On the face of it, it’s hard to know whose side to take in the row over the sacking of Methodist Ladies’ College principal Rosa Storelli.

You'd think that $500k a year would be enough to make you smile…

Ms Storelli, who was put to the sword by the school’s board last week, is clearly an inspirational figure to some, and her sudden and unexpected exit has her supporters up in arms.

On the other hand, it is not in dispute that she has been overpaid a very large sum of money and the board would appear to have been within its rights to send her packing - with a nice payout, mind you - once it decided it had lost confidence in her.

Both sides are adamant that they are in the right.

Which suggests that for those of us who like to enjoy the spectacle when rich people fall out, the next few weeks are going to be a great deal of fun indeed.

But no matter whose side we are inclined to take in the matter - and I must confess my sympathies wavered during the week - there is one thing I think all of us can agree on, which is that $510,000 a year is a hell of a lot of money to be paid to run a girls’ school.

Sorry, that should be $510,000 with another $50,000 tossed in for doing a good job.

And thanks to the generosity of the Federal Government, Ms Storelli was able to pay for a lot of things including her mortgage, her car, her private credit card bills and her nanny from her pre-tax income - things that most of us have to pay with whatever we have left over after the taxman has taken his bite.

Now there is no doubt that MLC has come up in the world since my day when it was unkindly referred to as Molls’ Last Chance.

And there is equally no doubt that the duties of a headmistress, dealing with spoiled schoolgirls and their demanding parents, are onerous.

But $560,000 a year? Does running a girls’ school - even one as up itself as MLC - really merit that sort of money? The Prime Minister only gets $495,000.

Reading about Ms Storelli’s salary this week, it will have struck many parents with children at private schools that an explanation might finally be at hand for why the cost of educating their little darling has soared during a period in our history in which inflation has almost been abolished.

Likewise for those of us whose parents were able to send us to private schools on one salary back in the 1970s and ‘80s, but could never dream of doing that today.

On Friday, the school board’s deputy chairman, Brendan Fleiter, explained that while MLC was a wealthy school, it had a “diverse community”.

“Many parents make significant financial sacrifices to pay the cost of their daughters’ education at this wonderful school,” he said.

Mr Fleiter was explaining why his board will pursue Ms Storelli for the $700,000 it says she was overpaid.

But I suspect that, for many of the parents making significant financial sacrifices, the real scandal is not whether she was overpaid $100,00 or $700,000, but the fact Mr Fleiter’s board thought it was OK to pay her $560,000 in the first place.

I suspect too that, if the salaries of all MLC’s staff were to be published, we would find there was a long drop from Ms Storelli’s remuneration down to that of the poor schlubs who actually do the teaching.

Through this ugly spat we are being given a glimpse into the way the managerial class in this country has managed to show the rest of us a clean pair of heels over the past couple of decades.

Back in the 1980s, when my old man was complaining endlessly about the poor return I was giving him for all the money he was shelling out to Melbourne Grammar, being the headmaster or headmistress of an elite private school was a prestigious, but not especially well-paid, position.

This is why they and their staff were given free housing and discounted school fees for their children.

Today being a teacher at an elite private school is still a prestigious but not especially well-paid position. But as we can all see from Ms Storelli’s salary, it’s good to be the boss.

In this, headmistresses are not alone.

According to one study, executive pay in this country grew over the decade 1992-2002 from 22 times the average weekly earnings to 74 times the average weekly earnings.

Of course, compared with a banker or a QC or an equity partner at a major law or accounting firm, Ms Storelli was not well paid at all.

Which perhaps explains why the board thought $560,000 was a reasonable rather than obscene salary for a school teacher. And why the boards of these elite private schools have had no compunction about jacking up the school fees until few but themselves can afford to send their children to them.

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • George says:

      12:32pm | 24/09/12

      Ouch. Methinks there are tonnes of hideously overpaid people in this country. I say we have a royal commission into salaries. Or something like that.

      These are the same types who lobby the government for an exponential supply of immigrants. They wouldn’t happen to have a very personal vested interest? Except it’s usually the uni types. Deans and whatever.

