Follow the Leader

What you see depends on where you stand.

You know what I mean? If I sit at my desk, I can see the palm trees and the giant Moreton Bay fig in the yard. It’s a vista of rich green shapes that fills the window. But if I move about 5 steps to my boss’s desk, the green growth that fills my window is only a small part at the edge of his vision. He sees mainly blue-grey sky, grass, and beyond that, the river reflecting the mood of the sky.

Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard is in a very different place now to where she was just a month ago, and I imagine her view is very different from the back benches. More importantly, Ms Gillard’s view of the future has changed too. I don't know what it is that she sees, but I know it's different, because her perspective is different.

Kevin Rudd has been Prime Minister before, so the view is distantly familiar, but the environment and challenges are different.

Remember  that our views have changed too. Where a month ago our leader was a red-headed woman, it’s now a silver haired man. Change is emotional, for those involved and for those looking on. As a Change Manager, I should be aware of this, and in a professional capacity, I certainly am. As an observer and biased commentator on the political situation, I seem to be less astute.

There is still so much bad feeling lingering after the spill. I had thought that perhaps the Rudd fans who’d been so depressed after the June 2010 spill would have regained their equilibrium and be ready to get on with the job. Equally, I hoped that the Gillard supporters would accept that whether this year’s spill was right or wrong, warranted or not, restoring Rudd to the Prime Ministership has given the ALP a genuine opportunity to win the election and retain government.

The acceptance, the unity I was hoping for just isn’t evident. There is still pronounced ill-feeling, most of it aimed at Kevin Rudd. Those who supported Ms Gillard while Mr Rudd – in their opinion - destabilized the party and white-anted the leader refuse to forgive and forget. Some vow to boycott the ALP and vote Green. Others are still incoherent in their rage at what was done to our first female Prime Minister.

Perhaps we should take notice of how the Australian cricket team has behaved since their spill. South African-born coach Mickey Arthur was never well accepted by Australian cricket fans, so after a string of disappointing performances by the Aussies, Mr Arthur was sacked by Cricket Australia.

The Aussie fans were pleased to see the end of Mickey Arthur, particularly when he was replaced by Aussie bloke Darren Lehmann, better known to all as “Boof”. Boof doesn’t say much to the media. He gets results, and grotesque failure by the Aussie top and middle orders notwithstanding, we almost beat the Poms last weekend in the first Ashes test. No-one expected that.

Unlike politics, the cricket spill seemed to be surgically precise. Mickey was gone, Boof was in, and everyone was happy.

Except Dave Warner. And Mickey Arthur. And Michael Clarke and Shane Watson. First of all, Dave Warner, banished from the Australian team for two tests because of unacceptable off-field behaviour, admitted that his poor attitude and resulting booze-fuelled larks may have been a factor in the decision to give Mickey Arthur the boot. Very perceptive, Dave. Actions have consequences... but the coach failed to manage Dave's behaviour. I'm not making excuses for Dave Warner - he's old enough and experienced enough to know better - but when it became obvious that he had a problem, he should have been counselled and disciplined.

And now, Mickey Arthur is suing Cricket Australia for four million dollars, for wrongful dismissal. Now I don’t know what was in his contract, but if his employment was to coach the Australian team to victory, he failed in most of his objectives. If his contract included doing nothing to damage the reputation of the Australian cricket community, he failed on that measure as well as his team repeatedly made headlines for boozing, blueing, and failing to do their homework.

In his media statements, he has indicated that he was the hapless victim in a feud between Aussie Captain Michael Clarke and opener Shane Watson. Respected senior players like Brad Haddin are falling into line to support their team, denying any kind of contretemps between Pup and Watto. Boof, of course, has remained silent, as he should.

Whether there is or was any klnd of conflict between Pup and Watto is fascinating in light of Arthur’s claims. If there was no feud, Arthur is lying and looking for high profile scapegoats and a big payout. If there was a real feud, Arthur, as coach, should have intervened and managed the situation in whatever way was appropriate. In both cases, Arthur is wrong. I fail to see any "wrongful" in CA's dismissal of the former coach.

Mercifully, whatever had been going on within the Australian Cricket Team under Mickey Arthur is being dealt with, and team is behaving as a team (except for the regular batting catastrophes) and everyone, from fans to players to the Cricket Australia management group is united behind the bloke called Boof.

In the meantime, Labor supporters are still venting their bitterness all over social media. Julia Gillard isn't suing anyone for wrongful dismissal - she's got way too much class for that. In any case, if part of her role as parliamentary leader of the ALP was to lead the ALP to an election victory, she would have found herself soundly defeated. Another female Labor leader would be brought undone.

I understand that her supporters might abhor the way that Mr Rudd replaced Ms Gillard, but that’s done. My loathing is for the way she was treated while in the top job, but standing here at the boss's window, I can see that there was little option but to replace her. Continuing to focus energy on the spill appears as ALP disunity, and helps no-one. Ms Gillard's supporters need to move to a bigger window with a different view. It’s not Rudd versus Gillard that they should be seeing; it’s the Rudd versus the Coalition in the coming election and the view from that window is tinged with hope. 

CAAANBRA: Leadership

When I started writing on Wednesday morning, I was considering the loss of two independents from the Australian political scene and what it might mean for future independents. Now, I’m contemplating the loss of at least six remarkable Australian parliamentarians, and even more from the front bench.

Alongside the devastating loss is the restoration of hope – just a tiny shard of hope - that perhaps the good people from the Left can keep Tony Abbott out of The Lodge.

Bringing us this drama was a media that ranged from slick and innovative to angry and partisan.

Extraordinary Gentlemen

Australia is poorer as we contemplate a future without the calming influences of two true-blue gentlemen who for many years have steadied the daily drama within Canberra’s galleries of power.

For many, this hung parliament has brought out the worst: from the leadership instability within the ALP to the mean-spirited Liberal decisions around when they would or wouldn’t grant a pair, from the revelations about Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper to the accusations hurled across the floor, from the political convenience of benching former speaker Harry Jenkins to the empty sloganeering of Tony Abbott, we have seen some of the lowest behaviour imaginable.

Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor gave us the very best they have. They were elected as independents in traditional National Party heartland seats, but the actuality of the hung parliament elevated their roles beyond their electorates. To the disgust of some who thought they should behave as National Party stand-ins, both of these men realised the weight of their added responsibility and made their decisions accordingly.

Their retirements are a double blow to the integrity of our political system. Without the requirements of a political party to drive their vote, these remarkable men were free to vote for what they believed was right, instead of what was politically required. Every vote was a conscience vote.

Most memorable during this period of consistent negativity and nastiness is the dignity these two independents carried with them. Rob and Tony are the examples all of our politicians, all of us, should emulate. Regardless of the stresses of their positions, the daily frustrations and the torrent of malice directed their way, these gentlemen remained good humoured, honourable and humble.

It seems unfair that as independents, these two just walk out of public life. If they belonged to a political party, they’d be Elder Statesmen, choosing which Embassy they wanted to run for a few years. Instead, they go home, which I’m sure is what each of them wants.

Go well, gentlemen, with our thanks. You made a difference.


Spudd

In twitter style, each event gets its own hashtag to identify tweets which relate to that event. When Gillard toppled Rudd, it was #Spillard. Following that logic, last night’s leadership challenge should’ve been Spudd. But we all settled for #spill, it trended worldwide on and off for hours during the evening.

We know the story now: A petition was circulated to pressure Ms Gillard into calling a spill. Mr Rudd did not go to China. The spill was called for 7pm. Bill Shorten switched camps and voted for Rudd, as did Penny Wong. In fact, enough people changed sides to get Kevin Rudd over the line and back into the Prime Ministership. The best blow by blow description has been compiled by the ABC from Wednesday's tweets, mainly by ABC reporters.

Unfortunately, Mr Rudd’s victory is defeat for Australia’s first female Prime Minister. After the relentless attacks she’s had to endure, and the outstanding success she has had in reforming Australia’s education structures, introducing a price on carbon, brokering the MRRT, looking after the disabled in our communities and so much more, she deserves better than being dumped by the party that handed her the Prime Ministership.

Tony Abbott continues to describe the Labor Government as “dysfunctional”. It has certainly been entertaining, and I wouldn’t call it stable, but I can’t accept that a government which has achieved as much as this one has is dysfunctional. It’s highly functional, but like so much of the process of governing, it’s ugly. The best summation of the achievements of this Parliament is contained in Rob Oakeshott’s speech from earlier this week.

Prior to the vote on Wednesday evening, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd both confirmed that if they lost the leadership vote, they would resign from politics, ending the question of leadership. Julia Gillard did lose, and has confirmed that she will not recontest the safe Labor seat of Lalor, in Victoria. Sadly, some of Ms Gillard’s highest profile supporters have taken this a step further. Former Ministers Craig Emerson, Peter Garrett and Stephen Smith will not be recontesting their seats either.

Former Treasurer and ex-Deputy PM Wayne Swan will move to the back benches, where he’ll be surrounded by his former colleagues in the Ministry including Joe Ludwig, Steven Conroy and Greg Combet.

And still, Julia Gillard is the only woman to have resigned from Parliament this week.


Hate Media

I am sad, and more than a little scared at the likelihood of a future Australia under Tony Abbott, but I am appalled at the level of hatred in some tweets that have come from the right today. Not all conservative voters behave like undignified rabble on twitter, but some do – and some of them should know better.

Chris Kenny, a former Liberal political operative and journalist, now commentator for Sky News, tweeted

Get your dig in there Chris. It doesn’t need to be accurate or honest, just snarky and calibrated to benefit the Liberal Party, right?

Of course, you know that neither Oakeshott nor Windsor is leaving politics out of any desire to duck what Mr Kenny believes would be unacceptable results. People who can’t handle rejection well don’t go into politics. The truth is that Mr Windsor needs to manage some health issues and Mr Oakeshott is done. He’s been 17 years in politics and he’s done. Has Mr Kenny ever worked in the same job for seventeen years?

Sky News Australia has become Fox News Australia in all but name, and as the drama amplified yesterday, the conservative bias became more and more obvious. Paul Murray, whose show airs nightly at 9pm is setting himself up as Australia’s answer to Rush Limbaugh. He is an angry, bitter man filled with and fuelled by hatred for the Labor Party in general and Ms Gillard in particularly. His guests are almost exclusively from the right and further right, turning what was once a reasonably balanced news-chat show into the proverbial echo-chamber of simpering agreement.

Regular guests include former Howard Ministers Gary Hargraves and Peter Reith, Sky News colleague Janine Perrett, serial Gillard insulter Grace Collier, broadcaster Derryn Hinch, conservative (News Limited) columnist Janet Albrechtsen and her partner, Liberal Party has-been Michael Kroger, 2UE talkback colleagues Jason Morrison and John Stanley, economics writer for (News Limited’s) The Australian Adam Creighton, former Liberal Party staffer Chris Kenny, Andrew Stoner, leader of the NSW Nationals…and a light smattering of progressive guests like Peter Bentley of the McKell Institute and former Rudd staffer (and now MamaMia Mama) Jamila Rizvi, and current Labor MP Ed Husic plus some generalist commentators like PR pundit Prue MacSween and editor of the Australian Womens Weekly, Helen McCabe.

Sky News Australia should take notice of some of the comments that were floating on Twitter last night about Mr Murray’s performance. I don’t know if his preference for conservative-leaning guests is the result of an instruction from his employers, or is a personal choice to support the Opposition, but it’s obvious, and it’s far too close a Fox News clone for my liking.

CAAANBRA: HOBBY HORSES

If there has been one single moment when Prime Minister Gillard blasted through the twin filters of her own spin team and partisan media interests, it was that afternoon when she stood her ground and stated in a tone as unforgiving as forged steel that she would not be lectured to by that man. The famous “Misogyny Speech” made international news, was viewed over 2 million times on You Tube and saw Prime Minister Gillard’s name amongst the finalists for the coveted position as Time Person of the Year.

