The Leaders I Admire Have the Skills I Lack

Paul Kelly, editor-at-large of The Australian, Amanda Tattersall and moderator Kate Dezarnaulds.

I went to the Berry Writers Festival and attended a session with community organiser Amanda Tattersall, co-founder of GetUp and author of Conscious Tribes: Thinking Differently About Making a Difference, and Paul Kelly, editor-at-large of The Australian and author of The Twilight of Exceptionalism: The Liberal and Conservative Era. Kate Dezarnaulds moderated, introducing the panel as “one from the left, one from the right, and I’m the other wiggle in the middle.” She had read both books. Paul’s runs to 764 pages, which she reassured us is “effectively four books.” She took three and a half thousand words of notes on it alone. Some of us would call that a book. She called Amanda’s “a field guide and a personal coach.” The session has given me a great deal to think about.

This is my thought dump.

Action and reflection

“If you just act and there is no reflection, then it leads to thoughtless doing. But if you’re only reflecting and you’re not acting, it can lead to passive mindlessness.”

I do this one well. The session was the action. This piece is the reflection.

Conscious and tribes

Change starts with you, so you have to be conscious. “But also you can’t do it alone and you need to work with others, hence the word tribes.”

I look for leaders with the skills I lack. Being conscious means knowing my gaps. The tribe fills them.

Curiosity and judgement

When I meet someone I see as a racist or a bigot, judgement wins. I walk away. I’m sure they won’t change my mind, and drawing them out will only make me think less of them. When I stood on the polling booth at Griffith, Tony Abbott was there all day. Every time he came near me, I went elsewhere.

I have two neighbours I admire, both very intelligent, and both of them stay in the room. One is the champion. At a dinner party, when someone says something half the room finds abhorrent, you can see she’s shocked. Then she says what the rest of us wish we could. The other is the diplomat. She sees the good in everyone and goes looking for it. She runs our community group. One of our other neighbours says she could run the UN.

Abdul El-Sayed, newly elected to the US Senate for Michigan, does the same on a public stage. Reporters from the left and the right, ridiculous questions and good ones: he answers them all, and I admire his answers. He knew race would be brutal and he stayed gracious.

Sameness and difference

“Politics is both a search for a sense of sameness across others and recognition that we are different,” Amanda said. One Nation, she argued, says “you can only do political life with people who are the same.”

So what does “the same” mean? I struggle with this one. One Nation leaves its two key words, “same” and “monoculture,” undefined. Is it skin colour? Is the idea that all white people are good and everyone else is bad? That’s a frightening thing to say. I’m a white Australian, and I have very little in common with Gina Rinehart or Pauline Hanson. We hold different values and come from different backgrounds.

Some of my champion’s closest friends hold very different political views. They stay close friends.

Penny Wong does it for a living. As Foreign Minister she brings people together across deep differences for the greater good. She’s gracious and knowledgeable, and I trust her. Her pragmatism and strength are skills I lack. If she moved to the lower house, I’d like to see her given a chance as Prime Minister.

Public and private

Amanda’s father studied at Macquarie University at night, on free education. That degree changed her family’s life, so when university fees went up, the public issue was personal for her.

Penny Wong is openly gay at the top of Australian public life. She’s a role model because her private and public lives sit together in full view.

Power over and power with

Amanda hears One Nation’s message as “Give up, give up, you can’t do it. I can do it for you.” Her answer: “When we defer to other political figures, to saviours or superheroes on either side of the political spectrum, we do ourselves a disservice and we do politics a disservice as well.”

 After One Nation won the seat of Farrer in May, Angus Taylor promised to cap migration at the number of homes built each year and limit the NDIS to citizens. Hanson’s response: “They’ve been reading [our policies] very carefully because they’re desperate for some good ideas.” The major parties are deferring too. Labor may be heading the same way.

What I miss is courage. The last leader I saw take on big reforms was Julia Gillard: the NDIS, Gonski school funding, a carbon price and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I can’t name one thing the current Labor government has done that will stand as its legacy.

In 2020, 51% of Australians surveyed couldn’t name a single political achievement or a politician who had a positive impact that year.

Why leading is harder now

Paul Kelly believes the best leaders he covered would struggle today. The challenges are “the most severe in any that I’ve seen in the last 50 years covering politics”: a new economy, the energy transition, technological change, cultural conflict, a revolution in demography and the rise of China.

“I think governments don’t have the capacity at the moment to handle and manage the challenges the country faces.”

That makes me more gracious towards the people trying to lead through it. Anyone who puts their hand up for the greater good, knowing all that, has courage.

Amanda’s paradoxes showed me the skills I lack. Paul showed me the price leaders pay for using them.

