KARMA: Bully Bitten in the Bumb as Kevin Rudd's not the man for the United Nations: Helen Clark is far a better choice

Published in SMH.COM.AU , 16th July 2016
Written by: Elizabeth Farrelly
We really need to talk about Kevin. Our choice is between a wildly inexperienced but bumptious male and a wise, experienced female, respected, accomplished, fit-for-purpose. But really, is this even a contest?

I'm not talking Trump v Clinton (although if the cap fits, right?) I'm talking Kevin Rudd v Helen Clark, vying for UN Secretary-General.

Remember what this means. Secretary-General is not some sinecure for time served, some handy side-pocket for a pesky ex-PM. This is the search for the next Yoda. Wanted: Supreme Being, Planet Earth. Of course it's not Australia's decision, but Malcolm Turnbull is expected any moment to announce our nomination (or not) of Kevin Rudd as Candidate 13. Question is, should he?

The question must be asked. Does Rudd really have the gravitas to hold down Secretary-General?

 Helen Clark, New Zealand's then-prime minister, right, looks on at Kevin Rudd in 2008. Photo: Bloomberg

Clark has been number three at the UN for seven years. Before that, she was NZ's (best) PM for nine. Rudd is also "over there", gracing the dining rooms and draughty halls of New York with his yet-undeclared campaign. PM for only three years, and then in two parts, bookending Gillard, he is more renowned for back-stabbing and bad-temper than compelling leadership. As a presence on the world stage, Clark towers over him.

If Malcolm had just one act left, one wave-of-the-wand to restore Australia's tattered image as a grown-up nation, it should be this. Transcend national rivalry. Forget the Bledisloe Cup, won by NZ 43 times of 55. Be big. Support Helen Clark for Secretary-General.

The decision must be made well before Ban-Ki Moon retires on December 31. From August, the UN Security Council (always dominated by the five permanent members with veto rights; France, Russia, China, the US and Britain) will ruminate and eventually hand its decision to the General Assembly for ratification. That much is the usual faux-democracy.

But the lead-up process has been, for the first time in 70 years, semi-transparent. There are 12 official candidates – counting Clark but not (yet) Rudd. Half are women, eight are Eastern European, two Latin American/Caribbean and two "Western European and Others". That's us, "others". Australia, NZ etc. Misc.

Already, several live-broadcast debates have let the candidates strut their stuff. Clark's performance in the latest, on Wednesday, won applause – for her humour (quipping that the group should be called "Western European and Orphans"), her insistence that Sec-Gen is not a turn-taking thing, like some dole-out of Olympic lollies, but a "global search for the best talent" and her frank criticism of the UN's human rights and conflict resolution record. It reminded me why Clark is such a standout. She never lets go of principle.

Clark has her critics, of course. But colleagues and staff remember her with immense respect, using phrases like "utterly focused" and "utter integrity."

"Fantastic," said her former Defence Minister Phil Goff of Clark, praising her focus, her "utter integrity," and her grip on "kiwi values," What values? Well, pluralism, feminism, fairness, decency, courtesy, frankness and backbone, for starters.

As a three-term PM she transformed social and cultural attitudes – presiding, not least, over Maoridom becoming cool. That alone is huge. In 1999, before her first election as PM, Clark persuaded the eloquent Maori mayor and former sex-worker Georgina Beyer to contest the right-leaning seat of Wairarapa; becoming NZ's first openly transsexual MP and a much-loved public figure.

In 2001, when Howard was still doing children overboard, Clark's government welcomed 131 people from the Tampa. Without fuss, they accepted hundreds from Australia's festering prisons on Nauru and Manus. Then, unlike Australia's policy of preventing family reunions, worked assiduously to locate and reunite family members.

In 2002, Clark formally apologised to Samoa for injustices committed under NZ rule, and to the LGBTQI community for harm and ill-treatment. In 2003, when the Blair-Bush team were stamping their war-boots, Clark refused to send troops to Iraq, saying that a Gore presidency in the US would not have invaded. So now, post-Chilcot, when we're all wondering why Howard and the Coalition of the Willing should not be named as war criminals, NZ looks strong and honourable.

