https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/audio/2026/aug/10/why-hasnt-labor-had-another-female-leader-full-story-podcast  

As per recent discussion on The Guardian it was report over 50% of Labor Caucus is female but no female leader. Some possible reasons that bleed over into other vocations.

Well firstly, Penny Wong has all the resilience and toughness to make a top leader but as it stands the voting public still vastly overvalue politeness and I heard she “disgracefully” doesn’t smile when accepting her morning coffee in the Parliament canteen. This could quite possible breach parliamentary rules that itself values popularity over performance?

Moving on from Minister Wong I note in pursuits where physical size and strength is not of much if any advantage Men can still dominate. Most top chefs are men, most top racing driver’s are men. I mention these 2 as both involve a dog eat dog culture and elevate the individual over the collective. In most racing it also helps to have little to no qualms with pushing the limits and watching civilian road driving behaviour and the majority of fuckwits in a four wheel drive tailgating me are men. Reports from other road users suggest the same.

Another part of what MAY hold women back (under the current qustionable culture) is the difference between typical male and female upbringing. I have personally noticed and also read how easily some women assist each other and adopt collective achievement methods over the somewhat problematic notion of “I alone can fix it.” Of course most men aren’t a toxic mix of overconfidence and sheer stupidity but anyway what bunch of bubbling cretins would elect such a person twice over? Guess we’ll never know the answer to that riddle.

Stepping back from the worst leaders we can see a level of confidence that doesn’t meet a baseline level of merit the public should demand from their highest public office in the land. Women also feel shame more than men and if a woman possessed something adjacent to Milquetoast Tony’s or The Mad Monk’s level of stuttering ineptitude, they likely wouldn’t put their hand up participate in a leadership contest. Messaging is important and leaders having the depth of mind to speak in detail about important issues should be mandatory.

One last point comes to the manipulation by legacy industries milking government favour for as long as possible without an actual violent revolution invoked against them. Specifically - gambling, property and fossil fuel lobby groups. An intelligent and empathetic leader would be more likely to direct policy with conscience than do the bidding of industries that are often brazen in their own self-interest. Albeit an undiversified economy  creates challenges in challenging dominant but toxic industries.

We all look out our own window and have our experiences that are unique to us. Within those experiences we can make misjudgments. We might think we are being setup by a rigged system, but we aren’t convinced this isn’t true when our concerns are dismissed by cliches of ‘being a loser who missed out’ or ‘simply racist and/or a member of the manosphere’ simply because a narrative has a recognizable element of victimhood attached to it.

My own journey is one of various epiphanies and the ability to feel shame (my reasons for that require a fucking essay) but ignoring that I know there is something to look into regarding the housing market and immigration.

I think there are sincere public concerns in the housing market about immigration

Back in 2019 a coworker who was 1^(st) generation Australian from India (kids were second generation) said without anger or upset in a rather casual way that he had tried to buy a house in Bayswater (suburb of Perth) and the owner had refused. He found out later the owner sold at a lower price. It was quite possibly based on resentment of immigration rates. The coworker related it in way that suggested it might not be an uncommon attitude.

Then I hear recently Barnaby Joyce making comments about Australian citizens being outbid at auctions by people who just arrived in the country (mentioned in this Guardian Podcast). Likely because those people were from non-Caucasian backgrounds and possibly had an accent.

Skilled immigrants come here at the invitation of the Australian government and naturally they want a decent place to live and settle. Blaming immigrants is convenient and easy but it ignores the various parties truly responsible for the mess in housing. The Property Council of Australia and Business Council of Australia (lobby groups) are a good starting point. Then we jump to successive Australian governments who happily accepted their donations and private meetings that resulted in a continuation of a situation that as Patrick Boyle put it “works really well….. until it doesn’t.” In other words there was a mindless hope that housing wealth could be generated ad infinitum and governments in the western world had little to no plan b when if a downturn was to hit.

Conservatives have had dumb luck on their side to create the notion of them being stellar economic managers.

Some of the electorate might think a superhero conservative government might fix the problem because they are the best economic managers. Well, you might find NZ’s Luxon hiding in the bushes avoiding the spotlight when you mention that. You might also find John Key running to the same bush after the tough questions roll in about his rockstar economy that was mostly - if not entirely - based on good fortune and not good economic management. The Christchurch rebuild (act of nature), agriculture prices rising and increased immigration pushing up housing prices (and therefore wealth of home owners) and consumer good prices. Hardly stunning and innovative economic management and certainly not visionary.

In Australia John Howard’s govt benefited from the initial growth generated by neoliberal reforms before the mess from those reforms were realised in conflicts of interests, market forces reducing quality of service and a demoralised workforce and job precarirty.

The man had no innovative insights only status quo warrior mentality. However the gun buyback was admirable even if many other policies had overriding elements of cruelty and sadism (work for the dole, immigration narratives, attacks on unions)

Back to the immigration rate and my own circles of friends that mostly are university educated get a sense of frustration at the immigration rate even though they work in multi-cultural industry such as myself. I see 2^(nd) and 3^(rd) generation Australians from non-Caucasian nations starting to show frustration with housing policy. Therefore, can we set aside notions of racism and bias and simply investigate as to if successive Australian governments have been using the simple way of generating of GDP via heightened population increase. Something of which evidence suggests increased inequality as it raises prices across the economy and that money flows to capital holders.

