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

By Denis Bright

The tidal wave swing against Labor in the Ipswich West by-election on 16 March 2024 created no ripples on the stagnant Bremer River.

Historic struggles on behalf of the Labor Movement will come and go in the future without any lasting effects from the by-election results. The Timothy Molony Oval in front of St. Mary’s Church is usually the venue convivial Labor Day socials and even the starting point for a protest march against the Bjelke-Petersen Government over the dismissal of railway employees for extended strike action during the early 1980s. I can see the same thing happening in the future if David Crisafulli and Peter Dutton take power on behalf of an older style LNP support base.

Even if Labor were to lose government on 25 October 2024, its support base would soon bounce back as in the Can Do Days of Premier Campbell Newman (2012-15) whose government was soon out of its depth in delivering for the people of Queensland. In those days, the state LNP promised to reduce the state debt, now the promise is about reducing crime.

With all the additional police and judicial resources developed to fighting and preventing crime, does the LNP really believe that Labor is soft on crime?

The chorus about Labor being soft on crime came from the Murdoch press with the support of eyewitness news reports. Stocking up fear is a misplaced political game strategy that seems to work in outer metro suburbs and regional areas. Crime embedded in cultural disadvantage. It has been a curse across Queensland even though overall crime rates present a complex challenge as noted by Griffith university criminologist, Michael Townsley (ABC News 26 November 2023). This is an excellent price of ABC journalism.

The state-wide Newspoll of voting intentions across Queensland was released in The Australian on the eve of the Ipswich West by-election. The Newspoll indicated the prospect of a 9.6 percent decline in Labor’s primary vote since the last state election on 31 October 2020. The swing against Labor on a TPP basis was 7.2 percent as support for the Greens on 13 percent (+3.5 percent since 2020) moderated the swing against Labor. The absence of a Green Party candidate at the Ipswich West by-election removed this moderating effect on the swing against Labor. These swings against Labor were more than excelled in the Ipswich West by-election.

By-elections provide opportunities for local conservatives in Ipswich to mount populist campaigns on issues like crime and self-perceived neglect of the city. At a state level, these campaigns hit their mark in the seat of Ipswich on the eve of the Great Depression in 1929 and again in 1974, 1998 and 2012.

Darren Zanow’s campaign excelled in the use of these superlatives.

In the provision of public health services for Ipswich, the LNP chose to overlook problems associated with years of neglect by the federal LNP in support for the Commonwealth-state health agreements and long-term failure to fund renumerations paid for highly expensive specialist and diagnostic services. Disadvantaged voters should ask their GPs to add a statement about financial disadvantage to their medical referrals. They will usually be bulk billed as a result of this initiative.

The transition in Labor leadership in Ipswich West from Ivor Marsden (MLA 1949-66) to Labor’s Vi Jordan produced a remarkably close result at thee 1966 state election. Labor retained the seat by a mere 227 votes after preferences. Labor bounced back with a swing of 11.3 percent after preferences at the next state election in 1969 with further swings in 1972. Defeat came again for Labor in Ipswich West on 7 December 1974 when the populist campaign by Joh Bjelke-Petersen reduced Labor to eleven members after the loss of 22 Labor seats.

Even in 1974 when Labor had the advantage of a largely unionized local workforce in manufacturing and railway workshops, populist campaigns could work against Labor. This is not the case in the contemporary workforce in Ipswich.

A half century later, the Ipswich West electorate offers a very diverse demography between semi-rural western components and suburbs like Chuwar, Karalee and Barellan Point on the fringes of Brisbane’s wealthy mortgage-belt suburbs in the Moggill electorate.

Excuses aside, the swing to LNP candidate Darren Zanow exceeded all expectations. Labor candidate Wendy Bourne may have retained the seat if the Green Party had decided to endorse a candidate. The flow of preferences from the Legalise Cannabis Queensland (LCQ) were not strong enough to retain the seat for Labor:

Three consecutive terms of Labor representation in Ipswich West since 2015 were certainly not cast aside after robust policy debates. The populist campaign from the LNP and One Nation hit the electorate with a thump as in previous occasions when Labor lost the seat to conservative opponents. In the pre-depression era both the seats of Rosewood and Ipswich fell to the conservative on the mantra of giving young people a chance for work as the global financial crisis approached.

As in 1929, the result in Ipswich West is a tragedy for the Queensland government. The 2022-23 budget delivered $1.3 billion in capital works for Ipswich City across the three state seats in Ipswich. This is around ten percent of the state’s total capital works spending. In a growing city, this extraordinary expenditure is easily absorbed into the routine provision of roads, hospital services, schools and a wide range of community services (Queensland Budget Papers).

