This FMI originated in the Report of the Industry Task Force and Leadership Skills, Enterprising Nation chaired by David Karpin in 1995 and was identified as one of great priority for Australian policy makers and something that would be of practical benefit to management development perceived as sadly lacking in Australia. The Report was prepared for then Minister Crean, a Cabinet Minister of the Keating Governement and this may have proven to be its achilles heel in the present Canberra environment. David Karpin was one of Australia’s expert management practioners based in Melbourne, his policy credentials, were judged excellent by the Federal Government of the day. The initiative was important because it was aimed at improving the competency of the many managers, who were outside top management and big corporate settings, whose responsibilities can nevertheless be critical to performance. Unfortunately the history of the FMI shows the many crushed expectations, public spirited idealists must suffer, if relying on only the test of evidence based policy, given the real stuff of the hothouse of politics such as in the lead up to the forthcoming Federal election.

The Task Force recommendations were highly developed based in part on much commissioned research and informed criticism by relevant practioners and other experts of management and leadership provision in Australia in 1995. The Report relied strongly on (now ageing) evidence but continues to be a basis for discussion for management reform, because of the number and quality of its wide ranging recommendations, which were not taken up and are thus still relevant for discussion today. It’s a pity but given its original connection to the Keating years, it appears that this initiative has now been rebadged despite original and later evidence of the continuing need for its implementation and wide support as originally conceived by private and public eneterprise organisations and the community has been deliberately diminished for political reasons.

For example as a result of Howard policy despite its wide applicability and much researched success in many management situations (including the public sector) it became incorporated in the Federal Government’s Business Services training package and lost its uniqueness as a course offering. It has become only one of a range of component training programs rather than as originally conceived as an important new competency package and therefore of great practical value for managers worthy of national support and resourcing provided initially through TAFE, and later in the 1990s through private providers in the training market which is a concern of both sides of politics in Australia.

The present official policy toward the initiative is not clearly identifiable from the public record but the change of approach was expected by many, as for example when the Prime Minister John Howard announced the abolition of the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), which was an Australian Government statutory authority established in 1992 to provide a national wide focus for vocational training on June 30 2005. However the decision to rebadge the program because it was largely dead policy and incorporate it in an approach seen as best suited to the needs of private businesses predated this decision as for example in 2001. The major justification without better evidence appears to lie in the ideological concerns of the present Government and the predominant concerns of public servants whose role is to support government by focussing only on the management issues of the agency concerned. There is little or no clarity about neither what happened nor information available about immediate or future developments, which could include complete abandonment of the approach, and this may indeed be its fate.

The termination of the approach would be a very great pity, as the program was intended to provide so much to enhance management competency and leadership skills for those managers not choosing to benefit from for example postgraduate training available from business schools, schools of public administration and public policy which have proven to be too big an ask for most supervisors and managers employed throughout Australia, identified originally in the Karpin report as signicantly under credentialed and under prepared for the competencies for leadership and success of their organisations.

The over emphasis on the private provision of the initiative leaves open the fundamental questions of access and equity (stemming from example of up front fees) which need consideration for the approach to have close connection to desirable ends such as improvements in Australian productivity, entrepreneurial and related aspects of management performance in key organisational settings and other areas of performance given the need identified in Karpin and many other reports. The scope of the initiative is considerable and has been identified in 2002 data, as having reached 25,000 individuals but there was still the challenge identified to get better coverage and penetration using the approach as intended and this now seems to have been largely put to one side, as a major initiative despite the desirability of the intended result and the strong evidence of benefits known to result.

The report (mentioned above) prepared for ANTA in 2002 by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research then an important source of public information and evaluation of FMI , but probably because of historical origins of ANTA and its connection to the Keating years, has not been taken seriously by Howard and later policy makers. The Report found repeated evidence of success of the program and continuing need for its implementation and monitoring, to ensure the continued relevance and quality of the approach. The report found evidence major spin offs stemming from improvements beyond simply improving managerial performance especially leadership, organisational learning and business growth.

A national FMI body was also suggested , as appropriate to support and encourage even more managers in the initiative but, this was probably considered as way over the top by the Howard Government and later, whose leave it to the market approach, means many issues concerning the rationalisation of course provision, especially over reliance on short courses also identified by Karpin, and other basic questions, such as to quality and the variety of training available from providers, simply may never happen.