Contrast that moment with today’s headline news. The Women’s Weekly, that final frontier of The Way We Were, reveals that Julia Gillard is knitting a baby kangaroo toy as a gift for Prince William and Princess Catherine’s baby. Awwww. Isn’t it sweet? Awwww. And so appropriately feminine. Would you like a cup of tea and a piece of home-made cream sponge while you knit, Ma’am?

It’s a solid gold, gift-wrapped, fur-lined ocean-going festival of punny witticisms for our glorious media. Headlines ranged from the Sydney Morning Herald’s “PM tried to knit herself out of the poll doldrums” to the Australian’s “Some yarn: Julia Gillard knits a royal roo”. Thank Dog Sue Lapperman still has her glorious sense of the absurd!

Former journalist and news presenter John Mangos was terribly serious:

“Julia knitting. Really? I am a strategic media consultant these days. And there is no way I would have approved of that.” 

He continued

 “I have nothing against knitting. Some of my best friends knit. I would rather my (Republican) Prime Minister try to run the country instead.”

Ignoring the condescendingly dull “some of my best friends are...” defence, John Mangos is not alone. Mumbrella is reporting that senior PR consultants have questioned the strategy behind the decision to feature this story in a women’s magazine. Out came the PR clichés, including “trying to appeal to women voters” as a possible motive for what they see as an ill-advised decision. PR bigwigs are asking what the PM’s PR team was hoping to gain with such a soft issue.

That question suggests to me that those PR boffins are as lacking in creativity and perspective as those employed in the Prime Minister’s Office, not to mention the gormless media they serve. Priming the Prime Minister to appeal to women voters specifically is so terribly 2010, darling, and I’d be embarrassed to run a campaign like that, particularly in this political environment where favouring one gender over another is considered bad form. I just don't think the strategy behind Knittinggate is that serious.

In all likelihood, come September 15, Julia Gillard will not be the Prime Minister and Tony Abbott will be. A bit of knitting isn’t going to change that, for better or worse. There is nothing that the PM can do in a simple magazine shoot that would change the electoral certainty, so let’s get real.

The cat’s out of the bag, guys. The Prime Minister is a woman, and she knits.

My problem isn’t with the placement of the feature, but with the stylists, who should be strangled with their own made-in-Bangladesh designer-patterned tights. It’s the kind of photo you’d expect to see if you gave your grannie a discount voucher for a Glamour Makeover and Photography session. It’s safe and entirely unremarkable. Why not an action shot of the PM as Wonder Woman jabbing her knitting needles into the temple of a Tony Abbott Doll? Seriously, this photo concept rivals raw porridge for sheer visual excitement.

Let’s flip this around. Let’s assume that Julia is Julian, male, childless and living at The Lodge with his partner Tina, a hairdresser. Julian has a suitably blokey hobby: he does a bit of woodwork now and then to relax. There’s an election in less than three months time, and the polls say that Julian is unelectable. Julian’s media advisor suggests a photo of the PM whittling a kangaroo for the royal baby. The shoot is cute, and it goes to print in GQ.

What’s the reaction to the photos of the PM, appropriately decked out for a Canberra winter, in a handknitted jumper and jeans, sitting in his workshop out the back of the Lodge, whittling?

Certainly not the national outbreak of knit-mocking that seems to have overtaken the country, or at least my twitter feed. It’s knitting. It’s a hobby. Barack Obama loves a quick game of basketball. The Queen breeds corgis. Tony Abbott likes sports that require lycra, and posing for photographs while wearing the lyrca. Similarly, John Howard was a track suit model. Condaleeza Rice plays piano, Sarah Palin shoots moose, and according to Pravda – yes, Pravda - Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, has a passion for high-end fashion.

And the suggestion that the Prime Minister Gillard should stop with the handicrafts and get back to her job of “trying to run the country”? Is he really suggesting that a Prime Minister shouldn’t have a hobby, lest it detract from her job? Let’s not think too much about what Mr Mangos might be revealing about himself with that comment.

But feel the outrage! Australia is twisting itself in knots because a PM with a terminal popularity deficit knits a bit.

If it was Julian Gillard at his workbench, surrounded by the earthy aromas of sawdust and accompanied by his pet dog, would the reaction from the PR industry, the media and the public be as overwhelming?

One thing is certain. If Julia was Julian, conservative commentator and National Cleavage Censor Grace Collier would have less to say. In fact, I still don’t understand why Ms Collier thinks that women should dress like men in order to be “properly dressed”. It’s a fashion statement that harks back to the trouser suits of the 70s. Hilary Clinton might be impressed, but I doubt it.

And that’s both the problem and the solution. We know the Prime Minister is a woman and for about half the population, that should still be a reason to celebrate. What’s the problem with letting her be a woman, taking the cutesy photo for what it is, and getting on with the real news of the day – none of which involves the leadership of the ALP.

By the way, the late Baroness Thatcher had no hobbies. None at all.

Culture Shocking

Culture Shock


When I think about the last seven days, all roads lead to Australia’s first female Prime Minister, and the consistent tide of sexist invective she attracts. To some extent, this was inevitable; as the first female Prime Minister in an environment where the Opposition is becoming increasingly conservative, there was bound to be more than a few detractors.

Still, it’s difficult to believe that in 2013, there are still men and women who have difficulty accepting a woman leader. It’s not entirely an age-related phenomenon either: someone who is 70 years old now was born in 1943. They were teenagers during the birth of rock n roll, and young adults during the social upheaval of the 1960s. In fact, parents in their 70s and 80s now are the parents who raised their daughters in the 60s, 70s and 80s to be anything we wanted to be, right up to and including Prime Ministers.

I wonder if perhaps our mothers and grandmothers forgot to prepare their sons for that bold future where women are – let’s be honest here – not equal, but less unequal than a generation or two ago.