    • Al says:

      12:49pm | 24/09/12

      George - even if such a commision was run, what do you expect the government to do about it?
      Do you want them to set MAXIMUM remuneration people can be paid?
      So if you currently earn above the maximum you pay 100% tax rate, it just gets siphoned off by the government. That will stop them won’t it?
      It is NOT the governments job to stipulate a maximum people can be paid for the work they do (this is opposed to negotiating minimum conditions in the Public Service which stipulate what they HAVE to pay, they could still choose to pay above that required).
      Government can set minimums but not maximums.

    • Vicki PS says:

      06:50pm | 24/09/12

      Al, who says governments can’t set maximums?  Personally, I think it would be very appropriate to do just that.  Executive salaries aren’t conjured out of thin air, after all: the money has to come from somewhere.  The real question is to what extent should business entities be allowed to gouge their stakeholders (customers included) in order to pay these salaries? 

      It doesn’t take genius to recognise that if an organisation like MLC is paying their principals such obscene amounts, the only appropriate response to pleas for a bigger share of commonwealth education funding is an invitation to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

    • Economist says:

      12:41pm | 24/09/12

      It’s a private school they can pay what they like, but do the results justify the pay? I doubt it.

      I wouldn’t link the issue to the government funding component the school might receive. This is based on SES funding model and the school may not receive much given it’s demographic. Clearly the parents are paying significantly above that and you could argue they’re paying for the principals salary, not the government.

      But I will say that this is the one reason I will never support a voucher system based on the same amount of funding per student. Such a system will be inflationary as schools like this will still have ridiculous fees to maintain exclusivity.

    • AdamC says:

      12:56pm | 24/09/12

      Well, Economist, I don’t think many voucher system advocates, myself included, think schools should be able to accept the voucher payments and then charge another $25k. That would be absurd.

      On the broader point, I agree that it is surely up the school community, rather than random busybodies, to determine how much MLC’s principal gets paid.

      Also, I dunno when James Campbell went to school but, during the 1990s, MLC was generally regarded as being among the top 5 most prestigious schools in Melbourne.

    • Aloe says:

      01:42pm | 24/09/12

      ” but do the results justify the pay? I doubt it. “

      They do when the rich don’t want their kids to associate with the great unwashed.

    • Tubesteak says:

      12:41pm | 24/09/12

      “I suspect too that, if the salaries of all MLC’s staff were to be published, we would find there was a long drop from Ms Storelli’s remuneration down to that of the poor schlubs who actually do the teaching.”

      Everything is worth what people are willing to pay.

      I doubt those schlubs are doing it tough. I bet they’d be on considerably more than their public sector counterparts. Maybe not quite the headmistress but you get that with every pyramid scheme out there. Whether it be legitimate or those Queensland property schemes that often pop up. The people at the top that are running the show are paid the most because, guess what, they are the ones running the show. The schlubs down the bottom are usually just replaceable cogs with little input to the big picture.

      What is interesting to see, is this is what would happen if the entire school system was privatised. We would see more like this. Then maybe teachers would not be able to complain about being paid the median salary straight out of uni. They’d be paid far more. Might make teaching a more attractive profession.

    • Cobbler says:

      12:59pm | 24/09/12

      I can’t wait to see the usual crowd of tax and public service haters to jump on here and defend this woman’s salary to the hilt…........ even though tax payers are probably paying half of it.

    • nihonin says:

      02:26pm | 24/09/12

      ’ even though tax payers are probably paying half of it. ‘

      Trying to rattle the saber, but to play it safe and not look like a complete idiot (just in case you’re wrong), you go in with a rolled up serviette lol

    • Cobbler says:

      05:06pm | 24/09/12

      As every schools funding to fees ratio is different it’s actually impossible to say.  However my comment is meant to highlight that almost certainly a large potion of that private school obscene wage will be funded by government.  Whether it be 20, 30 40, 60%, it doesn’t really matter.  Any amount above zero is unacceptable.

      Can’t wait to review all you future fact filled posts sport.

    • Huonian says:

      01:02pm | 24/09/12

      The issue in this and similar cases is not the amount she has been paid.  It is whether it is good value.

      A CEO who actually perfoms could well be a bargain at $500k.  A dud CEO on half that is not.

      As almost all of us do not have kids at MLC, we are not in a position to judge.  The parents of MLC students are.

    • Alfie says:

      01:49pm | 24/09/12

      Talk about value Vs performance.

