Australian author David Malouf is famous for his description of the values of Australia. In among these values is a description of Australia's anxiety as a result of being an island. Our borders are defined by water and although we have never had to seriously defend them onshore (during WW2 we went very close), we have been troubled throughout our [European Settlement] history by thoughts that we cannot defend them. Sometimes there are elements of cultures that run so deep, that we may not even realise they are there, but the Island-Australia Anxiety has been strongly on display in recent weeks.

Over the weekend, Qantas management took the step of upping the stakes in industrial disputes they are having with three unions, going into lock-out mode and grounding all Qantas services. Among the reactions has been the reiteration that this sudden action, instituted in one hour, stranded 68,000 Australians. Given Qantas is a major international airline, why would we think that all of its passengers would be Australian ... or that all of these passengers are trying to get home and that home is Australia, another common thought being expressed.

There have been references to Qantas as Australia's national carrier, the national flag-ship. Qantas was privatised a couple of decades ago and has had substantial foreign ownership from time to time. It currently has services under the Jetstar banner operating in Asia as Asian airlines. Why do we feel as though Australia has to have a national carrier and why does it have to be Qantas?

This is different discussion altogether from those about Qantas actions (it claims to be The Spirit of Australia after all), Qantas' future business model and the failure to live up to their values, the topics covered by Michelle in The Scourge of Australia.

We are also in Melbourne Cup mode, the race that stops a nation and one of the world's great sporting events. This horse race occurs every November, as do the stories about the "international raiders" who have been coming to Melbourne to contest the race for the last twenty years and who have "stolen" the cup a few times now. Should we limit the number of international horses contesting the event and taking places that could be filled by local horses?

From the other side of the fence come the comments from internationals about Australia's unbelievably strict quarantine regimen that results in valuable and beautifully prepared thoroughbred horses being locked away in quarantine areas for weeks as we clear them of being disease-ridden infectious agents bringing plagues to Australia.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s the debate was about those really good New Zealand horses and whether Australian horses would ever be able to match them, and what we could do about it. Few mentioned then or now the true role of international stallions and mares in creating, improving and supporting the Australian racing industry.

Then there's the boat people debate. It seems over the years we keep coming up with ever-more imaginative ways of locking people up for having the temerity to come from countries with oppressive political systems and living environments. The emphasis is on those who invade our island by water, not those who come in by air or who overstay visas after being seduced by our wonderful lifestyle.

This debate reached a new all-time low when the issue of "unaccompanied children" was raised as part of the debate concerning the refugee agreement with Malaysia. Numerous Australian political leaders raised the spectre of boat loads of "unaccompanied children" being forced onto boats by people smugglers and Australia being flooded by refugee children.

The phrase "unaccompanied children" is a polite euphemism for orphaned, abandoned, kidnapped, stolen, lost and/or desperate children fleeing war zones, political oppression and starvation. Given this, perhaps we should be paying people to find them and bring them safely to Australia at our expense.

That might be going a little far, but even being able to frame a debate around "unaccompanied children" in the way our political leaders did is deeply offensive. Yet there were few in Australia who raised how offensive it was, so deep-seated is the culture of Island-Australia Anxiety.

In the 21st century we shouldn't allow our Island-Australia Anxiety to cloud our thinking, our relationships with other countries, our business dealings and our lives.

As we continue our path towards participation in the global community and in the next Asian century, we need to be wary about these deep-seated cultural  ideas and the way that we express them. The Island-Australia Anxiety can be identified by those outside of our country as indications of racist or colonial approaches, something that many Australians would find deeply offensive.

How do you think non-Australian passengers stranded by Qantas feel about the overwhelming media coverage about stranding Australians away from home? How do you think potential international sponsors and sports competitors react to stories about limiting international involvement in our sports? How do you think the people in countries experiencing violent border incursions or being inundated with thousands of refugees feel about our reaction to a comparative handful of refugees risking life and limb in a boat crossing?

The really hard challenge is identifying these deep-seated cultural norms. I'm sure there are many who would deny or wonder whether Island-Australia Anxiety really exists. The better question to ask in this situation is to ask what harm would it do to make the assumption that it does and take the required actions to change it.

This same difficulty exists within organisations and grows over time, another difficult element of the corporate growing pains organisations go through. From time to time, we need to stop and critically analyse our actions and communications to identify these deep-seated cultural approaches that may impede our growth and innovation.