It's not news when two politicians don't get along

Once, when walking to question time with a departmental liason officer, a junior minister crossed our paths on his way to the House of Representatives. He was a bit overblown with self importance as so many ambitious men can be. He ostentatiously greeted me with an obsequious nod of the head whilst offering the ludicrously formal greeting "Minister". I smiled and nodded.

As we moved on, under my breath (or so I thought) I said "f---wit".

The DLO was shocked. Not at the terminology but at my not-so-well hidden lack of affection for a colleague. I was shocked that she thought we all liked each other. Reality dawned when I asked if she liked everyone in her class at school, year at university or in the department.

Most people know someone in their workplace of whom they think poorly. Maybe someone who is a relentless suck up artist or tiringly energetic self promoter.

In the inter-office jargon (a vernacular which does not import the full meaning of words used) one might easily say he's nuts or crazy or even psycho. Insults and commentary, between mates and behind closed doors, is usually far removed from the literal dictionary meanings.

Against this background, it's just not news that several years ago somebody said something less than glowing about the prime minister. Former prime minister Kevin Rudd must have felt a tinge of schadenfreude given the belting he got from his own side. Seriously, so what?

Add to these general observations the fact that either the journalist or the leaker has sat on this information for a long time. Whilst I don't think it rates as news, if I'm wrong and it does then the holding back of the material until it could have greater impact speaks of those in the gallery who feel it's appropriate to shape the news rather than report it. Ditto the decision not to reveal who made the remarks.

There is occasionally debate in the gallery on the issue of withholding news until you see fit. The last big brouhaha I recall was about those who knew about Cheryl Kernot's affair with Gareth Evans but sat on it for some time.

Within sporting teams, workplaces, boards, arts groups - in fact in life generally - there are always different personalities and different styles. There are friendships, dislikes and jealousies. Ho hum.

Going back to my own time in politics it will be no surprise to anyone to state that John Howard didn't rate me as a mate. My first job was a cabinet role that involved finding enormous savings out of my part of the portfolio.

25 per cent of the government savings over that budget period.

It is not unreasonable to assume I was given that because it was a job from hell. Think 30 or so vice chancellors to hunt you in a pack.

I used to joke that if you wanted to prematurely end your life you'd stand between one of them and a $5 note. Then toss in hundreds of thousands of students as a little army to be set off against you at whim. You don't give mates filthy jobs that might kill them.

MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

I have no idea if I irked Howard a lot, a little or if he was indifferent. The fact that we never had a private personal conversation gives me a hint. I don't care.

A colleague once chided me for declining a group dinner after hearing a particular colleague would be there. You can't choose who you work with but you can can choose who you share a meal with.

I didn't get into politics, nor did I want to be in cabinet to join some little club of mates. It is a chance to play a part in shaping the big lego pieces of Australian life. You get that by being part of a team and working as a team. You still have your personal preferences but they just aren't relevant.

Putting personalities aside we should also hope that there are always differences of opinion within the major parties. We want our members of parliament to thrash issues out and find common ground. Yes, many would like that to happen publicly rather than in the party room but presumably we all agree it is a good thing that different views are held.

If we can all recognise that these differences of opinion on both personalities and politics are par for the course we might have a chance of the media recognising that when they surface, to make a big deal of them is nothing short of pathetic. Differences of opinion aren't the fissures of our democratic system, they are its lifeblood. Hopefully we can cut the drama usually associated with them and go to the substantive issues we will all be better off.

It's not unreasonable to expect political coverage to be better than Days of our Lives.