Ok, this may not be exactly accurate, but doesn’t it strike anyone else as ironic that many of the people who argued that we shouldn’t have a republic where we get to vote on who the head of state are now saying that they don’t like Albanese’s choice of Governor-General and that it should be someone “more mainstream”.

While, in some ways they may have a point… After all, Sam Mostyn isn’t your typical Aussie. I mean she’s a member of that minority group called women. As Andrew Bolt was quick to point out that there was no way Labor would appoint one of those poor white males who never seem to get a look in these days.

And Janet Albrechtsen did say that if someone asked her to be GG, she’d just say to shoot her. Doubly so, if it was because she was a woman!

Shame on you for thinking that it’s a shame she wasn’t asked, but moving on…

It seems that we shouldn’t be appointing people on the basis of anything other than merit and, well, Sam Mostyn is only getting the job because she’s the “wokest of the woke” and we prefer the sleepy ex-army types like David Hurley who managed to sleep through the fact that he allowed Scott Morrison to have five ministries and his meetings with several people on that future leaders group because he didn’t remember meeting them more than once or twice when it seems that it was closer to several times the number of ministries that ScoMoses managed to appoint himself to.

Yes, ex-ADF types are just fine even if they don’t represent the mainstream because most people don’t join the defence forces but at least they represent the white male brigade so there’s no reason for Bolt to complain and no reason for Albrechtsen feel like Sam was only given the job because she was a woman who supported action on climate change and campaigned for the Voice…

Although I can think of several other women who also support action on climate change and the Voice, so if that was the criteria, why didn’t Albo give it to one of the ones who would have caused an even bigger brouhaha. Maybe an trans person or someone Indigenous… Or some transgender Indigenous individual.

Whatever, it’s important to remember that GG should be mainstream, and that Sam Mostyn is far too ideologically driven. After all, she was the first female AFL commissioner so how does that make NSW feel when most of them are more interested in Rugby? Clearly, she’s not fitting in with the values of the majority there.

And let’s not forget that she’s been on the board of several radical organisations such as Beyond Blue, The Australia Council for the Arts, the GO Foundation, Transurban, Citibank, Virgin Australia and a host of others. Like how lefty is Citibank? And being on so many boards, where’s her real-world experience?

So I think we can safely say that this radical appointment is typical of Labor. The last time they got to decide who’d be our head of state they also chose a woman in Quentin Bryce, so they’ve got a history of doing things like this. I mean most people would agree that our head of state shouldn’t be a woman unless shes’ the Queen and she had a pretty good go, so isn’t it time for a man?

Ok, ok, I’ll take my tongue firmly out of my cheek and say quite clearly that I don’t believe that the head of state should just be at the whim of the PM of the day…

Of course, it should be someone who can achieve the consensus of both of the major forces driving decisions in Australia: Rupert and Gina.

P.S. Is it true that Dutton has been staying at Gina’s place in WA so that he can work out an acceptable plan for the election?

By Denis Bright

In Australia’s motorized society, most householders still turn their ignition keys as a reflexive response to their transport needs. Transport black spots are particularly evident in outer metro districts of Brisbane and adjacent regional areas. These localities attract householders in search of more affordable housing prices and lower rents. There would be similar examples in the other states and territories. The examples from Queensland strengthen the case for similar campaigns interstate and are not meant to promote parochial agendas from the Deep North.

In Queensland, quite legitimate allocation of government financial support for integrated public transport still attracts only 6.2 percent of commuters on their journeys to work in Brisbane according to the latest estimates from Translink. Queensland Government subsidies cover 83 percent of the running costs of Translink services according to Michael Berkman, the state member for the inner western electorate of Maiwar. This electorate is well served by regular train, bus and Citycat river services within the Translink network. The transport available to outer metro and nearby regional areas does not offer similar luxurious transport infrastructure.

Even with the concessions available for Go Card use after eight journeys in a week, travel costs for commutes offset many of the savings from the selection of more distant residential addresses. It costs a notch under sixty dollars a week to travel by train from Karalee to Brisbane by making use of the extensive car-parking facilities at Dinmore Station, just a few kilometres away.

A bus trip from Karalee, Chuwar or Barellan Point by bus into Brisbane’s CBD could not be generated on Translink’s online journey planner. There are no bus services from Karalee or adjacent suburbs to by the road link through Karana Downs.

The outer metro suburb of Karalee is just across the Brisbane River from Moggill. There is no direct road link for cars or buses across the river. From Moggill, buses operate every fifteen minutes to the Brisbane CBD. Buses from the Ipswich area could operate a limited express service into the Brisbane CBD. Collapsing existing bus routes from Yamanto to Ipswich CBD then onto Karalee Turnoff, Karana Downs and into Brisbane CBD is also another possibility as a limited express service. Buses from Beaudesert and Logan City currently operate into the Brisbane CBD and are quite popular with commuters.

These logical options are bipartisan plans which are highly compatible with the Climate Council’s suggestions for sustainable transport. Political forces are at work to dampen commitments to integrated public transport. The results of the recent Ipswich West by-election on 16 March 2024, show how populist electioneering strategies with Tough on Crime Agendas can easily trump legitimate concerns about the environmental costs of a motorized society as presented in the latest carbon emissions data (Department of Climate Change: DCCEEW Emission Profiles 2005-30).

Planning controls on the clearing of forests and rural landscapes show up positively in controls on land clearing in this profile (LULUCF profiles).

Metro Brisbane has an extensive electrified rail system as part of the broader Translink network with supporting buses and frequent Citycat river services. The Cross River Rail Project (CRR) should be up and running by 2025 with additional support from the Brisbane Council’s Metro Bus System. However, for residents in outer metro areas and nearby regional areas like the Lockyer Valley, the costs and inconvenience of public transport combine to reinforce more private car use.

Public transport assets in SEQ are heavily invested in the electrified Queensland Rail Network which is supported by Translink buses, Citycat river services and light rail networks on the Gold Coast.

Translink supports bus services in regional areas through subsidies to urban networks and even regional commercial services beyond towns and cities.