She made the unpromising-looking MMP voting system work by forming strong alliances with the Greens and others and, throughout, refused to play the gender card, so transforming the status of women.

As to Rudd? Much of the criticism directed at him is personal – the temper tantrums, the selfies, the narcissism, the tendency to bully staff. This is largely irrelevant to his professional performance, especially since most of the bullying accusations originate with political opponents – in particular Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop.

Gillard's description of the bullying amounts to little more than stepping angrily "into my space", which seems scarcely coup-worthy. And although Bishop told the ABC in 2009 that "bullying behaviour by the Prime Minister … is totally unacceptable" she now, mysteriously, supports Rudd's UN campaign.

So no. It's more about Rudd's accomplishments and the extent to which these demonstrate leadership qualities like wisdom, principle and moral strength.

Rudd began well, coming in on a landslide and within months ratified the Kyoto protocol and offered the Stolen Generations an apology that echoed Keating's. Thereafter, it started to look more like gesture than fact. The Rudd-Swan team is often credited with our weathering the GFC relatively unscathed, but that's more reliably down to the zero debt they inherited from Peter Costello. Rudd's white paper on homelessness (2008) attracted attention, with the PM sleeping rough, but – like his 2020 summit – changed little.

There was an emissions trading scheme that exempted high-emitters, an asylum-seeker policy that rejected more applications than Howard and a promised NBN for which we're still waiting.

So, honey, do we really have to talk about Kevin?

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-kevin-rudd-we-should-back-helen-clark-for-united-nations-secretarygeneral-20160714-gq5s9p.html

COMMENTS - LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK ...

• Truffles McLobsterJul 16 2016 at 12:46am
  Yep. Rudd would do silly things like speaking out on behalf of the marginalised and the dispossessed. Clark is too clever to make that mistake.
  • sangelaJul 16 2016 at 10:53am
    You're joking, yes?
• PaybackSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 2:40am
  Kevin Rudd's off stage temper and ability to work with others would become an international embarrassment, he doesn't belong on the world stage.
• MichaelBringelly,Jul 16 2016 at 4:12am
  Elizabeth you left out one sentence. If Kevin Rudd was the only applicant the world would be better served by nobody.
  Helen Clark is an Olympic finalist, whilst Rudd is little Athletics..
• DuralsumoDural,Jul 16 2016 at 7:36am
  Too right she is!
• NullacritterJul 16 2016 at 7:48am
  Completely agree, someone more like Helen Clark and less like Kevin Rudd is what the UN needs.
  Unfortunately, for that reason, it will likely not happen.
• Black snakeWest Woombye,Jul 16 2016 at 8:02am
  I think it is safe to say that the UN knows exactly what Rudd is and shall treat him accordingly. We did.
• topenderJul 16 2016 at 8:08am
  Spot on, KRudd is tantrum throwing egomaniac why on earth would anyone let him near the UN ??
• The KiwiJul 16 2016 at 8:16am
  You could do a lot worse than have Helen Clark as SG. She is incredibly diligent, focused, capable and outcome driven.
• rob1966Sydney,Jul 16 2016 at 8:30am
  Trump as US President? Bois Johnson as UK Foreign Secretary? Rudd as UN Secretary General?
  It's the worlds worst nightmare!
  Start digging your fallout shelter ...
• Mike FCheltenham, NSW,Jul 16 2016 at 8:32am
  But hang on - Helen has Kevin's full support, doesn't she? Shouldn't he be trusted at his word? Given Kevin's substantial history of honest dealing, he wouldn't be publicly supporting someone while secretly white-anting them and promoting himself, now would he? I hope that, among others, Mark Latham and Julia Gillard proceed immediately to say just how safe it is to trust Kevin.
  ...Mike F
• wellsieJul 16 2016 at 8:50am
  Couldn't agree more! Go, Helen. Go away, Kevin.
• James RSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 8:52am
  Rudd and Clark - chalk and cheese. And despite Kevin's cheesy grin he's the chalky, flaky substance.
• Rainer the cabbieLost at the interchange,Jul 16 2016 at 8:56am
  I perceive the UN as an organisation that talks and talks, makes resolutions that don't get enforced and then backtracks until the next thing comes along.
  Kevin would be the perfect fit to lead that outfit. He'll inject some insanity, irrational behaviour and look at me theatre as well.
• Dr KiwiJul 16 2016 at 9:08am
  Clark was one of our best PMs - she showed that negotiation in good faith with other parties can lead to stable and effective government under the NZ MMP political system.
  That is not a bad track record to bring to the job of Secretary-General - ability to negotiate rather than grand-standing should be an essential criterion for that job.
• ebtSydney,Jul 16 2016 at 9:15am
  I agree completely. Kevin Rudd did a few things well and should be recognised for that, but the trail of problems and utter mismanagement he left in his wake is there for all to see and will take decades for hard-working Australians to resolve.
  To imagine scaling-up those errors to a global size just makes me shivver. Helen Clark is clearly a rare talent and has the potential to become a global stateswoman without peer. Malcolm doesn't often get these things right, but here's his big chance - support Ms Clark for UN Secretary-General.

