Recently I visited a centre in rural Western Australia, smack bang in the middle of mining country. I was surrounded by huge expanses of red earth, orange high visibility work wear, pink and purple sunsets. A symphony of colours amidst a backdrop of steel and machinery, road trucks and iron ore trains. One almost existed in spite of the other, but coexist they did, in a community that was in equal measures both diverse and cohesive.

This was a transient community, people had come from all over the country, indeed from all over the world, to land a job on a mine site and to seek their fortune in the short term, to set up their family for the longer term. Isolated, with no extended families or friends and in a remote location where I've been told the heat in Summer has to be experienced to be understood, and with no intention of staying beyond a carefully pre-planned time frame. It left me wondering, just how do you build a sense of community, a sense of place or belonging, out of that?

In an early childhood education and care centre, I can often feel a sense of welcome and belonging the minute I set foot in the front door. It goes beyond the physical attributes of the centre, to an ambience that's often hard to describe and is often more easily felt. And in this centre, in this most challenging of communities, the feeling of welcome and belonging enveloped me immediately. As I reflected on my visit, I wondered what it was that made such a difference at this place, and I kept coming back to leadership; deliberate and strategic leadership based on a very sensible rationale. The Director had described her community to me, with great fondness, as a community of orphans, herself included! Having come from far and wide and with no extended family, she believed that it was the centre's responsibility to build an extended family for parents. Her mantra was that she expected her team to build relationships with families quickly and as a priority, in order to be able to make a difference for children. She said she had faced criticism for her family first focus, and had been told to focus on children and put families second, after all, wasn't that her core work? And yet she steadfastly remains committed to families, because experience has taught her that families who are isolated and sometimes struggling, who often morph into single parents for weeks on end, need to be doing well in order to do well for their children. It made perfect sense.

As I reflected on my visit, I tried to identify just exactly what it was that made this Director so effective as a leader in such a challenging community, and an analogy kept popping into my head. This leader was like an invisible thread, wrapped around everybody to keep them together, and holding them upright, instilling belief in them, keeping them strong. This is in direct contrast to what I would term the scissors leader. You know who they are, you've probably worked for them, I certainly have! They're the ones who cut the thread to separate people, to make small, everyday incisions that leave you doubting yourself, and through their handiwork leave you weakened and in need of repair. Now as fond as I am of an analogy, I'm an even bigger fan of the good old acronym! Not everyone agrees. In a past life, a scissor leader hacked in to my many attempts to create acronyms as mnemonics, and not one of my little pearls of literary wisdom got a guernsey. But my current boss is much more receptive to my ideas, so below I describe the Thread Leadership Model, developed to describe the leadership that I was privileged to witness at this remote Western Australian centre.

Tenacity

This leader was tenacious. She was crystal clear from the get go - this was her space, her community, her team, children and families. She would protect them to the ends of the earth and back. Community meant everything - once you were there, you were their's. I became theirs as well! The urgency of embracing families into the community was palpable. It's part of the fabric of the place, you can feel it, you can sense it, it envelopes you.

Honesty

There was no time for game playing here, no time for gossiping, no hidden agendas, and it was understood by all that they would not be entertained. Feedback was honest, always delivered professionally and kindly in a way that empowered educators to understand and grow, and was quickly followed up with praise and positive reinforcement. I've seen dishonest leaders who leave even the brightest and most resilient floundering and directionless. I've worked for dishonest leaders who turn staff over like a well worn mattress. But leadership here was brave, immediate, honest and kind.

Resilience

I watched this resilience in action. The capacity to recover quickly and move on. To not let the difficulties, the repeated disappointments, get in the way. To remain positive and optimistic in the face of ongoing issues. To be constantly thinking of new ways to address old problems, with enthusiasm and innovation, what's more!

Egalitarianism

There was a tangible belief among the team that every child, every family and every educator deserved to be supported fully and wholeheartedly, without judgement or prejudice. People came first, always. There was a spoken out loud commitment to the belief that everyone was doing the best that they could do. There was a clear expectation from the Director that educators would support families to be comfortable and confident, so that they could parent to the best of their abilities.