By chance, even some regional bus networks are quite accessible to tourists who seek exotic destinations. This is the case with Trans North Buses in the Cairns Hinterland. Frequent travellers’ passes could add a hop-on and off dimensions to these routes for both locals and for tourists during the cooler months.

Despite the challenges imposed by the tyranny of distance to North-West Queensland, bus services do operate between Cairns and Normanton three times a week. A new tourist loop from Normanton to Burketown, Boodjamulla (Lawn Hill) Gorge, Mt. Isa and Cloncurry could be added for the winter tourist season with the support of state government subsidies.

Transport-oriented projects (TODs) delivered by the corporate sector or even the Queensland Government’s own Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC) might ease the financial burden on the state government for future co-investment in the extension of new transport and community development initiatives.

While much of the QIC’s infrastructure and real estate portfolios are in Queensland or in other Australian locations, there are also lucrative investments in overseas locations. Capital gains from these ventures helped to generate $4.1 billion in profits using data from the latest annual report from QIC. The QIC has just sold its 50-year lease on CampusParc at Ohio State University which was purchased for $US 200 million in 2012 and just sold for $US 850 million (Bloomberg 7 March 2024).

Meanwhile, back in town, Translink’s kangaroo mascots have been talking up the value of affordable public transport.

The most logical option is to move towards free public transport within the Translink networks.

This would at least reduce dependence on the US corporate firm Cubic with its global networks for electronic fare collection and technological support for US Global Military Alliances.

Staying with commitment to integrated public transport is a worthwhile public policy. Those old-school commitments to unplanned urban sprawl will take decades of innovative planning to extinguish.

After the Super Tuesday results signalled Trump would become the Republican presidential candidate in November, a first promise was that “We’re going to drill baby drill.” One of the most important reasons to watch American politics this year is that a Trump victory will push the world faster towards catastrophic climate heating.

The global community is currently failing to meet this challenge. Petrostates have become the venue of choice for COP meetings, signalling governments accept that the forces of disruption will allow no interruption to their profits until the crunch. Whether that crunch is some technological breakthrough or the start of civilisational collapse remains to be determined.

We have, however, the global structures where the majority might choose to cooperate to steer the Titanic away from the iceberg.

If America finds itself governed by the Republican Party in 2025 the chances become very slim indeed. The GOP now consists of Tea Party disrupters and rank opportunists, all dedicated Trumpists. Fact-based policy is irrelevant. Antagonism towards climate concerns is intense, one aspect of the loathed “woke” threat they intend to destroy.

Project 2025 has been depicted, with caveats, as the game-plan that Trump’s government would follow as it did in 2017, when it enacted two-thirds of the earlier iteration. Trump himself has little interest in any project apart from his own revenge. A set of policies, structures and people that will effectively enact his vengeance will prove attractive if he wins.

Project 2025 is hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a preeminent Atlas Network thinktank. Heritage has consistently fought climate action adhering to the Network’s fossil-fuel donor’s goals. Its new Christian Nationalist president, Kevin Roberts, has made it more extreme. Heritage brought in key actors from Trump’s previous administration to run Project 2025 so that it would look duly MAGA, and not like an establishment body trying to hijack Trump’s victory. As a result, this is the most radical Roadmap in four decades of production. The 800 pages of the 2025 Mandate is the sum of work by 400 contributors with 50 thinktanks from the Atlas Network and the Christian Nationalist Council for National Policy cooperating. It represents the merged thinking of the Trump-complicit Right.

There will be no global action on climate, or any other goal: they are not so much isolationists as unilateralists who want to act unchecked by international bodies or allies. Robert’s introduction to the Mandate states that the Left’s “supranational organisations” seek a world “bound by global treaties they write, in which they exercise dictatorial powers over all nations without being subject to democratic accountability.” He demands that the next Republican administration will abandon “International organisations and agreements that erode our Constitution, rule of law, or popular sovereignty.”

This fossil fuel-funding is evident. Roberts enjoins that “The next conservative President should go beyond merely defending America’s energy interests but go on offence, asserting them around the world. America’s vast reserves of oil and natural gas are not an environmental problem; they are the lifeblood of economic growth. American dominance of the global energy market would be a good thing: for the world, and, more importantly, for ‘we the people.” Environmentalism is depicted as “anti-human.” The overwhelming scientific evidence is meaningless. Roberts preaches: “‘Cheap grace’ aptly describes the Left’s love affair with environmental extremism. Those who suffer most from the policies environmentalism would have us enact are the aged, poor, and vulnerable. It is not a political cause, but a pseudo-religion meant to baptise liberals’ ruthless pursuit of absolute power in the holy water of environmental virtue.”

Biden’s crucial Inflation Reduction Act which “unleashes at least hundreds of billions of dollars in federal subsidies for renewable energy sources, electric vehicles, batteries, heat pumps, and more” is likely his most significant achievement. Repealing it has become a Republican obsession. Project 2025 aims to dismantle the American administrative state: all departmental action to constrain pollution would be under attack alongside laws.

Fossil fuel corporations have long shown that they cannot be trusted to act in our interests without government regulation. Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) goals which had pushed some companies to consider broader stakeholder wellbeing have fallen out of fashion. This is in part because they have been prone to cynical deployment, functioning as “greenwashing” rather than a driver of actual change.

More concerning, however, is that corporate interests have been directing campaigns to discredit ESG investing as “woke” and an intrusion on their corporate liberties. Sky News, like Fox News in the US, has campaigned against the attempt to introduce corporate morality. Rowan Dean, for example, railed against it as “just pure socialism being introduced through the back door.” The scope of plutocrat campaigns against morality in business was revealed in emails from an Atlas Network-interlinked junktank in America recently. It was not just the ability to act regardless of environmental considerations these corporations and plutocrat foundations were funding: it was also campaigns to free up child labour, even to strip healthcare and food support from America’s most desperate.

These “conservative” actors demand adherence to Milton Friedman’s “shareholder theory” that insisted a corporation’s sole concern must be to maximise returns to shareholders. Putin’s war on Ukraine has enabled huge profits for fossil fuel companies and they are being driven by “insistence from shareholders that companies keep record profits flowing and stick to their core business.” Thus Shell has become the latest company to announce that it has resiled from its zero carbon commitments, extending timelines and lifting limits.