References

  • Amanda Tattersall and Paul Kelly in conversation with Kate Dezarnaulds, Berry Writers Festival, 2026
  • Amanda Tattersall, Conscious Tribes: Thinking Differently About Making a Difference
  • Paul Kelly, The Twilight of Exceptionalism: The Liberal and Conservative Era, Melbourne University Publishing, 2026
  • The New Daily, “Hanson lashes ‘desperate’ coalition for ‘copying’ One Nation policy,” 14 May 2026
  • Ipsos poll for the McKinnon Prize in Political Leadership, University of Melbourne, 2020
  • NPR, “Democrat Abdul El-Sayed defeats Republican Mike Rogers in key Michigan Senate race,” 4 November 2026

Who lowers the ladder after election night?

This week, I received an email inviting graduates of the South East Local Leaders Program to get back together. The organisers want to hear what has stayed with us from the program, what we’re passionate about now, and what we could achieve together that would be hard to achieve alone. Years after the program finished, someone still wants to know what we learned.

I wish people who stood for election got an email like that.

Think about the last time you were injured or seriously ill. In the first few days, people rang, dropped off meals and sent messages. Then life moved on for everyone else and the phone went quiet. You were at home on your own, lying awake wondering whether you’d get better, and whether you’d ever do the things you love again. It’s easy to slide down a deep, dark hole in that silence, and some days you need someone to lower a ladder to help you climb back out.

Candidates from every party who miss out on election night go through the same thing. I’ve stood on polling booths and seen how hard candidates work.

Putting your hand up to represent your community takes courage. Candidates put their families, their jobs and their health on the line, and recent events have shown us all that standing for public office can be dangerous. During the campaign, people surround them. Volunteers hand out how-to-vote cards from opening to close and stand by the roadside waving signs at passing cars. On election night, the room is full of people who believe in them.

The next morning, the candidate wakes up to a quiet house. Their supporters have gone back to their lives. The candidate lies awake going over every decision. Should they have doorknocked more? Said something different at that forum? Let their family down?

Through all of it, they are grateful to everyone who believed in them. They know what their volunteers gave up to stand beside them, from weekends and annual leave to time with their families. They know how many people gave money, from small donations to the funders who backed the campaign from the start. They know how much training they were given, and how hard their campaign team worked.

The candidate and every person who helped them now know things about campaigning that nobody knew before the campaign began. And the candidate wonders who is collecting that knowledge.

I’ve seen this in community groups, schools and councils. A big project finishes, someone writes a report, and the report goes into a filing cabinet. A few years later, a new consultant is brought in to do the same work again, and everyone learns the same lessons the hard way. The people who did the work the first time are still there, waiting to be asked.

The Local Leaders organisers asked. The rest of us can too.

Put yourself in the candidate’s place. In the weeks after election night, you might want a phone call, a cup of tea at the kitchen table, or someone who wants to hear your story and learn from it.

If you know someone who stood and missed out, be the person who lowers the ladder. Ring them this week. Ask how they’re going and what they learned, then listen.

They turned up for their community. We can turn up for them.

The past can teach us about the future, provided we remember to look.

I wonder how many opportunities we lose when we forget what previous generations achieved together.

Twelve months ago, I set out to write the history of the Jamberoo dairy factory. I imagined a modest booklet, perhaps 50 pages, celebrating the farmers who established the cooperative in 1887 and the people who kept it operating for the next century.

Well, that was optimistic.

The manuscript has grown to more than 200 pages of research, photographs, newspaper reports, interviews and discoveries. Along the way, I’ve learned an extraordinary amount about the people and industries that made this region what it is today. I’ve also discovered how much misinformation can find its way into local history.

Dates are repeated until they become accepted facts. Names change, events become muddled, and accounts written decades later sometimes contradict contemporary newspaper reports. Even respected historical publications contain mistakes. I’ve spent countless hours comparing sources, tracing original records and talking with people who actually worked in the factories.

And the more I discover, the more astonished I become by how little of this history we celebrate.

From Wollongong to Nowra, dairy farmers established cooperatives, pioneered manufacturing technologies, created the recipe for spreadable butter, developed the Illawarra dairy breed and built businesses that supplied products across Australia and overseas. Their influence reached into agriculture, science, transport, employment, education and community life.

Yet where can a visitor discover this remarkable history?

We have Daisy, our magnificent fibreglass cow in Kiama, standing proudly as a monument to the dairy industry. Beyond her, there is remarkably little across the region that tells the wider story.

MOOving Art: how Daisy the Cow inspired a national dairy art phenomenon

I suspect readers of this booklet will be flabbergasted by the scale of the industry’s achievements and equally surprised by how little public recognition remains.

And there is another story emerging from my research, one that has considerable relevance today.

My conversations with cousins Geoff Boxsell and Russell Fredericks revealed how dairy cooperatives developed community leaders. Both became factory managers and successful sporting leaders. Their workplaces encouraged people to learn every part of the operation, understand different responsibilities and work together to solve problems. These skills travelled into football clubs, community organisations and boardrooms.

When regional industries disappear, we lose far more than jobs and economic activity. We also lose places where young people learn from experienced colleagues, develop confidence, take responsibility and discover their capacity to lead.