      Exhibit A: Wayne Swan earns $390,627 pa and just delivered a $43.7b deficit. That’s not good value.

    • Cobbler says:

      05:10pm | 24/09/12

      Why don’t you educate us all on why deficits are bad Alfie?  Let me give you a hint on what not to do:  Don’t compare it to your weekly shopping budget.  If you do that, you’re doing it wrong.

    • Babylon says:

      05:24pm | 24/09/12

      It makes me laugh:

      “TONY Abbott has accused Julia Gillard’s media director John McTernan of planning a ‘class war’ strategy to win back disaffected voters for Labor.” - The Australian.

      I wonder if Labor votes realise that Wasteful Wayne and Gillard are actually a part of this ‘evil upper class’?

    • Alfie says:

      07:01pm | 24/09/12


      Errr…deficits are bad because you pay interest on that debt. You also have no money to spend on things like public infrastructure or public programs (apart from more borrowing, and paying more and more interest). Thus; the endless Labor cycle of debt and decline. Then you wait for a conservative government to kick your arse out of office and return to a surplus budget. Simple eh?

    • KH says:

      01:12pm | 24/09/12

      And then they all cry and moan about government funding and how they ‘deserve an equal share’.  I’ll bet that no public school principal gets paid this much.  In fact, this is probably equal to the combined salaries of a principal and a dozen teachers in a public school.

    • John says:

      01:16pm | 24/09/12

      “Back in the 1980s, when my old man was complaining endlessly about the poor return I was giving him for all the money he was shelling out to Melbourne Grammar”

      He might have had a point, seeing as how you ended up a journalist. He could have sent you to Frankston High and got the same result.

    • AdamC says:

      01:24pm | 24/09/12

      When I was at a prestigious Melbourne private school in the late 1990s, there was no shortage of kids wanting to be journos. RMIT’s undergraduate journalism degree (I have no idea what that course would have entailed) was one of the toughest courses to get into, outside medicine or law at Melbourne or Monash.

    • John says:

      01:34pm | 24/09/12

      You can date the decline of journalism in this country precisely from when it ceased being a trade where journalists learned their craft as apprentices and became instead something you got “qualified” at doing by getting a degree in it at places like RMIT.

    • Bev says:

      03:43pm | 24/09/12

      John says:01:34pm | 24/09/12

      That comment is true for many other trades that used to be learnt on the job that now require a degree or some piece of paper.  “Credential Power” rules the roost.  What it means for many employers is that it is going to take a number of years to bring them up to speed in the real world.

    • tez says:

      01:18pm | 24/09/12

      Who cares? Private schools are there to create huge networking systems for the already privileged. So pay for it

    • Corey says:

      01:38pm | 24/09/12

      The only networking girls need to do is find a rich young stockbroker/doctor/lawyer to marry and have children with.

    • GigaStar says:

      04:41pm | 24/09/12

      Corey’s jealous !!!

    • Babylon says:

      05:26pm | 24/09/12

      A Gay man has the same opportunities, well would have if Gillard, the Prime Minister, had of supported Gay Marriage.

    • John says:

      01:28pm | 24/09/12

      Now that is public knowledge how much this woman was on at MLC all the other private school principals will be demanding the same -  comparative wage justice for elite private school headmasters/mistresses. And the school councils will cravenly give in to their demands.

    • tez says:

      01:40pm | 24/09/12

      And you don’t think they are already getting it, .

    • John says:

      01:55pm | 24/09/12

      I doubt they’re getting $560K.  That is very high, even by elite private school standards.

    • fml says:

      01:41pm | 24/09/12

      she looks like she could be the principal in a harry potter novel.

    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      04:11pm | 24/09/12

      Or one of the witches in charge of the witch coven who pretend to be an anti-child abuse society thingo but are actually witches and they turn some kid in the movie into a mouse and the witches then try to eat the kids or something. I forget what it’s called.

      Probably “Mouse Child Hunt Witch Camp of Hunting” or something.

    • Babylon says:

      05:31pm | 24/09/12

      .... tut!....Straight in with the male chauvinist, sexist comments on a womans’ looks.

      So much for the champion of the ‘equal and fair society in the global village’ view.