Why would we want to inflict Rudd on the UN?

OPINION
The Drum
By Daryl McCann 
Posted 4 Feb 2016, 8:58am

Everyone knows how dysfunctional Kevin Rudd's leadership style was, so why would senior Coalition members consider backing his bid to become Secretary General of the United Nations? Daryl McCann writes.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 must rate as one of the lowest points in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era. On that day a leadership spill in the Australian Labor Party resulted in caucus recalling Kevin Rudd to the prime ministership by a margin of 57-45. Few on the Labor side of politics could offer any reason for doing so other than political expediency ahead of the 2013 federal election - the national interest did not enter into their calculation.

Photo: Kevin Rudd is said to be hoping to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations. (Chip East : Reuters)
A similar criticism, paradoxically enough, might now be made of certain Coalition politicians, including Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, who are considering backing Kevin Rudd's bid to replace Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General of the United Nations at the end of 2016.

Michael Costa, former minister in a NSW Labor government, is not the only Labor stalwart to quip that are plenty of people who still respect Rudd but only because there are people who are yet to work with him. Fifty-seven members of the federal ALP caucus knew exactly the kind of character Rudd was but nevertheless returned him to the Lodge - the most responsible and important position in the land - hoping that the electioneering magic of Kevin 07 had not been entirely exhausted.

On regaining the prime ministership, Rudd claimed that three years in the political wildness - OK, winging around the world as foreign minister - had resulted in a character transformation: a "new humility". A few tried to convince themselves it was true, even if the facts pointed in entirely the opposite direction. Let's face it, by June 2013 Labor knew Rudd was a danger to Australia and yet 57 members of the Caucus voted him back into power.
To the extent there is a job specification for the position of UN Secretary General, Rudd does not fit the bill. The UN's risibly short memorandum calls for candidates with "the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity" along with "proven leadership and managerial abilities". The character assessment made by the full spectrum of Kevin Rudd's own party and advisors alone should disqualify him from consideration for the top UN job.

So why are members of Prime Minister Turnbull's Government threatening to foist Rudd not only on Australia but also on the entire world? Despite their obvious differences as politicians, Turnbull and Rudd are both aficionados of the art of triangulation. There is nothing wrong per se with operating from the middle of the political spectrum, and I have argued before that there are advantages in PM Turnbull shifting the Coalition towards the centre.

"Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism."

The risk of triangulation, however, is that endlessly positioning between genuinely competing views can signify not reasonableness but hollow opportunism. Take, for instance, Rudd's changeability on the issue of comprehensive border control. Obviously there were mistakes in the way Rudd went about dismantling Howard's Pacific Solution, something acknowledged even by some on the left.

Shortly before Rudd was forced out of the prime ministership, Julia Gillard identified "loss of control of borders" - according to an email disclosed in Troy Bramston's Rudd, Gillard and Beyond (2014) - as a key problem for the first Rudd administration. Come June 2013, though, and Rudd was tacking to the right of Gillard's Pacific Solution II and to the left of Tony Abbott's Operation Sovereign Borders with an irresponsible warning about a war with Indonesia.