Today, we often talk about organisations working in silos, with departments disconnected from one another. Those old cooperatives offer some interesting lessons about what happens when people understand the whole business and recognise that everybody’s contribution counts.

There is a great deal to learn from a generation that understood the power of working together.

It helps us understand the decisions that brought us here, recognise the people whose contributions have been overlooked and consider what we might learn from their experiences.

And occasionally, it reminds us that a fibreglass cow has been doing an extraordinary amount of heavy lifting for an entire region’s industrial heritage.

It’s time Daisy had some company.

Where are tomorrow’s community leaders learning to lead?

What two cousins, a dairy factory and a football club can teach us about growing community leaders

When I wrote about Geoff Boxsell and Russell Fredericks, the two cousins whose careers began around the Jamberoo dairy factory, I was struck by how many opportunities they had been given to learn, take responsibility and develop their abilities.

The manager of the Jamberoo Dairy Factory Wallace (Wally) Boxsell recognised Russell’s potential and encouraged him to learn every aspect of the factory. Geoff adopted a similar approach, ensuring employees understood how different parts of the business worked. Both men went on to lead substantial organisations, and both made a point of giving others the opportunities they had enjoyed.

What happens to a community when businesses like these disappear?

The dairy cooperatives were major economic institutions, employing local people, buying milk from surrounding farms, supporting transport businesses and creating demand for an extraordinary range of goods and services. Their products reached households across Australia and overseas.

A selection of the 41 dairy products manufactured at the Shoalhaven Dairy Factory in Bomaderry. The range demonstrates how the regional cooperative developed into a major innovator and food manufacturer. 

Their influence extended into the social and cultural life of their communities. Farmers served on boards, employees learned new skills, young people found mentors, and relationships developed through work carried into sporting clubs, service organisations and community projects.

These were places where people learned to negotiate, manage money, solve problems, work with different personalities and make decisions that affected others. They could practise leadership long before anyone thought to give them a leadership title.

As regional businesses have become larger and more centralised, many of those opportunities have moved elsewhere. Decisions that were once made by people who lived and worked in a district are increasingly made in offices hundreds of kilometres away.

Consolidation brought benefits, including investment, improved technology and access to larger markets. It also changed the opportunities available to people within their communities.

Geoff and Russell developed their abilities in workplaces where experienced people recognised potential and encouraged others to try something new. Their factories were places where people understood the entire business, from the milk arriving at the receiving dock to the finished products leaving for market. Employees learned how different departments operated, how their work affected their colleagues and how problems could be solved by drawing on everyone’s knowledge.

In much of the work I do today, I see what happens when organisations lose those connections.

People work in silos, concentrating on their own responsibilities with little understanding of what is happening elsewhere. Departments operate independently, organisations working towards similar goals rarely speak to one another, and opportunities to collaborate pass unnoticed.

The consequences extend well beyond duplication of effort. When people have little understanding of what their colleagues are doing, they struggle to see where the gaps are, where resources are being wasted or where someone else may already have the answer to a problem they are trying to solve. Employees become frustrated when their ideas go unheard or decisions are made without considering their experience. Innovation slows because the conversations that bring different perspectives and knowledge together simply aren’t happening.

Some of the most promising opportunities emerge when people from different backgrounds discover what they have in common, recognise what each can contribute and begin working together. Yet our increasingly specialised workplaces can make those encounters surprisingly difficult. We have become very good at developing expertise within organisations and departments, while overlooking the knowledge and possibilities that exist between them.

Local dairy factories have largely disappeared, along with many of the local institutions that once provided these experiences. Their history leaves us with a challenge.

How do we create workplaces and communities where people can see beyond their own responsibilities, learn from one another and discover what they could achieve together?

Turns Out You Can Teach a Boomer New Tricks

Stop, get curious, then comment. It’s advice I give often, and in 2016 I ignored it.

This week a comment exchange from 2016 resurfaced on my blog. A farmer had read my post on native vegetation laws and came away certain I’d called farmers backwards and careless. The post called farmers custodians and praised Landcare as the best practice model. It also argued that farmers, like everyone else, need rules. We wear seatbelts and license our dogs because humans are poor at regulating themselves, and farmers are human too. She read it as an attack on farmers.

Instead of getting curious about what she’d heard, I defended myself. I sent her links to my awards, asked if she’d read the Further Reading, and told her to step back and remove the emotion. She came back angrier. Reading it now, I can see what upset her.

Years of leadership training have taught me to pause and ask for advice before I hit reply. Today I’d ring Charlie Arnot from The Center for Food Integrity and ask him how to show her we’re on the same side. His research shows shared values count three to five times more than facts in building trust. So I listen and ask better questions. I start by being curious, and I might learn something. She taught me there’s more than one way to say what I mean. Ten years later, I’m writing this post because I listened.

Yale researcher Dan Kahan has studied how identity shapes the way people read. My family has farmed here since 1831, so I understand why a post about farming practice can feel like a post about your family. Farmers are like everyone else in this. We all read through our own lives, and I suspect that explains a lot of the conflict on Facebook.