Political opportunism needs to be ignored by the public and we investigate with nuance to take away that power

When a political opportunist (the nicest label I can apply) such as Barnaby Joyce says this, he knows it will ring true with a portion of the population and simply reacting to it and suggesting it is offensive is unhelpful. I feel we have to look further into the notion that the PCA, BCA have been lobbying government to bring in relatively wealthy immigrants to keep housing prices rising? This can be done without claims of racism or prejudice and also maintain the notion that the immigrants aren’t the bad guys here. The bad guys are the greedy opportunists who don’t care about Australia’s future and growing inequality and only care about increasing their wealth. They may protest but their incessant complains about supposedly high tax rates and productivity - mostly the result of their shithouse leadership - testify to this. These are people acting under the notion of having ‘Too much and never enough.’ These same people would label my comments Socialism or Bolshevism and hope to play on a reductive, binary misunderstanding of socialism rather than a nuanced one where it fits into a market system.

Sorry if I've posted in the wrong forum but I thought some knowledgeable folks might well know about Moneyspot private credit and if it is becoming riskier. I am aware there are no government guarantees around investments in it. Some queries have only turned up past warnings about predatory practices but haven't been linked to this recent warning AFAIK but wanted to know what other's thought.

Here is the recent news article regarding risks around private credit:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-20/asic-raises-alarm-on-private-credit/106929244

Back in 2024 Chris Ellison founder and managing director of mining company MinRes was featured in several double page spreads in The Regressed (West) Australian newspaper stating firmly employees needed to be in the office not working remotely. He said he would provide what they need in the office and went out of his way to state his claims while the journos from The Regressed Australian soft-balled him.

Later it was revealed he had tax evasion issues. This is important as so often inept, incompetent, mediocre bosses lacking integrity are often the most ardent opposers of remote work for their subordinates. The need to eyeball staff and effectively stand over them out of insecurity and paranoia. The person who cannot lead by example of create a good work culture needs to wield a problematic form of control. This mostly demoralises a workforce and can result in productivity loss or simply compound existing productivity issues. These issues are conveniently blamed on the workers rather than shithouse leadership that sets the standard to follow.

Neoliberalism and the job precarity it has brought sets a dog eat dog mentality that leads to poor team cohesion. Those still promoting the values of Neoliberalism are mired in a self deceit unprecedented in human history or simply have not worked in a typical consulting environment. It did not bring about efficiencies it brought about management jobs for friends with the resulting ineptitude. The incompetency was so bad in Canberra then when a certain manager attempted to perform some management adjacent duties the whole staff wished he hadn’t bothered. This was on account of him accidentally sending out a spreadsheet containing everyones rate of pay and charge out rates so the whole consultancy team of 40 onsite staff got to see what everyone else was getting paid…..

At was at this moment things took a dark turn in that office. They weren’t great prior but, the mood took a turn for the worse.

However, that is just one story amongst many in the book of Neoliberalism’s bad actors. Some proponents of Neoliberlism are also opponents of remote work but in today’s digital age most jobs are more effectively performed in a quiet harmonious environment of the home study compared to the numerous distractions found in the office. If we had good leadership that looks to set the example it follows, is consultative and transparent I doubt such leadership would be so insecure as to need people in the office 5 days a week so they could eyeball them. They would create a culture of trust to which their employees would respond positively.

For guidance:

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team:

Lack of trust and lack of any display vulnerability is at the core of team dysfunction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75bO_XWk7fw

https://www.amazon.com.au/Five-Dysfunctions-Team-Leadership-Fable/dp/0787960756

 Fabric of a Dream – The Fletcher Jones Story

Management that consults the workers prior to making a decision and gets their feedback so they feel invested in the decisions being made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En335Pz5-x8

 

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/global-roaming/getting-lucky-again-michael-stutchburys-economic-wake-up-call/106865316

This man is a windup doll who fires off a litany of shithouse economic cliches after the cord is pulled. 

Firstly this statement - "Remote working doesn't increase productivity" Oh Really? Having your workers avoid the commute and the distractions of stupid questions and also the co-workers only on site on account of consultancy looking to increase their profit margins and therefore making a nuisance of themselves.

Or having douchebag co-workers or even middle-managers tell you that your job is easy without being able to do it themselves and spending most of their day undermining you in an attempt to deflect attention from their lack of utility.

In addition to this in-person productivity killers, I worked more hours than ever during remote work during the pandemic and got more work done than I ever would in the office, as did many others. Though I'm sure your elite mediocrities at the Melbourne Club piss in your ear with a different story because most of those assholes are overseeing industries they don't entirely understand or care to understand. They just cut costs and raise the share price and pretend they are masters of the universe rather than middle aged mediocrities who attended the fashionable private boys school.