David Karpin responded to the 2002 report and stated that the FMI is just one of many knowledge constructing tools that are available to enterprises. However, as the evidence in this report shows, FMI has the capability to extend managerial identity, develop organisational learning and contribute to business growth. Such management development is critical if we are to continue building an enterprising nation.”

Karpin’s stated belief, is an example of an optimist, seeking support from the Howard Government, for an initiative which he still strongly recognised as valid, despite the contestability (he must already know about) identified in some academic papers about the nature of the competencies specified in the FMI, a matter not considered fully in 2002 because of ample evidence of the overall robustness found of the competency approach of FMI clearly supported in the 2002 report.

The broader question of clarity and transparency about Australia’s training policies continues, and could be crucial, if there is to be informed evaluation and policy making that has electoral consequences, that the politicians will take notice off, and thus be better connected, to community understanding and their needs as to what is required to equip Australia to function effectively, and especially hold Government to account for important policy provisions, such as when choices are made at election time. The lack of public debate and resultant insight into the FMI, as argued here and indeed imperfect understanding by the community of the future of Australia’s training policy has been impaired, by what is a clear systemic failure to allow evidence to find an appropriate context which could correct the situation, an opportunity this article can in part provide and warn about.
 

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act a new. We must disenthrall ourselves, and we shall save our country (Abraham Lincoln 1862).

Periodically all of us irrespective of religious belief whether it be Christian or non-Christian (and those who do not have a religious belief) need to stand back from the hurly burly of daily business, and other aspects of living to determine those leaderships skills which need rejuvenation if leaders can succeed in future circumstances. The approach of the Christmas and end of year is traditionally appropriate for this to be done.

For example Christian ideas have prevailed over a long history of social change but Christian ideas have never been relied on sufficiently as a principal source of enlightenment and therefore the competency of national leaders at the political level, in the corporations and small businesses, the trade unions and other critical areas such as the military.

Christianity has been relegated to a back seat for much the time because of the strong conviction of many of the need for a strong secular state and the poor record of Christians in persuading much society that Christian thinking should play a very strong part in adult leadership formation. Christians have found it very difficult to compete with the realists and pragmatic when it comes to influencing top-level leaders and this has been the situation for a very long time and may well continue if nothing is done.

Christians also have had in the past a sad history of denominationalism and discrimination. In recent years much more of an attempt has been made to improve tolerance and dialogue between the different groups of Christians as well as with non Christian religions and of course atheists and agnostics. The result has meant a great improvement for human progress and better understanding and tolerance. For some Christians this has meant a revolution in approach.

Nevertheless Christians still stumble over basic questions over unity. Much of the modern discussion concerning ecumenism has not led to significant changes in the number and divisions between the long established groups. This is a great disappointment for those seeking a more adult and permanent solution which if mature should also include many more examples of different groups joining together even using methods of governance that reflect the common nature of the beliefs when held by so many.

Too many have given priority to realists who are content to develop approaches, which only recognise for example immediate physical realities. Christians should be prepared to better equip their thinking to provide relevant inspired and orthodox ideas that can answer individual and community concerns.

Realism is not necessarily anti-Christian because it is a concern based on observation of nature that all Christians maintain was created by God. Christian leaders therefore need to take up such a challenge to better foster leadership in the community, which recognises the benefits of their inspired thinking.

Christians should not be prepared -to let others do their thinking this is the lazy way out. Christians can correct this for example through better continuing and resourcing of Christian think tanks Christian based universities and professional bodies.

As a further suggestion it might be a good idea that all Christian Clergy when being trained for their role in future be trained together for at least part of their training before going to serve the various groups which they believe they are called to. This could be achieved quite readily in some instances. The final emphasis on their training would be depth and tolerance (all desirable qualities for Christian clergy). Other aspects of the development of clergy also need support and encouragement.

In conclusion Christians could offer more discernment and be better suited to guidance of families and the nation if regular effort were made to rejuvenate and review the effectiveness of Christian inspired thinking and values to help individuals and society a long life’s pathways. The leadership skills of those of other religions and others of no particular religious belief may even be a source for Christians to be better leaders if such believers are tolerant and discerning and learn from other people’s approaches.
 

