At the risk of fouling one’s nest, communication advisers have created a hydra-headed monster that may well have far outlived its use-by date.

Often called ‘messaging’, this beast has been adopted by our near-sighted friends in the political sphere as a Cerberus-like guard against their natural enemy, the public via the media. As the polls show, it is not working.

Why do they keep it up, when, as Brecht would say, it strains the audience? After all, there are enough pointers to tell us these are different times. It is an information age where content matters, no matter how it is presented. Preschoolers, we are told, are so media-tuned they can distinguish between an advertisement and the six o’clock news, which is pretty sophisticated. I often can’t.

This is an era when old and young meet online and understand each other. There is no generation gap in cyber world. Frustratingly, wily information consumers know the term ‘spin’ and use it to describe any message that can be loosely called a ‘party line’.

‘Spin’ is now a derogatory term far too needlessly ascribed, such that even when someone is telling it as it is, he or she is derided for ‘using spin’.

The problem is that they have been doing it too well. Paradoxically, a polished performance now carries an inverse credibility risk. I suspect the time is fast approaching when there will be a market for trainers to teach would-be leaders to be more artless. It will be called ‘authentic’, and might well be labelled a ‘skill’.

I blame the 90s, when the political world spooked by its past tuned in to the media and not much else. So-called good media performers with a well-cut suit and a decent head of hair were revered, regardless of what they actually said.

And so we arrived at a period where in an effort to emulate smooth operators like the former UK prime minister and ‘King of Spin’, Tony Blair, and even our own natural communication wunderkind, Senator Bob Carr, more mortal spokespeople have become so machine-like that they are increasingly not believed.

They strain with their smoothness and stubborn intention to stick to a message, no matter what the question. We need to rough them up a bit. Which is probably why Tony Abbott’s frequent ‘umms’, his mistakes, and that toe-curling forced laugh might work for him. Tony is nerdy. He mucks up, sometimes steers off message, and often says the wrong thing. Just like the rest of us.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard used to be like that. Someone – or perhaps it was a committee – has removed the very quality that made her such a good performer; her naturalness. She would call it being ‘daggy’.

It occasionally reappears, like when she is chatting to childcare workers or community leaders and instinctively puts an outstretched hand to a passing child as it rushes about her, just missing a curly top. You know she means to be warm.

In the old days, before she took the top job, I liked her often maligned voice, her giggle, and even her so-called ‘bad hair days’. I appreciated that, like the rest of us, she sometimes forgot to put on lip-gloss, had wardrobe slip-ups, and apparently made some unorthodox choices in blokes.

But she knew her foci, and she communicated. Helped by an unpretentious allure, she charmed audiences as disparate as corporates, sportspeople and the party-faithful. Not only did she have all the answers, she gave them.

Even hardened pin-striped Tories of my acquaintance were, if not beguiled, impressed. Sadly those qualities are long gone, particularly when she is being interviewed. Even if the PM hasn’t been rehearsed, she looks it. Like a high school debater, she ardently sticks to her ‘key messages’ and refuses to move from a work-shopped long list. Critics might call it ‘wooden’.

Someone told her it was smart politics to constantly refer to Tony Abbott, as though giving oxygen to an Opposition Leader was the way to enlighten the electorate. It has taken many hours of expert craftsmanship to get her this way. It can’t be the real Julia.

What went wrong in this quest to connect? Or, as they say, ‘get buy in’? First, we can’t ignore that a few brainless bullies became media stars and were wrongly ascribed electoral power by gutless advisers. That put the wind up everyone (even those who worked for them). Then we swallowed the line that life is complicated, and shunned the clear-cut.

Safety came in logarithm-like solutions. A mystique was created about the right way to answer the wrong question so that enquiries went unanswered, even unheard. Everyone blabbered on regardless of who wasn’t listening.

Then another group of ‘scientists’ moved in and created the focus-group solution. Advisers bought the notion that all a political or business leader needed to sail through any interview was a series of catch-cries that a small group of paid ‘ordinary’ people from ‘working families’ said they were longing to hear.

But were they wearing clothes?