Next one - "Caring industries are unproductive" Well sure from an economic perspective they are but they are necessary so the economy needs to cater for them best as possible. It is important because when overweight asshole CEOs get stressed out from constantly making mistakes and have a heart attack they have the best care available to them.

If you want to pick on an unproductive asset then then housing is an unproductive asset but you only trot out the supply line not the negative gearing benefits that cause prices to rise to unaffordable levels. You likely do this because you and your mates are in hock on account of a few dozen investment properties. Anyone who calls themselves an entrepreneur based on investment property ownership needs something more vulgar than a pies smashed in their face. I've had economics professors at sandstone universities shout at me in sweaty desperation that suggestions around housing affordability "wont work" but when asked for justifications to back up their claim go silent. That speaks of pure self interest. A self interest conservative self deceivers indulge when they continually misinterpret Adam Smith thinking he was promoting selfishness rather than the greater good. Smuggling the Zucchini is a lifelong vocation for your ilk.

No surprise to me with the notion to "drop taxes on companies." What are companies going to do with the tax savings? I would give a company a tax break if they have an innovative idea that has a high chance of success and/or revive manufacturing in this country. I wouldn't be handing out tax breaks to the usual greedy suspects in minerals and resources. That's just your friends in The Melbourne Club pissing in your ear again.

Red tape sometimes exist on housing to ensure opportunistic assholes don't build homes in flood and bushfire high risk zones. Also to ensure building standards are maintained so people living in apartments can't hear all conversations happening on the levels directly above and below them because builders basically used butchers paper for walls with no noise insulation.

In short I'm sick of you and your ilk always being the one's heard on productivity when you do not appear to be close to the issues of those doing the work and the ones trying to innovate.

Also, I think from all I've heard from you Michael, you need to report your nearest Soylent Green processing plant.

EDIT: Hard to believe people with Stuchbury's contacts have yet to read Patrick Lencioni's The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team or have any awareness of the lessons to learn from the former Australian clothing company Fletcher Jones and how a company that works for everyone can function. A core tenet of executive leadership at Fltecher Jones was a requirement to engage with workers and get their feedback prior to making any decision that would effect them.

The 5 Dysfunctions of a Team speaks of the need to start with a good culture in the C-Suite prior to any productivity reforms amongst your workers.

NOTE: As this relates to political debates and cultures wars that involve politicians, I think it has a place in AUSPOL

Apropos this episode of Insight discussing if DEI had possibly gone too far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8XqsrQCoXI&t=338s

When confronting subjects are raised too often, we personalize and too often make the issue about ourselves rather than setting aside our own biases. These biases are often formed from personal experiences and ideology and without setting them aside we don’t open ourselves to new perspectives.

Something I say to middle aged white male friends of mine when I notice a triggered reaction when discussing anything at least mildly confronting. It has cut through and they altered behaviour and don’t make it about themselves as much and have learnt to discuss

I am not saying people must let a hurtful word go passed but maybe a more constructive engagement with the other side to understand why they feel that way? Of course, the other side as well needs to be open to that and set aside their fuckwittery as well - which often doesn’t happen. So, the other side have plenty of work to do – I absolutely understand that.

Once again, I’m not being a hypocrite as during my time online I have been threatened with rape, home invasions, being beaten to a pulp and had what I think was homosexual pornography thrown at me. I’m heterosexual, but to some men aggressive and somewhat inarticulate is the only way a straight man can act.

That said, those policing language are sometimes doing it with an ideological zeal that is not much more about self-validation and populism amongst a politically ideological community rather carried out with the goal of achieving a better understanding between people with opposing views.

I feel most of us need not beat ourselves up too much about past behaviour and cancel culture. Everyone simply hit the reset button and try a new approach.

Our reactionary nature is often seeded during our upbringing if some study by experts in the field are to be indulged. Most of us are also taught anger by our parents so it is hard to avoid.

I’ve also seen some people who never get angry spend most of their days engaging in problematic small talk about everyone around them as a device to avoid any scrutiny

I don’t particularly like the Matthew but I also don’t like being accused of sexual assault myself for literally a sideways glance when I’m running to my car after studying at the library of my old university. This happened recently and also in this instance CCTV exonerated me. Therefore, I think a statement needs to be made against bullshit claims of assault because I feel things have gone too far and we risk a police backlash similar to the US where women are being charged at an increasing rate for false claims because the police are tired of having their time and resources wasted.

Better we reverse course now before that happens. The supposed ultimate truth of a series of unverified surveys about sexual harassment on Australian university campuses didn’t go anywhere after initial media reporting. Also, no one answered the uncomfortable question as to what was driving this epidemic of harassment if the fraternity system and NCAA sports system that drives harassment on US campuses was absent from Australian campuses.

In a TV series Jess Hill managed to rustle up some professional protesters at ANU to mimic the protests held on US campuses but, it was unconvincing.

PS. Any dickhead who thinks you must have done something at some time to warrant the accusation is part of this idiocy as well. Primary school playground critical reasoning skills are seen on all sides of politics unfortunately.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-29/moira-deeming-matthew-guy-headlock-statement/106855516