V_1

The Karpin Report

There has been considerable national data and discourse about the minority role played in Australian management by Australian women. For example the influential “Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills” chaired by David Karpin concluded in 1995 that while change in this area was occurring, it was at a snail’s pace. It is now more than a decade since the Task Force Report was first considered, especially in view of its many forward-looking and well-researched recommendations, which concerned itself primarily with the management issues of the then-private sector. However aspects of the commissioned research of the Task Force have continued to be relevant. For example Task Force research considered a vast array of women in management literature to establish if there were any major problem areas or deficits in performance of women managers compared to men and found “little evidence of substantial differences in terms of dominance, confidence or sense of security, or in terms of capacity to lead, influence or motivate, nor differences in humanitarian approach, understanding or capacity to reduce interpersonal friction” Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills (1995: 1192). This finding suggested that gender is not a crucial issue in leadership, and that for women there was an issue of opportunity rather than performance, when comparing their role to men’s in management situations. The Task Force concluded that women were the major disadvantaged group within Australian management. The report and findings became highly influential in policy debates, and in feminist critiques of the status quo. Since the 1990s government policy concerning gender differences has been broadened to include most aspects of diversity in the work place.

Women in the Australian Public Service Today

The Public Service Act 1999 has a mandatory requirement that agency heads establish work diversity programs, one of the aims of which is to remove employment disadvantage based on gender. Outcomes for women are now impressive, and indicate the success women now have in fulfilling public service management roles – for example the percentage of employees who were women in 2008 approached 60%.

Public Service data also indicate that the proportional representation of men and women varies significantly at the agency level. For example, of agencies of more than 1000 ongoing employees, Bureau of Meteorology had the highest proportion of men (80.1%), followed by Defence (63.5%), Medicare Australia (80.3%) while Human Services (76.7%) had the highest proportion of women (State of the Service 2005-06: 87). Women are still under-represented at senior levels despite significant gains for women at the middle-and lower-levels of management in the Service. There is thus evidence that the scope of the employment of women could be widened, especially in some agencies.

Recent data also indicates that only 49.9% of women have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 54% of men. This can mean that women need additional competency and mentoring arrangements if they are to compete effectively with men in the Service (State of the Service Report 2005-06: 90). The majority of employees now believe that gender is not a barrier in the workplace. The Australian Public Service is thus proving very attractive to women. On the other hand, women managers in the Australian Public Service are reported to be more likely to believe they had witnessed bullying or harassment in the workplace . This issue remains to be resolved.

There has also been a range of initiatives of great benefit to women (often the primary carers of children) adopted in the APS, and these have been designed to be broader and more equitable than satisfying womens needs. Agencies now provide an extensive range of family-friendly options for women and men in the Service. For example:

? Paid maternity leave
? Flexible working hours,
? Opportunities to work from home –available in many agencies and;
? Other less financially generous but available conditions of service including a minimum entitlement to 52 weeks of unpaid parental leave following birth or adoption of a child, one week unpaid paternity leave at the time of the birth of a child, and a maximum of three weeks unpaid leave for a couple when adopting.
? Some agencies have also initiated school holiday programs for their employees together with salary packaging of child care fees, and the provision of childcare centres for the children of staff.

? Job-sharing available in some agencies is still not widely used in the APS, and this possibility needs further development as it would permit carers (who are often women) more time to support family life and therefore resolve work and family conflicts of responsibility.

The Feminisation of the Australian Public Service

The Australian Public Service has achieved significant improvements in the role and participation of women in the Service as reported here:

“Although this is pleasing, agencies need to ensure that they make themselves attractive to a wide range of employees so that the APS can continue to be representative of the community it serves. In time this may mean that the APS may need to recruit more young men” (State of the Service Report 2005-06: 133).

There remains also the continuing challenge for APS policy-makers to develop diversity issues more fully in order to manage the Public Service in an effective and democratic manner, beyond earlier and now often-satisfied concerns of establishing and improving the role of women in public agencies. Many more women in the Service will need to foster and demonstrate outstanding management and leadership skills if their minority role in top management within the Service is to be a matter of the past. This could be achieved by more use of networking, and lobbying opportunities in agencies, by women, and effective use of mentoring, leadership and coaching opportunities both in the Service and also from private sources such as management consultancies available throughout Australia.

It now appears that given the history of encouraging diversity in the APS and the increased success this has meant for women that resourcing the initiative should now increasingly be focused on enhancing and affirming women in top management positions of the APS.

