Is One Nations headline immigration commitment achieveable?

One Nation’s headline immigration commitment is to deport 75,000 undocumented migrants. There are no operational details attached to the figure, but the party has stated it would adopt the “action and style” of US President Donald Trump. While there is a legitimate, noble intent behind enforcing immigration law, namely, maintaining the integrity of Australia’s borders and the rule of law, translating that intent into reality collides with serious legal, logistical, and financial challenges.

To remove 75,000 people in a single parliamentary term would require an average of roughly 25,000 removals per year, a dramatic escalation of current compliance activity. Delivering that would demand a massive expansion of detention capacity, including thousands of additional beds, expanded guarding contracts, transport logistics, medical services, and court resources.

What would it cost?

Public data suggests that immigration detention in Australia costs approximately $350,000–$500,000 per person per year, with higher figures in offshore or legally complex cases. Using a conservative estimate of $400,000 per detainee annually, even holding 8,000–10,000 additional people in detention could cost:

• $3.2–$4 billion per year, and
• $12–$16 billion over a four-year term, before factoring in capital expenditure for new facilities.

Additional costs would include expanded court and tribunal workloads, increased Australian Border Force staffing, charter flights, legal aid, and potential compensation payouts for unlawful detention — a cumulative financial exposure that could exceed $15–$20 billion.

Legal constraints

The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) restricts detention to lawful, administrative purposes. High Court decisions have made clear that detention cannot be punitive or indefinite. Where removal is not reasonably practicable, detention may become unlawful, exposing the Commonwealth to legal challenges and compensation claims.

One Nation has proposed withdrawing from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. While technically possible under Article 44 of the Convention, no country has ever withdrawn, and doing so would trigger unprecedented domestic and international legal challenges.

Unlike the US, where the President can issue executive orders to adjust asylum procedures, Australia cannot unilaterally override international treaties through executive action. Any withdrawal from the Convention would require our Parliament to pass legislation amending the Migration Act and related statutes. Even then, existing asylum seekers (~120,000 people) could not easily have their rights removed, as retrospective stripping of protections would almost certainly be litigated.

Practical barriers

Removals depend on cooperation from receiving states. Many governments do not prioritise accepting returned citizens or residents, and disputes over identity or documentation can prolong detention indefinitely. Even an accelerated legal process could be bottlenecked by international negotiations.

Noble intent — but achievable?

There is real merit in a well-resourced, lawful immigration compliance system: it protects borders, enforces the rule of law, and ensures fairness for those in Australia legally. But the scale and speed implied by a target of 75,000 deportations in one term raise serious questions:

• Is it legally achievable? Existing laws, treaty obligations, and High Court precedent place limits on mass removals and prolonged detention.
• Is it operationally feasible? Thousands of additional beds, personnel, and coordination with foreign governments would be required, all under tight legal scrutiny.
• Can we afford it? Conservative estimates put the cost in the tens of billions, with additional exposure to compensation claims for unlawful detention.

Bottom line

• Legally: Withdrawal from the UN Refugee Convention is possible but would face extreme domestic and international constraints. Parliament must pass legislation; Australia cannot simply issue an executive order like the US. Existing rights cannot easily be undone, and Australia would remain bound by other treaties.
• Financially: Direct legislative and administrative costs could be hundreds of millions, with operational costs in the billions per year, plus potential legal liabilities.
• Politically and diplomatically: Australia would be the first country in history to leave the Convention, with significant international backlash.

Context on the US: The United States has not withdrawn from the UN Refugee Convention. Instead, the Trump administration sought to bypass asylum protections through executive orders, administrative restrictions, and changes to the asylum system, while remaining formally bound by the treaty. This highlights that even with aggressive policies, a state cannot fully bypass the Convention without formally withdrawing, and doing so carries enormous legal, fiscal, and diplomatic costs.

Legally, Australia cannot replicate the US approach. Unlike the US President,Australian governments cannot simply sign an executive order to bypass treaties. Withdrawing from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which One Nation has suggested would require Parliament to pass new legislation, amending the Migration Act and related statutes. Even then, rights accrued by around 120,000 existing asylum seekers could not easily be removed, and retrospective changes would likely face High Court challenges.