Even the 2.5% of the global oil and gas industry’s capital spending currently investing in renewable energy is resented by shareholders. BP was threatened by a hedge fund for depressing its share price by this “irrational” spending.

Lacking any moral framework, this shareholder model demands government regulation to behave responsibly.

It is likely that a Trump victory at the end of this year will leave one of the world’s largest economies expanding its fossil fuel sector, cutting back every limit on carbon energy and stripping incentives promoting clean energy. Any regulation mitigating the immorality of shareholder capitalism will be stripped away. It is possible that China or India might step into a gap left on the global stage by America, but the damage to international cooperation will be extensive.

The world’s fate might rest on this election.

This essay was first published at Pearls and Irritations as A Republican victory in 2024 will be a climate disaster

Of course, any election will have various reasons for why a particular candidate or party won or lost. Therefore, what I write can only be taken as my opinion and may contain some bias.

So, how does one decide why a party won or lost? The facts will show that one party won because it got more votes than the other, or preferences played an important part. These are facts. Other than that, it is all assertion.

However, other reasons, of course, influence the result and are endless in their variety. They can only be considered views, and one has to consider the veracity of the statement, who is giving it and their qualifications or sentiments for doing so.

My own stab in the dark suggests that a large portion of the community rejects conservatism and its tactics of fear and scare. They have not yet forgiven the LNP for their deplorable governance over almost a decade since they were last in power. And might I add the absence of even the meekest of apologies?

Morrison may have gone, but he has been replaced by Peter Dutton, who this cohort dislikes with a vengeance; they know his history and reject what he stands for. Come the election, if he continues in this vein of Trumpish negative politics, he will offend more people.

Writing for The Guardian, Paul Karp had thoughts dissimilar to mine, saying that “attack lines about a tax on cars can do real damage.” He pointed out that:

“Over on Sky, Peta Credlin said the bullish early results showed ‘the strategy’s right, the positioning is right.’ Of course, the strategy is to falsely claim that a fuel efficiency standard that will give Australians a choice of more efficient cars amounts to a tax. But, hey, there are votes in it.”

In my translation, she is saying that we need to use more lying bullshit if we are to win office.

“When the results soured for the Liberals and it became clear they would fall short, Credlin’s prescription was that the opposition needed ‘more of the same’ to go one better next time.”

When the dust had settled, and it was apparent that Labor had won, she said the Dunkley by-election result was a “wake-up” for the Albanese government, with the Liberal Party securing “the preconditions you need to start taking seats off Labor at a general election.”

As simple as it seems, people demand truth from their politicians. Lies about taxes on cars, the cost-of-living crisis, and immigration will continue with further embellishment.

Sussan Ley is a politician prone to bizarre comments regarding the Dunkley vote swing. She claimed that:

“… if the same swing occurred in the upcoming federal election, the Coalition would win 11 seats, which would be enough to form a government.”

However, it’s worth noting that by-elections differ from federal elections, and the results may not necessarily be replicated.

On Sky News, Pauline Hanson said:

“The turn is on against Labor because they can’t stand his lies – he goes back on his word – and he’s not a true leader for this nation.”

Writing in The Australian (paywalled) on the Monday after the by-election Robert Gottliebsen reckoned that:

“With the right strategies, the Dunkley by-election was a poll the Drover’s Dog could have won for the Liberals.”

On ABC Insiders the next morning, David Speers interviewed Dan Tehan, the member for Wannan, who showed all the emotion of a politician who had won a momentous victory. The only problem was that they lost. It was something to see.

I have some opinions from my Facebook friend Tim Leeder, who voiced the following comments. Tim is a citizen who takes a considerable interest in politics. He is candid, astute, and has a brilliant memory:

1. A liberal politician last night said a 3 to 4 per cent swing would put the libs back in government. Not true. It would not be enough. Swings are never uniform.
2. A former liberal staffer said (No name was mentioned.) They need to stress out. We are better at economic management. There needs to be a product difference between us and Labor.
3. They also need to negate issues like climate change.
4. Former Victorian Premier Kennett was on the TV coverage last night saying people are waking up to Labor. They are hurting the middle class.
5. The election is still 12 months away. I think, on balance, Labor will win, but in a minority government situation.
6. The swing was higher than the ordinary by-election swing against a government in its first term but not against a government overall. It was always a big ask. I suspect the result was about what was expected, depending on the final swing. If it is under 5 per cent, I think it is disappointing for the Liberal Party.
7. Labor got a sympathy vote. But I suspect the tax cuts issue saved the seat for them.
8. One view is that the Liberals did not vigorously contest Dunkley last time, so the margin increased to 6 per cent.
9. Libs have a real problem in Victoria; there is no doubt about that.
10. Greens’ vote went down. One view is that they were too concerned with Gaza, etc. Aussies don’t care. They do care about the cost of living.

Tim makes some better points than those in the Liberal Party and the media, for that matter. However, at this stage of the election cycle, like polls, we can only take these events as a snapshot of people’s thinking.

But how do the readers of this site see it at this stage of the cycle? Do you agree with the examples I have raised in this piece? What is your perception?

In the past couple of weeks, the conservative parties have retained government in two jurisdictions across Australia, the (party political) Brisbane City Council and Tasmania. Before anyone scoffs at the Brisbane City Council, it is an amalgamation of around 20 shires and town councils that occurred in the 1920s Apart from managing the roads, rubbish and so on for most of the Brisbane urban area, it also operates a considerable component of South East Queensland bus network, has a significant part in the planning of South East Queensland with a budget and population larger than Tasmania’s.

In Brisbane, residents have two votes, one for a Councillor and one for the Lord Mayor. At the time of writing, the LNP’s Adrian Schrinner had received 48.58% of the vote, the ALP’s Tracey Price 26.40% of the vote and the Greens Johnathon Sriranganathan 19.40% of the vote. There are a couple of Independents as well as the Legalise Cannabis Party who account for the other 5% or thereabouts of the vote. So far, slightly over 703,000 votes have been counted. The Electoral Commission Queensland results page is here – should you want to see the current figures. Tellingly, there is no One Nation or Clive Palmer candidate to split the conservative vote.

On those figures, the ALP has a problem. While they can claim to be taking a ‘principled stand’ and not joining in a coalition of reasonably like minded people, the reality is that elections are a numbers game. The situation is even worse if you consider the individual votes in the ‘Wards’ that elect the Councillors that serve on the Brisbane City Council. The ABC’s Election Results show that rather than the traditional contest between the ALP and LNP, a lot of the contests are now LNP versus Greens. While the Greens may not have reached the tipping point on this occasion, it is likely that some of them will in four years time.

The Tasmanian State Election night finished with no one holding a majority of the seats required to form a government in their own right. While in February Premier Jeremy Rockliff was preaching the perils of minority government. He is likely to form one following the election. Especially telling was the ALP Leader, Rebecca White, saying on Election Night that she would attempt to form a minority government if Rockliff couldn’t, only to be walking the statement back on Sunday and resigning from the leadership by the middle of the following week. At the time of writing, the ALP could have formed a minority government based on the publicly available results.

In both the Brisbane City and Tasmania Elections, if the ALP had been prepared to work with others, they could have stitched together a deal to effectively be in control of the two jurisdictions. While it is probably harder work to manage the differing views of the various members of a coalition in power, the views of the different members of a minority government make better decisions for all. The ALP minority Government with Julia Gillard as Prime Minister managed to be more productive in terms of legislation passed than any government since. Some of the achievements of the Gillard Government, such as the NDIS and an effective carbon pollution reduction program was leading edge at the time – only to be neutered by subsequent governments.

As an outsider, it seems that the ALP has similar problems to the Coalition. It is highly unlikely that the alternative political parties to the left and right of the ALP and LNP will be going away any time soon. The ALP is losing votes to the Greens and they aren’t necessarily returning just as the LNP is losing votes to One Nation and others to their right. While the ALP knows and understands how to attempt to entice voters from the LNP and seems to be actively pursuing the strategy, they are ignoring those that do want stronger emissions reduction targets, humanity to refugees, action on the cost of housing and rentals, a better funding system for public schools and so on. Instead the ALP is trying to ‘out-flank’ the LNP on cruelty to refugees and refusing to change the rules around religious and racial discrimination without the Coalition joining them on a ‘unity ticket’. The ‘unity ticket’ is just as likely as verified sightings of the Easter Bunny delivering presents on Easter Sunday.

While minority government may not necessarily be easy, or enable legislation to be passed without full consideration and consent of the respective parliament, arguably it is a better result for the community at large as more than one ideological group has to be convinced of the worth of the measure. Minority governments work in many countries around the world. In reality every Liberal Party Prime Minister and most Liberal Party Premiers in Australia since World War 2 have been the leaders of minority governments as the Liberal Party usually doesn’t have the numbers to ‘govern’ in their own right. A progressive minority government would be a far better result than a conservative Liberal/National Party ‘Coalition’ lead by Peter Dutton this time next year. Maybe that’s something the ALP and Greens party operatives should think about seriously.

What is it about British justice that has a certain rankness to it, notably when it comes to dealing with political charges? The record is not good, and the ongoing sadistic carnival that is the prosecution (and persecution) of Julian Assange continues to provide meat for the table.

Those supporting the WikiLeaks publisher, who faces extradition to the United States even as he remains scandalously confined and refused bail in Belmarsh Prison, had hoped for a clear decision from the UK High Court on March 26. Either they would reject leave to appeal the totality of his case, thereby setting the wheels of extradition into motion, or permit a full review, which would provide some relief. Instead, they got a recipe for purgatorial prolongation, a tormenting midway that grants the US government a possibility to make amends in seeking their quarry.

A sinking sense of repetition was evident. In December 2021, the High Court overturned the decision of the District Court Justice Vanessa Baraitser to bar extradition on the weight of certain assurances provided by the US government. Her judgment had been brutal to Assange in all respects but one: that extradition would imperil his life in the US penal system, largely due to his demonstrated suicidal ideation and inadequate facilities to cope with that risk.

With a school child’s gullibility – or a lawyer’s biting cynicism – the High Court judges accepted assurances from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that Assange would not face the crushing conditions of detention in the notorious ADX Florence facility or suffer the gagging restrictions euphemised as Special Administrative Measures. He would also receive the appropriate medical care that would alleviate his suicide risk and face the prospect of serving the balance of any sentence back in Australia. The refusal to look behind the mutability and fickle nature of such undertakings merely passed the judges by. The March 26 judgment is much in keeping with that tradition.

The grounds for Assange’s team numbered nine in total entailing two parts. Some of these should be familiar to even the most generally acquainted reader. The first part, comprising seven grounds, argues that the decision to send the case to the Home Secretary was wrong for: ignoring the bar to extradition under the UK-US Extradition Treaty for political offences, for which Assange is being sought for; that his prosecution is for political opinions; that the extradition is incompatible with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) noting that there should be no punishment without law; that the process is incompatible with article 10 of the ECHR protecting freedom of expression; that prejudice at trial would follow by reason of his non-US nationality; that the right to a fair trial, protected by article 6 of the ECHR, was not guaranteed; and that the extradition is incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR (right to life, and prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment).

The second part of the application challenged the UK Home Secretary’s decision to approve the extradition, which should have been barred by the treaty between the UK and US, and on the grounds that there was “inadequate specialty/death penalty protection.”

In this gaggle of imposing, even damning arguments, the High Court was only moved by three arguments, leaving much of Baraitser’s reasons untouched. Assange’s legal team had established an arguable case that sending the case to the Home Secretary was wrong as he might be prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality. Following from that “but only as a consequence of that”, extradition would be incompatible with free speech protections under article 10 of the ECHR. An arguable case against the Home Secretary’s decision could also be made as it was barred by inadequate specialty/death penalty protection.