Perhaps all this positioning and re-positioning and supplementary re-positioning is Rudd merely trying to "get the balance right". Or, more likely, the fellow is a hollow opportunist who does not stand for anything except his own self-advancement. Here we begin to see the conjunction of grand narcissism and capriciousness culminating in a dysfunctional leadership style. This, of course, is not exactly what the endemically dysfunctional United Nations requires right now.

Which leads us back to the question of why members of the Turnbull Government would countenance Rudd's candidacy for the top job at the United Nations in the first place. On the surface, at least, it might seem statesman-like of the Coalition to accommodate the aspirations of a former political adversary. It might give the appearance of bipartisanship and reaching across the political aisle, but it is a mirage.

Lending any kind of support to the vaulting ambition of a man whose career already exemplifies the Peter Principle par excellence would not only be an act of narrow political calculation but of great irresponsibility. Hopefully Turnbull's version of centrist politics retains its capacity to distinguish between reasonableness and hollow opportunism.

Some might argue that Rudd remains a long shot and so a bout of feel-good nationalism on the part Julie Bishop et al for "our Kev" won't do any damage. Still, we must always expect the unexpected in the opaque realm of international bureaucracy.

Australia will have a lot to answer for in the decade ahead if, later this year, Kevin Rudd's name gets pulled out of the hat.

Daryl McCann writes regularly for Quadrant and the Salisbury Review. Visit his blog.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/mccann-why-would-we-want-to-inflict-rudd-on-the-un/7138408

Outbursts become rude reminders of Kevin Rudd's past

Published in : The Australian    
Date: August 23, 2013 12:00AM

Written by: Rachel Baxendale, Reporter, Melbourne and Sid Maher, National Affairs Editor, Canberra

A RETIRED air vice-marshal has accused Kevin Rudd of "bully standover tactics" and a make-up artist has declared he was rude as she prepared him for the people's forum debate, reviving questions about the Prime Minister's character that emerged in his first stint in the role.

Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss revealed Mr Rudd had warned him in a private meeting that funding for veterans would be at risk if he "bagged" the Labor government. He accused Mr Rudd of using "classic bully standover tactics" and threatening veterans with getting nothing if they criticised Labor's military superannuation indexation policy.

The air vice-marshal's comments came to light as Brisbane make-up artist Lily Fontana posted a message on Facebook that suggested Mr Rudd had been rude to her in the lead-up to Wednesday night's people's forum in Brisbane.

The revelations blunted Labor's attacks on Tony Abbott's character, after the Opposition Leader snapped during the forum debate, asking of Rudd "does this guy ever shut up?"
Ms Fontana, who lives in Mr Rudd's electorate of Griffith, wrote in her post: "Just finished doing Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott's make-up for the People's Forum at the Broncos Leagues Club. One of them was absolutely lovely, engaged in genuine conversation with me, acknowledge (sic) that I had a job to do and was very appreciative. The other did the exact opposite! Oh boy, I have ever (sic) had anyone treat me so badly whilst trying to do my job. Political opinion aside ... from one human being to another ... Mr Abbott you win hands down."

The post echoed claims that Mr Rudd had been rude to air force staff during his first term as prime minister. In the lead up to his failed February 2012 leadership challenge against Julia Gillard, an expletive-laden video was leaked of him losing his cool as he prepared a Chinese-language video.

As news of yesterday's Facebook post spread, prompting a string of government ministers to have to defend Mr Rudd's character, the Prime Minister's office was confronted with fallout from Air Vice-Marshal Criss's revelations in an interview on Brisbane radio on Wednesday.

The retired airman alleged that at a meeting in the Prime Minister's office on July 11, attended by Mr Rudd, Defence Force Welfare Association national president David Jamison, DFWA executive director Alf Jaugietis and Defence Materiel Minister Mike Kelly, Mr Rudd warned the DFWA against bagging the Labor government.

"I told him I was going to have to point out to our members that what Labor is offering is not a good deal," Air Vice-Marshal Criss said.

"I'm the national media manager, so I told him I would be putting together policy comparisons of what each party is offering. Rudd said, 'That's fine, but don't bag us, because if you bag us, we'll pull up the drawbridge and you'll get nothing'."