    • Admiral Ackbar says:

      06:16pm | 24/09/12

      Nah not that much thought put into my comment Babylon. It was either an actual movie or an acid flashback. I just haven’t had much time to contribute on here lately so I felt obliged to at least find something to comment on, and I chose fml’s comment to reply to because I thought it would be nice to agree with him for a change.

      I don’t even know what this article is about.

    • Aloe says:

      01:43pm | 24/09/12

      “I do it for the money”

      You never get this answer when you talk to a teacher.

      Now an administrator, that’s something different entirely.

    • OzTrucker says:

      01:51pm | 24/09/12

      “But $560,000 a year? Does running a girls’ school - even one as up itself as MLC - really merit that sort of money? The Prime Minister only gets $495,000.”

      Just goes to show Gillard is overpaid as well.

    • sunny says:

      05:23pm | 24/09/12

      “Just goes to show Gillard is overpaid as well. “

      I’d like to see you try and do the PM’s job. After two weeks of that kind of pressure you’d be begging them to take back the $495K and find someone else.

    • Babylon says:

      05:50pm | 24/09/12


      All you have to do is do exactly what the Super rich Faceless men want at home and what Obama wants you to do abroad.

      Whats so hard about that?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:47pm | 24/09/12

      @Babylon- funny, people said that about John Howard- only George W Bush was in power….

    • sunny says:

      07:04pm | 24/09/12

      Babylon, you’re an instant expert - just add water.

    • peter says:

      01:57pm | 24/09/12

      Put simply, isn’t this just supply and demand?
      The Principle was very, very good and performed to the standards set by the board. Her compensation is commensurate with her skill sets and performance. I am sure the Board benchmarked her deal annually.
      Yes it is a lot of money.But, it is a level of compensation set by the market.
      Their should be more, not less compensation paid on merit.

    • John says:

      02:13pm | 24/09/12

      Not so simple. It’s a very thin market for elite private school principals, which it makes it very hard to benchmark. How many schools just like MLC are there? And what benchmarking does happen might merely reflect a particularly good deal that one principal might have been given in a weak moment by a weak school council.

    • L. says:

      02:35pm | 24/09/12

      “It’s a very thin market for elite private school principals, which it makes it very hard to benchmark. How many schools just like MLC are there?”

      Quite a few…

      You are benchmarking against other girls schools. The term ‘elite’ only refers to the entry fees, not academic standards required for said entry.

    • adam b says:

      02:13pm | 24/09/12

      Come the revolution they will be among the first up against the wall

    • stephen says:

      05:03pm | 24/09/12

      Putting a girls school ‘up against a wall’ is probably not a good term to use ... at any rate, the main thrust of this author’s argument is that 560 Grand is too much salary for the job at hand, and that she was paid that in the first instance may lessen her own guilt, at the same time putting pressure on the Board as to worth.
      She said that she forgot about the perks she was already receiving when she was negotiating her new contract with the Board.

      And then suddenly, she was dismissed.
      (I wish someone would fill in the gaps ; all this sounds like the naughty bits have been excluded and I’m so over Abbott’s punch and Julia’s smile.)

    • Babylon says:

      05:46pm | 24/09/12

      We’ve nearly had 6 years of Labor socialism, with a woman being a very powerful central figure.

      what have we got?

      Well women still struggle in the workforce against the glass ceiling.

      The Mining boom’s gone bye byes

      The working Australians are being laid off on a weekly basis

      Working family jobs are taken by cheaper 457 and Student visa migrants

      We spend $100 Million a month more than the previous Government

      The Treasurer, still hoarse from shouting how good things are thanks to him, wants to re-do the Budget for some fictitious reason other than reckless spending and destruction of our precious revenue source, the Mining boom.

      We’ll have borrowed about $300 Billion come election day.

      We have a $120 million black hole in budget deficit actually.

      And we have no idea how the Government is going to pay the following bills it has generated for us:

      Asst Child care $1.3 Billion per year
      NDIS $10.5 Billion per year
      Gronski Reform $6.5 Billion per year
      Subs $35 Billion
      Nauru $1.3 Billion
      Humanitarian extra Asylum $1.3 Billion per year
      Dental $4 Billion
      UN Security seat $40 Million over 4 years

      How are we going to pay for all this?