What had taken place was a dramatic and savage pruning of a wholesome challenge to a political persecution garishly dressed in legal drag. On the issue of whether Assange was being prosecuted for his political opinions, the Court was happy to accept the woeful finding by Baraitser that he had not. The judge was “entitled to reach that conclusion on the evidence before her, and on the unchallenged sworn evidence of the prosecutor (which refutes the applicant’s case).” While accepting the view that Assange “acted out of political conviction”, the extradition was not being made “on account of his political views.” Again, we see the judiciary avoid the facts staring at it: that the exposure of war crimes, atrocities, torture and various misdeeds of state are supposedly not political at all.

Baraitser’s assessment on the US Espionage Act of 1917, that cruel exemplar of war time that has become peacetime’s greater suppressor of leakers and whistleblowers, was also spared necessary laceration. The point missed in both her judgement and the latest High Court ruling is a seeming inability to accept that the Act is designed to circumvent constitutional protections, a point made from the outset by the brave Wisconsin Republican Senator Robert M. La Follette.

On the issue of whether Assange would be denied due process in that he could not foresee being prosecuted for publishing classified documents in 2010, the view that US courts are “alive to the issues of vagueness and overbreadth in relation” to the Act misses the point. It hardly assures Assange that he would not be subject “to a real risk of a flagrant denial” of rights protected by article 7 of the ECHR, let alone the equivalent Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The matter of Assange being denied a fair trial should have been obvious, evidenced by such prejudicial remarks by senior officials (that’s you Mike Pompeo) on his presumed guilt, tainted evidence, a potentially biased jury pool, and coercive plea bargaining. He could or would also be sentenced for conduct he had not been charged with “based on evidence he will not see and which may have been unlawfully obtained.” Instead, Baraitser’s negative finding was spared its deserved flaying. “We, like the judge, consider the article 6 objections raised by the applicants have no arguable merit, from which it follows that it is not arguable that his extradition would give rise to a flagrant denial of his fair trial rights.”

Of enormous, distorting significance was the refusal by the High Court to accept “fresh evidence” such as the Yahoo News article from September 2021 outlining the views of intelligence officials on the possible kidnapping and even assassination of Assange. To this could be added a statement from US attorney Joshua Dratel who pertinently argued that designating WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” was intended “to place [the applicant] outside any cognizable legal framework that might protect them from the US actions based on purported ‘national security’ imperatives.”

A signed witness statement also confirmed that UC Global, the Spanish security firm charged by the CIA to conduct surveillance of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, had means to provide important information for “options on how to assassinate” Assange.

Instead of considering the material placed before them as validating a threat to Assange’s right to life, or the prospect of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the High Court justices speculated what Baraitser would have done if she had seen it. Imaginatively, if inexplicably, the judges accepted her finding that the conduct by the CIA and UC Global regarding the Ecuadorian embassy had no link with the extradition proceedings. With jaw dropping incredulity, the judges reasoned that the murderous, brutal rationale for dealing with Assange contemplated by the US intelligence services “is removed if the applicant is extradited.” In a fit of true Orwellian reasoning, Assange’s safety would be guaranteed the moment he was placed in the custody of his would-be abductors and murderers.

The High Court was also generous enough to do the homework for the US government by reiterating the position taken by their brother judges in the 2021 decision. Concerns about Assange’s mistreatment would be alleviated by granting “assurances (that the applicant is permitted to rely on the First Amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial (including sentence) by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same First Amendment protection as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty not be imposed).” Such a request is absurd for presuming, not only that the prosecutors can be held to their word, but that a US court would feel inclined to accept the application of the First Amendment, let alone abide by requested sentencing requirements.

The US government has been given till April 16 to file assurances addressing the three grounds, with further written submissions in response to be filed by April 30 by Assange’s team, and May 14 by the Home Secretary. Another leave of appeal will be entertained on May 20. If the DOJ does not provide any assurances, then leave to appeal will be granted. The accretions of obscenity in the Assange saga are set to continue.

Two British ministers, the UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, paid a recent visit to Australia recently as part of the AUKMIN (Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations) talks. It showed, yet again, that Australia’s government loves being mugged. Stomped on. Mowed over. Beaten.

It was mugged, from the outset, in its unconditional surrender to the US military industrial complex with the AUKUS security agreement. It was mugged in throwing money (that of the Australian taxpayer) at the US submarine industry, which is lagging in its production schedule for both the Virginia-class boats and new designs such as the Columbia class. British shipyards were hardly going to miss out on this generous distribution of Australian money, largesse ill-deserved for a flagging production line.

A joint statement on the March 22 meeting, conducted with Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, was packed with trite observations and lazy reflections about the nature of the “international order”. Ministers “agreed the contemporary [UK-Australian] relationship is responding in an agile and coordinated way to global challenges.” When it comes to matters of submarine finance and construction, agility is that last word that comes to mind.

Boxes were ticked with managerial, inconsequential rigour. Russia, condemned for its “full-scale, illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine.” Encouragement offered for Australia in training Ukrainian personnel through Operation Kudu and joining the Drone Capability Coalition. Exaggerated “concern at the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” Praise for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and “respect of navigation.”

The relevant pointers were to be found later in the statement. The UK has been hoping for a greater engagement in the Indo-Pacific (those damn French take all the plaudits from the European power perspective), and the AUKUS bridge has been one excuse for doing so. Accordingly, this signalled a “commitment to a comprehensive and modern defence relationship, underlined by the signing of the updated Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Defence and Security Cooperation.”

When politicians need to justify opening the public wallet, such tired terms as “unprecedented”, “threat” and “changing” are used. These are the words of foreign minister Wong: “Australia and the United Kingdom are building on our longstanding strategic partnership to address our challenging and rapidly changing world.” Marles preferred the words “an increasingly complex strategic environment.” Shapps followed a similar line of thinking. “Nuclear-powered submarines are not cheap, but we live in a much more dangerous world, where we are seeing a much more assertive region [with] China, a much more dangerous world all around with what is happening in the Middle East and Europe.” Hardly a basis for the submarines, but the fetish is strong and gripping.

With dread, critics of AUKUS would have noted yet another round of promised disgorging. Britain’s submarine industry is even more lagging than that of the United States, and bringing Britannia aboard the subsidy truck is yet another signal that the AUKUS submarines, when and if they ever get off the design page and groan off the shipyards, are guaranteed well deserved obsolescence or glorious unworkability.