Advocacy

There was a partnership approach in the work that the centre did with families. The Director and educators stood beside families to figure out how to navigate through the newness of remote WA. They listened carefully, and they communicated often. They saw themselves as equal participants with families, and aimed to empower them to know and understand the community, their own strengths, and to build their capacity to function independently.

Delivery

There was an urgency at the centre, a sense of obligation to get things done. If promises were made, then you could count on them being delivered. I saw this first hand. If a parent said something in passing, it was systematically recorded and followed up on, if not by the Director, then by delegation. This forward moving focus was results driven, and took careful and deliberate planning, but was executed in a personal and relaxed manner.

There are certainly pieces of this Thread that are evident in many leadership models, and were also seen in the work of the leader at this centre. She was passionate and innovative, inspirational and a great communicator, and had many other characteristics and behaviours that we think of in the leadership space. But this remote centre, under resourced and isolated in and of itself, was getting the job done, with the clear goal of getting it right for children and families. Did they have a strategic plan? - nope. Did they have a vision statement? - nope. Mission? - nope. Philosophy? - yep, but it didn't do them justice. What they did have was a leadership thread that came together to shape the fabric of the place. While I was there for only a short time, I will remember it for a long time. It's heartening to know that peppered all over the country, even in remotest communities, we have the most skillful and talented people in our sector who really do make a difference in the lives of children and families every day, and its my privilege to work with them.

Since the introduction of the National Quality Framework, I’ve noticed in my work with educators around the country that there’s a developing theme gaining ground. It is the search for answers, the search for the ‘right way’, the search for a sense of comfort in knowing that educators are ‘getting it right’. These questions come from new educators and experienced educators, certificate three trained educators and university trained teachers alike. It is a question that comes up in discussions at almost every single centre that I visit and with many of the educators that I work with and I have puzzled over it for some time. One of the key objectives in my work is to build the capacity of educators to provide high quality education and care, and this takes knowledge, support and a confident professional identity. So what is it that leaves us questioning our professional autonomy, and instead searching for the path to the perceived ‘right way?’

To some extent this phenomenon can be attributed to the differences between previous state based regulations in children’s services, and the Education and Care Services National Regulations (National Regulations). For example, the NSW Children’s Services Regulation (2004) was very prescriptive and included specific details about what a service must do to comply with it, whereas the National Regulations are more ‘outcomes based’ in that they require that an outcome be met without necessarily specifying how a service should do so. This difference in approach means that many provisions that were in the NSW Regulation don’t appear to have a direct counterpart in the National Regulations. However, in most cases the specific requirement is actually encompassed within a more general requirement in the National Regulations. For example, the NSW Regulation specified the temperature at which hot water in centre-based children’s services should be regulated, whereas the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law and the National Regulations have a general requirement that reasonable precautions be taken to protect children from hazards likely to cause injury. The practical effect is intended to be the same, but the outcome focus allows services to adopt measures relevant to their specific circumstances. (NSW Department of Education and Communities, 2012). The benefit of a principles based regulatory framework is that individual circumstances can be considered within its scope, and the benefits of a more prescriptive regulatory framework is that everyone has more direction about what they need to do!

The introduction of the National Quality Framework also brought with it a new National Quality Standard (NQS) and Assessment and Rating system. Prior to this, the Quality Improvement Accreditation System (QIAS), administered by the National Child Care Accreditation Council (NCAC), was in place. The QIAS in its final inception featured a system including measurement instruments designed to contribute to the validity of decisions profiled against identified quality areas (Rowe, 2002). So in many ways the shift to Assessment and Rating against the NQS reflected a shift from a more prescriptive and predictable system of measurement to an outcomes based system, not unlike the move from a prescriptive regulatory framework to a principles based one.

The introduction of the National Quality Framework also required educators to implement the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) or other approved learning frameworks under the National Law. An enormous range of curriculum approaches influenced programs for early childhood education and care prior to this, and to some extent still do, with some of them being more prescriptive in nature. For some educators, the shift from an existing framework to the EYLF was not perceived as too onerous a task, but for many, the leap was a significant one. For example, the NSW Early Childhood Curriculum Framework: The Practice of Relationships, shared many general principles with its EYLF counterpart. But other approaches required a significant change in practice to bring them into closer alignment with the EYLF.