References

Australian Public Service Commission, State of the Service Report 2005-06, [on line] http://www.aspc.gov.au/stateoftheservice/0506/report.pdf [accessed 27 March 2007]

Australian Public Service Commission, State of the Service Report: At a Glance 2007-2008, [on line] stateoftheservice/0708/downloadshtm [accessed 26 August 2009]

Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills 1995, Enterprising Nation, AGPS, Canberra
 

The global challenge

The possibility of genuine peace and better understanding of all nations have been a pursuit of the world for generations often without success. Famous idealist, soldiers and statesman have tried hard but the problems of exception management and leadership in so many tragic situations encountered so often — as for example in Northern Ireland until recent years, the conflict in Spain of the Basque separatists, the racial wars we know of in the case of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the tragedy of the Vietnam war and so many other well known in the countries of the blue diamond in Africa and indeed the release from apartheid of the people of South Africa. There is also the terrible test to major powers and the human race in the struggle for identity and freedom in the Middle East, so well known to Australian military even in the case of Afghanistan, Indonesia and the small micro states more familiar to Australians in the South Pacific.

The use of force

The Australian forces and indeed those of the main powers including associate countries such as Canada and New Zealand, the UK and the major democratic power the US, have been give terms of engagement to use force of arms to resolve conflict (when first implelemented pretty well indefinitely) but little attention has yet been paid to develop an appropriate strategy of peace which indeed which we should not loose sight of in Australia as it is an important democracy. There has been too much emphasis on containment only rather than understanding and rapport with the various aspects of diversity and change and so familiar in the Australian case but often too great a hurdle for the inexperienced or volatile areas of the underdeveloped countries particularly of Africa and the Middle East.

The lack of Australian power but not leadership skills.

Australia simply does not have the capacity or power of the European States, America and a great society such as China. So some of the prospects for change we can offer to others are limited but nevertheless we have gifts as a federal (a diverse) society that should be celebrated and explained to countries that need to change from violence.

Australians are best equipped therefore to help such societies to understand the benefits of resolving conflict primarily through the electoral process and indeed without violence or sabotage of each other – pointing out there has never been a civil war in Australia-and that the Australian forces in this country do not play a political role — this would be a significant change in many conflict ridden countries because the national standing Army for example or indeed guerrilla groups has been the main channel relied on by many vulnerable societies to develop leaders — but Australians can demonstrate such reliance to develop leaders is mistaken and counter productive-our leadership programs ( found in commerce, government, the forces and the trade unions) offer many more chances and encourage diversity and therefore provide the right approach to the functioning of a robust public domain and the wider nature of democratic government — which should be the expectation for all men and women, making possible through living in harmony but in open competition of ideas and leadership skills to secure solutions — particularly in the big picture areas critical to national leadership and also where necessary — to support other societies but this should be only of a temporary nature as armed occupation as undertaken in the Middle East-should only be a temporary means to secure order so peace can follow.

What should be done?

If the implementation of military force looses context i.e. peaceful government then is unattainable, military intervention should be strongly criticised on moral and humanitarian grounds— this now seems to have occurred in many critical aspects of the violence in the Middle East. Many nations need to benefit from a reality check that reconciles the ideals of personal conscience and tolerance (internal peace) and military control — usually through martial law (the big fist) until democratic government can thrive where there was once a battlefield.

This indeed has already happened in the case of South Africa so it is achievable but it needs courage by Government to bring men at arms and civilians, back from the brink, so the immediate questions are one of governance and not loss of life and injustice. A world based series of meetings and initiatives is needed to bring forward the context for peace especially in the Middle East — too many young soldiers for example have died to justify unquestioning commitment to militarism and any misunderstanding particularly of the world’s important religious faiths and the wonderful diversity of the many races. The possibilities for peace need much more exploration and implementation in the decision-making processes of world leaders.

The constitutional crisis in Australia in 1975 has been one of the most written and talked about events in Australian modern history. Many observations have therefore been made to gather the facts of the circumstances and collect the understanding of participants and observers because of the significance in national politics but also because of the precedent like circumstances which could be replicated also in Australian state and territory political situations in cases where an upper house continues to revise policy, legislation and the like.

Prime Minister Whitlam (now an elder statesman) came to power in 1972. His government was innovative very often and tested the then boundaries of a pathway forward. For example the Whitlam government introduced modern no fault legislation making possible divorce when a relationship had broken down. This policy placed responsibility on the judgement of those in a marriage to make their own minds up about the future without having to resort to criteria and evidence that was too tough or exploitive by solicitors or private investigators usually at a very high cost financially. When the enabling legislation for this policy was introduced the reaction of many well intended but opposing approaches in the minds of parliamentarians was so strong that the controversy surrounding the innovation would prevail for quite some years way beyond the Whitlam government.

