to sit down and say nothing unless addressed specifically.

We were appearing before another "girly" while the employer was represented by a male lawyer.

I won the day on behalf of the members.  From that moment, the delegate thought I was so fantastic I had to contend with him trying to follow me into my hotel room at the end of the day.  He didn't succeed and from that time on he was my greatest champion.

Imagine a world where he had confidence about whoever the union sent to represent the members and judgments of competence would be based purely on performance.  If I had been less experienced and lacked confidence, I could well have failed to perform as a result of his treatment.

At another time I remember being asked by a male employee (who was my junior) if I was considered to have large breasts.  The question was asked in front of other people in a public place.  After I caught my breath I looked him in the eye and asked him whether he was considered to have a small penis.  He blushed and realised what he had done.  I don't know if "tit for tat" is the right way to respond.  I wanted him to feel what I was feeling, to see what it was like to be degraded in that way.  It certainly had that impact.

In the lunch room today, I found myself eating lunch with four other women.  I initiated a conversation about the anti-woman atmosphere.  One of the women related a story of attending a law lecture in her first year at university and the lecturer proclaimed that women shouldn't practise law.  She went onto finish her degree at another university and headed out into a law firm where she was one of two women in the team.  "Team" lunches were held at a club that allowed only men and the boss regularly expressed frustrations about the problems caused by women practising law.

Even watching Celebrity Apprentice the other day, I noticed that in the team of four which had three men and one woman, it was the woman who fetched the soup.

I've worked with some wonderful men.  I really enjoy working with men.  I also enjoy working with women.  I love working with people who are passionate about what they do and enjoy being around others who are passionate and able.  I don't care if they're male or female.  I certainly don't think all men lack respect for women but I do think there's a bad atmosphere at the moment and it starts with the leaders.

So I will make no apology for calling out sexist behaviour.  I will do it loudly and I will keep doing it because that's the only way that people learn.  I hope you will too.

Campaigning and bullying are NOT the same thing.

I wasn't going to, but there's something else that occurs to me about this whole Alan Jones thing.  It's prompted by statements labelling the social media campaign protesting against Jones' comments "cyber bullying".

While listening to Jon Faine on ABC 774 yesterday morning, a woman called to object to this label.  She broke down as she spoke about losing a child recently to cyber bullying.  She didn't want what had happened to her child to be diminished by Alan Jones and 2GB co-opting the term.

I don't think that an organised social media campaign can legitimately be characterised as cyber bullying.  Firstly, I don't think that a social media campaign is that much different from a traditional campaign where people write letters, call talk-back radio, gather signatures on paper petitions, organise town hall meetings, go doorknocking etc.  The key difference is that social media tools allow people to speak and be heard by a very large audience.  In fact there is potential to connect on a global level without leaving the home.

Secondly, cyber bullying is bullying, it's just the tools that are different. That's not what is going on here.

I'm happy to disclose that I signed the online petition calling for Jones' removal following his comments.  I will also tell you that I encouraged friends to also sign the petition using Twitter and facebook.  I did more than sign, I've engaged in face to face conversation with people and this is the second piece I've written on this blog.  (You can read the first piece here.)  In days gone by, gathering signatures for a petition required pounding the pavement, setting up a stall on the street, talking to customers coming into your business about signing, passing the petition around at work.  Now it requires some drafting, an online account, the press of a button and a social media network.  Same outcome - names in support of a proposition; different tools and timeframe.

Applying glib labels to dismiss social media campaigns is really an expression of grief and fear at the loss of power.

Before social media, the power to be heard instantly sat firmly in the hands of people like Alan Jones - people who are paid to broadcast their opinions, stir up controversy and incite outrage.  The microphone was their tool and they had the power to speak uninterrupted.  People could engage in the discussion by calling talk-back, but the power still resided with the broadcaster with the power to flick the "kill" switch on any caller without warning.  From my own experience of calling the ABC, my call is first screened by a producer to assess what I want to talk about.  (I'm not in 2GB's broadcast area, and if I was I wouldn't listen and would be unlikely to call.  I have never called Alan Jones and can't vouch for their process.)