Air Vice-Marshal Criss told The Australian yesterday he had been intending to stay quiet about the incident, but chose to speak out after becoming infuriated with what he termed Dr Kelly's "untruths" about military superannuation indexation during an interview with ABC News Breakfast's Michael Rowland on Monday.

On July 30, the government announced it would boost the military pension of more than 26,000 retired Australian Defence personnel by indexing their payments in the same way as aged and service pensions from next July. But the measure only applies to those aged 65 and over, which according to the DFWA leaves more than 200,000 servicemen and ex-servicemen on insufficient payments.

Dr Kelly said the way Air Vice-Marshal Criss had characterised the meeting was "absolutely untrue". "He's basically saying that the Prime Minister was threatening," Dr Kelly said.

"That's completely untrue. He was there to engage and support (the DFWA representatives) and they were very happy that they were there having the meeting.

"The only way he could have construed that was perhaps that we emphasised the importance of acknowledging the changes to the system that had been made by Labor."
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said he did not accept Air Vice-Marshal Criss's characterisation of the meeting.

"The Prime Minister had a productive meeting with members of the Defence Force Welfare Association, including Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss," the spokesman said.

"The outcome of the meeting was that the Prime Minister agreed to support the next step of the DFWA's proposal for indexation and we look forward to ongoing constructive engagement with the DFWA on this matter."

Ms Fontana's Facebook post yesterday was shared more than 1000 times on the social networking site before Sky News ordered the freelance make-up artist to take it down.
She contacted Mr Rudd's office and offered an apology to the Prime Minister. By mid-morning, Ms Fontana had posted a new, regretful message.

"Didn't think my personal page/opinion of my day would get so much attention," she wrote. "What a lesson to learn. I've removed the post and regret making the comments I did."
Another Brisbane-based make-up artist, Abigael Johnston, who has worked for the Nine Network, had posted on Ms Fontana's wall about a "similar experience" with Mr Rudd, noting John Howard and Peter Costello were "gentlemen". "The other, I could not even face book (sic) how he treated the crew. Just abhorrent!" she wrote.

When contacted, Ms Johnston said: "That post has been taken down. I have no comment."
Employment Relations Minister Bill Shorten defended Mr Rudd's character, saying he believed the Prime Minister had changed. "I have no doubt that not only is Kevin Rudd a more consultative person, but he is the right leader for these times," he said.

Former prime minister Bob Hawke, in Adelaide for a state Labor event, said voters did not care whether Mr Rudd was rude.

"If you're an intelligent voter, what's going to be more important to you: the fact that, under a great deal of pressure, the Prime Minister was just in passing a bit rude to a person, or that he is going to have for you and your kids and your grandchildren, a better education policy, a better health policy a better economic policy?" Mr Hawke said. Asked about the Facebook post, Mr Rudd said he understood "the person concerned has withdrawn their remarks from Facebook, and they regretted making those comments".

"When you are preparing for a debate with two or three minutes to go and someone walks in and puts stuff on your face, you smile, you are in the zone, you're ready to go," the Prime Minister said. "I don't know about you folks, but I'm not happy about having make-up put on at the best of days.

"You smile, then two or three minutes later out on the stage to participate in the debate - I think a misunderstanding has occurred and I have no hard feelings in terms of the comments which this person has now withdrawn."

Mr Abbott fumbled Ms Fontana's name - calling her "Tilly" - but he praised her professionalism and said the pair had an enjoyable conversation prior to the contest.
He played down his "does this guy ever shut up" remark during the people's forum. "Look, one contest that I can never win against Mr Rudd is a talkathon," the Opposition Leader said.

Mr Abbott said Mr Rudd suffered from being "all talk and no action".
Mr Albanese said Mr Abbott's response to Mr Rudd was "aggressive, was angry, and it reminded me of a leader we used to have, Mark Latham".

"I thought his handshake during the first debate was his first Mark Latham moment, and last night we saw his second Mark Latham moment ... People are right to be worried about this bloke, about whether he is up to the job," Mr Albanese said.

Additional reporting: Sarah Elks
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/outbursts-become-rude-reminders-of-pms-past/story-fn9qr68y-1226702470808

Office Rage : What to do when your boss is a bully?

A new book accuses British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of throwing temper tantrums.