The Whitlam government innovated in many other areas of significant policy in the 1970s for which so many now are thankful. The provision of funding for states and territories by PM Whitlam meant the timetable for the provision of sewerage services to most in the big cities and towns were a milestone change in policy for Australians. Also the work of PM Whitlam in the creative arts and communications areas- art and media such as films and the dramatic arts were all considered break throughs that no other PM would support because they lacked capacity to make an appropriate judgement or simply lacked the daring to give Australia a way forward to lead these sectors from the doldrums where they did not belong. PM Whitlam also led a funding process to revolutionise the provision of child care (long day care with services of nurses for the very young and teachers for those preparing for kindergarten) and the expansion of preschools so all infants and the young preparing for primary school were catered for.

There were many other innovations at the political level. The debates and conflict of opinions in parliament and within PM Whitlam’s party led to rivalries and disputes, which were difficult for the PM Whitlam to manage. In the cases of some observers and many politicians threats of a challenge arose because of internal confrontations in the governing party or opponents in the parliament from other political organisations. For example the development of the modern Australian Post Office and the Whitlam decision to organise the Australian forces in a democratic but unified command basis because these policies met the criteria of many technical and top political observers led to political pressures because of the PM Whitlam’s break or break through approach to not waste a moment to get the job done for Australia. These progressive factors were often the background to review and often hostility of the Australian Senate in the early 70s-for example PM Whitlam won another election in 1974 to reinforce his role but the outcome politically in the Senate was not crucial to the survival of the PM Whitlam government in 1975. Until 1975 the convention that an upper house reviewed policy and did not reject money bills (the budget) was not under threat but all this altered in 1975 because of very strong opposition by the Queensland Premier Mr Petersen who broke an aspect of the convention concerning the senate by nominating a senator from Queensland who was not an Australia Labor Party member when a colleague of Mr Whitlam in the senate passed away (as far as I can recall given the circumstances were so many years ago). This appointment and the politics at the time (which included the sacking of other colleagues of PM Whitlam) made possible the rejection of the budget in 1975 leading to the situation where government could not continue and so an election was forced with the support of the Governor General (President) of Australia with a negative outcome for the Whitlam government. PM Whitlam lost office.

The 1970s are a long time ago but personal circumstances also played a part because of as you may be aware of my novice involvement in an unexpected dilemma because of internal politics within the then Sydney branch of the Federal Department of Education in 1973 and 1974. These events followed PM Whitlam’s confrontation after a political meeting at Parramatta (western Sydney) which led to many misunderstandings on my part about how to bring about the then dream of modern child care and preschool policies for the community. PM Whitlam was a fierce opponent of nonsense, having a go at my judgement as though he was offering a bribe. I was completely out of my depth of course. Also the situation in the office-which needed major changes-was not helped by me claiming to have the right answers and brave claims of infallibility which did not hold up to scrutiny. The leader of the opposition offered me no sympathy and pressurised the situation in any way desirable for his party but not my privacy. He was very hostile about my request to be left out of things because national politics of this nature was not my cup of tea. Other politicians including Mr Doug Anthony the head of the County Party (now the National Party) let me know they would not let me down. Overseas supporters surprisingly came from the United States-looked just like Mr Carter-but the events were a long time ago. The Americans made it clear that everyone has their day and therefore the claims by the leader of the opposition Mr Fraser for an immediate enquiry and that PM Whitlam should stand down were similarly regarded by me as right over the top. Fraser insisted dire consequences were to follow and that myself and the Whitlam government better accept this but this was not necessarily supported by the Americans-keep in mind please that it was a long time ago and my clarification may not be so pure but I am attempting to inform the reader of what took place.

The environment in the agency in Sydney was so jaded that it would not settle down-at least not settle down with me being there-so I received a minor promotion to work in Canberra where I have spent the majority of my work and political experience which of course continues. I am very thankful despite the continuing nature of personal responsibility that I was able to leave for what was for me one of the worst workplaces I have ever taken part with.

When arriving in Canberra I was free of all this pressure and nonsense but not Mr Whitlam. The conflict between Fraser and Whitlam had not improved it was worse (as we know) than ever. Fraser was busy feathering his own nest and seeking a way to be condemnatory of the Whitlam period and my experiences in Sydney. Mr Whitlam endeavoured to be personally supportive of me getting back on my feet and to function effectively the way I then felt qualified as a mature public servant which is all I felt able to do.

Some wonderful things did happen. I took part in the final negotiations to end the Vietnam War with the Governor General (President) being the chair and US and Russian leaders also taking part, and when approached also helped decide the day for the famous double dissolution-remembrance day-because that day more than any others reminds us to make the right call for democracy to take shape and all benefit. The Governor General and the PM Whitlam made it clear they were very personally supportive but I would have a lot to face up to and better develop my leadership skills to solve what would be imposed and most likely to take place because in a similar situation most would do what was best only for them-in effect the highest bidder-an not act nobly in the circumstances.

When Mr Fraser approached me or indeed Mr Whitlam or the Governor General-as far as I was ever aware-but keep in mind the squabbles were enormous and my memory scrambled at the time and still is. Fraser acted in too aggressive fashion but made clear he was not going to tolerate even as childish what had happened in Parramatta and would follow up even if it meant an unexpected poll-because Labor simply could not put its house in order and this was obvious to his immediate and long term advantage.

When PM Whitlam and the Governor General-spoke to me-obviously suffered from the blues-they tried to give friendly warnings of what might happen. I am not a lawyer nor do I have perfect memory or judgment. For example distinguishing what took place in Sydney in the 70s is an egg I cannot successfully unscramble. However when the Queen and her husband visited Sydney to open the Opera house-at least I think it was at that time but cannot be sure-the head of State-the Queen – signed legal documents-taking the pressure off me-so media coverage of all this sad and over the top event in Sydney need not go to air. Fraser detested this approach.

Pressure like this was not renewed until the dismissal period evolved. On winning public office Fraser renewed the pressure and put all participants including VIPs such as the Governor General and the Head of State on notice to account for them. As you can imagine Stephen Kendal was very scared about what was being attempted and that Fraser lacked the capacity of a balanced call about an event, which should be forgotten about. This additional pressure on the Whitlam government contributed to break and break through mentality when bringing forward policy, as the sands of politics seemed uncontrollable. At this point I became a fun organiser of the Australian American Association and found many friends there as well as a sympathetic Ambassador who genuinely liked me. But as they say everyman has his day. Life is like that.

Fraser kept the pressure up-in my opinion-as if a war was necessary-to repudiate PM Whitlam and those who made possible taking the events in Sydney away from the media for immediate community understanding. The atmosphere at that time was unpleasant. Unpleasant enough to be fearful of being repudiated publicly rather than being given understanding and liberty from nonsense. Consequently as time passed and only when necessary-it was decided to have a full blown-confrontation-about the constitution-especially the constitution oath. So something unusual but supportive of the constitution and those responsible for how it works was devised-to take place blow by blow-much needed-was devised to take place in Saint Christopher’s Cathedral-a catholic place of worship.

Admittedly this was an unusual approach-but clearly justified when Fraser announced-in the place of worship-a royal commission to investigate and recommend the process of justice-he thought required-concerning those who had been supportive of me ducking the issues in Sydney-including the head of state-who had only acted conscientiously. He went right over the top and stating the British High Commission must close and that diplomatic relations severed. I simply could not believe my ears when this all happened All of these things I considered absolute nonsense.

The US and Russia (Carter and Brezhnev were supportive). For example at a highlight of what was said by Fraser-that the Queen must stand aside and be investigated for her role-all commonwealth nations spoke directly to me ridiculing what was said. Mr Carter also made clear that nonsense such as stand down of the head of state and Fraser’s desire of a referendum then to establish a republic was way over the top. Carter made clear that what was done was far from enlightened and would be disruptive of the fundamentals of peace and disarmament throughout the world. Premier Brezhnev endorsed the approach completely. Mr Gordon Brown of the UK was present personally and opposed vigorously what Fraser intended. Leading the process of discussion from the view point of the soverign.

The catholic church-from its stand point-offered the diplomatic and sacred public exposure of the Christian Eucharist-as a sign of trust-common understanding and enlightenment of those seeking a settlement to what had transpired. No one doubts the sincerity or strength of commitment made. For example while speaking to all assembled Carter called the participants of the war between Egypt, Palestine and Israel to put down their arms and in referring to the events in Australia was able to arrange a cease fire voluntarily imposed by each of the parties. The drama of Carter’s intervention was fundamental to acknowledgement of him as a world leader leading to recognition later for a Nobel Peace prize.

For these reasons I believe a different interpretation of the dismissal being brought about by America for its own purposes seems quite misjudged but being then inexperienced and a baby was not part of any wind up talks with the US hierarchy. What followed in Saint Christopher’s is contrary to any stereotyped interpretation. It is often now claimed that the Liberals felt so let down that that in some numbers at least they are hostile and critical of the US role in Canberra.