Morris Iemma launches his push to win the March election this weekend. But the main newspaper interest was in the fact that he and his organizers have said they do not want his predecessor Bob Carr to be present. It is usual to have all the luminaries present at such an occasion - Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Barry Unsworth, Neville Wran, and so on. Bob Carr won three consecutive state elections and was the longest serving Premier in Labor history. Why then make it clear he isn't welcome?

In rejecting every mention of his predecessor, Morris Iemma is revealing more than he intended.

Every day our newspapers have seen a similar action between the current head of Macquarie University, the new Vice Chancellor, Professor Steven Schwartz, and his predecessor Professor Di Yerbury. He called in the auditors to check her salary and leave entitlements without reference to her, the ownership records of the university's art collection. He ended her agreed role as an ambassador of the University and ordered the Security officers not to allow her admission.

Professor Yerbury's 20 years of employment at the university ended at the weekend. Speaking on her first day working in her new office, she said it would be extremely difficult to resolve her bitter dispute with her successor at Macquarie University. It's a huge thing to settle. I can't allow someone like Steven Schwartz to harass and intimidate and bully me. It's appalling, but I am not a victim and I won't allow myself to be a victim. "Professor Schwartz said he had behaved properly and that as vice-chancellor it was his "duty to make proper inquiries."

In treating his predecessor like this Professor Schwartz is revealing more than he intended. Like Morris Iemma who curtails Bob Carr's presence and appearance, he indicates more about himself than he intends.

It is the first activity of many successors to seek to re-write history, to remove the name of their predecessor, to not allow them access to the buildings or their records and to raise questions about their financial dealings.

Then they seek to change Board members, staff and volunteers known to have been appointed by their predecessor. The next thing is to remove brass plaques recording historical events and every reference on websites and reference material.

What does this reveal? It reveals the successor correctly assesses his or her personal inadequacies. They fear people will compare their efforts with those of the predecessor. They become paranoid even at the mention of the predecessor's name. They punish others for being loyal to the predecessor. They reveal that in this regard they do not have a balanced mental health. They stew over their situation. They fear every point of comparison. They constantly wonder about what others are thinking. Envy and jealousy colour their every move.

How do you overcome all this? My approach, having followed two of the most famous men in their fields in the nation, was to praise them up at every opportunity before other people, to extend every courtesy to my predecessors and to invite them to events, to lift up their achievements and to thank those who supported the predecessor rather than harass them. This shows mental health, encourages all concerned and wins respect.

To behave in a churlish, negative manner reveals far more than the successor intends. History corrects whatever they do, but what they do hurts themselves most. Even Professors and Premiers need to learn this.