A separate statement released by all the partners of the AUKUS agreement glories in the SSN-AUKUS submarine, intended as a joint effort between BAE Systems and the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC). (BAE Systems, it should be remembered, is behind the troubled Hunter-class frigate program, one plagued by difficulties in unproven capabilities.)

An already challenging series of ingredients is further complicated by the US role as well. “SSN-AUKUS is being trilaterally developed, based on the United Kingdom’s next designs and incorporation technology from all three nations, including cutting edge United States submarine technologies.” This fabled fiction “will be equipped for intelligence, surveillance, undersea warfare and strike missions, and will provide maximum interoperability among AUKUS partners.” The ink on this is clear: the Royal Australian Navy will, as with any of the promised second-hand Virginia-class boats, be a subordinate partner.

In this, a false sense of submarine construction is being conveyed through what is termed the “Optimal Pathway”, ostensibly to “create a stronger, more resilient trilateral submarine industrial base, supporting submarine production and maintenance in all three countries.” In actual fact, the Australian leg of this entire effort is considerably greater in supporting the two partners, be it in terms of upgrading HMAS Stirling in Western Australia to permit UK and US SSNs to dock as part of Submarine Rotational Force West from 2027, and infrastructure upgrades in South Australia. It all has the appearance of garrisoning by foreign powers, a reality all the more startling given various upgrades to land and aerial platforms for the United States in the Northern Territory.

The eye-opener in the AUKMIN chatter is the promise from Canberra to send A$4.6 billion (£2.4 billion) to speed up lethargic construction at the Rolls-Royce nuclear reactor production line. There are already questions that the reactor cores, being built at Derby, will be delayed for the UK’s own Dreadnought nuclear submarine. The amount, it was stated by the Australian government, was deemed “an appropriate and proportionate contribution to expand production and accommodate Australia’s requirements.” Hardly.

Ultimately, this absurd spectacle entails a windfall of cash, ill-deserved funding to two powers with little promise of returns and no guarantees of speedier boat construction. The shipyards of both the UK and the United States can take much joy from this, as can those keen to further proliferate nuclear platforms, leaving the Australian voter with that terrible feeling of being, well, mugged.

The ongoing commentary about the relative ages of the two Presidential candidates is becoming tedious. What matters most is their ability to lead. By the time of the election, Trump and Biden would have each spent a term in office. So, there has been sufficient time for the American people to have formed an opinion about their worthiness to take office for another.

So, how old is too old? Well, it depends on the individual. Many years ago, we were astonished when someone became a centurion. Now, it’s expected. It is part of our evolution. The same is true of our height, which has increased over centuries. People of seven feet are not uncommon.

Of course, this also applies to our cognitive abilities. Former Australian politician Barry Jones’s sagaciously intelligent mind is still writing books at 90, and Bob Hawke, at 89, took a significant interest in the world around him. John Howard will be 85 in July and takes an active interest in politics.

Rubert Murdoch is still telling lies. He is 91 and has become engaged yet again, while Paul McCartney toured Australia at 82.

Maggie Thatcher was very old until she lost it. Her friend Mikhail Gorbachev lived until 91. The famous French resistance leader and President Charles de Gaulle was 80. Fidel Castro was the President of Cuba, aged 82. Queen Elizabeth was still serving her people at 96.

Spanish artist Picasso was still knocking them out at 91, and the Russian author and philosopher Leo Tolstoy was still writing at 82. US Industrialist Henry Ford was still producing at 84. American inventor Thomas Edison was still working at 84.

These days, 90-year-olds have been known to obtain university degrees.

In America, you must be over 35 to be eligible for the Presidency, 30 to be a Senator, and 25 to enter the House. Its parliament is filled with aging politicians.

The New York Times lists twenty congressmen and women as aged. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is 81, and Nancy Pelosi will finish her term at 83. Plus we have:

1. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, 90 (retiring)
2. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, 89
3. Representative Grace F. Napolitano, Democrat of California, 86 (retiring)
4. Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, 86
5. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Democrat of the District of Columbia, 86
6. Representative Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky, 85
7. Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, 85
8. Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, 84
9. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, 83
10. Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, 83
11. Representative Danny K. Davis, Democrat of Illinois, 82
12. Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, 82
13. Representative John Carter, Republican of Texas, 81
14. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, 81
15. Representative Frederica S. Wilson, Democrat of Florida, 80
16. Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California, 80
17. Representative Kay Granger, Republican of Texas, 80
18. Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, 80
19. Senator Jim Risch, Republican of Idaho, 80
20. Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, 80

(Source: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress).

Well, let me finish with the American Actor Cary Grant. He had five wives and fathered a child after he turned 60. (Steve Martin also became a father at 67, btw.)

People have children later in life, and sporting careers are being extended. Playing professional sports at 40 is common nowadays. Age is becoming less critical in all facets of society. Yes, we are living longer – for some, painfully so. Living to 80 was beyond my comprehension as a child, but here I am at 83, still writing for The AIMN, with an active interest in all that life offers those who enjoy its neverending wonderments.

Of course, the curious among us will contemplate life’s reason and others its purpose, while some will endure it. We all think about its unfairness, suffering, and the energy it requires.

Gaining wisdom to answer philosophical questions requires a deep understanding of all that inhibits us. This understanding comes from long-term observation and experience. With time, we develop the intuition to look at things from different perspectives and make wise decisions. Therefore, aging is not just a process of getting old but can also be a path towards gaining knowledge and wisdom.

The cohort of people most prone to age abuse or bias is those we call the baby boomers.

So, what has age got to do with it?

In particular, for the two aspirants for President of the USA.

Young politicians should not use their age to “create doubt” about the competency of aged politicians, and aged politicians should not use their age as a weapon of superiority.

Ageism is a critical issue that our society must address. To tackle this problem, we should only mention a candidate’s age when it’s legally required. It’s crucial to treat people of all ages with respect and dignity. We must focus our conversations on the candidate’s “qualifications and merits rather than their age.” Let’s have fair and thoughtful discussions that encourage us to value everyone’s contributions, regardless of age.