How can employees deal with bullying in the workplace?

He’d punch walls and angrily stab chairs with pens. Frequently, he’d yell at his staff, once pulling a secretary out of her chair for typing too slowly.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has a volcanic temper, according to a new book, The End of the Party, in which political journalist Andrew Rawnsley describes a series of tirades during Mr. Brown’s second and third terms in office.

The book was excerpted in Sunday’s Observer, the same day Christine Pratt, the head of the National Bullying Helpline, revealed that Mr. Brown’s staff had called her service .

In the Prime Minister’s defence, Secretary of State for Business Peter Mandelson told the BBC that Mr. Brown is a leader who “gets angry, but chiefly with himself.” Downing Street staff have described a leader who is simply passionate about his work.

The allegations have stirred experts in the growing workplace-bullying industry, and some say “passion” is the cop-out du jour for intimidating bosses.

“Passion can justify any over-the-top emotion. The message is that everyone else should learn to live with it. That’s what it’s like in a bullying environment: Everyone walks on egg shells, but all cater to the Grand Poobah,” said Gary Namie, founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute.

Dr. Namie, who works with WAVE, a human resources company that deals with workplace bullying, describes the behaviour as “health-harming mistreatment” and “psychological violence.”

According to a 2007 study by the institute of 7,740 Americans, 37 per cent had been bullied at work, and 39 per cent of bully targets suffered clinical depression.

Bullies are often bosses: 72 per cent, the study said. Forty per cent of those are women who target other women; men appear to split their bullying evenly between the sexes.

It seems the man has a temper,” said Gerard Seijts, professor of a leadership course at Richard Ivey School of Business in London, Ont.

Prof. Seijts said hotheads can get far in leadership because no one stands up to them.

“Often times, it requires a lot of courage for people around a leader to speak up. … But every time we don’t correct people on their behaviour, we raise the bar for our moral outrage. If we treat this as acceptable, what becomes unacceptable? Maybe slowly, [Mr. Brown's] behaviour became unacceptable.”

Valerie Cade, a Calgary-based workplace bullying expert and author of Bully Free at Work, said that unlike bullying, Mr. Brown’s explosive tantrums may not be deliberate, but they are “unwanted.”

She said bullied employees need to be able to name the behaviour as such, or else they end up viewing the scenarios as a sign of their own shortcomings.

“This is where people get stuck the most. Naming it as bullying lets you separate yourself from the situation. In the absence of doing that, you’re powerless because you’re trying to figure out what you could do differently.”

Ms. Cade suggests employees confront their bosses in person, with direct language, then follow up via e-mail if the behaviour persists.

“In a corporate environment, now, you’ve made a record of that. Now you’ve got grounds to go to that boss’s boss,” Ms. Cade said.

But she added that most bosses deny the behaviour, and then minimize it with comments such as, “You don’t know the pressure I’m under.”

Dr. Namie noted that human resources staff can only go so far to resolve the conflict.

“Bullying is not an HR problem. It’s an executive-team, administrative, leadership problem, and unless and until they want it to stop, it’s not going to. HR hears all the complaints but they don’t have the power to create a new policy and to enforce it.”

Dr. Namie said the biggest mistake that bullying targets make is to let “the bully sink the claws in” the first time around.

“The bully is testing the water. The failure to confront that is what convinces the bully you’re an easy mark. Unfortunately, what makes a target a target is they didn’t see it coming. They’re constantly surprised.”

Asher Adelman said one way to avoid bosses with volcanic tempers is pre-emptively.

“It’s very rare for a workplace to improve it’s culture. Usually, when things go bad, they only get worse. For the most part, aggressive, abusive managers don’t change their behaviour,” said Mr. Adelman, founder of eBossWatch.com, which lets job seekers troll a database of anonymous posts about bad bosses.

The site has rated the top worst bosses for 2009, including a water distribution superintendent who held a four-hour, profanity-laced meeting and instructed employees to hit each other, a football head coach who broke another coach’s jaw during training camp, and an airline CEO who screamed at his employees in front of hundreds of customers lined up at the airline’s check-in counter, ignoring a sign that warned passengers: “Abusive behaviour towards staff will not be tolerated.”

source