So, in my view there are a range of compounding factors at play that are contributing to the rise of the question ‘am I doing it right?”. Here’s another one to add to my theory – the online forum and it’s potential to add to the conundrum. As an avid observer, I’ve noticed with interest that the online forum seems to in many ways fill a gap or a niche, as it provides a platform for contributors to voice their beliefs and passions. For a community of educators who are looking for answers, here might be just the place to get them. But there’s a kicker, and that is that the online forum often only provides answers if your practice fits neatly into the truths of others. Contrary to the bi-directional opportunities afforded by principle based approaches, online forums sometimes represent a linear view; a my way or the highway approach. Moss & Dahlberg (2008) view as problematic approaches whereby others take a position as if no choice was involved, as if their position was the only one. I’m prepared to take some brickbats on this one, but like it or not, this is a stifling of democracy that discourages educators from professional dialogue and potentially leaves them feeling like rudderless ships.

At the risk of shooting myself in the foot here, I’ve also considered that the proliferation of professional development opportunities, made more accessible through the federal government’s long day care professional development fund, may have contributed to the rise of the ‘am I doing it right’ question. I’m all for high quality professional development that is intentionally planned around the support needs of educators, services and providers. Accurate, well executed, caring and ongoing support of educators in context can be very powerful indeed, and I have seen first-hand the way that it can transform practice. But I have also seen questionable provision of professional development, delivered in what I term the McDonalds model - that is the drive through PD session that is one off, not contextual, consumed quickly and with little long term value to educator’s professional health and wellbeing. It is difficult to develop committed, knowledgeable, resilient and competent educators on a diet of fast food professional development, or none at all, leaving them still hungry for answers. (pardon the pun!)

In thinking about the burning need to know if we’re doing it ‘the right way’, these are just some of the things that I’ve pondered about. There are undoubtedly more. This shifting of the landscape from a prescriptive foundation to an outcomes based one has created foundational shifts, and this often leads to shaky ground. It is perfectly understandable to want to still the shaky ground, to restore the equilibrium, and to seek the answers that might make that happen. But as Peter Drucker so eloquently said “the greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence – it is to act with yesterday’s logic”. So we must apply new thinking in response to change, and search not for single answers, but welcome the multiple perspectives of many in thinking critically and sharing views. I suspect that my esteemed colleagues and sector leaders are onto this, as I’ve noticed an increase of questioning in online forums and of provocations to engage educators in multiple ways of thinking. If we are welcoming multiple perspectives, then we are prepared to open up a space for listening and consideration of the view of others. As Dahlberg, Moss & Pence (2007) argued, “quality in early childhood services is a constructed concept, subjective in nature and based on values, beliefs and interest, rather than an objective and universal reality. Quality child care is, to a large extent, in the eye of the beholder.” (p.172). Of course, there are guiding principles that we should remain committed to as we continue to ask the questions. The often neglected underpinning principles of the National Quality Framework are a great place to start, and they are that:

The rights and best interests of the child are paramountChildren are successful, competent and capable learnersEquity, inclusion and diversity underpin the FrameworkAustralia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures are valuedThe role of parents and families is respected and supportedBest practice is expected in the provision of education and care services

So in answer to the burning question of ‘am I doing it right?’, reflecting on these principles is a great place to start.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. (2008) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care – Languages of Evaluation New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work. Vol 5 (1) p 03-12

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Languages of evaluation (2nd Ed.). London: Falmer Press

Rowe, K.J. (2002) The measurement of composite variables from composite indicators: Applications in Quality Assurance and Accreditation Systems: Childcare. Camberwell Vic: ACER

https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/what-we-offer/early-childhood-education-and-care/national-quality-framework/reg-comparison-table.pdf

http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/National-Quality-Framework-Resources-Kit/NQF03-Guide-to-NQS-130902.pdf

As I visit centres around Australia, I am increasingly interested in educator's interpretations and enactment of 'children's agency' in practice. With the implementation of the National Quality Framework, the National Quality Standard was introduced as the quality benchmark against which services are assessed and rated. Quality Area One of the NQS focuses on ensuring that an approved learning framework informs the development of a curriculum that enhances each child’s learning and development, and element 1.1.6 requires educators to ensure that each child’s agency is promoted, enabling them to make choices and decisions and to influence events and their world. It is the interpretation of this element that interests me in terms of the way that is enacted in practice. The Guide to the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2011), tells us that agency is about children recognising their capacity to initiate and lead learning, and their right to participate in decisions that affect them, including their learning.