Now social media takes out these filters and time lags and gives anyone with access to a computer or smart phone the ability to broadcast or publish without interruption.  Broadcasters and other traditional media, no longer sit in the all-powerful position.  The power has been dispersed and they are just another voice in the population and they will receive feedback immediately and en masse about what they say.

In my opinion, this power shift is exciting.  It's also challenging.  Whenever power is challenged in a society it's significant.

So Alan Jones and 2GB need to suck it up, as they say in the classics.  They need to wear the consequences of their words and actions.  They need to come to terms with this power shift.  If their values genuinely align to their rhetoric about democracy, they should be dancing in the streets!

Bullying of any kind should not be tolerated.

If you'd like to read and sign the petition, follow this link.

Door knocking - to open or not?

When people knock on my front door and I'm not expecting them, I don't usually open the door.  I'll ask who it is as I look through the fish eye peep hole and that will be the end of the encounter.  They are usually sales people and I'm not in the market for what they're selling.

They want to put me on a plan which will only work if I combine my gas and electricity. I entered into this conversation once and said at the very beginning that I don't have gas connected.  They said it didn't matter.  The deal sounded good.  They got all the way to the end and then realised that I really wasn't kidding about not having a gas connection.  I wasn't eligible for the deal.  What a waste of time.  I don't talk to them anymore.

Or they want to sign me up for pay TV.  When I told one salesman I wasn't interested he told me he didn't believe that I wasn't and wanted to know why.  I told him that I really didn't have to explain myself.  He called back (through the still closed door) "it's because of the internet isn't it?  They're not the same you know?"  It wasn't because of the internet but even if I was interested in paying to watch television that I would hardly ever see and when I did there would be nothing to watch, his tone wasn't making me inclined to let him sell it to me.

When I have opened the door I have flashes of Bernard in the first episode of Black Books avoiding doing his tax.  He invites the religious door knockers in and engages them in conversation.  They don't know what to do; it's never happened before...

Today, the door knocker was one of my local councillors. Today I opened the door.  On a fairly hot afternoon he is out door knocking the neighbourhood and talking to constituents.  He was from the ALP, but I would have been happy to talk to anyone who is prepared to pound the pavement and engage with the community.

I commented that I'd been impressed that the Mayor had come by a few months ago.  I was sorry that I had missed the opportunity to speak to him but pleased to come home and find a card and his invitation to call him about any local issues.

Door knocking is hard work, but it can win elections - especially if you're the only one doing it.  There is nothing at all like the power of the face to face conversation at a person's home.  I learnt this during the 2007 federal election campaign where I led my union's Your Rights At Work campaign in the crucial seat of Solomon.  (It was held by the other side, sat on a thin margin and was seen as necessary for Labor to win federally.  We won it, with an even thinner margin. As it turned out, if we hadn't won it, Labor would still have won government.)

Michael who visited today was friendly and interested, a good start for any conversation.  He asked me if there was anything I was particularly concerned about locally.  I put in my pitch for the return of the pop up park to Yarraville village.  Now that the warm weather is back, I realise how quickly the pop up park had become the heart of the village. I miss it.  I asked him how his door knocking was going and he said that people are generally pleased to talk to him.  He'd only had a couple of refusals and a few people who wanted to argue.  Nothing wrong with an argument, I reckon;  it's better than apathy.  Argument at least shows a level of engagement.

He was about to turn away and I asked him if he would like a cool drink.  He looked like he was going to say no, but then he said yes.  I gave him a cold glass of sparkling mineral water and it looked like it went down very well.  (One of the tools of influence is to accept hospitality when offered.  He also looked thirsty.)  We stood on the front step continuing our conversation.  I discovered that he saved two years' worth of annual leave so that he could door knock for this election.  Whatever else could be said about him, that deserves respect - it says something about his commitment to the community.