Women for Gillard

It was only last week that Prime Minister Gillard spoke at a Women for Gillard launch. Her speech was controversial, laden as it was with oblique references to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s difficulty in relating to women and his record on reproductive rights. The speech was not particularly well received, especially by some conservative women who feel that the Women for Gillard group was trying to lecture that only a woman leader can address women’s’ issues.

Michelle Obama, Hilary Clinton and Julia Gillard

That’s not the message that I took from the speech; I thought it was a fairly clumsy attempt to reintroduce Mr Abbott’s failure to address women’s issues effectively by exaggerating to the nth degree the probable consequences of an Abbott-led government. The men in blue ties will never succeed in banishing women from parliament, and wouldn’t even try...but it did serve to remind us all of Mr Abbott’s words from a 4 Corners episode in 2010:

“I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons.”

There was a degree of backlash against the speech, but none as venomous or ill-considered Joe Hockey’s tweet:

“Gillard’s comments on abortion and the Coalition are desperate and offensive. She has never deserved respect and will never receive it.”

Yes, the speech did have that whiff of desperation, and I can see that the Opposition may have been offended by the contents of the speech. The second sentence in the tweet far surpassed any degree of offense in Ms Gillard’s speech though: it was personal.

After all of that, I’m still not entirely sure what Women for Gillard is. It seems to be a slogan related – possibly – to a Facebook page, but it doesn’t seem important or significant. In America, it’s perfectly normal to have female support groups for Presidential candidates – remember the Obama Mamas? – but then America hasn’t had a female Presidential candidate yet. In any case, my mother’s 90-something year-old neighbour Billie wants to join the Women for Gillard movement. Billie admires Prime Minister Gillard, and wants to support her. Somehow the message of “Women for Gillard” has been lost in the circus that followed.



A little ditty, tweeted by Grace Collier

MenuGate

As luck would have it, a certain menu was made public, and suddenly Ms Gillard’s rants about sexism and misogyny were more than just convenient for an unpopular female Prime Minister. They were fact. The Liberal Party approached high farce as firstly Mal Brough apologised for the menu, then the restaurateur sent a letter to Tony Abbott’s office, claiming the menu was a private joke. Next, May Brough was claiming that he was confused about the menu. Menugate was off and running, and despite many claims by conservative commentators and tweeters, there are still far too many unanswered questions and inconsistent “facts” to say that matter is closed.

Meanwhile, the business of governing moves on, and the business of selling the Gonski education reforms to the states waits for no-one. The Prime Minister ups her offer to Western Australia, and Howard Sattler opened his mouth and all but accused the Prime Minister of being a “beard” or “handbag” for her gay (obviously, because he’s a hairdresser) partner Tim.


All Hairdressers are Gay (and other stereotypes)

Social media, and media commentators went into meltdown for the third time in under a week as everyone twittered about whether or not Mr Sattler would have asked such impertinent questions about Janette Howard, or the late Hazel Hawke. Sattler was suspended and later sacked from his radio gig at 6PR, and was dumped from his job hosting a Liberal Party fundraiser later this month. Rumours are circulating that he may run for Liberal pre-selection for the seat of Perth and challenge for Stephen Smith’s seat.

That’s not the worst of the aftermath, though. Mr Sattler believes there is nothing offensive in what he said to the Prime Minister, he refused to accept a payout which included six months salary, and will be suing the station for wrongful dismissal. Points for conviction, Mr Sattler.

Howard Sattler & Piers Akerman

Piers Plunges In

By Saturday, it was looking as though Ms Gillard’s claims of sexist behaviour towards her had been proven, Mythbusters style. The conservative side of politics and commentary had been surprisingly though not entirely quiet…until the Sunday morning tv chat-fests. Controversy-magnet and conservative columnist with News Limited’s Daily Telegraph decided to defend Howard Sattler on national television by floating the idea that the Canberra Press Gallery has been whispering about Tim’s sexual preference since he moved into the Lodge with Ms Gillard.

I was particularly impressed by his determination that they couldn’t discuss The Issue (of Sattler’s termination) without discussing the possibility that Tim Matheson is homosexual. Actually, given that Tim’s sexuality was never the issue, yes you can. His bleating defence of his own folly appeared in the Online edition of News Limited titles some hours later. He should fiction to his resume; I'm sure he'd have a real talent for writing bodice-rippers.

There are petitions and campaigns to have the ABC commit to never having Piers Ackerman has a paid guest on Insiders (or presumably QandA) again.


They’re Called Boobs, Ed.

What works for Erin Brokovich is inappropriate for the Prime Minister, according to conservative Industrial Relations Consultant and occasional media commentator Grace Collier.

Erin Brokovich, her cleavage, and Julia Gillard

In an interview with Radio National yesterday, Ms Collier expressed her preference that the Prime Minister wears a blouse buttoned up closer to the neck with a jacket over the top. Observably, that’s Ms Collier’s preferred look, although the shirts tend to be of the Aloha variety, with wide lapels and colourful florals and patterns. It’s a good look for Hawaiian Shirt Friday, but for every day? No.

Honestly, I’d prefer Ms Collier wore a cross made out of duct tape across her mouth, but it wouldn't go with her brown jacket, so maybe not.

Ms Gillard and Ms Collier are going to keep on wearing whatever they like. It’s not as if Ms Gillard is wearing fishnets and a leather micro-mini…and as it turns out, the photo Ms Collier tweeted to prove her point was photo-shopped to make the Prime Ministerial top look lower cut than it is.

A quick stroll back through Ms Collier’s tweets and you’ll unearth all sorts of negative tweets about the Government, and yesterday was not the first time she expressed her opinions about Ms Gillard’s wardrobe choices. On May 29, she tweeted:

“In a first, the PM is seen sporting a propermSHIRT under her jacket. Is this the end for singlets and dumb chunky necklace under jacket look?”

Grace is no fan of the Prime Minister, as her Twitter feed confirms, but attacking any woman’s cleavage is stepping way over a line. Ironically, it’s the same line that Richards & Richards Restaurant stomped past with their ridiculous menu, and it’s an easy lesson: Don’t comment on any part of any woman’s body, ever.