As I talk to educators and observe practice, I notice that children are indeed making decisions throughout the day on matters that affect them. This is often explained to me as children's right to choose. In general, what I see more and more of is children choosing whether to, and they way in which, they participate in experiences and routines. For example Oliver, a three year old at a centre that I recently visited, who was participating in a painting experience, and was painting not only on the canvas provided, but also on the tables, chairs and the adjacent paint trolley. Or Montana, who after showing great interest in a cooking experience, supported by an enthusiastic and committed educator who gathered up the required resources and sourced a recipe online, lost interest and moved on to another experience with a peer before any mixing or cooking had started. In discussion with both of these educators, their perspective was that children have a right to choose, and that they were conscious of supporting their agency. But I wondered what this meant for the agency of the children who would use the painting area after Oliver, or the educator who had responded so purposefully to Montana's interest. Was their agency, their capacity to make choices and decisions, limited by Oliver and Montana's enactment of their own agency?

It is the interpretation of children's agency as an individual pursuit, that is one in which the child makes decisions about matters that affect them and their daily experiences, that has me pondering over how this aligns in the context of a community of learners. Because after all, aren't children part of a family, a community and a broader society? If we view children as active participants within an ecological system, as Bronfenbrenner (1994) famously identified, then shouldn't children's agency extend to the collective good, and aren't early childhood educators perfectly positioned to do that work? Can children's agency be framed and enacted from the perspective of citizenship, social justice and humanity? So many questions, and so many opportunities for rich reflective discussions with educators that ensued.

A centre I worked with recently made a beautiful connection with the local nursing home. The children spent some time each week in a collective discussion about what they would do on the next visit to the nursing home, decided on what activities the residents would like, and considered these options based on their developing understanding of the resident's personalities and preferences. They had a photo of each resident and each week they added to this documentation with information about what they had learnt about them, and educators used this to inform their discussion meeting. The children debated and came to a collective decision about what the best activity would be based on what they knew. From my perspective, I appreciated the skillfulness of educators as they facilitated those discussions, and their very intentional work in ensuring that each child’s agency was promoted, enabling them to make choices and decisions that authentically influenced their world. The children were excited by these visits, felt great ownership in the program, and exercised their agency beyond the personal, and into the collective sphere. Hawkins (2014) believes that for a future characterised by peace and understanding, early childhood educators must foster curriculum that upholds equity and human dignity. I would support broadening the interpretation of children's agency in the National Quality Standard to make space for multiple perspectives, and welcome the potential that this brings.

http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/National-Quality-Framework-Resources-Kit/belonging_being_and_becoming_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia.pdf

Bronfennbrenner, U, (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol3, 2nd Edition. Oxford:Elsevier

Hawkins, Karen. Looking forward, looking back: Framing the future for teaching for social justice in early childhood education [online].Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol. 39, No. 3, Sep 2014: 121-128.

What a privilege it was to spend a day at the at the Evergreen Community School. What struck me most was the teacher's skillful ability to deepen children's thinking, resulting in incredibly competent and articulate children. Here is a short excerpt from a reflective meeting with a group of twenty 4 - 5 year old's in a discussion about fairness. From an almost five year old boy:

" well, it's not always fair for everybody to just get the same. For example, if everyone gets a cupcake, but there are chocolate and vanilla cupcakes, and some people like chocolate and some people like vanilla, then it doesn't feel like it's fair to me if I don't get the one I like. So, just dividing everything up so everyone gets the same doesn't make it fair. You have to ask everyone what makes it feel fair for them. It takes communication to work it out."

This is a word for word transcript, excepting a couple of umm's and thinking time. The vocabulary and the use of language is incredible, but the depth of thinking in relation to the concept was astounding. Thank you so much to Alise Shafer Ivey and the team at Evergreen for welcoming me. I look forward to some exciting collaborative projects in the future!!

Say cheese........