In short, while enforcing immigration law is a legitimate and noble goal, a mass deportation program of 75,000 people over a single term, modelled after US-style “action and style”, is unlikely to be legally sustainable, operationally feasible, or financially affordable. Aspiration alone cannot substitute for careful planning, legal compliance, and realistic budgeting.

 

The ubiquitous BUT …

If the argument is that “the LNP haven’t revised their policies since the election,” that’s a different claim from saying they don’t have policies at all.

There’s a difference between not revising policies yet and not having policies.

Opposition parties don’t automatically publish a brand-new policy platform the day after an election loss. They usually go through internal reviews, leadership changes, and strategic recalibration before releasing updated positions. That process can take time. And it goes without saying that the LNP have taken far too long and been too distracted by internal bickering than getting the job done. That doesn’t mean they won’t. 

However, the LNP still has:

• A published election platform
• Previously costed commitments
• A shadow ministry with portfolio-based policy positions
• Parliamentary voting records that reflect policy stances

You can argue those policies need updating, that’s fair. You can argue they weren’t good enough to win, that’s also fair.

What you can’t reasonably argue is that they don’t exist.

One Nation, by contrast, often operates on high-level commitments without detailed fiscal modelling, legislative pathways, or administrative frameworks. That’s the core distinction.

“Needs revision” is not the same thing as “doesn’t have any.”

If someone wants to debate the quality of LNP policy, that’s a substantive conversation. But equating structured, costed platforms with broad headline pledges just blurs an important difference in how parties prepare for government.

Politics cannot run on vibes, slogans, or outrage. It runs on detail. It runs on legislation. It runs on numbers that add up and proposals that can survive scrutiny.

You don’t have to like the LNP. You don’t have to agree with their direction. You can argue their policies need revision, renewal, or even replacement. That’s a legitimate democratic debate.

But pretending there’s no difference between a structured, costed platform and a list of headline intentions does a disservice to voters. “We will” is not a policy. It’s a starting point.

If we want better government, we have to demand more than sentiment and symbolism. We have to insist on substance.

Because in the end, intent tells you what sounds good. Policy tells you what’s actually possible.

The difference between a POLICY and a POSITION STATEMENT

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐯𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧’𝐭.

People claim One Nation has “policies.” What they’re mostly offering are position statements, broad pledges without detailed implementation, costings or timelines. 

The difference between a policy and a position statement in politics comes down to detail, commitment, and accountability.

A policy is a concrete, developed plan of action. It usually includes:

• Clear objectives
• Specific measures or actions
• How it will be implemented
• Costings (how it will be funded)
• A timeline

A policy creates something measurable. It tells you what will be done, how it will be done, what it will cost, and when it will happen. It can be scrutinised, costed, debated, and judged.

Example: “We will reduce income tax by 2% for Australians earning under $120,000, funded by closing X tax loophole, commencing July 2027.”

That’s a policy, it’s specific and testable.

A position statement is an expression of values or direction, not a fully formed plan. It tells you what someone wants to achieve, but not necessarily how.

It often includes:

• Broad goals
• Principles or aspirations
• General commitments without detail

Example: “We are committed to lowering the cost of living for working Australians.”

That sounds positive, but it’s not a policy. There’s no mechanism, no funding source, no timeline.

Why the distinction matters

In Australian politics especially, this difference becomes important during elections.

Governments, particularly the one we have now often presents position statements as if they are policies. The same applies to minor parties 

Oppositions on the other hand are generally pressured to provide fully costed policies, along with the how, what and when, not just intentions. And voters often struggle to tell the difference, which affects accountability.

A good rule of thumb:

If you can’t ask “how?” and get a clear answer, it’s not a policy. 

Politics is full of aspirations. Accountability comes from detail.

And, if we’re going to demand higher standards from our leaders, we should at least be clear about the difference.

WE ARE STILL REAPING WHAT WE SOW

The usual chorus is back again, complaining about a fractured parliament, an obstructive Senate, endless compromises, and governments that supposedly “can’t get anything done.” The targets change, the outrage doesn’t.

The familiar defence quickly follows:

“You can’t blame voters. People are desperate for better government.”

True. We are desperate for better government.

But yes, I do blame voters for some of the mess. And I think we’ve been letting ourselves off the hook for far too long.

The phrase “you reap what you sow” has never been more apt.

You may not agree with what follows, but it’s a view formed through years of watching politics up close, not just yelling at it from the outside.

Outsourcing Democracy Has Consequences

We will not change how major parties operate unless people engage where it matters. Yet political party membership is now perilously low and still falling. Participation hasn’t just declined—it has been replaced.

In its place, we have outrage, petitions, protest votes, social media pile-ons, and the expectation that the ballot box alone will somehow fix everything.

It won’t.

Using elections purely to punish parties, without engaging in how candidates are selected or policies are shaped, has delivered exactly what you would expect: instability, fragmentation and a permanent cross-bench culture skilled at vetoing but not governing.

That is not accountability. It is abdication.

Broad Churches Are Meant to Be Uncomfortable

I believe in the values of the Liberal–National Coalition. I also accept its flaws. It is a genuine broad church, liberals, conservatives, pragmatists and idealists under one roof. That tension is real and sometimes ugly.

But pluralism is not a defect of democracy; it is its price.

The problem is that too many people now expect ideological purity and instant gratification. Anything short of complete victory is branded a sell-out. That mindset makes governing in a complex parliament almost impossible.

Governments should be criticised for poor decisions. But the lazy claim that they “do nothing” is usually wrong. What is really happening is that governing in a splintered parliament requires compromise, sequencing, and trade-offs, things that don’t translate well into slogans or social media posts.

Too many people now confuse volume with evidence and virality with truth.

Democracy Is Not a Spoon-Feeding Exercise

Another uncomfortable reality is the growing expectation that voters should have policy and information spoon-fed to them, simplified, personalised and delivered in a format requiring minimal effort.

Politics has adapted accordingly. Complex reforms are reduced to three-word slogans. Policy details are replaced with talking points. Substantive documents are ignored because they require time, concentration, and reading beyond a headline.

Yet when voters complain policies are unclear or under-explained, much of what they claim doesn’t exist is publicly available in budget papers, policy platforms, committee reports, costings, and parliamentary debates are all there for anyone prepared to look.

Expecting politicians, journalists, or social media influencers to do all the thinking is not civic engagement. It is outsourcing responsibility.

Democracy was never meant to function like a drive-through. If we demand politics that is easy to consume and effortless to understand, we should not be surprised when what we get is shallow and transactional.

Comment Sections Aren’t Civic Participation

I know I shouldn’t read comment sections. Yet I do. And every time, I leave more pessimistic about our civic culture.

Criticising politicians’ performance is one thing, but ripping into politicians online achieves very little. If it worked, things would be improving. They aren’t.

Nor will endless complaining on social media fix anything.

Democracy doesn’t improve through heckling alone. It improves when people show up before election day—when candidates are being selected, policies debated, and priorities set.

Voting Alone Is Not Enough

We live in a democracy, imperfect, frustrating and often inefficient—but still better than any alternative I’ve seen.

Democracy means rule by the people. That implies responsibility, not just entitlement.

Politics touches almost every aspect of our lives: jobs, wages, cost of living, health care, education, security, infrastructure, and the environment. Yet for many people, voting—often done with minimal research, is the sole act of participation.

There are many ways to influence outcomes:

• campaigning

• joining parties

• internal advocacy

• pressure and community groups

• informed voting

Voting matters. But voting alone, especially when driven by gut feeling or protest, cannot carry the entire democratic load.

We Put These People There

Politicians do not just “turn up.” They are selected, endorsed, preferenced and elected.

I am continually struck by how many people vote for candidates they know almost nothing about, then act shocked when those candidates behave exactly as their history suggested they would.

We can rage about senators grandstanding, independents holding legislation hostage, or minor parties chasing pet causes, but we empowered them.