Commitment of $59.2 million in social housing for Ipswich in the 2022-23 budget was never acknowledged in the LNP’s populist campaign strategies.

Given the warnings prior to the by-election in Ipswich West on 16 March 2024, the people of Queensland deserve a new team of media communicators to deliver messages of hope to voters in outer metropolitan and regional seats before the David Crisafulli style is perhaps successfully transferred to the state election campaign prior to 25 October 2024.

Fortunately, the Queensland election date is still a few months away.

However, there are communication problems between some Labor policy elites at both federal and state levels with more disadvantaged voters in regional and outer metropolitan areas. The 2022 Australian election result swings did not extend to most of Queensland. Queensland Labor was left with just five members of the House of Representatives and just three out of a total of twelve Queensland senators.

In Maryborough, state local member Bruce Saunders knows how to handle this problem with his commitment to local manufacturing industries and active community development programmes, appropriate for a regional heritage city. Maryborough once posed problems for Labor candidates prior to the arrival of Bruce Saunders on the state political scene.

The communication theories to bring government back to the needs of people are well developed. Some Labor’s policy elites in all states and territories have obvious links to lobbyists from corporate giants and firms from the global military industrial complexes. Readers should take a glance at the LinkedIn site in their own locality to peruse these quite obvious but still circumstantial connections.

Ohio State University’s Communications department has long been a champion of progressive media communication but there are literally dozens of exponents.

The Ohio State University’s journalism department has been involved in developments in communication theory, particularly in areas where digital media, changing audiences, and the evolving role of journalism intersect. Here are some examples:

Faculty Research

• Gerald Kosicki: A leading expert in the fields of survey methodology and public opinion research. Examines how technology and the changing media landscape affect how we understand and measure public opinion.
• Morgan Ellithorpe: Researches the intersection of journalism, audience engagement, and social media. Analyses how news organizations use social platforms and how audiences interact with news content online.
• Nicole Kraft: Focuses on health communication, especially how media portrayals of health issues and persuasive messaging influence health behaviours.
• Kendra Garrett: Explores media representation, particularly the portrayal of race and gender in media such as news and entertainment programming.

Projects and Initiatives

• The Media Project: An initiative within the School of Communication aiming to bridge the gap between research and the media industry. They run workshops, conduct research, and host events on issues like audience behaviour and the impact of new technologies on news delivery.
• Eye on Ohio: A project bringing together student journalists and faculty to address critical issues facing the state of Ohio. Their work exemplifies the interplay between journalism practice and the broader social and communication theories surrounding civic engagement.

I became an instant fan of Associate Professor Gerald Kosicki when I looked at his work some years ago. This is very relevant to the construction of alternatives to the David Crisafulli style of campaigning which hit its targets in Ipswich West and Inala on 16 March 2024.

In support of Premier Steven Miles, I must add that by-election results must not distract Labor from delivering good government for Queensland, including tough on crime strategies.

Premier Miles delivered the prospect of additional police resources to Ipswich during the by-election campaign.

The notion that Labor is soft on crime is totally ridiculous and a distracting ruse by conservative populists to bring down the government of Queensland on 25 October 2024 and the federal government likewise in 2025.

As global economic conditions worsen as in 1929, opportunities will soon dry up under the austerity programmes from the LNP in government at all levels.

Archivists can be a dull if industrious lot. Christmas crackers are less important than the new year announcement in Canberra, when the National Archives of Australia releases documents like the newborn into the information world. The event is not without irony, given that such documents are often aged and seasoned numbers, whiskered by storage and grey with cataloguing.

On January 1, the NAA diligently followed a long-standing convention of releasing a stash of cabinet documents running into 240 from the Howard government, a period in Australian history when finance ruled with raffish vulgarity, and critical adventurers of conscience were anesthetised and told to get a mortgage. John Howard, Australia’s dull, waxwork prime minister, reminded his voters that Australia’s links to Asian countries were less important than the sigh-heavy attention from Washington.

What was particularly interesting in this disgorging of material was the focus on Australia’s foolish, negligent and even criminal contribution to the war on Iraq in 2003. Even more interesting was how little the files said about the reasons for Australia’s commitment to the invasion. Much of this was occasioned by the omission of 78 records that would otherwise have been in the original 2020 transfer to the archives.

Canberra is the city of smudged politicians, unnervingly clean air and endless meetings, but the omission of documents troubled Australia’s Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, given that they concerned the invasion. He even went so far as to order an inquiry. In true capital fashion, it was done with reserve and caution, the broom being of the “one of us” school. Dennis Richardson, former director of the Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and former head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), not to mention being on the government’s retainer as a consultant, became the broom in question.

In subsequent recommendations as to why the omission of the documents had taken place, Richardson advanced the less than controversial thesis that the NAA include documents from the National Security Committee (NSC), a fixture of the Howard government.

On March 14, the Archives, as if prodded, released certain NSC documents relevant to the Iraq invasion. In the incomplete release, Australia as empire’s obedient, perfumed appendage becomes almost ridiculously evident. On January 10, 2003, the Defence Minister Robert Hill, along with the defence force chief, identified the need for deploying some personnel from the Australian Defence Force within a month “on the likely time-frame for possible military action against Iraq” as indicated by US Central Command. The meeting also reveals that ADF forward units were already designated from a list agreed upon by the NSC on August 26 and December 4, 2002. The thrill for imminent war was palpable.

Howard, at the same meeting, promised that committing ADF forces required the consideration of all cabinet members, also noting that he had “foreshadowed to the governor-general the general direction of steps under consideration by the government in relation to Iraq.” But the governor-general of the time, the eventually doomed Peter Hollingworth, was subsequently told by the prime minister that involving him in the decision to invade Iraq was needless; the ADF could be deployed under the provisions of the Defence Act.

A minute dated March 18, 2003 makes mention of the full cabinet’s authorisation of the invasion, though hardly anything else. There is, however, a submission from the defence minister “circulated in the cabinet room on 17 and 18 March” intended to convince cabinet on possible military operations in Iraq. In anticipation of a formal request to commit troops, the ADF had already been authorised to pursue “prudent contingency planning” on the matter. The two stated war aims of Washington are outlined (vassal, take note): “regime change” and crippling Iraq’s “delivery of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).” On this point, the Howard government dawdles, if ever so slightly, notably on the issue of regime change, admitting, ultimately, that “this may be a desirable, even inevitable, outcome of military action.”

The now infamous memorandum of advice authored by the first assistant secretaries of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General’s department is also to be found. The memorandum offers the shakiest of justifications for invading Iraq, also drawing from unsubstantiated reasons from their UK counterparts. It was subsequently and rightly excoriated by an irate Gavan Griffith, the then unconsulted Solicitor-General. Not only were both bits of legal advice “entirely untenable”, they were also “arrant nonsense”, furnishing “no threads for military clothes.” Nothing from President George W. Bush’s remarks had revealed any desire “to clothe American action with the authority of the Security Council.” Thuggish unilateral action seemed the order of the day.

For Griffith, certain omissions were almost unpardonable. What, for instance, of such authorities as Canberra’s veteran authority, Henry Burmester, the former head of the Office of International Law, subsequently appointed Chief Counsel of the AG’s department. Or for, that matter, of the now late James Crawford of Cambridge University, commonly retained for the giving of advice on international law. Cautious experience had been elbowed out in favour of the gun.

The latest documents from the NSC are more sleet than snow. They do confirm that the parliamentary system, more than ever, should be involved in reining in the wild impulses of war makers. In the meantime, drawing up an indictment for Howard to stand trial in the International Criminal Court is overdue. The same goes for a number of his cabinet. We would not want them to go stale before justice.

By Denis Bright

The issue of AUKUS has resurfaced from the murky depths of undersea politics. ABC News graphics (featured image) reminds readers of the latest additional payment to fast track the AUKUS deal with its proposed cost of at least $368 billion.

Public policy interest in the AUKUS submarine saga is now being propelled by doubts about US construction deadlines for the high technology nuclear-powered submarines. The US Navy confirmed that it will halve the number of nuclear-powered submarines on offer in its 2025 budget. Second-hand LA Class submarines will not be available for sharing with Australia as they will be needed in the USA. Even the construction schedule for AUKUS-class submarines in Adelaide is now in doubt (ABC News 13 March 2024).

For readers who are new to this issue, I might restate some background to the AUKUS deals. The commercial military industrial complexes do not advertise their hidden details. Making a request to Gemini-Google Bard provided this summary for verification by readers:

• US Virginia-class submarines: Australia will acquire at least three (and potentially up to five) Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines from the US. The first of these might be in early 2030s. The leading corporations from the US military industrial complexes are General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries (Newport News Shipbuilding). Numerous supportive technology companies engage in preparations for these developments including involvement from Boeing.
• AUKUS-class submarines: Provided through US and British commercial providers of a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines during the 2040s. The British firms particularly embedded in the AUKUS Programme are:

: BAE Systems will play a critical role in the construction of the AUKUS submarines.

: Babcock International will be involved in construction and maintenance.

: Rolls-Royce will be involved in design and delivery of the nuclear reactors.

• Temporary Rotational Deployment UK Astute-class and US Virginia-class submarines are planned on a rotational basis to HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.

The US Studies Centre in Sydney (9 February 2024) offered commentary by its Director Professor Peter Dean and research associate Alice Nason:

AUKUS has become a case study in generational politics. Public opinion polling reveals only 33 per cent of Gen Z and millennial voters believe it’s a good idea for Australia to have nuclear-powered submarines, compared with 66 per cent of voters aged sixty-five and over.

Still, on some things, all generations agree: a plurality of Australian voters feel nuclear-powered submarines are not worth the cost to Australian taxpayers. Only 21 per cent of voters believe the submarines warrant their $368bn price tag.

These apprehensions, especially among young people, should alarm our policymakers. The people who are expected to staff Australia’s new submarine enterprise as of now don’t support it. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Australia’s workforce challenge.

Australia will build up a sizeable military industrial complex over the next half-century if the AUKUS deals proceed as planned. Lobbying in support of AUKUS has attracted retired political leaders from both sides of politics who are committed to the goal of a more militarized Australia (Anton Nilsson Crikey.com 23 January 2024).

From the far-off United States, Anna Massoglia and Dan Auble from the Open Secrets site were able provide details of lobbying by major corporations in during 2023 just in support of AUKUS. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics topped the lobbying spending with a combined expenditure of over $US80 million.

David Hardaker of Crikey.com exposed the roles of conservative lobbyists in support of the efforts of the military corporates (31 May 2023). This is an exercise in investigative journalism at its best:

A Crikey investigation into the power of conservative political lobbyists CT Group has revealed that two US companies represented by CT are set to be among the biggest winners of the “forever” AUKUS defence deal hatched by former prime minister Scott Morrison.

One of the companies, General Dynamics, is the lead contractor for constructing the US navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. The other company, Centrus Energy, is the leading provider of nuclear fuel for US national security purposes and for naval reactors.

CT’s US entity, CTF Global LLC, has acted as a lobbyist for General Dynamics and Centrus Energy since it set up shop in Washington in 2018, taking on the client list of long-term lobbyist Larry Grossman who was seeking to extend the global reach of his firm.

The evolution of the CIT Group as defence lobbyists came as it reached the peak of its political influence in Australia at the end of 2018 with its then-Australian CEO Yaron Finkelstein joining Morrison’s staff as principal private secretary.

In parallel with Australia, the CT Group also enjoyed the closest of relationships with then-UK prime minister Boris Johnson. David Canzini, a former CT executive, was part of Johnson’s team as a deputy chief of staff.

Readers can follow the investigative trails offered through Crikey.com:

In this era of cost-of-living politics, no one on either side of politics seems to worry about the irregular additional costs of the AUKUS deals. There was an unexpected allocation of $A835 million to France was imposed on the Labor Government for breach of contract from the cancellation of Malcolm Turnbull’s submarine deal.

The Register of Lobbyists and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (the Scheme) from the Attorney-General’s Department do not provide easy access to the specific roles played by lobbyists for firms associated with military industrial complexes. Just knowing which lobbyists have an association with a company like the CT Group is of little practical purpose in investigative journalism. This is a sample register extract for the CT Group which was mentioned in the Crikey.com articles.

The LinkedIn site offers more clues by showing which ex-politicians or former military personnel and policy advisers with links to Australian and global military industrial companies through both lobbying activities or the convening of forum events or other corporate links. There is nothing sinister about the openness of the opportunities offered through LinkedIn which opens a new world of connections for further investigation by journalists.

Here are just three examples.

The anecdotes from LinkedIn can be followed up with a direct communication to the person listed and further research on his/her activities within the military industrial complexes through quite legal lobbying or forum events.

However, cheering on the military is historically a dangerous practice. During the reign of Queen Victoria, the British Empire was once united around the need for Freedom of Navigation to advance its economic diplomacy against China in the two Opium Wars. The US and France joined Britain in the second round in the Opium Wars (1856-60).

Britain once had a balance of payments problem with China during the Days of Empire. It authorized the export of opium to China to address this imbalance.

Imperial China rejected Britain’s efforts against China in the two Opium Wars.

Critical discussion might be painful to political elites. Armed conflicts in a nuclear age are even worse. Let’s pause for some reflection before more jingoism gets Australia into real trouble through over-commitment to global corporate military industrial complexes and the expansion of a stronger home-grown variant in Australia.