Understandably, American voters may have concerns about the competence of the candidates. However, we must remember that the First Amendment protects free speech, regardless of its accuracy. Thus, the challenge for the voter lies in finding a balance between protecting their rights and ensuring that the information shared is truthful.

And rightly so. Both have shown instances of observable ageism, be it by forgetting names, places, or physical difficulties.

In this instance, voters, the American people, will elect the (alleged) leader of the free world.

Despite everything I have written, how does one eliminate the age factor? Is it possible to overcome human nature?

Well, no, you cannot. You cannot eliminate it from your judgment. The American system has given its people these two men to choose from.

In my view, Donald Trump and President Biden should be ordered to undergo a mental examination to ascertain their fitness to govern the country. If necessary, the Supreme Court could order both to submit to a complete physical and psychiatric evaluation if they were not prepared to do so voluntarily.

President Biden appears to be medically fit. His mental faculties seem reasonable.

On the other hand, former President Trump might pass a fitness test, but his cognitive capacity is highly doubtful, and on that finding alone, he would be disqualified from running.

In addition, he faces many legal problems involving him defending many indictments (that could go on for years) while running for office, possibly from a prison cell.

My writing should not be interpreted as favouring those who have had the privilege of living long lives. Instead, I deeply empathise with those who seek the vitality and vigour of youth.

In 2016 I described Trump as follows:

“Australians see Trump as a sick, deluded, and sexually abusive narcissist and corrupt criminal with a limited understanding of complex world problems. He is a crash-through politician with a ubiquitous mouth who is entertaining to some but lacks the worldly character required for leadership.”

And that, has nothing to do with his age.

The heralded arrival of the Internet caused flutters of enthusiasm, streaks of heart-felt hope. Unregulated, and supposedly all powerful, an information medium never before seen on such scale could be used to liberate mind and spirit. With almost disconcerting reliability, humankind would coddle and fawn over a technology which would, as Langdon Winner writes, “bring universal wealth, enhanced freedom, revitalized politics, satisfying community, and personal fulfilment.”

Such high street techno-utopianism was bound to have its day. The sceptics grumbled, the critiques bubbled and flowed. Evgeny Morozov, in his relentlessly biting study The Net Delusion, warned of the misguided nature of the “excessive optimism and empty McKinsey-speak”, of cyber-utopianism and the ostensibly democratising properties of the Internet. Governments, whatever their ideological mix, gave the same bark of suspicion.

In Australia, we see the tech-utopians being butchered, metaphorically speaking, on our doorstep. Of concern here is the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023. This nasty bit of legislative progeny arises from the 2019 Digital Platforms Inquiry conducted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The final report notes how consumers accessing news placed on digital platforms “potentially risk exposure to unreliable news through ‘filter bubbles’ and the spread of disinformation, malinformation and misinformation (‘fake news’) online.” And what of television? Radio? Community bulletin boards? The mind shrinks in anticipation.

In this state of knee-jerk control and paternal suspicion, the Commonwealth pressed digital platforms conducting business in Australia to develop a voluntary code of practice to address disinformation and the quality of news. The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation was launched on February 22, 2021 by the Digital Industry Group Inc. Eight digital platforms adopted the code, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Twitter. The acquiescence from the digital giants did little in terms of satisfying the wishes of the Morrison government. The Minister of Communications at the time, Paul Fletcher, duly announced that new laws would be drafted to arm the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) with the means “to combat online misinformation and disinformation.” He noted an ACMA report highlighting that “disinformation and misinformation are significant and ongoing issues.”

The resulting Bill proposes to make various functional amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) as to the way digital platform services work. It also proposes to vest the ACMA with powers to target misinformation and disinformation. Digital platforms not in compliance with the directions of the ACMA risk facing hefty penalties, though the regulator will not have the power to request the removal of specific content from the digital platform services.

In its current form, the proposed instrument defines misinformation as “online content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm.” Disinformation is regarded as “misinformation that is intentionally disseminated with the intent to deceive or cause serious harm.”

Of concern regarding the Bill is the scope of the proposed ACMA powers regarding material it designates as “harmful online misinformation and disinformation”. Digital platforms will be required to impose codes of conduct to enforce the interpretations made by the ACMA. The regulator can even “create and enforce an industry standard” (this standard is unworkably opaque, and again begs the question of how that can be defined) and register them. Those in breach will be liable for up to $7.8 million or 5% of global turnover for corporations. Individuals can be liable for fines up to $1.38 million.

A central notion in the proposal is that the information in question must be “reasonably likely […] to cause or contribute serious harm”. Examples of this hopelessly rubbery concept are provided in the Guidance Note to the Bill. These include hatred targeting a group based on ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability. It can also include disruption to public order or society. The example provided in the guidance suggests typical government paranoia about how the unruly, irascible populace might be incited: “Misinformation that encouraged or caused people to vandalise critical communications infrastructure.”

The proposed law will potentially enthrone the ACMA as an interventionist overseer of digital content. In doing so, it can decide what and which entity can be exempted from alleged misinformation practices. For instance, “excluded content for misinformation purposes” can be anything touching on entertainment, parody or satire, provided it is done in good faith. Professional news content is also excluded, but any number of news or critical sources may fall foul of the provisions, given the multiple, exacting codes the “news source” must abide by. The sense of that discretion is woefully wide.

The submission from the Victorian Bar Association warns that “the Bill’s interference with the self-fulfilment of free expression will occur primarily by the chilling self-censorship it will inevitably bring about in the individual users of the relevant services (who may rationally wish to avoid any risk of being labelled a purveyor of misinformation or disinformation).” The VBA also wonders if such a bill is even warranted, given that the problem has been “effectively responded to by voluntary actions taken by the most important actors in this space.”

Also critical, if less focused, is the stream of industrial rage coming from the Coalition benches and the corridors of Sky News, where Rupert Murdoch ventriloquises. Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman called the draft “a very bad bill” giving the ACMA “extraordinary powers. It would lead to digital companies self-censoring the legitimately held views of Australians to avoid the risk of massive fines.” Sky News has even deigned to use the term “Orwellian”.