A small amount of homework before an election often gives a very clear picture of what to expect.

And how many of the loudest critics are prepared to stand themselves? Very few.

The Fantasy of the Perfect Outsider

Every election cycle produces the same wish list: no career politicians, no party discipline, no unions, no compromise, instant honesty, and perfect outcomes.

It sounds satisfying. It is also unserious.

Politics is not a purity contest. It is a system for making collective decisions in a complex society. Anyone promising otherwise is selling theatre, not governance.

Some reform ideas are sensible. Others are emotional venting dressed up as principles. None of them work without citizens prepared to engage beyond slogans.

Responsibility Cuts Both Ways

Yes, politicians must be competent, honest, and accountable.

But citizens also have obligations:

• to inform themselves

• to read beyond headlines

• to understand trade-offs

• to accept that compromise is unavoidable

If people disengage, refuse to do the work, and blame “them” instead, nothing improves.

We will simply continue cycling through career politicians, staffers, factional operatives and activist independents—while insisting the system is broken and refusing to touch it.

No Saviours. No Shortcuts.

I participate through membership, advocacy, discussion and writing. I could do more—and so could many others.

There is no messiah coming to fix this for us.

If we want better politics, we must invest more than cynicism and a protest vote. At the risk of cliché:

No pain. No gain.

Democracy only improves when citizens put some skin in the game. 

The Hidden Danger of One-Dimensional Thinking in Politics and Law

In an age where opinions travel faster than facts, one trap we all fall into is one-dimensional thinking: the habit of reducing people, situations, or complex issues to a single label or idea. While mental shortcuts help us navigate everyday life, in politics and law, this simplification can have serious consequences.

What is one-dimensional thinking?

One-dimensional thinking happens when we see things in black and white, ignoring nuance, context, and complexity. It’s the mental equivalent of looking at a 3D object from a single angle: you see only part of the truth. For example, labeling a politician as “corrupt” or “heroic” without examining their actions, motivations, or the context of their decisions is a classic trap.

Why It’s Dangerous in Politics

Political issues are rarely simple. They involve economics, social behavior, culture, and long-term consequences. When we rely on one-dimensional thinking, we:

• Oversimplify issues: Policies labeled as “good” or “bad” can have hidden effects. For instance, a tax reform might seem like “taking money from people,” but it could fund vital healthcare or infrastructure programs.
• Fuels polarisation: Seeing parties or politicians as entirely right or wrong fosters “us vs. them” mentalities. Compromise and reasoned debate are replaced by tribalism and hostility.
• Ignores long-term consequences: Popular but oversimplified policies like “tough on crime” measures might produce immediate results but cannot address root causes, creating more problems.

One-Dimensional Thinking and Frustration

When voters reduce complex issues to simple labels, expectations become unrealistic. Politics moves slowly; compromise is required, and trade-offs are inevitable. When reality doesn’t match their mental shortcuts, frustration builds.

• Oversimplification creates unmet expectations: Voters might label rising housing costs as “government failure” without understanding market complexity, zoning laws, or economic cycles.
• Emotional shortcuts amplify grievances: Simplified blame (“They’ve taken your jobs!” or “They’re corrupt!”) taps into emotions like fear, resentment, and frustration.
• Nuance feels unsatisfying: Acknowledging complexity takes effort and often feels less emotionally rewarding than a clear-cut villain or simple solution.
• Reinforcement loops fuel division: Once voters adopt a simplified view, media, social networks, and conversations constantly reinforce it, amplifying frustration and alienation.

Combining frustration, emotional shortcuts, and reinforcement makes voters receptive to grievance-driven politicians, who offer simple solutions, clear villains, and emotional satisfaction, even if the reality is far more complex.

The Legal Dimension

Laws are crafted to account for context, precedent, and intent. One-dimensional thinking can distort justice:

• Misinterpretation of laws: Seeing someone as simply “breaking the law” ignores circumstances, intent, or legal protections.
• Unjust judgments: Simplifying cases into “criminal vs. innocent” can lead to disproportionate punishments.
• Policy errors: Legislators may pass laws based on slogans or ideology rather than evidence, creating unintended consequences.

Seeing Beyond the Surface

Breaking free from one-dimensional thinking requires curiosity and effort. It means asking questions like:

• What context am I missing?
• Are there multiple perspectives here?
• What are the long-term effects of this policy or law?

By embracing the complexity of reality, we become more empathetic citizens, wiser decision-makers, and fairer interpreters of the law.

In short: One-dimensional thinking might make life feel easier in the moment, but in politics and law, it’s a shortcut that comes at a high cost. Reality is layered, people are complex, and issues are multifaceted. Recognizing nuance isn’t just an intellectual exercise it’s essential for reducing frustration, resisting grievance politics, and fostering justice that truly works. And stopping the spread of misinformation which is rife on social media.

We can NOT afford to let division continue to destroy Australia

Back in 2019, in the lead-up to the election, I wrote about Bill Shorten’s strategy of deliberately pitting younger Australians against their parents and grandparents. At the time, voters saw through it and rejected Labor’s divisive approach. That clarity did not hold in 2022 or 2025. Today, what was once troubling has become entrenched. Division is no longer incidental to politics; it has become a deliberate strategy.

Those who seek to govern a nation carry a responsibility to unite its people, not fracture them into competing tribes. Yet politics is increasingly prosecuted through a divide-and-conquer lens young against old, renter against homeowner, worker against retiree, conservative against progressive. Compounding this, social media has turned division into a public sport, amplifying outrage and rewarding tribal loyalty over reason. The result is a country increasingly sorted and ranked by ethnicity, identity, and grievance, with citizens themselves drawn into inflaming the very divisions that weaken us all.

This moment feels like a real test of Australian society. A society that once prided itself on fairness, a fair go, personal responsibility, and the dignity of effort. A society built on the idea that you advance by standing on your own two feet, not by tearing others down. That social compact has been under pressure for years, but today’s politics has taken it further actively rewarding resentment and weaponising difference.

A growing number of grievance-driven political parties thrive on this environment. They do not seek to govern or unify; they seek to inflame. Their success depends on keeping Australians angry convinced that someone else is to blame for every frustration and every failure. These movements offer identity in place of policy, outrage in place of solutions, and permanent conflict in place of progress.

This should concern all of us.

When politics teaches people to see their neighbours as enemies because of their age, their success, their background, or their beliefs; it corrodes trust. When ideology matters more than cohesion, the nation weakens. When conservatives are caricatured as immoral and progressives as un-Australian, debate dies and tribalism takes its place.

We are told these divisions are natural, even necessary. They are not. They are cultivated often deliberately by those who profit politically from grievance and division.

There is a growing push to replace a shared national identity with competing group identities, to reframe aspiration as greed, success as exploitation, and disagreement as moral failure. This is not compassion. It is a politics of envy dressed up as justice.

Younger Australians are being told that their struggles are caused not by poor policy, housing shortages, or economic mismanagement—but by their parents’ generation, by those who worked, saved, and played by the rules. That narrative may be emotionally satisfying, but it is false. Families are not the enemy. Communities are not the enemy. A political class and grievance parties that benefit from keeping Australians angry at one another are.

We are, once again, at a crossroads.

The choice before us is not simply left or right, conservative or progressive. It is between a society that values unity, effort, and mutual obligation—or one that thrives on resentment, division, and permanent conflict.

History is clear on this point: nations that turn inward on themselves, that fracture along identity lines, do not become fairer or freer. They become weaker, angrier, and more easily controlled.

We should choose carefully and act responsibly. Debate and disagreement are the lifeblood of democracy, but division that corrodes trust and cohesion destroys nations. Unity must be built, defended, and valued. Once a society is conditioned to see itself as a collection of enemies, restoring it is no easy task.

This Australia Day, let us remember what makes our country truly great: a society that values fairness, effort, and community; a nation where families, neighbours, and fellow citizens are allies, not enemies; and a people willing to defend unity over envy, and common purpose over division. That is the Australia worth preserving. 

Let us also recognise the reality that those who cannot or will not integrate into this shared society pose a serious challenge to the cohesion and stability we must protect. We must continue to argue that this has to change and to prosecute political dogma that fails to deal with it. 

Liberal Party Leadership

Perseverance defines me, and I rarely quit but wisdom teaches that sometimes letting go serves the greater good; leadership lies in recognising when persistence helps and when it harms.

Electing Sussan Ley as Liberal leader was always a risk. And in the contest between her and Angus Taylor, I supported Taylor.

Under Sussan Ley, it has been one drama after another with the junior member of the coalition; The Nationals. And instead of prosecuting Labor and their woeful performance, all the energy has been inwardly focused. And fast-forward to January 2026, and the Coalition has split again. The second time in under a year, triggered by disputes over Labor’s Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026. In pulling the Nationals out of the coalition David Littleproud has also made it very personal by stating he can’t serve with Ley.

And Sussan Ley’s public defiance is harming the Liberals even more. She insists she’ll survive and is keeping the door open for reconciliation, but the vibe inside the Liberals is grim: MPs and powerbrokers are openly discussing a leadership change as early as next month (February 2026). Potential challengers being floated include conservative figures like Angus Taylor and Andrew Hastie. Both are more aligned with core right-leaning principles on economics, energy, and security. If they can unify behind one candidate, a spill seems likely.

I’d back Taylor because of his strong economic credentials.

• Education: Bachelor of Economics (First Class Honours + University Medal) and Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Sydney, followed by a Master of Philosophy in Economics from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar (thesis on competition policy). That’s elite-level training in straight economics, not just tangential exposure.
• Pre-politics career: Partner at McKinsey & Company (global consulting powerhouse, where he worked on strategy and economics-heavy projects), then co-founder and adviser in agribusiness ventures like Growth Farms and Farmshed (digital ag-tech backed by big players like Wesfarmers and NAB). He bridged theory and real-world application in markets, productivity, and rural economics.
• Parliamentary roles: Served as Shadow Treasurer (where he hammered productivity, wage stagnation, and fiscal discipline critiques of Labor), plus stints in energy/industry where he pushed deregulation and emissions reduction via market mechanisms rather than heavy-handed intervention.

In contrast, Andrew Hastie (the other main conservative contender right now) has a solid but different profile: military background (SASR officer), BA (Hons) in History/Politics/Philosophy from UNSW, and a Graduate Certificate in Business Economics from Harvard Extension School. It’s respectable economics exposure, but more supplementary to his defence/national security strengths, less deep or “impeccable” in pure economic policy compared to Taylor’s resume. Hastie’s credentials fit with defence and immigration.

The chatter in January 2026 (post-Coalition split) has Taylor and Hastie as the top challengers to Sussan Ley, with some Liberals floating a potential February spill when parliament resumes. Taylor’s economic credentials give him an edge in appealing to voters frustrated by cost-of-living pressures, stagnant productivity, and Labor’s perceived mismanagement. Issues that Liberals see as core territory. A new leader with that background could credibly pitch a rebuild around:

• Tax reform and deregulation to boost growth
• Productivity-focused policies (he’s long warned about Australia’s “disastrous” trends here)
• Fiscal responsibility without the grievance optics of minor parties

Of course, baggage exists (past controversies as Energy Minister, critiques of his shadow treasurer performance in not presenting enough detailed policy pre-2025 election). That wasn’t just down to Taylor. Plus, the party room would need to unify behind one conservative to avoid splitting votes and letting Ley hang on. But if the goal is a serious, governing-ready conservative force that delivers reforms rather than just opposition noise, Taylor’s economic credentials and parliamentary experience in the inner sanctum make him a logical choice to lead that reset.

The question is, would the party rally around him quickly. Or is there a risk of another drawn-out contest? We simply don’t have the luxury or the time to blood Hastie. But Taylor as leader and Hastie as deputy leader would be a powerful economic and defence combination.

However, success relies on recognition from Sussan that staying is causing irreparable harm. Strong leadership means having the courage to admit when a mistake has been made, take responsibility, and correct course. This is a test of her leadership integrity.