Jan 21, 2016

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply". This quote from Steven R. Covey got me thinking. I recently heard it referred to at a conference late last year and reflected on it in relation to my own behaviour. Guilty as charged! When assessing my own listening, I found that I was usually doing one of two things. A - thinking about something else, smiling and nodding away while busily planning something entirely unrelated in my mind, or B - carefully preparing my response to the speaker. What would I say, how would I say it, how could I impress the speaker with my expertise and uber intelligence! This quote was the springboard to introducing an exercise when conducting professional development sessions with educators, asking them to really listen in to their colleagues and then report back on what they said. Most people find it a challenge, some find it almost impossible.

Over the last month or two I've had the privilege of spending time in different early childhood education and care centres across the country. This notion of listening kept creeping to the front of my mind as I watched programs being delivered by enthusiastic and hard working educators. As I marveled at the passion and commitment of educators to provide rich and meaningful learning experiences for children, and their endless capacity to reflect on children's learning. I admired, from my fortunate position of observer, the determination of educators to come up with interesting and varied experiences for children, to research and discover a thousand different ways to use a cardboard cylinder. And while I watched and admired this dogged determination to do their very best, two words kept repeating in my head. Stop, listen. Stop, listen. Stop, listen.......

Recently while at a centre I had the most joyful and fulfilling conversation with a group of three and four year olds who invited me into a conversation. It started when Bella asked me what my Dad's name was and I told her it was Keith, but that he died a long time ago. They told me their Dad's names - Ian, Paul, Mark, Solomon, etc; and that their Dad's were alive. Great, I said, good to hear. Zac then told me about his foot getting stuck in the pedal of his bike, and how he broke his leg. "Did you have to get a plaster cast on your leg?'' I asked. He said yep, and that his leg almost died like my Dad because it couldn't grow in the cast and was really skinny when the cast was cut off. I asked him if it was OK now, he told me it was good. Great, I said, good to hear. Jacob then said that one time he jumped so high on a trampoline that he reached the moon and saw it, and that it was made of cheese. I asked him how he knew it was cheese and he told me that it was yellow, but that he also took a bite of it, so therefore he knew. Alyssa interjected and said that she'd also been up to the moon, and that it was made out of rock, not cheese. Olivia asked her how she got there and she explained that she flew on an airplane and saw it and that it was grey rock, grey like the jacket I was wearing. Zac said it still could be cheese, and if she didn't take a bite of it, well then how did she know it was rock. Bella asserted that cheese is yellow, a strong argument that met with unanimous agreement around the table, and support for Bella's theory. I could see Zac thinking of a counter argument, he was pretty determined to give his cheese theory another run. And then I asked them, "is all cheese yellow? maybe cheese comes in different colours? I'm pretty sure I had some grey colour cheese not so long ago when I was out for dinner". Raucous laughter ensued, a cacophony of suggestions, each one louder and more outrageous than the last - what about pink cheese, red cheese, purple cheese, blaaack cheese......and then, right at the precipice of the joyful possibilities that the cheese conversation might bring, there were instructions to settle down, scrape the plates, sit on the mat, hands on heads, shoulders, knees and toes, line up and go outside. And it made me think again of listening, of the fascinating views and perspectives of children as they work to understand their worlds, and of the possibilities that are lost when we listen not with the intent to understand, but the intent to reply. When we listen with our own agendas. I'm a big fan of Ann Pelo's work and the value that she places on what she terms "tuning in to children" and the benefits of this for children's learning and development. This resonates with me, but not only for children's learning. Really listening to children reaps benefits for educators, of professional satisfaction, of potentials for teaching, of professional growth. The possibilities for both teaching and learning through the art of listening are endless. I wonder whether listening may bring some respite to educators, a kind of permission to take a break from the pressure of coming up with new activities and experiences for children, and to re frame teaching around their lead.

Footnote: cheese has given me so much in my life, especially when paired with a good oaky chardonnay, who knew it could give me so much more!