Grace Collier, with accessories by the author

It’s Time

Despite the so-called trivial events of the past week that are distracting our media, our politicians and most of the rest of us, despite how unfair the whole thing has been for Ms Gillard, the waves of outrage are sparking conversations that we need to have. We need to determine what is acceptable. Do we really need to think about whether schoolboy smut is okay? Why do Kyle Sandilands and Alan Jones get away with their outrageous on-air performance but Howard Sattler gets the sack? Why do we accept media personalities who think it’s okay to chastise the Prime Minister for being late, or wish she was dumped out at sea in a chaff bag…or question her about her sex life?

The big question, of course, is whether a male Prime Minister would receive the same treatment. Would Tony Abbott react with white-knucked silence if the contents of his budgie smugglers was a punchline instead of the lycra togs? Does Joe Hockey expect to field questions about his sex life? How about Barnaby Joyce or Bob Katter? Do they get told by a part-time talking head they they’re showing too much flesh?

It’s important that we have these conversations about attitudes to women, if for no other reason than to remind us all to be aware of prejudice and stereotyping. The reaction this morning when a Melbourne radio personality suggesting boycotting the products of a victim of domestic violence unless she makes an example of herself is proof that these conversations do have an impact. Our national conversation about gender has far to go, but we’ve made a start.

Now, what other conversations do we need to have? Asylum Seekers and race issues is next on my list. What’s on your list?

CAAANBRA: Fair & Balanced

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll have no doubt that Rupert Murdoch, that former Australian and worldwide media boss, prefers the conservative side of politics. He’s made no attempts to hide it; in fact, many of his News Limited/News International/News Corporation news outlets actively promote a conservative agenda. Fox News is so far to the right, they're the least trusted news organisation in America.

Nooooo, scream the conservative consumers of Mr Murdoch’s newspapers and television interests. In their view, conservative is “normal” and the rest of us are lefty communist stirrers. Hmmm. What you perceive really does depend on where you stand, but regardless of your position on the political spectrum, few would argue that Mr Murdoch’s news organisations are more conservative than most other news organisations.


Headlines and leaders from News Limited today

With new Newspoll and Neilsen federal opinion polls being released today, the headlines are telling. Fairfax's online titles, including the SMH, the Age and the Brisbane Times, are running the headline “Gillard Budget Boost”, while Murdoch’s press prefer to point out that the Coalition still has an ALP-slaughtering lead. Fair enough too – we need different perspectives on our world.
It's not just the Aussie press, though. Rupert Murdoch is not holding back. He has a personal twitter account, and this morning Mr Murdoch tweeted the following:

“Oz polls show nothing can save this miserable govt. Election can not come soon enough. People decided and tuned out months ago.”

With all due respect, I don’t accept that. The polls Mr Murdoch refers to are the Neilsen and Newspoll  numbers released overnight. Both sets of numbers are either stable or slightly positive for the government and for Ms Gillard as preferred PM, in a post-budget context where ALP votes should’ve been lost, not gained.
Internationally, political pollsters aren’t having a great run of late. In British Columbia, all of the media-aligned pollsters were wrong in their recent election. Every single one of them said that the Liberals would romp home and they didn’t. They lost. According to CBC News British Columbia: 

Angus Reid forecast in its last poll before the election that the NDP was the party of choice for 45 per cent of decided voters and leaners, with the governing Liberals in second place with 36 per cent support.

But in Tuesday's election, the Liberals won 44.4 per cent of the popular vote while the NDP ended up with 39.5 per cent. The win gave the Liberals 50 of the province's 85 seats, five more than the party had going into the election.

Back in Australia, Neilsen’s numbers this week show the Coalition leading the ALP 44-32, a slightly larger gap than was reported in British Columbia, but the BC polls were taken just prior to the election, not 4 months out. There were other similarities too: both leaders were fairly unpopular, and the economy was a key election issue, at least according to the pre-election polls.
The same inconsistencies were a factor in poor polling accuracy in the 2012 American Presidential elections. Gallup, one of the world’s oldest and most respected polling organisations, are holding an internal investigation into how and why their results all pointed to a Romney victory last November. Less than two weeks before the election, Gallup predicted a solid Romney victory; he was leading in the polls by 4%. The final result saw President Obama re-elected by the same margin. In polling terms, that's a big mistake. Huge.

Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, deep in denial on Election Night

Politico has put together a handy summary of some major polls conducted up to Election Day, and few of them had Obama in front.

Remember the faces at Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News when it became increasingly apparent that the Republicans would lose the election convincingly? Less than a month out from the Presidential Election, Fox News ran the story of Los Vegas bookie who was predicting a Romney landslide.  The conservative media in the USA was so sure that their man would win that they were visibly shocked when he didn’t.

The headline doesn't reflect the content of the story.

But Nate Silver, statistician, author and commentator, predicted the election so accurately, he called the result in every one of the fifty states, and DC. He had a look at the Australian situation when he was here in January this year. He predicted a Coalition victory, according to a headline in the Murdoch-stabled Australian.

What he actually said was that the ALP government would be the underdog:

In his first Australian interview after arriving in Melbourne yesterday, Silver said given the recent Australian polls, "clearly the government would be the underdog" but "the most important variable is not how many polls are taken but when the polls are taken relative to the election".

My lefty tendencies aren’t giving this election away just yet. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking, perhaps it’s the weather or some hitherto unknown clairvoyant powers, but this federal election is still up for grabs. Don’t be surprised if, come September 15th, we see more sad Murdoch employees - Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Ackerman, Dennis Shanahan and the rest - wondering how it all went so wrong.

Fox News - America's least trusted news source

Just the Facts, Ma'am

Once upon a time, in a generation not too far ago, journalists were respected, news presenters were trusted, and politicians were at least, polite. Those were important times, easy times, when you could watch the news at six o’clock or seven o’clock or both, and you could believe what Brian told you.


Journalists were never in that same league of trusted professional as perennial winners nurses and paramedics, but they weren’t bundled in with the lowest of the low either.

Politicians were always a bit further down the list of trustworthy professionals than the journalists who reported their stories; they have a vested interest in telling people what the people want to hear. In this year’s poll of the most trusted professions, newspaper journalists, television reporters and radio talkback hosts were ranked 20, 21 and 22 respectively. Federal MPs ranked 25 and state MPs ranked 26…out of thirty. The only professions ranked lower than politicians were real estate agents, advertising people and car salesmen.

Poll upon poll, list upon list, the story remains the same. Journalists aren’t trusted much more than the politicians they report on. How do you know who to trust? Paul Murray on Sky News promises to tell you what “really happened”, Bill O’Reilly refers to his show, The O'Reilly Factor, as the “the no-spin zone” and our own ABC News tells us that they’re “more than the headlines”. And that’s just television.

Please don’t take this the wrong way; I’m not suggesting that the fourth estate is unrelentingly shonky. The miserable fact is that enough reporters have been untrustworthy enough to build a perception that we should question the news we’re provided. High school students are being taught to be critical consumers of news. Scepticism is hardly surprising in an global news environment dominated by Rupert Murdoch's right wing Fox News and bumbling CNN on one side of the Atlantic and the now-defunct News of the World and the rest of Murdoch’s News International on the other.

And what of Australia’s media? More Murdoch, a relatively small population and a ridiculously high concentration of media ownership makes for easy targets and large ripples. If you control the media in Australia, you control the Australian agenda.

Never was that more evident that in the reporting of our Prime Minister crying in parliament yesterday. news.com reported the tears as being the result of stress, until Sky News’s David Lipson tweeted a card from some of Queensland’s disabled population, thanking the Prime Minister for making the NDIS a reality. But of course, News Limited’s first instinct was to show Ms Gillard being weak, rather than showing her being compassionate. They interpreted what they saw and reported it through their lens of right wing negativity.

And what are we talking about today? Julia’s tears, of course. 612Brisbane’s breakfast producer Anne Debert was not impressed with Ms Gillard’s tears, yet couldn’t explain why it annoyed her so much. The fact is, we are talking about whether it’s appropriate to cry in the workplace, whether it’s a gender issue, and if it is, is it one we should embrace, or one which deserves censure. How has this become the talking point of budget week? Most of our news outlets have led with stories of the PM being “reduced to tears" or “driven to tears” or even “moved to tears” rather than discussion of the Federal Budget, the actual DisabilityCare scheme, or any of the other valid news stories of the day.

And before anyone makes the obvious gender related gags, allow me to remind you of Bob Hawke, crying on television during an interview about his private life and again, during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. Malcolm Fraser cried the night the Liberals lost power in 1983. Kevin Rudd cried the night Ms Gillard replaced him as Prime Minister. There’s a long tradition of Prime Ministerial waterworks in this country and beyond. The Sydney Morning Herald chronicled just some of it in 2010, after Mr Rudd’s final press conference as PM, and observed then:

It seems we have finally come to accept such outbursts of emotion from our male political leaders as displays of genuine human feeling. And yet, for many women in business life, crying is still seen as a sign of weakness.

If the tear ducts of our first female prime minister runneth over at any point, I wonder: will it be interpreted as weakness or strength of character?

I love that the question was asked, for runneth over they did. Few media types attributed it to weakness, though. Initially, it was reported as a reaction to stress; later, as compassion, and more recently, opinion writers have written their defence of tears. 

National Nine News seems to have an opinion on tears.

So where does that leave us, the news consumers who don’t have a front row seat and rely on the accuracy and objectivity of news professionals to keep us informed? With the federal election now less than four months away, is it even possible that votes will be decided on the basis of whether the tears of the PM are conveyed as a strength or a weakness? Why are we talking about this, when it's not even the first time Prime Minister Gillard has shed a tear in the house?

The millions of choices made every day by our news media about which word to use here and what tone is needed there will influence the votes of many Australians. Like Anne, you might not be all that keen on a teary PM, but if those tears are reported as a sign of emotional fragility, it could be a vote changer for some. If the report suggests it’s a sign of strength and compassion, different votes might change.

A vote or two here or there won’t make a difference, and isn’t that the beauty of democracy? If you change enough minds, you change a result. The consistent messages - just a few words, or a blaring headline supporting the Coalition - has continued over three years now, and has thrived during this hung parliament. A daily avalanche of negative spin will change minds.

This stuff matters.

Some get it right, some don’t. American Democrat and sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.”

From PolitiFact's American election coverage in 2012

Apparently that’s not entirely true any more; it seems that the Climate Change Denialists like the Galileo Movement are entitled to make up their own “facts” – but 97.1% of peer reviewed scientific papers still agree that climate change is real and we’re making it worse.
All of which leads us to PolitiFact Australia, the first international incarnation of the Pulitzer Prize-winning American fact-checking website. According to their own website:

PolitiFact Australia is a non-partisan, independent journalistic venture run by Peter Fray, the former editor-in-chief of the Sydney Morning Herald, and staffed by experienced reporters and researchers.

Our goal is to bring greater accountability to the federal election campaign.

We want to help Australian voters make better-informed decisions.

We want to help keep our politicians honest.

We want to restore faith in the political process — and the role journalists play in it.

Journalists exist to hold the powerful to account. PolitiFact in the US and now in Australia is an affirmation of that deep tradition.

I’d like to proclaim publicly my support for our truthy new overseers, but you see, there’s this pesky thing called Social Media which is making life interesting for politicians and journalists, and now for PolitiFact Australia. Their judgment has already been questioned on social media.
And isn’t that how it should be? In a mature society we should hold eachother to account. In fact, we should strive for a higher standard? When, for whatever reason, the news media falls for the line which today’s politician is peddling, we have a team of professionals who are spending their discretionary time checking facts…and if they get it wrong, social media will let them know it.

The world will change, just a little, for those paying attention.



All of these images were borrowed from social media: thanks to those who created and posted them.

CAAANBRA: Cut and Colour

Some women rave about that hour or two or three that they spend in the salon being coloured, cut and tjuzjed. It’s special girl time, when a woman and her stylist can gossip about Taylor Swift’s army of exes, discuss the latest in nail art and hem lengths and transform a normal woman into someone with potential. Alternately, the client can close her eyes and pretend to be anywhere else while her trusted hair artiste wields chemicals, scissors and hot air blowers in a blur of smelly activity. In any case, a visit to the hairdressers is rarely an intellectual experience.


It looked as though my appointment at the budget salon was going the same way, until my stylist asked what I was reading on my iPad. It was twitter – my post-work preference for catching up with the political to-ings and fro-ings of the day.

I’ll admit, I was not shocked to learn that 20 year old Natasha isn’t interested in politics. She’s twenty, and hasn’t voted before. I was prepared to abandon the conversation in favour of some blessed silence (not that silence is ever popular in the hair salon on Thursday night) but no. Natasha had to tell me that she hates Julia. Hates her. Hates her with the heat of a thousand suns.

“Why”, I asked, genuinely interested to learn why a woman who is not interested in politics has such a vehement hatred for our first female prime minister.

She shrugged her shoulders and answered “Dunno.”

I followed up: “Has the PM done anything specific, passed any legislation that you’re not happy about?” I was giving her the chance to raise the Carbon Tax, or talk about Kevin Rudd’s exit from Prime Ministership, or Ms Gillard’s refusal to support marriage equality or her position on asylum seekers.

“Dunno”, she shrugged again, pointy-ended comb flying. “Dunno what she’s done. I just hate her.” Natasha made a disgusted, puckerface shudder that took over her whole body.

My inner Bryant Gumbel wanted to ask “But Whyyy?” when my true lefty self took over.

“Oh. Would you like me to tell you about some of the stuff she’s done?”

“Oh Gawd, No! I’m not interested in politics! Really I don’t care!”

The last thing in the world that I wanted to do was provoke the young woman who was cutting and colouring my hair…and who, in just a few minutes would be pouring heated wax onto my eyebrow area. I should’ve stopped.

I kept talking. “Is it the Carbon Tax?” I asked, moderating my tone to sound effortlessly neutral.

“I don’t like tax. Why would I want to pay more of it?” she asked hotly.

This one deserved an explanation, so I explained.

“Oh.” She paused. Even the frantic hair-related activity stopped for a moment….and then they started again. “Well, I still hate her. She’s vi-i-i-ile…but she’s better than the budgies bloke. He’s scary! I guess if you think Julia’s okay, you probably hate Abbott!”

I was impressed. I did not for a moment think that she would know the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I hmmmed an agreement.

Nodding is dangerous when you’re seated in at a stylist’s station. How every hair salon on earth hasn’t been classified as a major Hazard Facility is a mystery to me. President Obama could shut down Guantanamo Bay and replace it with a chain of salons and probably achieve the same result. There’s the too-hot/too-cold water torture, the unqualified agony of sitting for hours in an uncomfortable chair with nothing to look at except a poorly lit reflection of your own face. There's a horrifying selection of blades, lethal chemicals designed to change the molecular structure of human tissue, lots of electricity, hot wax, tweezers…

In any case, when your stylist is working on your hair, don’t nod, even if its to signal your agreement regarding the scariness of Tony Abbott. But that was just about the only time he was mentioned. Natasha thinks he’s nowhere near as good as the good Aussie bloke that Kevin was. Is.

“Fair shake of the sauce bottle, Sal! Kevin’s a great Aussie bloke. There aren’t any other great Aussie blokes in politics. We need more like Kevin. He’s awesome! I mean, who else would say ‘fair shake of the sauce bottle’?”

Aaahhhh, does Natasha’s hatred of Julia stem from the simple truth that here, in the heart of Griffith, Julia isn’t Kevin?

Natasha doesn’t think she’ll vote this time. She can’t bring herself to vote for her local member – even if it is Kevin – because that’s a vote for Julia. She won’t vote for the Liberal candidate, because that’s a vote for Budgie Boy. She wouldn’t vote for anyone else either: “Why vote for anyone else? Y’gotta be on the winner, doncha!”

I don’t know how much this little pocket of eastern Brisbane suburbia resembles the western suburbs of Sydney, but I suspect it’s more than many want to admit.

Meanwhile, one of Labor’s big problems is how to win the hearts and minds of people who hate Julia Gillard but have no clue as to why. I doubt Natasha is the only one. How do you argue against pure, illogical emotion?

I pondered this, though not hard. I was distracted by the off cuts of hair, clinging to my neck with maliciously itchy intent.

Caaanbra: Julie & Julia

When I sat down today to write, it was not with the intention to write about Julie Bishop. Imagine my surprise to look up and find 1200 words on the wonder that is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. If you're looking for me to sing "Isn't She Lovely" as she sashays through the corridors of Parliament House, you will be disappointed. If you're up for a quick read on the hairdo behind the Death Stare, pour yourself a drink and relax.

Julia Gillard did a masterful job of ripping the carpet out from under Tony Abbott when she named the election date just days after the newly tanned, de-wrinkled, combed-over Leader of the Opposition launched his mini-campaign. The Libs had no choice but to follow the ALP agenda, and that does not sit well with an opposition that was expecting another six months of game-playing and Election Date Bingo with the media.



But never underestimate the power of Julie Bishop. Outwardly, little has changed from he LA LAW-vintage boxy suits, frosted, flippety hairstyle and laser-powered death stare. Perhaps nothing has changed but the calendar, yet I suspect That there is more than a hint of desperation. What else could have prompted the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party to appear on Radio National last week to make the case that Australia should revert to a “caretaker government” status until Election Day in mid-September?

I will restate it here, for the benefit of all who may be in doubt: the government is not in caretaker mode, and will not enter caretaker mode until all of the Governor-General-seeing and writ-issuing and church-hall-booking has been done in mid August.

If this was a caretaker situation, what would that mean? It would require that the ALP Government wouldn’t make any major policy decisions without agreement from the Opposition. The same restriction would apply to making significant appointments of public officials, and would need to refrain from being involved in any international actions, from diplomatic visits to acting on the UN Security Council. In summary, the government would cease to do everything other than keep the country ticking over in neutral for over seven months. Politically, that would deliver a chocolate coated election campaign to the opposition – just keep pointing at the Government’s impotence and try not to do anything dumb. 

And yet, there she was. Ms Bishop’s appearance on RN was reported in the Australian:

Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop said the opposition was seeking legal advice on whether Julia Gillard's nomination of September 14 as the election date should force the normal business of government to cease.

“We believe that the government has made the call. We are in virtual caretaker mode,” she told ABC radio.

But Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said it was clear that caretaker mode began with the issuing of election writs, which would occur on August 14.

“Why should a government stop just because Julie Bishop says so?” he said.

“This is an attempt to disrupt the government of our country.”

It did not take long for the media, the Twitterverse, the government and potentially a few low-flying seagulls to point out to Ms Bishop that she was wrong: legally, factually wrong. Of course, she knew that – she must have known. The purpose of her short caretaker offensive would’ve been to put the concept and phrase into the hearts and minds of conservative voters and commentators, thereby making the ALP Government look illegitimate. It almost worked too, except that the electorate isn’t quite that stupid.
And then last week, the poor woman admitted that she and the Prime Minister don’t get on all that well together. In fact, Ms Bishop stated that she’s tried to make friends with the PM, but that Ms Gillard won’t talk to her. This, according to Ms Bishop, is extraordinary.



Y’know what? Diddums. It’d be nice if everyone could just work together, and be polite and courteous and helpful to those irksome co-workers who share our working environment. Julie Bishop’s reality is the PM is the leader of the Government, and Ms Bishop is 2nd in charge of half the the team that came in second. Julie and Julia may be the two most powerful women in the Australian government (although that is debatable) but they are not equals, nor on the same side. The deputy leader of the opposition’s job description probably includes a requirement to do all she can to destroy the government’s credibility.
In the world’s softest interview, Ms Bishop admits that she decided to hound Prime Minister Gillard only after Ms Gillard’s famous misogyny speech in parliament last year.

"Tony had always given Gillard the benefit of the doubt, he'd always thought there was a line she would never cross,'' says Bishop. "She crossed the line that day, and as far as he was concerned, all bets were off. So it ultimately backfired on her, because I would never have raised the AWU matter had she not done that. It hurt his family so much. His daughters were stung by it.''

The Prime Minister’s misogyny speech has been viewed by millions of people around the world, and praised by most. It was a singular event in our history which was, at the time, entirely misread by the media, and apparently, by Ms Bishop as well. Meanwhile, the Opposition keep raising the Gillard – AWU connection, but have failed to find a anything that can be pinned on Ms Gillard. 

Now this is just a observation, but if I was in Ms Bishop’s position, and I thought that the PM had a geniuine case to answer on the AWU matter, I would be gunning for her because I believed her to be in the wrong, not because she attacked my boss and upset his daughters. Similarly, if there is no case for the PM to answer, constantly attacking her out of revenge is like an episode of Glee without the music, isn’t it? Time to grow up and find priorities appropriate to a senior politican.

Julie Bishop just hasn’t had a good run in Opposition. She’s been deputy to three leaders, and while she is deputy, she won’t be Acting PM, as that role goes to the leader of the Lib’s Coalition partner, the Nationals. If the Coalition wins the election, and the Prime Minister is out of the country or unavailable, Ms Bishop may be acting Leader of the Liberal Party, but she'll be watching Warren Truss as Acting Prime Minister. 

She can’t even say in all honesty that she’s the most powerful woman in the Liberal Party, because I’m pretty sure that Mr Abbott's Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin would outrank almost everyone.

But here's a claim to fame: Ms Bishop was the first woman to be Treasurer or Shadow Treasurer until she was forced to resign over concerns that she wasn’t up to the job. Those concerns may have been based on the fact that she wasn’t any better at it than Barnaby Joyce would have been. That’s a hard truth.

In 2010, as Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, she suggested that Australian intelligence organisations forge passports for use in covert operations. Even if that did occur, we sure as hell shouldn’t be talking about it – but I suspect she knows that now. It seems that her ambition is to be Australia’s first female Minister for Foreign Affairs is achieveable; it’s also a frightening ambition, given her inability to keep possible intelligence activities secret.

Still, Julie Bishop has stickability; loyalty to her position, if not to the leaders she’s served. She’s seen off two Liberal leaders in Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull, and she’s survived as Tony Abbott’s 2IC for longer than most would care to comtemplate.



In the past week or so, Ms Bishop has made headlines by suggesting that women “can’t have it all”. Apparently we can’t have a career and a family, that we must sacrifice something. That’s an extraordinary statement coming from a career woman whose role in supporting Tony Abbott is at least in part to add a little feminine balance to the blokey-blokedness of the Opposition Leader, and possibly to help lighten his image with women. There are plenty of women around Julie Bishop’s age, who are childless and in de facto relationships – there’s Julia Gillard and me, and that’s just for starters. There are far more women in their 40s and 50s who have achieved great things in their career, and have had children as well. Ms Bishop is just flat out wrong, as she was on the caretaker government issue, forged passports and her motivation for pursuing Julia Gillard.
I am not being disingenuous when I say that Julie Bishop has already achieved much more than most will in their entire lives. Being Deputy Leader of a mainstream political party is one helluva line to put in your resume. I can’t mock that, and I wouldn’t want to.

Having said that, Ms Bishop has been in Government and in Opposition, and she's a high profile politician. What has she achieved?

…and as I type that, twitter tells me that Ms Bishop’s arch nemesis Julia Gillard is handing out a master class in budgetary variances, primarily for the benefit of Ms Julie Bishop.