Jacquelynne Willcox, Head of Public Affairs

As seen on The Drum 

Photo Credit: news.com.au

As with many of these fundamental societal shifts, however, technology must go hand in hand with behavioural change. The use of credit cards and debit cards hasn’t dulled the fact that we still might need cash to pay for the bus ride home or a few coins for when we pop by a vending machine in our lunch hour. But, when technology became involved with this societal conundrum, the game changed.

And this is a great example of how technology turbo charges a societal goal or ideal, in this case through mobile payments. This development, mostly through the technology of Near Field Communications (NFC), has now made it into the mainstream as we more rapidly move towards a true cashless society. It’s fascinating to reflect on this as it embodies how technological innovation has become the catalyst for so much in our modern world.

NFC has the potential to completely re-shape the way we think about and behave with money. Imagine no longer needing to withdraw from an ATM but simply moving your smartphone close to an ATM-like device and having that money ‘credited’ to your phone. Think of the retail and societal implications of NFC and that’s where you start smashing genres and our current notions of what money means. No more cash needed for the bus, just wave your phone when you jump on board; no more coins for the vending machine, just make contact with a payment pad and the drink is yours. This is mega, because it’s not just about technology for technology’s sake, but rather a shift in behaviour and perception around one of our society’s cornerstones – money.

When you look around the globe, some countries are further down the road than others in adopting NFC and changing the way their citizens think about money and its role in their society. Last week, MasterCard released its Mobile Payments Readiness Index which it says is a combination of existing data and original market research that shows how 34 countries are faring in regards to getting ready for the advent of cashless payments.

Across the board, no single country scored high enough to reach MasterCard’s ‘inflection point’ (the point where a country would be ready for a cashless society if it appeared tomorrow morning), but Singapore did score the highest at 45.6. For those that are interested, Australia comes in at number 12 with a score of 35.3. Interestingly, though, Kenya is fourth on the list ahead of technology powerhouses such as South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. This result seems very surprising but when you read the rationale for Kenya’s score it makes perfect sense. The report says that the country is number one for consumer readiness and Kenya has the world’s highest rate of peer-to-peer payments familiarity at 89 percent. It’s this consumer readiness and ‘familiarity’ (thanks to a very intelligent carrier aligned program that encourages mobile payment) that meshes with technology to take a concept and turn it into reality. Once the desire and the vision is there, it is technology that becomes the vehicle by which these nuggets of genius can manifest.

In history, there have been a number of massive changes to our world and the way we think about the fundamentals of civilisation thanks to technology. Undoubtedly, the internet is the most marked of all these with its evolution changing, for example, the way we perceive and consume media. The Huffington Post wouldn’t even have been conceivable ten years ago and now its won its first Pulitzer Prize. And, realistically, it’s technologies like the internet and NFC that will continue to be the catalyst for behavioural change amongst society for the conceivable future. Those reports about the death of the dollar coin mightn’t seem so far fetched anymore.

Andrés López-Varela, Account Supervisor, Technology (@hackjack)

Photo credit:  Great Beyond

This budget was delivered in a time of heightened global turmoil, the Eurozone crisis keeps on delivering signs of imminent collapse. Just this week Socialist candidate Francois Hollande won the keys to the Elysée Palace. He has promised the recruitment of 60,000 new teachers, recruitment of 5,000 judges, police officers, restoration of retirement at age 60 and introduce a 75 per cent tax rate on millionaires. This all in the context of a public spending representing over 60 per cent of GDP. At this rate it will only be a matter of time before France joins Italy, Spain and Greece.

In contrast the Australian economy has been growing by 3 percent over the last year, and is now significantly larger than it was before the Global Financial Crisis, unemployment has gone down to below 5 per cent and unlikely to go much higher than 5.5 per cent, and as a percentage of GDP public spending is at 24 per cent.

On the night in the Great Hall, the mood was somewhat somber compared with the past, despite the solid economic outlook the business community had evidently voted with its pocket. The number of guest was significantly down from the past. The decision to deliver a slender $1.5 billion surplus is the first one since the Global Financial Crisis. But one can only conclude the business community has stopped listening.