I've long subscribed to the theory that everyone is entitled to have an opinion and to express it freely. I'm a great believer in individuality, in the diversity of experiences and therefore views that develop as a result of this, and in the right to express an opinion as we believe it. Each to their own and all that, right? But lately, my beliefs have been challenged. In the early childhood education space that is my workplace, I am increasingly troubled by expressions of views that can only be described as cringe worthy, and are Simply. Not. OK. Exhibit A - "David" - who replied to a recent post on an early childhood Facebook forum in response to the question "what would you do if you found out your colleague was gay?" that he would be disgusted. Or Exhibit B - "Sarah" - who responded to a different post on a similar forum "do you think it's OK for an educator to wear a Burqa" with "she should take it off at work in case it scares the children". Apart from the fact that the questions should never have been asked in the first place because they are in and of themselves discriminatory, a number of other educators posting on both of these threads challenged these views, eliciting the same response from David and Sarah.... "well I'm entitled to my opinion." And here's where my position on respecting the views of others waivers, because actually - David, Sarah, no you are not entitled to these opinions. Not as early childhood educators, not in this sector, not when you are in the privileged position of impacting on the lives of very young children and families.

As early childhood educators, we are mandated to adhere to the requirements of the National Quality Framework, which includes Australia's first nationally approved Early Years Learning Framework. One of the key tenets of the EYLF is Belonging. It requires educators to think about how we support children to develop a strong sense of belonging in our centres. Contemporary research tells us that this sense of belonging is developed through building strong relationships with children, families and communities. Through these relationships, a sense of belonging and in turn strong self identity is developed in children. If we are genuinely committed to this requirement of the NQF, as we are legislated to be, then there is absolutely no room for opinions that exclude. Exclusion and belonging can never walk hand in hand. So I ask you David, what of the child whose parents are in a same sex relationship; still disgusted? Because this opinion that you feel a sense of entitlement to will impact on that family, and therefore that child whose sense of belonging is the business of your work as an educator. In Australia, our LGBTI youth have significantly poorer mental health and significantly higher rates of suicide than other Australians, with discrimination and exclusion being the key causal factors contributing to this appalling statistic. And it is opinions such as yours David, which contribute to this statistic. You may think that this is drawing somewhat of a long bow, but it’s not, because your work as an educator influences young children in their earliest years when their brain is developing so rapidly. And its also opinions such as yours Sarah, that contribute to the ongoing sense of alienation of young Australian Muslims, who, according to a recent report from the University of Melbourne, feel increasingly excluded because of the relentless questioning of their "Australian-ness".

So are we really entitled to an opinion, even when it may be offered without rationale or thought? I used to think that any perspective was worth something, if only to critique and consider another world view. However I don’t believe that there’s room in the early childhood sector to entertain opinions that exclude. There should always be space for professional development and education that can support educators to see the impact of their views on practice and to demonstrate change. So for the David’s and Sarah's amongst us, the opportunity for self reflection and and learning is now, and it's a requirement of your role as an educator.

What a roller coaster ride it’s been over the last three months. For over thirty years I've worked for somebody. The government, a Board, Councillors, a CEO, a committee, the list goes on. I've tried to find a space in that work to do good, to include and not exclude, to advocate for children. But I've come to a realisation. And it's minionesque! Yes, that's right, I've been a minion. Protocols, procedures, rules of both the spoken but mostly the unspoken variety, have rendered me either mute or in hand wringing analysis over the implications of my opinion being heard. So I've been a minion with an opinion, but one that's not often been voiced to be honest. Although I've had countless conversations in the car with myself reenacting what I should have said in various forums, my opinions have largely remained between me, myself and the car. Since taking this leap into working for myself, I've found the past thirty years of grappling with organisational culture versus a burning desire to put children first has taken it's toll. I feel like a contestant on X Factor, with Guy Sebastian perched on my shoulder urging me to name what kind of artist I want to be (except the question is what kind of consultant!). But here is where I'm coming to my happy place, because each day the answer to that question becomes clearer. Yes it may have taken me thirty years to get there, and I'm certainly not there all the time, but I find myself visiting more and more often. Because Guy, what I want is to be a consultant that supports educators, that builds their confidence, who becomes their cheerleader and makes them believe they can change the world. Because it's these educators that will become advocates and cheerleaders for children and families. Idealistic.... maybe. But if I can be idealistic on the other side of 50 (only just!) and after thirty years of navigating the rocky terrains of my career so far, then I reckon it could be a disposition I'm stuck with. Because after all this time, I still want what's right, fair and just for children and families. So please hop off my shoulder for a little while Guy Sebastian, you've clearly been working out and you're really very heavy!