Misinformation, squawked Coleman, was defined so broadly as to potentially “capture many statements made by Australians in the context of political debate.” Content from journalists “on their personal digital platforms” risked being removed as crudely mislabelled misinformation. This was fascinating, u-turning stuff, given the enthusiasm the Coalition had shown in 2022 for a similar muzzling of information. Once in opposition, the mind reverses, leaving the mind to breathe.

The proposed bill on assessing, parcelling and dictating information (mis-, dis-, mal-) is a nasty little experiment in censoring communication and discussion. When the state decides, through its agencies, to tell readers what is appropriate to read and what can be accessed, the sirens should be going off.

Federal Member for Bass Bridget Archer and ACT Senator David Pocock have been announced as winners of the McKinnon Prize, Australia’s independent, non-partisan award for outstanding political leadership.

The McKinnon Prize is a collaboration between the Susan McKinnon Foundation and the University of Melbourne and has been awarded annually since 2017. The Prize was established to recognise political leaders from all levels of government who have driven positive impact through their vision, collaboration, courage and ethical behaviour.

Ms Archer was selected as the McKinnon Federal Political Leader of the Year 2023, which recognises MPs with more than five years in elected office. The section panel noted Ms Archer’s long-standing courage in standing up for her principles and her collaborative approach to policy discussions.

Senator Pocock was selected as the McKinnon Emerging Political Leader of the Year 2023, which recognises recently-elected representatives with less than five years in federal, state/territory or local office.

The selection panel recognised Senator Pocock’s values-driven approach to handling his balance of power position in the Senate and his commitment to genuinely listening to and appraising competing perspectives.

A new category, McKinnon State/Territory Political Leader of the Year will be announced later this week.

The McKinnon Prize was selected by a panel of eminent Australians, including Martin Parkinson, Alan Finkel, and Patrica Karvelas (full panel list below).

Bridget Archer on being recognised with the McKinnon Prize:

“Representing the community of Bass in Federal Parliament is truly an honour and privilege. From the day I was elected I committed to being a genuine and authentic representative for the people of Bass. Being a recipient of the McKinnon Prize is a reminder it is the community I ultimately serve.

“As members of Federal Parliament, we are in the unique position to lead the conversation and ensure all voices are heard. I will continue to speak out against gendered violence and call for the elimination of violence against women and children. I look forward to continuing my advocacy to ensure adequate

The McKinnon Prize in Political Leadership is a collaboration between the Susan McKinnon Foundation and the University of Melbourne. mental health services are provided not just in Northern Tasmania but across Australia, ensuring the most vulnerable in our society are protected.

“I thank the Susan McKinnon Foundation, the University of Melbourne and the selection panel for the commendation. It is a prestigious group I am joining the ranks of and I am very honoured.”

Selection panel chair Dr Martin Parkinson on Bridget Archer:

“Bridget Archer’s leadership has impressed successive McKinnon Prize selection panels. It’s appropriate she takes the top honour this year.

“Ms Archer has consistently demonstrated rare courage by standing up for her principles and the interests of her constituents, even when this has put her at odds with her party and threatened her career. Through all this, her dedication and commitment to her party is clear and the panel noted how she has worked tirelessly to drive reforms from within.”

Selection panel member Dr Alan Finkel on Bridget Archer:

“Along with her political courage, Bridget Archer is also well known for her collaborative approach, community work and inclusion of young people in policy discussions.

“Australian political parties traditionally value discipline and it takes real bravery to pursue an alternate path of principled leadership.”

David Pocock on being recognised with the McKinnon Prize:

“It’s a huge privilege representing a community I love and an honour to have my work for them recognised in this way.

“People in the ACT have shown political leadership for decades, from their support for renewable energy and strong action on climate change, to marriage equality and more recently in the Voice referendum.

“What I have been able to achieve so far in the Senate reflects their energy and determination to work towards a better future for all.

“I believe we have so much more in common than the sum of our differences and this is the approach I’ve tried to bring to my role on the crossbench. We are facing huge challenges as communities, as a nation and globally it’s more important than ever to find ways to work together to solve them.

“Being accessible, accountable and putting people first, above politics, is what I committed to doing. I think they’re values Australians want to see and values that many winners of this Prize share and it’s a privilege to be recognised alongside them.”

Selection panel chair Dr Martin Parkinson on David Pocock:

“David Pocock has made a serious impact on Australian politics in an impressively short period of time. The panel was impressed by his articulation of a new kind of collaborative politics, and his dedication to these principles in practice.

“Historically, Australia has seen Senators who hold the balance of power use that to pursue a relative narrow set of goals, designed to satisfy a small constituency, often at the expense of the broader community. Senator Pocock is a great example of how that position of power can be used to pursue a broader vision for the community as a whole.”

Selection panel member Dr Alan Finkel on David Pocock:

“David Pocock’s leadership is a fine example of the values the McKinnon Prize was established to recognise. He genuinely listens to stakeholders and attempts to balance competing interests in good faith. We hope awarding this year’s prize to Senator Pocock helps promote the excellent example he sets at a time when so many populist ‘strongman’ leaders command headlines on the global stage.

“The panel also regarded Pocock’s community and charity work very highly, and his history of principled stances on political issues, such as his refusal to marry until gay marriage was legalised in 2017.”

McKinnon Prize Selection Panel:

Dr Martin Parkinson AC, Chancellor, Macquarie University (Chair)
Dr Alan Finkel AC, former Chief Scientist of Australia
Georgie Harman, CEO of Beyond Blue
Tanya Hosch, Executive General Manager Inclusion & Social Policy AFL
Patricia Karvelas, Host, RN Breakfast on ABC Radio
Professor Renee Leon PSM, Vice Chancellor and President, Charles Sturt University
Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, President of Chief Executive Women, Chair of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council
Cathy McGowan AO, Chair, AgriFutures Arthur Sinodinos AO, Partner & Chair of Australia Practice, The Asia Group
Ashleigh Streeter-Jones, Founder & CEO of Raise Our Voice Australia (ROVA) and Victorian Young Australian of the Year Finalist
David Thodey AO, Chairman, Tyro and Xero and incoming University of Sydney Chancellor
Jay Weatherill AO, Director of Public Affairs with the Minderoo Foundation