Oddly I find myself in complete agreement with Kristina Kenneally on one point. Those who seek to use someone's death as a way of advancing themselves ought to have no friends.

Unlike Kenneally I would go further. There's another group of people who should get our disdain. Those who use someone's death to evade responsibility and accountability. These people aren't weak, they're ruthless.

Make no mistake, that's what is happening when Labor figures say Kitching would want everyone to band together to win. It's code for let's not air our dirty linen, let's not let Australian women see just how mean and nasty we have been to one of our own. That bears repeating. This is not calling to ignore an isolated case of a woman somewhere being bullied. This is a call to sweep under the rug how Labor women, and some men , have treated their own.

There's little credibility for any of them saying they are against bullying in the workplace when they refuse to clear the air about allegations of bullying internally.

For these allegations to amount to nothing Kimberley Kitching would have to be portrayed as paranoid or a liar. She was not weak so one doubts the option of paranoia. You just can't say the allegations aren't true without labelling her a liar.

There'll be evidence out there that will speak for itself. It's easy to check the rate at which people get to ask questions and it's not disputed that Kitching was removed from a spokesperson position, a committee position and the tactics committee. It wouldn't be hard to check if this rate of shutting the door in your face happened to anyone else. The politics of exclusion is a cheap and cowardly way of humiliating and bullying. Kids at school might snarl "You're not coming to my party". When they do it's mean and nasty. When adults do it it's worse. Much worse.

Penny Wong said she will not return hate with hate. Read: I'm above all that nasty stuff. It's something of a shallow remark when she is one of the three accused of bullying Kitching in the first place.

Wong's remark about Kitching not having children would have been particularly biting to someone who apparently desperately wanted them. One reads that Wong apologised when the remarks "became known". That translates to "I'll apologise now because people know I said something really nasty ... and they'll think less of me if I don't apologise". It's just not the same as recognising your nastiness and apologising at the time. It is an apology in your own interest. It goes without saying that an apology isn't heartfelt just because you label it that way.

She's a bit like Will Smith. Perpetrate a negative action (in his case assault, in hers a bitingly cruel remark) and just go about your life until finally you have to respond to the victim. Then you just say with all the solemnity you can muster ... I've apologised. Huh? Well that's OK then?

If you don't understand what rubbish Labor is peddling, ask yourself if Tony Abbott or ScoMo said something similar to Julia Gillard and then said "I apologise" would that be OK? Would the media have accepted that?

Wong will have trouble shaking off this saga simply because she cultivates a tough, mean image. At Senate Estimates she loads her questions with remarks she wants to make and having asked a question, frequently badgers and interrupts the person simply trying to answer. Neither will agree with me but she and former Senator Bishop have a lot in common in this respect.

The day after the condolence motion we had the Federal Budget.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the budget will affect different groups in different ways. Reports often select families or businesses to comment on how it affects them. We are treated to happy, sad or concerned faces attached to interviews. It's not a bad thing. If we ignore or forget how people individually are affected we are both heartless and stupid.

MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:

At the other end of the spectrum successive treasurers must shake their heads at the overall, general commentary. If the budget has had some necessarily tough measures the government is labelled as cruel, mean and heartless. If there are some measures that voters will welcome the government is portrayed as a bunch of desperadoes seeking to buy their way back into government. Or perhaps travelling salesmen wanting to suck us in with smoke and mirrors.

If we stand back from all of this we can see a bigger picture. Then we can ask if we like the idea of the lives people can lead in that picture or not.

One indicator of wellbeing in any country is whether people can get a job. If your family hasn't been economically lucky and as one of their children you can't see yourself as being able to get a job the outlook is pretty grim. For me the employment opportunity outlook is a cracker of a link between the individual response to government initiatives and the broader mean/nasty versus buying us off chatter.

If you've seen unemployment limit the choices for you and your family, the chance to not be in that position is the opportunity for a better life. It's hope.

The upper and middle socioeconomic groups just take getting a job for granted. In 1992 under Labor, unemployment was at a record high of 11.2 per cent. We' re heading for a 50-year low just over 3 per cent. I know where there's hope and opportunity for the less lucky. So do the so-called punters.