That’s what makes her comment so valuable. A like is easy. A conversation requires someone to put their thoughts into words, risk being misunderstood and perhaps have their thinking challenged. She took that risk, and I learned from it. Social media makes it so easy to register agreement without ever exploring why we agree. I wonder whether we’re becoming more comfortable expressing opinions and less comfortable discussing them.

Plenty of you are working on this too. How to Express Your Opinions Respectfully is one of the most read posts on my blog, and I updated it this month with what I’ve learned since.

Yesterday I got the chance to use it. A Facebook friend messaged me about my post on the Coalition’s spending cuts and wanted to know why I was singling out boomers. These days I know how to reply. I told him I’m a boomer too, and that plenty of us are doing it tough. Then I explained what the post was about and finished with: I suspect we actually agree that governments need to think much more carefully about where public money goes.

He wrote back within the hour. Thanks for your answer and clarification.

Different people see the same words through different lives. Now I know to get curious about theirs before I reply.

 

Why do humans find silos so attractive when they’re so claustrophobic?

She told me there was a meeting about collaboration. Looks like everyone else missed the memo

How many times have we read an article like this? Agriculture needs to break down silos, work with other industries, listen to different perspectives and collaborate to solve problems. I’ve been hearing it for decades.

I have enormous respect for the person behind this work, and I hope their research helps bring about meaningful change. Systems thinking has been around for close to a century, and we have learnt a great deal about the value of collaboration. The challenge is putting that knowledge into practice.

Agriculture has plenty of company. Governments, universities, businesses, charities and community organisations have been having the same conversations for years. We hold conferences, commission research and develop strategies. Then everybody goes home to their own organisation, their own budget and their own priorities.

What is it about human beings that makes us so good at identifying what needs to change and so reluctant to change how we behave?

We have built systems that reward individual and organisational success. We encourage people to become experts, compete for funding, protect their intellectual property and demonstrate why their organisation deserves support. Then we ask them to share knowledge, resources and decision-making with the very people they have been competing against.

After years of working with farming organisations, attending meetings, participating in workshops and watching the same conversations go round and round, I decided to put my energy into working with young people. I wanted to give them the skills, confidence and opportunities to be the change they wanted to see in the world.

I’ve watched students surprise themselves with what they can achieve when they have a problem worth solving, the freedom to ask questions and the opportunity to work with people who see things differently.

Change starts in our schools, where young people learn to listen, question, collaborate and solve problems together, before they inherit the habits that make change so difficult for the rest of us.

Much of our education system still revolves around individual achievement, subject boundaries and getting the right answer. We send those young people into workplaces where their success increasingly depends on their ability to work with people from different backgrounds, disciplines and organisations.

The Australian Farm Institute and AgriFutures are investing in systems thinking. The real test will come after the research is published and the workshops are finished. Who changes the way they work? Who shares a budget? Who invites somebody with a completely different perspective to help define the problem? Who is prepared to hand over responsibility when somebody else has a better idea?

What would happen if funding bodies measured collaboration by what organisations actually achieved together, rather than how many partnerships they listed in their applications?

And what would change if curiosity, communication and collaboration were given the same attention in schools as academic achievement?

I’ve learnt a great deal about changing my own behaviour over the years, including how I communicate and how much explanation people need. Old habits are remarkably persistent.

I hope this research gives people the confidence and encouragement to start doing some of these things differently.

I’ve found one. In Cowra, a neighbourhood centre that started in 1984 with $500 and volunteers in a church rectory now turns over around $5 million a year. Family support, youth work, disability programs, home maintenance, food relief and a volunteer group making burial clothing for stillborn babies all share one roof, one set of accounts and one leadership team. Council donates back the rent. Supermarkets donate food every day. Every program spends more of its money on people. I’ve written it up as a case study here.

I’m now working with a small group of people to see whether we can do the same in Kiama. We have a long way to go. Cowra shows us where to start.

If you’ve got a success story, I’d love to hear it.

 

If you’ve got a success story, I’d love to hear it.

Dairy farmers knew deregulation was coming. Were they prepared for it?

I suspect our cows had a few opinions about the whole business too. Lots to think about on the hill at Clover Hill

I’ve spent the past few months researching the history of dairy co-operatives, particularly the Jamberoo Dairy Factory and the organisations that eventually became Australian Co-operative Foods.

Jan Todd’s Milk for the Metropolis, published in 1994, has been a fascinating resource. Towards the end of the book, Todd describes how Australian Co-operative Foods (ACF) was preparing for an increasingly competitive market. By 1993, its directors were examining the financial and organisational changes required to operate in a deregulated environment.

Reading about those preparations more than thirty years later has brought back memories of what happened on our own dairy farm.

Farmers knew deregulation was coming. The arguments had been going on for years, and many were determined to fight it. The partners on our farm certainly were. They had invested their lives and their money in a business that operated within a regulated system, and they saw little reason to welcome changes that threatened their livelihood.

Did change happen with farmers or around them?