It will be interesting to see if anyone else comes knocking.  I'll be equally happy to speak to them and even offer a cool drink.

"It was nice to talk to you," he said has he waved and walked down the steps.

Who has knocked on your door lately?  Do you talk to them?

Lowering the tone - Alan Jones' "apology"

I've got hay fever that is worse than the flu.  My head is blocked up and I have to turn the television right up to hear it.  None of that has stopped me hearing Alan Jones' statement following his latest inappropriate attacks on the Prime Minister and her father.  

One snippet particularly caught my attention.  Jones said: "Those people who have complained about what I said about the Prime Minister and the language I used are using vile language in their comments about me. That apparently is OK."  (You can read a report on the whole thing here.)  Jones made this statement

I don't listen to Alan Jones' program.  I live in Melbourne and he doesn't broadcast here.  If I lived in Sydney, I know that I wouldn't tune in.  But I do know that lots of people do.  As a result, as much as I may rail against someone like Jones, he is actually a powerful thought leader in a significant sector of the community.

The comment I've quoted above shows that Jones doesn't understand this.  It is him - and other broadcasters like him - who have changed the tone of public discourse.  His abusive tirades mean that vile, vitriolic attacks are the norm these days.  He has created the environment himself and lowered the benchmark of acceptability.

I know that the shock-jocks are all about inflaming and arousing.  Luke warm isn't part of their repertoire.  I'd prefer a more intelligent, thoughtful and moderate discussion.  (Moderate in temperature.)  It is a bit much that one of the biggest bullies there is, is now pouting because his own bile has been put on a plate and set down in front of him.  

I deliberately use the term "bully".  Jones' latest comments were attributing motivation to our Prime Minister's dead father.  Only a bully throws a punch at someone they know can not retaliate.

I think we're better than this.  I hope we're better than this.  I'd love to have the mainstream media focussed on thoughtful and intelligent discussion and political commentary.  Until then, people like Alan Jones set the tone of public discourse in Australia.  It's great to see people taking a stand against this violent and bullying approach by pressuring advertisers.  It will be interesting to see whether money really does talk.  I think there will be a flurry and then everything will go back to the way it was.  

I'd love to be surprised.

Boats and cows - where do you stand on the asylum seeker question?

Why do people express more anger about the mistreatment of cattle in Indonesian abattoirs than they do about the plight of people seeking asylum?

This question was posed by Jon Faine on local ABC radio this morning as decent, moral and practical policies to address the issue of people seeking asylum arriving by boat continue to elude the country's leaders.

Many callers protested that they were outraged.  The point was made that the level of outrage expressed by the community to political representatives when Four Corners aired secretly filmed footage of cattle being cruelly mistreated in Indonesian abattoirs was so overwhelming that Government immediately suspended live cattle exports to Indonesia.

Whatever you think about that decision and its execution, it's interesting to see how quickly things can move if there is a will.  There's a direct link between political will and public opinion.

In the wake of over a hundred people drowning at sea as they made their way to Australia to seek refuge from horrors at home, the leaders' rhetoric is still framed around blame for the deaths.   A few politicians of all colours have expressed frustration at this situation and are pressing for a swift response.  There's lots of nodding when they say this.  Sometimes words like "we're prepared to negotiate" are said.  We saw it on Q & A last night from Senator George Brandis.  He repeatedly expressed an interest in negotiating but then reverted to standard Liberal Party dogma along the lines of "our policy is better than yours - send them to Nauru.  It worked for John Howard.".  Genuine willingness to negotiate was not evident.

Labor, represented on Q & A last night by Senator Kate Lundy, also marked clear parameters for the negotiations: "we'll negotiate as long as our framework remains in place".  It was so vague I can't remember what that framework is, but it doesn't sound like serious, open-minded, interest-based negotiation.

This is a win-lose battle.  Sadly, the real losers are people whose situation in their home countries is so dangerous and the global support for these people so inadequate that they desperately put their lives - and money - in the hands of people smugglers.

Back to the question about cows and people....

I contemplated the question objectively and wondered whether cows prompt outrage because they don't have a voice of their own. They can't protest about their situation or speak to the media so people need to do it for them.   A woman called and expressed this very view.  I was nodding in agreement as she said exactly what was on my mind.  Then she said this: "Animal cruelty wouldn't be an issue in Australia if the White Australia Policy had not been abandoned."

I stopped nodding.

What has happened here that there can be such a lack of feeling for fellow human beings? Sadly, the policy response to this difficult question feeds the disconnection.  Boats are demonised. The people on them are painted as rich people who indulge in civil disobedience by destroying their documents. Myths about the legality of the right to seek asylum abound. People drown at sea.

Politics is obscuring the deeper moral question - what is our responsibility to help people in need? How do we help them?

Political healing

The nightly news is full of proclamations of commitment to healing.  A couple of days ago, it was a very different story.  Healing was the last thing on anyone's mind as the knives were sharpened and wielded publicly as the ALP brawled over who should (or should not) lead the party and therefore the country.

It's good to hear it being considered.  Healing in the aftermath of conflict is something often overlooked.  When I am asked to mediate a dispute, the focus is on resolving the conflict and little attention is paid to what happens next.  Resolving the conflict is certainly important, but it's not the end of the story.  Especially in the context of workplace conflict.

When hostility is openly directed towards others, the instinct is often to fight back.  If this dynamic is left alone for too long it is that much harder to have a healthy relationship once the conflict is resolved.  It's even more difficult when the hostility has been hidden, rather than in the open and questions of bullying arise.

Most people probably don't expect too much of politicians.  I think this is a shame.  Public service through the holding of public office should be a noble thing to be respected and rewarded.  But when the media is telling nothing but a story of jealousy, disloyalty, thwarted ambition, midnight coups and stealth campaigns to undermine leaders, it's hard to cast our leaders in a positive light. These plots are what Shakespeare wrote about in his enduring stories.

The stories of conflict are compelling.  They are hard to turn away from, holding a grim fascination.  I will admit to being drawn in despite feeling shame at the behaviour of those I worked so hard to get elected in 2007.  As the conflict is over (for now?) the story is less compelling.  Watching people make friends again and talk off a script about healing has no drama.  I work with people to resolve conflict, so normally I find this stuff really interesting.  I wonder why?

If the healing had been concentrated on in a serious way perhaps the so-called midnight coup that saw Kevin Rudd ousted as Prime Minister may have been avoided.  We all know that it went ahead.  If the healing had been concentrated on in a serious way after that unprecedented action, perhaps the we wouldn't have a hung parliament now.  If the healing had been concentrated on in a serious way...and so it goes.

At other times I become more ruthless and think the biggest mistake in any coup is leaving a warm body, with a beating heart which can be resurrected later.  By then that heart won't only be beating, it will be filled with vengeful thoughts, if not hatred.

The ends were left loose, unexplained.  There was pain and ego.  The vanquished Kevin Rudd was always going to fight to get his crown back.  Even when it was clear he couldn't win, he went ahead anyway, completing the ritual of political death.

Perhaps the act of bringing the leadership speculation to a head using the formal mechanisms within the ALP has also been part of the healing process.  It may have been the necessary thing to close that chapter and get on with the next.

Healing can be painful.  Think of what it takes to heal an injury - I tore my gastrocnemius (the big muscle in the calf) a few years ago.  The injury was swift and the pain over in a second.  The healing took weeks of intense focus and painful visits to the physiotherapists.  And I still need to be aware that I have a weakness in that leg and be careful.

Same with healing after conflict.  I wonder if they're equipped?

The National soap opera - what's on today?

What a big day in Australian politics!  The National soap opera concludes another episode with a cliff hanger.

Deposed former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd calls a press conference from the US in the middle of the night to announce his resignation as Foreign Minister.  My first reaction was "finally!" until I realised he was not resigning from Parliament.  So while he ceases to be a Minister, he remains in Parliament.  Suddenly he has a little more freedom to campaign, free from the constraints of a ministerial portfolio and cabinet.

It really is a cliff hanger.  Tonight Minister after Minister has explained to the world why Kevin Rudd is bad, was bad, has always been bad and shouldn't lead the Australian Labor Party and should not be Prime Minister again.  Meanwhile, Rudd needs to get back to Australia and deal with Prime Minister Julia Gillard's announcement of a caucus ballot for the leader's position.

Kevin Rudd's announcement brings the leadership rumblings to a head.  For now.  What are the possibilities?

1. Kevin Rudd gets back to Australia and decides not to contest the leadership.  He would still be in Parliament, so Labor and the Australian people are left wondering what it's all been for.  He won't be allowed back into the Ministry, but can Julia Gillard ever function as a leader with Kevin Rudd sitting on her backbench?  I don't believe she can.  Flick the switch and the rumblings will start again.  The soap opera will never end.

2. Kevin Rudd gets back to Australia and decides to resign from Parliament.  In a hung Parliament this has dire consequences as the government would effectively be brought down.  Surely the objective is to hang onto Government.

3. Kevin Rudd challenges for the leadership in Monday's ballot and wins.  If what people are saying tonight gives an indication, he will find it hard to fill his Ministry.  And he has to contend with the independent MPs on whose support Julia Gillard relied to secure Government.  They have said that all bets are off if the Labor leader changes.  Except Andrew Wilkie, who has already withdrawn support for the Government because of the back down on poker machine reform, will support Kevin Rudd.  Hopefully Julia Gillard and the ALP would learn from this experience and understand that if she is rolled, she needs to get out.  How Kevin Rudd is even still in Parliament is beyond me.  The coup that rolled Kevin Rudd wasn't finished - they left the body warm, breathing and able to rise again and seek revenge.

4.  Kevin Rudd challenges for the leadership in Monday's ballot and loses.  Any loss could be by a little bit or by a lot.  One would think that a loss would surely mean he needs to go, but what does that mean in a hung parliament with a majority that can be no slimmer?  If Labor is to hold onto government, he needs to hang around on the back bench until a general election is called and then announce that he will not recontest his seat.  If he loses by a little bit, I can not imagine that he will not hang around and try again.  In the mean time, we, the Australian public will then be watching the whole soap opera again.  The speculation will continue.

Personally, I'm no fan of Kevin Rudd.  I think he showed much weakness as a leader but also much intellectual capacity.  I thought his prosecution of the AWB kickback scandal was very well done; but has anyone been brought to justice?  The issue fell off the table once Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister.  However, I think that we should remember that he delivered Labor a wonderful and important election victory in 2007 and his record shows him as the most popular Prime Minister of all time.  Surely these things make him deserving of some respect.

If the leadership coup that delivered Julia Gillard the keys to the Lodge had to happen, then it was a mistake to rub his nose in it by trashing this legacy.  He's got that steely flash in his eye and he's determined.  Kevin Rudd is not like other people; they would have stepped out of Parliament after being ousted from the Prime Ministership by his colleagues.

My hope is that he is true to his word when he talks about the interests of the Australian people and the ALP. My worry is that he and I mean very different things when we talk about the interests of the Australian people and the ALP.  The ALP is acting like they are in opposition, or like they hold a 40 seat majority.  Neither of these is true now, but one of them is likely to be true very soon if this isn't sorted.

Member for Watson, Tony Burke, said tonight on 7:30 that the government needed to do two things.  Shame he didn't list 1) choose a leader, and 2) get on with it.

Running parallel to these shenanigans, I am facilitating various of programs about leadership.  I'm immersed in the theory and practice of leadership and very conscious of functional and dysfunctional leadership behaviour. This leads me to think "you need to come on one of my leadership courses".  Seriously.