    • Terry2 says:

      02:14pm | 24/09/12

      Two things to say, firstly we seem committed to pumping taxpayer money into private schools so perhaps the taxpayers of Australia needs to question these types of salaries when compared to those state school teachers & principals.
      Secondly, how can it be that a salaried person is able to pay mortgage,car, credit card and nanny from pretax income and the rest of us would have to do so with post tax income?
      I don’t blame the lady in question but their seems to be something amiss in the system.

    • L. says:

      02:41pm | 24/09/12

      “Secondly, how can it be that a salaried person is able to pay mortgage,car, credit card and nanny from pretax income and the rest of us would have to do so with post tax income?”

      car.. salary sacrifice. We can all do that if you earn enough to make it economically viable.

      Credit card.. (personal?) can’t.

      Nanny..can’t, unless it’s part of her ‘package’.

      ‘mortgage’..can’t. I thought she had access to school residence as part of her package.

      Most of what he has said it rubbish IMO…you know, an ‘us’ against ‘them’ article.

    • Bomb78 says:

      04:05pm | 24/09/12

      Pumping money in? Maybe we should be asking what return we get from all schools for taxpayer money - for example:
      Total government funding per student (2010)
      MLC - $3,147
      Camberwell High - about 4 kilometres down the road - $9,007
      Seem to me that the parents of the girls at MLC are subsidising the taxpayer about $6,000 a year.
      On the salary sacrifice - if MLC is judged to be a not for profit there are special rules relating to FBT, but only up to a limit, after which FBT applies, just like everyone else. It would be interesting to find out how much FBT was paid on top of the half a million salary.

    • L. says:

      02:29pm | 24/09/12

      Yay.. Class warfare..

      So this entire article was essentially all about how much a lady gets paid by an institution that you have nothing to do with, and in all likelyhood, never will..???

      I have to ask.. WTF do you care??

    • Arnold Layne says:

      04:56pm | 24/09/12

      He has every right to care whilever elite private schools are partly funded by the government.  That means that part of his taxes, your and mine goes to paying her salary.  Are we getting money for our tax dollar out of this salary?

    • Pat Croyland says:

      02:30pm | 24/09/12

      Assuming the Principal was over in fact over paid, that leaves some disturbing questions, apparently unasked so far.

      The Board (and its Accountants)  would have us believe that somehow they just didn’t notice they were over-paying their principal. Did not notice. For 10 years. 

      How could a competent Board let such a mess arise?  What were they doing at their meetings? What were they doing in passing the annual accounts year after year? How can a competent Board possibly defend its own decade long oversight?

      That’s the point. The Board has questions to answer here. Instead they sacked the Principal.

    • KJ says:

      03:32pm | 24/09/12

      How about the integrity of the prinicpal.  If she was overpaid $700,000, as the article states, how could you not know.

    • AdamC says:

      04:34pm | 24/09/12

      The overpayment was over 15 years, KJ. Not to mention, how many people bother to personally calculate their pay, taking into account deductions, tax, etc? Most of us would simply accept our employer’s calculation. Why wouldn’t we? After all, it would be a bit silly of our bosses to overpay us week after week!

    • Ben C says:

      04:41pm | 24/09/12

      I think you’re looking at it from a far too simplistic perspective. If this principal has been overpaid, it would be because she has not achieved the desired results during her tenure - it’s not simply a case of her being paid more than she was supposed to receive.

      Sure, the Board has questions to answer - such as why the principal was still employed when she wasn’t achieving the desired results, and why it took so long to dismiss her.

    • John says:

      05:29pm | 24/09/12

      “The overpayment was over 15 years”

      That’s $4000 per month. You wouldn’t notice if you got overpaid by $4000 per month?

    • Kev says:

      02:47pm | 24/09/12

      $500k a year for running a school? I guess that’s what you get when you charge families $20k a year to send their daughters there. Given that the MLC board is stacked with corporate high flyers who have next to no teaching experience I wonder if their primary interest is education or ensuring MLC’s brand name and reputation is maintained so that it can justify the obscene tuition fees.

    • Steve says:

      04:21pm | 24/09/12

      +1 Kev

      As a product of the public education system, I have no idea why people send their kids to private schools (or how regular families can afford to…).
      I know a heap of private school-educated people and their jobs and incomes (and, in some cases, views on life) in no way justify their parents’ decision to send them there.

    • GigaStar says:

      04:44pm | 24/09/12

      Steve - what has “views on life” got to do with anything about private schooling. Sounds like your advocating that schools churn out drones who all think the same.