Most of the Budget was widely trailed before it was delivered on the night to ensure the Government try and control the never-ending 24-hour news cycle. One such example was the announcement of plans to invest $515.3 million in a dental health package, including $345.9 million over three years to help reduce public dental waiting list. Once upon a time, the Budget was like a lolly shop of media opportunities for the Government that would last almost a month, now it’s lucky to last a week. The cycle is so short now that trailing is the only option but some argue it doesn’t allow for a transparent and open debate.

But let’s look at the numbers in a little more detail –

The Budget contained:

• - Targeted assistance to lower income groups (via increased benefits to Tax Benefit Part A recipients ($1.8b);
• - New support initiatives ($1b) and the Schoolkids bonus ($2b);
• - Introduction of a National Disability Insurance Scheme from 2013 ($2b);
• - Dental health initiatives ($505m – with $345m to reduce dental waiting lists);
• - Initiative to allow tax losses to be carried forward for small business (up to $1m in 2012-13); and
• - Money for an upgrade of the Pacific Highway ($2.7b).

Offsetting savings included:

• - Not proceeding with a 1% cut in company tax ($4.8b);
• - Reduced superannuation tax concessions for high income earners ($1b);
• - Reductions in the benefits (duration) for living away from home ($1b); and
• - Delays in defence ($5.4b), deferred development assistance ($2.9b) and (disappointingly) the deduction of interest payments has been dropped ($1b).

A recommendation of the Henry Tax Review and the most significant inclusion relating to company tax will be the introduction of the Loss Carry-Back forbusiness, which will allow businesses to ‘carry back’ up to $1 million worth of losses from 1 July 2012 in return for a refund on tax paid on profits in the previous year.

Some people, however, have argued the application will be limited, as it is only applicable to businesses structured as corporations. Institute of Chartered Accountants tax counsel Yasser El-Ansary has outlines that “of the 2.8 million small businesses, only 20% are structured through corporate vehicles; the rest are partnerships, sole traders and trusts.  Automatically, right from the outset, 80% of all small businesses are ineligible for access.”

Additionally, the Government announced that it would not proceed with the reduction in company tax to 29 per cent after the Coalition and Australian Greens’ said they wouldn’t support the legislation. By doing so the Government has been able to fund much of its low to middle income ‘battlers budget’ program. It gives them political capital in the electorate but Australia needs to be more competitive on a global stage and with a company tax rate of 30 per cent we’re at a disadvantage to our Asian partners. At some point in the near future Australia will need to reduce its rate, and preferably by more than 1 per cent.

Given that many from the business community decided to stay home and watch the Treasurer on the television, but maybe the Government doesn’t care they didn’t turn up either?

Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek must have made a convincing argument around the Cabinet table, as health was the big winner on the night. However, Health Minister has a strong advocate in this area in the form of former shadow Health Minister and current Prime Minister. But health has always been a strong policy area for Labor and by investing $61 billion in health care in 2012-13, particularly on rural and regional facilities, aged care and dental health, the Government is making that point loud and clear. Having spoken to health care people on the night the mood among them was positive. Surprise, surprise!

The Government announced $233.7 million to deliver its e-Health, essential if we are to move into a 21 century of patient treatment to ensure value for money, efficiency and transparency. Further the Government is providing $49.7 million over four years to fund a phased expansion of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. One in twelve Australians will develop bowel cancer in their lifetime, the disease kills around 80 Australians every week according Bowel Cancer Australia.

The centerpiece was $1.8 billion in additional support for families through changes to Family Tax Benefit Part A, meaning almost half of eligible families will receive an extra $410 for each child in primary school and $820 for each child in highschool. Both sides of politics have essentially given cash to voters, whether in a Baby Bonus or in this case a Schoolkids Bonus.

The Government committed $1.0 billion over four years to the first stage of a National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The biggest loser was the decision to defer for a further year the Government’s commitment to provide 0.5 per cent of Gross National Income as aid by 2015. By doing so it has saved an additional $2.9 billion. Many aid agencies and charities have been critical of this decision. I can understand why theGovernment has done it – no votes in sending taxpayers money to sub-Saharan Africa to help build wells for clean water or help reduce polio. The UK government ring-fenced aid despite its austerity measures, to ensure it maintains its international diplomatic position, maybe the Gillard Government isn’t that concerned by our diplomatic position? It might turn out to be a bad decision given Australia wants that seat at the UN Security Council in 2013-14.

This budget delivered savings, extra taxes, a surplus and handouts to low to middle income families feeling the pinch, which will probably find its way back into the retail market. Given the circumstances this was a solid budget, some have criticised it for its creative accounting, however, that argument doesn’t work as past governments on both sides of the divide has done this and will continue doing it.

Rotarians, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured to introduce our Premier and fellow North shore-ite, Barry O’Farrell this morning  - a little over a year on from his winning election.

As many of you will be aware, the member for Kuringai entered the NSW parliament in the early nineties, after a successful period as a ministerial staffer and state director of the Liberal Party, a position he beat Tony Abbott to.

His time as a staffer is remembered well  - particularly by former Howard Government MP and elder statesman of the Liberal Party, Michael Baume who told me the Premier was an excellent adviser to Bruce Baird, Senator Tony Messner, and  former Opposition Leader John Howard…. Michael rather mischievously points out that having an insider’s understanding of how Canberra works is rare for a state Premier, and he wagers it should put our Premier in a good position as he battles for more funds for NSW.

With respect to Michael’s fond memories, I suspect for the Premier that the experience more dear to his heart was that of chief of staff to then NSW Transport Minister Bruce Baird – because he not only succeeded Mr Baird in his NSW seat, but it was there that he met his wife Rosemary – who was Mr Baird’s PA.

And like Campbell Newman – who we all know recently followed in Mr O’Farrell’s wake with an equally impressive landslide election win – our Premier is not native to the state he leads.

He lives in Roseville, was born in Melbourne, grew up in the Northern Territory, and went to university in Canberra – where he rather refreshingly – to my mind -studied history, including Aboriginal history.

As the Premier once said:  “Multiculturalism to me is not a policy.  It’s actually what I’ve lived.”

The Premier has extended his eclectic and what one might describe in the parlance of today ‘inclusive’ early life – to politics and government.  For while he might not need to be – given his electoral success – the Premier is a loyal coalitionist – proud of the partnership with Nationals and true to that agreement.

Indeed, the success of the Liberal National Partnership has extended to his equally successful marriage.  I understand the Premier even refers to his two sons as true coalitionists; for Mrs O’Farrell is the daughter of National Party MP, the late Bruce Cowan, and was a Young National when they met.

Curiously thirteen months on from the election and into his second year of implementing an extensive plan for reviving NSW, Mr O’Farrell sometimes likes to describe himself and his government as ‘boring’.  It is curious because the Premier’s plan for NSW is far from humdrum.

Premier, Michael Baume reminded me recently that the last Premier called Barrie who claimed to be boring,  resorted to wearing grey cardigans….Michael has asked me to beg you not to reintroduce that fashion solecism.  That is the last straw.

I think when the Premier says boring, he means ‘getting on with the job’ without the circus associated with some governments of recent memory. Journalist David Marr put it more elegantly when he said that Mr O’Farrell  “was determined but cautious. He commits no blunders.”  Indeed when David Marr put to Mr O’Farell that he might be dull, he tellingly replied that he did not want to be the opposite.

In preparing this introduction, I have asked many of the Premier’s friends and colleagues for some insights:

Here are some:

His insurance policy for avoiding crocodiles in the swimming holes of his Northern Territory childhood was to always be accompanied by a dog – dogs can sniff them out apparently.

His big fingers make his regular tweeting past time a challenge, he often gets the train to work, he once bred angel fish, he is loyal to those who have been loyal to him but doesn’t let that fidelity get in the way putting policies in place, he is still warmly remembered by the aboriginal community he grew up with in the Northern Territory.  His favourite food is Italian.

On the subject of food, this Premier boldly and famously let us know that his body is a cypher for his political intentions.  A decade ago when he was a loyal Deputy, a more hirsute and portly Barry O’Farrell announced to speculating journalists – who knew leader material when they spotted it –  that “when I lose weight and shave off the beard, then you’ll know I’m after the Liberal leadership”.

As we all know, the Premier then went on to shed 50 kilo – a great deal of which was facial hair, I am sure.

The Premier joked about this with me at the Sydney Institute dinner last month.  He was rightly miffed that some journalists had been asking when he might retire – an impertinent question given his obvious youth and good health, and of course his overwhelming mandate for the job.  The Premier said that perhaps he might tell pesky inquisitors that when he puts on weight and grows a beard, they can start to wonder.  Well, Premier, I am pleased to observe that you remain clean shaven and svelte

Jacquelynne Willcox, Head of Public Affairs

Photo Credit: The Australian

Selwyn Snell, Chair Horticulture Australia

This week marked the 2^nd National Sustainable Food Summit; an exploration of the issues and limitations which surround our current food system, what we can do to create positive, sustainable change and what will happen if we don’t.

With Weber Shandwick having released the results of Food Forward only a few months ago, I was eager to immerse myself in the deeper, meatier issues of food production and consumption in Australia.

I got this and more. Attendees were filled with passion and pursuit for their industry, their beliefs and their role in achieving a sustainable food system. Terms like Factor 4, strategic acupuncture and food hubs, and incredibly detailed statistical evidence of a food and water decline, were used to explain what, in essence, is a supply and demand disjoint. Simply put, consumers are consuming more than the environment can withstand.

While there’s no denying an impending crisis of food supply as we know it, arguments generally fall into one of two categories: we must significantly change our production, distribution and consumption of food, or we will run out; there is an abundance of food, we just need to know what it is, where it is and how to use it. To meet either objective, a huge behavioural shift is required from each moving part in the food system.

Significant change to our production, distribution and consumption of food will be difficult. We will have to shift behaviours that have been etched in people over many years. And, as it stands, there are many reasons not to.

A presentation from Coles highlighted that food cannot just be sustainable. It has to taste good, too. It has to taste good so consumers want to buy it, and consumers have to buy it for retailers like Coles to stock it and make a profit. Flip the coin and you’ll find that while consumers (generally) want good tasting food, they won’t buy products that are out of their budget. We want value for money. We want convenient, healthy, tasty, cheap food that will sustain ourselves and our families.

Local farmers’ markets and food hubs are trying to provide just that; fresh, tasty, inexpensive food that’s also good for the environment. But when their prices and convenience cannot compete with big retailers like Woolworths and Coles, especially in urban areas, consumer loyalty can waiver.

Each moving part has a valid reason to continue business as usual. But this won’t provide us with a sustainable food system. We only have to look at free range eggs to see that this behavioural shift is possible. Producers and distributers now readily supply free range eggs at a competitive price; consumers are demanding them. A range of factors influenced this shift (Jamie Oliver helped), but it is a prime example of how a mainstream food system can become sustainable.

There is an abundance of food; we just need to know what it is, where it is and how to use it. Things are looking up. Julian Cribb, journalist, author and all-round sustainable food expert, predicted food trends for 2100 (stay tuned for Food Forward 2099). According to Julian, we will have a diverse new food supply that will be unrecognisable to today’s consumer. Artificial, recycled and high tech foods will be hitting our plates, with the emergence of new food industries like algae farming, urban agriculture and acquaculture taking over.

Synthetic meats will be extremely popular, with the world’s first synthetic sausage developed in 2011, and the first synthetic hamburger to be completed by the end of the year. An algae section will sit near the deli in our supermarkets, and we will be consuming more of the 25,000 edible plants available around the world.

With 80% of the earth’s population predicted to reside in urban areas by 2050, there will also be a revolution of urban agriculture. Vertical farms will turn urban areas into super green cities and biocultures will enable the specialisation of food for each consumer, to prevent things like cancer or heart disease.

A behavioural change is required no matter which direction we take. By being more active in understanding the issues which impact our health and our environment, we will have a better chance at tackling these issues as a complete system.

More information is available on the happenings at the Summit here.

Naomi Brooker, Account Supervisor, Consumer and Lifestyle

Playing some small part in a community initiative is commonplace in any progressive organisation. But in establishing our own partnership, we wanted to ensure it was more than a program of pro-bono support. What we hoped for was something that everyone in the agency could embrace and contribute to. That hope has since been realised.

Autism Australia is a not-for-profit organisation, founded in 2007, and has since become the country’s largest autism education and advocacy group dedicated to increasing awareness of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) across communities.

In Australia, 1 in 110 children are on the autism spectrum. It is the country’s most common development disorder. In fact, more children are diagnosed with ASD than childhood AIDS, diabetes and cancer combined.

It is because of that startling statistic alone that we wanted to be involved. The fact is, everyone in our agency is likely to be touched by autism, whether through family, friends or work colleagues. As an organisation that is built on advocacy creation, it seemed common sense to ensure that we had the chance to make a difference when it came to discussing autism.

So, having had the chance to hear some remarkable stories from the Autism Awareness Australia team, ten of us will be doing what ever we can to ensure tonight’s free community event on the shore’s of Sydney Harbour is a huge success. That means everything from serving hotdogs to telling the autism story to anyone and everyone who’ll listen (and eat!).

We’ll be doing it in the knowledge that we’ll be the first country on the planet to light up one of its iconic buildings (the Sydney Opera House) in blue, something we’re all relishing the opportunity to see.

But far more important than the theatre of it all, the Weber Shandwick team in Australia will have the chance to advocate on behalf of an organisation that has touched us to the core. That is the true spirit of advocacy and it’s something we are so proud and privileged to play a part in.

If you’d like to know more about the wonderful work of Autism Awareness Australia, or simply want to know more about the condition, check out some of the extraordinary things they do here. It’s powerful stuff.

Ian Rumsby, Chairman, Australia

And, with yesterday’s announcement (or worst kept secret) that the new Apple iPad will soon be available, it seems that these two competing tech behemoths are now in sync with their predictions. Why is this? Simply, the iPad and its most recent incarnation actually embody much of this vision that Schmidt articulated this week.

A couple of years ago this alignment between Google and Apple would have seemed weird and unrealistic. Certainly, they haven’t done this on purpose, but this is very telling about the development of technology nowadays. The fact that many of these innovations are now essentially pointing in the same direction tells us so much about what makes good technology into great technology. It’s like a shared epiphany between Google and Apple. Google excels at the ‘how’ of technology and Apple then takes the baton and brings the human experience to all those zeros and ones.

The video introducing the new iPad on Apple’s front page states that technology “is at its very best when it’s invisible”. This is at the heart of great technology; when it transcends its parts and features and gets out of the way of itself to enable or enrich a genuinely human experience. That is when we reap the most benefits from all those little chips and pixels.

And that’s where Apple nails it; interpreting this technology and these exciting developments in the ‘how’ of technology to come up with probably the most elegant answer to the ‘why’ question. What they’ve done with a device such as the iPad is take all the parts and create something that is greater than the sum of those. An experience that is transcendent and completes Roddenberry and Adams’ collective vision by rubbing that human flavour on it.

This transcendent technology is more than just new ways of looking at old devices. This is actually about a new way of thinking about technology. If those that develop these kinds of widgets and gadgets look at technology as an enabler of human experiences and something that is more of a window to the world, rather than the world itself, well, then everything changes. Those of us that take these products in our hands and make them part of our day-to-day will become more and more comfortable with what they do and we’ll be more inspired to make them a permanent fixture in our lives.

Andrés López-Varela, Account Supervisor, Technology

Photo credit:  JD Hancock

As the Australian Financial Review newspaper reported today, while it is the leader’s prerogative to call caucus together, ALP rules require that anyone wanting to call a special meeting to debate the leadership has to sign up one-third of the caucus support to do so. So, technically that means it is possible for a caucus meeting outside of the dates I have mentioned above (and on the parliamentary website for hardened political junkies). However re-calling members members to Canberra for such a meeting would leave the government open to attack over the expense tax-payers would have to pay. Wise heads might then say then that a special meeting outside of sitting times is unlikely.  Then again, how many of those are there calling the shots?

But of course being shortlisted is a long way from winning. So we’re all getting on with the business of our business and doing a terrible job of skirting around the issue at the water-cooler for fear of jinxing our chances.

In fact, so hilarious has the subversive no-speak policy become, that we’re toying with the idea of re-badging the awards Voldemort or Macbeth or something equally non-conformist and luck-testing in the hope that such irreverent humour will stop us thinking about it.

For some of our colleagues in Asia Pacific, a willingness to even consider the prospect of flying in the face of good omen is insane. But then it’s the Australian way, isn’t it – a tendency to buck the trend, say it as it is and get on with the task at hand rather than worry too much about what anyone else thinks.

Or at least that’s what we like to believe.

The fact is Australians are as superstitious as anyone, despite themselves. Our history is built on stories and beliefs passed from generation to generation. More-so, the ever-evolving cultural diversity of our nation has brought a richer tapestry of traditions and superstitions to our shores. And of course pavement-crack avoidance remains as popular a past-time on our city streets as does hopscotch in our junior schools.

So for all the collective unspoken thoughts across the agency that “what will be, will be”, I’m now waiting for someone to plonk a golden dragon on my desk with the assurance that it might improve our luck at the Campaign Awards given the location and its significance to Chinese culture in 2012.

And whilst I’ll chuckle at the ridiculous notion that at $5 trinket will secure our good fortune, I’ll also quietly ensure that it sits at right angles on my desk, adjacent to the window that over looks the courtyard so that it’s glow reflects gently across the office floor. After all, it would be wholly un-Australian to decline someone-else’s well-meant generosity.

Ian Rumsby, Chairman, Australia

Photo credit: besar bears

Julia Gillard made the program the watershed it will become.  All the other interviewees, save for the erudite back room master strategist, Bruce Hawker – and probably former ALP Minister Graham Richardson -  would not be known to the wider electorate.  They alone would not have made the program.

Political junkies like me have been spending weeks, if not months, working up scenarios about what might happen should Kevin Rudd re-take his job.  What are the numbers?  Who has jumped over?  Would there be a short circuit with a compromise candidate and if so, who might that be?  Defence minister Stephen Smith is often mentioned as the cleanskin – as far as the electorate is concerned – candidate.  However, he hails from WA.  The three hour time difference, I am often told, would make it difficult for him. Probably more of a problem is that Labor is very shaky in WA, which has a popular Liberal Premier.   Bill Shorten, the former AWU leader,  ruled himself out last week when he said on Melbourne radio that he ‘never ever’ wanted to lead the Labor Party.   That could be a sentence he regrets uttering  - as did the PM when she made her ‘no carbon tax from a Party I lead’ comment.  The hard working Mr Fixit of the government, Greg Combet has also been mentioned.  However, some mumble that he is more unpopular in the government than Mr Rudd was.

What this means for business is inertia.  If Ms Gillard maintains her leadership, the  frenzied focus on bringing the government back to surplus will remain.  A fiscal climate, the tightest many Canberra operators in the higher levels of bureaucracy have seen, will mean minimal spending.  Curiously, any spending that is contemplated will have to be signed off by cabinet – a rigourous process that will involve reviews and scrutiny from the Department of Finance.  (That of course becomes an expensive exercise, but as budget watchers know, it comes from a different pile.)

Will a change of leader mean an early election?  Many doubt it.  The only person to benefit from that is Tony Abbott.  Those backbenchers who claim they will resign in this event may be persuaded that it is not in their – or the Party’s interest – to do so.  The Independents surely don’t want an early election as the polls suggest it will mean joining the job queues.  Surely a new leader, who ever that might be, will want to stay in the office for as long as possible, if only to put things right? Or less wrong.

Rather than be flummoxed by this chaos, business needs to ensure it has good relations with both sides of politics.  Remember that Mr Abbott has said that his current front bench will look much the same should he win government.  Particularly important is making sure your relationships with the bureaucracy are sound.  Whether a government is chaotic, stunned into inertia or simply new in the role, it is the bureaucracy who will be called upon to ensure the wheels of the economy keep turning.

Jacquelynne Willcox, Head of Public Affairs

Photo Credit: jk 1971