Farmers are well know to err on the conservative, particularly when it comes to decisions that affect their financial security. Yet some of the most innovative and resourceful people I’ve known have been farmers. Give them an opportunity they understand, and they’ll find extraordinary ways to pursue it.

That contradiction interests me because it says something about how we approach change in agriculture.

For decades, governments regulated the marketing of milk. They established prices for drinking milk and determined which producers could supply particular markets. Farmers borrowed money, invested in infrastructure, built dairy herds and planned their businesses around those arrangements.

The prospect of deregulation challenged many of the assumptions on which those decisions had been made.

By the early 1990s, the industry’s major organisations were examining what deregulation would mean for their operations. There were consultants, feasibility studies, financial projections, merger discussions and proposals for new ownership arrangements.

Todd’s account shows how seriously Australian Co-operative Foods was examining its future. The directors understood that changes in regulation, competition and access to capital would have significant consequences for the business.

I’d love to know how those conversations translated into preparation on individual dairy farms.

The partners on our farm spent a great deal of energy opposing deregulation. Looking back, I wonder what might have happened if someone had helped us devote some of that energy to examining the possible outcomes and deciding how we wanted to respond.

What would our financial position look like without regulated milk prices? Could we reduce production costs? Would increasing herd size improve profitability, or expose us to greater financial risk? What other options were available? What information would help us make those decisions?

These were conversations that deserved time, independent advice and the opportunity to explore different scenarios with people who understood the realities of running a dairy farm.

A dairy farmer cannot change direction as quickly as a government can change policy. Milking sheds, machinery, farm improvements and livestock represent substantial investments. Loans have to be serviced. Families have to live. Decisions about breeding, infrastructure and production can have consequences for many years.

I wonder how much attention agricultural leaders gave to understanding the people they were asking to adapt.

When farmers resist change, it helps to understand what concerns them. Sometimes they have good reasons. Sometimes their assumptions deserve challenging. Sometimes they have spent so long defending the arrangements they know that they have had little opportunity to imagine an alternative.

That is where leadership and engagement become so important.

I have spent much of my professional life bringing people together to explore difficult questions, and I have seen what happens when they are given the opportunity to contribute rather than being presented with decisions that have already been made.

People bring knowledge that rarely appears in a consultant’s report. They understand their own circumstances, their communities and the practical consequences of decisions. They also bring fears, frustrations, prejudices and assumptions. All of those belong in the conversation.

The seven years between the planning Todd describes in 1993 and dairy deregulation on 1 July 2000 provide an interesting period to exam

Dear readers

When dairy deregulation arrived on 1 July 2000, NSW farmgate milk prices fell from around 37 cents a litre to approximately 28 cents (Note these figures are industry averages). A reduction of almost a quarter. Add a drought to that equation and you have a pretty powerful incentive to reconsider how you run a dairy farm.

And reconsider we did!

We went from milking 80 cows twice a day to 400, three times a day. We leased another farm, hired a consultant, conducted research trials with Sydney University, attended conferences and made some enormous changes to the way we operated.

For a farming family whose partners had fought deregulation, we certainly became enthusiastic students of change once it was upon us.

I suspect our cows had a few opinions about the whole business too. Particularly the three-times-a-day milking.

 

What we need is a milk war – me and the cows strongly 💪disagree

In February 1985, Professor A. G. Lloyd contributed an article to the Sydney Morning Herald with the splendid headline, “What we need is a milk war”. I found it among the papers of the Nowra Dairy Co-operative. By then, the Australian dairy industry had been fighting itself for the best part of a century. Apparently, nobody thought it had quite finished the job.

Every farming family knows something about a long-running dispute. The cousin who borrowed the trailer in 1974 and never brought it back. The father whose succession plan left the farm to the son who gambled it away. The siblings who haven’t spoken for twenty years and can no longer remember what they were fighting about. The dairy industry had all of these characteristics, plus several thousand cows, a collection of governments and an astonishing capacity to hold a grudge.

Our story begins in 1908, when Sydney milk buyers cut the price paid to farmers from 10 pence a gallon to six, in the middle of a drought. Farmers went on strike. The young Dairy Farmers Co-operative offered seven and a half pence, helped Jamberoo clear its debts and financed a new factory. Everyone shook hands, or something approximating it. Peace lasted 23 years.

In 1931, with the Depression biting, a Sydney distributor offered Jamberoo a better price for its milk. Jamberoo had recently opened a new brick factory and owed £17,000. Dairy Farmers considered this a betrayal. It expelled 100 members, many of them Jamberoo farmers, and cancelled their shares. Jamberoo remembered. In the dairy industry, a grudge had an exceptionally long shelf life.

The NSW Government created a Milk Board to restore order. Unfortunately, the Board could declare prices but couldn’t enforce them. Historian Jan Todd called it a “toothless tiger”. Farmers received less than half the declared price. The government tried again, gave the new Board some teeth, and regulated the fresh milk industry for the next half century. Everyone complained about regulation, but at least they had something in common.

Then came 1984. George Orwell had warned us about surveillance, propaganda and perpetual war. He had overlooked the NSW milk industry.

On 9 April, supermarket owner Jim Fleming put Victorian milk on the shelves of his Jewel stores in Sydney. It came in two-litre plastic bottles and cost nine cents less. The Victorian milk represented about one per cent of the NSW market. Bill Crothers of Midland Milk described it as “only a hatful of milk”. NSW reacted as though Victoria had crossed the Murray with tanks.

Milk vendors blocked Macquarie Street with their trucks. Premier Neville Wran came out to negotiate. More than 800 farmers launched Operation Padlock, picketing Jewel supermarkets and standing outside the Midland Milk factory in Shepparton. Ten days later, Fleming conceded defeat. “We are pretty good, but not that good,” he said.

By February 1985, Professor Lloyd was calling for another milk war, arguing that competition could expose inefficiencies and help Sydney consumers paying high milk prices. The farmers, processors, retailers and vendors had rather different ideas about who was inefficient and who should pay.

Federal Primary Industry Minister John Kerin tried to bring the states together under a national plan. In March 1986, he spent an entire day locked in a room with three farmer leaders. They emerged with the comfort clause, an arrangement allowing a state to withdraw from the national scheme if another state’s milk undercut its market. NSW used it twice within a year. I suppose we should be grateful they agreed on anything.

Back on the South Coast, two cousins who had grown up together in Jamberoo were taking a much less complicated approach. Russell Fredericks managed Nowra’s dairy factory. Geoff Boxsell managed Jamberoo. During a drive to Sydney in late 1982, they joked about putting “the cat among the pigeons” by proposing a merger. They eventually brought the two co-operatives together.

Dairy Farmers tried to persuade Nowra to join it instead. Nowra’s farmers rejected the offer. It had been more than fifty years since the Depression-era expulsions. Apparently that was too soon. Six years later, Shoalhaven, the co-operative formed by Jamberoo and Nowra, joined Dairy Farmers anyway.

Then came the Italians. In 1999, Parmalat offered Dairy Farmers members $4.02 a share for part of their holdings, under a proposal that would give the Italian company control. Farmers gathered at the Burrawang Hotel, passed motions of no confidence and eventually took the dispute to the Supreme Court.

Dairy Farmers responded with advertisements declaring, “Beautiful one day, foreign-owned the next.” Geoff Boxsell wrote a song to the tune of “I Am Australian”. He called it “We Ain’t Italian”.

The court found that material distributed by the board was misleading and deceptive, although the judge made no finding of dishonesty or bad faith. The directors were ordered to pay legal costs personally. In April 2000, around 3,000 farmers voted at a special meeting. The three directors facing removal retained their seats with overwhelming support. Managing director Alan Tooth offered a memorable observation. “Any jackass can knock down a barn but it takes a team of skilled carpenters to build one.”

While everyone was fighting, Victoria decided it no longer wanted the regulated system. As the country’s largest milk-producing state, its decision left the others with little room to move. On 1 July 2000, the regulated fresh milk markets disappeared.

Within a year, average NSW dairy farm income had fallen from $82,000 to an estimated $37,000. Around 200 NSW dairy farms closed in the first six months. There were winners, there were losers, and there were families whose futures changed forever.

I’ve been looking back over these events while also reflecting on something I discovered preparing for a World Peace Day presentation to school students in Cowra. In studying the history of war, I was confronted by how persistently organised violence has appeared across human generations.

Of course, a milk war is a very different proposition from an armed conflict. Nobody should confuse a blockade of supermarket milk deliveries with the devastation of military warfare. But the language interests me. For a century, the dairy industry talked about wars, battles, invasions, threats, surrender and enemies.

Farmers fought processors. Farmers fought retailers. Processors fought retailers. States fought states. Co-operatives fought other co-operatives. Farmers fought farmer. Farmers fought their own co-operatives.

Governments regulated everybody, then deregulated everybody. And all of them believed they had something important to defend. Often they did.

A farmer fighting for a price that covers the cost of production has a legitimate grievance. So does a consumer struggling to afford food. A milk vendor protecting a family business and a processor trying to keep a factory operating both have reasons to be concerned about their future. Their interests sometimes conflict. Finding an arrangement that allows them to live alongside one another is the challenge.

Looking back, the most interesting moments in the dairy industry’s history may be the occasions when people stopped fighting long enough to negotiate. Kerin and the farmer leaders in that locked room. Russell Fredericks and Geoff Boxsell talking during their drive to Sydney. Farmers, vendors and processors sitting around George Davey’s pricing committee, part of the negotiations associated with the group the industry nicknamed the “milk mafia”.

Those conversations didn’t solve every problem. Some produced compromises that quickly unravelled. Others helped organisations and communities survive. I wonder how much of our energy, in agriculture and beyond, goes into proving that the other side is wrong. And how much we invest in understanding what they are trying to protect.

We teach children about the great wars of history, the victories, the defeats, the treaties and the terrible human cost. Perhaps we could spend a little more time teaching them how to negotiate before a disagreement becomes a conflict, and how to recognise when compromise is possible without abandoning what is fair.

As for the dairy industry, through every strike, blockade, court case, merger, price war and family grudge, the cows remained magnificently indifferent. Morning and afternoon, they turned up to be milked. They had no interest in who won.

And perhaps, after more than a century of dairy industry warfare, the question is whether the rest of us can learn to live with an outcome in which nobody has to lose.

Dear reader  FYI Dairy Farmers, with a capital D and F, refers to the Dairy Farmers Co-operative and the company that followed. Little bit of history – Dairy Farmers Milk Cooperative was formed on 15 January 1900. Sixty five stakeholders from the New South Wales Illawarra region, came together and agreed to run the organisation on true co-operative lines.

Dairy farmers, with a little d and f, are the people milking the cows. They were not always on the same side.

The reports list the costs and leave out the 4am alarm

I’ve spent this week reading 25 years of government reports on the NSW dairy industry. A Senate inquiry, two NSW parliamentary inquiries, three ACCC reports and the Department of Primary Industries’ latest industry overview.

I now know an extraordinary amount about structural adjustment, processing rationalisation, labour constraints and climate variability. I’ve also developed considerable sympathy for anyone whose job involves writing these reports.

The numbers are extraordinary. In 2000, NSW had 1,725 dairy farms. By 2025, that number had fallen to 443. Over the same period, the average herd more than doubled, from 155 to 343 cows, while annual milk production per cow increased by almost 50 per cent, from 4,827 to 7,013 litres.

The average herd has more than doubled, while each cow is producing nearly half as much milk again.

Apparently, the solution to having fewer farmers is to give the remaining ones twice as many cows and expect each cow to produce half as much milk again.

My family has been milking cows in this district since 1831, so I have some idea what happens behind those impressive statistics.

The reports list labour constraints. That’s the relief milker ringing at 3.30am to announce that his car has broken down. The cows, unfortunately, have not received the memo.

Input costs include the hay you bought in March for twice what you paid last year because the rain stopped in January. Land values are the neighbour selling to a developer, while your children calculate whether they could ever afford to come home and take over the farm.

Processing rationalisation is the letter announcing the closure of the dairy factory your grandfather helped build. Your milk will now travel another two hours to be processed somewhere else. The report calls this improved industry efficiency. Your grandfather might have had another description.

And then there’s the weather. The official terminology includes “climate variability, rainfall and irrigation reliability, heat and humidity, and natural disasters”. My friend Kate calls these things headwinds.

Dairy farmers have been dealing with them for generations. In a 1976 paper I found among the Nowra Dairy Co-operative records, Bega farmers said it like it is

“Come fire, flood or drought the milk must be produced.”

I came across a submission from Jackie Norman to the NSW parliamentary dairy inquiry. Jackie started dairying at 19. Looking back on what she called the industry’s golden era, she recalled that the hours were so long and the demands so intense that there wasn’t even time to prepare proper meals.

The golden era! I’d hate to see what she put down for the difficult years.

Of course, you could replace the dairy farm with almost any small business. The government reports would list compliance costs, energy prices, wages and productivity.

The café owner would tell you about doing the BAS at the kitchen table at 10pm. The plumber would mention the invoice that’s been overdue for 90 days, from a customer big enough to make chasing payment uncomfortable. The shopkeeper could describe the summer storm that flooded the premises the week before Christmas, after all the stock had been paid for.

And every small business owner knows the experience of covering for an employee whose family has had an emergency. Policy researchers have a term for this: lived experience.

I’ve been thinking about those 1,282 dairy farms that disappeared from NSW over 25 years. Some farmers retired. Some sold. Some changed direction. Others fought for years to keep going before finally deciding they’d had enough.

The government reports record the closures, the increase in herd size, the improvement in production per cow and the economic consequences of industry restructuring.

What I’d like to know is how many of those farmers remember the morning they milked their cows for the last time. And whether, after a lifetime of getting up at 4am, they managed to sleep in the following morning.

What happens after the applause?

This post has been sitting in my drafts for four years. I knew there was something I wanted to say, but every time I returned to it, it sounded like a grievance. So back into drafts it went.

Now I know what I was trying to say.

When Bob Hawke died in 2019, the four of us who had received the Bob Hawke Landcare Award wanted to do something small and heartfelt. We wanted to make a joint statement about what the award had meant to us. Each of us had a story to tell about meeting Bob, the contribution that led to the award and what came afterwards.

Landcare Australia, which managed the award, chose another approach to its public tribute. I was disappointed. At the time, I saw it largely through the lens of that disappointment.

Four years of sitting in drafts, and some completely unrelated conversations, have helped me see the much bigger question.

What happens after we give people awards?

I was the inaugural recipient of the Bob Hawke Landcare Award in 2012. At that time it was an individual award carrying a $50,000 prize. The award has changed considerably since then. It is now worth $30,000 and can be awarded to an individual, community-led group or eligible not-for-profit organisation.

But something in the criteria remains fascinating to me.

Recipients are recognised for qualities that include inspiring others, mentoring people, encouraging action, sharing knowledge and supporting communities.

In other words, the award seeks people who build capacity in other people. But who creates the opportunities for them to build that capacity together?

Australia has hundreds of awards recognising people for their contribution, knowledge, leadership and experience. We find them. We assess them. We celebrate them. We put them on stages, take photographs and tell their stories. Then, quite often, we send them home. The following year, we may come back and ask them to promote the next round of awards.

This is a lost opportunity.

The Bob Hawke Landcare Award records its alumni, with recipients going back to the inaugural award in 2012. That recognition has value, but an alumni list is not an alumni network. If an active network exists that brings Bob Hawke Landcare Award recipients together to learn from each other, I have never been invited to be part of it.

Belltrees Public School showed me what is possible. The small rural school, with around 20 students, organised a regenerative agriculture day that brought former Bob Hawke Landcare Award recipients together. We heard from each other, asked questions and exchanged ideas. I attended, and it was brilliant. A little school had recognised the value of connecting people with different knowledge and experience and created the opportunity for us to learn from each other.

The Banksia Foundation also experimented with this idea. Award recipients were brought together to visit the businesses and organisations of category winners, see what they were doing and learn directly from them. I attended one of those visits and it was brilliant too.

Both experiences showed me the difference between recognising knowledge and connecting knowledge. You can put someone’s name on an alumni page, or you can create opportunities for people with different knowledge and experience to learn from each other.

For years I worked alongside people in agriculture who gave organisations their time, credibility, relationships, lived experience and knowledge. They spoke at events, sat on panels, joined committees, opened their farms, told their stories and helped organisations demonstrate what was possible.

Many of them gave enormously.

Too often, I watched the infrastructure around them benefit from all that human capacity without creating the same opportunities for those people to benefit from one another.

We are very good at identifying individual achievement. We are less good at asking what becomes possible when we connect the knowledge and experience of the people we have recognised.

Interestingly, this was part of what I was talking about when I received the Bob Hawke Landcare Award in 2012. I wanted to “find innovators, early adopters and people doing extraordinary things and help connect and amplify what they knew.”

Two years later, a Landcare publication described me as “a connector” and quoted me saying I was “obsessed with finding and nurturing talent, and supporting it”.

So apparently I have been banging on about this for quite some time.

What I did not have then was the question I have now.

Is the community serving the infrastructure around it, or is the infrastructure serving the community?

Over the past few months I have been conducting a completely different piece of research, interviewing people who have made significant commitments to their communities. Those conversations finally gave me the language for this four-year-old draft.

People bring enormous assets into organisations, programs, campaigns and movements. They bring knowledge, relationships, credibility, experience, energy and trust. Organisations are often very good at mobilising those assets.

The more interesting question is what they build around the people who provided them.

Do those people leave with stronger relationships? Do they have access to the knowledge of others who have travelled similar paths? Can they learn from each other? Are they introduced to people who could extend what they are already doing? Does the organisation ask them what would make the relationship valuable to them? Does the collective capacity become greater because those people were brought together?

That brings me back to awards.

Imagine if part of running an award program was asking recipients a year later: What would be valuable to you now?

Perhaps they want nothing further from it. That’s fine. But perhaps they would value meeting other recipients. Perhaps somebody who won ten years ago has knowledge that could transform what a new recipient is trying to achieve. Perhaps an experienced recipient could mentor somebody emerging in the same field. Perhaps two people working on opposite sides of the country are tackling versions of the same problem.

Perhaps the most valuable thing the organisation could provide is simply the introduction.

This does not require another glossy program. It requires seeing the award differently.

The award ceremony recognises what somebody has already contributed. The alumni community asks what might become possible next.

There is another question here too. We invest considerable resources in finding, judging and celebrating award recipients. Awards can involve substantial events, sponsors, communications, judging processes and hundreds of guests.

What proportion of that investment goes into connecting recipients after the event?

I do not know the economics of the Landcare Awards, and I am not suggesting what that answer should be. But it is a question worth asking across the awards sector, particularly when some of the most valuable connections may require little more than bringing people together.

Belltrees Public School managed it with around 20 students.

And I now understand why my original experience with the Bob Hawke Landcare Award bothered me enough for this post to sit unfinished for four years. It was never simply about a statement after Bob Hawke died. It was about the difference between recognising human capacity and building it.

Landcare itself grew from people connecting knowledge, experience and effort. Farmers, conservationists, neighbours and volunteers discovered they could achieve more together than they could separately.

It moved people from “I to We”.

An award bearing Bob Hawke’s name has an opportunity to continue that tradition. So do thousands of other awards.

We spend considerable time and resources identifying people whose experience and contribution we believe are worth recognising.

Perhaps the next question should be: What are we going to do with all that human capacity now that we have found it?