    • iansand says:

      04:47pm | 24/09/12

      Steve - I went to a public school but sent my daughter to a private school.  One reason is that, as a smart kid at a public school I was allowed to cruise and no attempt was made to extend me to my potential.  My contemporaries who went to private school were extended and stretched, to their advantage at university.

      The school to which my daughter went had a full symphony orchestra, and a series of feeder bands.  They had eminent Australian musicians turning up to give master classes (although it is hard to keep Richard Gill away).

      While at school, as part of school activities, she had optional trips to Taiwan, France and Cambodia.  The school Chorale (she was not a member) did a tour of Europe.  And they are a seriously fine choir.

      In primary in the public system (we switched her in Year 3) she was likely facing a series of composite classes about which she was very unhappy.

      Class sizes were an issue as well - typically classes 60% of the size in private to public.

    • Steve says:

      05:25pm | 24/09/12

      GigaStar - in a word, plenty… In a lot of cases I’ve seen it’s views on other people and places. Some refuse to go west of George St (in Sydney) and wear their eastern suburbia as a badge of honour…

    • HC says:

      02:50pm | 24/09/12

      Education is far more important a role to society than some two-bit bureaucrat who won a popularity contest, even a leader (afterall a leader of fools is still a fool themself) so the pay should be commensurate.  We pay doctors appropriately and their role is almost as important as teaching so why do we treat our teachers like sh!t?

      A principal is generally held responsible for the results the teachers obtain and since they sit at the top of the pile, the pay this one got is probably not unreasonable. 

      I am curious though how much taxpayer funding is supplied to the school?  I’m really against all this private school funding, one of the great things about private schools is that most ordinary families (and their equally ordinary children) can’t afford to go to these schools.  Therefore the only people in private schools (aside from the usual elite rich kids) are the ones who make extraordinary sacrifices to send their kids to get a decent education and who drive their kids to succeed.

    • Tator says:

      07:12pm | 24/09/12

      ” most ordinary families (and their equally ordinary children) can’t afford to go to these schools”
      What a load of bollocks, 30% of children attend private school.  Most of them are not from the “rich” 
      For example, my child attends a private school, costs around $6 k a year.  The parents consist of IT workers, Airforce enlisted men, police officers, carpet fitters, farmers, construction workers, nurses, teachers, bank employees, business owners and carpenters.  Not one “rich” kid there.  The class has numerous children from refugee families, all of who aren’t that well off.  This is typical of most low fee private schools which consist of the majority of the students.  There are not a lot of high fee schools in reality, probably only 50 or so out of around 1000 private schools would charge more than $20000 and the vast majority would only charge between $3000 and $8000 in fees.

    • mikem says:

      03:03pm | 24/09/12

      This is just another example of how out of kilter the valuing of relative worth in our society has become.  The hypocrisy is that often those with the biggest snouts in the trough will argue vehemently that they are worth it whilst at the same time they are vigorously opposing any pay increase for their minions or the lowest paid.  Their needs are always more important.  Why do we accept it so meekly?

    • Chris says:

      03:30pm | 24/09/12

      The argument is foolish.  It’s like suggesting that the CEO of CBA or Westpac should get paid the same as the person working on the teller who “does all the actual work”, or maybe the guy who fills the machines with paper - after all, the place would cease functioning without that, wouldn’t it?

      It’s a market forces issue.  They wanted her - they paid what they had to to get her, or she negotiated well.  Presumably that same negotiation skill lead to some benefits for the school once she was on its side.

      Trying to allocate value to some jobs is a waste of energy, as over a certain point it’s impossible to assert that a person “earns” that much.  It’s simply how much they are getting paid, and how much someone is prepared to pay for them.


    • Paul Mason says:

      04:16pm | 24/09/12

      Someone please clear this matter up for me.Has she had her finger in the till or not?

    • Stormy Weather says:

      04:53pm | 24/09/12

      And then all the “good” people look down on those poor buggers receiving welfare, surviving on just $35 a day on newstart allowance.
      Maybe with an extra supplement here and there for the kids or disability but none the less poverty.

      It says a lot about our society really.

    • Onlooker says:

      05:17pm | 24/09/12

      Well said and yes your right


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter