1<!DOCTYPE html><html lang="en"><head><meta charSet="utf-8"/><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"/><link rel="preload" href="/_next/static/media/797e433ab948586e-s.p.29207c2f.woff2" as="font" crossorigin="" type="font/woff2"/><link rel="preload" href="/_next/static/media/caa3a2e1cccd8315-s.p.3b6cae6d.woff2" as="font" crossorigin="" type="font/woff2"/><link rel="stylesheet" href="/_next/static/chunks/34d933785a17edf3.css" data-precedence="next"/><link rel="stylesheet" href="/_next/static/chunks/18b9fc07a0b2c6f9.css" data-precedence="next"/><link rel="preload" as="script" fetchPriority="low" href="/_next/static/chunks/b2b8920bee020f01.js"/>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/91adb7bdb9870c6a.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/a07208a5c2ed5b58.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/06687ac130c66111.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/8082ab48faca5ea1.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/turbopack-b830447723e53b90.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/ff1a16fafef87110.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/7dd66bdf8a7e5707.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/16db55413038cbc4.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/da8d21d672c27d5a.js" async=""></script>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/36e434ee1df01259.js" async=""></script>
1<link rel="preload" href="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-R96M1RT9HC" as="script"/><meta name="next-size-adjust" content=""/><title>News & Updates | Dr Brian Walker MLC</title><meta name="description" content="Latest news, parliamentary updates, and advocacy work from Dr Brian Walker MLC - Your Doctor in Parliament"/><meta name="author" content="Dr Brian Walker"/><meta name="keywords" content="Brian Walker,news,parliamentary updates,Legalise Cannabis WA,Western Australia politics,healthcare reform"/><meta name="creator" content="Dr Brian Walker"/><meta name="publisher" content="Office of Hon Dr Brian Walker MLC"/><meta name="robots" content="index, follow"/><meta name="googlebot" content="index, follow, max-image-preview:large, max-snippet:-1"/><meta name="category" content="Politics & Government"/><link rel="canonical" href="https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/news"/><meta property="og:title" content="News & Updates | Dr Brian Walker MLC"/><meta property="og:description" content="Latest news, parliamentary updates, and advocacy work from Dr Brian Walker MLC - Your Doctor in Parliament"/><meta property="og:url" content="https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/news"/><meta property="og:image" content="https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/images/door-og.jpg"/><meta property="og:type" content="website"/><meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image"/><meta name="twitter:site" content="@BrianWalkerMLC"/><meta name="twitter:creator" content="@BrianWalkerMLC"/><meta name="twitter:title" content="Hon Dr Brian Walker MLC | Your Doctor in Parliament"/><meta name="twitter:description" content="45+ years as GP, fighting for evidence-based cannabis reform & progressive policy in WA Parliament. Leader of the Legalise Cannabis Party WA."/><meta name="twitter:image" content="https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/images/door-og.jpg"/><link rel="shortcut icon" href="/favicon-nav.svg"/><link rel="icon" href="/favicon-nav.svg"/><link rel="apple-touch-icon" href="/favicon-nav.svg"/>
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/a6dad97d9634a72d.js" noModule=""></script>
1</head><body class="geist_a71539c9-module__T19VSG__variable geist_mono_8d43a2aa-module__8Li5zG__variable antialiased"><div hidden=""><!--$--><!--/$--></div><a href="#main-content" class="sr-only focus:not-sr-only focus:absolute focus:top-4 focus:left-4 focus:z-50 focus:px-4 focus:py-2 focus:bg-[#00653b] focus:text-white focus:rounded-md focus:shadow-lg focus:outline-none focus:ring-2 focus:ring-[#6cc24a] focus:ring-offset-2">Skip to main content</a>
1<script type="application/ld+json">{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"News","item":"https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/news"}]}</script>
1<nav class="bg-white shadow-sm sticky top-0 z-50"><div class="max-w-7xl mx-auto px-4 sm:px-6 lg:px-8"><div class="flex justify-between items-center h-16"><div class="flex-shrink-0"><a class="flex items-center gap-3 text-xl font-bold text-[#00653b]" style="transition:all 0.3s ease-out" href="/"><img alt="Dr Brian Walker MLC" loading="lazy" width="32" height="32" decoding="async" data-nimg="1" class="w-8 h-8 logo-image" style="color:transparent;transition:all 0.3s ease-out" src="/favicon-nav.svg"/><span class="logo-text" style="transition:all 0.3s ease-out">Dr Brian Walker MLC</span></a></div><div class="hidden md:block"><div class="ml-10 flex items-baseline space-x-4"><a class="px-3 py-2 text-sm font-medium relative text-gray-600" style="transition:all 0.2s ease-out" href="/about">About</a><div class="relative"><button class="px-3 py-2 text-sm font-medium relative inline-flex items-center gap-1 text-gray-600" style="transition:all 0.2s ease-out">Campaigns<svg class="w-3 h-3" fill="none" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke="currentColor"><path stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2" d="M19 9l-7 7-7-7"></path></svg></button></div><a class="px-3 py-2 text-sm font-medium relative text-gray-600" style="transition:all 0.2s ease-out" href="/media">Media</a><a class="px-3 py-2 text-sm font-medium relative text-gray-600" style="transition:all 0.2s ease-out" href="/speeches">Speeches</a><a class="px-3 py-2 text-sm font-medium relative text-gray-600" style="transition:all 0.2s ease-out" href="/questions">Questions</a><a class="px-3 py-2 text-sm font-medium relative text-[#00653b] font-bold" style="transition:all 0.2s ease-out;border-bottom:2px solid #00653b" href="/news">News</a><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-gray-600 px-3 py-2 text-sm font-medium relative" style="transition:all 0.2s ease-out" href="https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/">Party</a><a data-slot="button" class="inline-flex items-center justify-center gap-2 whitespace-nowrap rounded-md text-sm font-medium transition-all disabled:pointer-events-none disabled:opacity-50 [&_svg]:pointer-events-none [&_svg:not([class*='size-'])]:size-4 shrink-0 [&_svg]:shrink-0 outline-none focus-visible:border-ring focus-visible:ring-ring/50 focus-visible:ring-[3px] aria-invalid:ring-destructive/20 dark:aria-invalid:ring-destructive/40 aria-invalid:border-destructive shadow-xs hover:bg-primary/90 h-9 px-4 py-2 has-[>svg]:px-3 bg-[#00653b] text-white" style="transition:all 0.2s ease-out" href="/#contact">Contact</a></div></div><div class="md:hidden"><button data-slot="button" class="inline-flex items-center justify-center whitespace-nowrap text-sm font-medium transition-all disabled:pointer-events-none disabled:opacity-50 [&_svg]:pointer-events-none [&_svg:not([class*='size-'])]:size-4 shrink-0 [&_svg]:shrink-0 outline-none focus-visible:border-ring focus-visible:ring-ring/50 focus-visible:ring-[3px] aria-invalid:ring-destructive/20 dark:aria-invalid:ring-destructive/40 aria-invalid:border-destructive hover:bg-accent hover:text-accent-foreground dark:hover:bg-accent/50 h-8 rounded-md gap-1.5 px-3 has-[>svg]:px-2.5" aria-label="Toggle menu"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" class="lucide lucide-menu h-6 w-6" aria-hidden="true"><path d="M4 12h16"></path><path d="M4 18h16"></path><path d="M4 6h16"></path></svg></button></div></div></div></nav><main class="min-h-screen bg-gradient-to-b from-white to-gray-50"><section class="relative bg-gradient-to-r from-[#00653b] to-[#6cc24a] text-white py-20"><div class="container mx-auto px-4"><div class="max-w-4xl mx-auto text-center"><h1 class="text-4xl md:text-5xl lg:text-6xl font-bold mb-6">News & Updates</h1><p class="text-xl md:text-2xl text-white/90">Stay informed on my parliamentary work, healthcare advocacy, and policy reforms</p></div></div></section><!--$!--><template data-dgst="BAILOUT_TO_CLIENT_SIDE_RENDERING"></template><div class="container mx-auto px-4 py-16"><p class="text-center text-gray-600">Loading posts...</p></div><!--/$--><section class="border-t border-gray-200 bg-white py-10"><div class="container mx-auto px-4 text-center"><h2 class="text-2xl font-bold text-gray-900">Looking for an older article?</h2><p class="mx-auto mt-2 max-w-2xl text-gray-600">Browse every public article in the complete, chronological news archive.</p><a class="mt-5 inline-block rounded-lg border-2 border-[#00653b] px-6 py-3 font-bold text-[#00653b] transition-colors hover:bg-[#00653b] hover:text-white" href="/news/archive">Browse complete news archive</a></div></section><section class="py-16 bg-gradient-to-r from-[#00653b] to-[#6cc24a] text-white"><div class="container mx-auto px-4"><div class="max-w-4xl mx-auto text-center"><h2 class="text-3xl md:text-4xl font-bold mb-6">Stay Informed</h2><p class="text-xl mb-8 text-white/90">Get the latest updates directly in your inbox. Join thousands of Western Australians receiving real news from your Doctor in Parliament.</p><a class="inline-block bg-white text-[#00653b] px-8 py-4 rounded-lg font-bold text-lg hover:scale-105 transition-transform duration-200 shadow-lg" href="/#help">Subscribe to Newsletter</a></div></div></section></main><footer class="bg-[#00653b] text-white py-12"><div class="max-w-7xl mx-auto px-4 sm:px-6 lg:px-8"><div class="grid grid-cols-1 md:grid-cols-3 gap-8 mb-8"><div><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="inline-block w-56 hover:opacity-80 transition-opacity duration-200 mb-3" href="https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/"><img alt="Legalise Cannabis WA Party" loading="lazy" width="224" height="224" decoding="async" data-nimg="1" class="object-contain w-full h-auto" style="color:transparent" srcSet="/_next/image?url=%2Fimages%2FLCWA_side.png&w=256&q=75 1x, /_next/image?url=%2Fimages%2FLCWA_side.png&w=640&q=75 2x" src="/_next/image?url=%2Fimages%2FLCWA_side.png&w=640&q=75"/></a><div class="space-y-1"><h3 class="text-2xl font-bold text-white">Dr Brian Walker MLC</h3><p class="text-xs text-[#6cc24a]/70 italic mb-3">MB, ChB MRCGP, RACGP</p></div><div class="space-y-1"><a href="https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/4825653F0006D001/0/5C92DC01D1481DE4482586DF001
1F88D3?Open&Highlight=2,sitesearchyes,brian%20walker" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="block text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors">Member of the West Australian Legislative Council</a><a href="https://claremont.nextpracticehealth.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="block text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors">General Practitioner in Claremont</a><a href="https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="block text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors">Leader of the Legalise Cannabis Party WA</a></div></div><div class="space-y-4"><h4 class="text-lg font-semibold">Quick Links</h4><nav class="grid grid-cols-2 gap-2"><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/about">About</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/report">Economic Report</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/#goals">Political Goals</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/#help">How to Help</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/#contact">Contact</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/faq">FAQ</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/media">Media</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/">Party</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/donate">Donate</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/news">News</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/speeches">Speeches</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Walker_(politician)">Wikipedia</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/privacy">Privacy Policy</a><a class="text-gray-300 hover:text-[#6cc24a] transition-colors text-sm" href="/copyright">Copyright</a></nav></div><div class="space-y-6"><h4 class="text-xl font-bold text-white">Follow Me</h4><div class="grid grid-cols-4 gap-3 md:gap-4"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/BrianWalkerMLC/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="group flex flex-col items-center gap-1 md:gap-2" aria-label="Follow on Facebook"><div class="w-11 h-11 md:w-14 md:h-14 rounded-xl bg-white/10 group-hover:bg-[#6cc24a] group-hover:scale-110 group-hover:shadow-lg flex items-center justify-center min-w-[44px] min-h-[44px] transition-all duration-300"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" class="lucide lucide-facebook w-6 h-6 md:w-7 md:h-7 text-white" aria-hidden="true"><path d="M18 2h-3a5 5 0 0 0-5 5v3H7v4h3v8h4v-8h3l1-4h-4V7a1 1 0 0 1 1-1h3z"></path></svg></div><span class="text-xs text-white/70 group-hover:text-[#6cc24a] font-medium text-center transition-colors duration-300">Facebook</span></a><a href="https://www.instagram.com/brianwalkermlc/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="group flex flex-col items-center gap-1 md:gap-2" aria-label="Follow on Instagram"><div class="w-11 h-11 md:w-14 md:h-14 rounded-xl bg-white/10 group-hover:bg-[#6cc24a] group-hover:scale-110 group-hover:shadow-lg flex items-center justify-center min-w-[44px] min-h-[44px] transition-all duration-300"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" class="lucide lucide-instagram w-6 h-6 md:w-7 md:h-7 text-white" aria-hidden="true"><rect width="20" height="20" x="2" y="2" rx="5" ry="5"></rect><path d="M16 11.37A4 4 0 1 1 12.63 8 4 4 0 0 1 16 11.37z"></path><line x1="17.5" x2="17.51" y1="6.5" y2="6.5"></line></svg></div><span class="text-xs text-white/70 group-hover:text-[#6cc24a] font-medium text-center transition-colors duration-300">Instagram</span></a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="group flex flex-col items-center gap-1 md:gap-2" aria-label="Follow on YouTube">
1<div class="w-11 h-11 md:w-14 md:h-14 rounded-xl bg-white/10 group-hover:bg-[#6cc24a] group-hover:scale-110 group-hover:shadow-lg flex items-center justify-center min-w-[44px] min-h-[44px] transition-all duration-300"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" class="lucide lucide-youtube w-6 h-6 md:w-7 md:h-7 text-white" aria-hidden="true"><path d="M2.5 17a24.12 24.12 0 0 1 0-10 2 2 0 0 1 1.4-1.4 49.56 49.56 0 0 1 16.2 0A2 2 0 0 1 21.5 7a24.12 24.12 0 0 1 0 10 2 2 0 0 1-1.4 1.4 49.55 49.55 0 0 1-16.2 0A2 2 0 0 1 2.5 17"></path><path d="m10 15 5-3-5-3z"></path></svg></div><span class="text-xs text-white/70 group-hover:text-[#6cc24a] font-medium text-center transition-colors duration-300">YouTube</span></a><a href="https://bsky.app/profile/brianwalkermlc.com.au" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="group flex flex-col items-center gap-1 md:gap-2" aria-label="Follow on Bluesky"><div class="w-11 h-11 md:w-14 md:h-14 rounded-xl bg-white/10 group-hover:bg-[#6cc24a] group-hover:scale-110 group-hover:shadow-lg flex items-center justify-center min-w-[44px] min-h-[44px] transition-all duration-300"><svg class="w-5 h-5" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="currentColor" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path d="M12 10.8c-1.087-2.114-4.046-6.053-6.798-7.995C2.566.944 1.561 1.266.902 1.565.139 1.908 0 3.08 0 3.768c0 .69.378 5.65.624 6.479.815 2.736 3.713 3.66 6.383 3.364.136-.02.275-.038.409-.056-2.36.335-5.365 1.166-5.608 3.713-.24 2.548 2.016 3.27 5.06 3.27 3.043 0 4.727-1.065 5.132-2.286.405 1.221 2.09 2.286 5.132 2.286 3.045 0 5.3-.722 5.06-3.27-.243-2.547-3.247-3.378-5.608-3.713.134.018.273.036.409.056 2.67.296 5.568-.628 6.383-3.364.246-.829.624-5.79.624-6.479 0-.688-.139-1.86-.902-2.203-.659-.299-1.664-.621-4.3 1.24C16.046 4.747 13.087 8.686 12 10.8"></path></svg></div><span class="text-xs text-white/70 group-hover:text-[#6cc24a] font-medium text-center transition-colors duration-300">Bluesky</span></a><a href="https://x.com/BrianWalkerMLC" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="group flex flex-col items-center gap-1 md:gap-2" aria-label="Follow on X (Twitter)"><div class="w-11 h-11 md:w-14 md:h-14 rounded-xl bg-white/10 group-hover:bg-[#6cc24a] group-hover:scale-110 group-hover:shadow-lg flex items-center justify-center min-w-[44px] min-h-[44px] transition-all duration-300"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" class="lucide lucide-twitter w-6 h-6 md:w-7 md:h-7 text-white" aria-hidden="true"><path d="M22 4s-.7 2.1-2 3.4c1.6 10-9.4 17.3-18 11.6 2.2.1 4.4-.6 6-2C3 15.5.5 9.6 3 5c2.2 2.6 5.6 4.1 9 4-.9-4.2 4-6.6 7-3.8 1.1 0 3-1.2 3-1.2z"></path></svg></div><span class="text-xs text-white/70 group-hover:text-[#6cc24a] font-medium text-center transition-colors duration-300">X (Twitter)</span></a><a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@brianwalkermlc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="group flex flex-col items-center gap-1 md:gap-2" aria-label="Follow on TikTok"><div class="w-11 h-11 md:w-14 md:h-14 rounded-xl bg-white/10 group-hover:bg-[#6cc24a] group-hover:scale-110 group-hover:shadow-lg flex items-center justify-center min-w-[44px] min-h-[44px] transition-all duration-300"><svg class="w-5 h-5" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="currentColor" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path d="M19.59 6.69a4.83 4.83 0 0 1-3.77-4.25V2h-3.45v13.67a2.89 2.89 0 0 1-5.2 1.74 2.89 2.89 0 0 1 2.31-4.64 2.93 2.93 0 0 1 .88.13V9.4a6.84 6.84 0 0 0-1-.05A6.33 6.33 0 0 0 5 20.1a6.34 6.34 0 0 0 10.86-4.43v-7a8.16 8.16 0 0 0 4.77 1.52v-3.4a4.85 4.85 0 0 1-1-.1"></path></svg></div><span class="text-xs text-white/70 group-hover:text-[#6cc24a] font-medium text-center transition-colors duration-300">TikTok</span></a><a href="/newsletter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="group flex flex-col items-center gap-1 md:gap-2" aria-label="Follow on Newsletter">
1<div class="w-11 h-11 md:w-14 md:h-14 rounded-xl bg-white/10 group-hover:bg-[#6cc24a] group-hover:scale-110 group-hover:shadow-lg flex items-center justify-center min-w-[44px] min-h-[44px] transition-all duration-300"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" fill="none" stroke="currentColor" stroke-width="2" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round" class="lucide lucide-mail w-6 h-6 md:w-7 md:h-7 text-white" aria-hidden="true"><path d="m22 7-8.991 5.727a2 2 0 0 1-2.009 0L2 7"></path><rect x="2" y="4" width="20" height="16" rx="2"></rect></svg></div><span class="text-xs text-white/70 group-hover:text-[#6cc24a] font-medium text-center transition-colors duration-300">Newsletter</span></a></div></div></div><div class="border-t border-white/20 pt-8"><div class="mb-4 text-center"><p class="text-xs text-gray-400 leading-relaxed"><strong>Authorised by:</strong> Dr Brian Walker, Legalise Cannabis WA Party, 2 Parliament Place, West Perth, WA 6005</p></div><div class="mb-4 text-center"><p class="text-xs text-gray-400 leading-relaxed"><strong>Disclaimer:</strong> The content provided by Dr Brian Walker, and any linked materials, are not intended and should not be construed as medical advice. If the reader or any other person has a medical concern, they should consult a licensed physician or appropriately-credentialed health care worker in your community in all matters relating to their health.</p></div><div class="mb-4 text-center"><p class="text-xs text-gray-400 leading-relaxed">The Office of the Hon Dr Brian Walker MLC acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their cultures; and to Elders past, present and emerging.</p></div><div class="text-center pt-4 border-t border-white/20"><p class="text-sm text-gray-400">© <!-- -->2026<!-- --> Dr Brian Walker MLC. All rights reserved.</p></div></div></div></footer><!--$--><!--/$--><!--$!--><template data-dgst="BAILOUT_TO_CLIENT_SIDE_RENDERING"></template><!--/$-->
1<script src="/_next/static/chunks/b2b8920bee020f01.js" id="_R_" async=""></script>
1<script>(self.__next_f=self.__next_f||[]).push([0])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"1:\"$Sreact.fragment\"\n2:I[39756,[\"/_next/static/chunks/ff1a16fafef87110.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/7dd66bdf8a7e5707.js\"],\"default\"]\n3:I[37457,[\"/_next/static/chunks/ff1a16fafef87110.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/7dd66bdf8a7e5707.js\"],\"default\"]\n4:I[60450,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\"],\"default\"]\n5:I[79520,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\"],\"\"]\n6:I[43880,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\"],\"Analytics\"]\n7:I[57215,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\"],\"SpeedInsights\"]\n9:I[97367,[\"/_next/static/chunks/ff1a16fafef87110.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/7dd66bdf8a7e5707.js\"],\"OutletBoundary\"]\nb:I[11533,[\"/_next/static/chunks/ff1a16fafef87110.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/7dd66bdf8a7e5707.js\"],\"AsyncMetadataOutlet\"]\nd:I[97367,[\"/_next/static/chunks/ff1a16fafef87110.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/7dd66bdf8a7e5707.js\"],\"ViewportBoundary\"]\nf:I[97367,[\"/_next/static/chunks/ff1a16fafef87110.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/7dd66bdf8a7e5707.js\"],\"MetadataBoundary\"]\n10:\"$Sreact.suspense\"\n12:I[68027,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\"],\"default\"]\n:HL[\"/_next/static/chunks/34d933785a17edf3.css\",\"style\"]\n:HL[\"/_next/static/chunks/18b9fc07a0b2c6f9.css\",\"style\"]\n:HL[\"/_next/static/media/797e433ab948586e-s.p.29207c2f.woff2\",\"font\",{\"crossOrigin\":\"\",\"type\":\"font/woff2\"}]\n:HL[\"/_next/static/media/caa3a2e1cccd8315-s.p.3b6cae6d.woff2\",\"font\",{\"crossOrigin\":\"\",\"type\":\"font/woff2\"}]\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"0:{\"P\":null,\"b\":\"PVvt2sMgooc0N4v3UMf7h\",\"p\":\"\",\"c\":[\"\",\"news\"],\"i\":false,\"f\":[[[\"\",{\"children\":[\"news\",{\"children\":[\"__PAGE__\",{}]}]},\"$undefined\",\"$undefined\",true],[\"\",[\"$\",\"$1\",\"c\",{\"children\":[[[\"$\",\"link\",\"0\",{\"rel\":\"stylesheet\",\"href\":\"/_next/static/chunks/34d933785a17edf3.css\",\"precedence\":\"next\",\"crossOrigin\":\"$undefined\",\"nonce\":\"$undefined\"}],[\"$\",\"link\",\"1\",{\"rel\":\"stylesheet\",\"href\":\"/_next/static/chunks/18b9fc07a0b2c6f9.css\",\"precedence\":\"next\",\"crossOrigin\":\"$undefined\",\"nonce\":\"$undefined\"}],[\"$\",\"script\",\"script-0\",{\"src\":\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\",\"async\":true,\"nonce\":\"$undefined\"}]],[\"$\",\"html\",null,{\"lang\":\"en\",\"suppressHydrationWarning\":true,\"children\":[\"$\",\"body\",null,{\"className\":\"geist_a71539c9-module__T19VSG__variable geist_mono_8d43a2aa-module__8Li5zG__variable antialiased\",\"children\":[[\"$\",\"a\",null,{\"href\":\"#main-content\",\"className\":\"sr-only focus:not-sr-only focus:absolute focus:top-4 focus:left-4 focus:z-50 focus:px-4 focus:py-2 focus:bg-[#00653b] focus:text-white focus:rounded-md focus:shadow-lg focus:outline-none focus:ring-2 focus:ring-[#6cc24a] focus:ring-offset-2\",\"children\":\"Skip to main content\"}],[\"$\",\"$L2\",null,{\"parallelRouterKey\":\"children\",\"error\":\"$undefined\",\"errorStyles\":\"$undefined\",\"errorScripts\":\"$undefined\",\"template\":[\"$\",\"$L3\",null,{}],\"templateStyles\":\"$undefined\",\"templateScripts\":\"$undefined\",\"notFound\":[[[\"$\",\"title\",null,{\"children\":\"404: This page could not be found.\"}],[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"style\":{\"fontFamily\":\"system-ui,\\\"Segoe UI\\\",Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif,\\\"Apple Color Emoji\\\",\\\"Segoe UI Emoji\\\"\",\"height\":\"100vh\",\"textAlign\":\"center\",\"display\":\"flex\",\"flexDirection\":\"column\",\"alignItems\":\"center\",\"justifyContent\":\"center\"},\"children\":[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"children\":[[\"$\",\"style\",null,{\"dangerouslySetInnerHTML\":{\"__html\":\"body{color:#000;background:#fff;margin:0}.next-error-h1{border-right:1px solid rgba(0,0,0,.3)}@media (prefers-color-scheme:dark){body{color:#fff;background:#000}.next-error-h1{border-right:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.3)}}\"}}],[\"$\",\"h1\",null,{\"className\":\"next-error-h1\",\"style\":{\"display\":\"inline-block\",\"margin\":\"0 20px 0 0\",\"padding\":\"0 23px 0 0\",\"fontSize\":24,\"fontWeight\":500,\"verticalAlign\":\"top\",\"lineHeight\":\"49px\"},\"children\":404}],[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"style\":{\"display\":\"inline-block\"},\"children\":[\"$\",\"h2\",null,{\"style\":{\"fontSize\":14,\"fontWeight\":400,\"lineHeight\":\"49px\",\"margin\":0},\"children\":\"This page could not be found.\"}]}]]}]}]],[]],\"forbidden\":\"$undefined\",\"unauthorized\":\"$undefined\"}],[\"$\",\"$L4\",null,{\"gaId\":\"G-R96M1RT9HC\"}],[\"$\",\"$L5\",null,{\"id\":\"metricool-tracker\",\"strategy\":\"afterInteractive\",\"dangerouslySetInnerHTML\":{\"__html\":\"function loadScript(a){var b=document.getElementsByTagName(\\\"head\\\")[0],c=document.createElement(\\\"script\\\");c.type=\\\"text/javascript\\\",c.src=\\\"https://tracker.metricool.com/resources/be.js\\\",c.onreadystatechange=a,c.onload=a,b.appendChild(c)}loadScript(function(){beTracker.t({hash:\\\"bfb8fd05268b691f1981d52f9a77c9d1\\\"})});\"}}],[\"$\",\"$L6\",null,{}],[\"$\",\"$L7\",null,{}]]}]}]]}],{\"children\":[\"news\",[\"$\",\"$1\",\"c\",{\"children\":[null,[[\"$\",\"script\",null,{\"type\":\"application/ld+json\",\"dangerouslySetInnerHTML\":{\"__html\":\"{\\\"@context\\\":\\\"https://schema.org\\\",\\\"@type\\\":\\\"BreadcrumbList\\\",\\\"itemListElement\\\":[{\\\"@type\\\":\\\"ListItem\\\",\\\"position\\\":1,\\\"name\\\":\\\"Home\\\",\\\"item\\\":\\\"https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au\\\"},{\\\"@type\\\":\\\"ListItem\\\",\\\"position\\\":2,\\\"name\\\":\\\"News\\\",\\\"item\\\":\\\"https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/news\\\"}]}\"}}],[\"$\",\"$L2\",null,{\"parallelRouterKey\":\"children\",\"error\":\"$undefined\",\"errorStyles\":\"$undefined\",\"errorScripts\":\"$undefined\",\"template\":[\"$\",\"$L3\",null,{}],\"templateStyles\":\"$undefined\",\"templateScripts\":\"$undefined\",\"notFound\":\"$undefined\",\"forbidden\":\"$undefined\",\"unauthorized\":\"$undefined\"}]]]}],{\"children\":[\"__PAGE__\",[\"$\",\"$1\",\"c\",{\"children\":[\"$L8\",[[\"$\",\"script\",\"script-0\",{\"src\":\"/_next/static/chunks/16db55413038cbc4.js\",\"async\":true,\"nonce\":\"$undefined\"}],[\"$\",\"script\",\"script-1\",{\"src\":\"/_next/static/chunks/da8d21d672c27d5a.js\",\"async\":true,\"nonce\":\"$undefined\"}
1],[\"$\",\"script\",\"script-2\",{\"src\":\"/_next/static/chunks/36e434ee1df01259.js\",\"async\":true,\"nonce\":\"$undefined\"}]],[\"$\",\"$L9\",null,{\"children\":[\"$La\",[\"$\",\"$Lb\",null,{\"promise\":\"$@c\"}]]}]]}],{},null,false]},null,false]},null,false],[\"$\",\"$1\",\"h\",{\"children\":[null,[[\"$\",\"$Ld\",null,{\"children\":\"$Le\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",null,{\"name\":\"next-size-adjust\",\"content\":\"\"}]],[\"$\",\"$Lf\",null,{\"children\":[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"hidden\":true,\"children\":[\"$\",\"$10\",null,{\"fallback\":null,\"children\":\"$L11\"}]}]}]]}],false]],\"m\":\"$undefined\",\"G\":[\"$12\",[[\"$\",\"link\",\"0\",{\"rel\":\"stylesheet\",\"href\":\"/_next/static/chunks/34d933785a17edf3.css\",\"precedence\":\"next\",\"crossOrigin\":\"$undefined\",\"nonce\":\"$undefined\"}],[\"$\",\"link\",\"1\",{\"rel\":\"stylesheet\",\"href\":\"/_next/static/chunks/18b9fc07a0b2c6f9.css\",\"precedence\":\"next\",\"crossOrigin\":\"$undefined\",\"nonce\":\"$undefined\"}]]],\"s\":false,\"S\":true}\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"e:[[\"$\",\"meta\",\"0\",{\"charSet\":\"utf-8\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"1\",{\"name\":\"viewport\",\"content\":\"width=device-width, initial-scale=1\"}]]\na:null\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"13:I[27201,[\"/_next/static/chunks/ff1a16fafef87110.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/7dd66bdf8a7e5707.js\"],\"IconMark\"]\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"c:{\"metadata\":[[\"$\",\"title\",\"0\",{\"children\":\"News \u0026 Updates | Dr Brian Walker MLC\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"1\",{\"name\":\"description\",\"content\":\"Latest news, parliamentary updates, and advocacy work from Dr Brian Walker MLC - Your Doctor in Parliament\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"2\",{\"name\":\"author\",\"content\":\"Dr Brian Walker\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"3\",{\"name\":\"keywords\",\"content\":\"Brian Walker,news,parliamentary updates,Legalise Cannabis WA,Western Australia politics,healthcare reform\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"4\",{\"name\":\"creator\",\"content\":\"Dr Brian Walker\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"5\",{\"name\":\"publisher\",\"content\":\"Office of Hon Dr Brian Walker MLC\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"6\",{\"name\":\"robots\",\"content\":\"index, follow\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"7\",{\"name\":\"googlebot\",\"content\":\"index, follow, max-image-preview:large, max-snippet:-1\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"8\",{\"name\":\"category\",\"content\":\"Politics \u0026 Government\"}],[\"$\",\"link\",\"9\",{\"rel\":\"canonical\",\"href\":\"https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/news\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"10\",{\"property\":\"og:title\",\"content\":\"News \u0026 Updates | Dr Brian Walker MLC\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"11\",{\"property\":\"og:description\",\"content\":\"Latest news, parliamentary updates, and advocacy work from Dr Brian Walker MLC - Your Doctor in Parliament\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"12\",{\"property\":\"og:url\",\"content\":\"https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/news\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"13\",{\"property\":\"og:image\",\"content\":\"https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/images/door-og.jpg\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"14\",{\"property\":\"og:type\",\"content\":\"website\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"15\",{\"name\":\"twitter:card\",\"content\":\"summary_large_image\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"16\",{\"name\":\"twitter:site\",\"content\":\"@BrianWalkerMLC\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"17\",{\"name\":\"twitter:creator\",\"content\":\"@BrianWalkerMLC\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"18\",{\"name\":\"twitter:title\",\"content\":\"Hon Dr Brian Walker MLC | Your Doctor in Parliament\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"19\",{\"name\":\"twitter:description\",\"content\":\"45+ years as GP, fighting for evidence-based cannabis reform \u0026 progressive policy in WA Parliament. Leader of the Legalise Cannabis Party WA.\"}],[\"$\",\"meta\",\"20\",{\"name\":\"twitter:image\",\"content\":\"https://www.brianwalkermlc.com.au/images/door-og.jpg\"}],[\"$\",\"link\",\"21\",{\"rel\":\"shortcut icon\",\"href\":\"/favicon-nav.svg\"}],[\"$\",\"link\",\"22\",{\"rel\":\"icon\",\"href\":\"/favicon-nav.svg\"}],[\"$\",\"link\",\"23\",{\"rel\":\"apple-touch-icon\",\"href\":\"/favicon-nav.svg\"}],[\"$\",\"$L13\",\"24\",{}]],\"error\":null,\"digest\":\"$undefined\"}\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"11:\"$c:metadata\"\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"14:I[88589,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/16db55413038cbc4.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/da8d21d672c27d5a.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/36e434ee1df01259.js\"],\"default\"]\n15:I[17752,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/16db55413038cbc4.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/da8d21d672c27d5a.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/36e434ee1df01259.js\"],\"default\"]\n16:T52d2,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eWhat turns a doctor into a criminal? Lack of informed consent. Patients have every right to expect that what a doctor does is for their benefit, and when there is real risk of anything going wrong, especially then, I sit down with them and go through a form. There are four parts to consider, none of them optional. This is what I will do for you, this is what could go wrong, including the things that are unlikely but serious, this is what else could be done instead. And the last part matters most: do you still agree, now that you know what could go wrong? You are free to say no, and if you do not agree, you should. Signing a form that lists the benefits and leaves out the risks is not informed consent at all, and if that occurs and if it is discovered, then doctors land in front of the medical board with not a leg to stand on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis week the patient is the State of Western Australia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the middle of this month a senior American congressman came to Australia. For years he was the chairman of his Houseâs foreign affairs committee, and on this visit he met our Prime Minister and three of our senior Ministers. Asked whether Australia would join the United States in a war with China over Taiwan, he said, as the Sydney Morning Herald reported it, that it was âabsolutely criticalâ that we did. âI donât think it was even questioned. Itâs just obvious.â Back in Washington, he told The Australian that Australia was already a target for Americaâs enemies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat was that again? A politician from another country told us we are already a target? Who else has said anything about this yet? Not our Prime Minister. Not our Premier. Not any Minister who has spent the last three years telling us what AUKUS will do for us. A visitor told us the most important thing on the form, and he told it to a newspaper. I have looked for a reply from Canberra and I cannot find one on the record. One former Prime Minister quickly gave a reply, but more of that in a moment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRemember that consent form, and the punishment for a doctor who has not complied? Letâs go through it, part by part, and see what Western Australia was actually told.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"what-it-will-do-for-you\"\u003eWhat it will do for you\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis part we have heard, over and over. A Minister in the other place told the House on the eighth of this month that AUKUS âmay represent one of the biggest economic benefits for Western Australia in many decadesâ. When the Government brought in the Bill to make Defence West a statutory authority in June, it said it was âpositioning Western Australia as the home of Australiaâs nuclear-powered submarine capabilityâ. The Commonwealth has committed an initial twelve billion dollars to Henderson, with more than twenty-five billion indicated over the decade, and talks of ten thousand jobs over twenty years. The Government now expects defence to become the second largest industry in this State.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are real jobs, and plenty of families in Rockingham and Kwinana will be glad of them. At a time of real cost-of-living pressures and lack of affordable housing, there is promised for some a healthy pay packet. But wait a minute. When a member of parliament this month asked the Treasurer whether anyone had modelled what making defence our second industry would cost every other industry, the answer referred to a diversification framework from 2019 and said nothing about whether any modelling had been done. The question was about the modelling, the answer bypassed the question, and we see a long and glossy benefits section of the form without anyone having costed it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"what-we-asked\"\u003eWhat we asked\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eLast week I said I would put four questions to the State. You can check if you want, but I found the State had been asked, again and again, on the notice paper of our own Parliament, and I see no real answer for any of them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsked what would happen to radioactive waste from an American submarine tender working at HMAS Stirling, the Government replied that âthese questions fall under the responsibility of the commonwealth governmentâ. Asked whether the Premier had been briefed on security, on access to Cockburn Sound, on onshore nuclear waste, the answer last year was that, because Canberra had not yet decided the boundary of the defence precinct, âno briefings have occurred on its potential impactâ. I asked the Premier last November whether we had any assurance that American ships based here would keep to international law, and whether this State would prosecute if they did not. âDefence, national security and the United States bilateral relationship are the responsibility of the Australian Government.â I asked about the studies into access to Garden Island. âWork has commenced and is ongoing.â\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd this month, while the Westport Bill went through the Assembly, a member asked whether the Royal Australian Navy or the United States Navy could lay
1sonar or anything else inside a port footprint that is meant to last a hundred years without telling the State at all. The Ministerâs answer is worth reading slowly. âDefence has extreme powers in all cases.â And: âwe cannot bind the Commonwealth.â\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the State describing its own position. It does not know, it is not told, and it cannot insist.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"what-could-go-wrong\"\u003eWhat could go wrong\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere is the part of the form that would result in punishment for the doctor should it be left out, and it has never been explained to the people it concerns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince the twentieth of August this State has had an Interim State Hazard Plan for the release of radioactive material from a nuclear-powered warship. It was put online and reported once in the press. Its review date is listed as âTBCâ. According to a question now on the notice paper, one of its own appendices concedes that an accident worse than the one it plans for is âconceivableâ. That question, lodged on the eighth of September, asks whether the plan has been checked against the actual submarines coming to Stirling. It has not been answered. In June I asked the Health Minister about stable iodine, the tablets you give people to protect the thyroid after a radiation release. I was told there are âestablished plans and exercised processes to pre-position and distribute supplies of stable iodine to local hospitalsâ. Which hospitals, and how much, I was not told.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet me be fair, because a doctor who frightens a patient to win an argument is a bad doctor. Nuclear-powered submarines have been visiting this State since 1993 without a release. The plan puts catastrophic failure of a reactor at about one in ten million per vessel, per year, and the Minister says no adverse event has ever occurred. I believe her, and I would still want to be told. In 1992 our High Court held that a one-in-fourteen-thousand risk of blindness was one a patient was entitled to hear about, because a reasonable person would want to know. Rare is not the same as immaterial, and a plan on a website is not a conversation in Rockingham. Nobody in this State has been consulted on the question that matters. The Government set up a taskforce, which ran a survey, which drew nearly nine hundred submissions, and housing came out on top. Of course it did. They were asked about the opportunities and challenges of something already decided. Nobody asked them whether the risks were acceptable. Were they even told what the risks were?\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"the-fine-print\"\u003eThe fine print\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvery form has a section in small type about who pays and who decides. Here is our fine print section:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia has paid two billion American dollars into the United Statesâ own submarine shipyards, in three instalments, with another billion pledged. That money builds their capacity. Under their law, before a single boat is handed to us, their President must certify to their Congress that the United States can spare it without weakening its own fleet. Their yards are turning out a little over one submarine a year against the more than two they would need to supply us and themselves. A former Prime Minister, in a submission to an inquiry this year, put it bluntly: there is âa very real risk Australia gets no Virginias at allâ. We pay in advance, they decide whether we receive. I have a word for a relationship in which the smaller partner pays tribute and the larger decides what it gets in return, and âallianceâ is not it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen there is the gap in the story. In 2023, asked whether a promise to fight over Taiwan had been given in exchange for the submarines, our Defence Minister said: âThe answer to that is of course not. Of course not. And nor was one sought.â Last year, when the Pentagon pressed us to say what we would do in a Taiwan war, the Governmentâs answer was that such a decision is made ânot in advance but by the government of the dayâ. This month the visitor says our joining is âjust obviousâ. Both of those accounts cannot be the whole truth. And Western Australia is the place that hosts the difference between them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe rules on what the submarines carry have moved too. In July our Minister for Defence Industry said that ânuclear weapons will not be based in Australiaâ, and in the same breath that we ârespect the US position that they will neither confirm nor denyâ what any individual boat is carrying. Those two sentences sit together only if you never ask a follow-up question. Our visitor was asked it. The US N
1avy plans to arm some of its Virginia-class submarines with nuclear cruise missiles from 2032, and he was asked whether boats rotating through Stirling could be carrying them. âI think itâs logical to assume that they would be,â he said. âI really have to be careful on that one.â The honest version for Rockingham is this: if one day there is a nuclear weapon tied up at Garden Island, our own Government will not tell you.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"what-else-we-could-do\"\u003eWhat else we could do\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eA proper consent conversation always includes the alternatives, and this is where our public debate has failed most completely, because it has been offered as a choice between two things only. You are with Washington, or you are with Beijing. That is a wonderful example of how to phrase a false choice and I refuse it as I hope any sensible person would. There are almost always more than two choices for any situation, but âfalse dichotomiesâ are a wonderful tool for misdirecting, and dividing to conquer. A member in the other place, speaking on the Westport Bill this month, put the real alternative better than most: âWe want to be an ally; we do not want to be a client.â I am for Western Australia and I stand for Australia, and I do not think either is served by making this coast the forward base of somebody elseâs war plan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLook at where we sit. Our nearest neighbours and our biggest customers are to the north. When AUKUS was announced, Indonesia said it was âdeeply concernedâ about âthe continuing arms race and power projection in the regionâ, and Malaysiaâs Prime Minister warned it could set off a nuclear arms race. The Philippines and Singapore were more welcoming, and Indonesia has since thanked Canberra for its transparency. The regionâs view was mixed. My complaint is not that the region was hostile. It is that nobody in this country weighed its view in public. Western Australia, the State closest to those neighbours, the State that sells to them, buys from them and lives beside them, was never asked what it thought.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd we already host one of the facilities that makes Australia part of a planned for war. The naval communication station at North West Cape near Exmouth exists to talk to submarines under the sea. Now letâs be clear, it is sensible and proper to look at exigencies and make plans for the unthinkable, the unlikely, the undesirable, and war and threats of war should be planned for. Serious analysts, including some of the allianceâs firmest supporters, have written for years that Pine Gap would be among the first targets in a war between the great powers. One of our most respected strategic thinkers put the logic in a single sentence: the only circumstance in which Australia could credibly find itself under attack from China would be if we joined America in a war with China over Taiwan. Two former Prime Ministers, one from each side of politics, now say that AUKUS has diminished our sovereignty or that it is âeffectively being shreddedâ. The former Prime Minister who answered our visitor this month said that Taiwan âis not an Australian interest, certainly not a vital Australian interest, certainly not one we would go to war overâ. Or would we?\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"the-right-to-say-no\"\u003eThe right to say no\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe last part of the consent form is the one that makes it a form and not a notice. You may refuse.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext month the Land Forces weapons exposition comes to the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre. For it, this Parliament has passed special police powers running for ten days around a three-day event. They allow search without suspicion across a block of the city, the removal of face coverings, and exclusion lists that people are not told they are on. The ban list includes bicycle locks, superglue and glass jars. When the powers were announced in June, the Police Minister said there was âcredible intelligenceâ that protest groups intended to attend, âincluding anti-war, anti-AUKUS and pro-Palestinian networksâ. Asked in our chamber what that intelligence was, the Government said it âwill not be disclosed or discussed any furtherâ.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI spoke on that Bill. I accepted, and I still accept, the intent of keeping police officers and the public safe. What I said in the chamber was that special powers are only special as long as they are special, and that the people who clean the city at six in the morning, or serve in its restaurants at eleven at night, will live for ten days inside a legal regime built for somebody else. I
1will add this now. When a Government names the people who object to a policy as the reason for suspending ordinary rights, it has told you what it thinks of the most significant and last line on the consent form.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePut all of that together and a diagnosis appears, and it is a structural one. Defence belongs to Canberra; that is in the Constitution and I do not dispute it. I am not claiming a legal veto for this State. I am claiming the truth before the decisions still to come, and a voice in them. So Canberra owns the decision. But the submarines, the dockyards, the hazard plan, the housing pressure, the special powers and the target all live here. The State owns the consequences. And every time a Western Australian asks about the consequences, one level of government can point at the other, saying it is Canberraâs responsibility not ours, while Canberra says nothing at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI do not think that requires anyone to be a villain. What we are currently seeing is that every party at the table gains from talking about the benefits and none of them gains from talking about the risks. Our State is not a helpless bystander. We have a voice. A cooperation agreement with the Commonwealth was signed in October 2024, and we are building a statutory authority, a port authority and a hospital plan around this project. Our Stateâs voice has been used to consent. It has been a âyesâ. It is a willing partner and an unwilling advocate. That pattern is not a new one. When the Productivity Commission this year floated changes to how the GST is shared, potentially removing billions from Western Australiaâs share, there was not one Western Australian at that table either. Can we trust Canberra to look after the West on something as grave as war? On this record? No.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"the-case-for-it\"\u003eThe case for it\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strongest case for AUKUS deserves to be heard at full strength, and it is not a stupid case. As I said a moment ago, it is sensible and proper to plan for the unthinkable, and the unthinkable includes war. Our trade arrives by sea, our old submarines have to be replaced by something, and a submarine powered by a reactor can stay hidden at sea for months and cover distances a conventional boat cannot. China has built the largest navy in the world by number of ships, and built it fast. Submarines that make any attempt at coercion more costly are deterrence, and deterrence is meant to prevent wars rather than start them. Choosing an ally is itself a sovereign decision, and most Australians agree with the choice: in this yearâs Lowy Institute poll, seventy-three per cent said the American alliance is important to our security and sixty-eight per cent supported the submarines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow stand on the other shore, because a country that wants to avoid a war has to be able to do that. China looks out from its coast and sees American forces in Japan and South Korea, on Guam and at sites in the Philippines, and from next year a rotating American submarine force working from a base in Western Australia. Seen from Beijing, that is encirclement, and a navy built fast is what a country builds when it believes it is being surrounded. China is no innocent in this. The trade punishment it handed Australia in 2020 was real, and so were the live-fire drills its warships ran off our east coast last year. But both sides make the deterrence argument, from opposite shores. Understanding that is not taking Chinaâs side. It is how you avoid a war.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo the question is not whether Australia should be able to defend itself. It should. The question is whether the case for AUKUS rests on our defence at all, or on something else. Take away the argument for the submarine and look at what is left. A deal negotiated in secret and announced as done. A payment schedule where we fund the American shipyards first and their President decides later whether we get a boat. A rotation of American submarines serving American plans from our coast. And a senior American telling us our part in his war is obvious. That is not the case for a submarine. It is the case for a junior partner that says yes and keeps quiet. Be
1ijing claims Taiwan and has never ruled out force to take it. But in my view the push to put Australia into that war is coming from Washington, not from Perth and not from Canberra. It is Americans who plan for that war and call our joining it obvious, and it is Australians who pay for our part in it, even as the same visitor tells us he would like to see us spend more, and a great deal of what we spend goes on American missiles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd even if you grant the whole case for the capability, consent still does not follow from it. An operation can be the right operation and still require consent, and the surgeon most certain of being right is exactly the one who most needs the form. Look, too, at what the same poll found on the one question that matters most. If China invaded Taiwan, fifty-three per cent of Australians would oppose sending our military personnel to fight. Only forty-four per cent would support it. The visitor calls our joining âobviousâ. Most of us already say no. That answer has never been put to us, and it has certainly never been put to the people who live around the Sound.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"what-consent-now-requires\"\u003eWhat consent now requires\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first rotation of American and British submarines is due at Stirling from 2027. That is the clock. After that, every question on this form gets harder to ask and easier to ignore. So here is what informed consent requires now, for the benefit of the people of this State. All we need is for our State government to agree to present us with the consent form.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTake the hazard plan off the website and explain it, in person and in plain language, in Rockingham, in Kwinana and on the Peninsula, and answer the question on the notice paper about whether it has been tested against the boats it is for. Have Canberra state in writing to this State what has and has not been promised to Washington, including what the submarines visiting our coast may carry. Hold a proper inquiry of this Parliament into what AUKUS means for Western Australia: the risks, the costs to other industries, the housing, the rights of people who object. And let no Australian Government commit our sons and daughters, in advance or by silence, to a war over Taiwan that most Australians have already said they do not want.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou are entitled to ask your member, State and federal, the two questions every patient is entitled to ask before they sign. What are the risks? And can we say no? A signature taken without the risks is not consent. It is compliance, and the people of Western Australia have never been asked to sign.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"17:T4040,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eOn Tuesday the Minister for Police stood up in the other place and gave the House some numbers. The Other Place is how we in the Legislative Council refer to the Legislative Assembly. It is the place we do not like to refer to and perhaps one reason why is described in the next sentences. The Minister stated that since July, when cocaine was added to the roadside test, more than eight thousand drivers have been swabbed. Over a thousand came back positive and ninety-seven of those were for cocaine. He said it would keep our roads safer and made a small joke at the Speakerâs expense, and the House moved on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEight thousand swabs, a thousand and something positive, ninety-seven of them cocaine. Do the maths. Ninety-seven from a thousand and something leaves nine hundred and something, and those nine hundred were not cocaine. They were the three drugs the test already looked for: methamphetamine, MDMA and THC. No-one stated how many of the nine hundred positive tests were THC. Nor did anyone mention how many of the positive THC tests were for drivers who held a prescription from a doctor. Why? Because the State does not know. Why does the State not know? He did clearly name the offence, which was an example of my article from last week about âthe wordâ that appears today carrying a fine for driving with a âprescribed illicit drugâ in your oral fluid. By âprescribedâ is meant the drug has been listed by regulation, on the Governmentâs say. Illicit means the word we chose in 1950. The price is up to twelve hundred and fifty dollars the first time, and the second time your licence for at least six months, all the while not one word ever states whether or not you could have walked a straight line. Impairment was named but never has to be proven.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow notice how cocaine got onto that list. It was not by an Act of Parliament but by a regulation, signed in July. This is the same kind of instrument that has been used to alter the rules of this test four times since 2017. The list can be changed on an afternoon, without a vote. What cannot be changed on an afternoon is the offence itself, which sits in the Road Traffic Act and contains no defence at all, not for a prescription, not for a doctorâs letter, and not for the absence of any proof of impairment. Tasmania has had that exception since 2005. Victoria gave its magistrates the discretion to keep an unimpaired patientâs licence last year. New South Wales passed a law for it through both its Houses on Thursday. The only way to put it into Western Australian law is to change the Act, and nobody has brought that Bill. The Bill in my name changes a different Act; it changes the word itself. The advice on what to do about patients and this test has been sitting on a ministerâs desk since after January, in a report the Government commissioned from its own experts, and I will come back to it. You can imagine how I felt when I saw that the list can be lengthened on whichever day the Government chooses, but the defence cannot be added until the House chooses, and the House has not been asked, because the Government has decided not to take its own report to cabinet for a decision.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLast week I gave you four questions to ask of any law. Who chose the word? What does the word carry that the evidence does not? Who does the word punish? And who would have to change it? I said I would put these four questions to the people who profit from keeping the word unchanged, so here they are, five of them, and then one more who is not on the list because he wrote it. I will start with my favourite beginning question: who is the beneficiary that nobody ever asks about?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is the trade. Cannabis is, by a wide margin, the most consumed currently prohibited plant-based substance in this country. The Crime Commission measures it in the sewage of millions of people every year. Nine out of ten cannabis arrests in Australia, on the last national count, are of the user, not the supplier. The word âillicitâ defines a business that government has given to the criminal community, and they see this as the tradeâs price list. That word allows them to set the premium, remove the receipt, and make the customer the criminal, leaving the supplier as the one in the chain the law hardly ever reaches in any numbers that matter. Ask the four questions. The criminal fraternity did not choose the word, but being given the business to run did not make them unhappy. The word carries a price the plant does not deserve. It punishes the buyer. And who would have to change it? Not the criminal fraternity, not at all! They will not be sitting in a committee room debating legislation. This is the cleanest profit of all: a business model written for the trade by the very law meant to close it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is the machine. Fifty-three thousand roadside swabs a year on a sixteen-million-dollar alcohol and drug testing line. Six and a half thousand charges for possessing cannabis
1in 2024, up from five thousand two years earlier. And on the driving side, every positive swab is a court matter, because the Police cannot issue an infringement for that offence even if they wanted to. But wait, there is more! The Police Force told me, in writing, in August, that it does not keep records of medicinal cannabis prescriptions, and that the drug-driving offence âcan only be manually extractedâ from its own system, so it cannot tell me how many of the drivers it has put before a court for THC were patients doing what their doctor told them. We have built a machine that puts thousands of people before a court every year over this plant, and for the drivers among them the machine cannot say how many were sick. This is not about hiding the number, it is worse than that. It is a number no-one could be bothered to document. Then there is the account. When property is confiscated from someone declared a drug trafficker, the money goes into a fund, and last year that fund took a record thirty million dollars. Out of it the prosecuting office receives a base allocation and then a variable sum on top, which the Auditor General in 2018 called a bonus payment, triggered when the money coming in beat a target, and which the Government told me in June has no target. Nobody prosecutes anyone for the money; I am not saying that and I do not believe it. I am saying that an account which pays on volume trains the institutions it pays, the way any incentive does, and that nobody can tell you what share of that thirty million came from cannabis, because that number is not published either. The four questions, then. The machine did not choose the word. The word carries the presumption that a positive swab is a dangerous driver, which the evidence does not carry. It punishes whoever it swabs. And it would be changed by the same Government that makes the regulations, on an afternoon, if it wished.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third is the gate. The same plant, from the same field, is a Schedule 8 controlled medicine if you have a script and a Schedule 9 prohibited substance if you do not. I could go on to describe the gatekeepers in the same terms but on the other hand, they have no choice. That word âillicitâ is not one they chose, and they have to abide by the rules set for them, so let me just state that they did not choose the word. That word âillicitâ carries a queue. It punishes everyone on the wrong side of the script, and the word would have to be changed by the same house. The gate-keepers have no vote, but also no compelling reason to want one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth is not a person but a position, the comfort of not having to leave the position. When my Bill was put to the vote in 2024, the Governmentâs reason was that it had âmade no change to its positionâ. The other sideâs reason was that cannabis is âan entrance drugâ, retold with a great deal of feeling and no evidence behind it. Both sides of the House voted the Bill down on the voices, without troubling to call a division. One year earlier the Minister told the House that changing these laws was ânot a priorityâ. I believe that. It is not a priority. Because holding the word costs the holder nothing. Change it, and one crash on one wet night becomes the changeâs fault in every headline in the State. Keep it, and six and a half thousand charges a year stay a statistic that carries nobodyâs name. That is not villainy. It is the shape of a comfortable status quo, and whoever occupies that position feels the same comfort. The four questions here are easy. The position chose the word, or inherited it and kept the receipt. The word carries the positionâs reputation for firmness. It punishes people who do not vote in that status quo place, and the status quo position of government is the only one on this list who could change it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fifth is, I regret to say, my own profession. Medicine is organised around the naming of a condition and the treatment of what the name implies. That is a good discipline when the name is earned, as I said last week. But there is a kind of unwellness that arrives in the consulting room with no name, only a story: a job that ended, a marriage that curdled, a childhood that should not have happened, a body that hurts for reasons no scan will show. What the patient is doing about it, very often, is medicating. And the word âillicitâ is the gift the system gives itself here, because as long as the plant is the crime, nobody has to ask what the plant was for. We spend about two per cent of the countryâs health budget on stopping people getting sick, and most of the rest on treating what they have already got. The word keeps the frame. As long as we have a drug problem we do not have to have a wellness problem, and a wellness problem would require us to look upstream at the things that no prescription reaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd then, I am afraid, there is me. In June 2024, when she rose to tell the House why the Government would not support my Bill, the Leader of the House acknowledged that I was bringing it because it is âdirectly linked to the reason forâ my election. She was right, and it is not a comfortable thing to have said about you in Hansard. My seat exists because the word exists. So does the Bill. So, if we are honest, does the newsletter you may have been reading. Ask the four questions of me, then. I did not choose the word, but I have made a living off the fight against it. It carries, for me, a reason to be listened to. It punishes people I have sat across from, and I have not yet been the one punished. And who would have to change it? If I could I would, and on the day the House does I will have to find something else to write about on a Monday. I would not mind. There is no shortage: the cost of living, the price of fuel, the state of our environment, the tolling of the bell for war, hulls built from hemp, cleaner air, better schools, or ... well, you get the picture. I put myself at the end of this list so that you will believe the rest of it. A man who leaves himself off a list of beneficiaries is not auditing. He is campaigning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of the five benef
1iciaries needs to persuade anyone else. Most people in this State who want the status quo kept gain nothing from it, not a dollar, not a vote, not a bonus. Still they want it kept because they believe it. That is a sincere belief, even if based on unscientific prejudice. About one in thirty Australians used cannabis as medicine on the last national survey, most of them without a prescription, and the person holding that sincere belief may well be sitting at the same table as one of them and not know it. Where did that belief come from? From a word chosen in another country, in the 1930s, by a bureau chief who told Congress it was the Mexican word; from a ban that reached Perth in 1950 with no local case for it at all; from almost a century-old story told before almost any of us were born.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch on how minds work is not kind here. A belief taken on early is not held as an opinion; it is held as furniture. When you show a person the evidence against it, the evidence bounces, and sometimes the furniture gets heavier. Why is this pervasive word so persistent? What makes status quo thinking so dense? Maybe there are several possibilities, and they can be independently true. It may be something you absorbed from childhood, or heard at a kitchen table forty years ago and never re-examined. Perhaps sticking to the old knowledge is easy and reflecting and rethinking is hard. Keeping the status quo asks nothing of you, while changing it means you were wrong, and admitting that is hard. It may be a badge: âtough on drugsâ is worn on both sides of the chamber, and a badge is a way of belonging. There are others, take your pick of any of these. What matters is that the five beneficiaries did not plant this belief nor did they tend it. They harvest it. Who profits? Those who harvest a crop they never had to sow.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen the crop is threatened, what do the beneficiaries do? They decline to show you the field. Two years ago the Government set up a working group of its own experts, from Police, from Health, from the Road Safety Commission, to look at exactly the question I began with: what to do about patients who test positive for a medicine. In June last year the Minister told the House they would report âby the end of the yearâ and again in November, âbefore the end of the calendar yearâ. On the Governmentâs own word it did, and in May I began asking when the rest of us would see it. I have had the same answer again and again, from two portfolios and the Premierâs office: the report âremains under consideration by governmentâ. Not one of those answers gave the date the report was received. Not one said what it recommends. Not one said when, or whether, you will be allowed to read a document your money paid for, about a test your licence depends on. I say they are burying the report and please feel free to correct me once you have watched a Minister say âunder considerationâ yet again with a straight face. It is not the only example of such behaviour. I am looking at questions about a consultantâs report on last winter in our hospitals, a former judgeâs review of why our courts are so slow, an independent review of the Public Trustee, and a review of environmental approvals that took a thirteen-month freedom-of-information fight before anyone outside government was allowed to see it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese four questions are not a doctrine. They are a habit, and they are a habit the State says it wants you to have. Critical thinking is written into the curriculum as a âgeneral capabilityâ, which means it is meant to be soaked up while you learn something else. Perhaps much like children learn about managing tax returns or household budgets in school. Critical thinking, however, is, in the words of the Authority that runs our schools, ânot assessed unlessâ it is âidentified withinâ the content of some other subject, so it is not a subject of its own and it is never examined as one. I think a State that wanted its citizens to be hard to manipulate would teach that habit and examine it, and would release its own reports so that the habit had something to work on. Hope ever springs eternal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo. I have asked the four questions of five benef
1iciaries and of myself, and the facts behind every answer are on the public record. Check them for yourself. There is one more beneficiary, and it is whoever profits from you never asking them of yourself. Take the thing you are most sure of, whether about the housing crisis, the state of the environment, the AUKUS deal, the crisis of crime in society, or about medical cannabis or indeed about any law you have never had to think about, and ask tonight who chose the word you are asked to believe, what does that word carry that is not borne out by the evidence, who is punished by it, and who would have to change it. That is the whole of it. Next week I ask the same four questions of the State itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"18:Tbe3,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen the human cost of violence first-hand. I have stood in emergency departments where the threat of physical harm was a daily reality. Recently, the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-15/8?ref=localhost\"\u003eRetail Barring Orders Bill 2025\u003c/a\u003e came before the Legislative Council, bringing a critical issue into the light: the safety of those working on our front lines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-reality-of-the-shop-floor\"\u003eThe reality of the shop floor\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eRetail workers are the heartbeat of our communities. They are often our young people starting their first jobs or local business owners trying to build a future. Yet, they are increasingly facing intimidation, abuse, and physical assault. When a person steps behind a counter, they should not have to calculate the risk to their personal safety. This is not just bureaucracy; it is a waiting room where the next victim is simply waiting to be harmed. While we debate the mechanics of barring orders, we must remember the sinking feeling of a worker who fears for their safety every time the automatic doors slide open.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to keep up to date with my work in the House and my thoughts on how we can create a healthier, safer society, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-limits-of-legislation\"\u003eThe limits of legislation\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile I support measures to protect our workers, we must be honest about what this bill can and cannot achieve. We are creating new laws to manage downstream consequences, but we are failing to address the upstream causes. Why are we seeing such a rise in violent, antisocial behaviour? Legislation is a necessary tool, but it is not a cure. We cannot simply legislate away the values of individuals who have lost their connection to a respectful society. If we continue to treat the symptoms while ignoring the root causesâbe it mental health, social exclusion, or a decay in community valuesâwe will simply be managing a perpetual cycle of crisis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-path-forward\"\u003eA path forward\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a doctor and a legislator, I look at these problems with cold, clear eyes. We need to be proactive. We need to look at the education and social support systems that shape our community long before someone steps into a store with the intent to harm. I supported this legislation because our workers deserve immediate protection, but let us be clear: this is a band-aid, not a solution. We must do better for the future of our state.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo read the full debate from the House, you can view the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-15/8?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record here\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe in an evidence-based approach to policy and want to see real change, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us build a forward-thinking future.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"19:T39ba,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cfigure class=\"kg-card kg-image-card\"\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!X6Wk!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa8180936-e829-4f62-822e-6f0d940a6602_1536x1024.png\" class=\"kg-image\" alt=\"\" loading=\"lazy\" width=\"1456\" height=\"971\"\u003e\u003c/figure\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet me describe one person twice. The first is a woman in her forties, a mother of three children and a nurse with a bad back from lifting patients for twenty years. She has been prescribed opiates in the past but now is using medical cannabis in the evening which allows her to sleep well, work with less pain and causes less constipation. The medical record documents this and so far she has not tested positive on a ârandomâ roadside drug test.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second time we see the same woman, same evening dose, same results, and she is using cannabis medically, but has not been prescribed by a doctor. Her file says she is a drug user.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll that has changed in her life is a word, and that word changes everything. On prescribed medication, assuming she remains untested at the roadside, she keeps her job, her licence and her children. A drug user gets stood down after a random test, loses income, loses a sense of security, and may end up in the family court where the words âdrug userâ may be heard as an accusation. I have sat across from both versions of this person and the only difference, the only thing that ever changed, was the choice of word which somebody wrote down.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou know me, of course, and know that I stand in both worlds of politician and medical practitioner. Should I say âtrust me, I am a doctorâ or should I say âtrust me, I am a politicianâ? In fact I would say do not trust what is said, always check and reassure yourself that the words are true. Can we agree on that?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDoctors are trained to be careful with words. We use a foreign language and often must translate what has been written by a specialist into what a layperson can understand. A diagnosis is not just a word, it has a profound meaning at times. In earlier centuries the word âtuberculosisâ automatically meant a short life and that word was feared. In the 1980s in Germany we were for a while not allowed to simply request a blood check without psychological consultation because in a time of the newly discovered HIV virus there was a possibility that a result might indicate an infection which might be HIV (note the word âmightâ?) and the patient might kill themselves. Despite great progress in managing cancers, simply throwing that word in the face of someone in front of you will certainly provoke many kinds of reaction, most of them unhelpful. And for a non-medical example, the recent Centrelink Robodebt scandal placed some individuals in the situation of owing $7,000, far beyond their ability to pay. Suicides followed, even though after time the scheme was found to be unlawful and the debt word with it. Too late. Sorry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWords matter. Words can kill. A diagnostic word is important not just because it sounds right, but also because there are consequences that flow from a word. A diagnosis of congestive cardiac failure is earned: history, examination, laboratory results, functional tests, and then the word. The word demands a consequence but what if the upstream cause for the diagnosis is myocarditis and not coronary artery disease? Yes, the treatment is different, and if the word is wrong then you strike it out. Being treated on the basis of an incorrect diagnosis results in a worsening of the illness. Now that example, taken from a medical practitioner, should be mapped across to the world of a politician. That is the measure to be held against the legislation we pass that gets transformed into law. A law can be reframed as a word with a consequence attached.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTake the word that governs cannabis. âNarcoticâ is from the Greek for stupor, and any pharmacist or medical practitioner will tell you it refers to
1suppression of part of the brain stem that deals with respiration. Usually we mean opiates or barbiturates, but basically any drug that puts you to sleep and reduces your breathing. The treaty that runs the worldâs drug laws is called the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Being created by politicians and lawyers, it never defines the word medically. It defines âdrugâ as anything on its own list, and the list as the list of drugs, and a drug is what the list says is a drug. The treatyâs opening line correctly calls addiction âa serious evil for the individualâ, and then two lines later says the same drugs are âindispensable for the relief of pain and sufferingâ. In effect, the word narcotic has been redefined as a controlled drug, and both sentences are about the same substances.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow come home. Western Australiaâs Misuse of Drugs Act, the law under which five thousand people a year are charged with possession, does not contain the word ânarcoticâ at all. Not once. It borrows its list from another list. The national Poisons Standard, which sorts every substance in the country into schedules, has two headings that matter here. Schedule 8 is called âControlled Drugâ: a substance which âshould be available for useâ under restriction. Schedule 9 is called âProhibited Substanceâ: one which âshould be prohibited by lawâ. Since 2016 cannabis has been in both lists. With a prescription and a licensed grower it is a controlled drug and without a prescription and licensed grower it is defined as a prohibited substance. And there is one more word. Under Western Australiaâs road law, THC, even when a doctor has prescribed it and a licensed grower has grown it, is a âprescribed illicit drugâ. Read that phrase again. The âprescribedâ in it does not mean prescribed by a doctor. It means listed in a regulation. One word, two opposite meanings, and the second cancels the first at the roadside. Same plant, same molecule, same evening dose and the word changes at the pharmacy door. The Commonwealth law that licenses growers is still called the Narcotic Drugs Act.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo where did the word come from, if not from the plant? Not from here. Cannabis was banned in Australia in 1926 because London asked Canberra to, after a conference in Geneva. The official history is clear: cannabis âwas not a problemâ in this country and there was âlittle domestic agitationâ for a ban. Western Australia got round to it in 1950. The word arrived with no scientific case at all behind it. The case, such as it was, had been made in America a decade earlier by Harry Anslinger, the first head of its narcotics bureau, who told Congress in 1937 that âwe seem to have adopted the Mexican terminology, and we call it marihuanaâ. The old American statutes had called the plant cannabis but he chose the foreign word. His private files, which historians have since read, show what he thought of the people he associated it with, and his public campaign was pitched at the fear of what the plant would do to white children. Read it for yourself if you wish. What is not in dispute is that a foreign word, chosen because it was foreign, crossed two oceans and became the law in Perth without anyone here needing a reason.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd words, once they are law, do the punishing on their own. Fifteen years ago more than five hundred doctors and clinicians at two conferences were handed a case history of a man with a drinking and drug problem. Half were told he was a âsubstance abuserâ. The other half were told he had a âsubstance use disorderâ. Same man, same history, one word changed. The group that read âabuserâ wanted him punished; they were significantly more likely to agree that he should be sent to jail âto serve as a wake-up callâ. These were professionals but do you see the power of the word? In this country eight in ten people using cannabis as a medicine say they worry about arrest. Half could not find a doctor willing to prescribe. Seven in ten pharmacists admit there is a stigma on the product they are handing over the counter. Stigma. A word that is loaded with meaning. It is not just a feeling, but the freight the word carries after evidence, however scanty, has gone. You can read my thoughts on this in earlier posts on Substack, but the bottom line is that the word was in charge each time a decision was taken.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou doubt that a word can hold a law up for decades after everyone knows better? This State has already run the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUntil 1990, Western Australiaâs Criminal Code had a section headed âUnnatural offencesâ. Sex between two men was carnal knowledge âagainst the order of natureâ, and the penalty was fourteen yearsâ imprisonment with hard labour, âwith or without whippingâ. The Act that finally removed the crime, in 1989, could not bring itself to remove the word. Its preamble declares that âthe Parliament disapproves of sexual relations between persons of the same sexâ, and it made it unlawful to âpromote or encourage homosexual behaviourâ in any school. It also kept the age of consent for men at twenty-one while everyone elseâs was sixteen, and that stayed on the books until 2002. In 2018 Parliament passed an Act to expunge the convictions. Count the words. âUnnatural offence.â âSodomy.â âLesbian and gay law reform.â âHistorical homosexual convictions.â Four words in thirty years, and the law limped a few years behind each one. Nobodyâs body changed in that time. The evidence had been in for decades. Only the word moved, and when it moved the law followed, grudgingly and late, with a preamble still complaining.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere we have the pattern, and now you will be able to see it in many other places.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA man sleeping in a doorway in Perth in 1990 was, in the words of the Police Act, a person âwandering abroadâ with âno visible lawful means of supportâ. A vagrant. The offence was the person. In 2004 the vagrancy sections went and the word became âdisorderlyâ: the offence was now a behaviour. Today he gets a ânotice to leaveâ from a council or a move-on order from a constable, and the word is âcampingâ. None of these words is âa person who needs a homeâ, and that matters, because when Perthâs own Housing First project used that word, eight in ten of the people it housed were still housed a year later and their trips to emergency departments fell by half. The word âvagrantâ produced a cell. The word âtenantâ produced a tenant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsider what happens when a large company pays less tax than it might. There are three words for that single act: evasion, avoidance, minimisation. The first is a crime. The second is caught by an anti-avoidance law only if the âsole or dominant purposeâ was the tax benefit. The third is described
1in the Governmentâs own guidance as the use of concessions âin accordance with Parliamentâs intentionâ. Same act, three words, and the word decides whether anyone knocks on the door. Last year twenty-eight per cent of the countryâs largest companies paid no income tax at all, and the Tax Office says nearly all of it was lawful. It is. The word âconcessionâ made it so. The Treasury has a plainer word for a concession in its own accounts: it calls it a âtax expenditureâ, money the State chose to spend by not collecting it, and the five largest come to about one hundred and forty-five billion dollars a year. Say âconcessionâ and it is a right. Say âexpenditureâ and it is a spending decision nobody votes on each year.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd consider the word âroyaltyâ, which is what we call the money a company pays for taking gas out of the sea off our coast. It is the Crownâs word. It describes the Kingâs due, not the ownerâs share. Last year Australia sold sixty-five billion dollars of liquefied gas and collected one point four billion in the tax designed for it, and the Treasurer has said on the record that most projects are ânot expected to pay any significant amountsâ until the 2030s. In 2023, on the same volume, Qatarâs government took fifty-six billion dollars from its gas and ours took about eleven, partly because Qatar owns half of what it sells. Beyond three miles from the beach the gas is the Commonwealthâs to tax, not ours, so I will not pretend Perth could fix this alone. But Western Australiaâs own share from the North West Shelf has fallen from one point three billion dollars a few years ago to a few hundred million now, and the fund this State set up in 2012 to keep a sliver of its royalties for the future was renamed in 2020. It is now a health research fund. Norwayâs fund, built on the same idea and a different word, holds twenty thousand billion kroner. We did not lose the money. We lost the word âsovereignâ, and then we lost the word âfutureâ, and the money followed the words out the door.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere, then, is the test. It is a doctorâs test and it works on any law. Who chose the word? What does the word carry that the evidence does not? Who does the word punish? And who would have to change it? Ask those four questions of any statute and you will learn more about the State than a year of question time will tell you. Cannabis is the cleanest case I know, because all four answers are on the public record: a foreign word, chosen because it was foreign, carrying a judgement no chemist would sign, punishing five thousand people a year in this State, and changeable by the same Parliament that adopted it without a reason. Next week I will ask the four questions of the people who profit from keeping the word. After that, of the State itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a Bill before the Legislative Council in my name, and its title is the whole argument: the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Lawful Personal Use of Cannabis) Bill. It changes the word. Fifty grams, six plants, a gift between adults, children protected, and a judge allowed not to call someone a trafficker when that would be plainly unjust. In 2024 the same Bill was defeated after one member of the Government spoke against it for a couple of short paragraphs. I brought it back in March. It has sat on the notice paper since.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe word is in front of the House. The Government can adopt it, or it could stand up and explain why the old one is worth another year of five thousand charges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"1a:Td76,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-prescription-for-protest\"\u003eThe prescription for protest\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape, yet today we see the government doubling down on exactly that. The Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill has been the subject of intense scrutiny in the Legislative Council this week. What we are witnessing is not just bureaucracy: it is a significant expansion of state power that threatens the fundamental rights of every citizen in our state.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe debate centred on the sheer scale of the designated event area. We are looking at a zone that encompasses major public transport hubs and thoroughfares. The government admits that individuals simply passing through could be subject to intense police scrutiny. While ministers claim these powers are purely pragmatic, the potential for abuse is clear. When you grant police the ability to stop, search, and detain people based on broad, subjective criteria, you are creating a waiting room where civil rights are left at the door.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-erosion-of-accountability\"\u003eThe erosion of accountability\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerhaps the most concerning aspect of the legislation is the deliberate removal of traditional legal pathways. We saw clause after clause designed to shield these police orders from any meaningful challenge. If a declaration is made that restricts your movement or shuts down a protest, you are effectively left without a court to turn to for immediate relief. This isn't just a technicality, it is a structural dismantling of the checks and balances that define a healthy democracy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are told that these are simply measures to ensure the security of a weapons fair. But we must ask ourselves at what cost? When we sacrifice the ability to challenge the state in real-time, we are not just protecting an event; we are inviting a future where dissent becomes a logistical impossibility. I believe our strength lies in our ability to hold power to account, not in granting it absolute immunity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you value science-based, evidence-led policy that respects our civil liberties, I invite you to see more of our work in the House by subscribing to my channel at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003emy YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where we break down the noise to show you exactly what is being decided on your behalf.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-silence\"\u003eThe human cost of silence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government insists these powers are only for extreme cases, yet they have refused to include basic protections for peaceful protesters. History teaches us that when we provide the tools for overreach, they will eventually be used. We have seen it before with previous event-based legislation, where ordinary citizens with no history of violence found themselves on excluded persons lists simply for being present in the wrong place at the wrong time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy role in the House is to provide a voice for those who believe that security should never come at the expense of our fundamental rights. You can read the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-10/8?ref=localhost\"\u003efull record of the debate\u003c/a\u003e to see exactly how these powers were justified. If you are ready to stand for evidence, science, and freedom, I invite you to join the movement for a better WA at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"1b:Tc7f,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-failure-of-governance\"\u003eA failure of governance\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen the devastating impact of systems that ignore the human cost. When the Children's Court delivers a scathing judgement, it is not merely a legal document. It is a diagnosis of a failing system. Recently, the Legislative Council debated a matter of grave concern regarding the Department of Communities. A seven-year-old boy, who had known only the love of his foster family since he was four months old, was removed from that home against the grain of the magistrateâs recommendations for a gentle transition. The findings were stark: the departmentâs cultural plans were described as inadequate, superficial, and little more than meaningless rhetoric.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fear is real for every parent who trusts the state to protect their most vulnerable. If the department can ignore a courtâs advice on the sensitive transition of a child, what hope is there for the quiet, hidden cases that never reach the courtroom? This is not just bureaucracy; it is a waiting room where children pay the price with their long-term well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAre you concerned about the future of our healthcare and social systems? We are building a community of forward-thinkers who prioritise evidence and compassion over political status quo. If you want to stay updated on our fight for transparency and reform, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-weight-of-the-evidence\"\u003eThe weight of the evidence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most alarming detail was that the departmentâs own director general and the minister were not briefed on this significant judgement until weeks after its delivery. How can a minister protect children when the information she relies upon is filtered through a system that seems designed to insulate itself from accountability? During the debate, it became clear that the department lacks a specific procedure for bringing adverse court findings to the attention of leadership. This is a glaring operational flaw that leaves vulnerable children exposed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-call-to-action\"\u003eA call to action\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are told that millions of dollars are being poured into the system. Yet, when foster parents asked for a simple Father's Day card and a five-minute video call for a child they had raised as their own, they were met with cold, administrative rejection. This is not how a caring society operates. We must shift the conversation from defensive policy-writing to genuine, kind-hearted action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe House recently debated the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-09/7?ref=localhost\"\u003emotion regarding the Minister for Child Protection\u003c/a\u003e, demanding transparency where there has been too much secrecy. We will continue to hold the government to account because the alternative is to leave our children at the mercy of a system that has lost its w
1ay. To stand with us as we work to bring sanity and humanity back to our public services, please join our cause at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"1c:Tc14,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-missing-record-a-lost-child\"\u003eA missing record, a lost child\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen the quiet, devastating impact of administrative failure on the lives of my patients. There is a particular sinking feeling when you realise that the system intended to protect our most vulnerable has been designed with a trapdoor. Right now, when a citizen reports child neglect under section 300 of the Criminal Code, that report can effectively vanish into thin air. An officer may use their discretion to label it a welfare concern, shunting it into a private system where it sits beyond the reach of auditors. The reporter leaves the station empty-handed, without a receipt or a reference number, and the paper trail simply ends.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not just bureaucracy. It is a waiting room where the needs of children are ignored and the accountability of the state is obscured. Without a Computer Aided Dispatch receipt, there is no proof that the report was ever made. More importantly, there is no way for the Ombudsman to investigate why an inquiry was stopped before it could truly begin. This shadow system denies justice to those who need it most.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are fighting to change the way the system works. If you care about these issues and want to see how we are bringing evidence-based solutions to the Legislative Council, I invite you to subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-common-sense-of-mollys-law\"\u003eThe common sense of Molly's Law\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evidence is clear, and the path forward is logical. We are advocating for the implementation of Molly's Law to bring sunlight into these dark corners of procedure. This plan is straightforward. It requires mandatory receipt issuance, ensuring every person reporting neglect receives a unique incident number on the spot. It introduces a two-key protocol, meaning no single officer can unilaterally close a file without cross-agency confirmation. Finally, it demands a public register to track how many reports are received against how many files are actually opened.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"why-we-fight\"\u003eWhy we fight\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the major parties play politics with departmental convenience, we look at the reality of the situation. We represent a tribe of forward-thinkers who believe that the state should be accountable to the people, not the other way around. The current lack of transparency creates an environment where risk is hidden, not managed. We are calling on the House to inquire into these operational procedures and to legislate real, lasting change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the details of this petition in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-08/8?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial parliamentary record\u003c/a\u003e. We need your voice to ensure these reforms are taken seriously. If you are ready to stand up for a more transparent and safer Western Australia, please join us at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"1d:Teee,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-rushed-nature-of-our-laws\"\u003eThe rushed nature of our laws\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Legislative Council, we are currently debating the Land Forces Event (Special Powers) Bill. The government tells us this legislation is essential and urgent. Yet, when we dig into the details, the justifications provided are vague. This isn't just bureaucracy: it is a situation where fundamental rights are being treated as secondary to the convenience of a short-term event. As a doctor, I have seen what happens when you treat the symptoms without understanding the cause. Rushing legislation through Parliament without clear, evidence-based reasoning is a diagnostic failure of the highest order.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are told that the government is striking a balance between public order and personal freedom. However, when we look at the specific powers being granted, it feels more like an encroachment. These laws allow for searches, identification demands, and the potential exclusion of people from public spaces. In my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. Creating such broad, discretionary powers for police creates a climate of uncertainty for ordinary people simply going about their daily lives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you care about keeping up to date with the work we are doing to hold the government to account in Parliament, please subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"constitutional-concerns-and-the-human-cost\"\u003eConstitutional concerns and the human cost\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the most alarming aspects of this debate is the cavalier approach to constitutional warnings. We have seen experts from organisations like the Human Rights Law Centre provide evidence that similar laws in other jurisdictions have been found invalid. Despite this, the government pushes on. This creates a real risk: we are potentially codifying laws that fail the basic test of proportionality. It is a sinking feeling to realise that your rights might be suspended because the government refuses to heed the advice of those who understand the law better than anyone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe human cost is also profound. We asked questions about how this would affect the most vulnerable in our community, including those experiencing homelessness. The answers were less than reassuring. While the government speaks of connecting people to services, there is no guarantee of real, safe accommodation for those forced to move from the event area. We are effectively clearing the streets to create a sanitised zone, ignoring the reality that those individuals remain part of our community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-setting-a-precedent\"\u003eThe danger of setting a precedent\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen we allow these special powers to be used for a temporary event, we risk setting a standard that will be used again. Once the genie of expanded state power is out of the bottle, it is incredibly difficult to put it back. The government claims this is a one-off, but we have heard that before. We are watching a slow erosion of civil liberties, justified by the perceived need for security.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe debate around this \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-08/41?ref=localhost\"\u003ebill\u003c/a\u003e serves as a reminder that we must remain vigilant. While the major parties play politics, we look at the evidence. The people of Western Australia deserve a government that respects the Constitution and the rights of every individual, not one that treats those rights as optional extras.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you share our commitment to evidence-based policy and protecting our democratic freedoms, I invite you to join Legalise Cannabis WA at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ethis link\u003c/a\u003e to help us continue this vital work.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"1e:T2eb8,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHas your doctor ever cried beside you? Probably not, we are taught to keep our emotions aside from our professional behaviour when dealing with issues which could be life-threatening or challenging. We see these things pretty much every day, so it is no surprise that some become numb to the events, others like myself can feel upset at a visceral level when we are prevented by \u0026lt;name your bureaucratic barrier\u0026gt; which prevents access to life-changing options. Think Centrelink, insurance companies, and government bureaucracies. Today I want you to look at an example of this and see if you can decipher a picture that merits attention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet me mention a situation I have often dealt with. Someone attends to see me as a last resort. They have a serious illness, letâs call it some form of cancer or autoimmune disease. Oncologists may have been involved with the GP, support nurses and allied health services. All right and proper, but the problem has not disappeared, hope is diminishing, and I am seen as someone who represents a second opinion. I see a younger person, often married with children at or near high school, currently in a job with a house to pay for, and so there is a lot to lose. What they tell me is that the previous approach did not work, the chemotherapy wrecked them, the radiation was damaging, the nerve pain was intolerable, and the thought of a colostomy or other serious procedure after surgical resection was just not acceptable. âHelp meâ they ask. My heart sinks a little when I suggest that the first thing to be done is reconnect with the specialists who have been avoided. Yes, letâs look at a script, often medical cannabis both for symptoms and also to manage anxiety, yes letâs look at the research you have brought that includes things that usually are refused by specialists, but may work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut tell me, I ask, how may I help? And I listen. Insomnia? Anxiety? Pain? Fear of death? Donât trust the system, so guide me? Often all they want is to try medical cannabis as a last resort, and as a prescriber of medical cannabis, will I prescribe? Maybe the workplace is intolerable, and something is needed to take the edge off, ease the pain, allow for a relaxed sleep, and for a while they can forget the dreams that bring them back to reality with sweat and a sudden fear. Or maybe just a bit of something to relax after a hard day.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt may take forty minutes to begin, but often what comes out, slowly and in no order, is a childhood with several kinds of abuse in it, an undiagnosed and untreated attention disorder, causing mood disorders such as anger, grief, and guilt. The resulting job failures resulted in reactive behaviour, and now the promise of childhood vanished in a predictable trajectory into misery. And now they are in front of me asking for help and a legal medication which is treated as illegal and expecting me to be the next in line to judge them. I donât judge, I listen. Often a script for medical cannabis will emerge. It may not cure the cancer or the autoimmune disease, but it is a very useful support that may permit a resumption of more orthodox approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnless, of course, you work for a living. HR demands a random drug test. A test for the presence of illicit drugs that may impair and cause risk at work. Let it be known that I absolutely agree that no one should work impaired especially where others can be injured, and I am most definitely of the view that no one should drive a vehicle when impaired. But on a worksite, if you have a prescription for an opiate, and test positive, you may go in, even if you have just finished a heroin binge at home. Benzodiazepines are fine with a prescription. Sedative drugs are fine with a prescription. Medical cannabis
1is banned even with a prescription. The patient who is managing the problem is stood down, may be declared an illicit drug user, may lose the job, and then lose the income, losing the ability to pay the mortgage, putting the family in stress, causing the relationship to break down, losing the family home, being accused by the spouseâs lawyer that you are a drug user, and have no rights to access your children. A psychiatric review is required, the psychiatrist demands you cease the medical cannabis and commences you on sedating drugs, leaving the thoroughly beaten patient more depressed than ever, labelled as unfit, and then an anti-psychotic drug is prescribed to assist with sleep, and now we have medicalised a patient into being described a failure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd no-one tested for impairment. The tests used do not test for impairment, only presence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have heard this story so many times now. What is said is remarkably consistent. They knew the system was broken before I did. They watched workmates come on shift after a binge, test clean, and cause accidents, or have them. They watched colleagues on prescribed opioids and prescribed benzodiazepines wave a script at the tester and go to work, while their own script counted for nothing. In the face of company power the union was powerless and toothless. That refrain is repeated over and over by the employer, by the court, by the specialist, that they had failed. That they were drug users. That they were not fit to be a parent, or a spouse. Some of them stopped fighting because they could not see a way to win and sank. Some of them talked to me about ending it. In the year after a separation, close to one in three in this country reports thinking about suicide, against one in seven who has not separated. If any of this is your experience please call Lifeline on 13 11 14 and do it now.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree years ago I chaired a parliamentary committee that looked at this. We recommended that the 2008 guidance be replaced and that medicinal cannabis âbe treated in the same manner as other potentially impairing prescription drugsâ. The government supported eleven of our sixteen recommendations, in full or in principle. It refused two. The one about driving it merely ânotedâ. On the workplace it did what we asked, on paper. In January 2025 WorkSafe replaced the 2008 guidance with a new sheet, and the sheet tells employers to treat a cannabis script the way they treat any other prescription that can impair. A sheet. It binds no-one, and no-one has to read it. On the roads it did less. Our recommendation to change the THC driving law was noted, and fifteen months later a working group was formed. The groupâs report arrived on the due date in December 2025. The Minister for Health signed it and sent it to the Minister for Road Safety in February. It has been âunder considerationâ ever since, and when I ask in the House what day it landed, no-one will say. On the road, not a single word of the law has changed. In California, from the first of January 2024, an employer may not sack you, or refuse to hire you, on the strength of a test that finds ânonpsychoactive cannabis metabolitesâ in your urine. The legislature wrote its reason into the law: those leftovers âhave no correlation to impairment on the jobâ. Employers there keep the right to a drug-free workplace and may test for impairment by any method that works. That principle is now law in the state of California, the biggest economy in that country. One large company, I told the Minister in August 2024, had already changed its practice in California to meet that law while holding to zero tolerance here in Western Australia. Same company. Same workers. Same urine. Different rules, depending on which side of the Pacific you pee.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn August 2024 I asked the Minister for Industrial Relations whether this State would give patients the same protection. Here is the answer, all of it: âUnder Western Australiaâs work health and safety legislation, a person conducting a business or undertaking is responsible for determining their drug and alcohol policy based on the specific hazards associated with their workplace.â I asked again in October. The same sentence came back, word for word. The company decides. The State has decided not to.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIs there any pattern you can see in this behaviour? Society and parliament agree that workplaces should be safe. A test for impairment does not test impairment, and high-functioning people are dismissed, lose everything, and the institutions are content. HR has done their job, the employer is covered by policies, and government has assessed the situation, and taken no action yet, sitting on its own working groupâs report for nine months now. It could be worse. I am working on getting the government to act on the driving law its own committee told it to change three years ago, and its own working group has now told it how. The pattern is there, and the status quo has been successfully maintained, even if one personâs life has been destroyed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThink about this for a moment. There is no current easy-to-use test for measurable impairment, so a proxy is used, even if the proxy fails to detect impairment. The governmentâs own committee told it three years ago that the test does not measure impairment, but the test used is cheap, and while the consequences for the individual are life-altering, the government is unaffected. The company kept its record. The court kept its order. The specialist kept certainty. The Minister kept the status quo. Who lost the house, the relationship, the children, future job prospects? Who was best served?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow look a little larger. Is there a pattern to be seen? Rough sleeping in Western Australia doubled between the 2016 and 2021 censuses, from about a thous
1and people to more than two thousand three hundred; at the last census three in ten of everyone sleeping rough in Australia were here. There are more than twenty-three thousand applications on the social housing list, eight thousand of them priority. The modelling has said for a decade that it costs the State less to house these people than to leave them where they are; the one Australian trial that measured it found a real saving, smaller than the models promised, but real, and Perthâs own programme cut hospital emergency visits by nearly half among the people it housed. The department that does not build pays nothing for not building. The hospital pays. Our taxes pay.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCan you guess how much anger I feel at this situation? I am angry that real harm is being caused here, to minds and bodies and ultimately to our whole society. Harm is being caused by institutions, companies and governments both, and it looks to me like a simple lack of care for the ordinary people. I have been a doctor for a long time and know what it costs to spend forty minutes finding out what is true about a person. Medicare may not remunerate the doctor who does, but if the passion for wellness is there, then we do what must be done. Thousands of my colleagues do this every day.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCan we all agree that we need an honest instrument here? Can politicians agree that doing what is right, what serves the people we represent, what meets the proven facts, the science, the experience, is the prime duty for all who serve. Take the medical cannabis experience as an example of how what is right has been trampled underfoot, and a responsible government would not permit that. The analogy extends to managing homelessness, the education system, the justice system? That we serve the needs of our people by ensuring peace, safe relationships with our trading partners, creating a sovereign nation for a free people in a free country? Or am I calling for an unsustainable Utopia because we refuse to stand up for what is right?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"1f:T3966,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eâI have cancer of ... â is the beginning of many a consultation. What follows appears to be a pattern, perhaps because a self-selecting group have heard of a less rigid approach to wellness. In my view, oneâs health belongs to the individual, and my job is to give the best advice I can. It is the job of the patient to choose what they feel best suits their needs. But let us take one example that my colleagues would recognise, someone with rectal cancer. Often they come late because the first signs lead them to be referred to the experts, and rightly so. Once the classical orthodox approach has been tried, and alternative approaches have not been as helpful as promised, then they tend to gravitate towards whoever seems able to promise a more hopeful outcome. Once, one such a patient approached me with a diagnosis of rectal cancer, and coming later in the process the cancer had spread, and he asked how he could best manage the process. He had already been through one course of chemotherapy and it had nearly finished him: the sickness, the nerve pain in his hands and feet, the weeks he could not get off the couch. He told me two things in the same breath. He would not do that again. And he would not have a stoma: a bag that collects faecal matter, opening out on to the abdomen.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow while I believe that the outcomes with chemotherapy for solid tumours that have metastasised are poor, I also believe that for surgery to succeed there is a chance that chemotherapy and radiotherapy could shrink the tumour to an operable size, following which surgery there are options that could be considered. New therapies, trials, and of course, alternative supportive measures which for the most part are detested by the specialists, but which are almost universally adopted by the patients who choose not to share that with their specialists. With this cancer, preventing the predictable pain and obstruction at an early stage makes sense, but how do you explain that best? I thought he should at least consider a referral back to a specialist, consider shrinking the tumour with chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and surgery might become possible. âWould surgery require a colostomy?â The bald answer is âLikely.â I say so, lay out what I know and where further advice is necessary. Then I asked him what he wanted, and listened to his reply. The answer was no. Not for anything would that path be accepted. What, he asked me, could I do to help?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe specialists did not ask what he wanted. They told him. You must have the chemotherapy. You must have the radiotherapy. The surgery will be booked. It is a bit like being put on a conveyor belt, you sign a paper that gives permission to do what is needed, and then you start a journey on the conveyor belt. When he said he did not want a colostomy, the answer came back as if he had not spoken: without it you will die. The statistics were on their side of the desk, and so, in their minds, was the decision. Nobody asked him how he wanted to spend the months he had. Nobody asked what a bag meant to a man who had spent fifty years working with his body and his hands. Nobody asked whether a longer life on their terms was worth more to him than a shorter one on his own. They had a protocol, the protocol had numbers, and the numbers said obey.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMake no mistake. This is not about villains in the medical system, this is about the system that trains us. A surgeon who sees this situation a hundred times knows what happens to the ones who do nothing. The evidence they work from is real. If you are treated, more of you are alive in three years than if you are not treated. I understand the pull of that. I have felt it myself. But the evidence says something else as well, and it is the something else that the protocol never mentions. When researchers ask patients with bowel cancer what they would give up to avoid a permanent stoma, a majority say they would trade a third of their remaining life expectancy. When they ask the surgeons the same question, the surgeons would not trade nearly so much. The doctors and the patients are not measuring the same thing. One is counting months. The other is counting what the months are for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd the patient usually does not know there is a choice at all. A study of more than a thousand people having chemotherapy for cancer that had already spread found that four in five of those with bowel cancer did not understand that the treatment was not going to cure them. Four in five. The ones who rated their doctors as the best communicators were the most likely to be wrong. Another study asked doctors what their breast cancer patients cared about most. The doctors thought seven in ten women would put keeping the breast first. Fewer than one in ten actually did. The people who were supposed to know what their patients wanted were wrong by an order of magnitude, and n
1obody had asked.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of this is a secret in law. Since 1992 the High Court has held that a doctor must tell a patient about any risk a reasonable person in that patientâs shoes would want to know. What the profession considers normal practice is not the measure of it. A Chief Justice of Western Australia, in a case about a man who wanted his feeding stopped, put it as plainly as it can be put: a competent adult may refuse treatment even if refusing will kill him, and he may do so for reasons rational, irrational, unknown or even non-existent. The Medical Boardâs own code, the one every doctor in this country is held to, says making decisions about healthcare is a shared responsibility, that we must listen to patients and ask for their views, and that patients have the right to refuse. It is all written down for the last thirty years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo the failure is not ignorance of the rule. The information stays on the doctorâs side. The statistics, the survival curves, the honest odds of what the treatment will and will not do: they live in the specialistâs head and in the specialistâs file, and what reaches the patient is the conclusion. You must. And once the information stays on one side of the desk, the decision stays there with it. That is the whole mechanism. It is not cruelty. From the inside it feels like care. But its effect is that someoneâs body is decided for them by people who never asked what it was for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHold that picture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree years ago a committee of this Parliament, which I sat on, recommended that the Government look again at a law that punishes drivers for driving while unimpaired but with a measurable trace of THC in their system. The current law makes no distinction between someone who has just used recreational cannabis and been driving impaired, and someone who took their prescribed medication the night before and was driving without any recognisable impairment. Indeed the question was asked if by using medicinal cannabis to reduce chronic pain, treat debilitating anxiety, grant excellent sleep and preventing sleep impaired driving, a person would be driving more safely? And the answer was indeed that one would drive more safely. Science had adequately shown that presence of THC does not equate to impairment. The current law does not care. The Government, to its credit, agreed to examine it. It set up a working group of its own agencies: the Road Safety Commission, the police, the health department, transport, the Mental Health Commission, with medical and scientific experts alongside. In November 2025 the Minister assured parliament it would report by Christmas. It did. The report went to the Minister for Health in December.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince then the people of Western Australia have been told this much about it: nothing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have asked, in the chamber and on notice, more times than I can easily count since May. Has the Minister read it? When did each agency receive it? Has the Minister for Road Safety been given a copy, and in which of his two hats? What, if anything, is delaying an announcement? Every one of those questions came back with the same sentence. The report remains under consideration by the Government. Not a date, not a summary, not so much as a confirmation that anyone had opened it. In June I asked whether the Minister would at least share this taxpayer-funded review with the people of Western Australia before she shared it with her interstate colleagues. The written answer was two words. Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI lodged a freedom of information request for it. Months on, they have not even asked me for the fee. The request is not being refused. It is simply not being processed, which is a quieter way of arriving at the same place.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd while the report sits on a desk, the roadside tests go on. People who are not impaired are still losing their licences. In July the Government found time to add cocaine to the same presence-based net, so the machinery that punishes the proxy was expanded in the very months the review of that machinery was being kept from view. New South Wales has a bill through its lower house for a threshold and a warning system. The ACT has tabled a bill. Queensland talked of a review in June and in July went the other way. In Tasmania, the presence of a prescription and the absence of impairment results in no prosecution. Here, the answer is that the matter is under consideration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI do not know what the report says. That is the point. I do not know because I am not allowed to, and neither are you, and neither, as far as any answer given in Parliament reveals, are the agencies whose job it would be to act on it. What I think is going on, and I give it to you as my opinion and nothing more, is that the report says that the law should be changed, and that the government for whatever reason is determined to hold back the report, prevent the amendment of legislation, and continue perpetrating a manifest injustice on unimpaired drivers who are guilty of taking their prescribed medication as recommended. I may be wrong. There is one document that would prove me wrong, and they will not release it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA body of experts holds the information. The person whose life is affected
1is told a conclusion: you must, you may not, it is under consideration. The information stays on one side of the desk, and the decision stays with it. That is the oncologistâs consulting room, with a portfolio instead of a stethoscope. And we have seen it before at even larger scale. The vaccine, you know which one, saves lives; and the mortality benefit is real. Is that the whole story? The institutions around it rushed the timeline, hid the data until a court forced it out, profited enormously, overclaimed what it could do, and stigmatised anyone who asked honest questions about harms. And even if it had all been handled perfectly, the state still had no right to force it into your body. You were asked to sacrifice your own bodily autonomy because it was good for you. The government knows better than you what is good for you. Trust us, they said. They said it was to keep the rest of the population safe, the population that had already taken the vaccine and therefore, according to government facts, were safe from disease, safe from mortality, safe from morbidity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe doctors can use a similar phrase. This is for your own good. Trust us, we know. Hush now, we are looking after you. The government phrases this differently. It is âunder considerationâ. Trust us, we are carefully looking into it, even if the working group of experts has already given an expert opinion. Keep on trusting us.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is one last room to consider.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn Saturday the people of Secret Harbour voted in a by-election. The seat had been Laborâs, under one name or another, since 1989. At the last election the margin was eleven and a half points, which the analysts call very safe. On the count so far it has gone to One Nation by a swing of more than seventeen points. I was at the pre-poll, stood at a polling booth on election day, and spoke with many really wonderful people from all parties. I had an inside view both as a politician and also from the perspective of a member of my own staff who stood in that contest for Legalise Cannabis. I watched closely as an interested observer. What signal are the voters sending us? I will not pretend to know; nobody knows that yet, least of all the winners. Was this a good choice or a poor choice? We will see. What I saw was a political fistfight, promises thrown around, floods of volunteers wrestling with the consciences of a voting public that clearly has told us they are not happy with the status quo. The Premier said on the night that Western Australians are doing it tough, that his Government will get out and listen, and that it will double down. Trust us.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eListen. It is the word the surgeon should have used. It costs nothing to say on the night a safe seat falls, and nothing to forget by Monday.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA patient who is told rather than asked will, in the end, leave the practice. Not leave because the next doctor is better; they may be worse. The patient leaves because in that room they were never a person with a body of their own. This was a case with a protocol attached. The electorate of Secret Harbour is a body too. It was told what was good for it for a very long time, in a very confident voice, without adequate action being taken, and on Saturday it got up and walked out of the consulting room. I do not say it walked into a better one but I do say that if you want to know why it left, then the government had better ask what the patient thinks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is where the evidence leads me. The decision about a body belongs to the person living in it. The person in my consulting room is entitled to say no to a bag and no to another round of poison, and to be told the honest odds before a decision is made. The woman on a prescription is entitled to know what her own Governmentâs experts concluded about the law that can take her licence. An authority that keeps the decision by keeping the information is not protecting anyone. It is protecting its hold on the decision. The remedy in both rooms is the same, and it is not complicated. Put the information on the table. Then ask the person whose body it is.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelease the report. On the eighth of September, when the C
1ouncil sits again, I will be asking for it. Again.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"20:T357f,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eWhen your own numbers have gone the wrong way three years in a row, you want a doctor who looks harder at that line, not one who takes it off the chart. Western Australia has just had the second kind of doctor. That is all I want to say this week, and everything below is the working.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWestern Australiaâs emissions have risen three years running. In 2024 they reached just under 91 million tonnes, the highest figure the State has ever recorded, and about a fifth higher than in 2005. Over the same twenty years the country as a whole cut its emissions by roughly a quarter. On the count government itself publishes, we are the only state still going up. Those are the test results. In May this year the Governmentâs answer to them was to decide not to put an emissions target into law after all. The bill that would have carried one was quietly dropped and its replacement will set targets for renewable generation, for carbon capture, and for something called green exports. The Premier said it himself: the globeâs the winner, but it may mean that Western Australiaâs emissions increase.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have read that sentence a good many times now. I think the Premier spoke honestly, which I respect, and I also think it is the sentence of someone who has decided to stop measuring the embarrassing thing. You can do that with a chart. You cannot do that with a patient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat the chart actually says\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNearly nine tenths of what this State emits comes from energy. The big gas plants on the north-west coast alone account for close to a quarter of the whole State. So we have a split problem. Some of the emitters the State owns: the power stations, the poles and wires, the retailer that sends most of us our bill. The rest it simply licenses, and that part is the bigger part. Keep those two parts in mind, because the Government treats them very differently.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe State half functions well\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not only about failure. There is good news, and some of the credit is deserved. Nearly half the electricity in the south-west grid in the first three months of this year came from wind and sun. The wholesale price of power, the price the generators get, fell 13 per cent over the past year. The Government has put $1.4 billion into the transmission lines that will carry more of it, and it has set the date 2030 for closing down the coal plants it owns. Independent modelling finds this the cheapest path, and it is the one being taken. Whatever else follows, that stands.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile we are talking about the cheapest forms of low emission energy, nuclear is not it. You may be surprised to hear that nuclear energy is, on the evidence, one of the safest ways of making electricity we have, and that the fear of it is not supported by that evidence. The best independent modelling in this country, however, finds it among the dearest and the slowest firm power we could build. It is also illegal in Australia at present, something we may want to reconsider in the future. For now, though, we already have the cheapest, safest and fastest form of energy production that can actually be built here, so why not just build it out now?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSlow, expensive, and we pay for it\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow the part that made me angry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Government gives three reasons for the slow pace of the energy transition. The market operator models a shortfall in supply from 2029 if coal goes and nothing has replaced it. The big new transmission lines are not finished; the northern one should be completed late in 2027, the eastern one at the end of 2029. And thirdly, the battery storage that would let us lean harder on wind and sun is not yet built. All three are true and I accept every one of them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn two of those three reasons the Government has put its money where the reasons are. The lines are funded and the northern one is being built now. Batteries are going into the grid and into peopleâs garages with a rebate attached. On the third, the gap between now and the day those lines are finished, it made a different kind of choice. It extended the lease on a private coal mine at Collie to the middle of 2031, and it has paid that mineâs owners, who are receivers, $308 million of public money since 2022 to keep digging uneconomical coal. While the State held its own coal plants to their closing dates, the market operatorâs planning assumption for the one private coal station moved from 2027 to 2031. The three reasons were a case for building faster. They were used as a case for paying to wait, and that money should be going into the storage that closes the gap, not into waiting for the lines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWho pays while we wait? We do, and the bill has been arriving on the same date every year. Power tariffs went up in July last year and again this July. The network charge on our bills went up more than seven per cent, and I know what that charge pays for: it pays for the very lines I want built sooner. My complaint is not that it rose. It is that nothing on the bill shows what it bought. The $400 credit that used to soften the July letter ended a year ago and was not brought back. Meanwhile, how much of the wholesale price reduction, the one that fell 13 per cent, reached you? The part of the bill that rose is the part the State itself collects. The Stateâs own generator booked a $778 million loss last year, much of it writing down the coal plants it is closing, and had already, by the ABCâs account, asked for close to a billion dollars in support and been told to borrow instead. Nobody, as far as I can find, has yet asked why.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have said I can hear the economic case for keeping Collie going, and I can still hear it. But a case for going slowly is not a case for paying a failed mine to set the pace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe half the State licenses, and will not measure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe gas plants are a different matter, and the difference is the one the Premierâs sentence was built on. The State does not own them. Their emissions sit under a Commonwealth scheme the State does not report on. And when the Government says the globe is the winner from our gas, what it is saying is that other big emitters burn less coal because of it, while our own emissions rise as we extract the gas we export. That is the Governmentâs claim, and it may or may not be the whole truth. It is a claim about tonnes somewhere else, and the Government has never published a single one of them. This week the West Australian reported that Woodside Energy has cut billions from its project pipeline and will abandon all of its Scope 3 targets, the ones about the emissions of the people who burn its gas, having met its own Scope 1 and 2 targets for the emissions it makes itself. I do not blame a company for dropping a promise it could not keep. I do n
1otice that the Governmentâs argument for dropping its own targets rests on other peopleâs numbers, and the biggest of those people has just stopped promising to produce any.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd then there is the money, which is where this joins the piece I wrote last week about who pays for Western Australia. The Stateâs take from oil and gas was $1.3 billion three years ago. This year it expects $365 million, and by 2028 less than $250 million. Most of the gas that leaves this coast pays the State nothing at all, because it comes from Commonwealth waters and pays a Commonwealth profits tax instead. The one exception, the North West Shelf, returns about two thirds of its royalties to us only because Canberra agreed to share them back in the 1980s. Nobody has agreed to share anything since. Our emissions go up, the measurement goes away, and the money goes east.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is one more thing sitting in plain sight. Since 2012 this State has had a Future Fund, built to take one per cent of the royalties and hold it for the generations who will not see the gas. Our resources generate our wealth, and the Stateâs own take from that wealth is small and shrinking. We are ten per cent of the countryâs vote. On GST we get back a floor of 75 cents in the dollar, and the Productivity Commission has just recommended taking that floor away. The Prime Minister says nothing will change while he is Prime Minister. A promise is not a law, other states are already agitating, and that fight has only just started. Meanwhile one per cent of royalties into a Future Fund is a paltry thing. Norway put its oil money into a fund for its people, and that fund is now very likely at or above three trillion US dollars. I want ours enlarged, protected, and left alone to do the job it was built for, for our children and their children.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat I would do, in order\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive things. I will say one thing first. I told the Council what I think about the science, and some readers will not agree with me. I am not going to spend this piece arguing with them, because nothing below depends on winning that argument. This is about energy, emissions, and what a State does with the numbers it has.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, get real. Put the numbers back: the floor should be the national 2035 target, 62 to 70 per
1cent below 2005, with a waypoint in 2030 so nobody can coast. Every year the Government tables the Stateâs inventory in Parliament, plant by plant for the big emitters. As for the green exports target: either it says how many tonnes it avoids at the other end, or it goes. And I will own something. In 2022 I told the Council that net zero by 2050 was not good enough: âI think 2030 is appropriate, perhaps even 2025 would be ideal because we do not have a day to waste.â I was right about the mechanism, which is that only a near date changes behaviour. I got the year wrong.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, govern what you own on the evidence. Hold 2030 for the Stateâs coal. End the Collie subsidy on 30 June 2029, the year the eastern transmission line comes on, and contract the storage that covers the 2029 gap now, so that when the mineâs money stops the plant is not the only thing standing between us and a shortfall. If the Government cannot contract that storage in time, it should say so in public and argue for the extension on the record, rather than pay the mine in silence. Publish, every year, how the Government is going against its own promise to cut its own operationsâ emissions 80 per cent by 2030, a promise with no public scorecard. And examine Synergyâs loss rather than refinance it. Last week I wrote that I was proposing no change to royalties or taxes in that piece. I am proposing one now, and I would rather say so than have someone find it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, argue for the Stateâs share. Go to Canberra and ask for every tonne of gas processed on this coast to be put on the same footing as the North West Shelf, with the Stateâs share of the take that the Shelf has returned to us since the 1980s. Most of those projects pay no royalty at all today, only a Commonwealth profits tax, so that is an argument, not a power; the State cannot simply levy it. Then put the proceeds where the 2012 Act already says they belong.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth, plan for what is coming. The market operator already sees a gap in domestic gas supply in 2028, and a gap in electricity from 2029. The sea is taking ground at Lancelin and the fire season in the South West is lengthening, and both need adaptation money, not a media statement. And one small thing I have argued for since 2021: a proper State trial of industrial hemp as a biomass and building crop. The best field trials I can find put its energy yield at about two thirds of maize as gas and two thirds of willow as solid fuel, which is useful, not miraculous, and nobody has yet run the trial here that would tell us what it does in our soil.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFifth, protect who pays. Publish the wholesale price beside the retail one every July, so that the year the generators get cheaper and your bill gets dearer is visible on one page. Put hardship and disconnection figures out on a fixed date. And say plainly that the end of the electricity credit was a decision, taken by a Government, and not weather.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTwo mistakes to avoid\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI do not think nuclear power is the answer here. The evidence says it is among the slowest and dearest on offer, and I have said so and will keep saying it unless the evidence demands a rethink.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will not let green exports stand in for tonnes. Shipping more of something is not the same as emitting less of it. If the Government wants credit for the globeâs emissions it can produce the globeâs numbers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBack to the chart\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA doctor who takes a line off the chart has not treated the patient. He has changed what he can be blamed for. This State governs the grid it owns with real competence, refuses to measure the industry it licenses, and the household sits at the end of both, paying the tariff on the first and carrying the warming from the second.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the face of a changing climate, a first act of a climate policy for Western Australia is not a solar panel or a speech. It is to put the correct numbers back on the chart, in law, with a date, and then to be held to them. That is
1what an upstream approach to a downstream problem looks like. Everything else on this page follows from that one honest line, and none of it can be held to account without it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"21:T2ea5,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eThree years ago a car pulled up outside my practice and a woman I knew got out of the driverâs seat, which was wrong, because her husband never let anyone else drive. He was in the passenger seat. He had been driving when it started, she told me; he had suddenly stopped making sense, and she had somehow got the car stopped and got him here. She was scared. I went out to him, a man I had known for years. A patient at times, but more than that, a friend. He looked at me the way you look at a stranger who is standing slightly too close. He did not recognise me, nor the clinic. Somewhere behind his eyes something had come loose, and the man I knew was not answering.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was no reasoning with him. He felt well, he said, though he was plainly confused and failing, and he refused to enter the clinic. What he wanted was to get back in his car and drive, he knew not where. I had an ambulance called, and when the crew arrived, mercifully fast, he fought us all. He is a strong man, and in his confusion he was stronger still. The paramedics reached for ketamine, a serious drug they keep for the far end of the agitation scale. Nothing happened. He was untouched by a dose that settles almost anyone. He struggled on, and only after the third injection could we get him into the ambulance. Three doses. Hold onto that detail, because it matters: a triple dose of ketamine does not happen with a dizzy spell.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHe was admitted to a big hospital under a consultant neurologist and his team, and I went back to my clinic to worry. Several days later I learned two things. The first was that he had been discharged and was already in Melbourne, where he had hired a car and was driving. The second stunned me. His diagnosis was postural hypotension. A drop in blood pressure on standing. The terrifying thing I had witnessed had lifted for him the way a fog lifts, the tests had come back inconclusive, an MRI of the brain among them, and so with nothing concrete to write, something tidy was written instead. Postural hypotension. And with that benign label he was cleared, discharged, and sent on his way interstate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn all my clinical career I have seen many episodes of postural hypotension, and if I can be certain of one thing it is this: whatever felled my friend that day, it was not a drop in his blood pressure. You do not need my bald head to see it; the guidelines every doctor works from say the same. A person recovering from a faint is clear-headed almost immediately, disorientated for perhaps five or ten seconds. Confusion lasting many minutes points away from a faint altogether, toward a seizure among other possibilities. An episode that runs for the better part of an hour, in a man who is awake, on his feet, fighting three grown adults and unable to recognise a friend of many years, is not what a faint looks like. It is not even close.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd there was an honest label available. Medicine has one for exactly this situation, and it is no shame to use it: cause not yet determined. We looked, we found nothing conclusive, we do not yet know. Every doctor writes it somewhere in a working life. That label is not a failure. It is the truth, holding the door open for the answer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut the honest label has consequences, and here is where this stops being a story about one manâs file. The national standards that govern fitness to drive treat honest uncertainty with real respect: an unexplained episode of this kind sits in the same family of standards as blackouts and first seizures, six months off the road for a private driver, because the next one might arrive at a hundred kilometres an hour. An explained episode, a simple faint with an obvious trigger, carries almost no restriction at all. Do you see what the label did? Unexplained, and the safeguards wake up. Explained, and they sleep. The tidy diagnosis did not just close his file. It put him behind the wheel of a hire car in Melbourne traffic, within days, with a question mark in his brain that nobody had answered. The label was the licence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy mind went straight to the story I could not stop writing in my head: a man who has suffered some major neurological event, discharged unexplained, and an avoidable accident with someone dead at the end of it. If that happened and I had said nothing, it would have been on me for the rest of my life. So I rang the hospital. Not to lodge a complaint. To ask a doctorâs question: what did you find, and how does it lead to this diagnosis? Walk me through it, because I saw the acute event, which nobody at your hospital did, and I cannot get there.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe junior doctor on the ward gave me a short and unenlightening conversation and grew defensive. Then her registrar rang me back, not with findings but with a complaint: the diagnosis was clear, and why was I casting doubt? She had heard my questions as an attack, which they were not. And then the consultant wrote to me. Not with the findings. Not with the reasoning. With a demand that I explain myself for calling his diagnosis into question. I have the letter still.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I felt when I read it belongs in the evidence, so here it is. I felt insulted. Underneath the courtesies, the message I received was that a general practitioner could not be expected to know the difference, and should not presume to ask. There was no differential diagnosis on offer, no list of possibilities the GP might watch for, nothing for me to work with in the years of his care that would now be mine. And far stronger than the insult was disbelief. I was not a rival. I was offering that hospital the one piece of clinical evidence it lacked, an experienced clinicianâs account of the event itself, and the institutionâs whole reflex, from intern to consultant, was to defend the label rather than examine it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe letter did not get the contrition it seemed to invite. I have been leaned on inside the healing professions often enough to know how to return serve when the stakes are a patientâs life, and I called the consultant and had a rather one-sided conversation, at the end of which he understood that no referral of mine would ever again cross his desk. He maintained to the last that his diagnosis was correct. I was sorely tempted to take it further. I let the temptation pass.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhy does a system produce that piece of theatre? I cannot see inside another manâs head, so take what follows for exactly what it is, a judgement from long experience and nothing more. Sometimes a discharge demands a diagnosis because the paperwork will not accept âunknownâ, and the bureaucracy is pleased. Sometimes a clinician has been taught, without anyone ever quite saying it, that a precise-sounding label is competence and âwe do not knowâ is failure. I have sat on the other side of this myself: asked, in my time, to write a diagnosis that did not reflect our real uncertainty, because uncertainty would read as failure. For the record, I refused, wrote the differential and the steps that would settle it in due course, and let it be challenging. A specialist may find that uncomfortable. A GP has to be comfortable with uncertainty; it is most of the job.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor all the heat in what I have just told you, nobody in this story is a villain, and the strongest evidence is how uniform the reflex was. The junior did what juniors learn to do. The registrar and the consultant defended what their training and their institution taught them to defend. Three people at three levels ran the identical programme, and that is not a coincidence of character; it is a culture. Study after study of diagnostic error finds the same engine at the bottom: premature closure, the reaching of an answer and the closing of the question, after which every new fact is bent to fit the label or brushed aside. The label acquires momentum. Each doctor who opens the file meets the verdict before they meet the patient. Challenge, which is the only medicine that cures a wrong diagnosis, gets processed as insolence instead of information. It happened to me, a colleague of forty yearsâ standing, doctor to doctor. Now imagine how
1it goes for a worried spouse.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a boundary here, and I will respect it. I do not know what was in their test results beyond what I was told, because they never showed me the reasoning. Three years later my offer stands: show me the workings, and whatever they reveal that day to have truly been, I will publish it as plainly as I am writing this. But that is precisely the point. A diagnosis whose evidence cannot be shown to the patientâs own doctor is not knowledge. It is a ruling, and medicine is not supposed to issue rulings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd I have come to think this reflex is not a hospital problem at all, but what power does with questions everywhere, once being certain becomes part of the job. I sit in a Parliament where I ask institutions to show their workings for a living, and I meet the same sequence more often than I can tell you: the confident answer, the refusal of the underlying data, and, if you press, the suggestion that the question itself is the offence. A hospital defending a diagnosis and a department defending a decision are running the same programme. The file must be right, because the file is ours.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou will want to know how my friend is. He is well. Three years on, there has been no second episode, and I am more glad of that than of anything else in this story. But be careful with the comfort in it. The good outcome does not mean the label was right; nothing we ever learned says it was. It means we were lucky, or it means the true cause was something that passed, and we will never know which, because the question was closed on day one and nobody was permitted to reopen it. He is well, and his file still contains a certainty no one ever earned. Both of those things are true, and it is still puzzling, and honest medicine would have let it stay puzzling out loud.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat would the honest version have looked like? Small, and completely different. A discharge summary that said: episode of confusion, cause not established, investigations so far unremarkable, do not drive until this is resolved, GP to follow up, here is everything we found. A phone call answered with a colleagueâs curiosity instead of a defended border. A system in which âwe do not know yetâ is a complete and honourable clinical sentence, spoken to the patientâs face, written in his record, and shared with the doctor who will carry his care. Nothing in that version needs a hero. It only needs institutions that treat a question as a gift rather than a threat, because in medicine a question is very often the last safeguard left standing between a wrong label and a harm nobody meant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEverything I trust about healing begins at the same place: the first honest sentence. Between a doctor and a patient, between a hospital and a GP, between a government and its people. Certainty that has not been earned protects nobody. It only decides, in advance, who will not be listened to. My friend was owed that honest sentence three years ago, and so was I, and in a quieter way so is everyone whose file holds an answer that was really a full stop.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo carry this story with you to question time, next time you watch our Parliament at work, and listen the way a doctor listens. Are the questions being answered, or is the file being defended? You will recognise the reflex now, in a hospital, in a department, in a chamber. Naming it is not cynicism. Naming it is the first honest sentence, and everything that heals starts there.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"22:T371a,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhoto: Nathan Hurst, Unsplash\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou have been told, repeatedly and accurately, that you live in the strongest economy in the country. And if you rent, or you are under thirty five, or you have looked lately at what a house costs, you may have noticed that none of this appears to have happened to you. Both of those are true at once. Neither one is spin.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"what-we-lead-the-country-in\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat we lead the country in\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWestern Australia had the lowest unemployment rate of any state in April this year, at 4.1 per cent, and the highest workforce participation, at 69.2 per cent. Wages here grew faster last year than in any other state. Full time earnings are the second highest in the country. Median personal income is higher here than in any other state, although both territories are higher still. The Government has now run eight consecutive surpluses, the most recent of them an estimated result rather than an audited one. It holds a triple-A credit rating from both Moodyâs and Standard and Poorâs, and it is the only state that holds both. Those figures come from the Bureau of Statistics, from the Governmentâs own budget papers, and, in the case of the credit rating, from the two agencies that issued it. Not one of them is mine, and not one of them is in dispute.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"what-we-are-last-in-the-country-in\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat we are last in the country in\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow the same state, over the same years. Perth is the least affordable capital city in Australia to rent in. The typical rent takes 32 per cent of a householdâs income, against 21 per cent in 2020, on the Rental Affordability Index compiled by SGS Economics. Rents across this state rose 75 per cent between 2019 and 2025, which the Bureau of Statistics records as the steepest rise anywhere in the country.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShelter WA, the stateâs peak housing body, reported in March this year that on average 96 people a day in this state ask homelessness services for help \u003cstrong\u003eand do not get it\u003c/strong\u003e. That figure is up 68 per cent in five years, and over the same period the number of West Australians reporting they have slept rough has more than doubled. The count underneath it is the Australian Institute of Health and Welfareâs, for 2024-25. Shelter WA advocates for more housing funding. They are also the ones reading the data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen there is a number from the Governmentâs own budget papers that I have not been able to stop thinking about. The Department of Housing and Works publishes the average wait for people who are eventually housed in social housing. Two years ago it was 156 weeks. This financial year it is expected to be 173. And the target for next year, the number the Government has set and approved and printed, is \u003cstrong\u003e185 weeks\u003c/strong\u003e. Three years and seven months. Not a warning. A target.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd over the past decade, according to the economist Saul Eslakeâs analysis of the national accounts, what this state produces per person has not grown at all. Eslake has been a public critic of this stateâs fiscal position for years. The Bureauâs own figures for last year put the change at minus 1.1 per cent, the weakest of any state or territory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"both-lists-are-true-and-they-are-about-different-people\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBoth lists are true, and they are about different people\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eBetween early 2023 and the middle of this year, the median Perth house went from $547,000 to $938,000. Those are the Real Estate Instituteâs medians. CoreLogic, which measures it differently, had the Perth median above a million dollars by March. On either count, if you owned a house you gained close to $400,000 for doing nothing at all. Over the same stretch the median rent went from $575 a week to $750. If you rent, you now pay about $9,100 a year more than you did, for the same house.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is not two economies. It is one ec
1onomy, and a transfer running through the middle of it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"where-the-money-went\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhere the money went\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWages in this state grew faster than anywhere else in Australia and still lost the race. You do not have to take my word for the losing. Turn to the first table in Budget Paper 3, on page two, and you will find the Governmentâs forecast for wage growth in this state and its forecast for prices in this city, printed one line above the other. This financial year: wages 3.75 per cent, prices 5.5. Next year: wages 3.25, prices 3.75. Two rows, one table, and the subtraction left to the reader.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a footnote under that table worth reading twice. The price forecasts leave electricity out altogether, and Treasury says why: the stateâs own successive household electricity credits had distorted the index. Those credits have now ended. The number Treasury forecasts against is not the number that turns up in your letterbox.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I think happened next is my reading rather than anybodyâs finding. Wages lost the race because what they were racing was land. The money that came out of the ground did not stay in wages. It went into the price of houses, and from there to the people who already owned houses, and everyone else pays it as rent. It is the simplest explanation that fits all of the numbers above.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can see the pressure in the supply. Rentals under $350 a week fell by 82 per cent. In the eighteen months to September 2024, Perth added 694 new rental properties against population growth of 119,000 people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe households that feel this first are the ones with the least room to move. The community sector organisations that model these budgets each year advocate for more social spending. On their figures for 2024-25, an age pensioner who rents now spends 55 per cent of their income on rent, up from 37 per cent six years earlier. A single parent spends 42 per cent, up from 28. The number of people already in work who came to emergency relief services in this state rose 147 per cent over four years. In work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd the Economic Regulation Authority counts what households owe their energy retailer. In 2019 the average electricity bill debt in this state was $519. By June last year it was $1,419, having risen 22 per cent in that year alone. Just over forty thousand households are carrying it. Disconnections went the other way. There were 11,776 residential electricity disconnections in 2024-25, down 16 per cent on the year before and a little over half the 21,212 of 2018-19. Fewer households are being cut off. The ones who are not being cut off owe nearly three times what they owed six years ago.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"who-the-bill-went-to\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWho the bill went to\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo where does the state get its money. In 2019
1-20 it collected $8.45 billion in mining royalties and $9.06 billion in taxes, out of total revenue of $32.2 billion. In this yearâs budget it expects $9.44 billion in royalties and $16.92 billion in taxes, out of $55 billion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDivide one by the other and you get the shares. Royalties have fallen from 26.3 per cent of what the state collects to 17.2 per cent. Taxation has risen from 28.2 per cent to 30.8. That division is mine, not the Treasuryâs. The dollar figures are theirs, and they are in Budget Paper 3, Chapter 4, Table 1. If you think I have the arithmetic wrong, the table is four pages into the chapter and it takes a minute to check. In 2019-20 this state collected about \u003cstrong\u003e$1.07 in tax for every dollar it collected in royalties\u003c/strong\u003e. This year it expects \u003cstrong\u003e$1.79\u003c/strong\u003e. Every one of the decisions that produced that was announced. The sum of them never was.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-other-side-of-the-ledger\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe other side of the ledger\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe resources industry pays tax, and a great deal of it. Budget Paper 3 puts it more strongly than I would have: this stateâs four largest iron ore producers paid \u003cstrong\u003emore than $117 billion in company tax to the Commonwealth\u003c/strong\u003e on their Western Australian operations in the six years to 2024-25. That is the Governmentâs own figure, in the document I am asking you to read. Royalties are no soft touch either. They are charged on the value of what comes out of the ground rather than on profit, which means they are paid in bad years as well as good ones.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe GST is the other one, and anybody who has had that argument with a Victorian knows how it runs. Because of the 2018 reforms, Western Australia receives around $6.6 billion more this year than it would have under the old formula. That figure is the Chamber of Commerce and Industryâs, and it is close to two thirds of our entire allocation. Every other state now gets a payment to make sure it is not worse off as a result. That is not nothing. But the same budget papers say that over the five years to 2029-30 this state will still receive \u003cstrong\u003e$11.7 billion less than its population share\u003c/strong\u003e of the GST. Their words for that are âeffectively a GST subsidy from Western Australia to other Statesâ. Treasury puts our whole net contribution to the Federation at $36.2 billion for 2024-25 alone. Both of those are true. They are answers to two different questions. And neither of them is the question I am asking here, which is not how much this state receives from Canberra but how it chooses to raise the rest. You can believe we are short-changed by the Federation and still ask who inside Western Australia is carrying the load.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"what-is-not-measured\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat is not measured\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo things I went looking for and did not find. What is the average household income in this state. The Bureau of Statistics ran the survey that would tell you and then published a statement headed âSurvey of Income and Housing results will not be releasedâ. The work was done. The answer was not. And how many West Australian households are behind on their mortgage. There is no current published count by state, from the banking regulator or from anyone else. The Reserve Bank did look closely at Western Australian arrears once, in a box in its Financial Stability Review. That was in 2019.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome of this is measured, and some of it measured well. The Economic Regulation Authority counts household energy debt to the dollar and puts it on its website. The rest is being done by advocacy organisations with an interest in the answer, by academics working on grants, and by a single indicator on page 582 of an agencyâs budget statement. What is not happening is the state that collects the money measuring, systematically and in public, who is carrying it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of that is a conspiracy. Surveys get cut, breaking figures down state by state costs money, and nobodyâs job depends on keeping a data series alive. But the things we do measure are bad enough, and the things we have stopped measuring are the ones that would tell us just how bad.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"it-is-already-in-the-forward-estimates\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIt is already in the forward estimates\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis next part is not a prediction. The state has already published it. Budget Paper 3 assumes the iron ore price reverts to its long run average of seventy two US dollars a tonne from May 2027. On the Governmentâs own projections, royalty income falls to $7.4 billion by 2029-30 while tax revenue climbs to $19.4 billion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTreasury has assumed for seven budgets running that the iron ore price falls back to a long run average. It has never once fallen back. In all seven years the actual price came in above the assumption, and the difference landed on the books as surplus. Treasury also publishes what each dollar is worth: every $US1 a tonne above the assumed price brings in another $94 million. Take the budgeted price at face value anyway.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRun the same division again and the royalty share of what this state collects drops to \u003cstrong\u003e13.6 per cent\u003c/strong\u003e by the end of the decade. Taxation reaches \u003cstrong\u003e35.4 per cent\u003c/strong\u003e. That is \u003cstrong\u003e$2.61 of tax for every dollar of royalties\u003c/strong\u003e, against $1.07 ten years earlier. The shift is not something I think might happen. It sits in Treasuryâs own numbers, four years out, in a document anyone can download this afternoon.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"what-a-state-should-be-measured-by\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat a state should be measured by\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo things, and they are different kinds of claim. The first is a matter of principle and no figure will move it. A state should be judged by how its households are doing, not by the size of its balance sheet. A surplus is a means. A credit rating is a means. Neither one is the reason we have a government. And the state is paying for itself less and less out of the minerals, and more and more out of the households. That is a choice government made, even if nobody made it in a single sitting. Somebody should have to stand up in public and argue for it. It should not simply accumulate, year after year, out of forecasting assumptions nobody is ever asked to defend. That argument belongs in the Legislative Council, which is where I sit and where I intend to make it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is only what the figures show. On the stateâs own numbers, royalties have fallen from 26.3 per cent of revenue to 17.2, the tax share has risen, and the forward estimates carry both further still. Over the same years Western Australia became the worst place in the country to rent. Whether the first caused the second I do not know. Every piece of this was decided by somebody, and nearly all of it was announced. The sum of it never was, and no government has stood up and defended where the sum leaves us. And nobody whose job it is is measuring who it lands on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe budget papers are online. The Bureau of Statistics is free. Do not take my word for any of it. Go and check.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"23:Tbce,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eRecently, the Productivity Commission released an interim report that struck a chord of genuine alarm across our state. As a medical doctor, I am trained to look for symptoms before they become critical. Right now, our state faces a diagnosis that could have devastating consequences for every Western Australian family and business. The risk here is not merely bureaucratic. It is an existential threat to our capacity to fund the schools, hospitals, and emergency services that keep our community alive.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-ignoring-evidence\"\u003eThe danger of ignoring evidence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Productivity Commission has proposed changes that could effectively strip six billion dollars from the state budget every single year. Let that number sink in. When you look at the evidence, the logic provided in the report is internally inconsistent and, frankly, bizarre. They have hypothesised scenarios that do not exist, all while ignoring the successful outcomes of the 2018 GST reform. This isn't just a political debate: it is a threat to our financial health.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you value science-based, evidence-driven policy, please consider joining our community. You can stay up to date with my latest efforts to hold the government accountable by \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribing to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-call-for-accountability\"\u003eA call for accountability\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat we are seeking is fairness. The 2018 deal established a 75c floor that has allowed Western Australia to maintain stability without penalising other states. It is a system that works for the entire nation. Yet, the Commission seems intent on looking backwards, ignoring the productive engine room that this state has become. We are not asking for a special deal. We are asking for the preservation of the fair deal that was already struck. My colleagues and I in the Legislative Council are clear: we demand the Productivity Commission comes to Western Australia to look the people they are impacting in the eye.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-path-forward\"\u003eThe path forward\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ball is firmly in the Prime Minister's court. We need an ironclad guarantee that these arrangements will be preserved. We cannot afford half-measures or vague assurances while our future is being debated in Canberra or Melbourne. It is time for our federal representatives to stand up and ensure that Western Australia is not treated as an afterthought. We must continue to insist on the respect and financial security that this state has earned through its immense contribution to the national economy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-20/8?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record of this debate here\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe in a future for Western Australia that is based on fairness and evidence, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us make a difference.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"24:Ta63,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-missed-opportunity-on-our-doorstep\"\u003eThe missed opportunity on our doorstep\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I learned that ignoring the signs of a treatable condition only leads to poorer outcomes later. As a member of the Legislative Council, I see the same pattern in how our government manages the industrial hemp sector. Recently, I raised questions in the House regarding the Senate inquiry into the development of the hemp industry in Australia. This report contains fourteen clear recommendations that could revolutionise our agricultural landscape, yet the response from the government suggests a reluctance to lead.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe risk here is not just an abstract policy failure. It is the real-world consequence of a state being left behind. While our farmers are eager for innovation and economic diversification, they are being met with bureaucratic inertia. This is a waiting room where progress dies. If we refuse to work with federal partners to implement these evidence-based strategies, we are effectively choosing stagnation over prosperity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"connecting-with-the-community\"\u003eConnecting with the community\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI find that many people are just as frustrated as I am by the slow pace of meaningful change. If you want to keep up to date with my work in the House and see the reality of our parliamentary sessions, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where we break down the complex topics that the major parties often gloss over.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-commercial-decision-or-a-failure-of-vision\"\u003eA commercial decision or a failure of vision\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government maintains that the decision to grow hemp is merely a commercial choice for farm businesses. They point to research trials as evidence of their support. While research is important, it is not a substitute for comprehensive policy action. When I asked whether the government would commit to implementing the recommendations from the federal inquiry, the answer was, in essence, a shrug of the shoulders. They treat a national opportunity as if it were a local hobby.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe deserve better. We deserve a government that sees the science, understands the market, and acts with conviction. To view the full exchange, you can read the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-20/18?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record of the proceedings\u003c/a\u003e. If you are ready to see real change in Western Australia, I encourage you to stand with us and \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA today\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"25:Te21,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I learned that a good diagnosis requires looking past the surface. You do not just treat the fever: you look for the infection causing it. Today, the House is debating the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-20/9?ref=localhost\"\u003eLand Forces Event (Special Powers) Bill 2026\u003c/a\u003e. On its face, it is a management plan for a weapons exposition. But look closer, and you see something far more systemic: the normalization of special powers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-sliding-scale-of-state-control\"\u003eThe sliding scale of state control\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecial powers are only special as long as they are rare. When they become the recurring answer to every major event, they cease to be temporary anomalies and start to become the baseline for our society. We are drifting toward a future where our basic freedoms are subject to the discretion of an agency, rather than being our inherent right.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have been asked to accept this bill because of the risk of protest-related violence. Yet, as a society, we must ask if we are creating the very conditions we fear. Are we fostering a community where peace is the default, or are we simply building bigger fences and wider cordons? The immediate danger to your family isn't just a protest: it is the realization that in 2026, we are being conditioned to accept that our movement, privacy, and right to dissent can be suspended on a whim.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay informed about how these legislative shifts affect your daily life and our collective future, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003emy channel here\u003c/a\u003e. It is where we break down the complex reality of what is happening in the Legislative Council.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-price-of-protection\"\u003eThe price of protection\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat strikes me is the list of prohibited items. Since when is a bicycle lock or a simple glass jar considered a danger to the state? When we start defining ordinary, everyday objects as contraband because they might be used in a protest, we are not protecting safety; we are criminalizing the act of being present. This isn't just bureaucracy: it is a waiting room where our democratic rights are left to atrophy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have often said that a free person in a free country has the right to live in peace, provided they do not harm others. Yet this bill moves us further from that ideal. We are trading our ability to question power for the illusion of a sanitized public square. The real cost isn't just the inconvenience of road closures or checkpoints; it is the precedent we leave behind for the next government and the next crisis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-call-for-something-better\"\u003eA call for something better\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe need a state that values evidence over optics. While the major parties play politics with police powers, we must look at the science of social cohesion. Peace is built on education, transparency, and trust, not on metal detectors and restricted zones.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full, often sobering \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-20/9?ref=localhost\"\u003etranscript of the debate here\u003c/a\u003e to understand exactly what is being authorized in our name. If you are ready to stand up for a state that prioritizes people and transparency over the convenience of arms dealers, I invite you to join the growing movement at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e. It is time we brought a medical approach back to our politics: honesty, evidence, and humanity.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"26:Tcf8,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-silence-from-the-top\"\u003eThe silence from the top\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. Yet, day after day, we see a health system that prefers bureaucracy over the wellbeing of those at their most vulnerable. Recently, in the Legislative Council, we addressed a motion regarding the state of palliative care in Western Australia. It is a topic that touches every single one of us: the dignity, comfort, and care we receive when approaching the end of life.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have evidence, we have research, and we have clear, professional recommendations. Yet, the government continues to ignore the very path it once promised to follow. This is not just administrative delay: it is a waiting room where patients face preventable suffering because the support they were promised simply has not arrived.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe risk is visceral. When we fail to implement evidence-based palliative care, we force patients into emergency departments instead of the comfort of their own homes. We are failing our regional communities and our youth, and we are ignoring the clear clinical data that shows how better care improves outcomes for the entire family. If you want to stay updated on our fight for a more compassionate and evidence-based health system, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates from the front lines of Parliament.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-broken-promises\"\u003eThe human cost of broken promises\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003ePalliative care is not merely about managing pain. It is about humanity. It is about supporting a person through the psychosocial and spiritual dimensions of their final chapter. When I look at the 2020 report from the Joint Select Committee, I see 25 recommendations that the government supported in principle. Then, I see the reality: a total failure to monitor the progress of those commitments. This was a deliberate choice to leave us in the dark.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe know that home-based care saves lives and resources, yet we see patients caught in a system that restricts eligibility based on arbitrary timelines. We have elderly citizens and those under 65 trapped in a fragmented system that provides little comfort to their loved ones. It is a failure of oversight that borders on negligence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-path-forward\"\u003eA path forward\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evidence is clear. The government ignored it. We are calling for an urgent, transparent report to account for every single one of those 24 recommendations that remain in limbo. We need to know why our system remains so fragmented and why the promise of dignified end-of-life care is being denied to so many. You can review the full \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-19/6?ref=localhost\"\u003eparliamentary proceedings here\u003c/a\u003e to see exactly where the government stands on this critical issue.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are fighting for a system that values the person above the paperwork. If you are a forward-thinker who believes in data-driven policy and true compassion, join our movement. We are building a future where health, dignity, and common sense prevail. Stand with us by signing up at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"27:Tb35,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-doctor-asks-for-the-truth\"\u003eA doctor asks for the truth\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my decades as a general practitioner, I have seen firsthand how bureaucracy can obstruct healing. A patient sits across from me, suffering, only to find that the very systems meant to support them are tied in knots. Today, that frustration reached the floor of the Legislative Council. I put questions to the government regarding the report from the Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group. Specifically, I wanted to know if the Treasurer had seen this report and whether the potential for unfair taxation on our patients had been properly modelled.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-bureaucratic-delay\"\u003eThe danger of bureaucratic delay\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not merely a matter of administrative process. It is a waiting room where patients are caught in a legal limbo. While other states grapple with the reality of cannabis-based medicines and driving, Western Australia remains paralysed by indecision. The risk here is clear. If we fail to act based on science, we continue to criminalise patients who are simply trying to manage their health. The government response was a simple, sterile statement that the report remains under consideration. This kind of vague non-answer does nothing to alleviate the anxiety of thousands of Western Australians who just want to live their lives without fear of losing their licence for using a prescribed medicine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you value evidence-based policy over political stalling, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e to stay updated on our fight for common sense reforms in the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"fighting-for-a-science-led-future\"\u003eFighting for a science-led future\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evidence is clear. The government ignored the urgency of the situation today. We cannot allow taxation concerns or departmental sluggishness to derail the health outcomes of our community. As a doctor, I know that health policy must be driven by data, not by the reluctance of a Treasurer to engage with a report. My colleagues and I will continue to press this issue. We refuse to let this drift into the background while patients face the threat of losing their livelihoods simply because they follow a doctor's advice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-19/20?ref=localhost\"\u003etranscript of my questions in the Legislative Council\u003c/a\u003e to see exactly how these matters are handled. Real change requires a groundswell of support from forward-thinkers like you who believe in a logical approach to drug law reform. Please join us at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to hold the powerful to account and demand a fairer system for everyone.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"28:Tbba,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-silence-behind-the-closed-doors\"\u003eThe silence behind the closed doors\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have learned that the best way to treat a patient is through clear communication and accurate data. When we face a health crisis, we do not guess. We look at the evidence. We analyse the symptoms. We formulate a plan that is grounded in reality. Yet, when it comes to the complex intersection of medicinal cannabis and road safety, the government seems content to operate in the dark.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently stood in the Legislative Council to ask a simple, logical set of questions. I wanted to know if the government had examined road safety statistics from the Australian Capital Territory during their transition to a more sensible cannabis policy. I asked for data. I asked for transparency. I asked for the facts that should underpin any serious discussion on reform. The answer from the government was brief and disappointing: the relevant report remains under consideration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-bureaucratic-delays\"\u003eThe danger of bureaucratic delays\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not merely a matter of administrative preference. This is a waiting room where patients face profound anxiety. Every day that we delay evidence-based reform, we leave medicinal cannabis patients in a state of fear. They worry about the legality of their medication and the potential loss of their licences. This anxiety is real. It is a weight that rests heavily on the shoulders of people who are simply trying to manage their health.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you value the intersection of science and policy, I encourage you to see more of my work by \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribing to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. We explore these issues with the depth they deserve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"seeking-the-truth-for-our-community\"\u003eSeeking the truth for our community\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are a tribe of forward-thinkers. We know that the status quo is not always the safest path. True safety is found in intelligence and understanding, not in stubborn adherence to outdated regulations that fail to distinguish between legitimate medicine and dangerous impairment. The evidence was there to be looked at. The government chose to ignore it for now. We deserve to know what is being considered in that working group. We deserve to know when these reforms will finally arrive.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is exhausting to watch such critical work stalled by silence. While major parties play politics, we keep pushing for a system that puts people before rigid bureaucracy. You can review the details of my questions in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-18/20?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record of the House\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe, as I do, that our laws should reflect the best available science, please join the movement for a more progressive Western Australia by \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003esigning up with Legalise Cannabis WA today\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"29:Tdfb,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I learned a simple truth: if you ignore the diagnosis, the patient gets sicker. You cannot cure a systemic failure by applying a bandage to the symptoms. Yet, this is exactly what we are seeing with the latest plans for the North Ellenbrook development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis week in the Legislative Council, we debated a \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-18/8?ref=localhost\"\u003emotion to disallow\u003c/a\u003e a major amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme. While the rhetoric from the major parties focused on the undeniable need for more housing, they remained strangely silent on the environmental and geological reality staring us in the face. The evidence was clear. The government ignored it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-hidden-danger-beneath-our-feet\"\u003eThe hidden danger beneath our feet\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are not just talking about bureaucracy. We are talking about a fundamental misunderstanding of our land. The proposed site features duplex soil, a thin veneer of sand sitting over an impermeable clay layer. When we clear the trees and replace soft surfaces with concrete and bitumen, the water has nowhere to go. It does not sink into the ground. Instead, it travels sideways, flooding neighbouring agricultural land, drowning established trees, and threatening the structural integrity of future homes. We have seen this disaster unfold already in the Swan Valley, where families are now trapped in a cycle of waterlogging, toxic mould, and ruined livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt feels like a slow-moving catastrophe. Governments are often quick to point to the need for new homes, but they are remarkably slow to admit that the land they have chosen might be entirely unsuitable for the drainage strategies they insist on using. This is the sinking feeling when you open a bill for damage that never should have occurred.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAre you interested in seeing the evidence for yourself? I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e, where I break down the science of these issues and share updates on how we are fighting for common sense in our state planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-choice-between-speed-and-stability\"\u003eA choice between speed and stability\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the major parties play politics, we look at the evidence. The government suggests that these flooding issues are unique to the Swan Valley and will not happen further north. Yet, their own geological data suggests the soil profiles are almost identical. We are being asked to trust that things will be different this time, despite the absence of any credible scientific backing for that hope. This isn't just about planning; it is about protecting the life savings of thousands of families who deserve to move into homes that won't succumb to subsidence or mould within a decade.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe called for a simple, sensible pause. Not an end to development, but a moment to breathe, review the data, and ensure that our drainage solutions actually work for our unique landscape. The government chose to rush ahead, ignoring the warnings of hydrologists and the desperate pleas of those already living through the consequences of poor planning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe must demand better. Our future cannot be built on a foundation of denial. If you agree that we need a government that prioritises evidence-based, sustainable planning, I invite you to join our movement for a smarter, more compassionate Western Australia at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"2a:T3772,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI remember the day she came to the ward with abdominal pain and clearly some sort of intra-abdominal issue. I palpated the abdomen but could not locate an area of concern. She was treated with antibiotics but did not improve. So we did what was usually done in those days. We took her to theatre and opened her up for a look. Laparotomy. She was a young woman with a loving husband and two small children aged two and four. This may have been my first year out of medical school, but clinically I had been an apprentice on the wards for three years, and was a competent clinician as a result. The ultrasound we had in those days was a poor thing by todayâs standards, looking at shadows and clouds. It told us nothing much. An X-ray told us nothing. Her bloods said there was an issue, probably an infection somewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI assisted at the laparotomy, watching my surgeon and a gynaecologist. I held tools, and they looked, and looked. From liver, stomach, spleen all was in order. Her intestines were laid out and inspected, the pelvic organs searched by hand and eye. Nothing. So the organs were replaced, and she was stitched back together again, still ill, but now recovering from major surgery and needing every bit of strength to recover.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNothing was found, so we had a mystery. But something was wrong, and while the consultant and registrar debated on the ward rounds, she just deteriorated further. I can still see the husbandâs worried face as he came to visit from work before hurrying back to look after his children. I was worried too, but we would find a solution, I was sure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNothing found. Not nothing there.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe word came to me on one ward round. She was now seriously ill, and was to be transferred to the intensive care unit as a medical patient, and I was the treating doctor. There was nothing surgical to be found, so call in the medics. That is how it felt to me, standing there, and I have thought about that feeling for a very long time since. I transferred her, and called the medics. Who said she was surgical, but sure, they would advise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShe did not improve. Day by day she worsened. Day by day I searched for information, test after test. The general medical registrar listened sympathetically, and gave me sound advice. On their rounds in ICU they listened to my report, gave advice and moved on. She was, after all, a surgical patient and I was the surgical house officer. The ICU had everything in it. What it did not have was anybody experienced whose patient she was, so it was up to me. If you have seen the film âZuluâ you may recall the frightened soldier asking the company sergeant major the plaintive question âWhy us, sarge?â To which the CSM beautifully replied âBecause weâre âere, lad. Because weâre âere.â That was me in that firing line because I was there. She was the first time I ever put in a central line. She was the first person for whom I had to consider peritoneal dialysis beyond the textbooks, though it never came to that. Registrars were at the end of a telephone, we discussed on multiple daily ward rounds, I ate my lunch absorbing advice and instructions from the medical registrar, and still absolutely nothing worked. It was terrifying and it was eventually futile.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI knew, every day I knew, that there was something still in there. And so she died. Decades later I still remember every detail of that time. You might call it PTSD, I might agree, but at least the nightmares have ceased. The imagined mewling cries of children seeking their mother, the anguished face of the father as I broke the news to him, the feeling of utter helplessness and being completely alone even surrounded by colleagues and all the apparatus of a fully equipped hospital.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt was not that nobody was listening, they were. The surgical team had handed the issue over as no longer their business, and sage advice was given as theoretical and remote from the patient lying unconscious. I was by her side. The medical team was supportive to a colleague, but this was not their patient. She was mine. When she died, it felt like a part of me died too. But I still needed to know, and so it was only natural that I attend the postmortem examination. That is the time when doctors can learn from their patients, and learn from their mistakes. The team was there, including the surgeon and gynaecologist, and I was watching when the pathologist detected the small collection of pus in the Pouch of Douglas, the source of the infection deep behind the womb, the source of her illness which had been missed by the experts. And missed by me.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is
1when my bad dreams became nightmares. For six months I could not sleep, all the while working a job which involved working every second week for 120 hours with four hours of broken sleep if at all. But all I saw at night was the bereaved family and my own failure to save a life as the roundabout nightmare went on and on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy lesson was learned in an unforgettable way. Experts can get it wrong. Always look for the real cause, the cause that others may overlook or downplay. Never give up, and keep an open mind. In this case it was actually simple. There was an infection in the pouch of Douglas, a small space that sits behind the womb. That space is the lowest point in the female abdomen. Sitting or standing, whatever fluid is in the abdomen can run downhill and gather there. Blood gathers there. Pus gathers there. There is a procedure that exists purely to drain that one spot, because that is where things end up. It was missed. There are so many areas in medicine where something can be missed. Just recently I dealt with a patient whose polypharmacy has been tolerated by a series of colleagues, all of whom prescribed in good faith medication they felt helpful. When I looked at the totality and calculated the risk, there was a high chance of a number of serious adverse reactions, including death.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn that early case, standing there in shock at the pathologistâs discovery, I saw the consultantsâ faces. They took note of the cause, realised the failure, and chalked it up to experience. The next time they would not make that same mistake again. Then nothing happened. There was no meeting. I do not mean that a meeting was refused, or that somebody weighed it up and decided her case was not worth an hour. There was no such meeting to hold. The hospital had no machinery for sitting down after a death of that kind and asking how it had come to go that way. It did not exist. The surgeon wrote a cause of death and went on to his list. He never spoke of her to me again, not once, and I have never thought that was coldness. He had done what the system asked of him.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat has changed in the medical world now. Medicine went away and built the thing it did not have. Mortality meetings, critical event review, a room where a death is taken apart in front of the people who were standing there when it happened. None of that arrived by itself. It exists because enough doctors stood where I stood and could not put it down.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome years later there was a woman with a shadow at the top of her right lung. On the film it looked like tuberculosis. It looked so exactly like tuberculosis that the machinery had already started moving. She was going into a sanatorium, under compulsion, for six months compulsory treatment. Her infant son was just three months old and for the time she was being treated in our hospital she was banned from contact to prevent cross infection. She would next be able to hold her baby when he was nine months old.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI was the treating doctor, still subordinate to a consultant and registrar, both of whom were convinced on the basis of the chest X-ray that she clearly had active tuberculosis. My task was to find the acid fast bacilli, the tuberculosis bacteria that are a major part of the illness. Every test that could have confirmed it came back negative. The laboratory tests showed the presence of an infective process and nothing else. The skin test was negative, and repeatedly stayed negative. Sputum samples showed no acid fast bacilli of tuberculosis. I washed out her stomach and sent the contents for AFB to pathology. Nothing, so repeated and still nothing. In all we repeated the tests three times for all and never once was there any proof of tuberculosis apart from a highly suggestive chest X-ray.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI told the consultant we had no proof apart from the X-ray. He dismissed my concerns. Something, somewhere, just did not fit and speaking up made the experts angry with me. This time I did not let go. I was not prepared to separate an infant from his mother. Something was not right and I needed to find the answer. After some research I came back with five differential diagnoses. Coccidioidomycosis was on that list as was Histiocytosis X, and even if I thought this was over the top, nevertheless the list was going to be presented and discussed. It was not about being correct. It was about refusing the obvious and looking for evidence. Yes, I was challenging authority, and authority was wrong. The question was about what had not yet been excluded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe list was presented, further tests were organised and she was discharged home with the treated diagnosis of atypical pneumonia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat changed between those two women was not that I had got better at looking. I was looking just as hard the first time, and for longer. What changed is that I stopped bringing people my worry and started bringing them a list. A worry is an easy thing to put down. A list has to be gone through.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy own father died at fifty. I was young, and it took the ground out from under me in a way I could not have put into words then. What I remember of the weeks afterwards is the talking. People were kind. Nearly all of them said something and nearly all of it was the same something, and not one word of it reached me. I was angry with nowhere to put it, because you cannot be angry at people for being kind to you badly. Platitudes were flung at me about being the âman of the house nowâ and these came from people who had lost friends and family in war, who had faced their own deaths in the skies over Berlin, and survived. They knew what they were talking about but none of that reached me. It was when I rang a schoolfriend whose father had also died young, and I told him my news. There was a long pause on the line. And then he said, Brian, I know exactly how you feel. That was all of it. He was the only person in my life who said that sentence to me truthfully, and it is a lesson I have used so often since when dealing with loss and grief. It is why I can sit with people now without needing another word. It is something won hard, not trained, but learned when we listen to the lessons we face.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese lessons have coloured my clinical profession and also how I feel to my core as a politician. They are the reason I react in my own way responding to issues I see that affect the people of our nation. These lessons demand of me that I remain a healer, a compassionate man whose passion is for total wellness, always accepting it is our fate to die but also our duty to live the best life we can. It is also the reason I rail at a political life that treats truth, science and humanity as playthings, useful only so far as they help somebody hold on to power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedicine looked at its own dead and built something. Government has been going the other way, and I can show you where.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere used to be a document that arrived every year in this state. It is called Your safety in our hands in hospital and it set out what had gone wrong inside our hospitals. How many clinical incidents. How many of the worst kind, the ones where a patient was seriously harmed or died. It came out year after year for more than a decade. The last one is the 2023 edition. There is no 2024 and there is no 2025. The page it sits on does not tell you the series has stopped.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSomebody put the direct question in Parliament: why has nothing been published since 2023, and when are the two missing reports coming. Neither half was answered but what did come back was that the figures are already public, in the annual reports of the health services, and that new webpages were being finalised and would be published in the middle of this year. It is now the middle of August and I have gone looking for those pages and I cannot find them. I have gone looking in the annual reports and I cannot find the numbers there either, and n
1othing in the departmentâs own rules obliges anybody to put them there. Somebody is counting, that much I know. The counting travels up the line to a unit inside the department, on a schedule, in confidence, and there it stops and vanishes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I want is smaller than a new report and much harder to refuse. It is seeking answers to those similar questions for which I suffered so much early in my career. For truth, for science, for answers that might give closure to those who grieve. They say the numbers are already published. Then there should be no problem in saying where those numbers are, for which service, and which report, and which page, for the two years that are missing. I am putting that in writing this week, as a question on notice, and in those words. I have learned what happens when there is no answer for the person who walks in with a worry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLong ago we looked everywhere in that woman and found nothing, and we concluded there was nothing. It was at the bottom the whole time, in the place where things collect. There is always a lowest point, and it is always the last place anybody looks, because it is the place nobody wants to. Nobody made me go into that postmortem room at the end. I went because it was the only place left where the truth was.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"2b:T2936,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eMy father died at fifty. My mother lived to eighty and could have seen ninety-five. Smoking took both of them, and it took my little brother, who grew up watching what it did to them and started anyway. He is dead too.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have detested tobacco since I was five years old, arguing with my parents at the kitchen table to put them down. I lost that argument for about forty years. Then I became a doctor and lost it again, at bedsides, watching people drown slowly in front of their families while somebody in the corridor said if only he had stopped.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo understand where I am standing when I say the rest of this.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have spent a working life getting people off cigarettes. There are pills and patches and sprays and lozenges, and I prescribe them, and I tell every patient the same thing as I write it out: these do not really work. Some people they help. Most go back to smoking. That is not pessimism, it is the evidence, and any honest doctor will tell you the same.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne thing worked better than the rest, and it worked in a way that made clinical sense. You take somebody on forty a day and you give them a measured dose of nicotine in a device that does not set fire to anything. You know the strength because you chose it. You bring the strength down. Then you bring it down again. And the object, the whole object, is that in the end they are on nothing at all. That is what a step down is. It is the most ordinary thing in medicine. We do it with opioids, with steroids, with benzodiazepines. Nobody thinks it is radical.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen the government took the bottom rungs off the ladder.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe shops went first. They were the target of the legislation and they closed the day it commenced. From that morning the only lawful way an Australian could get nicotine other than by setting tobacco on fire was across a pharmacy counter, and the pharmacists had not asked for the job. Many of them said so, out loud, at the time. They were handed a clinical responsibility with no funding, no support and no say.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd they were just told. Do it (or not) it is not governmentâs problem now that the Bill has been passed into law.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn September 2022 the British government published its evidence review on vaping, written at Kingâs College London. Four hundred and twenty three thousand words of it. Three weeks later I tabled the whole thing in the Legislative Council, because it said what the evidence said: that vaping carries only a small fraction of the risks of smoking, that this does not make it risk free and never has, especially for anyone who has never smoked, and that on the trial evidence it gets people off cigarettes. It also said, in the section on what all of it means, that surveys measuring smoking and vaping must be properly resourced and kept going, and that where enforcement is cut back the rules will not hold and illegal product will come through.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNothing came back. Not from the Minister, not from the department. Four years, and not a line.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the same time the other lever was pulled harder. Federal excise now sits a little over a dollar fifty on one cigarette, lifted twice a year, so a packet of twenty carries more than thirty dollars of tax before the GST and before anyone has made a cent. I have no objection in principle to taxing a poison. But you cannot price a physical addiction out of a country. You can only price it out of the shops. I call it âprohibition by taxationâ.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo it went to the criminals, which is exactly what anybody who has treated addiction would tell you it would do. The Tax Office reckons the duty going unpaid has gone from about one dollar in thirteen to closer to one in five, some three point two billion a year, and says its own method probably understates it. In November last year men in overalls put a car through the roller door of a tobacconist on Great Eastern Highway in Midland and set the shopfront alight with petrol out of jerrycans. Not the first time a Midland shop has burned.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd into the space where the regulated product used to be came the containers out of China.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have handled these things. They are not what I prescribed. The nicotine in them runs at strengths I would not write for anybody, there is nothing on the label worth reading, and nobody in this country is testing what else has gone into the liquid. Bubblegum, cola, watermelon. Designed, and I use the word carefully, to be attractive to somebody who has never smoked in their life.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThey are in the schools. Ten of our public schools have had detectors on the walls for two years. Health inspectors have pulled tens of thousands of these devices out of shops. There are children in primary school on them, and the reason that matters more than it would in an adult is not moral, it is biological: a developing brain takes hold of nicotine faster and lets go of it harder. We have known that about tobacco for thirty years. It does not stop being true because the delivery system has a light on the end.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeanwhile the police seize, and the shops restock, and the police seize again. I do n
1ot blame them for a moment. They are working a conveyor belt with a bucket. When our Parliament asked WA Police how many arsons and shootings they had investigated with a motive linked to this trade, eight of the ten questions came back as one sentence: tobacco and vape enforcement is not their responsibility, it belongs to a Commonwealth taskforce. Arson is their responsibility. Arson has always been their responsibility. The question about arson was simply not answered. When our Department of Health was asked how many premises it had closed, it said it had no power to close any, and it declined to say what it spends, in case the answer helped the people it is chasing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNothing more can be done. That is the message, arriving in different envelopes from different agencies, all of it perfectly polite. And here is the thing that finished me off when I went looking this week. Nobody knows how big any of it is.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a way to find out that does not involve asking anyone. Nicotine leaves a chemical behind in the body, and that chemical ends up in the sewers, and you can measure it. It was done, across fifty five treatment plants and more than half the population, and what it found was that between 2017 and 2023 the total nicotine going through this country did not fall at all. Tobacco sales came down by close to a third. Something else came up to meet it, and the test cannot tell you what that something was, because it was never asked to separate a vape from a patch from a pouch.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen it stopped. April 2023. Everything I have described above, the border closures, the end of the shops, the pharmacy-only rule, all of it came after that. So the last time anybody actually measured what Australians put into their lungs was ten months before the law changed, and we are two years the other side of it now. Nobody has taken the countryâs blood since.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe changed how twenty six million people could get a highly addictive drug, and then we stopped looking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI got one thing wrong, at least I think I did, and it matters. Standing in that chamber in April 2024, arguing against the bill, I said a prohibition always makes a black market and a black market always makes work for police. That remains true and it indeed happened. I also said people would go back to cigarettes. Did they? Tobacco sales kept falling and something else took its place. What? Was it just nicotine vapes accessed from unregulated sources? Was it illicit tobacco under the table from tobacconists? Was that criminal underbelly perhaps a source for the firebombings? I did not see the rise in children vaping in schools. I just did not see that coming. I was right about the criminals and wrong about the customers, and the real worrisome news is that many customers turned out to be younger than the ones I was worried about.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should also say that when I moved on this in 2022 I told the House there were vape stores in my electorate and that I wanted to represent them. Why would a medical doctor support a vape store? Because the regulated approach of responsible vendors to assist smokers to quit was being put at risk. I understand that there are 21,000 annual deaths, about one in eight of every death, attributable to the effects of smoking and any move to reduce that toll is fine by me, and I hope by you too. I could now say that none of the consequences rest on me, I told you so, but I cannot. It stings. More, it hurts me to my core as a healer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat can we do now? It is a small thing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe samples are already being drawn in this state. Seven treatment plants sat inside the national program when I last asked, and how much nicotine Western Australia gets through is already measured. What is not measured is what kind. Add the tobacco marker to water that is already being collected and analysed, and we would know how much of it is cigarettes and how much is everything else. Put that beside lawful sales and we would know how much is arriving through criminal hands. The first is one more test on a sample already in a jar. The second needs Canberra, because the duty is collected at the border and the factory gate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen I asked in March 2024 how much of this stateâs population those seven plants cover, I was told the program belongs to the federal government and I should ask them. That has been the answer for two years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am a doctor who has watched this disease take his own family, and I have spent forty years trying to talk strangers out of it. I was handed something that worked better than anything else in my bag, and I watched it taken away and replaced with a criminal supply chain selling watermelon-flavoured nicotine to children, and when I stood up with four hundred thous
1and words of the British governmentâs own evidence in my hands, nobody wrote back.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt hurts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsk this Parliament how much nicotine Western Australians get through and it can answer. Ask what kind, and where it came from, and whether anything has changed since we changed the law, and it cannot. Until it can, it is not protecting anybody. It is hoping.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"2c:Tb7f,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-courage-to-ask-why\"\u003eThe courage to ask why\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. I recall a busy day in my clinic in Germany, where I sat with a stack of files and felt the heavy weight of frustration. I could offer diagnoses, but I could not provide a cause. Why this patient? Why this ailment? The answers were elusive. Science is not a static book of rules, yet we often treat it as such. It is a living, breathing process of constant questioning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNational Science Week reminds us that it is perfectly okay to ask questions. In fact, it is the only way to progress. When we stop questioning, we enter a state of decline. Whether we are discussing the foundations of quantum theory or the origins of chronic disease, the goal is always the same: to find the truth, even when that truth challenges our comfortable status quo.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-silent-acceptance\"\u003eThe danger of silent acceptance\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a visceral risk in blindly accepting the status quo. I think back to the early days of medical history, where things we now know to be harmful were once standard practice. The history of science is littered with moments where the consensus was wrong. This isn't just bureaucracy; it is a waiting room where patients can suffer if we stop testing, retesting, and demanding evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay updated on how we are bringing these evidence-based discussions to the heart of government, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where we share the conversations that matter most to our community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"building-bridges-between-policy-and-evidence\"\u003eBuilding bridges between policy and evidence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eScience is not just about lab coats and beakers. It is the infrastructure that underpins our modern life. From the energy that powers this Parliament to the medicines that keep us standing, everything we rely on is the result of someone asking a question and refusing to settle for an incomplete answer. We need to build more bridges between the scientific community and the halls of power. When we ignore the voices of those who dare to challenge the consensus, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe must champion a culture where curiosity is rewarded and where evidence-based decision-making is the gold standard for our future. You can read more about the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-13/7?ref=localhost\"\u003erecent motion on National Science Week\u003c/a\u003e to see how we are working to ensure that transparency and research remain at the forefront of our political discourse. If you believe, like I do, that our state deserves a future built on logic, compassion, and scientific rigour, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"2d:Tccd,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-prescription-for-better-governance\"\u003eA prescription for better governance\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. I have seen the damage that comes from uncertainty and the erosion of trust. This is the state of play for our local government sector today. When the system becomes a labyrinth of compliance rather than a service for our residents, the risk is not just administrative. It is a visceral, day-to-day danger to the health of our communities. If local councils fail to deliver, the families and business owners in our regions feel the immediate weight of that collapse.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-reality-of-the-numbers\"\u003eThe reality of the numbers\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe recently learned through budget estimates that the new Local Government Inspector received 251 complaints in just five months. This is double the volume of the previous regime. We must ask ourselves if this reflects a system finally shining a light on buried problems, or if we are inadvertently creating a punitive, top-down culture that punishes hard-working councillors. When local government works, it is the purest form of democracy. It is where decisions are made by people who actually live on the streets they repair. If we crush that with excessive bureaucracy, we lose the heart of local representation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAre you concerned about the future of our local democracy? Do you want to stay informed on the issues that affect your community and the work we are doing in the Legislative Council? Please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e to keep up with our latest parliamentary updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"an-active-role-for-parliament\"\u003eAn active role for Parliament\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe solution is not to step back and let the executive arm of government manage this in isolation. It is to step up through consistent, transparent parliamentary oversight. My motion encourages the Standing Committee on Public Administration to include the Local Government Inspector in its regular consultations. This is not about hunting for faults. It is about ensuring that the new framework actually delivers better outcomes for ratepayers rather than just generating more paperwork. We need to be clear-eyed about the risk of responsibility creep. Too often, the state shifts its duties onto local government without the funding to match. That is a recipe for failure, and it is a burden that our regional councils simply cannot sustain.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe must champion a culture of high trust. This means creating forums where issues are aired in the open, where due process is respected, and where our local leaders are supported rather than discarded. By involving the Parliament, we ensure that the inspector is accountable, the system is fair, and our communities remain the priority. You can read the full \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-12/4?ref=localhost\"\u003etranscript of the debate here\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe in evidence-based policy and want to see a more transparent, functional approach to governing our state, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us drive the change our state deserves.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"2e:Tb7f,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-evidence-from-germany\"\u003eThe evidence from Germany\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my medical career, I have learned that the best decisions are made when we stop fearing the unknown and start respecting the data. Recently, the world-renowned medical journal The Lancet published findings from Germany regarding the legalisation of cannabis. The data was clear: there was no significant difference in accident rates or driver behaviour following their reforms. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of science.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYet, when I brought this evidence to the attention of the government in the Legislative Council, the response was a familiar cycle of redirection. We are faced with a situation where real-world evidence is treated as an inconvenience rather than a roadmap for progress. The danger here is profound. When policy is driven by outdated fears instead of clinical evidence, we allow a system to persist that penalises the wrong people while failing to improve public safety.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-hesitation\"\u003eThe human cost of hesitation\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. The current approach to cannabis and driving laws in Western Australia leaves patients in a state of constant anxiety. If you find these updates on evidence-based policy useful, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for more regular insights into our work in the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are essentially stuck in a waiting room while the rest of the world moves forward. The government holds working groups and reports, but the results remain locked away from public scrutiny. This is not just bureaucracy. It is a barrier to sensible, compassionate, and evidence-based governance that impacts the lives of thousands of West Australians.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"demanding-transparency-in-parliament\"\u003eDemanding transparency in Parliament\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe state of our roads and the rights of our citizens are too important to be managed through evasive answers. My questions to the Minister for Police were designed to force a conversation about these international findings. Instead, I was referred back to previous, equally opaque responses. We deserve better. We deserve to know when the government will finally present its advice on this crucial reform.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can review the full exchange regarding this matter in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-12/19?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record of our session today\u003c/a\u003e. While the major parties play politics, those of us who value scientific truth will keep pushing for transparency and change. If you are ready to see a more rational approach to drug policy in our state, I invite you to join the \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA party\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to advocate for common sense and progress.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"2f:Tc8b,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-silence-behind-the-cage-door\"\u003eThe silence behind the cage door\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have learned that the quality of care is defined not by what is promised, but by the standards that are enforced. When we look at the state of our animal pounds and shelters, we see a disturbing gap in our laws. Currently, we rely on broad, vague legislation that leaves animals vulnerable to inconsistent treatment. This is not just a regulatory oversight: it is a systemic failure that leaves vulnerable creatures in a state of fear and neglect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe reality is simple. When standards are left to chance, some facilities will inevitably fall short. We are seeing a postcode lottery where an animalâs welfare depends entirely on which local government manages their facility. This is unacceptable. We need a mandatory, statewide framework built on the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare. We are talking about basic necessities: freedom from hunger, discomfort, pain, injury, and the distress of a cage that offers no sanctuary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you care about transparency and want to see more of these critical discussions, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where we break down the issues that the major parties often try to ignore.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"evidence-over-anecdote\"\u003eEvidence over anecdote\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe need to move away from guesswork and embrace proven science. The current approach to managing impounded animals often fails to include qualified behavioural assessments, leading to poor rehoming decisions and increased suffering. It is time we brought professional expertise into these facilities. We must demand that assessments be conducted by trained professionals, not by staff who lack the necessary skills to understand the needs of a distressed dog or cat.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government has been presented with clear evidence of this legislative vacuum. Every day that we delay creating enforceable, measurable standards is a day that an animal pays the price for our inaction. For those of us who value evidence-based policy, this is a clear-cut case of missing infrastructure that causes real-world harm.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-path-forward\"\u003eA path forward\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe call to action is clear. We are asking for a dedicated, enforceable minimum standard of care that applies across the board. This is about shifting our culture from one of basic containment to one of compassion and dignity. It is what our community expects, and it is what these animals deserve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently presented a petition in the Legislative Council, signed by hundreds of concerned Western Australians, urging the State Government to finally act. You can read the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-12/2?ref=localhost\"\u003efull details of the petition here\u003c/a\u003e. We have the data and we have the moral imperative. Now, we just need the political will to make it happen. If you believe in a future where our laws reflect our compassion, I invite you to join us at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to push for meaningful change.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"30:Td3e,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-prescription-for-a-failing-system\"\u003eThe prescription for a failing system\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I learned that you cannot treat a patient effectively if you do not have a proper diagnosis. You certainly cannot fix an ailment by simply renaming it or hiding the symptoms in a pile of paperwork. Yet, this is exactly what we are seeing with the government's approach to our state's energy transition. The evidence is clear: the government has spent years without a coherent plan, and now they are attempting to catch up with legislation that lacks the necessary detail to ensure our grid remains stable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not merely an exercise in bureaucracy. It is a waiting room where the health of our state's future is at stake. When the lights flicker or the prices spike, it is the family struggling with the cost of living who suffers. It is the business owner who cannot rely on their equipment. The danger of ignoring the need for a comprehensive, transparent plan is real. We are talking about the basic infrastructure that keeps our hospitals running, our schools open, and our homes liveable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-need-for-forward-thinking\"\u003eThe need for forward thinking\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the major parties play politics, those of us who prioritize science and evidence-based policy are looking at the stark reality. We are in the middle of a transition from fossil fuels to renewables, but the government has been building the roof before they have even laid the foundations. They have moved from a promised Whole of System Plan to a rebranded document, all while the industry is left guessing about how the grid will actually function.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAre you finding these parliamentary updates helpful for understanding how your tax dollars and energy bills are being handled? To stay informed and help us hold the government to account, please subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. Your support helps us keep the pressure on for a smarter, more transparent Western Australia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"accountability-over-convenience\"\u003eAccountability over convenience\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe legislation before the House aims to introduce capital charges for connecting to the grid, but it leaves nearly every critical detail to regulations that are not subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as the bill itself. We are being asked to grant a head of power without a clear horizon on when neutrality will be measured or how the results will be reported. It is a leap of faith I am not prepared to take on behalf of my constituents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe need a system that supports innovation and encourages local participation rather than one that imposes financial barriers which favor only the largest market participants. We must demand that the government provides the modelling and the reporting that the public deserves. You can read the full, complex debate and see where each member stands by visiting the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-11/50?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe, like I do, that we need a science-led and transparent approach to our state's future, I invite you to join our movement at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us make a real difference in the halls of Parliament.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"31:Td28,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-question-of-competence\"\u003eA question of competence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a medical practitioner, I learned that you cannot diagnose a condition you do not understand. You cannot treat a patient if your knowledge is based on outdated assumptions rather than clinical reality. This simple truth should apply to every aspect of our legal system, yet when it comes to cannabis, we seem determined to operate in the dark. I recently brought this matter to the floor of the Legislative Council, motivated by a practical initiative from Vermont where police cadets observe real-world effects to better identify impairment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current approach here is far less grounded. When I asked whether our own police force might consider evidence-based training methods to improve their ability to recognise actual impairment, the answer was a flat no. We are left with a system that relies on vague protocols while lacking the practical experience required for accurate roadside assessments. This is not just a bureaucratic oversight: it is a significant risk to the public and to the integrity of our enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-ignoring-evidence\"\u003eThe danger of ignoring evidence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are failing our officers by denying them the tools and the context they need to do their jobs fairly. Without proper training, we risk a system where individuals are penalised for the mere presence of a substance rather than true impairment. This is the definition of a policy failure. It creates a state of perpetual anxiety for responsible citizens who are left vulnerable to flawed testing regimes. If you enjoy deep dives into these important parliamentary updates, I invite you to subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for more regular insights.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are governed by those who seem content to maintain the status quo, even when the evidence screams for change. They rely on tired rhetoric about identifying a range of impairments, yet they ignore the specific challenges that cannabis presents in a modern society. It is frustrating to witness this refusal to evolve, especially when the solution is within reach. True safety comes from precision, not from broad, unrefined legislation that targets people without regard for science.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-ongoing-struggle-for-reform\"\u003eThe ongoing struggle for reform\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy questions regarding the working group into THC driving have similarly stalled, with responses pointing to older, stagnant documentation rather than providing a clear path forward. This leaves many of us asking: why the delay? We need transparency, and we need action based on contemporary understanding. You can review the full details of this exchange in the official \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-11/46?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe road ahead requires us to move past the fear-based politics that have held this state back for far too long. If you believe, as I do, that our laws should be dictated by science and compassion rather than antiquated prejudice, then we need your voice. Join us at the \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA party\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to push for a more rational, evidence-based approach to the future of our state.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"32:Ta9d,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-struggle-of-the-patient-driver\"\u003eThe struggle of the patient driver\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen many patients struggle with the weight of archaic laws. They are people who simply want to live pain-free lives, yet they are forced to navigate a legal minefield. When a patient is prescribed medicinal cannabis, they are using a legitimate medicine to treat a legitimate health condition. Yet, because of our current testing regimes, they live in constant fear of losing their licence for having traces of THC in their system, even when they are not impaired.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not merely a matter of bureaucratic process. It is a daily anxiety for thousands of Western Australians. Imagine the sinking feeling of knowing that your life-saving medication could lead to a criminal record. This is a waiting room where patients are trapped, not by their illness, but by legislation that has failed to keep pace with modern medicine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"seeking-answers-in-the-house\"\u003eSeeking answers in the House\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eToday, I sought an update on the progress of the working group focused on THC driving reforms. It is vital that we keep the pressure on our decision-makers. The government has confirmed that the new Minister for Road Safety has received briefings on this issue. While it is encouraging that the topic is being discussed, discussion is not the same as reform. We need action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay updated on my work in the Legislative Council and hear more about my push for evidence-based change, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"science-over-status-quo\"\u003eScience over status quo\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy role is to ensure that the voice of reason is heard. We are a community of forward-thinkers. We look at the evidence, not the politics of fear. The science tells us that the current approach is failing our patients. It is keeping people off the road who are perfectly capable of driving safely, while ignoring the complex reality of impairment. We deserve a system that is fair, rational, and grounded in medical truth.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will continue to hold the government to account until we see meaningful change for all medicinal cannabis patients in our state. You can read the official \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-11/25?ref=localhost\"\u003erecord of my question to the Minister for Road Safety\u003c/a\u003e to see the details for yourself. If you are ready to help us drive this change forward, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today. We are stronger together.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"33:T1f67,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA patient was driving home on a long weekend. They take a prescribed medicine for anxiety. It happens to be a cannabis medicine, and they had taken the dose the evening before, the way the prescription recommends. There was no sign of impairment when the police pulled them over, and no test for impairment was done. The roadside test does not look for impairment. It looks for the mere presence of the drug, which is a different thing. They had taken their medicine and, for once, they had slept, instead of lying awake all night and driving the next day as the wrung-out, exhausted version of themselves. Whether that made them a safer driver is not something the test can tell you, and not something I will claim. What I will say is that no one found any sign their driving was affected.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe roadside test does not measure any of that. It found traces of the drug in their saliva and recorded a positive. Because it landed on a holiday long weekend, the penalty doubled, as it does for everyone in those periods: double the demerit points, double the fine. And then the part that does not mend. There was a job waiting in the United States, and it did not survive what the record now said: that they had driven with what the law calls a âprescribed illicit drugâ. Prescribed by a doctor. Taken exactly as told. Illicit on the page all the same.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat did I think when I first heard it? I did not quite believe it. There had to be something else going on, something the story was leaving out. A lane drifted across. A corner taken badly. An overtake in a stupid place. There had to be a missing piece somewhere. There was not. Nothing. One real person, who had done exactly as prescribed. I have changed every detail here that might lead back to them, because I was trusted with it, and because there are others carrying some version of the same story who could read this and think I meant them alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBefore you take another line of this from me, you already know where I stand, and I would rather you held me to it than took me on trust. I lead a party that argues for lawful access to medicinal cannabis. So when I tell you what happened to them was wrong, you have every reason to check me. Please do.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere is the part you can check without me. The roadside test looks for one thing: whether a drug is present. Not whether it has affected you. Those are different questions, and the gap between them is the whole story. The hard part, and it is real, is that there is no quick test for cannabis the way a breathalyser reads alcohol, and some people who test positive really are affected and should not be driving. But the police can test for impairment when they choose to. The Commissioner told me how, in Parliament, when I asked. On the roadside, they did not. They tested for presence, and presence is what they acted on. The one tool that could have told a danger from a patient who took a lawful dose the night before was left in the drawer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd the government knows the whole thing is contested. It says it is looking at reform. It also paid for its own review into exactly this question. That review is finished. I have asked, more than once in Parliament, that the people who paid for it be allowed to read it. The answer is no.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd while that review sat unread, the testing was widened again. Cocaine was added to it this July. That was done the ordinary way, by regulation, not by a vote in the House, and there is nothing sinister in that by itself. Most rules are made that way. What is worth your notice is when. It was signed in the winter recess, with the Parliament risen, and it took effect at once. By the time the House sits again and can even look at the rule, it will have been law for weeks, working on people the whole time. And here is the part to hold on to: anyone caught in that gap stays caught, even if the Parliament later decides the rule should never have stood.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSit with the shape of that for a moment, because the shape is the whole point. Someone a long way from that personâs car decided how a life would go, and will never once carry the cost of having got it wrong. That person carried it. They did not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOnce you can see that shape you start to find it in places that have nothing to do with cannabis. Up the coast at Lancelin the sea is taking the ground out from under peopleâs houses. They asked for help. What the state put in was four hundred and fifty-eight thousand, two hundred and fifty dollars, counted to the last fifty, and the people who live there called it a bandaid and said so out loud. In that same stretch of time, that same government is spending two hundred and seventeen and a half million dollars on a motorsport racetrack. I know the money comes from different buckets, and no doubt there is a business case with jobs and tourism pinned to it. Set that aside, because the thing worth seeing sits above the accounting. For what it is
1worth, I have not myself met the person at a kitchen table who was asking for a racetrack, though I have met plenty who cannot get a straight answer about the coast their house is standing on. The people who will carry the consequence were the last ones asked. The people who decided will never stand on that dune as it goes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaybe you have felt, for a while now, that something in the way we are governed is off. Hold that feeling honestly. A feeling is not proof, and some of what any of us feels is only tiredness, or fear, or a thing we have quietly been sold. But a feeling like that earns a look. And when you take it to the record and actually check, more often than you would wish, it holds. The truth of a thing tends to show itself in the places nobody is watching. The review that stays unread. The rule quietly changed in the recess. The money that moves while everyone is looking the other way. That is where to look.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of this is new. Almost two and a half centuries ago, Immanuel Kant put his finger on it. What kept ordinary people in their place, he said, was not a shortage of brains. It was a shortage of nerve, the nerve to use their own minds instead of leaving the thinking to someone happy to do it for them. He was not writing about drug tests or eroding coastlines. But here we are, all these years later, still waiting to be told. You would think we might have learned it by now.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI understand why looking is hard. It is meant to be. The days are long, the record is dull, and a good deal of it is arranged, or simply left, so that you will not wade in. It takes effort, and it is uncomfortable, and the discomfort is usually the sign that you are close to the thing that matters. You do not need to picture a villain for any of this. A system behaves the way systems behave, and this is how they behave when nobody makes them stop.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo here is the offer, and it is a smaller and harder thing than a politician promising to fix your life. I will show you how to look. Across this work I will show you my own working as I go, so you can hold it up against your own life and throw out whatever does not survive the test.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter that it is yours. If you look as hard as I am asking, and you weigh it, and you judge that I have it right, then yes, I would be glad of your vote, and I will ask for it in the open. But if you look and decide I have it wrong, and you back someone else because of what you saw, that is not a loss to me. That is the process working the way it should. I want your vote. I do not want it while you are asleep. I owe you clear sight. The rest was never mine to be owed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is someone who lost a job over a medicine taken exactly as prescribed. Start there. Then have a look at the rest of it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"34:T20ab,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eA man sat down in front of me a few years ago and I have not really stopped thinking about him since.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHe had served. He came home from that service carrying things the rest of us were spared, and by the time he reached my room the word for it was PTSD, though the word tells you almost nothing about the man. He was in pain, the ordinary physical kind, most of the day. He did not sleep so much as get through the night. And when sleep did come the dreams brought the worst of it back, so a part of him had learned to be afraid of the one thing his body needed most.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHe was on medication. A great deal of it. The kind meant to quiet the mind, and it does quiet the mind, in the way a heavy coat quiets a fire by smothering it. He was flattened. Not calm. Flattened. He sat across from me at half the volume of a living man, and the drugs that did that to him had been prescribed with real care by people trying to help, which is the part that took me the longest to understand.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHe is a real man, though I have changed everything that would point to his face, because he trusted me with it. And he is far from the only one. I have sat with his story so many times over, in so many veterans, that any number of them could read this and think I meant him alone. What I have not changed is the shape of what happened, because that shape is the whole reason I am writing to you at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe marriage went first. Not in a fight. It just thinned, the way a marriage does when one person is not really in the room. His wife did not leave him. She simply found, across years, that she was living beside a man she could no longer reach. The children learned to move quietly around their father. He could not hold down work, so the family lived on a pension that never quite stretched to the life he had been promised when he signed up. No holidays. The small ordinary treats gone. A dad the kids loved and could not find. You do not need me to describe what that does to a house, because a good many of you have watched some version of it in your own.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere is the thing you should know before you weigh a word of this. I lead a political party that argues for lawful access to medicinal cannabis. So when I tell you there was another road for that man, you are right to hold what I say up to the light, and I would rather you did that than take me on trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere was another road. Not a miracle. A road. But between the cost of it, the nervousness around it, and the rules that hedged it about, that road was all but closed to him. The department meant to care for our veterans pays without a murmur for the drugs that were hollowing him out. For the wound in his mind it will not pay, and the reason it gives is that the evidence is not yet in. But sit with that reason, because it runs in a circle. The evidence is thin because we spent the better part of a century making the plant almost impossible to study. So the help is refused for want of proof, and the proof was refused by law. Round it goes, and the veteran waits in the middle of it. I sat in that room able to see a door and unable to open it for him.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet me be careful about the medicine itself, because this is exactly the point where a man in my position is tempted to oversell. The formal evidence that cannabis treats PTSD is thin, and the largest recent reviews have found little to support it. I take that seriously, and so should you, even knowing how that thinness came about. But a thin evidence base is a thin evidence base. Should I dress it up as more? What I can tell you is smaller and truer than a headline. In my own practice I have seen more than a few veterans begin to sleep on it, watched the dreams lose some of their teeth, and watched a number of them, under careful supervision, ease off the heavier drugs that were harming them. And it is no longer only me. Some of the psychiatrists who once wrote those heavier prescriptions have begun asking me about this instead. That is clinical experience, and it is not proof, and I hold the two apart. There are real risks too, and they deserve naming, the clearest being that in high doses, and above all in the young, this is a plant that could push a vulnerable mind towards psychosis. A supervised adult in genuine need is not a teenager buying strength on a street corner, and honest medicine keeps that difference in plain sight.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut the argument was never really about whether the medicine works. That is the ground the fight always gets dragged onto, and it is the wrong ground. There are other real roads for a wounded mind, the talking therapies among them, and I have never claimed this plant is the only one. The real question is who decides. A grown man, and the doctor who actually knew him, were left unable to reach a supervised alternative, while the drugs that had flattened him stayed funded and waved through. Some of those medicines have a real place, and for some people they do good work. For him they had stopped doing any. Someone a long way from that room, who would never meet him and would never carry the cost of being wrong, had already decided for him. Decisions about a personâs care belong as close as possible to the person who has to live with them, and to the people who know that person. Not to someone who will never sit in the room. That is
1what I could not get past. I had seen the same story too many times, and it left me physically angry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd once I had seen the same pattern in his case, I could not stop seeing the shape of it. We pay a fortune, in money and in broken families, to manage the wreckage downstream, while the thing that might have prevented it upstream is the very thing we make hardest to reach. The pension. The specialists. The second and third drug for the side effects of the first. The slow cost to those children that the country will go on paying for decades. All of it downstream, all of it after the damage is done. We have become extraordinarily good at mopping the floor and strangely unwilling to turn off the tap.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI did not train as a doctor to mop such floors. I sat with that man and felt something I had to name carefully, because it would have been easy to make it sound noble, and it was not. It was anger. Plain anger, at a system that could watch a man go under and had arranged itself so that no one was permitted to reach for another way. So I rang a small new party that was arguing about precisely this, and I asked whether they could help me. They said that perhaps I could help them, and that is how a GP from the hills ended up in politics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will not pretend my helplessness was the same as his, or as yours. It was not, because I had a way out that most people never get, and I took it. But the helplessness underneath was the same, and I think it is the same helplessness a great many people are living with right now, watching governments nod along and promise to look into things while their lives quietly wash away. There are people up the coast at Lancelin watching the sea take the ground their houses stand on, and being told that interim measures are under consideration. They are not imagining it. They are being managed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I found, and what I want to spend this series showing you, is that the same shape turns up nearly everywhere once you know to look for it. That shape is not just in who is allowed which medicine, and who is left to pay for it. It is in the treatments we are told to fear when the real danger runs the other way. In housing, and in the education system. You can see it one life at a time, because the shape is always clearer in a single life than in a slogan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI do not have all of it worked out, and I will show you my working as I go, including the places I have changed my mind. What I know is that I stopped being able to sit and watch. That is where this begins. Pull up a chair.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNothing here is medical advice for any one person. If you are unwell, or weighing up your own treatment, talk it through with your own doctor.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"35:T69fe,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe last piece left a question hanging, the way the one before it left a question for that. If some of what divides us is real and some of it is only made to look that way, and a person can now tell which is which, then we are no longer asking whether we secretly agree. We are asking something harder. What can a public that sees a little more clearly actually do about the things that are genuinely wrong?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe answer I hear most often comes in three words. Lack of political will. Yes, OK, four words. The evidence is in, the money could be found, the better way is known, and still nothing moves, because the will is not there. People say it with a sigh, as though it settled the matter.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt settles nothing, at least not the way it is usually said. Watch how the phrase tends to work. Something needed doing and did not get done, and we say the reason is there was no will to do it. But the only evidence we have that the will was missing is that the thing did not happen. The claim and the proof are one fact wearing two coats. Nothing happened, so there was no will, and how do we know there was no will? Because look, nothing happened. You can walk around that circle all day and never once touch the ground.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI want to take the phrase apart and see what is inside it. I should not overstate the charge, though. The words are not always empty. People who study this for a living broke âpolitical willâ open long ago into things you can actually look for, and used that way it earns its keep. What I am going after is the lazy use, the one that turns up after the event to explain a failure and explains nothing. And I have to watch myself for a second reason, because pulling a phrase apart is easy and the tempting next move is to swap in one of my own that is just as empty and suits me better. So here is a test, and I want you to hold me to it at the end. If there is such a thing as the will to act, it has to be made of parts you could go and look for in a real case. Was there someone with the power to decide who actually committed to the thing, out loud, rather than merely nodding at it? Was there a worked-out answer ready to go, or only a good intention? Was there real money behind it, or just the announcement of money? Was it somebodyâs job to carry it, or nobodyâs? And were the people who wanted it numerous and firm enough that they could not simply be picked off one at a time? Those you can check, case by case. âWas the will thereâ you cannot. Break the word into those parts and it stops being a place to give up and becomes a handful of questions that have answers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI could gather those parts into a neat numbered list and give it a name. I have done that twice already, with the kinds of waiting and the kinds of division, and a third would start to feel like a conjuring trick rather than a tool. So I have named the parts and left them loose on purpose. The point is not another framework to admire. It is the one question sitting under all of them, and I would rather you kept your eye on that than on my furniture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"two-answers-i-am-not-going-to-give-you\"\u003eTwo answers I am not going to give you\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eReach past the empty phrase and most people land on one of two answers. Both are too tidy to be true.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first says the public does not really want it. Underneath the talk people are comfortable, or selfish, or too distracted to care, and the stillness just shows it. That answer holds the public in quiet contempt, and I do not believe it, for reasons I will build toward. The second is its mirror. The public wants the thing badly and someone powerful is standing on the hose, and if you could shift the boot the water would run. That one flatters everybody but the villain, and it is the answer I have to watch hardest, because it happens to suit me.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI sit on the crossbench and I lead a small party. If the real story turned out to be a willing people held down by a rigged system, that would be a very convenient story for me to be caught telling. It suits my politics. It suits this writing and the readership I am trying to build for it. It suits the election I have told you I am working towards. So I am not going to confess the bias and sail past it, because a confession you sail past is just a way of buying a permit. I am going to show you, as we go, the places where the convenient answer could have won and did not, and the place near the end where the evidence turned against me and I had to go with it. If by the finish it looks like I simply arrived where I always meant to, then I have failed my own test, and you should tell me so.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"what-actually-moves-a-country\"\u003eWhat actually moves a country\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere is what I have come to think converts a willing public into an acting one. It is not comfortable, and it turns out not to be the whole story either.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePeople do not change course because someone showed them the better argument. I learned that as a doctor long before I learned it in politics. You can tell a patient the plain truth about their own body, clearly and kindly and in full, and watch it slide off them, and then one ordinary Tuesday something happens that they cannot argue away, and every word you said arrives at once and too late. Change comes on contact with a consequence you can no longer defer. The argument only lays the ground. The consequence is what breaks it open.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountries look the same at first, only slower to admit it. Take the two clearest cases we have. In 1996, thirty-five people were shot dead at Port Arthur, and within weeks the country had gun laws that a fractured, gun-friendly politics had failed to produce across all the quiet years before. In December 2025 fifteen people were killed at a Hanukkah gathering at Bondi Beach, and within days a national cabinet had met and inside a fortnight the New South Wales parliament had passed what its own government called the toughest gun laws in the country. Both times the country moved at a speed that would have looked impossible the week before, and both times it was not a new fact about guns that moved it. The facts had been lying around for years. It was a consequence too big and too raw to be argued with.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow look harder, be
1cause the two cases are not the same, and the difference is the whole point. Port Arthur did not invent Australiaâs gun laws on the day, and I can show that without leaning on the fact that reform followed. The direction had been argued for years. Earlier shootings had already produced inquiries and calls for uniform national controls, and the answer was largely drawn up and waiting: the proposals Howard reached for came from a national report written years before. There was real prior appetite for reform. I will not pretend the whole country was already agreed, because the overwhelming public backing, better than nine in ten, gathered in the days after the massacre rather than before it. What the shock supplied was not the answer, which already existed, but the agreement and the political permission to use it, and what Howard did was spend his own sideâs goodwill to carry it against his base, which is the part that took nerve. The massacre did not draw up the answer. It forced open a door that patient work had already built. Bondi is the less tidy case, and I will not tidy it. Some of what New South Wales passed had been sitting ready, the long-promised national firearms register chief among it, but a good deal of the package was written fast, in the days after the killing. So Bondi shows something slightly different from Port Arthur. It shows that when the shock is large enough and the will converges hard enough, a system can assemble an answer at speed. It is the weaker case for my point, and it is more honest to say so than to pretend the two are the same clean shape.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTake them together, though, and the lesson holds, and it is not the one it first looked like. The reliable thing is not the catastrophe. We have had, for more than a decade, exactly that kind of undeniable consequence arriving on climate, again and again. Fires that took whole towns. Floods that came back to the same streets before the carpets had dried. Summers nobody can remember the like of. By the logic of Port Arthur that run of disaster should have moved the country the way the shootings did. It has not, and the appetite for acting on it has if anything softened rather than hardened, as I will come to. So the neat rule, that catastrophe converts, breaks on the clearest test we could put to it. What Port Arthur really shows, once you see Bondi beside it, is that the shock only ever fires what somebody has already loaded. Where a worked-out answer was ready and the public was of a mind to be moved, as at Port Arthur, the shock converts, and fast. Where there is no agreed answer and the division underneath is real, as on climate, the same shock lands and burns itself out in argument while the country grieves and stays put. The catastrophe is a trigger, never the cause. The cause is the slow, unglamorous, unpaid work of preparing an answer and building an agreement in the years beforehand, while nobody is watching and nothing is burning. Hold onto that. It is the one lever in all of this that human hands can actually reach. We do not get to schedule the disaster. The preparation is entirely ours to do or to neglect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"why-simply-agreeing-is-never-enough\"\u003eWhy simply agreeing is never enough\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eEven where the agreement is real and wide, it does not turn itself into action, and the reason is plain. It is the same reason I gave a few pieces back for why a good idea sits on the shelf when nobody is paid to lift it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePicture something that would help almost everyone a little and cost one particular group a great deal, with the help arriving years from now and the cost landing today. Everyone is mildly for it. Nobody is desperately for it. The group that pays is small and frightened and turns up every single day. The crowd that benefits is enormous and scattered, and each person in it waits, quite reasonably, for somebody else to do the pushing, because one pair of hands changes nothing and the reward arrives either way. So the small group is always in the room and the big one almost never is, and the thing most people want does not happen. No plot is needed for that. A wide shallow wish loses to a narrow deep one nearly every time, unless something gathers the shallow wish into a shape that can act, and the gathering is a job that usually belongs to no one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSet that beside the last point and the parts of the thing we call will start to show, the same parts I set out at the start. Someone with the power to decide who actually commits. A worked-out answer, ready to go. Real money behind it. Somebody whose job it is to carry it. And a body of support broad and firm enough to hold when a narrow, deep interest leans the other way. Those are not moods. They are arrangements, and you can walk up to any stalled good idea and check them off one at a time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"what-people-actually-want-which-is-not-what-i-want\"\u003eWhat people actually want, which is not what I want\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eBefore I tell you the mood of the country, there is something that cuts against the case I would rather make, and if I skip it you have no reason to trust the rest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen I say the wanting is still there, look at what is actually wanted. It is not one thing, and it is not all mine. One of the fastest-growing feelings in our politics does not run towards what I would call progress. It runs the other way, towards tighter borders and a smaller, less meddling government, and it is not a tantrum and it is not stupidity. It is coherent, it is deeply held, and the people who hold it can give you their reasons. I said a piece ago that some of what divides us is real and lasting disagreement about how to live, and not a trick of the light, and I meant it. This is some of that. Real division, and real will, pointed somewhere I am not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo I am not going to stand here and tell you there is a stifled majority all quietly wanting what I want, pinned down by a wicked few. That is the flattering answer with a rosette on, and it does not survive its own evidence. My claim is narrower, and I think it is both truer and, oddly, more hopeful. People who want opposite things share one thing, whatever their politics. They have each watched the machine in the middle fail to deliver the thing they wanted, whatever it was.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have to be careful with that word, machine, and with the word wiring I am about to lean on, because they can be made to explain too much, and a thing that explains everything explains nothing. So let me say plainly what a broken means is not. It is not a broken means when a proposal is put fairly to the public and loses. It is not a broken means when a government with only so much money and time chooses one worthy thing over another. It is not a broken means when a cause loses a straight democratic contest, because being outvoted is not the same as being unheard. And it is not a broken means when a country cannot give two groups what they want because what they want is opposite. A democracy is bound to disappoint somebody whenever people want contrary things, and that disappointment is the system working, not failing. The woman who wants faster action on emissions and the man who wants the boats turned back both feel let down, and they cannot both be right that they were let down in the way I mean, because the system cannot hand each of them a win. What I am pointing at is narrower and more particular than general disappointment. It is the case where the wanting is there and settled, and a workable answer exists, and still nothing reaches the ground, not because the public weighed it and chose otherwise, but because there was no working path from what they wanted to what got done.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"what-it-looks-like-now\"\u003eWhat it looks like now\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of this is guesswork, because it has been measured, and the measurements do not match either easy answer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsk Australians whether government should be doing something about the things pressing on them, and across every one of the thirteen areas a recent national survey put to them, most said yes. Ask whether they believe government can actually deliver it, and the faith is falling away. Ask whether they will pay the tax or carry the debt the doing would cost, and they say no to both. Want it done, doubt it can be done, refuse to fund the doing. Some of that is just the old gap between what any of us wants and what we will pay for, and it is nothing new. But it is sharper now than it has been, and the shape underneath it is the one I keep coming back to. Not a people who have stopped caring. A people let down often enough that they have stopped betting on the thing that keeps letting them down, while still, underneath, wanting what it was meant to give them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can see the same retreat in the way people are backing out of the whole apparatus. Trust in government is low, only a little up from the depths it reached through the 2010s. The share who say they would still bother to vote if the law did not make them has dropped to the lowest ever recorded. For the first time on record, more people feel close to no party at all than feel close to the main conservative party, and for the first time more Australians gave their first vote to a minor party or an independent than to the main opposition. That is not a country falling out of love with democracy. Most still say they would pick it over anything else on the table. It is a country falling out of faith with the particular machinery in front of it, feeling along the wall for another door.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd here is the part that c
1osts me. If the will were simply there and only blocked, you would expect it to burn steadiest where it once burned hottest. On climate it has not. The concern that held firm through years of hardship has softened as the cost of living has bitten, with fewer people now willing to bear real costs to act and more saying the current effort is about right. I do not think that makes the earlier concern a fake. Frightened people pull their gaze inwards to the bill on the table, and that is not a moral failure, it is what fear does. But I cannot use it to save my case, and I will not. It means I cannot tell you the will is simply a fixed store of the right kind that the system is sitting on, because under enough strain some of it genuinely thins, and some of what thins is exactly the will I most wanted to find intact. A man with a working theory has to say where the evidence pushes back on him, and here it pushes back hard, on the ground I care about most.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne case close to home shows the other side, where the wanting and the means did meet and did hold. When this state closed its borders through the worst of the pandemic, the pressure to reopen came hard, and it came from above, the national government of the day among the loudest. The state held. It held because the public here backed it and kept backing it, right through a legal challenge that went to the High Court and lost.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a coda worth telling, because it is rare. The man who, as prime minister, backed that legal challenge, Scott Morrison, has since taken the mistake on himself. In an interview for a coming book he said the West Australian border made a lot of sense, and called his own opposition to it a massive mistake and, more than once, a disaster. To be fair to him, some of the regret is plainly political, counted in the seats his side lost here, and he lays the first decision partly on the advice of others. But there it is, from the man who fought them: they were right and he was wrong. I will rest the point on that and no more. I am not claiming the border was, on every measure, the best call available, and a person could argue the costs of it in good faith. I am claiming the narrower thing my argument actually needs. A settled public wish. A government with the power to act on it and close enough to be moved by it. Strong enough to hold against a larger power leaning the other way. And, in the end, conceded by the very man who leaned. The wanting was there and it was deep, a means stood close enough to carry it, and that, not the size of the will, is what decided the outcome.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"the-thing-underneath\"\u003eThe thing underneath\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo here is my own account, and then I will hold it to the test I set at the start, because I promised I would.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe simplest story that fits every piece is not that the country lacks the will to act. It is that the wiring between what people want and what actually gets built has come apart, and a people who have felt it come apart, over and over, have quietly stopped pouring themselves into a machine that keeps failing to carry the current. Still wanting the outcome, they have drawn their faith back from the thing meant to deliver it, and drawing it back starves the machine further, which fails a little more, which drains a little more faith. A loop, and it turns downwards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSaid with enough warmth, that last paragraph could be the empty phrase I threw out at the start, back again in a kinder coat. The wiring came apart, how do we know, because nothing gets through, and how do we know nothing gets through, because the wiring came apart. If that is all it is, I have wasted your evening and flattered us both. So I have to make it checkable, the way I promised. Take a real case where a thing most people say they want does not happen, and put to it the same questions I set at the start. Was there someone with the power to decide who actually committed? Was there a worked-out answer ready to go? Was it anyoneâs job to carry it, and was there money behind it? And was the support for it broad and firm enough to hold, or thin enough to be picked off? Those, between them, tell you whether the means were there. And there is one more question, of a different kind, that tests not the means but the wanting itself. When you correct what people have got wrong about each other, does their conduct change, or only their stated opinion? If the wanting survives that test, and the means fail the
1irs, then the trouble was never that people did not want the thing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePut those questions to this stateâs border and they come out one way. Someone with the power to act did act, there was an answer and it was carried, it was plainly somebodyâs job, the governmentâs, and the public held it firm against a bigger power that pushed. The means were there, and so the thing happened. Put the same questions to almost any stalled national reform of the diffuse kind and they come out the other way. Someone tried and was stopped, or nobody whose job it was ever really tried; the benefit was everybodyâs and the carrying was no oneâs; the money was announced and never arrived; and correcting the publicâs facts moved their opinion an inch and their conduct not at all. Where the honest answers run that way, the trouble was never that people did not want the thing. It was that the means to turn wanting into doing were missing, or blocked, or belonged to no one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd that is a claim that can be wrong, which is the whole reason for building it this way. If you went looking and kept turning up cases where someone with power did commit, the answer was ready, the money was real, the job was assigned, the support was broad, and people still would not stir, then my account would be the false one, and the contemptuous answer, that they just did not want it, would be the true one. I do not think you will find many like that. But the account earns its keep only because it could lose, and the empty phrase never could. That is the whole difference between a diagnosis and a sigh.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is my best reading and not a proven fact, because I cannot open people up and measure the hope in them. It does the work the two easy answers cannot. It makes sense of a country that wants a thing and disbelieves in it at the same breath. It explains why correcting peopleâs facts changes so stubbornly little, because they were never really misinformed so much as let down, and a correction does not cure a letdown. And it treats people with a respect I think they have earned, because stepping back from a thing that has failed you and failed you is not apathy. It is what a sane person does after enough broken promises. The stepping back is not the public failing the system. It may well be the public responding soundly to a system that has not delivered, which is a different thing, and a fairer one to say.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"the-thing-i-have-not-settled\"\u003eThe thing I have not settled\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd what I have to leave unsettled here is not a small thing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI do not know, and I cannot honestly pretend to know, whether the underlying wanting is truly fading or only looks that way because the means have rotted and people have stopped voicing a wish they can see no way to act on. From the outside the two are nearly the same face. The climate softening tells me a little of the first is real, that some wanting is genuinely thinning and not merely hidden. The stubborn preference for democracy, and the reaching for minor parties and new channels, tells me more of the second, that the wanting is mostly still there and hunting for a working exit. My best reading, held as that and not as settled ground, is that most of what looks like lost will is lost means, that some of it is real thinning, and that the two feed each other, so a broken machine slowly wears down the very wanting it was built to serve. If the evidence turns, I will turn with it, and I have already shown you one place, on the ground I care about most, where it turned against me and I let it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch1 id=\"where-this-leaves-us\"\u003eWhere this leaves us\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf that is right, then the question we began with was aimed a little wrong from the start, which is the useful thing to have learned. We keep asking how to give people the will to act, as if the wanting were the scarce thing. Mostly it is not. It is worn, it is uneven, some of it points where I would never point it, and on some ground it is genuinely thinning, but for the most part it is still there. What has gone missing is a means worth the wanting. A working line between what a public decides and what actually gets built, near enough to people to be moved by them and strong enough to hold when a narrow, deep interest leans the other way. Where such a means exists, as it did on this coast when it counted, a t
1ired public turns out to have will to spare. Where it does not, all the will in the world waits, and mostly it waits, as we have seen, for a disaster to force a door that somebody had the sense to prepare, and where nobody prepared one, even the disaster is wasted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo I am not going to end by telling you to want it more. Partly because being told to want things harder is the last thing a worn-out person needs to hear. But mostly because I am genuinely not sure the wanting is what is short, and I would sooner leave you with an honest doubt than a flattering shove. What I am fairly sure of is smaller and firmer. Whatever you want, and however much of it is left in you after these years, none of it can even be tested, let alone delivered, while the means to carry it is broken. Mend the means and we would find out at last how much will was really there, and of what kind. Leave it broken and the question never gets asked, because there is no way left to ask it except catastrophe, and catastrophe, we have seen, only answers where someone did the quiet work first.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the ground the pieces after this one have to walk. It is where this stops being a diagnosis and turns into the harder thing, the building of a means. It is the only place left worth going, and it is, at last, a place where the work is ours to do and not a disasterâs to bring.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA note on sources. The figures on trust in government, on how many would vote if the law did not require it, and on the drift away from the major parties are from the 2025 Australian Election Study. The softening on climate is from the 2026 Lowy Institute Poll, which found 49 per cent still willing to bear significant costs to act, down eight points since 2024. The finding that most Australians want government to act across every one of thirteen policy areas is from the 2026 ANU poll. The Bondi Beach attack of 14 December 2025 and the New South Wales gun laws passed on 24 December are on the public record. Scott Morrisonâs admission on the Western Australian border is from an interview for a forthcoming book, reported in The West Australian on 9 July 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"36:T8b9c,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch2 id=\"telling-a-real-divide-from-a-distorted-one\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eTelling a real divide from a distorted one\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe last piece ended with a question I left hanging. I had sorted the reasons a good idea takes so long to catch on into four kinds, and said that telling them apart was the whole of the job. I closed by asking something harder. When we look at everything that seems to split the country in two, how much of it is a real disagreement, and how much of it only looks like one?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the question this piece takes seriously. Not whether we secretly agree. That is the answer I would find convenient, and I will get to why in a moment. The question is how you tell a real division from a distorted one when you are looking at a whole country, and cannot ask it the way a doctor asks a family in a single room.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI want to tell you something before I go any further, because one of the answers I might reach is one that suits me personally. I sit on the crossbench and I lead a small party. If the big divide between the major parties turned out to be mostly theatre, with the public agreeing more than the system lets on, that finding would suit me: my politics, the book you will hopefully soon be reading, the audience I am building for it, and the re-election I have told you I am working towards. That is the biggest conflict of interest I have carried into anything in this series, and I am putting it on the table now rather than letting you find it later. I am not here to convince you that we secretly agree. I am here to give you a way of telling the real division from the distorted one, and to put my own convenient answer through the same test as everything else.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-case-i-would-love-to-believe\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe case I would love to believe\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet me make the strongest version of the case I am tempted by, as honestly as I can, because an argument you have only half made is an argument you have not really tested.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe case goes like this. Underneath the surface split, there is more agreement than the system shows us. A lot of what looks like a divided public is really just feeling, or tribal identity, or noise pumped up by the machinery that carries our politics to us. And there are real, documented ways that genuine agreement can be made to disappear, so a whole country can quietly agree on something without a single person in it discovering that everyone else agrees too.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThose ways are worth naming properly, because each one is real, and each one has a limit, and the limit matters as much as the mechanism itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is what an economist named Timur Kuran called preference falsification. People say what they think is safe to say rather than what they actually think, so what everyone can see hides what everyone actually believes, until something breaks the dam and the truth comes out all at once. That is roughly what happened across Eastern Europe in 1989, when public opinion appeared to flip overnight. But this mechanism needs real social cost for being honest. It gets weaker wherever speaking your mind is cheap, or anonymous. And it is weakest of all in the arguments people care about most, where they hold their position out of genuine conviction rather than fear of the neighbours. In those arguments, the disagreement you see is more likely to be the disagreement that is actually there.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is pluralistic ignorance: most people privately think one thing, while each one of them wrongly assumes everybody else thinks the opposite. This was first properly measured in studies of university students, who mostly disapproved of heavy drinking on campus while assuming, wrongly, that their mates were all fine with it. Its limit is that it has been shown for private embarrassments, things people would rather not admit to their friends. It does not automatically carry over to arguments about actual policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is the spiral of silence: peo
1ple who think they are in the minority go quiet, out of fear of being frozen out, which makes the minority look even smaller than it is. Its limit is that when researchers measured it carefully, the effect turned out to be small, weaker than the theory promised, and it showed up more in places where everybody is already similar than in places where people actually mix.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd there is false polarisation: the well documented habit of imagining the other side as more extreme, and more united, than they really are. Its limit is the biggest one of all, and I will come back to it, because whether fixing that wrong impression actually cools people down is the exact question this whole piece turns on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI came to this question as a doctor before I came to it as a politician, and the surgery teaches you something worth keeping in the back of your mind. A family sometimes arrives at a bedside seemingly split about what to do for someone they love, each of them privately holding back what they actually think because they have all misread the room. A doctor who listens patiently can sometimes find that the agreement was there the whole time, hidden only by everybodyâs reluctance to speak first. That is pluralistic ignorance, playing out in a single room. It is real.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut the same room teaches the opposite lesson just as often. Sometimes a family genuinely disagrees. And a doctor who treats real disagreement as a mere misunderstanding does not uncover a hidden agreement. He manufactures a fake one, and it falls apart at the worst possible moment. The old rule that keeps a doctor honest here is to believe everything the patient tells him, and at the same time to believe none of it, and let the true picture emerge through listening and checking rather than deciding in advance what he is going to find. That is the method for this piece. It is not the hero of the piece, and my own judgement is not what it is about.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have made the case as strongly as I can because it deserves that. But it is the strongest version of an argument I am not going to stand on. Everything I have just told you says one careful thing: agreement can be hidden. None of it proves the much more convenient thing: that agreement is hidden wherever it would suit me to find it. To tell those two apart, I need a tool.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"four-tests-for-what-divides-us\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFour tests for what divides us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the last piece I sorted the reasons for waiting into four kinds. The tool here is the same, and I want to say plainly that it is the same move rather than pretend otherwise, because it is a deliberate method. Only what I am pointing it at has changed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut a countryâs divisions are not as tidy as a row of separate boxes. A single argument can be a real disagreement about values, hardened into identity, and amplified by the machinery, all at once. So the honest way to use the tool is not to drop each division into one box and be done. It is to put every apparent division through four questions, and see what each one turns up.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is the substance test. Are people actually disagreeing about something real: their values, their material interests, the facts, or the means to a goal they share? Disagreement of this kind is not broken and it is not manufactured. It is what remains once the competing claims have been properly understood, and a great deal of our division is exactly this.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is the identity test. Has the position stopped being an opinion and become a marker of who you are, a badge of the group you belong to, with the other side cast as bad people and any compromise felt as betrayal? You catch it by asking whether the warmth or the coldness tracks which party someone votes for, even once you strip the actual policy away.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third is the amplification test. Are the incentives of our media, our platforms, and our elections making a division louder, hotter, or more visible than the underlying substance would on its own? This is the one where my own language gets dangerous, and I will come to why.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth is the specification test. Does an apparent agreement survive being made concrete, when the proposal, the costs, the trade offs, the losers, and the institutional detail are actually named? A warm, general goal that everyone shares can come apart the moment it becomes a specific thing to vote on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am going to walk through what these tests turn up, and I am taking the two where the division is usually real before the two where it can be distorted, on purpose. A piece arguing that some of our division is not what it looks like has a standing obligation to first show, in full, how much of it plainly is. Otherwise it becomes exactly the thing it claims to be diagnosing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-disagreement-that-is-real\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe disagreement that is real\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStart where the argument is
1weakest for me, with disagreement that is exactly what it looks like: the substance test, and what it turns up in plain sight.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn October 2023 Australians were asked to write recognition of Indigenous Australians into the Constitution through the Voice, and they said no, sixty per cent to forty. The vote tracked the old, durable fault lines of Australian life: age, gender, education, and where you live. Two in three of the people who voted No gave the reason that the proposal would divide the country. Researchers at the Australian National University who studied the campaign found that the collapse of support that had once crossed party lines was decisive. The result was decisive evidence that Australians did not agree on the specific proposal placed before them. Whatever agreement may have existed around recognition in principle, it did not extend to the institutional form put to the referendum, and that is a real, structured disagreement about something serious.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnergy is the same story. In 2022, fifty nine per cent of Labor voters and eighty per cent of Greens voters said global warming was extremely important, against twenty two per cent of Coalition voters. By 2025 nuclear power split the country nearly down the middle, and split it cleanly along party lines. Underneath the party lines sit older moral disagreements too, abortion being the clearest, which follow lines of personal conviction and religious belief that no party invented and that do not dissolve when you look closer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is worth pausing on the temptation here, because in a piece like this it is easy to reach for the word tribalism and file all of it under feeling. Much of this firm disagreement is not tribalism. It is the reasoned, respectable conflict of people who have thought hard about difficult questions and come to different answers, and calling that manipulation is itself disrespectful to the people doing the disagreeing. What the substance test turns up is the beat that keeps the rest of the argument honest, and I am giving it full weight before I give weight to anything else.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-disagreement-that-is-felt\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe disagreement that is felt\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the identity test turns up is real too, but real in a different way, and describing it precisely is what keeps it from collapsing into a lazy complaint that people just dislike each other.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a good body of research now on how a political opinion stops being an opinion and becomes an identity. When someone holds a view as a matter of right and wrong rather than preference, the work of the researcher Linda Skitka finds people become less tolerant of anyone who disagrees, less willing to be near them, and less willing to compromise. When a position becomes what the researcher Philip Tetlock calls a sacred value, people will not trade it away for anything material, and are morally offended by the very offer to trade it. A study of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians found that offering money to soften a position on a sacred issue actually hardened opposition, while a symbolic gesture from the other side, on their own sacred ground, could soften it. When someoneâs personal identity fuses with their groupâs identity, work by researcher William Swann and others shows an attack on the group is felt as an attack on the self, and compromise starts to feel like betraying yourself. Add the process researchers call moralisation, where a once ordinary preference turns into a moral cause and stops responding to argument, and you get, in a synthesis a group of researchers put together in 2020, a genuinely toxic mix: treating the other side as alien, feeling averse to them, and turning the disagreement into a moral one, all at once.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe other side of this needs the same care, because a tool carried without its limits overclaims, and this one is tempting to overuse. A lot of what looks sacred is only pretending to be. It gives way the moment people are actually asked to weigh it against something else they value. The same moral conviction that can make people intolerant also drives volunteering, civic courage, and reform, roughly evenly across the political spectrum. And the very ugliest end of this, treating the other side as less than human, is an extreme state, not the ordinary condition of a rank and file voter, and it must not be smuggled in as if it were typical.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor a reading of how hot this actually runs
1in Australia, the closest thing we have is the like and dislike scores the Australian Election Study collects for party leaders, and they need to be read with caution, because they mix a leaderâs personality in with feelings about the party. Held with that caution, they still show something real. In 2022, voters rated their own side warmly and with rough symmetry. Labor voters gave Albanese seven out of ten. Liberal voters gave Morrison just under seven. Their ratings of the other side were cooler, and lopsided. By 2025 the coldness towards the other side had sharpened. Liberal voters rated Albanese barely above two, and Peter Dutton recorded the lowest ratings of any major party leader in the surveyâs history, weak even among his own voters. There is real feeling here, and it is not nothing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut the point I keep coming back to is this. A division that runs through peopleâs sense of right and wrong, and their sense of who they are, is a real division, not a manufactured illusion. If part of what divides us runs that deep, it will not dissolve because someone shows us a poll. What the identity test finds disciplines the very thesis I am tempted by, and that is exactly why I have put it early.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-disagreement-that-is-amplified\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe disagreement that is amplified\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe amplification test is the one where my own language becomes dangerous, and I want to slow right down here, because this is the point where a careful argument slides most easily into a conspiracy theory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe structure is well documented. Anger and conflict reliably turn into attention, and attention turns into money. One large study tested real headlines on real readers and found that every extra negative word in an average headline lifted the number of people who clicked on it by just over two per cent, while positive words dragged it down, which puts some real evidence behind the old newsroom line about bleeding and leading. A study across seventeen countries found the same bias toward bad news everywhere, not just in one market. On social media, a study of over half a million messages found each extra moral or emotional word raised sharing by around a fifth, and, tellingly, that this spread within groups of people who already agreed rather than between groups who did not, which is the exact signature of division deepening rather than conversation widening. And in elections, the wedge strategy, deliberately splitting your opponentâs coalition by stirring up a divisive issue, is a recognised and perfectly rational move, because winning a handful of persuadable voters can decide a seat.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlmost every word of that paragraph describes an architecture of incentives, not a plan. The one place a deliberate choice does enter is the wedge, and it is worth being exact about it, because it is where this argument could tip into a conspiracy theory if I let it. A campaign that picks a divisive issue to peel off a few voters is making a conscious choice, and I am not pretending otherwise. But that is a local tactic played to win a seat, inside the incentive structure, not a scheme to set the whole public against itself. What I am not claiming, about any outlet, platform, party, or person, is that the broad division we all live inside is somebodyâs conscious design. The wedge is deliberate and small. The climate is undirected and large. Keeping those two apart is the discipline the whole series runs on, and it matters most right here. The main book on hidden consensus, the American one this series has been arguing with, reaches, when it explains why agreement stays hidden, for a story about deliberate design: party strategists and mass media setting the public against itself on purpose, with Russian troll factories running both sides of an argument at once as the vivid example. I have read that argument, and I do not adopt it. I am holding it at armâs length and naming it as its authorâs claim, not mine, for two reasons. It is not what the evidence best supports. And it happens to be the version most flattering to my own position, which is exactly the coincidence that should make me most suspicious of it. An architecture of incentives is both more defensible than a conspiracy, and in a way more damning, because there is nobody to remove and no plot to expose. The thing simply keeps running on its own.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd it does not run unopposed, which is the counterweight I owe you, and owe you plainly, because it cuts against the very case I would prefer to make. The biggest experiment run on this question so far, a collaboration with Facebook around the 2020 United States election that changed the feeds of around twenty thousand consenting users, found that switching people from a feed ranked by engagement to a simple chronological one changed what they s
1aw, but did not measurably shift their political hostility or their views over three months. That is strong evidence against one narrow but real claim: that swapping an engagement ranked feed for a plain chronological one, over a few months of an election, would by itself cool a personâs politics. It is not evidence that the feeds do nothing over years, and it carries its own caveats, which I am carrying too. Three months in a late campaign might miss slower, longer running effects. Only some users were changed. The platform was changing other things at the same time. A later experiment cut the other way, finding that deliberately reranking feeds to show less hostile content did lower how much people disliked the other side, which shows the algorithm is not just standing there doing nothing, even if it is not the villain either. And beside all of that sits the plainest counterweight of all. A great deal of our division is not the amplification of nothing. It is the visible edge of real and rising conflict over money, stagnant wages, insecure work, and the sense that the ground is shifting under peopleâs feet. Where inequality gets worse, research by Stewart and colleagues finds, division tends to rise as real conflict finds whatever lines are available to run along.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo I am not going to tell you how much of our visible division is amplification and how much is substance. I do not know. The honest reading of the evidence does not settle it, and it is very likely to differ from one issue to the next. That the amplifying incentives exist is established. How much they weigh against real substance is not, and I am leaving that open rather than inventing a verdict I cannot defend.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-agreement-that-is-only-a-word\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe agreement that is only a word\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe specification test is the one that turns the tool back on itself, and I will state it here and let its clearest example land a little later, where it can do double duty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is agreement that looks real but is not: broad support for a goal when it is put in warm, general terms, which vanishes the moment the costs, the trade offs, and the losers are actually named. Researchers named Zaller and Feldman described the mechanism decades ago. Most of us do not carry a fixed answer to a policy question ready in our head. We build an answer on the spot out of whatever is uppermost in our mind at the time, and since most people hold conflicting thoughts on most real issues, a warm phrasing that calls up only the agreeable ones will manufacture agreement that a costed phrasing, calling up the objections, will just as quickly dissolve. There is a second trap hidden beside it. If real opinion actually splits into two separate camps, the statistical average of those two camps lands somewhere in the empty middle where hardly anyone actually stands, so a single figure claiming a moderate consensus can be nothing more than an accident of folding two opposed groups together and calling the fold agreement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe last piece left one figure in reserve for this one: the broad support Australians show for expanding renewable energy. Here is the discipline it has to be read through. That support is real as far as it goes, but it is support for a warm, general goal, and it only earns the word consensus if it survives being costed and argued over, not simply because a headline number is large. I will not present broad support for something that sounds good as a hidden national agreement finally revealed. That is precisely the trap the specification test exists to catch, and the cleanest Australian example of it belongs in the next section, where the whole argument has to prove it can keep its feet on our own ground rather than borrowed American ground.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-australian-test\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Australian test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eEverything I have said so far carries a standing obligation, the one it would be easiest, and most damaging, to skip. Almost all of the popular writing on hidden consensus, and almost all of that book, is American. It is a long list of American bipartisan majorities on roads, healthcare and money in politics, and not one line of it can be carried across the Pacific without our own evidence, because Australia is not the United States. Our politics are built on different bones: compulsory voting, preferential voting, and a proportional Senate with a durable crossbench that channels frustration a different way.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo take the Australian record on its own terms. Trust in government here sits at or near its lowest recorded level. The share of Australians who think people in government can be trusted fell to twenty five per cent in 2019, the lowest since this survey began in the 1960s, when it stood at around half, and has only recovered to thirty two per cent by 2025. The researchers who run the survey put even that small recovery down to the ordinary bounce that follows a change of government, not to any real return of confidence, and the number of people who think government is run for a few b
1ig interests has not improved at all. In 2025, willingness to vote if voting were not compulsory hit a record low, concentrated among the young. This is a picture of a public switching off, not of two armed camps squaring up.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd where you would expect the trenches to be deepest, you find the opposite. The share of voters who see no real difference between the major parties has risen, while the share who see a good deal of difference has fallen. The combined major party vote has drifted to historic lows, and in 2025, for the first time, more Australians gave their first vote to a minor party or an independent than to the Coalition, while the share of voters who feel aligned to no party at all reached a record quarter of the electorate. This is dealignment and realignment: a public drifting away from both major parties. Whether they are converging on some common centre or dispersing into several different camps, the evidence here does not say. But the drift away from both poles is itself the reverse of the American pattern, where the two poles have hardened.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the one measure that lets us make a genuine comparison, the gap between warmth towards your own side and coldness towards the other side, the United States grew that gap by roughly seventy per cent between the late 1970s and 2016, while Australia over the same long stretch has trended flat, if anything sliding a little. That single fact is the load bearing piece of evidence in this whole article, and it points the opposite way to the answer I would find convenient. I am holding it firmly, and stating its limit too. The measures used to compare countries are not identical, so the exact size of the gap is contested. But the direction for Australia, flat or sliding, is not seriously in doubt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is tempting to give our institutions the credit for this, and there is a reasonable case that compulsory voting pulls parties towards the middle by dragging disengaged people to the ballot box, and that preferential voting rewards a candidate who can reach beyond their own base. But I have to mark that as my own reasonable guess, not proof. The best known study of compulsory voting in Australia shows that it changes who wins elections. It does not show that it cools the temperature between the sides.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow the figure that does the most work, and the one this whole pieceâs method was built to handle properly. In 2022, something like four in five Australians told the Election Study they supported constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians, with support running between roughly three quarters and six in seven across the states. A year later the actual proposal was defeated sixty to forty. There, in one pair of numbers, is the specification test in its purest form. The four in five was real, as a reading of warmth towards a general good thing. It was not agreement on the specific, argued over, institutionally concrete change to the Constitution that the Voice actually was, and when the specific question arrived, with its trade offs and its opponents and its actual words on the ballot paper, the warmth did not survive contact with it. Broad support for an objective does not establish support for every institutional means proposed to reach it. This is exactly why this piece has to earn the word consensus case by case, rather than assume it, and why a big friendly number is the start of an inquiry, not the end of one. Some Australian agreement is broad and genuine. Some is broad and shallow. Telling the two apart, on our own evidence, is the whole discipline, and the recognition figures are the warning against skipping that work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"what-kind-of-fix-this-actually-points-to\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat kind of fix this actually points to\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSuppose everything I have said so far holds up. Suppose there really is agreement out there, in identifiable places, that the system keeps hidden from us. The natural next thought is that surfacing it, through better polling, or citizensâ juries, or patiently correcting what each side wrongly believes about the other, would itself fix things. I do n
1ot think the evidence supports that, and explaining why is what connects this piece back to the rest of the series.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo the extent that real agreement is genuinely kept out of sight, the hiding is best explained by the same machine of incentives this series has spent its whole length taking apart: the media economics, the platform dynamics, the electoral rewards. Being invisible, in other words, is mostly a side effect of causes we have already named, not a fresh problem with a fresh fix of its own.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd the direct evidence that surfacing hidden agreement treats a symptom rather than a cause is fairly strong. The most authoritative summary of the research on citizensâ juries and deliberation reports, as a settled finding of the field, that good deliberation is plural rather than one voice. What it reliably produces is a workable agreement on what to do next, and mutual recognition that the other side has a legitimate point of view, not the revelation of some consensus that was there the whole time. Serious researchers in this field have rarely claimed otherwise. Australiaâs own most searching example makes the point. When South Australia put the question of a nuclear waste industry to a jury of several hundred ordinary people in 2016, the jury did not come together. About two thirds came down against it under any circumstances, and about a third in favour under certain conditions, a durable split of roughly two to one, and the minority wrote a formal statement of dissent. The deliberation did not dissolve a disagreement. It surfaced one, and put it on the record properly, which is a genuinely useful thing to do, but not the thing the hopeful version of this story promises.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a second body of evidence pointing the same way, and it is the limit I flagged much earlier. If a large part of our division were simply false polarisation, each side misreading how extreme the other really is, then correcting that wrong impression should cool the hostility down. The evidence that it does is weak. A recent study pulling together sixty seven separate tests found that correcting peopleâs wrong beliefs about their opponents changes the belief readily enough, but its effect on how much they actually dislike the other side is generally small, inconsistent, and dependent on exactly what you measure. The dislike is stubborner than the misperception, which is hard to square with the idea that the misperception is what causes the dislike. This argument among researchers is live and not settled. Other careful researchers have found that correction does help, and I am presenting that disagreement as a disagreement. But the weakness of the nullâs opposite is the most disciplining evidence in this whole piece, because it suggests a meaningful part of our division is real, and unhidden, sitting exactly where no amount of surfacing will ever reach it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the precision I have to carry through to my conclusion. Where real agreement is kept invisible, the invisibility is mostly a downstream effect of an architecture we have already diagnosed. But mostly is not entirely, and a genuine slice of what looks like division is not hidden agreement at all. It is the honest, unhidden shape of a society made up of different people disagreeing about hard things, and no fix should try to make that disappear. One caution on numbers, learned earlier in this series. No single correlation from the citizensâ jury research should ever be dressed up as proof that assemblies reveal some hidden national consensus, and I am not resting any weight on a figure of that kind here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"who-wins-if-you-believe-me\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWho wins if you believe me\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eI owe you the audit I promised at the start, and I am running it in the open, because the most important discipline in a piece like this one is not a footnote tacked on at the end. It is a test applied in full view.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsk who benefits if you accept the strong version of this pieceâs claim, that underneath the division the system sells us, we already agree. Some of the people who benefit are sympathetic. A public that shares more common ground than it can see would be a public that could act together, if only the ground were made visible, and that possibility is real, and it is the reason this question is worth asking at all. But other beneficiaries are not sympathetic, and honesty means naming them with the same weight. Any movement that wants to speak in the name of a silent, agreeing majority benefits, because claiming to speak for a majority that cannot be seen to disagree with you is one of the oldest tricks in the politics of shutting down disagreement. Anyone who would rather not answer their opponentâs actual argument benef
1its too, because âwe secretly agree and the division is manufacturedâ is a way of dismissing someone without ever engaging with what they actually said.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd then there is me, the interest I put on the table at the start. A crossbench member who leads a small party has a direct, structural interest in the claim that the split between the big parties is not a real one that the public actually holds. It is not a passing interest, and it is not narrow, the way my interest in one crop was in the last piece. It goes to my standing. The honest test is not whether I feel neutral. It is whether each finding here would survive being read by someone who knows exactly what I stand to gain from it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe careful claim survives that test. Some division is real and some is distorted. Genuine agreement exists in identifiable places and is partly kept out of sight by an architecture we have already diagnosed. A large part of our division is genuine disagreement about values, interests, or facts, or deeply felt identity, that will not dissolve just because you look at it closely. A reader who knew my interests could check every step of that against the Australian evidence and get there independently.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe convenient claim, that we secretly agree and the division is mostly manufactured, does not survive the test. That is exactly why I refused to rest on it, and why I have spent this whole piece taking apart the version of it I would most like to be true.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"where-this-leaves-us\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhere this leaves us\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo the picture that comes out of all this is not the flattering one, and not the despairing one either. It is a country that disagrees, really and lastingly, about some serious things, the Voice and energy among them, and I have named those as the real disagreements they are, rather than explaining them away. It is a country whose bitterness towards the other side, measured as best we can measure it, has not climbed the way Americaâs has, and has by the honest reading drifted the other direction, and I have named that too, plainly, because the evidence points clearly. And it is a country in which some genuine agreement is real, but held partly out of sight, less by anyoneâs design than by the ordinary running of the incentive machine this series has already taken apart.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe one thing I have deliberately not settled is how much of the division that remains is amplification, and how much is substance, because the evidence does not settle it, and I will not pretend it does. That is the judgement I am leaving open, and it is left open only where it belongs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhich leaves a question standing, the way the last piece left one standing for this one. If some of our division is real and lasting, and some of it is felt, and some is amplified by an architecture we have already taken apart, and some of what looks like agreement is only a warm word that does not survive being made concrete, then the useful question is no longer whether we secretly agree. It is what a public that can run those four tests, and tell a real division from a distorted one, is able to do about the divisions that turn out to be real. That is the ground the next piece walks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"37:T2599,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the sixth of July a Chinese submarine fired a long-range missile into the Pacific. It carried no warhead, only a dummy, and it came down, by the best reckoning available, in the southern reaches of the ocean. Within a day the event had its shape in the headlines, and the shape was fright.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo reactions are close to hand, and both feel like clear thinking. The first is alarm. A nuclear-armed power has reached across our part of the world, so we should be frightened, and we should spend. The second is the weary opposite. Everyone does this, the Americans most of all, so the outrage is theatre and can be waved away. I want to do neither, because both are wrong, and they are wrong for the same reason.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe habit I try to bring to these things runs in a particular order, and the order matters. First, get clear on what can actually be shown. Only then ask who is served by the way those facts are chosen, framed and amplified. Do it the other way around, leading with whose interests are in play, and you have stopped reasoning and started suspecting. I should name my own interest too, because it is real. A crossbencher gains by showing that the two big parties have taken too narrow a frame, and an argument that leaves me looking clearer-eyed than them is one I have reason to want to be true. Hold that against what follows.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith that order in place, here is what can be shown, and it is the part the weary reaction gets wrong. What China did carried a real danger, though not the obvious one. The missile most likely came down inside the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, the stretch of ocean the countries of the region set aside from the nuclear shadow in 1986, and whose protocols China signed the year after. I want to be careful there, because those protocols forbid nuclear explosions, and a dummy warhead falling into the sea is not one. On the letter, there was probably no breach. It helps to be plain about the tangle of rules, because they are easy to blur into one. The zone treaty bars nuclear explosions. A separate voluntary code asks states to give notice of missile launches, and China has never joined it. A binding agreement between Washington and Moscow has required a full dayâs notice of launches like this since 1988. Ordinary safety notices warn ships and aircraft away. Chinaâs test exposed the gaps between them. What it did not do was come with the warning that the responsible version of this behaviour carries, and the notice it gave was selective. Australia had close to a day. New Zealand and Japan had only hours. The United States, whose early-warning systems are the ones most likely to read a launch as the real thing, also had only hours, and thin detail with it, which on Washingtonâs account fell well short of what the major powers expect of one another. That unevenness, thinnest for the power most able to mistake a test for an attack, is the exact space in which a miscalculation grows. And the platform matters. This was fired from a ballistic-missile submarine, the kind built to carry nuclear weapons and to hide at sea, so the test was also a demonstration that Chinaâs undersea deterrent is maturing. That is a real strategic fact, and no amount of pointing at others makes it smaller.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow the part the alarmed reaction leaves out. The United States tests weapons of the same broad kind, and does it routinely. Its land-based intercontinental missiles fly from California out across the Pacific to a range at Kwajalein. Its submarines test the Trident, fired from the same category of platform China used, the ballistic-missile submarine, in a publicly announced test off the coast of Florida last September. Those American tests are scheduled, announced, and ringed with published warnings to shipping and aircraft, and that is precisely the point: it is the notice, not any special restraint, that makes them tolerable. The deeper history sits in the same ocean. The Marshall Islands, where the Kwajalein range lies, is a country still living with the consequences of sixty-seven American nuclear detonations between 1946 and 1958, most of them at Bikini and Enewetak, one of which in 1954 threw fallout across islands
1where people still lived. When an American missile crosses the Pacific now, it is reported, if at all, as the upkeep of a deterrent. When a Chinese one does, it is a provocation. Some of that difference is earned by the notice the Americans give and the Chinese did not. Not all of it is. Our own newspapers ran a series a few years ago warning of war with China within three years, which Paul Keating called the most egregious and provocative news presentation he had seen in over fifty years of public life. Fear travels faster than the qualifications attached to it, and fear about China travels fastest of all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere is where both easy reactions fail. It is tempting, having seen the double standard, to swing across and say China is only doing what America has always done. I will not, because it is not true. The difference is not the treaty letter, which I have granted may be intact. It is that the American tests come with the warning the world expects and the Chinese test did not, and that a maturing sea-based strike capability is a real change in the balance whatever one thinks of who holds it. Both things are true at once, and an honest account holds them together rather than seizing whichever one flatters the side it began on. The Marshall Islanders, who have more reason than anyone alive to resent American testing, condemned the Chinese launch. Condemning China did not require them to forget what was done to them. It does not require it of us either.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhich points to the cause beneath the symptom, and it is not the one the word decay suggests. There was never a settled system that held all the great powers and then came apart. The machinery that warns of nuclear launches was built between Washington and Moscow, for a world with two such powers, and it was never extended to a third as China built a force to match. China is not simply lawless in this. It has had a launch-notification agreement with Russia since 2009, and renewed it, so it accepts the tool where it judges the relationship serious and mutual. There is just no such agreement between China and the United States, and none at all covering the Pacific and the states that live in it. The rules did not rot. They were built for two and never remade for a world of several, and the ocean where that gap shows most plainly is this one, which was one great powerâs proving ground last century and is becoming anotherâs now.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not a distant matter for Western Australia, and it is worth being exact about how it reaches us. Under AUKUS our coast is becoming a base that American, British and in time Australian submarines will work from, with a yard south of Fremantle being built up to service them. Those boats are not the kind China fired from. They are nuclear-powered but conventionally armed attack submarines, not carriers of nuclear missiles, and part of what they are built to do is find and shadow the submarines that do carry them. That is how Western Australia is drawn in: not as a launch site for anyoneâs deterrent, but as a forward base in the contest beneath the sea. It does not hand the state authority over any of it, because defence and foreign affairs belong to the Commonwealth. It does give the state a direct democratic interest, and real leverage, over what can be seen and settled at home: the land and the harbour, the environmental monitoring, the emergency and radiological planning, the workforce and the housing, and the terms on which all of it is reported to the people who live beside it. A place asked to host the sharp end of a strategic contest has every reason to want a formal say in those things, written down, rather than assurances offered case by case.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is one thing I will not claim. Chinaâs test fell on the same day Australia signed a defence treaty with Fiji, and I do not know whether the timing was a message. I will not turn a coincidence I cannot see into a plan. What the test asks of us is not fear, which spends our attention and our money on the wrong things, and not the shrug, which excuses a real lapse because the other side has its own. It asks for something narrower and harder, and the right people to lead it are the ones whose ocean this is. The Pacific states, through their own forum, are the natural authors of a plain rule: that any power testing a strategic weapon across their waters gives proper notice of the kind of missile, the window, the direction, the area it will fall, and the risks it carries. Australiaâs part is to back that and to hold itself and its allies to it, not to write it for the region as one more outside power deciding what the Pacific needs. Such a rule would not stop the next launch. Nothing short of a change of heart in Beijing or Washington will do that. But it would make the next one less dangerous, less easily mistaken for an attack, and less dismissive of the people over whose sea it passes. That is the work the missile leaves behind, and Western Australia, drawn deeper into the machine than any other part of this country, has as much reason as anyone to take it up.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"38:T6090,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e(Article 14 of The Available Remedies)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou hear it and something in you tightens. Somewhere, someone has shown that a job can be done faster, or cheaper, or with less harm. The proof is in. The trial has been run. And still the country goes on doing it the old way, year after year, as though none of it had happened. Anyone who has watched a better method sit unused knows the feeling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen you are standing in that frustration, one explanation is close to hand, and it feels good to reach for. Someone is blocking it. The system has been bought. The good thing threatens somebodyâs money, and the money has arranged for the good thing to fail.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSometimes that is exactly right. More often it is not. And knowing the difference is not a fine point for people with time on their hands. It is the whole practical question. Get the reason wrong and you reach for the wrong fix. The wrong fix does not just fail quietly. It fails in a way everyone can see, and it teaches them that reform is hopeless, when the truth is only that the reform was aimed at the wrong target.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo this chapter does something smaller than accusing, and I think more useful. âThe system is slow to take up the better methodâ is not one thing. It is four things. And the four need four different remedies. Telling them apart is the whole of the work. What follows is not a verdict on who is to blame. It is a way of asking, of any case where a known improvement is stuck at the door, which of the four kinds of waiting this one is. Because the answer is what tells you what would actually open it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-four-kinds-of-waiting\"\u003eThe four kinds of waiting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first kind is principled caution, or what we might more plainly call careful waiting. The method looks good, but the proof that it holds up over time has not been built yet. There is no long record of how it behaves over decades. There is no settled standard a bank or an insurer can use to price it. The slowness here is not a failure of nerve. It is a fair refusal to move faster than the evidence. The fix is to build that evidence and that assurance, and until it is built, the caution is doing its job.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second kind is the good that nobody is paid to do. The method works, and everyone who knows the field agrees it works. But the benefit is spread thin across a lot of people and turns up years later, while the cost is concentrated and lands now. No single person or body is paid to carry it, so it gets carried by no one. There is no villain in this one. There is just a set of rewards that quietly pays too little for the very thing it should pay most for. The fix is to line the payment up with the thing you want done, so that someone is actually paid to do what helps everyone a little, later.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third kind is the inherited category, or in plainer language, the wrong word stuck on long ago. The method is governed by a label that was made for something else, and the label drags in friction that has nothing to do with what the method actually is or does. Nobody sat down and decided to block it. A word attached itself a long time back, for reasons that made sense then and in another setting, and it has gone on doing its work ever since, without anyone stopping to ask whether it still fits. The fix is to look at the label again, which is harder than
1it sounds, because old labels are exactly the thing large bodies are worst at reopening.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth kind is partial capture: the case where someone really is leaning on the scale, and even here only partly. The incumbents, the ones already in place, have some hand in the delay. But their hand is tangled up with real and legitimate difficulties, and how much weight to give the one against the other is genuinely arguable. This is the kind people reach for first and can prove last, because it is the hardest to show and the easiest to assert.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne warning before the cases. These four are not sealed boxes, and almost no real case sits wholly inside one. Most are mixtures. The question is not which single box a case goes in. It is which of the four is doing the most of the work, because that is the one whose fix has to lead. I will name each case by the kind that leads it, and where a second kind is also at work, I will say so.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHold those four in mind. Now walk the cases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"caution-that-is-not-blindness\"\u003eCaution that is not blindness\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTake modern ways of building: prefabricated, modular, panelised. Made in a factory, in large part, and assembled on site. Australia is a clear laggard here. These methods make up under five per cent of home-building in this country. Sweden prefabricates something like four-fifths of its single-family homes. Japan builds roughly one new dwelling in seven this way, and even there the share has been easing rather than climbing. The Commonwealth Productivity Commission has estimated these methods can cut costs by up to a fifth and build up to half again as fast. On the face of it, this is exactly the story the frustrated reformer wants to tell. A proven method, cheaper and faster, held back.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut look at what is actually holding it back, and the simple capture story does not survive the first contact with the evidence. The barriers are these. Building codes written around the old way of building on site. Construction finance built on staged payments that release money as a house rises on its slab, which does not fit a method that creates most of its value in a factory before it ever reaches the site. And the caution of lenders, insurers and valuers, who have no long track record to price against. A United Kingdom parliamentary inquiry found that new construction systems lacked long-term performance data, and the answer there was not to force the method through. It was to build a scheme that could vouch for it. That is careful waiting. It is the first kind, and it is doing its job.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd notice, before we move on, that this first case is already a mixture. Those building codes, written for one way of building and now taxing another, are a small piece of the third kind, the wrong word stuck on long ago, sitting inside a case whose main driver is the caution of the first. I file housing under caution, because that is what leads, and that is what any fix has to answer. But I flag the second thread, because this is how the tool is meant to be used. Not to force each case into one box, but to name the kind that leads and to notice when more than one is present.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore than that, the reform is already moving, and it belongs here at full weight. New South Wales introduced legislation in May 2026 meant to make it the first Australian jurisdiction to recognise modern methods of construction in law. The Australian Building Codes Board is developing a national voluntary certification scheme. The Commonwealth has announced about fifty-four million dollars for prefabricated and modular housing. A major bank has brought in a construction-loan pathway built for prefabrication. An argument that set out to prove the system cannot see this solution has to reckon, here, with a system that is beginning to see it clearly, and to move.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat this case settles clears away an error before it can spread through the rest. Adoption here is tracking the benefit that is concentrated, immediate and easy to see. Once finance can price the method and the law recognises it, the money follows, because now the reward is visible to someone. The slowness that is left is not suppression. It is the ordinary and defensible lag of assurance cat
1ching up with something new. This case comes first for a reason. The discipline that refuses to see a plot where there is none also refuses to dress ordinary prudence up as persecution, and refuses to reward those who would profit when honest caution about an under-tested product gets recast as the system conspiring against them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-method-with-no-one-to-pay-for-it\"\u003eThe method with no one to pay for it\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePreventive health is the cleanest case of the second kind, and I come to it as a general practitioner, which shapes how I read it but does not stand in for the evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a figure that gets quoted a great deal: that it takes, on average, about seventeen years for new evidence to reach the consulting room. I will not lean on that number as though it were solid, because it is not. The original work drew it from a small set of specialties, with different people meaning different things by âreaching practice,â and later commentary has rightly picked holes in it. What the same body of work does show, and shows more usefully, is that the lag is not fixed in stone. Where someone actually resources the job of putting the evidence to work, and does it together rather than alone, uptake of around four-fifths in about three years has been reached. I offer that as an illustration and not as a law, from the same literature and held to the same caution. It shows the mechanism at work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd the mechanism is this. Prevention works, but its benefit is spread out and delayed. It is shared across a whole population and shows up years or decades from now, while treatment pays a doctor today for the patient sitting in front of them. Nobody blocks prevention. No powerful player has to capture a regulator to keep it down. The system simply pays too little for it, because the reward for prevention is arranged, by the very way care is funded, to arrive too late and too spread out for anyone to gather up. This is a real failure, and it is not capture. What it shows is that the speed of adoption tracks where the benefit falls, not how good the method is. The fix is not to expose a villain, because there is none. It is to line the payment up with the work, so that someone is at last paid to do the thing that helps everyone a little, later.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"a-label-built-for-the-room\"\u003eA label built for the room\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third kind is the inherited category, or in plainer language the wrong word stuck on long ago, and before I come to the case I know best, here is one I can hand you without defending any interest of my own. For most of Medicareâs life, the thing the schedule was built around was the visit: a doctor and a patient in the same room. Telehealth, care given over a phone or a video link, was not so much banned as barely allowed for, let through only by narrow gates of distance and circumstance that had little to do with whether care at a distance was any good. A consultation, the schedule quietly assumed, was a thing that happened in a room. Before 2020 it ran at well under one per cent of services. The friction that assumption produced had nothing to do with the actual worth of speaking to a patient over a video link, and everything to do with a label that had never been asked to imagine the room might be optional.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen it was asked. When the pandemic made the room dangerous, the Commonwealth created two hundred and eighty-one temporary telehealth items on the Medicare schedule between March and May of 2020. The quickest of them were built by copying the wording of the existing face-to-face items, because the consultation was the same consultation. The department itself later called the change roughly ten years of reform in ten days. In January 2022, two hundred and eleven of those items were kept for good. A method that had been a sliver of a per cent of general practice became, inside a couple of years, a standing part of how the country sees its doctors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo things need saying here, and I put them in rather than leave them out. First, I am a general practitioner and I bill under this schedule, so I note the interest, though it is a broad one shared with every doctor in the country and nothing peculiar to me. Second, the old caution was not empty. There are real questions of quality and of oversight in care given at a distance, and the government was right that telehealth does not suit every problem. That is the first kind of waiting doing a little work inside the third, exactly the sort of mixture the tool is built to name. But the main fact is plain. A label built around being in the room governed, for years, a method whose worth had nothing to do with being in the room, until an emergency forced the label open and showed how quickly it could have opened all along. There was no villain to expose. The fix was to look at the label again, and under pressure that is just what the system did.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"a-crop-governed-by-the-wrong-word\"\u003eA crop governed by the wrong word\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe case I know best in this third kind is low-THC industrial hemp, and I have put it after telehealth on purpose, because it is the one I have to handle most carefully. The reason is awkward, and I will not dress it up. I lead a political party whose purpose touches this crop, and I would gain from a conclusion that the rules around it are out of proportion. That is exactly why I hold this case to the same weight as the others and no more, why I will not let it carry the argument, and why every fact that has to bear weight in it comes from the governmentâs own mouth rather than from mine. A declared interest is still an interest. The guard against it is not confession. It is discipline.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere is what the governmentâs own record shows. Under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the Narcotic Drugs Act of 1967, cannabis
1is classed as a narcotic by its category. The Commonwealthâs own Office of Drug Control says plainly that the law is silent on the THC level of cannabis extracts, and that all extracts are treated as drugs whatever their actual cannabinoid content. The rule, in other words, turns on what the plant is called, not on what a particular crop does. And the regulators themselves describe this particular crop as non-intoxicating. A South Australian primary industries agency states that industrial hempâs low THC level means it has none of the mind-altering effects of the illicit varieties, and the Office of Drug Controlâs own security guidance reasons that low-THC material is not attractive for recreational use. A crop the regulators call non-intoxicating is governed by a category that is silent on the very thing that makes it non-intoxicating.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo corrections belong here, both of which cut against a looser version of this case, and both of which I carry at full weight, because leaving them out would be the easy and dishonest path. First, the word narcotic is a legal term, not a medical one. The category lists cocaine, a stimulant, alongside the depressants, which tells you the label carries a policy decision about control, not a claim about how a substance acts. That is true, but it is colour, not proof. It shows only what no informed person argues about. The real mismatch is narrower and stronger. The word narcotic, in its ordinary and its medical sense, suggests an opioid-like power to kill, and it has attached to a crop that does not cause the deadly slowing of the breath that defines an opioid overdose. That is a claim about what the substance does and does not do, and it holds. Put as a claim about the fine detail of brain receptors it would not hold, and I do not make it there.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, and this genuinely surprised me when I checked it, Australiaâs own limit is generous, not tight. Our industrial-hemp threshold sits at or below one per cent THC, which is at the higher, more permissive end by world standards, while major markets including the United States, Canada, China and the European Union commonly use a 0.3 per cent line. A higher threshold means more of the plant counts as hemp, not less. The friction that threshold causes is not at the growing but at the border, because a crop lawfully grown here at up to one per cent goes over the 0.3 per cent ceiling of the big buyers overseas. And even that friction has a recorded history of being noticed and removed. In 2020, Parliament passed legislation whose own explanatory notes called the rules blocking exports of these narcotic-classed goods unnecessary and unintended, and set out to stop treating them differently from other farm goods that carry similar risks. The word in the record is barriers, the scope is exports, and it was the government that named the disproportion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo here is what this case shows. A crop the regulators themselves call non-intoxicating, governed under a category in which its cannabinoid level is treated as beside the point, with a home threshold that is generous and one specific export barrier that was recognised and lifted. And here is what it knocks down. Three tempting overstatements: that the one per cent limit holds back the growing of it, that the safety case rests on receptors being missing from the base of the brain, and that the cocaine-in-the-category point proves the whole rule is mad. The fix is not to accuse anyone. Nobody lied. A category was inherited from a treaty that used the word loosely, and it has gone on doing work that no one has stopped to look at again. The fix is to look at the label again. That is a harder and a more honest thing to ask for than a villain.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-one-case-where-the-word-half-fits\"\u003eThe one case where the word half-fits\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRenewable energy is where leaning on the scale actually happens, and it is the case that tests whether this whole exercise is disciplined or just noise, because it is the case where I could reach for the strong story and where I am going to refuse to.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBoth explanations are genuinely backed by the record, and that is the whole point. The real difficulties are real and well documented. The engineering of feeding a wind-and-sun supply that comes and goes into a grid built for the steady output of coal and gas. The transmission lines that have to be built, and the queues of projects that bank up behind them waiting to connect. The rise in cost that the market operator has recorded in real terms. The fact that the wind drops and the sun sets. The long approvals. And the resistance of communities to big infrastru
1cture built near them. None of that is anyone leaning on the scale. It is the difficulty of a large change. And alongside it, the incentive factors are documented too. Fossil-fuel subsidy arrangements estimated in the billions a year. A policy framing that peer-reviewed analysis describes as favouring the fossil-fuel generators already in place. And the influence of the incumbent industry and of concentrated media ownership. That is where the word capture earns a hearing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe question that would settle the strong story is which of these weighs more, and here I have to keep two things apart that a looser argument would smear together. That the incentive factors exist is established. The subsidy arrangements, the policy framing that favours the incumbents, the concentrated ownership, they are all on the documented record. That they exist is not in doubt, and it is enough on its own to show that partial capture is real here, a mechanism genuinely present in the system and not just alleged. What is not established is their weight against the real difficulties, which of the two is the bigger cause of the delay. The record I have does not let me settle that, so I will not pretend it does. To manufacture a verdict, to declare capture the main cause because it would make the more gripping chapter, would be to do the very thing this whole discipline exists to stop. So I claim what I can defend and no more. Partial capture is present and real, its weight is contested, and the contest is open. Stating the existence as a fact and the weight as unsettled is not a dodge. In this case, it is the argument.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-ledger-set-out-plainly\"\u003eThe ledger, set out plainly\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eGather the four cases together and a kind of stocktake appears. The stocktake is the finding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe record establishes several things. The speed of adoption tracks where the benefit falls, not how good the method is: benefit that is concentrated and lands now gets taken up quickly, as in housing finance once the method became legible to it, while benefit that is spread out and delayed waits, as in preventive health. The system can see and can move: housing shows it now, and so does the in-the-room consultation category, reopened in days once it was finally asked, and largely kept afterwards. A crop the regulators call non-intoxicating is nonetheless governed under a narcotic category that treats its cannabinoid content as beside the point. And in renewables, the incentive factors are documented as present, so partial capture there is real as a mechanism, whatever its weight against real difficulty turns out to be.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe record knocks several things down too, and the corrections put right live misreadings rather than scoring points. The idea of regulator capture by incumbents everywhere does not explain these cases. It fits none of the four cleanly, and only renewables even partly. The generous home threshold on hemp does not hold back the growing of it. The safety of low-THC hemp does not rest on any claim about missing receptors. And the striking point that a stimulant sits in the narcotic category proves the label is legal rather than medical, which is true but modest, and not the proof of a mad rule it is sometimes asked to be.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd the record leaves things open, which is where the discipline shows. The weight of partial capture against real difficulty in renewables is unsettled, and I have left it there. So too, at the edge of the hemp case, is the exact cause of one long delay, which I come to now.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"what-you-can-now-do\"\u003eWhat you can now do\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe tool is simple to state and demanding to use. Faced with any claim that the system will not take up the better thing, you can now ask which of the four kinds of waiting this is. Caution that is doing its job. A good that no one is paid to carry. A label inherited from another purpose. Or the partial capture where the weight is genuinely arguable. The fix is different in every case. Build the assurance, or line up the payment, or reopen the label, or contest the weight. Apply the fix for one kind of waiting to another kind, and the effort is not just wasted. It hands the doubters their proof that reform does not work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo facts sit at the close of the hemp case, and they carry their own labels rather than borrow a certainty they have not earned. Hemp as a food was banned in this country until late 2017. The food regulatorâs own science had assessed low-THC hemp foods as safe and recommended they be approved by 2012, and the effort to get there stretched back to an application lodged
1in 1998. So the delay, close to two decades from that first application and a further five after the science was settled, is not explained by any unresolved question of safety. That much is established, and it is established by elimination, because the safety question had an answer and the answer was yes. What the delay tracked instead, the cropâs link with the drug strain and the whole apparatus of drug testing built around it, is a strong inference and not a fact of the same standing. The regulator did require that approved hemp foods keep clear of any link with the drug strain, down to the pictures on the packet, which fits that reading. But an ordinary account of bureaucratic caution and of getting the states and the Commonwealth to move together could play a part too, and I cannot close the gap between the elimination, which I can prove, and the attribution, which I can only strongly suspect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe system, then, is not blind. Blindness was the wrong first reach, the single explanation the frustrated reformer grabs for, and the cases have earned the correction. The system sees what it is built and paid to see, and does not see what nothing rewards it for seeing, or what an old label has told it not to look at. The work is not to accuse it of blindness. The work is to tell the four kinds of not-seeing apart, because only then does the question of what to do about any one of them have an answer. There is a harder question underneath all of this, which is whether, beneath the noise of our disagreements, there is more settled agreement about what should be done than the system lets us believe. That is the ground the next chapter walks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"39:T5e5a,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCivic education is the remedy I am readiest to believe in. This article is the test I owe it before I ask anyone else to.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough these chapters the people have mostly turned up as the ones things are done to. We pulled the structures apart, followed the money, traced the incentives, and all the way through, the public sat where the patient sits, not the doctor. The body the system works on. The last chapter ended by refusing the easy next step. It did not ask whether the public could be trusted to put things right. It asked what a people would need in order to do it. That is the question I am taking up now, and I want to be careful from the first line about where the power in it sits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHere is the thing I keep coming back to, and I should say plainly that it is the part of the answer I most want to be true. People will take up the work of fixing a democracy only when they can see it is worth fixing. That is not a dig at voters. It is just how people are. If your one vote barely moves anything, then spending your evenings getting across the detail of government buys you very little. An economist named Anthony Downs said this plainly more than fifty years ago, and it has not stopped being true. When a system gives no sign at all that it listens to the people it governs, switching off is not stupidity. It is a fair reading of the evidence. The people who study this in Australia, through the long-running Australian Election Study, have found the same thing for years now. Falling trust and falling engagement do not track how much people know. They track what people have watched the system do, and the sense that it works for someone other than them. So the problem sits in the system before it sits in the citizen. I am holding the cure back on purpose for a moment, because the second you lead with the cure, the power in the room quietly shifts from the people who have to use it to the person handing it out. And that shift is the whole problem in miniature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo let me put the case I am drawn to as strongly as I can, before I lay a finger on it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a book by John Macgregor, \u003cem\u003eThe Mechanics of Changing the World\u003c/em\u003e, that gives a big part of its argument to what he calls the democratic arts. The idea is simple and serious. A country that means to govern itself has to treat teaching people how to do that as a duty, not a nice-to-have. And the strong part of that case is genuinely good. I am not going to make it weak so I can look even-handed. Teaching civics well does reliably make people know more about how their society is run. We have a fair idea of what works, too. A classroom where students argue about real, live, contested questions beats one where they recite the settled answers. Doing it beats being told about it. And here is the part that matters most to me. It helps the children who start with the least more than it helps the rest. It narrows a gap that money and background would otherwise open. There is even a believable path from knowing to doing. Knowing more tends to make people feel they can understand and take part, and that feeling tends to make them take part. This is real. It builds on itself. It is the part of the programme I support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd now I have to put the lid on it, in the same breath, because a strength stated without its limit is just sales. The chain snaps at the last link. The honest finding, repeated across the research, is an uncomfortable one. Knowing more does not reliably turn into doing more. On turnout in particular, the effect is weak or missing. People who know more do not, just because they know more, vote more or act more. That lid matters for a reason beyond getting it right. It shuts the door on the most comfortable thought available to someone in my position: that teaching the next generation its civics is the answer, and the harder structural work can wait while the lesson sinks in. It cannot wait, and the evidence will not let me pretend it can.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is an older and tougher objection, and it deserves its hearing now rather than buried later. A hundred years ago a journalist named Walter Lippmann said the ideal citizen democracy is supposed to rest on, the one who follows everything closely enough to judge it all wisely, never existed and never will. Democracy, he said, had been quietly leaning on a fairytale. A philosopher named John Dewey answered him a few years later. He said that kind of competence is not something you are either born with or stuck without. It is something people grow by taking part. That argument has never been settled and I am not going to settle it. I raise it because Deweyâs answer holds the hinge this whole chapter turns on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe hinge is a question, and I ask it the way I would ask it of a patient sitting across from me. Is the thing in front of you the illness, or just a sign of it? Is people not knowing their civics the cause of a sick democracy, or a symptom of a system that has stopped answering? A lot points to symptom. The disengagement the Election Study keeps finding tracks the feeling that the system has been captured, not any measured drop in knowledge. And there is a puzzle to explain. Civics has been sitting in Australian schools while measured civic knowledge has gone down, not up. That is hard to square with the idea that not teaching it is
1what caused the fall. Macgregor, to his credit, gives you the argument against the simple version himself. His own account treats civic competence as a two-way street: as much something good institutions produce as something that produces them. I have to say the consequence of all this out loud. To prescribe civic education on its own, as the cure, would be to treat the sign and leave the illness. The exact surface fix on a deep cause that this series has pointed at everywhere else.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe honest way out, and I think it is a way out and not a dodge, is that the two make each other. A people equipped to understand its institutions builds and defends institutions that answer to it. Institutions that answer give people both the reason and the practice that equip them. Neither one simply comes first. You can call that co-production if you want a word for it. But I have to watch what I claim for it, because it is an attractive idea and attractive ideas run ahead of their evidence. I cannot show that the other repairs fail for want of an equipped public. That is more than I have. The claim I can stand on is narrower and, I think, stronger. No structural fix stays democratic for long unless the public can understand it, work it, and defend it. A reform the people can neither use nor watch is one that can be captured, hollowed out, or quietly unwound, however good it looks on paper. That is an argued claim. It rests on the logic of how things get captured, not on a column of outcome figures, and I hold it as that and no further. The evidence that an equipped public is built by responsive institutions is the stronger half. The evidence that it builds them, running the other way, is real but thinner and slower. And there is a problem with time that I cannot make go away. The change Macgregor hopes might come within a decade sits against the generations over which this kind of civic strength actually builds up, which is roughly what a researcher named Robert Putnam spent a career measuring. A cure whose payoff arrives over generations is, in time, behind the crisis it is meant to meet, even where in logic it comes first. That tension is real, it is not resolved, and you are entitled to see it left open rather than tidied away.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs it happens, Australia has already run the experiment, which saves us arguing this in the air.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the late 1990s the Commonwealth paid for a national civics programme called Discovering Democracy, and paid for it properly. If teaching civics lifted civic participation, this was the place built to show it. Funded, nationwide, run for years. The knowledge gains were modest. The participation gains are simply not in the record. This is the single strongest piece of evidence against the case I am making, and it carries extra weight because it is ours. It happened here, to us, on our money.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe answer I am pulled toward, as someone who backs the idea, is that it was done badly rather than done at all. That Discovering Democracy handed democracy over as a subject to sit through rather than a thing to practise. Facts poured into students treated as empty buckets, when everything I have just said points to habit and the feeling of being able, not to facts poured in. I believe that reading. But I owe you the honest weakness in it, because a hostile reader will spot it fast. âIt was done badlyâ can be used to rescue any cure from any failed trial. And a rescue that nothing could ever prove wrong is no rescue at all. The answer is worth exactly as much as the specific evidence under it, the evidence about how a civic habit is actually formed, and not a penny more. It is my argued reading. It is not a proven fact, and I will mark it as mine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a pattern around these failures worth naming with some care, and the care is the point. When a civics programme underdelivers, the official inquiries that follow have a habit of finding the fault in the students. In their attitudes, their knowledge, their not bothering enough. Not in the system the students were being got ready to enter. A researcher named OâKeeffe has documented this happening again and again, the problem quietly moved back inside the citizenâs head. I am not accusing anyone of a plan. There is no conspiracy here and I would not claim one. It is just a description of where institutions, pulled by their own incentives, find it more comfortable to look. It is no more contempt for the students than it is for the officials. But it is exactly the move the rest of this chapter has to keep an eye on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe question this series has put to every structure it has looked at is the one I now have to put to the cure itself. Who benefits?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo researchers, Joseph Kahne and Joel Westheimer, drew a line some years back that does most of the work here. A civics course can set out to make different kinds of citizen. It c
1an make the personally responsible kind, who obeys the law, volunteers at the food bank, gives blood, puts the recycling out. Or it can make the justice-minded kind, who volunteers at the food bank and also asks why, in a country this rich, there has to be a food bank at all. Whoever writes the course chooses which one it makes. The first kind asks nothing of power. The second asks a great deal of it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne thing here I can say flatly, because the record in my own state shows it. What has actually been paid for is the version that leaves power alone. Discovering Democracy delivered as something to receive rather than do. A Values Education push that turned civics into personal character and private virtue. The repeated official habit of putting the fault back in the student. The pattern in what governments have chosen to fund is the making of the personally responsible citizen, not the justice-minded one. That is a finding, and I hold it as one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can go one step further, and the step is tempting precisely because it flatters the thing I support. A captured system, the argument goes, would least want to fund the one civic skill capable of defending every other repair. So the justice-minded public is the very thing power most quietly fears. I find that reading coherent. I also notice that it rests on the logic of the situation and on Macgregorâs own framing, not on any outcome data, and I am not going to let this chapterâs conclusion lean on it. To do that would be to steer toward the answer I want instead of the one the evidence gives, which is the exact fault this series exists to resist. What governments have plainly funded is one thing. What a captured system might secretly fear is another. The first is a finding. The second is a suspicion. You can hold both at once, and the two kinds of citizen let you, but they must not be allowed to blur into each other.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen I have to turn the same question on the argument I am making, because it does not get a free pass. A sitting member of parliament who decides the people must be handed the democratic arts is standing in a spot with an obvious trap built into it. It is the guardianship move this series has criticised wherever it found it: the suggestion that the publicâs failings will be fixed by their betters, that what is wanted is a better-taught public handed down from above by those who already know best. I am close to that move right here. And saying so is not, by itself, enough to get clear of it. So let me put the chapterâs own question to the chapter. Who benefits from it being a member of parliament who sits in judgement on the democratic arts? I do. The standing of the man trusted to see clearly on the publicâs behalf is itself a small piece of the very dependence these arts are meant to reduce. A disclaimer does nothing about that. What does something about it is structural, and it is also a test you can apply yourself. The democratic arts, as I mean them, are not a gift handed down to the public by their enlightened superiors. They are equipment a people picks up and uses for itself, and their whole point is to make people less dependent on the judgement of those who hold power now, this author included. So the way to tell whether this chapter is itself a guardianship move is not how it sounds. It is whether it leaves you needing me less at the end than you did at the start, and whether you could take the evidence I have set out and use it to show that I am wrong. If the argument cannot keep the power with the people, it becomes the very thing it set out to oppose, and it deserves to fail.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhich leaves the hardest question, and the one I cannot answer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf a people picks up the democratic arts only when the system gives it a reason to, and the system only gives a reason when a roused people forces it to, where does the circle ever break open? Macgregorâs answer is the bootstrap. He points to small groups who started with almost nothing, taught themselves, and then taught their societies, inside cultures that were hostile at worst and indifferent at best. The Levellers arguing at Putney. The Chartists. The diggers at Eureka. The suffragettes. The cases are real and he describes them fairly enough. What I would take from them is narrower than what he takes. Not that civic education is the spark. That a big enough consequence is. A failure the public can no longer explain away. The democratic arts are then what decide whether a roused public acts to some effect or just dissolves into noise. Consequence rouses. Equipment aims. That is the most the evidence will bear, and it is a good deal less than the programme hopes for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should be straight that every account on offer for how a revival actually starts is compromised for this particular use, and I would rather say so than let you find it out for yourself. The historical bootstraps are the survivors. We do not count the self-teaching minorities who tried the same thing, failed, and left no trace. And the ones we do count belong to centuries before mass media, before the particular conditions this series has been diagnosing. The people who study civil resistance have produced a much-quoted figure for the share of a population you need to force political change, but the researcher who found it treats it as a rough rule of thumb, not a law, has said these movements have been losing their effectiveness for over a decade, and drew the figure from the overthrow of dictatorships, not from reviving a working democracy.
1Carrying it across that gap is a stretch, and I will not lean on the number. Citizensâ assemblies, where ordinary people are brought together to weigh a question and report back, do restore a real sense of being able among the people who actually sit in them. That effect is genuine and documented. But it barely shows up across a whole population. One comparison across fifteen countries put the link between how many assemblies a country runs and how much its public feels able to act at close to nothing. Around three in a hundred. And what they build is more willingness to talk about politics, not to act inside institutions. There are also what the scholar John Keane calls the monitory institutions, the watchdogs and inquiries and integrity commissions that now scrutinise power between elections. They are a real channel through which a public can act. But whether they restore the publicâs sense of its own power or just add more machinery of scrutiny is unsettled. And the organising that demonstrably works, the face-to-face kind Macgregor rightly prefers to the electronic kind, is evidenced for getting people to a polling booth on a given day, not for building civic strength that lasts. His move from the one to the other is an analogy he draws, and I carry it as his, not as something the field has shown.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo the honest position is this. The democratic arts look necessary, and I cannot show they are enough, and I cannot show how the circle starts. This is the weakest part of the case. To dress it up as anything sturdier would be to do to my own argument exactly what I have spent this series objecting to in others.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo tests are left before I can say where this lands, and each one cuts both ways.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinland gets held up as proof the arts work. It sits at the top of the international civic-knowledge rankings, and it gets there without a stand-alone civics subject at all, teaching the civic disposition across the whole of school instead. But the reading that cuts against it is the firmer one. Finlandâs result rests on a great deal that is not its teaching method. A high-trust society, low inequality, capable institutions that actually answer. Its own assessment people have noticed that all that civic knowledge sits next to a low appetite for actually taking part. The same gap between knowing and doing, again. So the outcome does not transfer. What might transfer, more modestly, is the approach: civics lived across a whole school rather than shut in one subject. None of this means Finns are better citizens than Australians, and I want to shut that reading down hard, because it is both false and ugly. It means Finlandâs institutions give Finns more reason to be engaged ones. Which lands us right back at the condition we started with.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Bill of Responsibilities is not a footnote to Macgregorâs programme. It is closer to its full ambition, which is why it is owed more than a passing glance. Civic education, the way he frames it, builds the democratic habit in people. A Bill of Responsibilities is the attempt to give that habit the standing of a written charter. A public document set beside a bill of rights and meant to carry the same kind of weight. He argues for it in his own voice, and he is not the first to reach for it. In the late 1990s a group of former heads of government, the InterAction Council, proposed a universal declaration of human responsibilities, deliberately as a partner to the declaration of human rights, on the argument that a culture loud about what it is owed and silent about what it owes has lost its balance. The instinct behind it is a serious one, and I take it seriously.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I cannot do is treat the Bill as settled by the good intention behind it. Because a charter of responsibilities is the beneficiary question of this chapter written into a single document, and it answers that question entirely according to who holds the pen. Drafted one way, it binds power. Several of Macgregorâs own items, and much of the InterAction Councilâs text, are aimed at the strong at least as much as at the ordinary citizen. They put duties of stewardship on the people who hold office and require that power give an account of itself, rather than just requiring that the public behave. That is the justice-minded document, and in that form it would be a real instrument. Drafted the other way, it becomes what a historian named Samuel Moyn warns the modern turn to duties so easily becomes. A way of disciplining the governed rather than freeing them. Asking more of the public and less of the government. Quietly recoding a structural grievance as a private failure of civic duty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat second version is the personally responsible citizen of the earlier audit, promoted from a classroom aim to a founding document. It does in charter form the same trick the official inquiries did in their own way, moving the fault back into the citizen, and it does it with more permanence, because a charter is far harder to rewrite than a school syllabus. The fact that the Bill is so central to the programme is exactly why it cannot be waved through on the strength of its good intentions. The more weight a document like this is meant to carry, the more decisive the question of who sits at the drafting table becomes, and the more dangerous it is to assume that those writing down the duties of citizens will be writing them on the citizensâ behalf. Whether a Bill of Responsibilities binds power or just lectures the public is not a detail to be tidied up once the principle is agreed. It is the principle. And it gives us a test that is not a balance to strike between the two readings but an order to insist on between them. A Bill of Responsibilities is democratic only if it binds power first. A charter that asks the citizen to behave before it requires the state to account for itself has already answered the beneficiary question against the citizen, whatever its language of shared duty. Whether any actual Bill, Macgregorâs included, would pass that test is not something I can settle here. What can be settled is the test itself. Binding power is not one option out of two. It is the condition the rest depends on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo where, in the end, does this leave the democratic arts?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLower than their backers hope, and a good deal higher than their absence would allow. What the evidence will not carry is the big promise: that a people already holds its full sovereignty in reserve, and that civic education has only to hand it back. That is more than the record bears, and saying so is part of backing the idea honestly rather than selling it. What the evidence does carry is narrower, and I think it is sturdier. Sovereignty in a democracy is not a possession kept in a drawer and rediscovered through a lesson. It is a capacity. And like any capacity it is real only to the extent that it is equipped and used. Its reach is the reach of what a people is equipped to do, and does, with nothing held back behind that. Civic education is part of the equipment. It is not all of it. It does not, on its own, carry that equipment into action. And it cannot stand in for institutions that give the action somewhere to land.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is a smaller claim than the programme would like to make. It is also a more demanding one, because it puts the work with the people and not above them, which is the only place a democrat can honestly put it. What equips a people, and what institutions let an equipped people act, is the business of the chapters still to come. The road this
1series has argued for from the start is the peopleâs own road. Deep repair carried by an equipped public acting through its institutions. Not the strongmanâs offer to tear those institutions down on the publicâs behalf. That offer is the counterfeit of the thing I have been describing. The real one is harder, and slower, and it is the only version that leaves the people sovereign at the end of it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"3a:T4494,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch1 id=\"where-to-look\"\u003eWhere to Look\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the middle of 2026 something happened in Australian politics that had never happened before. More people told the pollsters they would put One Nation first than would put either of the two big parties first. Not one stray poll. Several of them, run by different firms, all leaning the same way. Somewhere between about 28 and 31 per cent, with one of them putting the party at 31, a record.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI need to be careful here straight away, because the number is easy to misread and the misreading does real work. Leading on first preferences is not the same as being on the verge of government. We count with preferences in this country, and once those are counted the same polls still put Labor in front. Anyone who tells you One Nation is about to win has the arithmetic wrong, and getting it wrong lets a protest vote be dressed up as a governing majority it is not. But the first-preference number is real, and it is new, and it is worth stopping on. For the first time, the party that more Australians named before any other was neither of the two that have run the place for a century.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo what is that vote. The pollsters who looked closely describe it plainly enough. It is strongest among people without a university degree, in the regions and the outer suburbs, and among older voters walking away from the Coalition. These are, in good part, the people outside the city, university-educated mainstream that both big parties have learned to talk to. And the people who study it read the movement not as love of a programme but as a withdrawal of faith from the parties that have held power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not just our weather. It is part of a larger climate. The people who measure these things for a living, at a project called V-Dem based at the University of Gothenburg, reported that the world now holds more autocracies than democracies, ninety-one against eighty-eight, the first time that has been true in over twenty years. Their next report found it had got worse. The amount of democracy the average person on earth actually lives under has fallen back to where it was in 1978. Half a century of gains, they say, very nearly wiped out.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI want to be honest about what kind of claim that is. It comes from a dataset, not a pulpit. V-Dem works by asking thousands of specialists to score hundreds of measures, and it publishes how uncertain it is rather than hiding it. A determined critic can argue with any single call it makes, and the call to move the United States from a full liberal democracy down to a plainer electoral one is the most arguable of the lot. But the direction does not rest on this one instrument. Freedom House has now recorded twenty years in a row of decline in global freedom. The democracy index kept by the Economist Intelligence Unit tells a more mixed story: after eight years of falling it steadied in 2025, which the people who run it read not as a recovery but as a pause, with the United States still the glaring exception, still going down. The three do not agree on the slope of the last single year. They agree on the shape of the last twenty, and it is the shape that matters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo why is it happening. Here I have to tell you the truth that most accounts skip, which is that the most serious people who study this do not agree with each other. An account that pretends they do should be distrusted on that ground alone. There are, roughly, four serious answers on the table, and I am going to give you all four, including the ones that cut against what I think, because a case that has to hide its rivals is not a case worth your trust.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is about money and work. The work that once held a town together got shipped offshore. Skills that used to mean a secure life stopped meaning it. A whole layer of people lost ground, and went looking for someone who promised to tear up the arrangement that left them behind.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is about culture, and it cuts against me, so I will put it plainly. Two researchers, Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, argue that the countryâs values shifted, over a long time and quite far, toward the open and the liberal, and that people who used to set the tone found themselves on the outside and pushed back. The inconvenient part, for someone like me who leans toward the money story, is that their work finds culture predicts the populist vote more strongly than the money measures do. I set that down without softening it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third is about leaders. Two anal
1ysts, Thomas Carothers and Brendan Hartnett, writing in 2024, argue that the fashionable story, that this is all driven by citizens democracy has failed, does not hold up well when you test it across many countries. The stronger driver, on their reading, is the ambition of leaders who set out to knock down the limits on their own power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth refuses to choose. Noam Gidron and Peter Hall argue that money and culture work on each other, and that the thing they make between them, a felt loss of standing, of status, is what actually moves the vote. Another scholar, Sheri Berman, looks at the whole argument and finds the pure money story mixed at best, giving real weight to the supply of populist leaders and to the way a countryâs institutions handle grievance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFour serious answers. They do not collapse into one. Whatever I tell you next has to be said in their company, not in their absence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy own reading of the Australian case leans structural, and I hold it as a reading, argued among those four, not as a proven fact that has seen them off. The frame I find most useful is one set out by John Macgregor. He has a name for it. He calls it a Dyad: the point at which organised money and government have grown together so far that they work, in practice, as a single thing. On this view the daily contest of left against right is mostly surface. Underneath it sits a quiet agreement at the top, and the fight the public is handed is, in good part, a product of that arrangement rather than something the issues themselves require. The right is told the government is the problem. The left is told the corporations are. Each is kept busy with one half of the picture. The real gap, on this reading, is not between left and right at all. It is between an arrangement captured by concentrated wealth and the public that arrangement is meant to serve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI called that the most explanatory reading, and having just put four rivals beside it I owe you what I mean by that. I do not mean it beats them. The culture account explains something real that the money story misses: the genuine unease a lot of people feel at how fast the social ground has moved, which does not reduce to their bank balance. The leaders account catches the part that personal ambition plays in tipping a weak system toward one-man rule. What the structural reading explains better than either, for us in particular, is the thing the other two mostly leave alone: the steady piling-up of wealth at the top, and the staying-power of a political fight that keeps the public arguing left against right, straight across the deeper line that actually divides them. It is the best account of that one pattern, the distribution and the division. It is not the whole truth, and a reading that claimed to be would fail the very test I am about to put it through.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo things I have to be careful about. The argument is Macgregorâs, and I give it to you as something I have examined and come to supp
1ort, not as my own invention. And this matters more: a diagnosis that swaps one false division for another has not cured the disease. It has only renamed it. If I told you the one real divide is the structure against the people, and nothing else, I would be doing in my own voice exactly what the divide-and-rule pattern does in its. Handing you a tidy enemy and inviting you to stop thinking. The honest version does not ask that. It stands next to the culture and the leaders accounts and claims only to be the better account of this one pattern.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is one more bit of honesty I owe you, and it is the one most writers leave out. The question I would put to any story, who gains if you come to believe it, I have to put to my own. If you accept that the heart of the problem is a captured arrangement, you are some way toward accepting that the repair lies in equipping ordinary people, and trusting them, to act for themselves. That is a politics I hold. I would rather you knew it than found it out later. Saying it is not a confession that the reading is wrong. It is the price of asking you to trust it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo let me put down what the evidence actually carries, and not a gram more, because the urge to make numbers say more than they do is exactly the slip that hands a critic his opening.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStart with the distribution, which has moved steadily one way. In 2022 and 2023, by the measure used in a study run by ACOSS and the University of New South Wales, about one in seven people in Australia were living below the poverty line. Roughly 3.7 million people. Among children, closer to one in six. That was up from about one in eight only two years before. Over a similar stretch, the average wealth of the richest tenth of households grew by 84 per cent, while the bottom sixty per cent grew at a little over half that rate. Close to half of all the growth in household wealth since 2003 went to the top tenth alone. And households run by someone under thirty-five now hold about five per cent of the nationâs wealth.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThose figures are solid, and I will let them carry only what they prove. The recent rise in poverty was not, on the evidence, wages being squeezed. Between 2021 and 2023 the lowest-paid tenth actually saw their wages grow faster than the highest-paid did. The study puts the rise down to two things instead: the emergency income supports that had briefly lifted people over the line during the pandemic being taken away again, and a steep climb in rents. That is a narrower claim than the sweeping one, and it is the one the numbers will bear. As the scholar Zehra Arat puts the mechanism, it is not inequality in the abstract that eats away at a democracyâs legitimacy so much as the wearing-down of the things that meet peopleâs basic needs. A structural reading does not need the wage story to be true. It needs only what is in front of us. An arrangement under which wealth gathers reliably at the top while poverty deepens at the bottom, and under which the recent worsening traces back to choices about welfare and housing, not to any law of nature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow put the protest vote back against that background. When a large and rising share of citizens place their mark with a party of protest, the most economical reading is not that they have grown foolish, or been duped. It is that a system has stopped showing them, in terms they can feel in their own lives, that it works for them. Compulsory voting matters here. In this country, disaffection does not show up as an empty chair. It shows up as a mark on a ballot, and the mark has to land somewhere. The disaffection is real, and it is rational. The fault it records sits in the arrangement that produced it, not in the people recording it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd yet that same disaffection is constantly handed an explanation of itself that points away from the arrangement and toward something far easier to see. In the 2025 federal campaign one of the loudest answers on sale was that the cause of the countryâs housing pressure, its strained hospitals and schools, its crowded roads, was immigration. The most heavily funded version of that message did n
1ot come from One Nation, which is a separate thing and should not be confused with it. It came from the Trumpet of Patriots, the party funded and chaired by the mining billionaire Clive Palmer. Its campaign material named immigration as the cause of the strain and promised to cut it by eighty per cent. Palmer has said the campaign cost him about sixty million dollars, among the heaviest advertising spends of any party that year.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet me claim no more than the public record carries. I am not in a position to say what anyone believed, and I do not need to be. Two matters of record are enough. The first is that the campaign returned almost nothing. The Trumpet of Patriots won no seats and a little under two per cent of the House vote. The most expensively advertised version of the immigration explanation persuaded very nearly no one. Whatever standing the idea has in this country, it was not bought, and the money plainly did not manufacture belief. The second is a matter of proportion. Immigration does add to the pressure on housing. The economists who study housing count rapid population growth, of which migration is one part, among the genuine strains on supply. But it is one factor among several, and a secondary one, and it sits well down the list of what voters themselves say worries them most, behind the cost of living and the price of housing itself. To take a real but partial and secondary cause and advertise it, at that price, as the cause is not to explain the countryâs troubles. It is to point a personâs entirely justified frustration at a target far larger in the telling than it is in fact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is worth being exact about what kind of misdirection this is. The evidence does not support a story of stoked racial hatred, and I am not going to pretend it does. Support for a diverse society stays high in Australia. The most careful survey work, by the Scanlon Foundation, ties rising worry about immigration numbers to housing and the cost of living, not to any turning against migrants as people. What the record shows is a structural complaint relocated, expensively and over and over, onto a visible and convenient group, out of all proportion both to immigrationâs real part in the problem and to anything the spending bought at the ballot box. Concentrated wealth buying a populist misdirection. A plutocracy in a populist costume. The citizen who finds the message convincing has not been made a fool of. He has been handed a map on which one minor road is drawn as the only road, by people with the means to print and distribute millions of copies of it, and a distorted map handed to an intelligent traveller will still send him the wrong way.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is one explanation left, and it is the one most flattering to our habits. It says the trouble lies in the people we elect, and the cure is to elect better ones. It is the most natural thing in the world to believe, and it is a symptom mistaken for the disease. Macgregor puts the underlying point with unusual clarity. A plutocracy, he writes, will form even when the wealthy mean well, so long as there are no peopleâs institutions to prevent it. The force of that is that it lifts the whole question out of the realm of character. A machine that rewards the service of concentrated money will, over time, select the people willing to provide it and wear down the people who are not, and it will do so whatever sort of people they happen to be. Replace the faces and leave the machine in place, and you have not found a remedy. You have found the activity that stands in for one. What the remedy might be I am leaving, on purpose, for another day. The only point here is that it will not be found by hunting for better people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStand back from the three explanations that crowd the public square, and a pattern shows itself. We are told the problem is immigration, or bad leaders, or a public that has lost its judgement. Each of them, once you pick it up, leaves the underlying arrangement exactly where it was. Blame the migrant, and the distribution of wealth and power does not move an inch. Blame the politician, and we busy ourselves changing the names on the doors while the structure behind them stands untouched. Blame the voter, and we arrive by the shortest road of all at the oldest and most convenient conclusion there is. That ordinary people cannot be trusted to run their own affairs, and had better leave it to their betters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI know a diagnosis is not a neutral act, and I have shown you my hand. I have told you which reading I find most explanatory, and I have told you plainly what I stand to gain if you accept it. So let me put the weight somewhere it does not depend on my preferences at all. The striking thing about those three comforting explanations is not that any one of them is simply false. It is what they have in common. Every one of them, whatever the person offering it intends, draws your eye away from the same thing. The arrangement itself. The way wealth and policy have grown together, and the distribution that arrangement produces. Set my reading aside entirely, and you still have to account for that. That the three most comfortable explanations on offer all happen to spare the same arrangement any scrutiny. It does not tell us what to do. It tells us where to look. And it raises a question it does not yet answer, the one the next chapter takes up. Not whether the people can be trusted to put this right. But what a people would need to be equipped with, in order to do so.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"3b:T4979,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch1 id=\"which-people\"\u003eWhich People?\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eThink about two problems. A streetlight out on your road, and a disease spreading through the country. Nobody would send the broken light to Canberra. Nobody would leave the epidemic to your local council. We already know, without being taught, that some decisions belong close to home and some belong a long way up.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe hard part is everything in between. And most of the public argument about it gets run as though we had to choose, once and for all, between big and small. That is what I want to look at here. Because underneath all the questions about how a decision gets made, who shapes it, who votes on it, there is a plainer one that comes first. Where should the decision sit at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should tell you where I start from, because it matters. I am drawn to the local answer. I have spent a working life persuaded that decisions made far from the people who live with them tend to be worse decisions, and that closeness to a problem is a discipline, not just a comfort. That conviction is mine, and I will own it. But a conviction is not evidence. So I have tried to do here what I have tried to do with every repair in this series. Take the thing I am fond of, and put it through the same test as the rest. Find out what it actually does, and to whom, once it leaves the page.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet me state the case for keeping things local at its strongest, because it deserves that before anyone tests it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe idea has a name. Subsidiarity. The word is ugly and the principle is simple. A decision should sit as close to the people who live with it as it can competently sit, and move up when it gets too big for that level. The version I find most honest comes from John Macgregor, who takes it from the Swiss. A system should be as centralised as necessary and as decentralised as possible. Notice what that does. It builds in its own brake. It does not say push everything down. It says put a decision at the lowest level that can actually carry it, and send it up the moment that level is overwhelmed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe clearest way I know to picture this comes from my own trade. In medicine, care belongs as close to the patient as the patientâs condition allows. With the GP who knows the history. In the home where the person actually lives. At the level where someone can see the whole of the case and use their judgement. But the same system sends a problem up the instant it outgrows that level. To the specialist. To the hospital. To the national service no single clinic could ever build. Closeness and escalation are not enemies there. They are two halves of one rule. And it is the whole rule that matters, not the cosy half about staying small that people tend to remember.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnderneath the principle sits a real argument about knowledge. A lot of what makes a decision good is knowledge that does not travel well. The particular street. The way the water sits in that ground. The history of who was promised what, and by whom. A distant office does not just lack this knowledge. Often it cannot get hold of it without flattening the very thing it was trying to measure. The anthropologist James Scott gave this kind of on-the-ground knowledge a name, metis, and it is the backbone of the local case. Decisions made close to the ground can draw on things that decisions made at a distance never reach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is an accountability argument too, and it is plainer. A councillor who has to do her shopping in the town she governs is answerable in a way a minister three steps removed is not. Macgregor points to Switzerland, where power is spread unusually thin and where, by most measures of prosperity and wellbeing, things go well. That is
1worth taking seriously. Whether the spreading of power is what produces the result is a harder question, and I will come back to it. For now it is enough to say the case for keeping things local, put at full strength, is neither silly nor sentimental. It rests on knowledge, on accountability, and on a principle that disciplines itself. Which is exactly why it is worth testing rather than cheering.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA principle can discipline itself on paper and still go wrong in practice. And the troubles with localism are not small.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is capture. Push a decision down to a small enough body and you do not necessarily hand it to the people. You hand it to whoever is organised at that size. And that is rarely the whole community. It is usually a determined few.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is exclusion. The smaller the patch, the easier it is to draw the line around people like yourself, and to push the cost of that choice onto everyone outside the line.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third is capacity. A small council may simply not have the money, the expertise, or the depth to do the job handed to it. When that happens, closeness buys you nothing and costs you plenty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd some problems are just too big for any one place. A river. An outbreak. A jobs market. A carbon budget. None of them respects a council boundary, and a system that insists on handling them locally handles them badly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo what about going the other way. What about merging small councils into big ones. Here the evidence is more interesting than either side likes to admit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe promise of mergers has always been the same. Bigger units, lower costs per head, savings from scale. Two decades of Australian research, led by the local-government economists at the University of New England in Armidale, has tested that promise against the real mergers of recent years. The broad promise does not hold. The savings mostly do not show up. Where they do show up, they are small, and confined to back-office administration. Services barely change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen New South Wales pushed its merger programme from 2016, the modelling used to sell it was judged misleading on several counts by the economists Dollery and Drew, and the stateâs own budget office put the cost of the exercise at around $445 million. When Queensland forced mergers in 2008, communities later got the chance to vote, and a wave of them chose to split apart again, at an average of about $8 million each to unwind. And there is a cost on the other side of the ledger that is not just sentiment. When you consolidate, the quality of local democracy tends to fall. There is a real trade-off between running things efficiently and people being heard.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePut the two sides next to each other and a pattern shows up that neither one sees on its own. The decisive thing turns out not to be how far down you push a decision. It is two other things entirely.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is money.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHand a small body a job without handing it the money to do the job, and you have not empowered anyone. You have created what is politely called an unfunded mandate. A small purse, a large task, and the blame when it fails. This is where the Swiss example, Macgregorâs own best case, turns in the hand. And it has to be turned carefully, because the Swiss result is over-determined. They are wealthy. The population is small and settled. They have a long direct-democratic tradition. Any single-cause story about Switzerland, including this one, should be held loosely. But one difference survives the comparison. The Swiss commune sets and raises its own taxes. The Australian council cannot. That is the better candidate for the work we keep crediting to the mere direction of devolution. Fiscal capacity is the thing the romantic version of the local idea leaves out.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is fit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe gain from putting a decision at one level rather than another comes from matching the level to the size of the problem. And the matching runs both ways. Some things genuinely belong lower than they sit now. Others, the river and the outbreak again, belong higher. That is the escalation the principle built in, and the part its keenest supporters forget first. The research holds a finding here that sounds at first like a contradiction. It reports no evidence of a best size for a council. That is not a problem for matching the level to the problem. It is the reason for it. There is no best size because the right level is not a property of councils in general. It is a property of problems in particular. The useful question is never how big a council should be, which has no general answer. It is at what level a given job gets done well. And the answer is different for water, for planning, for public health, and for waste.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhich leaves the argument that organises almost every public fight on this subject, the choice between centralising and localising, looking less like the real question than like a substitute for it. There is no best size, so neither direction is better in itself. Western Australia, as it happens, resisted both a split and a merger inside a single generation. Capture turns up at the small scale and the large one, changing only in who does the capturing. The centralise-or-localise argument is not where the real work happens. It points past itself, to money and to fit, and on to a harder question. Who actually gains when a decision is moved.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvery repair in this series has been put to the same test, and this one must take its turn. The test asks not whether a proposal means well, but who actually gains when it is adopted. The phrase that sells localism to almost everyone is a warm one. Returning the decision to the people. The testâs first question is the one that phrase is built to stop you asking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhich people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe honest answer is uncomfortable for an idea I supp
1ort. The people is not one settled body. Push a decision to a small place, and the winner is whoever is strongest in that place. On the questions that matter most to most households, that is a very particular group.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost peopleâs biggest asset is the home they live in. When the local council controls what can be built nearby, the homeowner who already owns has every reason to use that control to protect what their home is worth. The economist William Fischel called this person the homevoter, and a long body of work on exclusionary zoning backs it up. Who exactly is dominant depends on the place. In a mining shire it might be a single big proponent. In a thinly settled country council, something else again. The point is not that the homeowner rules everywhere. It is that wherever owner-occupiers are the organised majority, which is most of urban Australia, the local vote hands them the decision. And the results are not really in dispute. Zoning that keeps people out. Housing supply held down. The cost of both pushed outward, onto people who do not live inside the boundary and so have no say within it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is the finding that does the real damage, and it does it at the root, not the edges. The whole premise of the local idea is that a decision should sit closest to the people most affected by it. But on housing, the people most affected by a refusal to build are exactly the ones the local vote shuts out. The young woman who cannot afford to live in the suburb she grew up in. The worker priced out of the town where the work is. The renter who has no vote in the council deciding whether anything new will be allowed. The most affected are, by the design of the thing, the ones who do not live there. At the precise point where closeness is meant to be the virtue, the affected person is not in the room. The principle does not just underperform here. Its founding promise turns over completely. The rule that a decision belongs closest to those most affected delivers, on housing, a decision controlled by those least affected of all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHonesty needs the other half, and it cuts the other way. The same research shows why homeowners often fight being merged into bigger city-wide bodies. At the larger scale the capture does not disappear. It changes hands. Business and development interests can organise across a big area better than scattered residents can, and they tend to run the consolidated body. Macgregor supplies a fact from that side himself. Merging councils in the growth fringe around our cities raised the incentive for zoning corruption, because each rezoning decision was worth more once the unit got bigger. So the test does not end up preferring big to small. It ends somewhere more demanding. Capture is not a feature of one scale that the other escapes. It lives at both. It changes who, not whether. The incumbent homeowner below. The developer above. Returning the decision to the people names no one in particular, because at every scale it returns the decision to whoever was already best placed to take it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this country all of that sits on ground that makes the money question even sharper. Local government here is not even in the Constitution as a thing in its own right. Section 107 leaves it to the states, who create, change, and abolish councils by ordinary law. Twice we have been asked to change that, and twice we have said no. A third attempt was pulled before it reached a vote. In 1974 a proposal to let the Commonwealth fund and borrow for local government failed, carried by not a single state, backed by about 47 per cent of voters across the country and just over 40 per cent here in Western Australia. In 1988 a proposal merely to guarantee that local government would exist and be elected failed in every state. In 2013 a proposal to let the Commonwealth fund councils directly passed both houses of Parliament and was then abandoned before any referendum, because everyone expected it to fail as well. The local tier exists, in law, at the pleasure of the states.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe money position follows from that, and its sharp edge is not what people assume. It is not that councils live on handouts. They actually raise most of their own money, through rates and charges. The constraint is somewhere else. They cannot set the base the
1ir rates are drawn from. Several states cap the rate in the dollar they are allowed to charge. And for anything beyond what rates will cover, they have to look upward, to grants whose constitutional footing is itself shaky. This is the exact opposite of what makes Macgregorâs best case work. A Swiss commune commands its own revenue. An Australian council collects from a base it is not free to grow, and reaches up for the rest to a tier the Constitution does not firmly require to provide it. Any serious plan to push decisions downward in this country has to face the fact that the bodies it would hand power to do not control the money that power would need, and that the constitutional structure stands in the way of giving it to them. The direction of devolution is the easy part. The money to make it mean anything is the hard part. And it is the part the country refused at two referendums and ducked at a third.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWestern Australia gives the cleanest picture of the deeper point, which is that people resist change being done to them, not the direction it travels in. In the mid-1990s the old City of Perth was broken into four smaller councils, on the argument that smaller would be closer and more responsive. It was unpopular. Two decades later the Barnett government proposed the reverse, cutting the metropolitan councils from thirty down to fourteen. After about six years of effort it collapsed, in the face of ratepayer polls, a revolt on the governmentâs own benches, and local government withdrawing its support. The state tried devolution by splitting, and consolidation by merging, inside a single generation. Residents resisted both. Whatever the public was defending, it was not a direction. It was the integrity of arrangements they had not been genuinely consulted about. Two smaller details sit beside this as colour rather than argument. The City of Perth council was suspended in 2018 for a governance inquiry that ran about two years and cost close to $8 million, which is a useful reminder that small and local is not the same as clean. And the smallest council in Perth, and one of its wealthiest, was left out of the merger proposals altogether. A very small and very well-off council has little to gain from a merger and the means to resist one, and reform of this kind tends to leave such places exactly where they are. The point is the incentive the structure creates. Not anyoneâs motive.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI set out drawn to this principle, and I have to report that the test has left it standing, though not in the shape its keenest supporters, or Macgregor at his most expansive, would choose. Subsidiarity properly stated, the lowest competent level, with escalation built in, is sound. What does not survive is the simpler and more seductive idea that pushing power downward is itself the cure. The evidence does not put the cure in the direction. It puts it in two conditions the direction leaves untouched. Whether the body receiving a decision has the money to carry it. And whether the level fits the size of the problem. Where those two hold, closeness is a genuine good. Where they do not, devolution hands a community responsibility without power, and calls the result self-government.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe test leaves a harder residue still. Returning the decision to the people is a phrase that holds only as long as nobody asks which people. Once the question is asked, the answer is whoever was already strongest at the chosen scale, and the people most affected by a decision are often precisely the ones the local vote leaves outside the door. I owe one honest admission about this test. It pressed hard on the move downward, and it largely took the move upward on trust. Who decides that a problem belongs higher, and whether that judgement can itself be captured, is the same question owed in the other direction, and I have not paid it here. None of this is an argument for centralising. It is an argument against believing that the question of level is the same as the question of power, when the evidence is that they are not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is one thing this whole chapter has quietly assumed, and it is the thing the next one article looks at. The local idea assumes a community actually equipped to govern at the level power is handed back to. Informed. Paying attention. Able to hold a local decision to account. Close
1ness without that is not democracy brought nearer. It is capture made more convenient. Whether that capacity can be built, and over what kind of timescale, is the question of civic education. And that is where this turns next.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"3c:Tbf8,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I learned a simple truth: if you misdiagnose the ailment, you cannot possibly prescribe the cure. This is exactly where we find ourselves with our current education system. The evidence is clear: our children are falling behind. Literacy and numeracy scores are slipping, and the foundational skills required for a prosperous future are being buried under an avalanche of administrative requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-weight-of-the-system\"\u003eThe weight of the system\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe situation in our schools is not just a policy failure; it is a human one. Teachers, who enter the profession to shape young minds, are being crushed by a non-teaching workload that serves bureaucracy rather than students. As a doctor, I have seen the damage that burnout causes. When the systems supporting our frontline professionals are broken, the entire structure falters. It is not just about paperwork. It is about a system that ignores the expertise of those in the classroom while forcing them to implement methods that yield poor results. This isn't just bureaucracy; it is a system that compromises the potential of every child in the state.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to keep up to date with my efforts to bring evidence-based transparency to Parliament, please subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"technology-and-the-return-to-basics\"\u003eTechnology and the return to basics\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are told that education must evolve with technology. Yet, we see a global pivotâlook at Swedenâs recent movesâto recognise that excessive screen time for young children often hinders cognitive development, focus, and genuine comprehension. If we want kids to think, not just react to short, digital bursts of data, we must embrace spaces where pen and paper are the primary tools. Real education creates an independent mind, capable of holding complex, even opposing, thoughts simultaneously. That is the mark of a truly educated citizen, something we are losing in favour of simple narratives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-future-built-on-critical-thinking\"\u003eA future built on critical thinking\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation is not merely the transmission of data; it is the cultivation of wisdom. True education allows a child to manage their own life, understand their tax, master their budget, and navigate a complex world with critical awareness. Our current curriculum risks producing students who know how to consume information but not how to stress-test it. We have a collective responsibility to reverse this decline. I encourage you to read the full details of this important parliamentary motion in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-18/9?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe, as I do, that our children deserve better, I invite you to join our growing movement at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we fight for a smarter, more evidence-based future for our state.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"3d:T9e2,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-prescription-trapped-in-red-tape\"\u003eA prescription trapped in red tape\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen many medical breakthroughs hampered by administrative inertia. It is a familiar, sinking feeling when patients are forced to wait indefinitely while the tools that could give them back their lives are kept just out of reach by bureaucracy. Today, we are seeing this same pattern with our driving laws and medical cannabis. My patients are law-abiding citizens who rely on prescribed medication to manage pain and chronic illness. Yet, they live in constant fear that a trace of their medicine will turn them into criminals on our roads.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-research-we-all-paid-for\"\u003eThe research we all paid for\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe know that sensible reform is possible. We know that other jurisdictions are looking for ways to modernise their own laws. It would make logical sense for our state to share the findings of the ministerial working group regarding THC driving reform. This is data that the people of Western Australia funded. It should be transparent, accessible, and ready for public scrutiny. Instead, the government offers us a blank stare. When I asked if they had shared these findings or if they would commit to showing them to our own citizens first, the answer was silence. No requests. No commitments. Nothing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you find these updates helpful and want to stay informed about what is happening in the House, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for more regular insights.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"ignoring-the-evidence\"\u003eIgnoring the evidence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe danger is not just a policy delay. It is the real-world consequence for families who are choosing between their health and their ability to get to work. While the major parties play politics, those of us who believe in evidence-based policy are left waiting for a government that seems content to bury the status quo. Treating this research like a state secret does not protect anyone. It only deepens the frustration and uncertainty for thousands of patients who deserve clarity. You can \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-18/27?ref=localhost\"\u003eread the full details from the House here\u003c/a\u003e. If you are tired of the old ways of doing things, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to push for progress based on science rather than fear.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"3e:Tb47,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-wall-of-silence\"\u003eThe wall of silence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Legislative Council today, I stood to ask a simple, necessary question. Patients across our state are living in a state of suspended animation, waiting for the government to catch up with basic science regarding medicinal cannabis and driving. We know that other states are moving. We know that the conversation is shifting. Yet, here in Western Australia, we remain trapped behind a wall of bureaucratic silence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI asked the government if they had shared their findings on THC driving reform with their colleagues across the country. The answer was a flat no. It seems even worse than mere inaction: it is a refusal to engage with the reality that thousands of Western Australians face every single day. This is not just about policy paperwork. It is about the families who rely on medicinal cannabis to manage chronic conditions, only to be threatened with losing their livelihoods and their independence simply because our laws ignore how these patients actually function.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"why-we-need-you-on-board\"\u003eWhy we need you on board\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a doctor, I have spent my career treating patients based on the best available clinical evidence. I never found that a patientâs health improved by hiding information or burying reports in a drawer. My work serves a community of forward-thinkers who believe in science, compassion, and common sense. If you appreciate these deep dives into the issues that the major parties would rather avoid, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where we break down the legislative processes that affect your life.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-ignoring-evidence\"\u003eThe danger of ignoring evidence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe danger here is visceral. It is a waiting room where patients fear the knock on the door or the roadside test that does not measure impairment but merely the presence of a medication they take to survive. When a government treats evidence as a secret, they treat the people they represent with contempt. The current system is forcing honest, law-abiding citizens to choose between their health and their ability to drive to work, to the shops, or to the doctor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe deserve better. Western Australians deserve a government that puts the safety and wellbeing of its citizens before the comfort of maintaining an outdated status quo. You can read the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-18/28?ref=localhost\"\u003efull exchange from the House\u003c/a\u003e to see exactly where they stand. If you are tired of the silence and ready for modern laws based on science, I urge you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today. Together, we can drag these laws into the twenty-first century.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"3f:Tb6a,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-matter-of-public-safety\"\u003eA matter of public safety\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen the devastating results of avoidable trauma. When we talk about road safety, we are not just discussing statistics or traffic fines. We are talking about the safety of your family, your neighbours, and every person sharing the tarmac. The current approach to impairment is messy, inconsistent, and often fails to address the reality of how drugsâall drugsâactually affect a driver. If we are serious about keeping our roads safe, we must move beyond outdated policies and embrace a system that treats every form of impairment with the same professional rigor.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-need-for-a-smarter-approach\"\u003eThe need for a smarter approach\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eToday, I moved a motion in the House to demand better. We need more police presence on our roads, and we need the funding to support true, comprehensive testing. Right now, there is a tangible anxiety for many drivers who fear being penalised for medications that have no bearing on their ability to operate a vehicle safely. This is not just bureaucratic bungling; it is a system that misdirects resources away from those who are truly impaired. We deserve a model that identifies actual impairment, not one that relies on arbitrary testing that ignores the nuance of modern medicine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you appreciate hearing the truth from the floor of the Legislative Council, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e to stay updated on our progress toward evidence-based change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"prioritising-evidence-over-politics\"\u003ePrioritising evidence over politics\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe status quo is failing because it is built on politics rather than ph
1armacology. Our streets should not be governed by prejudice, but by clear science. My motion, which you can read in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-17/4?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e, seeks to ensure that every driver is unimpaired, regardless of whether they have consumed a prescription medication or other substance. We are the forward-thinkers. We are the ones who look at the data and see where the system is breaking down. It is time the government listened to the evidence instead of protecting the bureaucracy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIgnoring this reality comes at a human cost that I, as a doctor, refuse to tolerate. We have the capability to implement better testing, but we lack the political will. My colleagues and I in the House will keep pushing for the common sense outcomes that our community expects. If you believe we should be building a road safety framework rooted in facts and compassion, I encourage you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today. Together, we can drive the change that WA desperately needs.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"40:Ta71,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-heavy-cost-of-hesitation\"\u003eThe heavy cost of hesitation\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my decades of medical practice, I have learned that evidence must dictate policy. When we force patients to choose between their prescribed medication and their ability to drive to work or see their families, we are not prioritising safety. We are prioritising outdated bureaucracy. This situation creates a terrifying reality for many Western Australians who live in constant fear that a random roadside test will strip them of their licence, despite being perfectly capable and unimpaired drivers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-tale-of-two-states\"\u003eA tale of two states\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile other jurisdictions like Queensland and New South Wales are actively reviewing their laws to ensure that presence does not equate to impairment, our government remains firmly stuck in neutral. I recently brought this matter before the Legislative Council to highlight the widening gap. It is difficult to watch as other states show the courage to align their laws with clinical reality while we remain trapped in a cycle of working groups and endless reports. The anxiety this causes for patients is palpable. They are left in a legal grey area that threatens their livelihoods and their independence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you prefer your political updates delivered with a focus on science and logic, please consider \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribing to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular, no-nonsense commentary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-slow-road-to-progress\"\u003eThe slow road to progress\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is genuinely disheartening to see such inertia. When I asked whether our Premier had consulted with other states that are already leading the way, the response was silence. There was no correspondence. There was no urgency. We are left with the cold comfort of a working group that continues to ponder while citizens suffer. The governmentâs approach is a classic example of inertia masquerading as caution. It is neither safe nor sensible for us to be left behind while our colleagues across the country recognise the need for change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe need a system that treats drivers with respect and recognises the reality of modern medicine. You can review the full details of my recent questions during the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-16/18?ref=localhost\"\u003esitting of the House\u003c/a\u003e. We will keep pushing for these common-sense changes, and I invite you to stand with us by \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoining Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue the fight for fair and evidence-based policy for all.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"41:Tb2a,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-prescription-for-heritage-loss\"\u003eA prescription for heritage loss\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my decades of practice as a GP, I have learnt that the health of a community depends on so much more than just clinics and hospitals. It depends on our connection to the land and our respect for those who walked this country long before us. Recently, I raised a matter in the Legislative Council that strikes at the very heart of this values-based care. There is a proposal to excise land from the Hall Park Reserve in Mandurah to facilitate the construction of a private brewery. The danger here is visceral. We are talking about land that local Aboriginal elders describe as sacred territory. The risk of ignoring these voices and prioritising a commercial venture over cultural heritage is a stain on our shared history. It is a waiting room of poor outcomes where we lose touch with our identity for the sake of a pint.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"when-bureaucracy-overrides-culture\"\u003eWhen bureaucracy overrides culture\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs I sat in Parliament, I had to ask: is the Minister aware that local elders are calling for Indigenous respect to be put before grog? The administrative response was, unfortunately, typical of a government trapped in red tape. I was told that the decision regarding this excision remains pending until survey findings are handed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It is a sterile, process-driven answer to a human problem. In my view, if we cannot treat sacred sites with the reverence they deserve, we are failing our most basic duty of care to the traditional custodians of this land. We have to be the forward-thinkers who stand up to the status quo when it treats the past as a commodity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you prefer your politics served with honesty rather than bureaucratic evasion, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e to keep up with my work in the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-path-forward\"\u003eThe path forward\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evidence remains clear. Consultation must be genuine, face-to-face, and rooted in an understanding of cultural significance, not just a box-ticking exercise under the Land Administration Act 1997. We cannot afford to lose sites of significance to short-term commercial gains. The frustration felt by the elders is palpable, and it is my responsibility to ensure that these concerns are not buried beneath departmental paperwork. You can review the full details of this exchange in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-16/36?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you stand with me in advocating for evidence-based decisions that respect our heritage and our future, I encourage you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"42:T66f8,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"direct-democracy-as-structural-remedy\"\u003eDirect Democracy as Structural Remedy\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe previous article in this series traced how votes become seats. The question there was the translation machinery: the architecture that converts marks on a ballot into the composition of a chamber, and the finding that the geometry of that conversion is a structural variable in its own right, often doing the work we credit to the part of the system we happen to be watching. That whole inquiry, though, takes one thing for granted. It assumes the question is already on the ballot. Someone has already decided what the people will be permitted to vote on. Before the machinery that counts the answer comes the prior machinery that selects the question: who sets it, who is allowed to put it, and who is kept from putting it at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDirect democracy is the name for the family of mechanisms that promise to settle that prior question by handing it to citizens directly. The citizen-initiated referendum, the popular initiative, the binding plebiscite: each proposes that the people themselves should be able to place a question on the ballot and decide it, without waiting for a parliament to rule the matter fit to be asked. I come to this material with a sympathy I will not pretend away. The instinct that decisions should rest as close as possible to the people they bind is one I hold, and it is precisely the instinct this family of mechanisms is built to serve. But sympathy is not analysis. The mechanism has to be examined with the instrument this series applies to every proposed remedy: \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003enot whether it sounds democratic, but what it does, and for whom.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe case for direct democracy is strong, and it deserves to stand at full strength before it is tested. Its deepest argument is structural. Robert Michels gave the underlying problem its name more than a century ago in the iron law of oligarchy: the tendency of every representative organisation, however democratic in its origins, to drift toward control by a small group whose interests diverge from those of the people it was formed to represent. If that drift is a structural feature of representation rather than a failure of individual character, then no amount of replacing one set of representatives with another will cure it. What is needed is a channel that sits outside the representative system altogether, through which citizens can act when their representatives will not. Direct democracy is offered as exactly that channel. Macgregor, whose account of the democratic machinery this series engages and audits as a source, presents it in these terms: the structural interruption of elite capture rather than one more complaint about it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe working example is Switzerland, and it is a serious one. The Swiss federal popular initiative has existed since 1891. It allows citizens to propose a constitutional amendment on collecting one hundred thousand valid signatures within eighteen months, after which the proposal goes to a national vote and must clear a double majority: a majority of voters across the country and a majority of the cantons. Of more than two hundred initiatives put to the federal vote across that history, roughly one in ten has been adopted, a low pass rate that the favourable reading takes as evidence the instrument has not produced the legislative free-for-all its critics predicted. Macgregor calls Switzerland the jewel in the democratic crown, and on its own terms the description is earned. The system is old, stable, and woven into the ordinary texture of Swiss civic life, its votes grouped on several Sundays a year, with official explanatory material posted to electors before each.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo findings give the Swiss case analytical weight beyond its longevity. The first concerns spending. For the mandatory financial referendum, the mechanism by which certain budget decisions must be put to the electorate, the peer-reviewed evidence consistently associates the instrument with lower government spending: citizens handed a direct vote on the public purse have tended to restrain it. The second is subtler, and for the case in favour it is more interesting. A standing finding in the Swiss literature is the indirect effect. Initiatives that fail at the ballot frequently extract a parliamentary counter-proposal or shift the legislative agenda, so the instrument shapes policy well beyond the small fraction of initiatives that actually pass. The mechanism is not inert. It does real work even when it appears to lose. And the agenda argument is the heart of the matter. The claim direct democracy presses hardest is that representative bodies systematically exclude certain questions, that matters threatening the interests of the political class itself, or that no party finds it convenient to raise, simply never reach the floor. A parliament chooses what it will consider. A citizen initiative takes that choice away from the parliament. Whatever else proves true of the mechanism, this is its genuine structural promise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Swiss example, however, is not the only place the mechanism has run at scale, and the American record reads differently. In the initiative states of the United States, and California above all, the popular initiative has become a large and heavily funded industry. Qualifying a measure for the California ballot requires signatures equal to five per cent of the last gubernatorial vote for a statute and eight per cent for a constitutional amendment, and gathering them at that scale is no longer a volunteer enterprise. It is a paid, professionalised business, and the money involved runs to hundreds of millions of dollars per cycle, weighted heavily toward corporate spenders. The obvious conclusion to draw is that money buys outcomes, that the initiative has been captured by those who can pay for it, and that direct democracy in America is plutocracy in a populist costume. The obvious conclusion is too simple, and the best scholarship corrects it. Elisabeth Gerberâs study \u003cem\u003eThe Populist Paradox\u003c/em\u003e, built on the campaign finance records of well over a hundred and sixty direct-legislation campaigns across eight states, found that heavy spending does not reliably buy passage. Economic interest groups that spend large sums to pass a new law the public dislikes generally fail. Where money is reliably effective is on the other side of the ledger: in blocking initiatives and in defending the existing arrangement. Broad-based citizen coalitions, by contrast, are relatively better at passing new law than money is at stopping them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe point is not that money does not matter. It is that moneyâs power in the initiative process is asymmetric. It is far more dependable as a veto than as a purchase. Gerberâs data come from an earlier and less lavishly funded era, and whether the asymmetry holds undiminished at todayâs volumes is a fair question, but the shape of the finding has not been overturned, and the record carries an illustration of it. In 2016 a self-funded campaign committed around a million dollars to paid signature-gathering, collected some two hundred and fifty thousand signatures, and still fell roughly a hundred thous
1and short of qualifying for the ballot. Money bought the attempt. It did not buy the result. This is a more exact account of the danger than the capture story offers, and it points somewhere the capture story does not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a second line in the record, and it cuts in a direction the money question does not. A direct mechanism lets a majority decide, and a majority can decide to take something from a minority. In November 2009 a Swiss federal popular initiative to ban the construction of minarets carried with 57.5 per cent of the vote and a majority in twenty-two of the twenty-six cantons. The federal government and the parliament had both opposed it and recommended its rejection. Under Swiss law the government was nonetheless bound to enact the amendment the voters had approved. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and the Council of Europe each condemned the result as discriminatory and as a breach of religious-freedom obligations. That characterisation is theirs, and I record it as theirs. The structural fact, which is mine to state, is that the mechanism produced an outcome the countryâs own representative institutions had rejected, and produced it against a minority. California supplies the same pattern in sharper legal relief. In 2008 Proposition 8 amended the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage, passing with 52.24 per cent of the vote, and in doing so removed a right the California Supreme Court had recognised only months earlier. It was struck down in the federal courts in 2013 and formally repealed by a later ballot measure in 2024. For the years between, a bare majority had used the initiative to withdraw a right from a minority, and it took the courts to restore it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese
1cases have to be set beside others, or they distort the picture as badly as the capture story does. The same Swiss instrument that produced the minaret ban also upheld same-sex partnership recognition by popular vote in 2005 and extended it to full marriage in 2021. The mechanism does not run in a single ideological direction. What the paired cases establish is narrower, and more useful, than either caricature: a direct majority vote can deliver a considered expansion of rights and can strip a right by the identical procedure, and nothing internal to the mechanism determines which.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third line in the record concerns deliberation, and it turns on the difference between two ways of putting a charged question to a nation. In June 2016 the United Kingdom held a referendum on its membership of the European Union. The result was 51.9 per cent for leaving against 48.1 per cent for remaining, on a turnout of just over seventy-two per cent. The vote was legally advisory. It was held with no structured deliberative process before it and no specified plan for how a leave result would be implemented: a single question, one up-or-down vote, a narrow margin, and a consequence that proved binding in practice. Set against this is the Irish sequence, which put a comparably charged question through a different machine. Before Ireland voted on the Eighth Amendment, which governed the constitutional status of abortion, the question was handed first to a Citizensâ Assembly: ninety-nine citizens chosen at random to be broadly representative of the country, chaired by a Supreme Court judge, meeting across five weekends to hear legal, medical, ethical and personal evidence. The Assembly recommended repeal. The parliament was required to consider that recommendation, and in response set the referendum in motion. In May 2018 the amendment was repealed with 66.4 per cent of the vote, on a turnout near two-thirds. The Assemblyâs own internal vote had closely tracked the eventual national result, roughly a year before the country went to the polls. That model had a predecessor in a slightly different form: the Convention on the Constitution, which sat from 2012 to 2014 and combined randomly selected citizens with serving parliamentarians, produced the recommendation that led to the 2015 marriage-equality referendum. The assembly that considered the Eighth Amendment was the purer version of it, citizens alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe contrast is the standing argument against the bare referendum: a single binding vote with no deliberative front-end produces a less considered decision than a process in which deliberation precedes and shapes the question. It is a serious argument, and the Irish case is its strongest evidence. It needs one caution. The argument is one I am inclined to favour, which is reason to state the caution rather than pass over it. The fact that the Assemblyâs view matched the public result does not by itself prove that deliberation produced the alignment. It is equally consistent with the possibility that the country had already settled the question, and that the Assembly, being representative, reflected a settlement that existed before it sat. The correspondence is suggestive. It is not proof of cause, and I will not treat it as more than it is.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Brexit vote carries a further feature that belongs to this analysis, distinct from the deliberation question. The 51.9 per cent was a single United Kingdom-wide majority. Beneath that aggregate the four nations of the union had voted differently. England and Wales returned majorities for leaving; Scotland and Northern Ireland returned majorities for remaining, Scotland by sixty-two per cent nationally and with a majority for remaining in every one of its thirty-two council areas. Both nations were withdrawn from the European Union on the strength of the UK-wide total, which Englandâs far larger electorate determined. There was no mechanism by which a contrary majority in a constituent nation could register as a veto, or as a threshold the result had to clear. Whether that arrangement was right or wrong turns on a question I am deliberately leaving open here, because it is the question the next article takes up: which unit counts as the relevant people, the nation or the union. The structural point is the only thing I draw from it now. The level at which the majority was measured decided the outcome, and a different choice of level would have produced a different outcome from the very same votes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLay the three lines of the record beside one another and a single variable comes into focus, the one this inquiry has been circling from the start. The Swiss indirect effect, the American asymmetry of money, the gulf between Brexit and Ireland: each points away from the bare mechanism and toward something upstream of it. The recurring variable the scholarship treats as decisive is not whether the people have a direct vote. It is who controls the question that reaches them, and who can mobilise the resources to put it there or to keep it off. The vote itself is the visible part. The architecture that determines what gets voted on, and what it costs to make that happen, is the system working beneath the surface. Even the low Swiss pass rate belongs here rather than where it is usually filed. The favourable reading credits it to citizen restraint, but a measure must carry both the national vote and a majority of cantons, and that double-majority bar is a structural brake that operates regardless of how cautious the electorate happens to be. Some of the restraint the instrument is praised for is the architecture, not the voters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is the same structural lesson the previous article reached by a different route, and the rhyme is worth naming, with one boundary I will hold to. There the finding was that the proportionality of an electoral result came from the districting, the drawing and sizing of electorates, while the preferential count most people imagine to be doing the work in fact did almost none of it. The mechanism everyone watched was not the mechanism that mattered. The structure of direct democracy rhymes with that, but the rhyme has a limit, and the limit cuts in both directions. In the electoral case the surface mechanism was close to inert. Here it is not. The Swiss evidence is clear that the direct instrument does real work, restraining spending where it governs the budget and shifting the agenda even when it loses, so the earlier finding cannot be carried across whole, and to say the mechanism does not matter would be to misread the record. The temptation that runs with my own sympathies points the other way, and it is the more dangerous of the two. The believer in direct democracy wants the bare vote to be the cure for capture. The evidence will not bear that weight. The mechanism does genuine work, but its value is conditional on the upstream architecture, not resident in the fact of its existence, and to credit the vote itself with more independent power than that is the believerâs characteristic mistake, and the one I am most concerned to avoid here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf the determinative variable is who controls the question and who can fund or block it, then the Beneficiary Audit, the instrument this series turns on every remedy, returns an uncomfortable answer when it is turned on direct democracy itself. Run the mechanism through the asymmetry the record established and the beneficiary is not the abstract citizen in whose name the mechanism is justified. It is whoever frames the question, and whoever can pay to put one or to stop it. Because money blocks more reliably than it passes, the mechanism most dependably serves those defending an arrangement that already exists against those who would change it. This holds only as firmly as the asymmetry beneath it, and that asymmetry, established in an earlier and less heavily funded era, is shown but not proven to survive at present volumes; the conclusion is drawn at that strength and not beyond it. And because the question must be framed by someone, it most dependably serves whoever holds the framing power, which in an unstructured initiative system is whoever can fund the signature drive. The mechanism can also do something its advocates rarely advertise. It can manufacture durable structural lock-in. Californiaâs Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that capped property tax and imposed a two-thirds legislative supermajority for certain tax increases, has constrained that stateâs fiscal policy for more than four decades. An instrument sold as the people restraining their government became a constraint that no ordinary legislative majority can lift. The mechanism that promises to break entrenchment proved equally able to set it in concrete.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a second w
1ay the beneficiary can be the wrong party, and it is distinct from the question of money and framing. It is the majoritarian harm already established in the record: the minaret ban, Proposition 8. There the problem is not that a funded interest captured the question. It is that the majority itself, deciding directly, removed a right from a minority that a deliberative or rights-constrained institution would have been likelier to protect. These are two different failure modes and they must not be folded into one. Capture concerns who controls the question before it is put. Majoritarian harm concerns what an unconstrained majority does once it is put. A design that solved the first would leave the second exactly where it found it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll of this has been examined at one remove from Australia, in systems that already hold the mechanism. Australia does not. The structural fact that separates this country from every comparator in the record is that no Australian jurisdiction, state or federal, has ever adopted citizen-initiated-referendum legislation. Australians cannot place a question on a constitutional ballot. Only the federal Parliament can. A constitutional alteration must begin as a bill, pass both houses by an absolute majority, and only then go to the people, who vote on a question Parliament alone has framed. The record of that process is its own commentary: of forty-five proposals put since Federation, eight have carried, and none since 1977. The bar is deliberately high, requiring not only a national majority of voters but a majority of voters in at least four of the six states. This is the agenda-control variable at its most absolute. In the American case the question of who frames the ballot is a question of who can fund a signature drive. In Australia the question does not arise, because there is no signature drive to fund. The framing power over constitutional questions rests entirely with Parliament. Whatever the merits of that arrangement, it is the starting condition any serious proposal for Australian direct democracy would have to confront: not a mechanism to be reformed but a mechanism that does not exist, set inside a constitution built to make its own alteration difficult.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most recent test of that machinery can be read as evidence about the environment, and it is only as evidence about the environment that I read it here. In October 2023 the proposed constitutional alteration to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice was put to the people and defeated, with just over sixty per cent voting No, on a turnout near ninety per cent. It failed the double majority comprehensively, securing a majority in no state, with the Australian Capital Territory the only jurisdiction to return a Yes majority. The merits of the Voice are not my subject, and I take no position on them in this analysis. What the result establishes is the steepness of the climb. A change put to the people under this machinery, and without the bipartisan support such changes have historically required to carry, met the fate the historical record would have predicted for it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne feature of the Australian rule is worth holding up against the Brexit vote, because it shows the same structural variable from the opposite end. Brexit measured a single union-wide majority with no requirement that any constituent nation also consent, so that a contrary majority in Scotland and Northern Ireland could not register at all. The Australian double majority does the reverse. By requiring assent in a majority of states as well as nationally, it builds the consent of the constituent units into the threshold, so that a bare national majority cannot impose a constitutional change on the federation over the objection of the states. The same variable, the level at which the majority is measured, operates in Britain as an absence and in Australia as a protection. Which is the better design is not a question with a general answer, and it is the subject of the article that follows this one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf the determinative variable is who frames the question, then the design response worth taking seriously is the one aimed precisely at that variable, and it is not a mechanism for casting more votes. It is a mechanism for deciding what is voted on. Macgregor proposes, in the part of his work dealing with the management of the referendum, that the questions put to a popular vote should be set and drafted not by whoever can fund a campaign but by a deliberative assembly of citizens chosen by lot. He calls the pairing a syzygy, pronounced SIZ-ih-jee. The word is Greek for two things yoked together into a single working unit, and the two things yoked here are a citizensâ assembly chosen by lot and the binding referendum to which it hands its question. The assembly deliberates and frames. The people decide. The purpose of the syzygy is to take the framing power away from money and give it to a representative sample of the public, deliberating under good conditions, before any question reaches a ballot at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Irish sequence is this design working in the world rather than on paper. A randomly selected assembly deliberated, framed the question, and handed it to a national vote, and the considered judgement of the sample matched the countryâs eventual decision. That is the strongest evidence available for the syzygy, and it is also where the caution stated earlier has to be repeated, because it bears directly on the proposal rather than at a distance from it. The Irish correspondence shows that a deliberative assembly can produce a question the public will endorse. It does not, on its own, show that the deliberation is what produced the endorsement. That evidentiary limit is one to state rather than pass quietly over. The syzygy answers the one variable this analysis has isolated, the framing of the question, and it answers it well. It does not touch the other failure mode, the majority that strips a minority right once the question is put. A design equal to both would have to carry something the syzygy does not, a constraint placing certain rights beyond the reach of any majority however well its question has been framed, and that constraint this analysis names as missing rather than supplies; it belongs to a later part of the inquiry, not to this one. Nor is it offered here as a general theory of deliberative democracy, which is a larger subject this series will reach in its own place. It is a response, anchored in the Irish experience and bounded to a single problem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the record will support, in the end, is a description rather than a verdict. Direct democracy is neither the cure for elite capture its strongest advocates present nor, the licence for mob rule its critics dread. It is a mechanism whose value depends almost entirely on conditions that sit upstream of the vote itself: on who is permitted to frame the question, on what it costs to put one or to block it, and on whether anything at all stands between a bare majority and a minorityâs rights. Where those upstream conditions are well made, as the deliberative front-end in Ireland suggests the framing of the question at least can be, the mechanism is capable of real and creditable work. Where they are left to look after themselves, it most reliably serves those who were already positioned to shape the question and to defend the arrangements that suit them. The instinct that decision should rest close to the people remains a sound one. It is simply not, on this evidence, an instinct that the bare mechanism of a popular vote is by itself sufficient to honour.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne thread runs out of this analysis and into the next. Twice here the decisive factor was not whether the people voted but at what level their votes were counted: the single union-wide majority that carried Brexit over the contrary majorities of two of its nations, and the double majority that shields the Australian states against a bare national one. The level at which a majority is measured is a question of scale, and scale is a structural variable in its own right. It is the subject of the essay that follows.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"43:T2dd6,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eDoes anyone else agree that my writing style is too dense? I write like I speak in parliament, perhaps. My next article comes tomorrow, but here is a rewrite of that article in normal English. Please let me know which you prefer!\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePicture a ballot paper in your hand. There is a question printed on it, and two boxes, yes and no. You can tick either one. What you cannot do is ask a different question. Someone else chose the question before the paper ever reached you. By the time it lands in your hand, the most important decision has already been made, and you had no part in it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the thing worth talking about. Not how we vote. What we are allowed to vote on, and who decides that.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a whole family of ideas meant to fix this. They go by stiff names, the citizen-initiated referendum, the popular initiative, but the idea underneath all of them is simple. Let ordinary people put a question on the ballot themselves. Do not wait for politicians to decide the matter is fit to be asked. If enough citizens want a vote on something, they get one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will be honest with you. I like the sound of that. I have always believed decisions should sit as close as possible to the people they affect, and this is exactly the instinct those mechanisms are built to serve. But liking the sound of a thing is not the same as knowing what it does. So I went and looked at the places that already use it, to see what actually happens. Some of what I found I expected. Some of it I did not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStart with the country that does it best. Switzerland has let its citizens propose changes to the constitution since 1891. Gather a hundred thousand signatures and your question goes to a national vote. Over more than a century, more than two hundred of these citizen proposals have gone to the people. Only about one in ten passed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat low number is usually told as a happy story. Look how sensible the Swiss are, it goes; they could vote themselves anything and they donât. But there is a quieter reason, and it has nothing to do with anyone being sensible. A Swiss proposal does not just need most of the country to agree. It needs most of the regions to agree as well. That second hurdle blocks a great deal on its own, no matter how the voters feel. So some of the restraint people admire is not the voters being wise. It is the machinery holding a brake. Hold on to that, because the pattern comes back.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI want to be fair to the Swiss machine, because it does real work. When citizens get a direct vote on government spending, spending tends to come down. And here is the subtle part. Even the proposals that lose often change things, because parliament, seeing a question coming, moves to head it off. The tool shapes the country even when it appears to fail. That matters, and I am not going to pretend it doesnât.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow the other end of the scale. In parts of the United States, California most of all, getting a question onto the ballot has become a business. Gathering the signatures takes money, and the money runs into the hundreds of millions, most of it corporate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe easy conclusion writes itself. Money buys the ballot, the rich get what they want, and direct democracy is just power in a friendly mask. I believed something close to that before I looked properly. The best research says it is not that simple, and the correction is the whole point.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA researcher named Elisabeth Gerber went through the finances of more than a hundred and sixty of these campaigns. She found that big money is surprisingly bad at passing new laws the public dislikes. People vote those down however much is spent. Where money works, reliably, is the other way round. It is very good at blocking. It is very good at defending the way things already are.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSit with that, because it is the heart of the matter. Moneyâs power here is lopsided. It is far better at stopping than at buying. One campaign in 2016 spent around a million dollars, collected two hundred and fifty thousand signatures, and still fell short of even getting on the ballot. The money bought the attempt. It did n
1ot buy the result.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo the real danger is not quite what it looks like. The danger is that this tool, sold as a way for ordinary people to change things, works best for the people who want to keep things exactly as they are.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a second danger, and it is a different animal. When a majority decides something directly, a majority can decide to take something away from a minority.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2009 the Swiss voted to ban the building of minarets. It passed, with most of the country and most of the regions in favour. The government had told people to reject it. They did it anyway, and the government was bound to carry it out. Human rights bodies condemned the result as discriminatory; that judgement is theirs, and I record it as theirs. The plain structural fact, which is mine to state, is that the machinery delivered something the countryâs own elected institutions had refused, and it landed on a minority.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCalifornia did the same in sharper form. In 2008 a ballot measure changed the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, by just over half the vote, taking away a right the courts had recognised only months earlier. It took years, and the courts, to undo it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have to be fair here too, or I am just picking the cases that suit me. The same Swiss machinery that banned minarets also voted to recognise same-sex partnerships, and later full marriage. The tool does not run in one direction, and that is exactly the point. A direct vote can hand a minority its rights and can tear them away, by the very same method, and nothing inside the machinery decides which.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen there is the difference between two ways of asking a nation a hard question.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2016 Britain voted on leaving the European Union. Leave won, 52 to 48, near enough. There was no real process of working the matter through beforehand, and no plan for what leaving would actually mean. One question, one vote, a narrow result, and consequences that turned out to be permanent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIreland did something different with a question every bit as charged. Before the country voted on its abortion law, the question went first to ninety-nine ordinary citizens, chosen at random to look like the country, with a judge in the chair. They met across five weekends. They heard the law, the medicine, the ethics, the personal stories. Then they made a recommendation, parliament took it up, and the country voted. The change passed with two-thirds support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI lean towards the Irish way, and because I lean that way I owe you a caution. The citizensâ panel landed on roughly the same answer the country later did. That looks like proof that the careful process produced a careful result. But it might only mean the country had already made up its mind, and the panel, being a fair sample of it, simply showed what was already there. The match is suggestive. It is not proof, and I will not dress it up as more than it is.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll of this is happening somewhere else. Australia has none of it. No state, and not the country as a whole, lets citizens put a question on the constitution. Only Parliament can. A change has to begin as a bill, pass both houses, and only then go to the people, on a question Parliament alone has written.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd that road is steep by design. Of forty-five changes put to Australians since Federation, eight have passed, and none since 1977. You need most of the country and most of the states both. So the question that bites in America, who can fund the signature drive to frame the ballot, does not even arise here. There is no signature drive. Parliament holds the pen.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most recent test tells you about the weather, and the weather is all I will use it for. In 2023 Australians voted on a proposal to recognise an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, and it was defeated, with about sixty per cent voting no. The rights and wrongs of that proposal are not my subject, and I take no side on them here. What the result shows is simply how hard change is under this machinery, especially without the support of both major parties, which changes like it have always needed in order to pass.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo if the real problem is who controls the question, then the fix worth taking seriously is not a way to cast more votes. It is a way to decide what gets voted on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe proposal runs like this. Do not let the question be written by whoever can fund a campaign. Hand it instead to a panel of citizens chosen by lot, who sit down and work it through properly and frame the question, before anything reaches a ballot. There is even an old word for two things yoked together to work as one unit: a syzygy. The panel frames. The people decide.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIreland is that idea already working, not on paper but in the world. And here the earlier caution comes back, because it bears straight on the proposal. The Irish story shows that a citizensâ panel can produce a question the public will back. It does not, on its own, show that the working-through is what did it. I will say that plainly rather than glide past it, because gliding past it is exactly the temptation when the evidence flatters what you already hoped was true.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd notice what the fix does not touch. It answers who frames the question. It does nothing about the other danger, the majority that strips a right once the question has been put. Those are two separate problems, and they must not be folded into one. Solving the first leaves the second precisely where it was. Anything that handled both would need something more: a line drawn around certain rights, placing them beyond the reach of any vote, however fairly the question was framed. That line is missing here. I am naming it as missing, not pretending I have supplied it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo where does this leave us. Not with a verdict, in the end, but with a clearer picture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDirect democracy is neither the cure for captured power that its champions promise nor the mob rule its critics dread. It is a tool, and its worth depends almost entirely on things that sit upstream of the vote itself: on who gets to write the question, on what it costs to put one or to block it, and on whether anything at all stands between a bare majority and a minorityâs rights. Build those upstream conditions well, as Ireland did with the question at least, and the tool can do real and creditable work. Leave them to look after themselves, and it serves most reliably the people who were already best placed to shape the question and to guard what suits them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe instinct that started all this, that decisions should rest close to the people, is still a sound one. It is simply that a bare vote, on its own, turns out not to be enough to honour it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne thread runs out of here and into what comes next. Twice in this story the thing that decided the outcome was not whether people voted. It was the level at which their votes were counted. Britain counted one nationwide total, and two of its nations were carried out of Europe against their own majorities. Australia counts states as well as people, exactly so that a bare national majority cannot override them. The same votes, counted at a different level, give a different result. That question, the question of scale, is where this goes next.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"44:Tb54,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-necessary-step-for-equality\"\u003eA necessary step for equality\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the quiet halls of the Legislative Council, the rhythm of progress often feels like a slow, trudging march. Yet, today we took a decisive step forward. I have officially given notice for the Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill 2026. This is not merely a piece of paper or a bureaucratic formality. It is a response to the quiet, persistent exclusion that many of our fellow citizens face everyday.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my decades of medical practice, I have seen the tangible damage caused by systematic barriers. When people are treated differently due to outdated prejudices or legal loopholes, the health of our entire community suffers. It is the same frustration I felt when a patient struggled to access medicine blocked by needless red tape. We are failing our people when our laws allow inequality to fester in the shadows.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThose of you following our work may want to see more of these discussions as they unfold in the chamber. You can \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e to keep up with the latest updates from the heart of our efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-hesitation\"\u003eThe human cost of hesitation\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhy do we tolerate the gaps in our current legislation? When we allow discrimination to persist under the guise of the status quo, we invite a culture of fear. For the families who feel marginalised, this is not a theoretical debate. It is a daily reality that affects their ability to work, study, and thrive. This is the risk we run if we remain stagnant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are a tribe of forward-thinkers. We look at the evidence, we listen to the lived experiences of our neighbors, and we demand better. We know that a society that embraces equality is a society that functions better for everyone. My role as a doctor and a representative is to diagnose these societal ailments and offer a cure that is grounded in compassion and logic.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"moving-toward-a-better-future\"\u003eMoving toward a better future\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eChanging the law is a painstaking process, but it is necessary work. By introducing this Bill, we are declaring that the standard of equality in Western Australia must be raised. My colleagues and I remain committed to evidence based outcomes that provide genuine relief to those who need it most.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to read more about the formalities and the scope of what we are putting forward, you can access the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-11/2?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record of our latest sitting\u003c/a\u003e. Change requires a collective voice, and I invite you to stand with us by choosing to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to push for a fairer, more compassionate state for all.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"45:Ta83,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-culture-of-silence\"\u003eA culture of silence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a general practitioner, I have learned that you cannot fix a health problem if you refuse to look at the diagnostic data. Treatment requires evidence. When we discuss THC driving laws, we are talking about the livelihoods and freedom of everyday Western Australians. Yet, when I asked the government today for basic information regarding how many individuals have faced prosecution for alleged THC impairment, the cupboard was bare. The response was a simple admission that the requested figures were unavailable due to the complexity of the data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-driving-blind\"\u003eThe danger of driving blind\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not just bureaucracy. It is a waiting room where patients and workers sit in fear, unsure if their next drive will cost them their licence, their job, and their ability to provide for their families. Without transparent data, we are operating in the dark. We are punishing citizens based on outdated systems without knowing the true extent of the harm being caused. If we are serious about road safety, we must be serious about the science, and that includes being honest about who is being targeted and why. While the major parties play politics, we look at the evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you enjoy keeping up to date with my work in the Legislative Council, you should \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for direct updates on how I am pushing for reform.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"holding-the-system-to-account\"\u003eHolding the system to account\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government claims manual data interrogation is needed to reveal how many Australians have been impacted by these laws. We are told to wait for answers that should be easily accessible in a modern, digitised state. This lack of information creates a deep sense of frustration. How can we have an informed public debate about law reform when the government itself cannot account for the outcomes of its own policies? The sinking feeling when a patient tells me they have lost their independence because of a system that fails to distinguish between impairment and presence is a weight no one should carry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have brought these \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-11/18?ref=localhost\"\u003eurgent questions\u003c/a\u003e to the floor of the House because we deserve better. We deserve a system rooted in fairness rather than ambiguity. You can join our movement for evidence-based change by becoming a member of \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue the fight for reform.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"46:Tb9a,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-price-of-silence\"\u003eThe price of silence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I learned that ignoring a symptom rarely makes it disappear. Often, it allows a small, manageable problem to grow into a systemic crisis. The same principle applies to our state government. When we lack transparency, we do not just lose money. We lose trust. We leave the public purse vulnerable to waste, and we fail the very people who work hard to fund our essential services. It is a sinking feeling, knowing that your tax contributions might be slipping through the cracks of administrative inefficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"defining-the-role-of-oversight\"\u003eDefining the role of oversight\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a quiet danger in letting public funds go unscrutinised. This is why I recently addressed the Legislative Council regarding the Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill 2026. My focus was not just on the letter of the law, but on the practical power of the Auditor General. We need to ensure that this office has the authority to conduct rigorous value for money investigations. This is not about being difficult. It is about being diligent. If a government department cannot show that it is spending funds wisely, the public has a right to know why.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you enjoy keeping up to date with my work and seeing how I push for science and logic in our legislative processes, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for more regular updates from the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"evidence-over-politics\"\u003eEvidence over politics\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThose of us who value evidence understand that accountability is the bedrock of a functioning society. While many in the major parties seem content to operate within the comfort of the status quo, we choose to look closer. We identify where systems fail. We recognise that the Auditor General must have the necessary scope to examine financial administration, ensuring that every cent is measured against the outcomes it actually delivers. It is a matter of protecting our collective future against the risks of poor management and systemic neglect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-path-forward\"\u003eA path forward\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe face a choice. We can settle for business as usual, or we can demand a government that welcomes scrutiny. Proper oversight is not a burden; it is an essential diagnostic tool for public health. You can read the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-11/45?ref=localhost\"\u003efull Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e of my recent contribution to see these arguments laid out in detail. We are building a movement of forward thinkers who believe in truth and fiscal responsibility. If you want to see a more transparent Western Australia, I encourage you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today. Together, we can ensure that our institutions are held to the standard that the people truly deserve.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"47:Tbb0,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"turning-our-scorching-sun-into-raw-power\"\u003eTurning our scorching sun into raw power\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen plenty of patients suffer in the heat of a Western Australian summer. That blistering sun beating down on our black bitumen car parks is a wasted opportunity. It is high enough to fry an egg, yet we treat it merely as an inconvenience. While we continue to shuffle along with our current energy models, our friends in France have been doing something remarkably clever. They have mandated that car parks with more than eighty spaces must be covered by solar canopies. This simple, effective policy has unlocked eleven gigawatts of power. To put that in perspective, that is the equivalent of ten nuclear power stations. That is not just a policy shift, it is a revolution in how we harvest energy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"why-we-are-falling-behind-the-curve\"\u003eWhy we are falling behind the curve\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently put a question to the government in the Legislative Council today. I wanted to see if we could match such ambition here in Western Australia. We have the land, we have the space, and most importantly, we have the sun. The figures provided to me show that we have added one point four gigawatts of new solar capacity over the last three years. While that is progress, it is a drop in the ocean compared to what we could achieve if we were bold. The risk of inaction is profound. Relying on outdated grid thinking is a waiting room where we watch our energy potential die. We need to be more than just observers of the transition. We need to lead it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to keep up to date with my work and see the discussions I am driving in the House, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where I break down the policy debates that truly affect our future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-prescription-for-a-brighter-wa\"\u003eA prescription for a brighter WA\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evidence remains clear. Solar power is our greatest asset. It is clean, it is abundant, and it is right above our heads. We do not need to wait for complex technology or massive infrastru
1cture overhauls. We simply need the political will to mandate canopy coverage on our massive swathes of parking asphalt. That heat currently radiating away into the atmosphere should be charging our homes, powering our industries, and keeping our economy resilient. You can read the full dialogue regarding these \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-11/35?ref=localhost\"\u003esolar power generation questions in the official record\u003c/a\u003e. Fighting for a smarter, evidence-based approach is the reason I am in the Legislative Council. If you believe we deserve a more sensible future, I encourage you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today. Together, we can ensure our energy policy is as bright as our physical environment.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"48:Tca4,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-culture-of-the-closed-door\"\u003eThe culture of the closed door\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. Diagnosis requires honesty, clear evidence, and a willingness to face the truth. Unfortunately, recent experience in the Legislative Council suggests that the government has adopted a different approach: evasion, deflection, and a steadfast refusal to provide the frank, transparent answers our community deserves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe recently debated a \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/9?ref=localhost\"\u003emotion regarding the poor standard of answers provided to questions without notice.\u003c/a\u003e It sounds like a dry parliamentary matter, but make no mistake: this is about something far more vital. It is about who owns the truth in this state. When a minister dodges a question about asbestos mitigation, hospital wait times, or state finances, they aren't just frustrating an opposition member. They are keeping the public in the dark about matters that directly impact their families, their health, and their hard-earned taxes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"why-we-ask-the-questions\"\u003eWhy we ask the questions\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eProgress relies on inquiry. We ask questions to bridge the gap between what we know and what we need to solve. Whether it is an issue of native title processes or the management of TAFE infrastructure, the governmentâs tendency to provide canned, opaque, or irrelevant responses creates a dangerous information vacuum. This isn't just bureaucracy; it is a waiting room where patientsâor citizensâdie of inaction because the truth is hidden behind a wall of cabinet-in-confidence labels.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay updated on our fight for a more open and accountable state, I invite you to subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e where we delve into the issues that the major parties would prefer to leave in the dark.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-weight-of-the-evidence\"\u003eThe weight of the evidence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the major parties play politics, we look at the evidence. The systemic imbalance in our heritage regimes or the mismanagement of state assets is not hypothetical. It is an urgent threat to our collective future. The government fears the light, yet the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/9?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record\u003c/a\u003e shows clearly that when this Chamber uses its power to demand transparency, the government eventually has to yield. That is the power of a proactive crossbench.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have reached a point where the standard of answers provided in Parliament requires immediate reform. When the government treats the house with disdain, they are really treating the people of Western Australia with disdain. We are the forward-thinkers. We are the ones demanding a scientific, evidence-based approach to governance that doesn't rely on evasion. If you believe, as I do, that our state deserves better than a parade of dismissive responses, I invite you to join our movement at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we work to bring accountability back to the heart of government.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"49:Td21,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-disconnect-between-policy-and-reality\"\u003eThe disconnect between policy and reality\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a doctor, my work is guided by the fundamental principle of doing no harm. When I look at our state budget, I am reminded that a budget is more than just a ledger of numbers: it is a moral document. It is a set of priorities. It tells us exactly what our government values, and unfortunately, what it chooses to leave behind. While we celebrate a surplus and a strong credit rating, we must ask ourselves at what cost this is achieved. We are currently navigating a reality where those who built this state are being failed by the very systems designed to support them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-hidden-cost-of-aging-without-dignity\"\u003eThe hidden cost of aging without dignity\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently returned from travels in China and Japan, where I witnessed something that shook me to my core. I visited family in aged-care facilities that functioned with the comfort and quality of life we should expect for our own loved ones. The contrast with what I have seen as a GP in Western Australia is profound. Here, our aged care is often a regime of scarcity, where staff are overworked and the quality of life is, quite frankly, lacking. It is a place some fear to enter, a waiting room where patients endure rather than live. We are the richest state in one of the world's wealthiest nations, yet we have abandoned the promise of living our final years in comfort and dignity. If we cannot provide for our most vulnerable, we must question our priorities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you find these insights helpful and want to stay informed on the real, evidence-based issues affecting our community, I invite you to subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-urgent-need-for-government-transparency\"\u003eThe urgent need for government transparency\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond our social obligations, we face a crisis of transparency. The role of the Auditor General is to ensure the government is held accountable for its spending. Yet, when the Auditor General recently requested information regarding the Griffin Coal Ashurst engagement, the government simply said no. They hid behind the excuse of commercial-in-confidence. This is a recurring pattern: a smokescreen used to keep the public in the dark. How can we make informed decisions about our future if we are forbidden from seeing the data? When the government passes laws to empower the Auditor General but leaves them unproclaimed for years, they are shielding themselves from the truth. We are being asked to trust a system that refuses to be transparent, and that is a danger to our democracy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have a duty to demand more than just managed figures on a page. We need governance that values people over political convenience. You can examine the full \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/14?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record\u003c/a\u003e of this discussion to see the detail for yourself. If you are ready to stop settling for the status quo and want to see a government that prioritizes evidence and humanity, I invite you to join us at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we work to build a more open, honest, and compassionate state.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"4a:Tb86,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"following-the-money-trail\"\u003eFollowing the money trail\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a medical doctor, I have always believed that when something is wrong, you investigate the root cause. You do not simply patch over a wound if the infection underneath is spreading. This same logic applies to our public institutions. When we see processes within the justice system that lack clarity, it creates a gnawing doubt in the community. How can we trust the mechanics of our laws if the agreements behind them remain shrouded in secrecy?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis week in the Legislative Council, I asked a series of questions regarding criminal property confiscation. Specifically, I wanted to know if there were agreed targets linked to bonus payments for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is a reasonable question for a taxpayer to ask. We need to know that our legal system is driven by justice, not by financial incentives or quotas that might cloud impartial decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-quiet-bureaucracy\"\u003eThe danger of quiet bureaucracy\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a real risk when we allow silence to become the default setting for government. If we stop asking these questions, we allow the machinery of the state to operate without oversight. This is not just about paperwork or internal accounting. It is about the fundamental integrity of the law. When any part of our justice system feels like a closed loop, the public pays the price in lost confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you enjoy these updates and want to see more direct action from the floor of Parliament, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. I aim to bring the science of good governance to the forefront of our political conversation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-official-response\"\u003eThe official response\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government responded by stating that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions does not have, nor do they work to, a target in respect of these payments. They cited the relevant section of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 as the guiding framework for how these payments are made. While this answer provides a surface level of assurance, our work as evidence-based legislators does not end there.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have seen too many instances where the system serves itself rather than the people. I will continue to keep a watchful eye on these processes because independent oversight is the only way to ensure the public interest remains the priority. You can review the full exchange regarding this matter in the formal \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/41?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you agree that we need more transparency and common sense in our political system, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to push for a more open and honest future.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"4b:Td4d,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-tale-of-two-budgets\"\u003eA Tale of Two Budgets\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a medical doctor, I learnt early that if you want to understand a patientâs health, you look past the superficial signs and examine the underlying physiology. The state budget should be no different. We are presented with headline figures that look like a clean bill of health: billions of dollars in projected surpluses. It is easy to be impressed by such numbers. Yet, when we shift our gaze from the balance sheet surface to the consolidated reality, a different diagnosis emerges.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have total public sector cash deficits of over 11 billion dollars across the forward estimates. While the government claims we are operating without resorting to debt, they are shielding us from the true picture. It is akin to a household claiming a surplus while ignoring the mounting debt piled up in the accounts of their own utility companies. We are essentially living on a resource-driven windfall, relying on the iron ore price staying inflated and Commonwealth funding remaining static. Neither of these is a result of our own fiscal discipline. What happens when the world changes, or when the eastern states decide they have had enough of our GST share?\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-fragile-systems\"\u003eThe Human Cost of Fragile Systems\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe danger here is not just an abstract financial figure. It is a waiting room where patients die or a prison cell where human rights are abandoned. In my time working within the corrections system, I saw the rot firsthand. We have prisons where the Inspector of Custodial Services has highlighted conditions that are cruel and inhumane. We have prisoners bunking on floors, staffing shortfalls causing systemic lockdowns, and a staggering rise in the remand population. These are not merely administrative failures. They are human tragedies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you find my perspective on these systemic issues valuable, and you want to keep up with my efforts to hold the government to account in the House, I invite you to subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"investing-in-the-upstream\"\u003eInvesting in the Upstream\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe continue to pour funds into the downstream, reactive services while ignoring the upstream causes of dysfunction. Whether it is homelessness, mental health, or the prison crisis, the logic remains the same: we spend millions to treat the symptoms long after the harm has been done. We could be investing in genuine reform, such as evidence-based drug policy or secure housing, to prevent the cycle of trauma and poverty. Instead, we see funding for diversionary programs cut or left to wither, while we sign off on more prisons for a system that is nearing functional collapse.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are a rich state, but we are a state that refuses to choose the path of kindness and innovation over the path of least resistance. You can read my full contribution to the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/48?ref=localhost\"\u003edebate on the estimates of revenue and expenditure\u003c/a\u003e in the Chamber. If you believe it is time for a government that values people over political games, please join us at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to challenge the status quo.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"4c:Te4b,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-divide-between-promise-and-practice\"\u003eThe divide between promise and practice\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Legislative Council today, I raised a matter of fundamental fairness. The government recently announced a significant budget allocation for the Driving Access and Equity Program. This thirty-six million dollar initiative aims to help thousands of our fellow residents obtain their driver's licence. It includes investment in supervised driving, better training, and safer vehicles. The intention to improve road safety and independence is something I welcome. Yet, there is a glaring hole in this vision.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI asked if any of these funds would assist medicinal cannabis patients who are currently caught in a regulatory trap. These are people who use prescribed medication to manage their health, often to remain productive and present for their families. Despite being unimpaired, they face the constant threat of losing their licence simply for having a trace of medicine in their system. This is not just a bureaucratic oversight. It is a system that penalises law-abiding, responsible patients while they are doing their absolute best to function in everyday society.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a medical doctor, I have spent my career assessing patients based on their health and their ability to function. I know that being impaired on the road is dangerous. I also know that current laws in this state do not measure impairment for medicinal cannabis users. They measure presence. This is a scientific absurdity that leaves thousands of West Australians in a state of constant, low-level fear that their ability to drive to work or collect their children could be stripped away at a routine stop.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you value the work we are doing to hold the government to account on these vital issues, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is the best way to stay informed on our progress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-reality-of-the-road\"\u003eThe reality of the road\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government's response to my question was sterile. They listed the criteria for the support program, focused on education and instructor training, while completely sidestepping the discrimination faced by medicinal cannabis users. It was a classic administrative pivot. In my many years of practice, I have never seen a patient cured by red tape. We have a growing community of people who are being treated as second-class citizens because they choose a medical treatment that the law has failed to catch up with.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is a major concern for the many forward-thinkers who believe in science-based policy. When laws rely on stigma rather than truth, everyone suffers. The financial and personal cost to these patients is immense. Imagine the anxiety of knowing your access to essential services is constantly under threat because the law refuses to recognise a legitimate prescription. This isn't just policy. It is a waiting room for a disaster that happens to families across our state every single day.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe need to see an end to this discrimination. We need laws that are based on actual impairment, not an outdated prohibitionist lens. Until then, the promise of equity remains an empty vessel for many of our most vulnerable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full account of this exchange in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/21?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record\u003c/a\u003e. If you are ready to see real change in Western Australia, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us turn the tide.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"4d:Tc68,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-heavy-cost-of-bureaucratic-silence\"\u003eThe heavy cost of bureaucratic silence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my decades of medical practice, I learned one fundamental truth: delay is often the enemy of health. We rely on evidence, we trust the data, and we expect our public officials to act when a clear, life-changing solution presents itself. Yet, when it comes to medicinal cannabis and our archaic driving laws, we find ourselves stuck in a cycle of inactivity. This is not merely a bureaucratic nuisance. It is a source of profound anxiety for thousands of Western Australians who rely on prescribed medication to function.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese patients wake up in fear each morning. They live in dread that a routine roadside stop will punish them for using a legal, doctor-prescribed medicine. It is a waiting room where the fear of the law prevents people from living normally. While our government sits on its hands, the personal and professional risks to these individuals grow every single day.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you prefer your political updates without the red tape, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular, honest analysis from the Legislative Council.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-contrast-between-states\"\u003eThe contrast between states\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe look at what is happening across the country with a sense of frustration. Recently, we observed New South Wales successfully produce detailed, workable THC driving proposals in just two months. It was a swift, pragmatic move. They saw the problem, consulted the experts, and chose a path forward. In contrast, our own government appears content to let proposals gather dust on a Minister's desk for over three months. The question arises: if they can do it so quickly over there, why are we still waiting here?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI took this concern to the House today. I asked for transparency regarding any communication between our government and our interstate counterparts. The answer was a cold, short no. They have not even reached across the border to see how the solution might be applied here. This is not leadership. It is an active choice to remain stuck in the past while the evidence for reform stares us right in the face.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-call-for-evidence-based-change\"\u003eA call for evidence-based change\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are a community of forward-thinkers. We value science and we value fairness. The status quo is unfair to the patient who needs their car for work, for childcare, and for basic independence. Ignoring the reality of medicinal cannabis use in the modern world is a failure of policy that puts the vulnerable at risk. I will continue to hold the line and demand that our government treats this with the urgency it deserves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full account of my questions and the subsequent lack of answers in the official \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-09/34?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe it is time for a common-sense approach to this issue, I invite you to join our growing movement at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"4e:Ta72,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-silence-on-nuclear-safety\"\u003eThe silence on nuclear safety\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a medical doctor, I have always believed in preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. When we introduce nuclear-powered vessels into our local waters, we are not just talking about defence policy or international agreements. We are talking about the health of our community. The arrival of these ships at Fleet Base West in Cockburn Sound introduces a new risk profile to our southern suburbs. It is a risk that demands transparency, not vague bureaucratic assurances.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-doctors-diagnosis\"\u003eThe doctor's diagnosis\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my clinical career, I learned that waiting for an emergency to arrive is almost always the most expensive, and often the most tragic, way to manage a health crisis. If a nuclear leak or spill were to occur, iodine tablets would be the first line of defence against thyroid damage. This is not science fiction. It is a basic public health protocol. However, when I asked the government for concrete details regarding the distribution and availability of these supplies for our hospitals and our people, the answers remained frustratingly elusive. We were told there are plans, but we were not told if they are sufficient or where the supplies are currently held. This is not just a disagreement over policy. It is a potential failure in our duty of care to the people of this state.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"finding-the-truth-together\"\u003eFinding the truth together\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI know many of you are concerned about what this means for your families and your homes. Clear communication is the foundation of public trust, and right now, the foundation is shaking. If you want to stay informed on these pressing issues and ensure your voice is heard in the Legislative Council, please subscribe to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003emy YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for more updates from the chamber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"an-invitation-for-change\"\u003eAn invitation for change\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the major parties are happy to lean on existing inter-agency committees to mask the lack of detail, we are choosing to keep the pressure on. We need to know that if the unthinkable happens, our health system is prepared, stocked, and ready. You can read the full account of the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-09/52?ref=localhost\"\u003ediscussion in Parliament here\u003c/a\u003e. If you are tired of the status quo and you want a government that prioritises evidence-based safety over political convenience, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA today\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"4f:Td20,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-prescription-for-delay\"\u003eThe prescription for delay\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a general practitioner, I have seen the damage caused by waiting. A patient sits in the clinic, their health deteriorating, while they wait for a referral or a test result that should have been processed weeks ago. In the medical world, time is often the difference between recovery and ongoing suffering. Unfortunately, this same culture of inaction seems to have infected the halls of our Parliament.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile New South Wales has moved with impressive speed to develop a common-sense solution for medicinal cannabis patients and driving, Western Australia remains paralysed by bureaucracy. We are watching another state demonstrate that workable policy is possible in a matter of months, yet our own government seems comfortable sitting on their hands.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"why-we-are-falling-behind\"\u003eWhy we are falling behind\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently sought answers in the Legislative Council regarding our progress, or lack thereof, on these vital driving reforms. It is clear that while other states are looking at the evidence and creating pathways forward, our Premier has not even bothered to correspond with his counterparts in New South Wales. This is not just a missed opportunity for collaboration. It is a fundamental failure to protect the rights of citizens who are simply trying to access legal medicine without the constant fear of losing their livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you enjoy keeping up to date with my work in the House and seeing how we are holding the major parties to account, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-bureaucratic-red-tape\"\u003eThe human cost of bureaucratic red tape\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe danger here is not abstract. It is visceral. Thousands of Western Australians are forced to choose between managing their chronic pain or anxiety with prescribed medicine and the ability to drive to their jobs, their children's schools, or their medical appointments. This is the definition of a Catch-22. It is a waiting room where the punishment has no scientific basis and serves only to alienate law-abiding, sick people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have a Minister for Police and Road Safety who has had, by my estimation, months to review sensible proposals. Instead of clarity, we get silence. It feels systemic. It feels like the government is more interested in maintaining a broken status quo than acknowledging the reality of modern medicine. When we ignore the evidence, it is not the politicians who suffer. It is you. It is y
1our family. It is your right to live a life free from arbitrary, outdated restrictions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will continue to press this issue until the government stops hiding behind process and starts looking at the facts. You can examine the details provided in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-09/33?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e to see exactly how these questions were dismissed. If you believe it is time for a more rational, compassionate, and evidence-based approach to our laws, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us build a future that values people over political inertia.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"50:Tc23,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-silent-danger-on-the-horizon\"\u003eA silent danger on the horizon\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my decades as a medical doctor, I learned that the best way to handle a crisis is to be prepared before the patient even walks through the door. Prevention is the cornerstone of medicine. Yet, as our state integrates into the complex, high-stakes world of AUKUS, I find myself deeply concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding our public health preparedness. The arrival of nuclear-powered vessels into our waters represents a significant shift for the people of Western Australia, particularly those living near Cockburn Sound. We are not just talking about naval logistics. We are talking about the potential for radiological incidents that could impact thousands of families in the southern suburbs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-weight-of-the-unknown\"\u003eThe weight of the unknown\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eMy concerns are grounded in the simple reality of risk management. If a leak or an accident were to occur at Fleet Base West, are our hospitals truly ready to handle radiation poisoning? Do they have enough stable iodine on hand? When I raised these questions in the Legislative Council today, the response felt somewhat detached from the anxiety that many of my constituents are feeling in their own homes. The government speaks of plans and processes, but words on a paper do not offer the same security as a fully equipped, well-supplied medical facility ready to act at a momentâs notice. When we downplay the risks of such a profound change to our infrastructure, we leave families vulnerable. It is a waiting room where the stakes are incredibly high, and none of us want to be scrambling for answers if the unthinkable happens.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay informed about these critical issues and follow my work as I hold the government accountable, please consider subscribing to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003emy YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"evidence-over-optics\"\u003eEvidence over optics\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI believe that as we move forward, we must prioritise the health and safety of our citizens over the convenience of international agreements. My focus is always on the science. We need verifiable, transparent data about where these supplies are housed and how effectively they can be distributed if the system is ever put to the test. The government claims that they have collaborated with various agencies, including St John Ambulance and emergency management teams, yet the clarity required for public confidence remains elusive. We deserve to know that our medical system is robust enough to protect us against the risks we have chosen to bring into our bay. You can review the details of my exchange with the government in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-09/51?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record\u003c/a\u003e. Please join us at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to push for a more open, honest, and evidence-based approach to governance in this state.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"51:T49d6,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch4 id=\"electoral-architecture-as-structural-variable\"\u003eElectoral Architecture as Structural Variable\u003c/h4\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn 21 March 2026, more South Australians gave their first preference to One Nation than to the Liberal Party in the contest for the House of Assembly. Across the state One Nation drew 256,022 primary votes, or 22.9 per cent, against the Liberalsâ 211,551, or 18.9 per cent. The margin was 44,471 votes. One Nation won four seats. The Liberals won five, and it is the Liberals, not One Nation, who sit as the Opposition in the parliament that resulted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA result of that shape is not produced by campaigning, or by the quality of the candidates, or by anything that happened in the five weeks before polling day. A party can outpoll another across an entire state and still finish behind it in seats, and end up watching that smaller party take the Opposition benches, for one reason only: the rule used to turn votes into seats produced it. The shape of the parliament was settled by something other than how South Australians voted. That something is the subject of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe geometry a vote is counted under is fixed before any vote is cast. It is not chosen by the voter, it is not adjusted for the result, and it, far more than the campaign, decides how a distribution of votes becomes a distribution of seats. This is the structural variable, and it is routinely treated as part of the furniture rather than as a choice with consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere are two design questions here, and almost every public argument about electoral systems collapses them into one. The first is how districts are drawn: whether a jurisdiction elects one member per district or several. The second is how a voter expresses a choice on the ballot: whether by marking a single candidate, as under first past the post, or by ranking them in order of preference. These are separate axes. A system can be single-member and preferential, which is what the House of Assembly is, or multi-member and preferential, or single-member and non-preferential, and the four combinations behave differently.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia shows plainly that the two axes are independent, because it runs them in every combination at once. Preferential voting is universal here. It is used for the single-member House of Assembly and for multi-member chambers alike. And multi-member proportional lower houses already exist on home soil: Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have elected their lower houses by the multi-member Hare-Clark method for decades, on preferential ballots. The proportionality those chambers produce does not come from the preferential ballot, which they share with the single-member chambers that are not proportional at all. It comes from the multi-member districting. The live variable for proportionality is the geometry of the districts. The ballot is a separate matter, and keeping the two apart is the distinction this analysis turns on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat distinction can be demonstrated rather than asserted, because South Australia came as close to running the experiment as electoral politics allows. On 21 March its voters marked two ballots. The House of Assembly counted one under single-member districting. The Legislative Council counted the other, drawn from the same electorate on the same day, under multi-member proportional representation. One population, one moment, two counting geometries. No comparison between countries comes near it. A cross-country comparison has to hold a hundred things constant that differ between nations: political culture, the party system, the salience of any given issue in any given week. Textbook treatments reach for examples from different decades and different countries and ask the reader to assume the rest is equal. Here almost nothing has to be assumed. The same electorate, in the same hour, was sorted into seats twice, by two different rules, and the two answers came out different.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is not a laboratory, and the one impurity is worth stating, because it deepens the point rather than weakening it. Voters marked two different ballots, and the party shares differed a little between them: One Nation drew 22.9 per cent in the House and 24.43 in the Council. Some of that gap is a known effect. A voter who understands that a minor-party first preference is likely wasted in a single-member seat, but can elect someone in a proportional count, has reason to vote more cautiously on the one ballot and more freely on the other. Where that happens the geometry is not only sorting the votes; it is shaping them before they are cast, holding down the very support it then under-represents. The House figure, if anything, understates One Nationâs real strength, which makes the seat comparison that follows the conservative reading rather than the contaminated one. The electorate barely moved between the two ballots. The geometry did the rest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWatch One Nation move across the two chambers. In the House, 22.9 per cent of the primary vote became four seats out of forty-seven, which is 8.5 per cent of the chamber. In the Council, 24.43 per cent of the primary vote drew 2.93 quotas and returned three of the eleven seats contested, close to a quarter of them and near enough to its vote share that the gap is rounding rather than distortion. A quarter of the first preferences converted into a twelfth of one chamber and a quarter of the other, on the same day, from the same electorate. The decisive change between the two counts was how the districts were drawn.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow watch the Greens, because the symmetry is the whole point. In the House the Greens drew 10.4 per cent of the primary vote and won nothing at all. In the Council they drew 10.20 per cent, 1.22 quotas, and returned one of the eleven seats, again near their share. A party of the populist right and a party of the environmental left, sitting at opposite ends of the spectrum, were each erased by single-member geometry and each represented under proportional geometry, in the same election, by the same voters. The distortion, measured against the equal weight of every vote, does not pick sides on the spectrum, and a reader tempted to welcome one of those erasures and resent the other is being shown precisely the thing the argument is about. But it is not directionless. It has a side, and the side is not ideological: it is the shape of a partyâs supp
1ort on the map. Single-member districting rewards a vote concentrated enough to carry particular districts and punishes one spread too evenly to carry any, whatever the party believes, and whatever its size. That is why a tenth of the vote, dispersed, won the Greens nothing, while One Nationâs vote, banked in particular seats, won four. What the geometry entrenches is not the right or the left, and it is not even the incumbent: the Liberals were an incumbent major party, and single-member districting did not save them. It is the concentrated against the dispersed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSet the two conversions beside each other and the pattern is unmistakable. Under single-member districting a quarter of the vote on the right became a twelfth of the chamber, and a tenth of the vote on the left became none of it. Under proportional districting, applied to the same electorate hours earlier, each of those parties landed within rounding distance of its vote share. Both chambers used preferential ballots rather than first past the post; that much they had in common. They did not use the same ballot. The House compels a full ranking of every candidate; the Council lets a voter mark a single party box above the line and stop. That difference runs the wrong way for anyone wanting to credit the ballot with the fair result. The chamber that produced proportionality was the one with the weaker preferential machinery. So it was not the preferences that did the work. The districting was the difference, and it accounts for the result.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe single-member geometry is unforgiving at the margin in a second way worth noting. In Narungga the seat was decided by 58 votes after a recount and formal declaration. Close contests occur under any system, but single-member districting gives them a particular weight: a handful of voters flips an entire seat outright, with no compensating count elsewhere to absorb the swing, where a knife-edge final seat in a proportional chamber barely moves the overall shape of the result. A handful of voters, rather than a settled balance of opinion across the state, can turn a single-member outcome. That sits alongside the larger pattern as part of the same structural fact: what decided who held which seats, across both chambers and at the knife-edge, was how the districts were drawn.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the diagnosis. What follows is the harder ground, where the evidence is thinner and runs in both directions, and the discipline is to say so.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStart with who benefits from the system as it stands, because that is the part that is firmly established. Single-member districting rewards the party whose vote is distributed most efficiently across districts, and in South Australia that party was Labor: 37.5 per cent of the House primary vote translated into 72.3 per cent of the seats. This is structural, not a charge of manipulation. Labor drew the benefit of a geometry it did not design, in the same way One Nation and the Greens drew its cost. Naming the beneficiary of a structure is not the same as attributing a motive to it, and the distinction holds throughout.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is worth being exact about the word I have been using. To call the single-member result a distortion is to measure it against one standard, the equal weight of every vote, and to find it wanting by that standard. Single-member districting answers to a different standard, and was built to: it trades proportionality for a single identifiable local member and for the tendency to manufacture a governing majority out of a divided vote. Those are real goods, and a defender of the system is not obliged to apologise for them. The distortion is therefore not a malfunction. It is the price the system pays, by design, for the goods it is built to deliver. The argument here is only that the price is real, has now been demonstrated, and has been kept out of public view. What it is not is free.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow turn to the remedy, and the case weakens immediately. The literature attributing social goods to proportional representation, the long list associated with Arend Lijphart, is attractive: policy closer to the median voter, greater satisfaction with democratic institutions, more women in parliament, lower income inequality, less military spending, lower carbon emissions. The difficulty is not that the list is short. It is that none of it is shown to be \u003cem\u003ecaused\u003c/em\u003e by proportional representation. The evidence rests substantially on correlations between countries, and a country that runs proportional representation differs from one that does not in many ways at once, any of which might be doing the work. Adrian Vatter, examining the claim across thirty-three democracies with the controls the bare correlations lack, found it holds only in part: proportional systems do better on representation, but not robustly on participation, on transparency, or on the capacity to govern. The objection Cox and others press is that institution and outcome may share a prior cause, so that the correlation records that cause rather than an effect of the system. This is the problem the series met one article ago, where the examination of media ownership found no clean causal link between diverse ownership and diverse content, and rested its case on structural and democratic ground rather than a demonstrated effect on output. The shape recurs, and it would be a failure of this analysis to present the benefit case as though it were clean.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe costs attributed to proportional representation are contested in exactly the same way, and it would be just as much a failure to present them as settled. The standard charges are coalition instability, a lowered threshold that lets fringe and populist parties into the chamber, and a weakened line of accountability between a voter and a single identifiable representative. Eac
1h is argued seriously. The historical exhibit for the fringe-party charge is Weimar Germany; the contemporary one is the rise of the Sweden Democrats, who grew under proportional representation from no seats to around a fifth of the vote and second place. But the charge does not run cleanly either. Multiparty systems may contain extremism rather than feed it: a fringe party can take its proportional share of seats without capturing a major party, and a losing side that has been represented has less cause to reject the result. The research into whether proportionality drives parties toward the extremes, examined across first eighteen and then thirty-one countries, found no such effect. So the ledger does not resolve into a clean column of goods or a clean column of harms. It stays genuinely open on both sides.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSouth Australia adds a finding that complicates any tidy story further. In the Council count, 94.18 per cent of voters marked the ballot above the line, and 64.3 per cent of the preferences distributed in the deciding stages exhausted before electing anyone. The proportional outcome was reached with the preferential machinery barely engaged; Antony Greenâs assessment is that the chamber effectively behaves as list proportional representation, allocating seats by party share rather than by the flow of preferences. The proportionality came from the multi-member districting, and the preferences did little of the work. This cuts against an intuition that the elaborate preferential ballot is what delivers fair representation. On this evidence it was not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe finding here is the symmetry itself. The diagnosis is firm: the geometry distorts, demonstrably and without favour to right or left. The remedy is contested in both directions: the goods claimed for proportional representation are not established, and neither are the harms. Saying both halves plainly, rather than resolving the second into whichever answer the diagnosis seems to invite, is the integrity of the argument.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should declare an interest and then put it under the same light. The most developed counter-architecture in this area belongs to John Macgregorâs \u003cem\u003eThe Mechanics of Changing the World\u003c/em\u003e, whose programme for renovating the democratic machinery (the part of the book that turns to electoral reform, distinct from the media architecture an earlier article in this series examined) pairs proportional representation with preferential voting as mutually reinforcing. The book puts the claim directly: proportionality is usually enhanced by a preferential voting system. It is a programme I support, and that is exactly why I am obliged to say where the South Australian evidence does not support it. The proportionality in the Council came from the multi-member districting. The preferential ballot, with 94 per cent of voters going above the line and most distributed preferences exhausting, did almost none of the work the pairing credits to it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should be as careful with that finding as with the others. It is a single case, and the South Australian Council is the configuration least favourable to preferences: optional, dominated by the party box above the line, the flow of preferences barely engaged. A full-preferential system such as Tasmaniaâs or the Territoryâs Hare-Clark, where every preference must be marked and counted, would be the fairer test of whether the pairing holds, and this article has not run it. So the statement has to be bounded: the one local test available does not corroborate the claim that the preferential ballot enhances proportionality, and it qualifies a position I hold rather than overturning it. That is the discipline this series asks of everyone elseâs remedies, and it cannot exempt the one I happen to find congenial.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe sharpest test of whether this argument is being made evenly is the one it is most tempted to dodge. The most conspicuous beneficiary of proportional representation in Australia today is One Nation. A party arriving in a chamber at close to its actual vote share is the mechanism working as intended, not failing. If proportional representation is good because it translates votes into seats faithfully, then it is good when it does so for a bloc the writer or the reader would rather not see represented. The readerâs feelings about One Nation are the cleanest available test of whether this case is being argued on principle or on preference. The Greens, erased at the other end of the spectrum by the same single-member geometry, are the same test in the opposite direction. Both readings have to carry equal weight, or the argument was never about geometry.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat stands, with the inversion, the dual-chamber contrast and the contested remedy all in view, is a diagnosis rather than a programme. C
1ounting geometry is upstream of the result. Single-member districting imposes a distortion that has been demonstrated here inside a single election, across both ends of the political spectrum, and it is therefore not neutral. One thing follows, and a reader who has followed the argument can arrive at it independently: single-member districting is not a costless default but a choice with a cost, and the burden it has long enjoyed, to be assumed rather than justified, no longer holds. What must be defended is the system on its merits against its now-visible cost, not the pretence that it has no cost.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is as far as the evidence reaches, and it is important not to walk past the line. Whether the answer is proportional representation is a separate question, and the evidence assembled here does not settle it, because the case for that remedy is genuinely contested in both directions. To close by asserting that Australia should adopt proportional representation would be to claim more than has been shown, and to convert an analysis into a brief. My own values do not resolve the question either. Decision-making kept as close as possible to the people affected is the case for single-member districting and its local representative. The equal weight of every vote is the case against it. Those commitments pull in opposite directions on this question, and that is the reason this article diagnoses the distortion precisely and stops there, rather than prescribing the cure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"52:T4708,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMedia Concentration and Counter-Architectures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA democracy can reform the way it raises political money, redesign the chamber its representatives sit in, and rebuild the machinery by which it counts votes, and still discover that the questions worth reforming never reached the public in the first place. Before a population can deliberate, it has to learn what is at stake. The channels through which it learns are owned. Who owns them, and how few of them there are, settles in advance which questions arrive carrying the weight of public attention and which never surface at all. This is the upstream condition. It sits above the remedies this series has already examined, because it conditions the formation of the public will those remedies presuppose.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe architecture that does this conditioning in Australia is not a single thing. It has two layers that are easy to fold into one and should not be. There is an origination layer, the proprietors who produce professional journalism, concentrated in a way that has few parallels in the comparable democratic world. And there is a distribution layer, the platforms that now carry most of journalismâs reach, separately owned, separately concentrated, and frequently at odds with the first. The primary subject here is the origination layer. The distribution layer is named as the second concentration the same logic reaches, and held there. What follows is a description of that architecture as it stands in the middle of 2026, and an examination of whether anything on offer can change it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBegin with who. As of mid-2026 the dominant commercial groups are News Corp Australia, Nine, and Southern Cross, the entity that emerged when Southern Cross Austereo and Seven West Media merged, a combination the Australian Communications and Media Authority approved subject to divestment commitments, and which now carries the former Seven assets including the Seven Network and, in Western Australia, \u003cem\u003eThe West Australian\u003c/em\u003e. Kerry Stokes, through his listed vehicle, remains the largest shareholder in the merged group at around a fifth of it. A financing arrangement backed by Gina Rinehartâs Hancock interests, reported in May 2026 and lodged with the exchange, supports a holding of roughly nine and a half per cent. These are filings, not motives, and the distinction governs everything that follows. The public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, sit alongside the commercial groups; Australian Community Media and a scattering of independent and digital-native outlets hold the remainder. News Corp Australia is part of the United States-listed News Corporation, which is a structural fact relevant later to the question of foreign ownership and an imputation of nothing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNow the harder question, which is how much. The claim that three entities control the national narrative is the kind of sentence that feels true and turns out to depend entirely on the instrument used to measure it. Measured by metropolitan newspaper circulation, it is close to true: News Corp Australia alone is reported to hold something on the order of two-thirds, a figure traceable to the companyâs own audience data and to comparative academic work, and consistent with its publishing seven of the ten highest-circulating mastheads. Measured by free-to-air and subscription television revenue, a frequently cited figure put three corporations at about eighty per cent, though that number predates the 2026 merger and should be read as the order of the concentration rather than a current measure. Measured by online reach, the claim does not hold cleanly at all. The widest-reaching online brands include the ABC, news.com.au, nine.com.au, the Guardian, and a set of digital-native outlets, a more crowded field than the print one. So the claim holds or fails on the metric, and anyone who makes it owes you the metric. Concentration here is high by international comparison: the Global Media and Internet Concentration Project at Carleton placed Australia among the most concentrated it surveyed in 2024, and earlier comparative work, on data predating the rule changes, found its newspaper ownership the most concentrated of the countries studied. Those are two findings from two projects, measuring different things, and they are worth more kept apart than fused into one slogan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe architecture acquired its present shape through decisions that can be named. The most consequential was the 2017 repeal of the two-out-of-three cross-media rule, which had stopped one proprietor from owning newspaper, radio, and television in the same market. That repeal is a matter of legislative record, and the consolidations that followed it, the union of Nine and Fairfax in 2018 and the regional tightening completed by the 2026 merger, came after it. In most regional markets the merger reduced three commercial groups to two. The same pattern reaches Western Australia, where the masthead that covers the state now sits inside the national combination. I name that as an instance of the national architecture and not as a grievance, because the writerâs own location is not the subject of the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a second concentration the print and television figures miss entirely. The \u003cem\u003eDigital News Report: Australia 2025\u003c/em\u003e found that for the first time social media, at around twenty-six per cent, overtook online news websites, at around twenty-three per cent, as Australiansâ main source of news, with television still ahead at about thirty-seven per cent and Facebook the single most-used platform for news, reaching close to two in five. The platforms that now carry most of journalismâs reach are owned separately from the proprietors who produce it, and they are concentrated in their own right. The same survey found that traditional news brands remain the most-accessed source type on every major platform, which is the fact that stops this from becoming a story about news being replaced. So neither slogan is right. The making of professional news is concentrated in a few proprietors; its delivery is concentrated again in a few platforms, separately owned; and the online world, varied as it looks, is still fed mostly by those same newsrooms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWatch the architecture meet the limit of its own logic, because that is where its workings become visible. For two decades the business model that funded Australian journalism, advertising sold beside the news, has been migrating to the platforms that distribute the news without paying to make it. The News Media Bargaining Code, enacted in 2021, was the origination layerâs attempt to charge the distribution layer rent. Its design is more revealing than its result. No platform was ever formally designated under it. Designation was a power the Treasurer held and never used; it worked as a threat, and the threat moved money. Over roughly three years Google and Meta struck confidential deals with publishers large and small, worth, by estimates that cannot be audited because the deals were private, somewhere between about six hundred million and one billion dollars. One
1concrete and documented effect: the ABC used its share to fund around sixty regional journalist positions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen the threat met its bluff. In 2024 Meta declined to renew, and signalled that if compelled it would remove news from its Australian services, exactly as it had done in Canada from August 2023 when faced with equivalent law. That is the confrontation, and it is unresolved as I write. The governmentâs answer is the News Bargaining Incentive, exposure-draft legislation that would levy two and a quarter per cent on the Australian revenue of the large platforms, above a revenue threshold, and let them reduce the charge to nothing by striking deals instead. It is intended to apply from July 2026. As of late May 2026 it is draft, not law, and it has drawn the predictable fire: around the twentieth of May, United States technology trade groups lodged submissions arguing it should be withdrawn as a discriminatory tax in breach of the free trade agreement, with the prospect of trade retaliation raised in the background. The Australian government has said it intends to proceed. The window in which this particular instrument will either hold or fail is open now, and it is narrow.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present collision is not the first. It is the latest instance of a pattern the documented record will support and the contested record cannot be made to carry. In December 1975, during the campaign that followed the Dismissal, journalists employed by News Limited went on strike for two days over what they called bias in the companyâs coverage, the first such strike by Australian journalists over editorial matters rather than pay, and seventy-five of them signed a letter to Rupert Murdoch calling \u003cem\u003eThe Australian\u003c/em\u003e a propaganda sheet. Those facts are robust, and they came from inside the building, which is what gives them their weight. The further claim, that a proprietor determined the electionâs outcome, is contested interpretation, argued by some historians and rejected by others, and denied by Murdoch himself; it is not mine to assert, and I do not. The same discipline governs the rest. Kevin Ruddâs description of News Corp as a cancer on democracy is his characterisation and is reported as his. The 2021 Senate committee that found the regulatory environment weak, fragmented, and inconsistent, and recommended a judicial inquiry, was a committee majority writing over a dissent, and is reported as that. What is not interpretation but record is this: the inquiries that recommended structural reform, Finkelstein in 2012 and the Senate committee in 2021, were not acted on, while the deregulation that increased concentration was. That asymmetry is the thing to hold.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf the architecture is to be changed, four kinds of counter-architecture are on offer, and they share a difficulty that has to be admitted before any of them is described. There is no clean causal evidence that diverse ownership produces diverse content. The empirical literature that has gone looking for it describes the effects of ownership rules on content as inconclusive at best, and some studies find that consolidation did not reduce, and occasionally increased, local coverage. This does not mean concentration is harmless. It means the case against it stands more securely on structural and democratic ground, the concentration of agenda-setting power and the exposure of a whole system to one proprietorâs choices, than on a demonstrated effect on what gets printed. Keep that in mind, because the four are not equally evidenced, and it would be a cheat to lay them out as though they were.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first class is ownership limits and concentration caps, the cross-media and within-medium ceilings whose repeal in 2017 began this story. The logic is strong and widely accepted. The direct evidence that a cap delivers the diversity it is justified by is weak. The second class is structural separation, prising content production apart from distribution, or media ownership apart from unrelated commercial interest. It is a recognised competition remedy, but the evidence specific to news pluralism is thin, and most of the precedent is borrowed by analogy from telecommunications and broadcasting carriage rather than tested in news markets. These two classes carry the strongest logic and the least proof.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third class, public-interest journalism funding, has the most practice behind it. The Nordic press-subsidy schemes have run since the 1960s, often by funding the second newspaper in a town so that one voice does not become the only one. Such funds tend to be modest: Nordic schemes on the order of a few million dollars a year, the proposed United Kingdom innovation fund somewhat larger, Franceâs subsidies larger again. But notice what that evidence concerns. It is about sustaining the supply of journalism, which is a different thing from reducing concentration, and the relatively stronger case for funding cannot be quietly transferred to justify the ownership caps of the first class. The fourth class is platform and distribution regulation, and here the evidence is at once the most current and the most chastening, because Australiaâs own bargaining mechanisms are the leading example of it in the world. The verdict on them is mixed and documented: money moved, the instrument was never used as designed, and one major platform left at the first opportunity. Canadaâs experience, where the platform blocked news outright, is the clearest evidence of the ceiling. There is a trap built into this class that the argument of this whole essay is designed to detect. Once âmoney moved to publishersâ becomes the measure of success, the real question goes quiet: does the transfer restore the conditions for a self-governing public, or does it subsidise the incumbent newsrooms while the architecture stands?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne comparator earns its place by doing double work. The United Kingdom has just modernised its ownership rules to capture online media, extending its public-interest test for media mergers, in 2025, to the online outlets and news magazines the old regime, built for print and broadcast, never reached. That speaks directly to the gap Australia opened in 2017. The same United Kingdom reforms, having banned foreign-state ownership of newspapers in 2024, a ban that blocked an Abu Dhabi-backed bid for the Telegraph titles, then allowed foreign-state investors a passive holding of up to fifteen per cent, on the explicit reasoning that plurality protection has to be balanced against a struggling sectorâs need for capital. That tension, between guarding plurality and admitting investment, is real, and any ownership cap has to answer it. The European Unionâs Media Freedom Act, which reached most of its provisions only in August 2025, is the other marker: significant, ownership-focused, and too new to have produced any effectiveness evidence at all, which is itself a caution against borrowing it as a success story. On the recurring comparison of public funding, Germanyâs per-capita support for public media runs at something like four times Australiaâs, on figures from around 2018 and 2019, expressed in United States dollars, and measuring public broadcasting specifically. That ratio is worth stating as an order of magnitude and no more, and the comfortable claim that better-funded public media simply produce healthier democracies is a correlation wearing the costume of a cause, which it is not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have a stake in this, and I had better put it on the table myself. The counter-architecture Macgregor has argued for in print, and I have supported, the Isegoria programme set out in \u003cem\u003eThe Mechanics of Changing the World\u003c/em\u003e, distributes its elements across exactly these four classes. Its horizontal break-up and its cap on the capitalisation of any news-producing company fall in the first. Its vertical separation falls in the second. Its civic endowment, a citizen-directed pledge that would fund journalism without advertising, falls in the third. Its breaking up of the social-media cartels falls in the fourth. To audit the others and exempt this one would be precisely the failure this series exists to refuse.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSo I will put the sharpest element under the hardest light. The programme proposes that no company producing news and current affairs hold a capitalisation above, in the bookâs own qualifier, âsay, twenty million dollarsâ. That figure is the most falsifiable thing in the whole scheme, a specific number in the one class where the evidence is weakest, and the finding is plain: there is no clean evidence that any ownership cap delivers the diversity of content it is justified by. The case for the cap cannot rest on a claim that caps demonstrably restore that diversity, because the evidence does not support it. It rests, if it rests anywhere, on structure: that a cap reduces the agenda-setting power any single proprietor can accumulate, and reduces a democracyâs exposure to the choices of one owner. That is a real argument, and a narrower one than the bookâs confidence implied. The plurality-against-investment tension the United Kingdom has just had to confront applies to my own proposal as much as to anyoneâs. The strongest version of the case for the remedy I supp
1ort is structural, not empirical, and the integrity of the argument requires me to say so in the same breath that I make it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat stands, when the architecture and its history and its four possible remedies are all in view, is a question rather than a programme. The channels through which Australians learn what is at stake are concentrated at the point where news is made and concentrated again at the point where it is carried, and not one of the available counter-architectures has clear evidence of restoring the whole. That is not a counsel of despair. It is the precise shape of the problem, and naming a problem precisely is the condition of ever solving it. The structural case against this concentration is strong even where the case for any particular cure is not, and that asymmetry is not a reason to look away. It is the reason the question deserves to be held open rather than closed prematurely around whichever remedy its advocates, this author included, happen to find most congenial.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a reason this question comes before the questions of the ballot that this series turns to next. A vote is cast inside an information environment, and so is the argument for reforming the vote. An electorate cannot deliberate its way out of an environment it does not control. Where that control sits, and whether it can be loosened, is the prior question. It is, on the evidence, still open.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"53:T44fe,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe shift in how public knowledge is produced extends beyond one writerâs practice. The institutions that produce and mediate public knowledge operate inside the same conditions. They include universities that train and credential its producers, newsrooms that publish its first drafts, and parliamentary research that supplies its evidence base. The question of how AI is disclosed, by whom, to whom, and with what force arrives at the institutional level in a different form than at the individual level, because institutions are not individuals and their disclosure obligations do not reduce to the \u003ca href=\"https://walkerbriefing.substack.com/p/article-6-placeholder?ref=localhost\"\u003edisclosures their members make\u003c/a\u003e. The underlying structural fact is the same, and the institutional surface of it is the analytical subject of what follows.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLet us examine how that institutional surface looks in Australia in May 2026, ask what questions any honest institutional architecture would have to address, and test the institutional-formation pattern against a comparator with a longer history. The answers belong to the institutions making that architecture, not to this account of it. The first question, and the work that follows, is how disclosure is being built at three institutional sites that mediate public knowledge in Australia: universities, newsrooms, and parliamentary research. Each sits at a different stage of formation. The variance among the three is itself part of what the institutional condition in 2026 reveals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn June 2024 the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) required all 203 registered higher education providers to submit institutional action plans on generative AI. The response rate was 100 per cent. In May 2025 TEQSA announced a shift from an educative-led to a regulatory-led posture for 2026. The September 2025 \u003cem\u003eEnacting Assessment Reform in a Time of Artificial Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e resource set out three strategic pathways and signalled that the regulatory posture expected demonstrable institutional response. At sector level, the Australian Framework for Generative AI in Higher Education (ACSES, 2025) sets out six categories of principle, including transparency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt an institutional level the picture is uneven. The University of Sydneyâs two-lane Assessment Framework distinguishes secure in-person supervised assessments from open assessments where AI use may be permitted. The University of Melbourne holds AI permission at subject-coordinator level under MPF1326, producing subject-by-subject variation within a single institution. UNSW sits between these positions: more restrictive than Sydneyâs default, less permissive than Melbourneâs coordinator-level approach. The 203 plans showed heterogeneity rather than convergence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe framework being built across the sector is principally addressing student use of AI in submitted work. The framework for institutional self-disclosure of AI use in research, teaching production, administrative work, and policy material is substantially less developed. The sector is a regulated environment in which institutional response to AI is no longer a soft-law matter. The asymmetry between student-facing and institution-facing disclosure is itself a feature of how that regulation has been built so far.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralian newsrooms in May 2026 do not have a shared frame. Schwartz Mediaâs stated policy, one of several across the sector, prohibits AI in journalism production, with footnote disclosure when an exception arises; the February 2025 Tarnawsky footnote on \u003cem\u003eThe Saturday Paper\u003c/em\u003e is the documented operational case. Guardian Australia sits within the Guardianâs globally-applied editorial code, updated in March 2026 for the first time since 2011, which permits significant generative AI use only in exceptional circumstances and requires footnote disclosure. News Corp Australiaâs March 2024 policy added nine AI-related conditions; its Data Local team produces AI-assisted service journalism under a âData Local teamâ byline without per-article AI disclosure. Nine operates under an April 2026 internal directive that staff AI use âmust improveâ; Domainâs 9ExPress tool carries a standing disclosure on each article that names the tool used. The January 2024 Georgie Purcell episode at 9News Melbourne and the March 2026 Crikey takedown sequence following the public discovery of undisclosed AI assistance are the documented institutional disclosure failures in the Australian record, with institutional consequences in each case. No editorial-staff AI policy for the ABC is publicly available.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA working paper from the Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Trier examined 52 newsrooms across 12 countries. It found a convergent frame (AI as assistant not writer, human accountability primary, disclosure when material), paired with an absence of enforcement documentation across the sector. The Australian variance covers the same ground at the level of practice: what counts as AI use, where the obligation is being placed, and how disclosure is being sustained over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParliamentary research in Australia is produced across multiple institutional sites. The bureau category includes the federal Parliamentary Library and the state parliamentary research services in NSW, WA, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT, and the Northern Territory. Member office research produced by individual membersâ staff and externally commissioned work sit outside the bureau arrangement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo publicly accessible AI-disclosure policy for the Australian federal Parliamentary Library or for any Australian state parliamentary research service is in the public re
1cord. The Department of Parliamentary Services, and the Departments of the Senate and the House of Representatives, have each published AI transparency statements; these address ICT and operational use rather than editorial standards for the Libraryâs research output. This writer is a current member of the Western Australian Parliament, and is therefore part of this institutional landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe UK House of Commons Library has published an editorial policy explicitly addressing AI use by its researchers (CBP-10823, May 2026), setting out principles: AI as assistant not authority; human-in-the-loop; active consideration of whose perspectives are included or missing; fact verification with independent sources; AI source-checking. The institutional architecture for AI-use disclosure in Australian parliamentary research is, at best, internal and not externally accessible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross the three sites the architecture is being built at different paces, with different forces, and without a shared consensus on what disclosure is for, what is to be disclosed, to whom, in what form, and with what consequence when disclosure fails. The variance is not incoherence but rather the structural condition of architecture-in-formation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe variance is not a coordination failure better practice would resolve. Each of the three sites is solving a different primary problem under a different accountability regime: universities are responding to assessment integrity under sector regulation; newsrooms to editorial trust under masthead-by-masthead governance; parliamentary research to research integrity under arrangements that remain internal. The shape each site builds tracks what its accountability regime asks it to build, faster than broader agreement on what disclosure is meant to do has arrived. The reader of any single institution operates inside that institutionâs frame; the reader of public knowledge produced across institutions operates inside the variance. Trust in disclosed-AI-use work depends on the conditions in which the disclosure is held, and those conditions are in formation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe clearest documented anchor for the pattern is the CNET case from late 2022 and early 2023. CNET, then under Red Ventures ownership, published 77 AI-generated financial-explainer articles under the byline âCNET Money Staffâ with hover-only disclosure indicating production âusing automation technology.â Futurismâs January 2023 reporting surfaced the practice and identified factual errors in a compound-interest article. The internal audit found that 41 of the 77 articles required corrections. Wikipedia downgraded CNET to âgenerally unreliableâ for the period, and Red Venturesâ subsequent sale process was complicated by the consequences. The failure was not at the level of the AI use. It was at the level of the disclosure architecture: the hover-byline mechanism was the institutional choice that produced the failure. The mechanism made disclosure technically present without making it functional. The problem was not hidden disclosure. It was disclosure that was easy to miss.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe institutional disclosure framework cannot stop at requiring disclosure. The institutional questions go to what is disclosed, where the disclosure sits, in what form, and what the disclosure does for the reader who encounters it. Disclosure that meets a compliance requirement without producing trust is the failure mode the CNET pattern surfaces. Disclosure as a continuing institutional practice is the alternative an institutional comparator with a longer history makes visible. The questions any honest institutional architecture would have to address are themselves the work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree substantive questions sit upstream of any operational disclosure form. The questions are general; how they would be worked out in Australian conditions is the analytical work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first question is definitional: what is being defined when an institution requires disclosure. Nature Portfolio treats AI-assisted copy editing (readability, style, grammar, formatting) as a category that does not need declaring; only generative editorial work and autonomous content creation must be. Elsevier draws the line elsewhere: AI in the writing process is in scope, AI in research methodology, data analysis or experiments is not. Australian universities are working through the same disagreement. Melbourneâs coordinator-level approach and UNSWâs centrally-defined position produce different answers within a single sector. Australian newsrooms reach the line in a different vocabulary: the Nine 9ExPress disclosure names the tool, while News Corpâs Data Local arrangement names a team. The reader of one is not receiving the same information as the reader of the other. What each institution has decided to define is the substance of the variance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is locus: who carries the disclosure obligation. Medical disclosure spreads the obligation across physicians, journal authors, pharmaceutical companies and teaching hospitals, each under a different part of the regime. The AI-disclosure regimes being built in Australia have not settled the equivalent question. Universities place the obligation on students. Institutional self-disclosure of AI use in the sectorâs own production is much less developed. Newsrooms place primary accountability on the human journalist. Institutional disclosure in commissioning and production is variable. Parliamentary research bureaux have not addressed their own locus publicly. What the question reveals is not which actor carries the obligation, but whether the institution that mediates the work has answered the question at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third question is verification: how disclosure is made trustworthy over time. The CNET hover-byline met a technical compliance requirement without delivering trustworthy disclosure. The Guardianâs footnote-for-significant-use is a more visible form. Schwartz Mediaâs specific-article footnote is a documented institutional form already operating. None of these forms has been tested over time at institutional scale. The professional advisory bodies operating across the Australian landscape have responded at different paces: TEQSA at sector level; the MEAA through industrial agreement; the Australian Press Council has produced no specific AI framework. The major academic publishersâ guidance converges in shape and diverges in detail. None of these bodies is a separate site of analysis here. Eac
1h is context for the same question: how the institution holds the disclosure together over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is being built across the three sites is being built without consensus on what is being defined, where the obligation sits, or how disclosure is made trustworthy. The three questions are not gaps to be filled. They are the conditions inside which any operational form has to settle itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedical disclosure of conflicts of interest has the longest institutional history of any regime comparable to what is being built for AI. Until the 1980s, conflicts of interest in medical research were managed largely through supervisor-internal disclosure, with no requirement for the conflict to surface externally. The clinical-trial scandals of the late 1980s and the Weiss congressional hearings of 1988 and 1989 exposed the inadequacy at sufficient scale that federal action followed. Public Health Service regulations in 1995 located the obligation at the institution receiving federal research funding: the institution had to collect, manage, and report financial interests of its researchers. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors substantially revised the conflict-of-interest sections of its requirements in 2001, with a joint statement across signatory journals in September 2001. A uniform disclosure form was placed in the public domain in October 2009; the German Medical Associationâs \u003cem\u003eDeutsches Ãrzteblatt\u003c/em\u003e recorded positive declarations rising from zero to about thirty per cent of articles after the format shifted from open question to closed checklist. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act in March 2010 required pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to report payments to physicians and teaching hospitals, with public disclosure via the CMS Open Payments database from September 2014. The ICMJE form was revised in 2020 to remove the authorâs burden of deciding what counts as a potential conflict; authors disclose, and readers decide. The trajectory is thirty years of institutional formation, and the norm is still iterating.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEven with that history behind it, the regime is still imperfect, and the imperfections that bear on the institutional argument are built into the regime rather than into the actors who operate inside it. Enforcement is asymmetric: the Sunshine Act imposes reporting obligations on industry that are not matched by equivalent obligations on the physicians receiving payments, and the ICMJE editorial regime relies on authorial declaration with verification by editorial process rather than independent audit. The disclosing actors are heterogeneous: physicians, principal investigators, journal authors, pharmaceutical companies, and teaching hospitals each sit under different parts of the regime, and a reader encountering a disclosed conflict in a journal article is in a different position from a patient encountering one in clinical care or a researcher querying the Open Payments database. Both limits are features of how an institutional norm forms over time, and both are why a Springer review in 2016 could call efforts to improve researcher disclosure âstill in their infancyâ two decades into the regime. The point the comparator anchors is therefore not that medicine has settled the form. The point is narrower and harder. Norms form across institutions over time, against contestation, and the form they reach is shaped less by what individuals choose to disclose than by what the regime obliges, where it locates the obligation, and how it makes disclosure trustworthy to whoever is reading. What disclosure does for the reader depends on the conditions in which it is held, not on the disposition of whoever is making it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree Australian institutional sites in May 2026 have been examined for the state of their AI-disclosure architecture. Three questions any honest such architecture would have to address have been set out, with analytical work on each grounded in Australian conditions. An older institutional comparator anchors the pattern: roughly thirty years of imperfect formation, the limits built into the regime rather than the actors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe earlier two pieces in this sequence examined how public knowledge is made now and how the disclosure question is settled in one writerâs practice. This third piece turns from individual practice to institutional architecture, and asks what the same conditions ask of the institutions that mediate. The three pieces are a single argument distributed across three forms, and the sequence has reached its close. The reader who has read across all three is left to weigh what the pattern surfaced, and what it leaves still in formation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe universities, newsrooms, and parliamentary research bureaux that mediate public discourse operate inside a wider structure of concentrated ownership. The disclosure question examined here is one form of a larger structural question that runs above it: who owns those institutions, and how that ownership shapes what gets produced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"54:T3f6b,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe architecture of public-facing analytical writing has shifted, and the shift carries a question for any writer who works inside the new conditions, namely what such conditions ask of them. The question is not optional neither does it answer itself.\u003cbr\u003eWhat I have to settle, in writing under those conditions, is what my own practice requires. The conditions are not external to the writing. They run through it and shape what the relationship between writer and reader can hold. That is what this article addresses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThere is a proximate occasion as well as the structural one already named. In Australia, the academic and editorial response infrastructure for AI use is being built faster than any consensus on what it is for. At Australian Catholic University, detection tools produced false-positive rates of two to five per cent. Against a student population measured in the tens of thousands, the consequences accumulate rapidly. That is the kind of structural condition the response infrastructure is now operating in: a response being assembled while the practice it answers continues to change underneath it. To write public-facing analytical work in those conditions and to leave the matter unsettled is no longer compatible with my own standards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe answer this article will give is operational. What follows specifies, in the production of this publication, what AI does, what I do, and where the line is drawn between them. I publish on Substack under the name of the Walker Briefing. You may be curious to know how I create the articles. Other authors have their own style and I will not assume any one standard of writing. The article is about how I create the Briefing and not about any other writing.\u003cbr\u003eThere develops a relationship between writer and reader and that relationship rests on the material produced, something that remains a mystery to readers and is not amenable to direct inspection. While I may not owe to you an account of those conditions, this is an honest approach that the open minded reader may wish to test. So what are the conditions under which this article has emerged, and how can I explain the two weeks needed to adequately put my views into the public realm? Here it is.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAI surfaces and organises patterns across my existing writing and thinking, making the architecture of a philosophy I have long held more legible and operable. The philosophy is mine formed before AI saw it. AI then proposes, plans, and structures, perhaps introducing components at the start of an article, which I initially review, to then either delete, alter, or accept. I write outlines of intended content; AI turns those outlines into linear prose that holds logical sequence. It surfaces material I did not previously know and proposes analytical cross-mappings between concepts I would not necessarily have made unaided. It drafts portions of the prose of articles, from outlines, plans, and patterns I have supplied or approved. It is held under standing instruction to challenge, question, refuse to flatter, and identify inconsistencies. Multiple frontier models from a range of developers are used in different roles. Factual claims are cross-checked across more than one model, and a layered red-team protocol applies, calibrated to the articleâs risk profile.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhat I do is originate the analytical direction, the topic selection, the patterns, the outlines, and the philosophical commitments within which AI drafts. I hold the discipline-line through a written governance system that constrains what AI may produce. AI does not produce content outside my standing constraints because the governance system does not permit it and my supervision enforces it. I review AI output, accept or revise it, or return the whole article and start again. The return-and-restart mechanism is what holds voice when AI drifts. My prose-level intervention remains a part of the final text and is targeted to where it must be: alteration of triads, sentence rewriting, cadence work, occasional paragraph insertion, and removal of any AI-style formatting where it intrudes on voice. I verify every factual claim, then recheck. Verification authority for analytical content rests with me, not with the machine. I am responsible for what is published.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eI originate the topic, the analytical direction, the patterns, and the governance system that constrains what AI may produce, and controls the judgement that determines what is accepted into the work. AI executes within that architecture, including substantive prose drafting and analytical extension. My voice is central to the work, and is governed and supervised such that the output is recognisably mine because the system is engineered to hold it so.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThat is the line. Whether it holds depends on three questions a sceptical reader is entitled to press: whose work this is, can its factual claims be trusted, and have the requisite analytical standards been upheld. Each in turn.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe first question is whose work this is. If AI drafts substantial portions of the prose, in what meaningful sense is the article mine? The question is fair and worth taking at full strength. A reader has been accustomed to the convention that the named writer is the keystroke originator of the words on the page. That convention has carried the relationship of trust between writer and reader for as long as bylines have existed. How is this different from staff who draft speeches and media releases? Hybrid production with disciplined separation of functions is not seen as the convention. The convention is seen as doing real work, and the question is asking what replaces it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhat the question identifies correctly is that authorship under hybrid production is not what authorship was. Authenticity, in the keystroke sense, has changed shape. That is true of analytical writers who use these tools. The prose origin and the workâs authorship are no longer the same thing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe substantive answer is that authorship sits in the layer above prose origin. It sits in what has just been specified: the analytical direction, the topic, the patterns, the governance system that constrains what AI may produce, and the judgement that decides what is accepted into the work. The questions a reader needs answered to know whose work this is are not whose fingers struck which keys. They are which mind chose what the article is about, which mind decided what the article would argue, which mind held the standards against which every claim and every formulation was tested, and which mind takes responsibility for what is published. In terms of the Walker Briefing, the answer is that all four are mine. AI executes inside the architecture I have built and supervise actively. The inspiration, the architecture and the supervision are the work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhat this answer does not do is make the authenticity question disappear. It changes what authenticity means in conditions of hybrid production. A reader who finds the new meaning unsatisfying is not wrong to find it so. What we can now do is move to a second question and test the outcome.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe second question is whether what the article asserts can be trusted. AI is documented to produce confident-sounding statements that turn out to be wrong. The technical term is hallucination, and the phenomenon is real. If AI drafts substantial portions of the prose of an article like this one, what guarantee does the reader have that a claim of fact in it has any of the things a claim of fact ought to have: a source, a denominator, a date, a context that makes the claim do what it seems to be doing?\u003cbr\u003eThe answer is that AI-drafted prose is treated in the same manner as that drafted by an editor or associate, and as in the production of this publication, as a draft to be tested rather than as expression to be polished. The distinction matters. Prose accepted as expression carries its claims forward on the strength of the prose. Prose accepted as a draft carries nothing forward until each claim has been verified against a source whose status I have inspected. Factual claims must be cross-checked across more than one model and then verified directly against primary sources where the claim is load-bearing. Numerical claims carry their denominators, their timeframes, and their source types. Where a number cannot be verified to that standard, it does not appear, or it appears with the uncertainty highlighted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe procedure offers the reader no procedural guarantee. The reader cannot inspect the verification log, having only the published article and a writerâs account of how it was produced. The model only works if the discipline is in fact maintained, and the only evidence the reader has of that maintenance is the article itself, considered against every other article published under the same name. That is not a small reservation. The trust the relationship can hold rests, in the end, on a practice the reader cannot directly inspect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThis is the inheritance of any writer-reader relationship, hybrid production or not. What changes under hybrid production is which discipline does the work. What does not change is that the discipline cannot be replaced by a procedural assurance.\u003cbr\u003eThe third question is whether AI assistance lowers anal
1ytical standards. The plausible version of the worry is that a writer who can have AI generate substantial portions of the prose has, in some real sense, done less work, and that the reader of such prose is reading something thinner than what the byline implies. I would leave that for you to judge, noting in passing that this article has required two weeks of solid thinking and writing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhat AI changes is which standards are scarce. The labour of evidence integration, of mapping connections across a body of material, of generating linear prose from outlines, becomes less onerous. The labour of judgement and analytical direction, of deciding what an article is about and what claim it makes and which evidence is doing real work and which is decorative, becomes proportionally more important. Voice, which used to be produced unaided by a writer who had reached a settled register over years of practice, becomes a governed and supervised output that has to be engineered to hold. The shift is real. The standards have not lowered; they have moved.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThat observation, made by a writer about his own production model, is rhetorically convenient and the reader is right to notice. It locates the writerâs contribution exactly where current AI is weakest. The substantive case for it has just been given, but the rhetorical convenience does not disappear because the case is real, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThere is a structural loss that cuts deeper. Disclosure regimes have been studied for decades in medicine and in the behavioural research on conflict-of-interest disclosure. The findings are consistent enough to be unsettling. Disclosure of a conflict produces, in the discloser, a documented pattern of moral licensing: the act of disclosure can shift behaviour in the wrong direction, because the obligation has been formally discharged. For the recipient of disclosure, the documented pattern is insufficient discounting: the disclosed conflict is rarely weighted as heavily as the evidence says it should be. And in the institutional context, the documented pattern is strategic restructuring: practice is reorganised to satisfy the disclosure regime without changing the underlying conduct. In parliamentary terms, think of how the budget is presented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThese findings apply to the chosen model of this publication as much as they apply to any other. The disclosure of a rule is not the keeping of the rule. An About page that describes a production model cannot make the production model what it describes; only the practice can do that, sustained over time, and only the article-by-article record can show whether it has been done. The model produces honest continuing practice if, and only if, the writer maintains it. There is no procedural backstop, and there is no architectural feature that can substitute for the discipline.\u003cbr\u003eThe trade is on the page. AI assistance changes which standards are scarce and what voice is. Disclosure of the change, however well architected, cannot guarantee the discipline the change requires. The reader has the article in front of them, considered alongside every other piece published under the same name, and weighs the trade for themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe disclosure I am making here is made once, today, and the About page will carry the standing reference. There is no per-article footnote and there will not be one. The reasoning is straightforward. Honesty in a relationship is sustained by continuing practice, not by repetitious statement. An article that argued for honesty as continuing practice while itself performing repeated disclosure would have contradicted its own argument before it ended.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eA medical comparator is perhaps to the point even if the selection from it is partial. Medical practice carries both per-engagement disclosure and the continuing honouring of disclosure already made. The chosen model of this publication takes the continuing honouring and not the per-engagement disclosure, for the reasons given. The doctor who has disclosed a perceived conflict of interest once does not narrate the conflict at every appointment. Disclosure is settled in the relationship and continuously honoured in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhat the chosen model serves is twofold. It serves the readerâs interest in o
1pen information, by making the production model explicit and permanently available at a stable location any reader can consult. It also serves a preference of mine for keeping production specifics as proprietary craft rather than as repeatedly performed declaration. Both things are true. The position would read as motivated reasoning if only the first were stated. Taken together, however, they are defensible because both are stated, and because the standing reference and the article-by-article record together do the work the disclosure can do.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eWhat this position is, then, is not a settled answer for the field. It is one defensible choice among defensible choices, in conditions where the choices are not yet stable. Other writers and other institutions hold their positions differently and the reasoning behind those choices is not the reasoning behind this one. The article does not advocate for the position becoming anyone elseâs position. It states the position for this publication, gives the reasoning, and stops there.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThe German word for it is \u003cem\u003eselbstverständlich\u003c/em\u003e. Self-evident, taken as read, held without performance. The disclosure is \u003cem\u003eselbstverständlich\u003c/em\u003e if the practice is. Practice maintained over time is what the word names. The article that announces it has stopped being so.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003eThat is the disclosure. The standing reference is on the About page. The article-by-article record is what the publication is. A reader who wants to consult the standing reference can. A reader who does not is reading the work the disclosure describes.\u003cbr\u003eWhat remains is what was always there: the relationship between writer and reader, considered article by article, on the substance of what is written and the standards by which it has been produced. The conditions of public-facing analytical writing have changed, and the change runs through every article published under my name. The change is hybrid production with disciplined separation of functions, an architectural line between writer judgement and AI execution, and a disclosure made once and held as continuing practice. The change has now been named. The work continues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"55:Tb99,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-symptom-of-a-struggling-democracy\"\u003eThe symptom of a struggling democracy\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I learned that you cannot treat a patient if you cannot get a straight answer about their symptoms. When a patient avoids the truth, the diagnosis becomes impossible and health outcomes suffer. It is exactly the same with the health of our democracy. We are currently witnessing an alarming trend in Parliament where direct questions are met with choreographed evasion rather than genuine answers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not merely a matter of parliamentary procedure. It is a systematic failure to respect the people of Western Australia. When ministers use standing orders as a shield to hide from politically inconvenient truths, the very foundation of our accountability structure begins to crumble. It leaves the public in the dark, watching a performance that serves party interests while ignoring the urgent needs of the community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-hidden-cost-of-evasion\"\u003eThe hidden cost of evasion\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe danger here is visceral. When we allow transparency to be treated as an optional extra, we invite a decline in the standard of our governance. This is not just bureaucracy; it is a waiting room where citizens are left wondering if their concerns will ever be heard or addressed. The frustration is palpable. The sinking feeling when you realise that those in power are playing games while your family's future hangs in the balance is a heavy burden for any voter to bear.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are a community of forward-thinkers. We value evidence, scientific rigour, and honest communication. We deserve a Parliament that reflects those values rather than one trapped in outdated, performative traditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you appreciate seeing the hard evidence behind the headlines, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e where we break down the issues that actually matter to your daily life.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"restoring-the-focus\"\u003eRestoring the focus\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have given notice of a motion to stop this rot. If question time continues to be an exercise in political theatre, we must be brave enough to ask whether that time could be better spent. Perhaps we should consider abolishing questions without notice entirely. We could then reallocate that time to productive legislative and committee work where the rigorous, evidence-based scrutiny our state requires can actually take place.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is about reclaiming our time and our process from those who prefer obfuscation to clarity. You can review the details of my motion in the official \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-14/4?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record\u003c/a\u003e. I invite you to stand with me by joining \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we work to bring honesty and common sense back to the heart of government.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"56:Ta58,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-waiting-game\"\u003eThe waiting game\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the quiet corridors of the House, progress often moves at a glacial pace. Today, I raised a question regarding the Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report. For those who rely on medicinal cannabis, this is not merely a bureaucratic interest. This is a matter of autonomy and fair access to the community. My question was simple: has the Minister for Road Safety seen the report, and when will we see action? The response was a familiar refrain. The report remains under consideration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-weight-of-the-doctors-coat\"\u003eThe weight of the doctor's coat\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my decades of practice as a doctor, I have seen the damage caused by disjointed policies. When I sit with a patient, I look at the evidence. I diagnose the problem and recommend a path forward. I do not tell them to wait indefinitely while their health or dignity suffers. Sadly, this is exactly what is happening to thousands of Western Australians who are being unfairly penalised for using prescribed medication. We have a growing tribe of forward-thinkers who want science-led reform. We are tired of being told to wait while the fundamental rights of patients are ignored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay up to date with my efforts in the Legislative Council, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e here. It is the best way to see the arguments play out away from the edited soundbites of the mainstream press.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"why-delays-are-dangerous\"\u003eWhy delays are dangerous\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not just about a missing report. It is about the visceral reality of a driver who is properly medicated but remains terrified of losing their licence. It is a waiting room where medical autonomy goes to die. Every day that we ignore the findings of the Working Group is another day that good people are caught in a punitive system that refuses to evolve. The government has the information. They have the clarity. Yet, they choose to keep the status quo at the steering wheel.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will continue to press for answers until we reach a conclusion that respects both the science and the individuals involved. You can read the full account of my exchange in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-13/22?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe it is time for a more rational, compassionate approach to health and policy, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us make this change a reality.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"57:Tc5d,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-silence-that-follows-a-funding-decision\"\u003eThe silence that follows a funding decision\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my decades of medical practice, I have learned that the most effective healing rarely comes from a spreadsheet or a government form. It comes from connection. It comes from the ability to walk into a safe space and be heard by someone who truly understands the weight of your experience. The Listening Lounge has been exactly that for people across our state.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen I heard that this lifeline was facing a funding cliff, my immediate concern was for the patients. I know that sinking feeling when a support system vanishes into the ether. For those struggling with their mental health, the withdrawal of a trusted service is not just an administrative adjustment. It is a terrifying return to isolation. Bureaucracy does not feel the panic of a patient left without a harbour.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"why-we-fight-for-evidence-based-care\"\u003eWhy we fight for evidence based care\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are a tribe of forward thinkers. We look at the evidence, and the evidence tells us that peer-based support is not merely a nice feature of a healthcare system. It is a fundamental pillar of recovery. When the government plays games with funding, they gamble with the wellbeing of vulnerable citizens. In Parliament, I have seen too many programs cut because they did not fit neatly into a centralised box. We need to be vigilant against this.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you find these updates on the reality of our mental health system valuable and want to see more direct advocacy from the floor of the Legislative Council, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It provides a unique look behind the curtains of the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-need-for-transparency\"\u003eThe need for transparency\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently raised the matter of the Listening Lounge in the Legislative Council because the community deserved to know whether their support would continue. The answer provided suggested that funding would be channelled through a different organisation rather than discontinued. While this offers some relief, it highlights a recurring issue in our system. The government often shifts responsibility behind layers of procurement, leaving those on the ground anxious about whether services will actually remain open to the public.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe will be monitoring this transition closely. We cannot allow essential mental health services to be lost in the noise of shifting contracts. You can review the details of this \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-13/41?ref=localhost\"\u003eexchange in the Legislative Council record\u003c/a\u003e to see how we are holding the government to their word.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStanding up for evidence based outcomes is what we do. If you share this vision of a more compassionate, science-led approach to our health system, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today. Together, we can ensure that every Western Australian has access to the support they need before the system lets them down.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"58:Ted0,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-legacy-of-contradiction\"\u003eA legacy of contradiction\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have learnt that the most effective way to address any ailment is to look past the symptoms and examine the root cause. When we look at the state of Western Australia through an ecological lens, we face a similar challenge with the dingo. For too long, the dingo has been trapped in a legislative paradox. On one page of our statute books, it is protected native wildlife. On another, it is a declared pest. This is not some trifling bureaucratic error. This contradiction serves as the foundation for state-sanctioned programs that utilise aerial poison baiting and steel-jawed traps. It is a system that treats one of our most important native species as if it were a modern-day demon needing to be purged.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe risk here is not just to the dingo. The use of 1080 poisonâa compound that is indiscriminate and agonizingâposes a visceral danger to our broader environment. It is a silent threat resting in the bush. Families taking their children or their dogs for a hike in our national parks are walking through a high-stakes waiting room. If your pet consumes a bait, the result is often a slow, terrifying, and avoidable death. When we prioritize a blunt instrument of control over science-led management, we are gambling with public safety and the health of our native ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-and-ecological-cost\"\u003eThe human and ecological cost\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe often talk about the economy, but there is a profound human and ecological cost to this struggle. I witness the sinking feeling in communities torn between the desire for genuine land stewardship and the fear of financial ruin caused by livestock loss. However, we must ask if our current strategy is actually working. We have spent decades, billions of dollars, and millions of non-target animal lives on a strategy of eradication that has failed to suppress the conflict. When we disrupt the social structures of apex predators, we often inadvertently trigger a breakdown in the natural order of the land.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you enjoy these deep dives into the scientific realities behind our parliamentary debates, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where we break down the complex issues affecting Western Australia with the clarity and rigor our community deserves.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"defining-a-new-path\"\u003eDefining a new path\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat we propose is not radical chaos, but an evidence-based evolution. We have traditional custodians reminding us that dingo law is ecological law. We have farmers demonstrating that when dingoes are allowed to function as an apex predator, the land begins to heal, soil quality improves, and the landscape finds a new equilibrium. We are not calling for an overnight abandonment of regional safety. We are calling for an honest, independent investigation into whether we can move beyond the cruelty of the past and start using the intelligence of the future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe science is clear: relying on the same outdated methods while expecting a different result is not policy, it is stubbornness. We deserve a system that values cultural wisdom, listens to ecological evidence, and prioritizes humane outcomes for both our livestock and our wildlife. Please take the time to read the full account of this motion in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-13/8?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Parliamentary record\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe, as I do, that we need a government that prizes evidence-based compassion over the status quo, I invite you to join the movement at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"59:Tae6,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-dangerous-art-of-stalling\"\u003eThe dangerous art of stalling\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen many conditions that require urgent intervention. When a patient presents with a serious health concern, we do not bury the results in a bottomless drawer. We act. Yet, when it comes to the Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report, the government prefers the shadows to the light of day.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not merely a matter of bureaucratic process. It is a waiting room where patients are left in fear. Every day that the government keeps this report locked away is a day that law-abiding patients are forced to live in anxiety. They worry whether their medicine will lead to a roadside penalty despite no proof of impairment. It is a fundamental injustice to treat responsible users of medicinal cannabis as criminals when they are simply managing their health.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"seeking-answers-in-parliament\"\u003eSeeking answers in Parliament\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eToday in the House, I pressed the government yet again for basic transparency. I asked for a list of the agencies currently reviewing this vital report and, crucially, when they each received it. The response was characteristically thin. We are told the report remains under consideration. This phrase is a shield used to deflect scrutiny and buy more time while the risk to innocent people continues to mount.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are the ones who look at the evidence. Science-first, forward-thinking, and grounded in the reality of patient needs. While others play politics, we keep pushing for the facts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to keep up to date with my work and get the raw, unfiltered truth about what is happening in the House, please consider \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribing to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where I break down the issues that matter to our community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-delay\"\u003eThe human cost of delay\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsider the vulnerability felt by a patient who relies on treatment but fears the patrol car around every corner. This is the human cost of a government that prefers secrecy over science. It is an indictment of their priorities. When the state knows there is a policy anomaly, they have an obligation to fix it. Instead, they choose to hold the findings hostage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will continue to pursue this until we get the answers that Western Australians deserve. You can read the full account of my recent efforts in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-12/18?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record\u003c/a\u003e. If you stand with us in the fight for sensible reform and honest governance, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"5a:T3f3f,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch2 id=\"i\"\u003eI\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsked what they expect of news produced with the help of artificial intelligence, audiences across forty-eight markets reply in a consistent pattern. They expect such news to be cheaper to make, by a net margin of twenty-nine percentage points, and more up-to-date, by sixteen. They expect it to be less transparent and less accurate by eight points each, and less trustworthy by eighteen. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025, on which these figures rest, surveyed nearly a hundred thousand respondents across the survey set. A supplementary Reuters Institute report published in October 2025 in six countries found the equivalent figures, on the four dimensions the supplementary report tracks, had hardened rather than softened: thirty-nine, twenty-two, minus eight, minus nineteen.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are not the views of a public that does not understand what is happening. They are the views of a public that perceives a trade-off and has not yet been given the public language to discuss it. Fifty-eight per cent of respondents worldwide report concern about telling real news from fake news online. In Australia, one in five say they are comfortable with AI-produced news that has had little human oversight, up four points on the year before; fifty-four per cent say they are uncomfortable with such news. The figures track in the same direction across the survey set. The audience holds the trade-off in mind, and the trade-off is sharpening.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the audience perceives describes a real change in the conditions under which the news the audience reads is produced. The next part of the article describes that change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"ii\"\u003eII\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe change runs through several institutions of public-knowledge production at once. Four are examined here: the architecture of search, the institutional capacity of newspaper journalism in Australia, the new economy of paid-newsletter writing, and the production of academic and parliamentary research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst c
1omes the search. In a study published by the Pew Research Center in July 2025, the click-through rate on conventional search results fell from fifteen per cent without an AI Overview present to eight per cent with one. Users clicked into sources cited inside the Overview itself one per cent of the time. Browsing sessions ended on the search page sixteen per cent of the time without an Overview, and twenty-six per cent with one. The data was drawn from sixty-eight thousand unique searches by nine hundred US adults in March 2025. Independent corroboration has come from multiple methodologies. Ahrefs, having analysed approximately three hundred thousand keywords, reported in February 2026 that the position-one click-through rate for AI-Overview-triggering queries had fallen to 1.6 per cent in December 2025, a fifty-eight per cent reduction once general trends were controlled for. Authoritas, in submission to the UK Competition and Markets Authority in April 2025, measured a 47.5 per cent click-through decline on desktop and 37.7 per cent on mobile when AI Overviews were present.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGoogleâs Head of Search, Liz Reid, has argued repeatedly between August 2025 and April 2026 that AI Overviews reduce low-value bounce clicks while leaving high-value engagement clicks intact. Google measures retention to its own surface; publishers need a metric of traffic to theirs; the company has not published the query-level data that would resolve the dispute.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is institutional newspaper journalism in Australia. IBISWorld data, cited in the Media, Entertainment and Arts Allianceâs 2024 submission to the federal governmentâs News MAP consultation, tracks Australian newspaper publishing employment from 23,472 in 2010-11 to 12,531 in 2023, a forty-seven per cent decline over twelve years. The trajectory has continued. IBISWorldâs 2025 industry analysis records sector revenue contracting at a compound annual rate of 5.2 per cent across 2020 to 2025, with a 6.8 per cent fall in 2025-26 alone, and a similar contraction in the number of businesses in the industry. The named workforce reductions through 2024 are consistent with the trajectory. Nine Entertainment announced around two hundred redundancies in 2024, including between seventy and ninety in publishing, accompanied by a national strike of around five hundred journalists. Seven West Media, News Corp, and Australian Community Media announced parallel cuts. More than a hundred regional and community newspapers ceased printing across Australia between 2020 and 2025, on top of the 106 local and regional newspaper titles that closed between 2008 and 2018.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext we have the paid-newsletter economy. Substack announced in March 2025 that it had passed five million paid subscriptions. Secondary platform-statistics reporting later put total active subscriptions at about thirty-five million as of September 2025. The platform also reports more than seventeen thousand writers earning subscription revenue through it, while its top ten authors collectively earn more than forty million US dollars annually and more than fifty individuals reportedly earn a million dollars or more from paid subscriptions alone. These platform-reported figures are not independently audited in the way that newspaper circulation figures historically were. A Series C round closed in July 2025 valued the company at $1.1 billion. The platformâs economic model tilts towards individual analytical voice rather than the institutional capacity for sustained reporting that newspapers historically funded: court reporting, council reporting, regional reporting, investigative work. Newsroom-style operations on the platform remain rare and small-scale relative to the institutional capacity newspapers historically provided, and the underlying economics weight returns toward individual subscriber relationships rather than sustained collective reporting. The new capacity sits beside the contracting institutional capacity rather than replacing it. The paid-newsletter economy carries a generalisability constraint of its own. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report finds that the share of audiences paying for any online news, across twenty richer countries, is stable at eighteen per cent and is not growing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally we see academic and parliamentary research production. By late 2023, approximately thirty per cent of researchers reported having used AI tools to help write manuscripts. The figure, drawn together by Gray at University College London from multiple surveys including Natureâs, captures self-reported AI assistance of all kinds, from grammar to substantive drafting. A separate measurement, by Liang and colleagues using a population-level word-frequency method to estimate the share of LLM-modified content in published abstracts, returns figures that vary sharply by field: up to about twenty-two per cent in computer science papers, and up to about nine per cent in mathematics papers and in papers in the Nature portfolio. The two methods measure different signals, one tracking visible markers of AI use, the other tracking shifts in word frequency at population scale, and the picture they produce together is one of substantial and field-variable adoption rather than of any single rate. Major academic publishers, including Wiley, Elsevier, and Nature, have policies as of 2024 and 2025 requiring disclosure of substantive AI use; universities are still defining theirs. The parliamentary side carries thinner data. There is no published equivalent of the academic surveys for parliamentary research staff in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, or comparable Westminster jurisdictions. The thinness of the public re
1cord is itself a finding. The institutions whose research production most directly shapes legislative deliberation have produced the least public information about how that production is changing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe four threads describe different sites of change. They share an architecture. In each, the conditions under which public-facing knowledge is produced have shifted within the last decade, and in some cases within the last two years. The shift has happened ahead of the public conversation about it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"iii\"\u003eIII\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe conditions under which a public-facing analytical piece is produced in 2026 are not the conditions under which a comparable piece was produced in 2016. The shift is the same shift the previous section described, encountered now from inside the production of a single article rather than across institutions in aggregate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first part of the shift is in research. A writer working on a public-affairs question in 2016 began with a list of sources returned by a search. A writer working on the same question in 2026 begins with whatever the search returns. What the search returns now, on a meaningful and growing share of queries, is an aggregated summary written by an artificial-intelligence model with the sources listed below it. Some writers will follow the sources to their primary form before drawing on them. Others will not. Either way, the encounter with the question has been pre-shaped by an architecture the writer did not design and most readers do not see.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe next shift is in the reference frame the writer can draw on. An analytical piece of public-affairs writing rests, often without acknowledging it, on a substrate of reported fact produced by other people: court reporters, council reporters, regional reporters, investigative teams, the slow accumulated work of newsroom institutions. The Australian data above is the relevant index of how that substrate has thinned. A writer in 2026 working on an Australian regional question has fewer reported court appearances available, fewer council meetings covered, fewer regional angles to draw on than a writer working on the same question in 2016. The shape of the analytical piece is unchanged. The substrate beneath it has changed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen we have the relationship between the writer and the reader. The paid-newsletter economy has put many analytical writers in direct economic relation with their readers, without the institutional intermediary that the newspaper or magazine once provided. The relation is more intimate. The disclosure obligations that apply to it are different in kind from the disclosure obligations of institutional journalism, and the public norms that would specify them are not yet formed. The reader who reads an analytical piece in 2026 reads the writer, not the institution.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese three changes are not separable. They constitute a single shift in what producing a public-facing analytical piece in 2026 actually involves. The shift is real, it is structural, and it is mostly invisible to readers because the output looks like the output always looked. An article in 2026 reads like an article in 2016. The conditions of its production do not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"iv\"\u003eIV\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eArchitectural transitions in public knowledge have happened before. Two are useful for locating the present moment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe maturation of wire-service journalism, driven first by the telegraph and then complemented by the telephone, restructured newsroom workflow and political communication between the 1850s and the 1920s. The wire bureau was a new institution, the real-time deadline was a new pressure, the foreign correspondentâs relationship to the editor was a new geography of work. Public conversation about what these changes meant for the production of news lagged the practical adoption by roughly a generation. This is a structural lesson. When the architecture of news production changes, it changes before the public language for discussing the change has been built.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe shift from paper to electronic clinical records, between roughly 2000 and 2020 depen
1ding on jurisdiction, changed what doctors did in consultations, what was recorded and what was not, who could see the record, and how the record could be searched. The change carried ethical weight. The relation of trust between patient and clinician was reshaped by an architecture that neither patient nor clinician had designed. Public conversation lagged the practice change by roughly a decade and remains incomplete in 2026. The lesson is that architectural changes to relations of trust raise ethical questions that the people inside the relation cannot fully see while the change is happening, and that the public conversation about those questions has to be made rather than awaited.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTogether the two comparators locate the present moment. The architecture of public-knowledge production is changing in the way the architecture of news production changed across the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and is reshaping a relation of trust in the way clinical records reshaped the relation between patient and clinician. The lag between the practice change and the public conversation does not close itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"v\"\u003eV\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe architecture of public knowledge production is upstream of what the reading public can read, what writers can produce, and what kinds of public reasoning a society has available to it. Downstream debates, about misinformation, about polarisation, about institutional trust, about media bias, sit on top of the architectural conditions. Changing the downstream debates without changing the architectural conditions is rearranging furniture in a room whose walls are moving.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe architectural conditions are upstream because they shape the possibilities and constraints within which all of the downstream conversations are conducted. A reader who finds news through an AI-mediated summary, a writer who works on a substrate of thinning institutional reporting, a researcher who drafts within an emerging set of disclosure norms, a citizen who reads the writer rather than the institution: each is participating in a public conversation whose conditions of production were not chosen and have not been collectively examined.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe change is being made by entities whose decisions are mostly local and whose collective effect is structural. Platform companies whose product changes alter the economics of every publisher dependent on search and s
1ocial distribution. Employment markets that have hollowed parts of the institutional reporting capacity. Individual writers whose paid-newsletter ventures are now part of the new architecture. Academic institutions still defining their disclosure norms. AI tool providers whose adoption curves are running ahead of the policy conversation that would govern them. None of these decisions, taken individually, would warrant the description âstructural changeâ. Taken together, that is what they are.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe lag between practical adoption and public conversation, which the historical comparators locate as a structural condition rather than as an oversight, is the present condition. The architecture is changing without a public conversation that matches the change. The conditions under which public-facing analytical writing is produced are upstream of every downstream argument about what the public knows, trusts, or believes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe conversation that the present moment asks for is not technical, and it is not procedural. It is structural. The conditions under which a societyâs public-facing analytical writing is produced are not given facts. They are produced by decisions, taken in different places by different parties for different reasons, whose collective effect is the architecture within which public reason is conducted. The conversation has to be made.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis article is Part Five of The Available Remedies, a series on the Walker Briefing examining structural responses to the conditions diagnosed in the preceding ZhÅng YÅng series. The full archive is available at bfwalker.substack.com.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"5b:T9cb,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-wall-of-silence\"\u003eA wall of silence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Legislative Council today, I raised a fundamental question about the future of our medicinal cannabis laws. For too long, patients have been trapped in a state of uncertainty. They are being prescribed medication for their health, only to face the constant, lurking fear that a routine drive could lead to a loss of their licence. The risk is not merely theoretical. It is a daily anxiety for thousands who choose to follow the science rather than the stigma.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-doctors-perspective\"\u003eThe doctor's perspective\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough my years as a GP, I have seen the real-world impact of medical policy that ignores clinical reality. Patients deserve clear, evidence-based rules that allow them to live their lives without the threat of legal repercussions for taking prescribed medicine. We are told there is a working group, we are told there are recommendations, yet when I ask for those findings to be made public, the government hides behind a wall of bureaucratic silence. They claim to be considering the report. They have been considering it for a long time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you find this fight for fairness and scientific integrity informative, please head over to my digital hub and \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e to stay updated on our progress in the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-inaction\"\u003eThe human cost of inaction\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not just a matter of parliamentary process. It is about a patient's fundamental right to mobility and the relief that comes with proper care. By keeping these recommendations hidden, the government keeps us all in the dark. We are a community of forward-thinkers who value evidence over political convenience. When the government ignores the advice of experts, they leave citizens at risk. Why the secrecy? What are they afraid of, if not the very transparency that good governance requires?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full account of this exchange in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-07/23?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial parliamentary record\u003c/a\u003e from today. The fight for sensible, compassionate drug reform is ongoing, and it is a fight we cannot win without your support. I invite you to join our growing movement for change at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to push back against the status quo.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"5c:Tb8b,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-hidden-cost-of-empty-promises\"\u003eThe hidden cost of empty promises\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have all felt it. You pull into the service station, look at the board, and feel that familiar knot of frustration tighten in your stomach. The price at the bowser has spiked again. It is not just a nuisance. It is a direct hit to the household budget of every working family in Western Australia. These international price shocks are not an accident. They are a vulnerability. We rely on global supply chains that care very little about the cost of living here in our own backyard.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a medical doctor, I learned that waiting for the symptoms to resolve themselves is rarely a winning strategy. You diagnose the root cause and you treat it. Right now, the root cause of our energy pain is a dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We are leaving our economic stability in the hands of distant powers that frequently tip the world toward instability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-doctor-sees-a-better-way-forward\"\u003eThe doctor sees a better way forward\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape or by hoping that market forces would magically fix a chronic condition. We need a proactive, science-led approach. We have the land, the expertise, and the intellectual capacity to process our own resources. When we talk about biofuels, particularly those from crops like hemp, we are talking about energy sovereignty. We are talking about keeping jobs, revenue, and security within our borders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile I delve into the nitty-gritty of policy, I love sharing these discussions with those who care about the future of our state. If you enjoy seeing the evidence behind the headlines, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e and join the conversation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"seeking-answers-in-the-house\"\u003eSeeking answers in the House\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently took this frustration to the Legislative Council. I asked the government whether they intended to merely observe the market or act with the urgency this crisis demands. The response was a mention of a forthcoming strategy. It is a start, but we have heard promises of strategies before. A strategy in a drawer does not lower the price of petrol.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe forward-thinkers among us know the truth. We cannot afford to be passive observers of our own decline. We need a serious, comprehensive approach to biofuels that treats local production as an essential pillar of our economy. You can review the details of my query regarding \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-07/40?ref=localhost\"\u003eenergy and biofuels in Parliament\u003c/a\u003e. If you are tired of the status quo and ready for evidence-based reform, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us build a smarter, more secure future for all Western Australians.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"5d:Tcec,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-heavy-cost-of-waiting\"\u003eThe heavy cost of waiting\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a general practitioner, I learned that a timely intervention can prevent a lifetime of suffering. When a patient presents with a treatable condition, you do not tell them to come back in seven years. You act. Yet, when I look at the current state of our parliamentary agenda, I see a government that prioritises administrative inertia over the urgent needs of the people. This is not just a collection of missed deadlines. It is a waiting room where necessary justice for Western Australians is being indefinitely deferred.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are currently facing an accumulation of policy promises that have gathered dust while our community pays the price. Consider the report from Wayne Martin regarding our criminal confiscation regime. Seven years have passed since those recommendations were delivered. Seven years of inaction on a system that requires modernisation to function correctly. This is not merely a bureaucratic hiccup. It is an indictment of a process that treats critical legal frameworks as optional extras.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay informed about these critical issues and follow my work representing you in the Legislative Council, please consider subscribing to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"promises-broken-by-delay\"\u003ePromises broken by delay\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe pattern is consistent and concerning. A judicial commission was promised six years ago to ensure integrity and transparency. It remains unfulfilled. We see the same stagnation regarding the protection of our LGBTQIA+ community members from hate speech and discrimination in the workplace. These are not ideological luxuries. These are fundamental protections promised four years ago, yet the legislation remains off the table.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen we allow these reforms to linger, we create a ripple effect. We leave citizens vulnerable, we undermine trust in our public institutions, and we allow outdated laws to continue harming real people. The sheer weight of this backlog is becoming unmanageable for the current office of the Attorney General. It is time to appoint a dedicated minister for law reform to ensure these issues actually reach the floor of the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-path-toward-real-change\"\u003eA path toward real change\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe need a government that moves with the pace of the community, not one that treats progress as a secondary concern. My notice of motion in the Legislative Council today underscores the urgency of this situation. I am pushing for the accountability that the people of this state deserve. You can read the full details of my \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-06/4?ref=localhost\"\u003enotice of motion\u003c/a\u003e to see exactly how we are demanding that these promises are finally met.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you share my belief that we need a government that acts on evidence and values progress over procrastination, I invite you to join our movement. We are building a future based on sound policy and transparent accountability. Please join us at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e to stand with a party that is actually working for you.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"5e:Tc6b,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-prescription-for-delay\"\u003eThe prescription for delay\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. Yet, in the Legislative Council today, I was met with the familiar cold silence of bureaucratic indifference. We are living in a state where patients who follow their doctorâs orders face the constant, lurking fear of losing their license. This is not just a policy oversight. It is a fundamental failure to protect vulnerable people who are simply trying to manage their health.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government holds the power to change this. They have had the expert advice, the working group findings, and the mounting evidence at their fingertips. Still, they offer us nothing but the hollow reassurance that things are progressing as per usual government processes. For a patient waiting to know if they can safely drive to pick up their children or get to work, usual process feels like a cruel dismissal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you prefer your politics served with facts rather than spin, it is a great time to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. We break down the issues that actually matter, moving beyond the noise to focus on the science and human reality that major parties frequently choose to ignore.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-dangerous-status-quo\"\u003eA dangerous status quo\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhy does this matter so deeply? It is a matter of autonomy and fairness. Thousands of Western Australians are being forced into a precarious position where they must choose between their prescribed medication and their ability to participate in daily life. This is a waiting room where common sense goes to die. The danger to our community is not the presence of a medicinal patient behind the wheel, but the uncertainty created by outdated laws that refuse to distinguish between impairment and presence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are a tribe of forward-thinkers. We look at the evidence, we listen to the clinicians, and we value compassionate outcomes over political expediency. While the government hides behind inter-agency complexity, real people pay the price in anxiety and broken lives. It is exhausting to watch, but it is exactly why I continue to press the point in the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-truth-behind-the-curtain\"\u003eThe truth behind the curtain\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI asked the government explicitly how long this consideration has been underway and which minister is actually holding the pen on these reforms. The response lacked detail, suggesting that the matter is drifting across multiple agencies without a clear navigator. This is how reform is killed by committee. It is designed to exhaust the passion of those pushing for change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full account of my questions and the government response in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-06/19?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e. We are not giving up. If you believe it is time for a more rational approach to medicinal cannabis in this state, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us turn this momentum into law.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"5f:Ta31,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-home-is-not-a-privilege\"\u003eA home is not a privilege\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen the profound link between a personâs health and their environment. When you lack stable, secure shelter, your biological clock is set to survival mode. You are exhausted. You are stressed. You are failing. The recent revelations in our state regarding housing corruption are merely symptoms of a much deeper, systemic infection. We are looking at a system that is fundamentally broken, leaving thousands of our most vulnerable people to drift in a sea of bureaucracy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-numbers-do-not-lie\"\u003eThe numbers do not lie\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently sought answers in the Legislative Council regarding the true state of our housing crisis. The data, provided in this \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-06/36?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record from Parliament\u003c/a\u003e, describes a catastrophe. As of the end of March, there were 23,395 applications on the public housing waitlist statewide. Perhaps more disturbing is that 8,114 of those are priority applications. These are citizens who, through no fault of their own, are in desperate need of immediate safety.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you enjoy keeping up with my work in the House and want to see the unfiltered truth about how we are holding the government to account, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where I break down the issues that the mainstream media often ignores.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-neglect\"\u003eThe human cost of neglect\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government will talk about availability and turnover rates. They will use the language of asset management and housing zones. But for the family sleeping in a car or a cramped motel room, this is not a numbers game. This is a terrifying reality where the threat of losing everything is constant. While some may focus on the criminal headlines of the day, I believe the true injustice is a state system that keeps thousands of people waiting for years just to find a place to lay their heads at night. It is a waiting room where hope dies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have a duty to do better. We must look at the evidence and demand a system that operates with empathy and efficiency rather than indifference. If you are tired of the status quo and want to see a smarter, more compassionate approach to the challenges we face, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin us at Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e. Together, we can push for the real change this state deserves.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"60:Tdb5,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-unchecked-growth-of-the-treasurers-advance\"\u003eThe unchecked growth of the Treasurer's Advance\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my time as a GP, I learned that ignoring warning signs in a patient leads to disaster. In my time in this House, I see the same principle apply to our state finances. Today we discussed the Treasurer's \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-05/12?ref=localhost\"\u003eAdvance Authorisation Bill 2026\u003c/a\u003e. This is meant to be a release valve for genuine, unforeseen emergencies. Instead, it has become a parallel pipeline for government spending, bypassing the normal rigour of the budget process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government is asking us to authorise an additional 1.2 billion dollars, taking the total to over 2.4 billion dollars. This is a massive sum of money for which we have little to no detail on the intended spending. When a government enjoys rivers of gold, it should be the gold standard for transparency, not the baseline for opaque decision making. When I looked at the five items mentioned as justification for this expenditure, I could find no cause for objection to the items themselves. The problem is the massive, unnamed residual. We are being asked to provide a blank cheque.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-doctors-diagnosis-of-fiscal-health\"\u003eThe doctor's diagnosis of fiscal health\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have spent a career understanding the difference between a pulse, a murmur, and an emergency. This mechanism is no longer being used as an emergency response. It is being used to smooth over a lack of foresight. If you are enjoying this reflection on the state of our Parliament, why not subscribe to my \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eYouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for deeper dives into these issues?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen a patient comes to me having self-prescribed medication, I have to intervene. The Parliament is the consultant here, yet the government has effectively removed the consultant from the loop. We should not be relying on retroactive reports to understand where public money has gone. The light of scrutiny is far more effective before the money has left the coffers than it is in a post-mortem report months later. We are facing a structural issue where the mechanism for genuine need has been co-opted for administrative convenience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"restoring-the-balance-for-western-australians\"\u003eRestoring the balance for Western Australians\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not just about numbers on a page. This is about the trust that the people of this state place in their Parliament. When we see the scale of these requests, we must ask: what are the true priorities? We have thousands of families struggling with the basics, yet we see the government normalising a process that avoids accountability for billions of dollars. This is a fundamental challenge to the role of our House as a place of review and scrutiny.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe can, and should, do better. We need a return to budget discipline where policy areas are funded through transparent debate, not via hidden contingency measures. You can read the full account of the debate in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-05/12?ref=localhost\"\u003eformal electronic records of the Parliament\u003c/a\u003e. If you share the need for more evidence-based, transparent government, I invite you to join the movement with \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we continue to shine a light on these important issues.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"61:Tb40,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"a-prescription-for-caution\"\u003eA prescription for caution\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen many things. I have seen the resilience of the human body, the intricacies of complex conditions, and the frustration that emerges when modern medicine is held back by outdated bureaucracy. When a patient sits across from me, they are looking for relief. They are not looking for a government form that takes months to process or a regulatory environment that treats their doctor with suspicion. This is not just a desk-bound delay. It is a waiting room where patients remain in pain, wondering why their doctor cannot simply provide the treatment they deserve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"defining-the-path-forward\"\u003eDefining the path forward\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI recently stood in the Legislative Council to ask about the governmentâs progress on long-standing promises to reform how we prescribe medicinal cannabis. We are talking about recommendations that were supported years ago. The goal is simple: to remove the extra, often unnecessary layers of authorisation required for healthcare professionals to treat adult patients. This is the kind of common-sense reform that our community expects. We are science-minded, and we look for evidence-based solutions that prioritise patient care over tired, old-fashioned status quo thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay up to date with the latest discussions from the House and see the work we are doing to push for meaningful change, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e. It is where I break down what is happening behind the scenes for you.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-reality-of-progress\"\u003eThe reality of progress\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government recently provided an update, noting that amendments were finally put in place to remove the obligation for specific patient-by-patient authorisations. While it is a relief to see movement, three years is a long time to wait for a change in procedure. The delay causes unnecessary anxiety for those who rely on these treatments to manage their health effectively. As a legislator, my job is to ensure that when the government makes a commitment to the public, the wheels of change turn with efficiency rather than inertia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe must remain vigilant. True reform requires constant pressure to ensure that policy keeps pace with medical necessity. You can review the details of this \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-05/40?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial exchange in Parliament\u003c/a\u003e to see exactly how these questions were put to the Minister. If you believe, like I do, that our health system should be designed with the patient at the centre, I encourage you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us continue this vital work.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"62:Ta64,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-waiting-room-of-government-inaction\"\u003eThe waiting room of government inaction\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape. Yet, here we are again, watching as the government allows outdated laws to dictate the lives of thousands. Patients who use medicinal cannabis are living in a state of constant, low-level dread. Every time they turn the ignition, they face the anxiety of potentially losing their licence, regardless of whether they are actually impaired or not. This is not just a policy oversight. It is a waiting room where patients are denied the basic dignity of being treated like responsible adults. We are talking about people who are simply trying to manage their health.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-report-gathering-dust\"\u003eA report gathering dust\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe working group into THC and driving reform submitted its final report over four months ago. I recently put this to the House to demand a timeline. The response was painfully predictable: the government is still considering the recommendations. They are essentially telling us that the report, which contains the potential to provide a path forward, is currently doing nothing more than gathering dust on a desk. This is the difference between those of us focused on evidence-based policy and the slow, grinding machinery of traditional party politics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you prefer your news unfiltered and want to stay updated on these crucial debates, please \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e to follow the action from the Legislative Council.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-delay\"\u003eThe human cost of delay\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evidence was clear. The government ignored it. By sitting on this information, they are creating a gap between science and law that is far too wide. For many, this is more than an annoyance. It is a threat to their livelihood and their ability to function in society. My fellow forward-thinkers know that we cannot afford to wait forever while life-changing reforms are locked away behind a wall of caution. We need a clear answer, even if that answer is difficult, rather than this hollow silence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will continue to press for the transparency our community deserves. You can review the details of my question in the full \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-05/22?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record of the House\u003c/a\u003e. If you are tired of this status quo and want to help us push for change, please join the movement by signing up at \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003eLegalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"63:T7b8f,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePolitical Funding and the Architecture of Capture\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Available Remedies, Part Four\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe previous article in this series examined deliberative democracy and reached a qualified conclusion. The practice deserves its standing in the literature, but a deliberative assembly takes up the question it is given, not the question it would have chosen. That question reaches the assembly after passage through an architecture which has shaped what may be asked, by whom, and on what terms. The article closed with a forecast: the financial architecture of the political system does its work to every remedy before the remedy has a chance to operate. This article takes up that forecast.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe discipline of this series requires that each remedy be tested against the upstream principle, and a remedy applied at the level of how decisions are taken cannot be upstream of the question that decided what would be decided. Political funding is the second remedy this series examines under that test. It is not strictly upstream of the deliberative remedy in every case. It is upstream of agenda-formation, which is upstream of decision, which means that any remedy applied without attention to agenda-formation operates downstream of the question that actually decides outcomes. The remedy this article examines is therefore architecturally necessary. It is not on its own sufficient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat distinction governs everything that follows.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE ARCHITECTURE, AS IT STANDS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe word âcaptureâ carries the analytical weight of this article and bears defining at first use. The sense intended throughout is architectural rather than transactional. Capture, in the architectural sense, refers to the structural conditions under which the questions reaching public deliberation are shaped by the funding incentives of those who finance the political process, regardless of whether any individual donor intends or extracts a specific policy outcome from any specific donation. The transactional sense, in which a donation produces a corresponding policy decision, is a stronger claim than the evidence below sustains for any single case. The architectural sense is what the evidence supports and what the upstream principle requires the article to address.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralian political funding rests on a disclosure regime whose threshold and timing have together shaped what the public knows about who gives what to whom. The federal disclosure threshold for the present financial year sits at $17,300. A donation below that figure does not appear on the Australian Electoral Commissionâs public register. Donations are reported annually, with the disclosure period running from one financial year to the next, and the public release occurring some months after the period closes. The practical effect of this design is that voters cannot know who funded the party they voted for until the better part of a year after the election in which they voted, and frequently longer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 20 February 2025 with the intention of changing both threshold and timing. The threshold was to fall from $17,300 to $5,000. Disclosure timing was to be expedited, with donations of federal purpose required to be reported within shorter windows in the lead-up to an election, including reporting within twenty-four hours during an election period. The reforms were originally scheduled to commence on 1 July 2026. The Special Minister of State announced on 31 March 2026 that commencement would be deferred to 1 January 2027. The reform thus exists on the statute book and has not yet entered into operational force. The next federal by-election, in the Division of Farrer on 9 May 2026, will be conducted under the rules the reform was designed to replace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe disclosed and the effective are not the same number. Research published by the Centre for Public Integrity has consistently found that a substantial proportion of political-finance flow in Australia falls outside the public re
1cord by design. The Centreâs analysis estimates that approximately one billion dollars in donations to major parties went undisclosed across the two decades to 2018 to 2019, with the major parties failing to disclose proportions of their income variously estimated at twenty-eight per cent for Labor and forty per cent for the Coalition.\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e The estimates are contested. The methodology is published. Whatever the precise figures, the structural fact is not in serious dispute: a regime designed around a high threshold and annual reporting will produce a public record that is incomplete by design and out of date by the time it appears.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eState-level regimes vary considerably. Prior to the High Courtâs decision in Hopper v Victoria, Victoria operated a disclosure threshold of $1,240 and a general donation cap of $4,970 per election period for the 2025 to 2026 financial year. Queensland operates a threshold of $1,000 and requires reportable gifts to be declared within seven business days throughout the year, not only during election periods. New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, and Western Australia each operate further variations on threshold, cap, and timing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Victorian regime sits in a particular condition that bears noting. The High Court of Australia handed down judgment in Hopper v Victoria in April 2026, striking down the entirety of Part 12 of the Victorian Electoral Act on constitutional grounds. The decision turned on the structural invalidity of the ânominated entityâ mechanism, which permitted registered political parties to channel funds through associated entities in ways unavailable to independent candidates, with consequent effects on the implied freedom of political communication. As of the date of writing, Victoria has no constitutionally valid regime for the disclosure of political donations, the capping of contributions, or the prohibition of foreign and anonymous donations. The Victorian parliament will need to reconstruct the regime in a form that survives the constitutional reasoning the Court has just applied, before the November 2026 state election. That work is in train.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe federation, which on most accounts is a single political community, does not operate a single regime for the disclosure of political funding within it. The state-by-state differences are not minor refinements. They are different answers to the same question, given by jurisdictions that share a federal parliament whose own disclosure rules are weaker than several of the state regimes nested within it, and one of whose state regimes has just been found by the High Court to fall short of the constitutional standards that any defensible reform must meet.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE GENERALITY OF THE CONDITION\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA reader who has followed Australian political coverage in recent years could be forgiven for assuming that the political-funding question is principally a resource-sector question. My standalone piece published on this Substack on Sunday set out the resource-sector case in some detail, and the disproportion between the visibility of that sectorâs funding pattern and the visibility of others is a feature of Australian political journalism rather than a feature of Australian political funding itself. Other industries operate at scale within the same architecture and produce policy outcomes that the public conversation has been slower to recognise as outcomes of that architecture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe gambling industryâs pattern is instructive. The Australian Hotels Association, ClubsNSW, and the major casino operators have funded both major parties at the federal and state levels at scale across two decades. The Centre for Public Integrityâs analysis of Electoral Commission data identifies a pattern in which states where gambling reform has been politically live have seen disclosed donations from gambling interests rise in the peri
1od preceding the reform debate and fall after it has been settled. In the 2017 to 2018 financial year, the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party received approximately $300,000 in disclosed donations from gambling interests during the period in which the party campaigned against the Tasmanian Labor proposal to reform poker machines.\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e The campaign succeeded. The reform did not pass. Crown and the Star Entertainment Group, before the integrity reviews of recent years exposed conduct that no honest reading could now describe as legitimate commercial activity, paid in the order of $2.7 million in disclosed donations to Labor, Liberal, and National parties between 2007 and the present.\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e The Centre for Public Integrity has documented a separate pattern of gambling-related expenditure on lobbying and on engagement of political consultants, of which the disclosed donations are a fraction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat this evidence shows, and what it does not show, deserves a momentâs care. The pattern of donations preceding policy decisions does not, on the available record, prove that any given donation purchased any given outcome. The transactional reading is harder to sustain than the data permits. What the pattern does show is the architectural condition the upstream principle is concerned with: dependency, access asymmetry, anticipatory compliance, and the shaping of which questions reach the parliament in the first place. The distinction matters because the strong transactional reading is the one a hostile reader will press against, and the architectural reading is the one the evidence sustains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePharmaceutical, alcohol, and property-development sectors each maintain disclosed funding patterns of comparable structural significance. A peer-reviewed analysis published in early 2026 documented more than $8.4 million in disclosed alcohol-industry donations across a twenty-six-year dataset, with persistent inconsistencies between reporting by donors and reporting by recipients.\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e Property-development funding patterns at the state level have been the subject of intermittent but well-documented inquiry, including the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption proceedings of the last decade. Superannuation industry funding is structurally distinct, because the industryâs commercial model depends on regulatory settings that the parliament determines, and the funding flows reflect that dependency rather than disguising it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe point of naming these sectors together is not to extend the catalogue of grievance. It is to establish that the architectural condition is general. A funding regime that produces visible patterns of capture in the resource sector also produces them in the gambling, pharmaceutical, alcohol, property-development, and superannuation sectors. The variable across sectors is not whether the architecture operates. It is which sectorâs operation has come to public attention through journalism, regulatory failure, or commission of inquiry. A remedy directed at the resource sector alone would, on the structural argument, leave the architecture intact and merely redirect its operation toward sectors with less public scrutiny.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWHAT THE COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS, AND WHAT IT DOES NOT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe simplest case for funding-architecture reform is that other comparable jurisdictions have implemented stronger regimes and that those regimes have, on the available evidence, reduced the policy distortions visible in jurisdictions like Australia that have not. The case is not as clean as that summary suggests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGermany has operated since 1967 a public-funding regime governed by the Political Parties Act, the Parteiengesetz. The regime distributes per-vote subsidies, requires annual disclosure of donations above â¬10,000, and constrains the proportion of party income that may come from public sources to no more than the income raised from private sources. The threshold for immediate disclosure of a donation, with publication on the Bundestag website, was reduced from â¬50,000 to â¬35,000 in the revised Parteiengesetz that came into force on 5 March 2024, which also brought sponsorship arrangements within the disclosure framework for the first time. The total quantum of public funding to all parties is capped, with the cap standing at approximately â¬209.6 million in 2023 and â¬219 million in 2024. The Federal Constitutional Court has been an active participant in the regimeâs evolution since the 1970s, having ruled, among other things, against forms of corporate tax-relief for political donations that the Court considered incompatible with equal political opportunity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhether the German regime has produced the policy outcomes its design intended is a more difficult question than the design alone can answer. The Court rulings, the cap on public funding, and the immediate-disclosure regime have together reduced the proportional weight of large corporate donations in German political life as compared to the position in 1980. The most recent revisions to the cap, made in 2018, were carried by the governing parties over the explicit opposition of every other party in the Bundestag, which is a reminder that even mature funding regimes retain elements of self
1-interest in their design. Germany has not been free of political-finance scandal across the last fifty years, including the Flick scandal that broke in the early 1980s and the cash-receipts scandal of 1999 that contributed materially to the Christian Democratic Unionâs loss of office. Neither suggests that the regime has failed. Both suggest that the regime has functioned as a structural condition that makes such conduct visible and consequential, rather than as a guarantee against its occurrence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew Zealandâs regime is closer to the Australian than to the German in design but differs in two operationally important respects. The disclosure threshold is lower, and the reporting timing has been moving toward expedited disclosure in the months before an election. The Electoral Amendment Act 2022, which came into force from 1 January 2023, lowered the threshold for disclosure of donor identity from NZ$15,000 to NZ$5,000, lowered the threshold for expedited reporting in election years from NZ$30,000 to NZ$20,000, and required parties to report all donations including those below the previous reporting floor. The Electoral Amendment Act 2025, passed in December 2025 and in force from January 2026, raised the donor-identity threshold from NZ$5,000 to NZ$6,000 ahead of the November 2026 general election, the direction of recent change being upward rather than downward. The 2022 reforms followed a separate 2019 measure that capped foreign donations at NZ$50, a measure that has limits of its own because foreign capital can still enter via New Zealand-incorporated entities. The policy outcomes attributable to the New Zealand regime are difficult to disentangle from the broader features of the New Zealand political system, including the proportional representation introduced in 1996, which has its own effects on funding incentives because no single party can plausibly govern alone for more than a single term.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral state regimes in the United States operate variations on contribution caps, expenditure caps, and public-matching schemes. The federal context, governed by the Federal Election Commission and shaped decisively by the Supreme Courtâs 2010 decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, has moved firmly in the direction of unconstrained outside expenditure. Within that context, state-level experimentation has produced the Maine and Connecticut clean-elections regimes that approach full public funding for state office, and the Florida and Texas regimes that approach the unconstrained federal model. Public-matching schemes in jurisdictions including New York City have measurably broadened the donor base, with smaller donors representing a higher proportion of total contributions than in unmatched jurisdictions. Whether the broadened donor base has changed the policy outcomes of the funding architecture is a question the available data cannot answer cleanly because too many other variables differ across the comparison.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe honest reading of the comparative evidence is that funding-architecture reform changes the conditions under which capture operates, without abolishing it, and that the strength of the change depends on features of the broader political system that no funding-architecture reform can deliver on its own. An advocateâs case that funding reform alone would solve the conditions this series has named is not a case the evidence supports. A scepticâs case that funding reform makes no measurable difference is not a case the evidence supports either. The evidence supports the more difficult intermediate position: reform of the funding architecture is a necessary precondition for the operation of any other remedy at design strength, and operates effectively only where the surrounding political architecture supports it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE AUSTRALIAN CONDITIONS TEST\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat would a defensible Australian funding-architecture reform have to address that comparable jurisdictions have not? Four features of the Australian condition deserve naming.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is the federal-state distinction and what it does to any reform applied federally alone. State-level disclosure regimes in Victoria, Queensland, and New South Wales operate at thresholds substantially below the federal level. A donor able to direct funds toward state branches of federal parties, or toward state-registered associated entities of those parties, can produce a federal effect without ever crossing a federal disclosure threshold. The 2025 reforms address this in part by tightening the federal definition of donations for federal purpose, but the underlying federal-state architecture remains, and any reform that does not constrain the cross-jurisdictional transfer of funds will leave a route by which the architecture continues to operate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is the third-party and associated-entity structure. The Centre for Public Integrityâs analysis has consistently found that a substantial proportion of political-finance flow in Australia moves through entities that are not parties or candidates in their own right, but that operate at the political margin in ways the parties depen
1d upon. Industry peak bodies of the Minerals Council kind, single-issue campaign vehicles, and advocacy organisations of varying degrees of formal independence each occupy this space. The 2025 reforms address third-party definitions and create a separate third-party threshold of $20,000, which is an improvement, but the entities to which the threshold applies are themselves capable of organising in ways that do not meet the statutory definition. A reform regime that does not anticipate this is a regime whose operational life will be defined by its boundary cases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third is the question that the 2018 foreign-influence reforms attempted to answer and did not answer satisfactorily. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, which commenced on 10 December 2018, requires registration of certain activities undertaken on behalf of foreign principals, with criminal penalties attaching to breach. It does not require registration of all such activities, and the categories that fall outside its scope have remained the subject of contention. The scheme is more strict than what preceded it. It is less strict than what comparable jurisdictions have implemented in the years since. A reform regime that takes Australian conditions seriously will need to consider whether the foreign-influence question requires further extension, and whether the line between foreign and domestic influence remains the right one when the entities operating across the line are increasingly integrated into transnational structures whose national identification is no longer straightforward.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth is the structure of foundations and trusts associated with the major parties, which operates at scale and with disclosure visibility lower than the party-level flows the public register records. The Cormack Foundation in the Liberal context and the corresponding Labor entities each carry assets and disbursement patterns whose political effect is real and whose visibility has been substantially lower in the Australian public conversation than comparable structures have been elsewhere. AEC Transparency Register returns show the Cormack Foundation receiving more than $4.7 million in 2022 to 2023 and more than $6.6 million in 2021 to 2022, figures of the same order as the largest disclosed donations in any single sector. Any defensible reform will need to address these structures, not because they are unique to Australia but because they have been less visible in the Australian public conversation than they have been elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE BENEFICIARY AUDIT, APPLIED TO THIS WRITER\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe beneficiary audit is the discipline of asking who benefits from the architecture under examination. It has been applied to the structural actors in the earlier articles of this series. The discipline of this series requires that the audit be applied to the writer of the article making the case, and not only to the actors named within it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am an independent member of a state parliament. Reform of the federal funding architecture in any direction that reduces the major-party advantage in disclosed and undisclosed funding flows would benefit me, in the relatively narrow sense that the structural conditions under which I sought election would shift toward a configuration more favourable to candidacies of the kind I have made. The benefit is modest, since I have already been elected once under existing conditions, and it applies more to the next generation of independent candidacies than it does to my own. The audit applies regardless of size. A writer making the case for funding reform from a position that benefits, however modestly, from funding reform owes the reader the disclosure of that fact, and the application of the framework to the writerâs own position before its application to others.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a stronger version of the audit, which is whether the analytical content of the case made above is contaminated by the position from which it has been made. That possibility cannot be dismissed by assertion. It can only be answered by exposing the evidence and allowing the reader to weigh it. The case is in substance the case made by the Centre for Public Integrity, the Grattan Institute, the Australia Institute, the Saturday Paper, the academic literature on funding-architecture reform, and the parliamentary library research on the same topic. The case does not depend on my making it. It depends on the evidence the cited bodies have produced. What the audit obliges is the disclosure that I am not a neutral commentator on this question, and the recognition that any reader who weighs the argument should weigh the position from which it is made alongside the evidence it presents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE UPSTREAM PRINCIPLE, APPLIED TO THE REMEDY ITSELF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA funding-architecture reform is itself a piece of architecture. It will be designed by some body, with some incentive structure, in response to some configuration of pressure from those who benefit and those who do not. The discipline this series has imposed on every other remedy applies here too. Who controls the disclosure threshold? Who designs the public-funding formula? Who decides what counts as foreign influence, what counts as a third party, what counts as an associated entity? The answers to these questions determine whether the reform addresses the condition or absorbs the condition into its own structure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe 2025 Act provides an instructive example of how this question applies in practice. The reforms were passed in February 2025 with the intention of commencing on 1 July 2026. The commencement was deferred in March 2026 to 1 January 2027. The deferral was attributed to operational readiness considerations on the part of the Australian Electoral Commission, and there are reasonable grounds to take that explanation at face value. There are also grounds to ask whether the deferral, whatever its operational rationale, has the practical effect of conducting the next federal election under the rules that the reform was designed to replace. Whether the deferral is or is not an instance of the funding architecture absorbing its own reform into its own structure is a question the evidence available now cannot answer definitively. It is a question worth holding open as the new arrangements come into operation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe claim made here can be tested. It is not an all-purpose theory into which every fact can be fitted. If reform of the funding architecture in comparable jurisdictions produced no measurable change in the patterns of agenda formation or in the accountability of policy outcomes to public preferences as expressed through deliberative processes, the claim would be substantially weakened. The evidence drawn upon in the above section âWHAT THE COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS, AND WHAT IT DOES NOTâ is the evidence by which the claim stands or falls. The claim is that funding architecture is necessary, not that it is sufficient, and the test is whether the architectural variable, held against other variables, produces the predicted differences. The claim is testable and has been tested. It is upon that ground that it is offered.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the operational detail. The principle that sits beneath it bears more weight than the detail itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFunding-architecture reform sits inside the same incentive structure it is intended to reform, and no design of the reform escapes this fact. A reform designed by the parties that benef
1it from the existing architecture will tend toward features that preserve the partiesâ advantages while addressing the most visible pathologies of the existing system. A reform designed by an independent body would face questions about its own legitimacy and accountability. A reform designed through deliberative methods, of the kind the previous article in this series examined, would carry the strengths and limits the previous article identified. There is no design that escapes the architectural problem that the reform is itself an act of architecture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Victorian regime struck down by the High Court in April 2026 is a working example of the difficulty. A regime designed by the major parties contained features advantaging them over independents, and those features rendered the regime as a whole constitutionally invalid. The federal Electoral Reform Act 2025 is itself the subject of a constitutional challenge brought in the High Court by the former Member for Goldstein Zoe Daniel and the former Senator for South Australia Rex Patrick, on grounds including the implied freedom of political communication. The challenge has been pleaded but not yet heard. Whether the federal Act survives that challenge in the form in which it has been passed is a question whose answer is not yet known. It is, however, a question worth naming, because the structural reasoning the High Court applied to Victoria sits in the same constitutional territory the federal challenge will be argued upon.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the upstream principle requires here is not the abandonment of reform on the ground that no reform is clean. It is the recognition that funding-architecture reform is one piece of a remedy structure that includes the institutions that mediate between funding and decision, the rules that govern those institutions, and the public-knowledge architecture through which the operation of those rules becomes visible to the citizenry. The next remedy this series will examine is not the next granular institutional one. It is the architecture of how public knowledge itself is produced, because the visibility of any reformâs operation depends upon a public-knowledge architecture that has its own structural conditions, and the series cannot proceed honestly to the remaining institutional questions without first taking up that one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe forecast that closed the previous article was that the financial architecture does its work to every remedy before the remedy has a chance to operate. The case examined above bears the forecast out. Funding-architecture reform sits as one piece of a remedy structure whose other pieces this series has not yet examined. The next of those is the architecture of how public knowledge itself is produced, and it is the subject of the next article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e* * *\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNOTES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cblockquote\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. \u003c/strong\u003eCentre for Public Integrity, analysis of Australian Electoral Commission disclosure returns covering the two decades to 2018-19. The Centreâs published research aggregates major-party annual returns and compares disclosed receipts against estimated total receipts derived from cross-checking donor returns and party returns. The methodology is published in the Centreâs research papers and has been cited in the parliamentary library research on electoral finance.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. \u003c/strong\u003eAggregated from the Australian Electoral Commission Transparency Register returns for the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party, 2017-18 financial year, including direct gambling-industry donors and the Australian Hotels Association Tasmania branch. The aggregate is consistent with published reporting in the Tasmanian Inquirer (Boyce, 2019) and with the Grattan Instituteâs commentary on the 2018 Tasmanian state election.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. \u003c/strong\u003eAggregated from Australian Electoral Commission Transparency Register returns for Crown Resorts Limited, Crown Melbourne Limited, the Star Entertainment Group Limited, and predecessor entities, for the peri
1od 2007 to 2024. The âin the order ofâ construction reflects the sensitivity of the total to the inclusion or exclusion of related entities and to the treatment of in-kind support, and is consistent with published reporting (Keane, Crikey, 2022) and with the Centre for Public Integrityâs separate analysis of casino-sector political finance.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4. \u003c/strong\u003eMethods note published in the Australian Journal of Political Science in March 2026, describing a method to clean and de-duplicate Australian federal political-donation data and applying it to the alcohol industry. The reported figure aggregates more than 500 donations totalling over $8.4 million across the dataset to 2024. doi: 10.1080/10361146.2026.2634093.\u003c/blockquote\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis article is Part Four of The Available Remedies, a series on the Walker Briefing examining structural responses to the conditions diagnosed in the preceding ZhÅng YÅng series. The full archive is available at bfwalker.substack.com.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Briefing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"64:T60af,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eThe Available Remedies has committed to testing each proposal against the upstream principle before either recommending it or declining to. The first remedy to be placed on that test is the one most often offered as the answer to the conditions the diagnostic series named: deliberative democracy, citizen assemblies, sortition. The concept arrives with a literature, a growing base of advocates, and a track record substantial enough that treating it as a democratic inheritance contemporary government has allowed to lapse is no longer an eccentric claim. It deserves examination on its merits rather than adoption on its enthusiasm. The same upstream test is applied here as has been applied elsewhere in the series to existing arrangements. A reform that cannot withstand the discipline the diagnostic work required of defenders of the status quo is not yet a remedy. It is an aspiration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA distinction first. The term deliberative democracy covers forms of practice that do not operate at the same level of the causal chain. A citizen jury advising a local council on waste management, and a constitutional assembly drafting amendments for national referendum, are both instances of deliberative democracy in the academic literature, but they are not equivalent in their relationship to the structural conditions this series has diagnosed. One is a refinement of existing consultation. The other is a restructuring of how binding decisions are taken. The upstream principle does not ask whether deliberative democracy is valuable in the abstract. It asks, at each application, whether the practice in question intervenes at the level where the condition lives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat distinction governs everything that follows.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Remedy, Briefly\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA deliberative assembly is a body of citizens selected by stratified random sampling to approximate the demographic composition of the population, brought together for an extended period to consider a specific question, given expert briefing from multiple perspectives, and asked to produce a recommendation or, more rarely, a decision. The method has a pedigree of roughly two and a half thousand years. Classical Athens administered most of its civic offices by lot, including its juries, its executive boards, and its Council of Five Hundred. The method was not peripheral to the Greek democratic experiment. It largely defined it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe modern revival has been gradual. Danish consensus conferences developed through the 1980s, the British Columbia Citizensâ Assembly on Electoral Reform ran through 2004, the Irish Constitutional Convention followed in 2012 and then the Citizensâ Assembly of 2016 to 2018, the French Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat through 2019 and 2020, the Mongolian constitutional deliberation in 2017, and across that same period the Stanford deliberative polling programme under James Fishkin in more than one hundred deliberations across twenty-eight countries. The method has been extensively studied. The findings are consistent enough that they can be stated without qualification. When ordinary citizens are given an important question, access to evidence, structured facilitation, and adequate time, they perform well. Participant enthusiasm is near-universal. Outcomes tend to shift toward the centre, partisan divides soften, and participants emerge better informed than the electorates from which they were drawn.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJohn Macgregor, in the book this series engages as its primary resource on remedy, summarises the case as follows. Deliberative democracy provides, in his formulation, âa clear indication of what the considered judgement of the entire adult population would be if they were able to deliberate on issues thoroughly, freely, and in an informed manner.â That is a strong claim. It is also a claim that moves quickly from what deliberative bodies demonstrably produce within their own walls to what they can be relied upon to deliver at the level of binding public decision. The gap between those two things is where the rest of this piece lives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Evidence, Honestly Read\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe strong evidence first. The Irish Citizensâ Assembly of 2016 to 2018 brought ninety-nine citizens, two-thirds of them randomly selected, to consider a range of constitutional questions including abortion, fixed-term parliaments, climate change, and population ageing. It cost approximately 2.4 million euros. It produced eighteen recommendations for c
1onstitutional change and twenty for legislative and procedural reform. The 2018 abortion referendum, taken to the electorate on the Assemblyâs recommendation, passed by 66.4 per cent. The 2015 marriage equality referendum, which emerged from the earlier Constitutional Convention, passed by 62.1 per cent. In both cases, proposals generated by deliberation were endorsed by a wider electorate on terms that the deliberative participants themselves could not have guaranteed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessor James Fishkin and Professor Larry Diamond assembled the largest deliberative body in American history in 2019. Five hundred and twenty-three citizen delegates deliberated on five highly contested issues including immigration, taxation, health care, and the environment, with a bipartisan expert panel addressing their questions and five presidential candidates participating. Most participants moved toward the centre across all five issues. The proportion believing the other side had good reasons for its views rose from thirty-four per cent to fifty-four per cent during deliberation, with most of the attitude shifts still present a year later.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMongolia convened a deliberative body of six hundred and sixty-nine randomly selected citizens in 2017 to draft amendments to the national constitution, with technical support from the Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy. The resulting amendments were adopted by the Mongolian parliament in 2019. This is the clearest contemporary case of deliberative democracy operating at the level of constitutional architecture and producing implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOstbelgien, the German-speaking community of Belgium, has gone further than any other jurisdiction. In February 2019, its parliament voted unanimously to establish a Permanent Citizensâ Dialogue, the first deliberative mini-public institutionalised through legislation and given a continuing role in the legislative process. A twenty-four member Citizensâ Council sets the agenda, selects topics, convenes short-term Citizensâ Assemblies of up to fifty people drawn by lot, and monitors the follow-up. Parliament is legally required to debate the recommendations and to respond publicly within a defined period. By early 2025, six Citizensâ Assemblies had been convened, most of which had gone through the follow-up process the founding decree requires. The population of Ostbelgien is approximately eighty thousand. The scale matters. Nonetheless, the model establishes the proposition that citizen deliberation can be given standing rather than contingent status, and that parliament can be required to respond rather than being free to choose whether to engage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA reader who dismisses this body of evidence is not engaging with the record. Deliberation, at the level of deliberation itself, does what its advocates claim. It produces considered judgement from ordinary citizens confronted with evidence, softens partisan reflex, and generates outcomes the wider public can recognise as reasonable. That finding is not in serious contest in the academic literature.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Harder Evidence\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe same cases, examined at the point where deliberation meets implementation, tell a more qualified story.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe British Columbia Citizensâ Assembly on Electoral Reform deliberated through 2004. One hundred and sixty members, one man and one woman drawn at random from each of the provinceâs seventy-nine electoral districts, plus two First Nations members and a chair. The Assembly heard expert evidence, consulted the public, and in October 2004 recommended adoption of a single transferable vote system to replace first-past-the-post. The recommendation went to referendum the following year. It received 57.7 per cent of the vote, including majorities in seventy-seven of the seventy-nine electoral districts. Because the provincial government had unilaterally established a 60 per cent super-majority threshold, the reform did n
1ot proceed. A second referendum in 2009 produced 39 per cent support. The Assemblyâs work, by every measure of deliberative integrity, was sound. It was defeated at the translation point, not at the deliberative one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe French Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat ran from October 2019 to June 2020. One hundred and fifty randomly selected citizens produced one hundred and forty-nine proposals after nine months of intensive deliberation. President Macron had committed to submitting the proposals âwithout filterâ to referendum, parliament, or direct executive implementation. Within a week of receiving them, he used what he called three âjokersâ to reject three of them outright. The Climate and Resilience Law that emerged in July 2021 was, on the assessment published by the Deliberative Democracy Digest, a substantially diluted version of the Conventionâs work. Ten per cent of recommendations were accepted without modification, thirty-seven per cent were modified or watered down, and fifty-three per cent were rejected. The promised constitutional referendum was abandoned. The deliberation was, by every participantâs account, genuine. The translation into policy was not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Irish cases, most often cited as the strongest example of deliberative democracy succeeding, are themselves more mixed than advocates typically concede. Government decided which recommendations reached referendum and which were quietly set aside. The assemblies produced the deliberation. They did not control the selection of what became binding. There is a further point rarely made in the Irish literature. The referendums carried in Ireland on marriage equality in 2015 and abortion in 2018 concerned questions on which the Irish public appears to have done a great deal of underlying work before the assemblies convened. The assemblies performed well, and on the available evidence they formalised a judgement the public was already substantially prepared to make. What the Irish record does not yet demonstrate is that an assembly can create readiness where the ground is cold.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe pattern across these cases is not that deliberative democracy fails. It is that the deliberation works and the translation does not automatically follow. Every policy process, of course, depends on implementation architecture to some degree. The specific finding here is sharper. Deliberative democracy is being advocated as an upstream remedy for the structural conditions this series has diagnosed, when in the configurations currently in circulation it operates downstream of the same architectures that produce those conditions. The decisive variable is not the quality of the deliberation. It is the architecture of the translation mechanism that governs what happens after the deliberation concludes. This is the central finding of the examination, and it is worth naming as such rather than leaving the reader to infer it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe South Australian Counter-Example\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne Australian case cuts against the pattern, and it is worth attending to because it specifies the conditions under which the remedy can bite.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2015 the South Australian government established a Royal Commission into the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. The Commission reported in May 2016 and recommended that the state pursue the establishment of storage and disposal facilities for multinational high-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste. The projected revenue to the state was estimated at a substantial figure. The government convened two citizensâ juries to deliberate on the Commissionâs recommendations. The first jury, meeting in June and July 2016, structured the terms of state-wide consultation. The second, comprising 350 randomly selected South Australians and meeting through October and November 2016, was asked to consider under what circumstances, if any, South Australia should pursue the proposal.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe architecture was, by design, a consultation intended to generate assent. The Premier had endorsed the Commissionâs findings. A pro-nuclear information campaign had toured the state. Two-thirds of the second jury rejected the proposal under any circumstances. The juryâs report questioned the Commissionâs economic modelling, noted the absence of Aboriginal consent as a foundational obstacle, and refused the framing the consultation architecture had established. The Premier subsequently proposed a
1state-wide referendum, which did not proceed, and in June 2017 announced that the plan would not be progressed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe case is instructive on two levels. The citizens declined to do what the consultation was built to have them do, demonstrating that a deliberative process honestly facilitated is not guaranteed to produce the output the commissioning body anticipates. The outcome was implemented because the political class, confronted with the juryâs refusal and the wider public reception of it, found the project no longer viable. This is the difference that matters for the analysis. Ostbelgien illustrates designed translation, in which the architecture is built to carry deliberative output through to parliamentary response. South Australia illustrates contingent alignment, in which deliberative output reached an implementation point only because it coincided with an already-mobilised political environment. Both are successes. Only the first is reproducible on demand. The distinction matters because proposals that rely on alignment rather than architecture cannot be designed for. They can only be hoped for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Structure of Assembly Control\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBefore the remedy can be said to have been examined against the upstream principle, the same structural scepticism this series has applied to existing institutions must be applied to the assembly itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn every case currently in the literature, someone chooses the question the assembly is asked to deliberate. In Ireland that someone is the Oireachtas, in France the executive, in British Columbia the provincial legislature. The framing of the question is a structural act that precedes and constrains the deliberation. Someone selects the experts who brief the assembly. Typically a secretariat, typically reporting to a minister or ministerial committee, making decisions that shape the evidentiary terrain on which the deliberation proceeds. Someone drafts the options the assembly works through, generally the same secretariat, operating within parameters it has not itself been asked to justify. Someone controls the timeline, which, because deliberation is expensive, effectively means the commissioning body. And someone holds the recommendation after the assembly finishes, which in every case except those with a constitutional referendum requirement means the existing political system, and even there, as the Irish experience shows, government decides which recommendations reach the ballot.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach of these control points can be answered in ways that make the assembly a genuine upstream restructuring of deliberation, or in ways that make it a sophisticated downstream instrument providing cover to existing decision-makers. The architecture determines which. The name âcitizen assemblyâ does not. An assembly whose question, experts, options, timeline, and translation mechanism are all governed by the system it is supposedly reforming will not reform that system. It will be absorbed by it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA reader may notice that this argument, pressed hard, threatens to collapse the entire remedy class. If existing institutions control every entry point to the assembly, then the assembly is necessarily captured, and no reform of this kind can ever be genuinely upstream. The Ostbelgien case shows why this collapse is not automatic. The design located topic selection, follow-up monitoring, and parliamentary response obligations with the Citizensâ Council itself rather than with the executive. Architecture can be designed to shift the control points, and the architectural choices that matter are now sufficiently well-documented that they are available to Australian designers if the political conditions to adopt them develop. What cannot be done is to import the assembly mechanism without importing the control-point redesign, and to expect the result to behave as the Irish or Ostbelgien models do. On current Australian evidence, that is precisely what most proposals in circulation appear to assume.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Australian Conditions Test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most instructive recent Australian evidence on this class of proposal is not strictly a citizen assembly, but it illuminates the translation problem the series has been tracking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Uluru Statement from the Heart emerged from the regional dialogues of 2016 and 2017 and the convention at Uluru in May 2017. That process was a deliberative architecture, conducted among the Indigenous Australians directly affected by the proposal it produced, operating according to re
1cognisable deliberative principles and generating a coherent institutional proposal with legitimacy within the deliberating group. The 2023 referendum asked the wider Australian electorate to endorse the resulting institutional proposal. The national Yes vote was 39.94 per cent. No state returned a Yes majority.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Australian National Universityâs post-referendum study by Biddle, Gray, McAllister and Qvortrup recorded a finding that matters here. There was no majority opposition to constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians in principle, and strong majority support for Indigenous voice in matters affecting Indigenous Australians. It was the specific institutional proposal that was rejected. The vote did not signal a lack of support for reconciliation, truth-telling, or pride in First Nations cultures, each of which polled at around eighty per cent in the same study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the Voice process illustrates, for a series examining deliberative democracy as a remedy, is not a simple failure of that class of process. The Uluru architecture was deliberative within the group it was designed to include, and the output that process generated had legitimacy within those terms. What the 2023 referendum tested was something the architecture had not been built to deliver: the transmission of deliberatively-derived legitimacy across a membrane that the deliberation had not included, to a wider public without its own deliberative engagement with the proposal. A compressed national campaign was expected to do translation work that comparable Irish proposals achieved through an extended sequence of Oireachtas committee engagement and public engagement. The Irish arrangement built translation architecture. The Australian arrangement substituted campaigning for it. The argument here is not that better translation architecture would have secured the referendumâs passage. That is a counterfactual this analysis cannot settle. The argument is that a known structural gap was left unfilled, and that the outcome was consistent with what the upstream principle would predict when that gap is left unfilled. Campaign dynamics, trust, and political messaging all shaped the specific result. What the framework isolates is the layer relevant to its own thesis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat Western Australian Conditions Specifically Suggest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree conditions in this state would have to be addressed honestly before a proposal for deliberative institutional reform could be considered upstream rather than another centralised consultation conducted from the capital. What follows is design inference based on observable features of Western Australian civic life, rather than tested evidence from implemented trials. It should be read as an identification of the questions any proposal would face, not as an answer to them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipation is the first question. Deliberative architecture depends on sustained engagement, and a full week away from home is not feasible for a fly-in-fly-out mining worker on roster, a pastoralist during mustering season, or a remote community representative three daysâ travel from Perth. Hybrid models of local deliberation linked to state-level integration are technically possible and have been piloted at municipal scale elsewhere, but the design work required to make them function across Western Australiaâs geographic dispersion, with its attendant cultural and linguistic diversity, has not been done.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstitutional integration is the second. The state already operates a range of mechanisms for gathering non-expert judgement on public questions, including royal commissions, parliamentary committees, legislative reviews, community cabinet meetings, and formal stakeholder consultations. A citizen assembly is either a structural addition with defined authority, a replacement for one of these mechanisms, or a parallel process risking polite reception and quiet disregard. The choice must be made and defended at the outset. An assembly established without a clear relationship to the institutional architecture it joins is an assembly whose recommendations that architecture can absorb or reject at its convenience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTranslation is the third, and it is the question the Voice has placed before any Australian proposal. Between an assemblyâs output and any binding decision, what architecture performs the translation work? A parliamentary committee with standing to hold the recommendation? A statutory requirement for substantive government response within a fixed period? A citizen-initiated confirmation referendum? Each is available in principle, and each is absent from the existing architecture. Without a mechanism deliberately designed to carry deliberative legitimacy across the membrane between the assembly and the wider public, an assembly can deliberate faithfully and produce a coherent recommendation, and the system can decline to adopt it on terms the system controls. That is the French outcome. That is the British Columbian outcome. Australia has no structural reason to suppose its outcome would be different in the absence of architecture designed to be so.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhere the Examination Stands\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe remedy is genuinely promising under certain architectures and genuinely hollow under others. The same name covers both cases. An article that recommends deliberative democracy without specifying which architecture is advocacy. An article that dismisses it without engaging the successful c
1ases is not examination. What the discipline of the series requires is the more uncomfortable intermediate position: the evidence supports the remedy at the level of deliberation, problematises it at the level of implementation, and makes the architecture of translation matter more than the architecture of the assembly itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a further question this piece has only pointed toward, which the next article in the series will take up directly. An assembly deliberating honestly cannot answer the question of what it has been given to deliberate about. The choice of question is made upstream, and the choice is itself a structural act. If the question handed to the assembly is already calibrated to the incentives of the existing political system, faithful deliberation will still produce an outcome shaped by those prior incentives. That is the territory of the next piece, on what the financial architecture of the political system does to every remedy, including this one, before the remedy has a chance to do its work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe patient has been told what the first remedy is. The question of whether to take it is specified. It is not yet settled.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis article is Part Three of The Available Remedies, a series on the Walker Briefing examining structural responses to the conditions diagnosed in the preceding ZhÅng YÅng series. The full archive is available at bfwalker.substack.com.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"65:Ta7a,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eIn Perth in recent days, in a hotel function room, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the countryâs largest gas and mining companies sat down with the Premier and the Prime Minister and told them, with no apparent embarrassment, not to bite the hand that feeds them. The headline writers obliged. The hand has been remarkably ungenerous to the people who own the resource.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNorway and Australia were given the same gift in roughly the same decades. Both discovered enormous offshore hydrocarbons. Norway built a fund. That fund now holds around two trillion United States dollars, approaching four hundred thousand dollars per citizen, and the Norwegian state captures around half to sixty per cent of the profits from the resource at source through taxation, with further capture through direct ownership stakes. Australia built a lobby. Our Future Fund holds about two hundred and twenty-six billion dollars, was not capitalised by resource revenues, exists primarily to cover public service superannuation, and the Commonwealthâs effective take on liquefied natural gas exports has been calculated by independent analysts at under ten per cent of export value. The lobby has been honest about its preferences. When the country attempted to build something closer to the Norwegian settlement, with the Resource Super Profits Tax in 2010 and the Mineral Resource Rent Tax in 2012, the lobby destroyed both within years. The breakfast in Perth this week was the same dynamic, ten years on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Norwegian outcome was not a gift of geography. It was a settlement made early, defended consistently, and held for decades against exactly the kind of pressure being applied in Perth this week. We did not make that settlement, and the one we attempted was not allowed to survive. The cost of that does not land on an abstract national balance sheet but on your power bill, your rent, the schools your grandchildren will or will not attend, and the decommissioning liability of ageing offshore infrastructure that current modelling suggests is likely to fall heavily on taxpayers by mid-century. The hand has fed the sector. The sector has not, in any architectural sense, fed us back.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat Norway built is not impossible to build. It is only impossible to build later than now, and a little more impossible after every breakfast like the one in Perth this week.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"66:T4729,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first thing a clinician learns to distrust is the presenting complaint. A patient walks in with a headache. You could treat the headache. You could offer analgesia, manage the symptom, send them home temporarily relieved. Or you could ask what is causing it. The answer might be tension, dehydration, a tumour, or uncontrolled hypertension. Each requires a different response. None of them is treated by managing the headache alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe discipline of medicine rests on a simple fundamental demand: do not treat what you see without first investigating what produced it. A clinician who routinely suppresses symptoms without asking why they are present is not practising medicine. They are administering comfort. The difference matters because comfort and treatment are not the same thing, and offering one in place of the other is, in the end, a form of harm.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I want to examine here is whether governance, in Australia and across most of the democratic world, has become precisely this: an enormously expensive apparatus for administering comfort while declining, systematically and persistently, to investigate cause.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE ARCHITECTURE OF REPAIR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe previous series on this platform applied the Confucian concept of ä¸åº¸ä¹é (ZhÅng YÅng ZhÄ« Dà o), disciplined proportionate response, to contemporary political failure across five pieces. It arrived at a finding I described as the sovereign deficit: the accumulated cost of governing without the prior discipline of asking what the national interest actually requires. The series named structural capture as a central mechanism of that failure. By structural capture I do not mean coordinated conspiracy or total institutional control. I mean the durable shaping of incentives, information flows, and policy boundaries by organised interests whose resources give them disproportionate influence over what governments can realistically propose, fund, and sustain. It is architecture, not orchestration. The distinction matters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the series did not do was prescribe. That was deliberate. The clinical investigation was complete. The diagnosis was before us. The question that now demands attention is whether anything can be done about it, by whom, and at what level of the system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat question has been given the most developed concrete answer I have encountered in a book published in 2024 by the Australian political writer John Macgregor. \u003cem\u003eThe Mechanics of Changing the World\u003c/em\u003e is a serious work of democratic theory that deserves wider engagement than it has yet received in Australian public discourse. His Substack, Third Draft Democracy, is where the argument continues to develop in public. His central thesis is this: the vehicle of democracy as currently constituted was built in the eighteenth century and cannot carry the freight of the twenty-first. Constitutional redesign, meaning the foundational architecture through which authority, accountability, and institutional responsiveness are distributed within a polity, is a neglected precondition for the rest of the agenda functioning as intended.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am not adopting that programme. I am examining it. That distinction governs everything that follows. The analysis is the most rigorous I have found of what is available as remedy, and intellectual honesty requires acknowledging its influence before I put its proposals under pressure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept at the centre of that argument is the one I want to examine in this piece. It is called the upstream principle.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCAUSES HAVE CAUSES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe upstream principle is straightforward in its logic and demanding in its implications. The argument runs: if you want to end a problem, follow the causal chain upstream from where it presents. Causes have causes. The presenting complaint is not the disease.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat makes this principle analytically useful is its corollary. Societal problems tend to be siblings. They share a family tree. Upstream of housing unaffordability, energy policy failure, and an overburdened health system, you find the same structural conditions producing different visible symptoms. To identify a shared upstream condition is not to deny proximate causes. It is to ask why certain proximate causes are repeatedly left unaddressed when the evidence for addressing them is available.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBefore testing this framework against Australian conditions, it is
1worth pressing on it directly. The principle raises three questions that the series will need to answer rather than assume away. Are there conditions under which downstream intervention is appropriate, even necessary, while upstream reform is being pursued? Does the causal regression have a natural terminus, or does it simply continue indefinitely, always finding a deeper cause? And is constitutional architecture genuinely the upstream terminus of the chain, or does that claim reflect a prior commitment to constitutional reform rather than the logic of the evidence itself?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are not rhetorical questions. They are the questions that determine whether the upstream principle is a diagnostic discipline or a programme in abstract clothing. I name them here because testing them is precisely what this series is for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHE FRAMEWORK ILLUSTRATED\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo illustrate the upstream principle in practice, Macgregor traces the causal chains behind three major governance failures of the last generation: the War on Terror, the Global Financial Crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic. In each case his analysis works backwards through the causal sequence, from consequences visible to everyone, through the intermediate decisions that shaped each response, to the structural conditions that made those decisions not merely possible but, given the incentive architecture in place, highly probable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHis account of the War on Terror argues that it cannot be understood solely as a response to September 11 if one ignores the pre-existing policy ecosystems, think tanks, lobbying networks, and strategic doctrines already assembled in the years prior. The Global Financial Crisis, on his analysis, does not begin with subprime mortgages but with the deregulation that permitted them, itself downstream of the campaign finance that purchased the votes for that deregulation. The Senate Subcommittee that investigated the crisis identified all the intermediate causes and stopped short of that one. On COVID, his argument is that the pandemic exposed not merely gaps in scientific preparedness but failures in governance architecture, particularly where regulatory dependence, procurement opacity, and institutional conflicts of interest weakened both the response and public trust in it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach of these is a documented argument supported by the primary sources in his text. I am summarising, not endorsing. What I am prepared to say at this stage is that the structural pattern his analysis describes, causal chains that lead upstream to the constitutional architecture that permits the capture, is consistent with the diagnostic framework developed in this series and consistent with the Australian evidence I am about to examine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI call that architecture the architecture of repair. It is the infrastructure governments maintain to manage consequences they have not addressed at source. The ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The patch on the broken pipe. The analgesia for the unexplored headache. It is not cost-effective. It is not strategic. It is, however, entirely rational for those who design and operate it, because the upstream investigation so consistently leads to them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTHREE AUSTRALIAN ILLUSTRATIONS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHealth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI will begin here because it is the domain I know most directly, and because the numbers are stark enough to require no rhetorical amplification.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2018, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimated that over one-third of Australiaâs total disease burden was potentially preventable, had Australians reduced or avoided exposure to certain risk factors. The proportion of the health budget directed toward prevention has remained below two per cent, a figure the AIHWâs dedicated preventive expenditure reporting has documented consistently for over a decade. The remainder addresses treatment. We have built one of the most sophisticated acute care systems in the world, and we use it to manage conditions that, in a significant proportion of cases, were preventable. Cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic respiratory illness, certain cancers: the evidence on their risk factors, and on the interventions that reduce them, is not in serious contest. What is in contest is
1whether the political system will allocate resources to prevention at a scale that would reduce demand on treatment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt will not. The clinical case is overwhelming. The economic case is equally clear: prevention is cheaper at population scale than treatment. The system resists not because the evidence is lacking but because the incentive architecture of the health system, and of the political system that funds it, rewards treatment. Pharmaceutical investment, hospital infrastructure, specialist training pipelines, insurance product design: these are downstream industries. They are large, well-organised, well-funded, and structurally invested in the continuation of the pattern they serve. Prevention, by contrast, produces outcomes at a distance from the intervention. It is difficult to attribute, difficult to price, and impossible to patent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not a conspiracy. It is, as the upstream framework would have it, money spontaneously filling the holes in a dated constitutional order. The incentive architecture produces the outcome. The outcome reinforces the architecture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHousing\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia has run an unbroken experiment in downstream housing policy for three decades. The instruments have varied: first home buyer grants, stamp duty concessions, shared equity schemes, build-to-rent incentives, various iterations of social housing programmes. The consistent result has been the inflation of the asset whose price the intervention claimed to stabilise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTax distortions are not the sole cause of housing unaffordability. Migration pressures, infrastructure bottlenecks, construction productivity, and planning system fragmentation are all genuine contributing factors. But negative gearing, capital gains tax treatment, and the concentration of residential property as a primary wealth vehicle remain among the few structural levers that governments have repeatedly declined to reform despite clear, documented impact. They have declined under the same pattern of organised pressure from the same beneficiary class. Thirty years of demand-side intervention in a market whose supply-side structural distortions were not touched has produced exactly the outcome the evidence predicted it would.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA clinician who observed this pattern across thirty consecutive consultations would be open to a serious professional review. In governance, we call it policy continuity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEnergy policy is perhaps the most visible demonstration of the upstream principle in Australian political life, because the failure is both structurally produced and geopolitically urgent in a way that makes deferral increasingly indefensible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia has had no coherent national energy policy for more than twenty years. This is not because the technical questions are unresolved. The engineering of a managed transition from fossil fuel dependence to renewable generation is understood. The economics, while complex in detail, are not genuinely contested among those working them carefully and without a financial interest in the conclusion. The timelines, for a country with Australiaâs renewable resource endowment, should have been among the most achievable in the world.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat has prevented coherent policy is the upstream architecture: the investment of the fossil fuel sector in the political process at a scale that made any governmentâs tenure partly contingent on the continuation of that sectorâs operating conditions. The revolving door between industry and the regulatory agencies nominally overseeing it. The funding of think tanks producing analyses calibrated not to the evidence but to the funderâs preferred outcome. Richard Hames, the Australian philosopher-strategist whose work on systemic governance failure I follow at \u003cem\u003eThe Hames Report\u003c/em\u003e on Substack has written with particular clarity about the growing irrelevance of legacy institutional structures to the challenges they are nominally designed to address. Energy policy is the clearest current Australian instance. The institution exists. The mandate exists. The evidence exists. The gap between mandate and outcome is produced not by incompetence but by the structural capture of the institution by the interests it was constituted to regulate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWHY THE SYSTEM RESISTS GOING UPSTREAM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe three cases above share a feature that requires explicit naming. In each case, the upstream analysis leads to the design of the system itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe health system does not address prevention at scale because the incentive architecture of a system shaped by pharmaceutical investment and acute care infrastru
1cture does not produce that outcome. The housing system does not address supply-side structural distortions because the political funding architecture ties incumbents to the interests that benefit from those distortions. The energy system does not produce coherent transition policy because the constitutional and funding architecture gives the sector being transitioned sufficient leverage to prevent it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe upstream question in all three cases is, in the end, the same question: who benefits from the current design? Who funds the political system that maintains it? What would need to change at the level of democratic architecture for a different outcome to become structurally possible?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt should not surprise us that this question is resisted. What should interest us is the character of the resistance: not the individual acts of self-interest attributable to individual politicians, but the systemic architecture that makes that resistance rational, predictable, and durable across governments of different parties, different leaders, and different stated intentions. Constitutional design is not the whole of political causation. It may, however, determine how far culture, interests, and evidence can be translated into durable public action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the analytical lenses I apply before reaching any conclusion is what I call Systemic Dysfunction Recognition. Its diagnostic signal is the simultaneous presence of persistent unhealthy outcomes and institutional resistance to examining root causes. Across health, housing, and energy, that signal is present, persistently and simultaneously, across every government of the last generation regardless of party. That pattern of simultaneity is not incidental. It is the finding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWHAT THE INVESTIGATION NOW REQUIRES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe upstream principle is not, in itself, a programme, it is an existential demand. It insists that political analysis follow the causal chain beyond the level at which it is comfortable to stop, which is to say, beyond the level at which the analysis implicates the design of the system doing the analysing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe argument I have been examining holds that constitutional architecture may prove to be the deepest politically actionable level at which these recurring failures can be addressed: the law that gives rise to the laws that shape the society that envelops the individual. The conclusion drawn is that attending to that architecture is more pressing than any downstream reform, because without it, victories in housing, health, energy, and every other domain will continue to be hard-won, costly, and reversible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is a large claim. It may be correct. It also carries a risk I will name plainly: a focus on constitutional redesign can become a horizon always receding, a counsel of perfection that excuses inaction in the domains where action is available now. The questions posed earlier, whether the terminus is genuinely constitutional, or whether the regression can always be pushed one level further, are not resolved by the force of the diagnosis. They require testing against evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat testing is what this series is for. The remedies to be examined, deliberative democratic institutions, the decontamination of political funding, media reform, electoral architecture, direct democracy, subsidiarity, civic education, each will be assessed on its merits, against Australian conditions, and held to the standard of evidence that the ä¸åº¸ä¹é (ZhÅng YÅng ZhÄ« Dà o) series applied to the diagnosis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat tradition did not merely name imbalance. It prescribed the discipline required to recover from it: proportionate response, grounded in accurate knowledge of cause, applied at the level where the problem actually lives. Whether the constitutional reform programme this series examines constitutes a genuine application of that discipline to contemporary conditions, or whether it falls short in ways the evidence will reveal, is a question I intend to answer before we are done.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe patient has not yet been told what to do. We are still, carefully, examining what is available.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis article is part of The Available Remedies, a new series on the Walker Briefing examining structural responses to the conditions diagnosed in the preceding ZhÅng YÅng series. The full archive is available at bfwalker.substack.com.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"67:T564d,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe question that has not been asked\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the six weeks between the twenty-eighth of February and the eighth of April, the Australian government took a series of decisions in response to the American and Israeli war against Iran. Most Australians do not know what those decisions were. The decisions were not debated in the parliament. They were not put to the Australian people. They were announced, where they were announced at all, in fragments that the ordinary news cycle absorbed and moved past. Some of them were not announced at all, and became public only through leaks to the Murdoch press. Taken together, they form a record that an Australian citizen has a right to see, and that a serving parliamentarian has an obligation to place before the people whose name was used to authorise it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis article is primarily a record of what was done, followed by a limited analysis of what that record appears to show. It is not a full argument about what should have been done. I have tried to present the facts as they are documented in credible open-source reporting across multiple outlets, and to distinguish clearly between what is established and what is disputed. All information set out below is drawn solely from publicly available reporting as at the date of writing. No classified material has been disclosed, and any subsequent correction to the public record would require corresponding correction to this article. Where a claim is contested, I have said so. Where the record is thin, I have said that too. The reader is asked not to accept my framing but to examine the evidence and draw their own conclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe question that frames this examination is simple. In the past six weeks, has the Australian government acted as an independent partner in an alliance or as a subordinate actor whose decisions were shaped by pressures it did not choose and for which it is unable to give a coherent account? The question matters because the answer determines what kind of country Australia is currently being governed as, and whether the gap between the nation its citizens believe they live in and the nation its government is enacting on their behalf has grown to a point that requires response.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe sequence of events\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the twenty-eighth of February 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated air strikes on Iran. The attack began during a period in which active negotiations were in progress. Iranian officials had been engaged in scheduled talks with American counterparts in the preceding days, with a further round of negotiations set for Geneva. Iranâs supreme leader and a number of senior figures on whose authority those negotiations were proceeding were killed in the Israeli decapitation strikes on his residential compound.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWithin hours of the attack, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese issued a joint statement with Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Minister Richard Marles. The statement expressed support for the United States and Israeli strikes and declared that Australia stood with âthe brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression.â The statement was issued before the administration in Washington had itself settled on a coherent justification for the war, and before any independent Australian assessment of the actionâs legality under international law could plausibly have been completed. It committed Australia to a public endorsement that could not be withdrawn once issued, and it was made without consulting the parliament, without briefing the opposition in any substantive way, and without informing the Australian public of what the government understood about why the war had been launched.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the third of March, Iran struck the Al Minhad Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, where Australian personnel and infrastru
1cture were stationed, as part of its retaliation against American and allied positions in the Gulf. This was the first point at which Australian personnel were physically targeted in the conflict. The deployment at Al Minhad was pre-existing, but the governmentâs response to the strike did not include any public reassessment of whether Australian personnel should remain in positions that had now become active military targets.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the fourth of March, in international waters approximately nineteen nautical miles off the southern coast of Sri Lanka, the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena was struck by a Mark 48 torpedo fired from the United States Navy submarine USS Charlotte. The Dena was returning to Iran from the International Fleet Review 2026 and the multinational naval exercise MILAN 2026, both hosted by the Indian Navy at Visakhapatnam. She had been an officially invited guest of the Indian Navy. She had been welcomed on her arrival in Visakhapatnam by a post from the Eastern Naval Command on the seventeenth of February describing the visit as reflecting âlong-standing cultural links between the two nations.â Her crew had participated in the fleet review, in the multinational exercise, and in cultural visits to sites including the Taj Mahal. She had departed Visakhapatnam on the twenty-fifth of February, three days before the war began. She was approximately 1,700 nautical miles from Iranâs nearest coastline when she was attacked.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Dena carried a crew of approximately 180 personnel. One torpedo struck and the vessel sank within two to three minutes. There is no public reporting of any search and rescue effort by the Charlotte following the strike. The Sri Lanka Navy, responding to a distress call, recovered 32 survivors. The Sri Lankan authorities subsequently recovered 87 bodies. Approximately 60 personnel remain unaccounted for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhether the Dena was armed at the moment of the attack is contested. Sri Lankan authorities and several regional analysts, including former Indian Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash and strategic affairs analyst Brahma Chellaney, stated that the vessel was operating in a post-exercise configuration and was unarmed or lightly armed in accordance with the protocols of the Indian fleet review. The United States Indo-Pacific Command denied that the vessel was unarmed. An analysis published by the United States Naval Institute concluded that the Dena was likely unarmed at the time of the attack, having expended its firepower during the multilateral exercise. It should be acknowledged that under the law of naval warfare, a warship of a belligerent state may constitute a lawful target regardless of the state of its magazines, and that the United States has asserted such a basis for the strike. The Walker framework does not rest on the contested legal characterisation of the attack itself. It rests on the Australian governmental response to an incident in which Australian personnel were physically present, which was to offer no public assessment, no expression of concern about the circumstances, and no acknowledgement that an event of this gravity warranted any Australian statement at all. What is documented in open-source reporting is that the vessel was returning home from a peaceful multilateral gathering, in international waters far from any active theatre of the war, and that it was struck by a nuclear-powered submarine against which, in practice, it had negligible capacity to defend itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the sixth of March, Prime Minister Albanese confirmed, under questioning and not by proactive disclosure, that three Royal Australian Navy personnel had been aboard the USS Charlotte at the time the Dena was sunk. He stated that the Australian personnel were on board as part of a training rotation under the AUKUS security partnership. He stated that they had not participated in any offensive action, and suggested that they had not been at the consoles or in the control room during the engagement. Neither of these claims can be independently verified. What is documented is that Australian naval personnel were physically present aboard the vessel that conducted the attack, and that their presence was made possible by the training arrangements entered into under AUKUS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the tenth of March, the Australian government deployed air-to-air missiles, an advanced warplane, and approximately 85 personnel to the United Arab Emirates. The deployment was announced as a defensive posture adju
1stment. The relationship between this deployment and any specific Iranian threat to Australian personnel or interests was not explained.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn mid-March, approximately 90 Special Air Service Regiment commandos were deployed to the Gulf region. This deployment was not announced. It became public only on the third of April, through a leak to the Murdoch press. When asked about the deployment at a media doorstop, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles declined to confirm or deny, stating that the government does not comment on the operations of its special forces. The Australian public was therefore not informed at the time that elite military personnel had been committed to a war zone in circumstances in which their role, their rules of engagement, and their exposure to combat had not been disclosed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThroughout this period, the Trump administration publicly criticised Australia for what it characterised as insufficient support. In a cabinet meeting in March, the President stated that âAustralia was not great. I was a little surprised by Australia.â In a subsequent post on Truth Social, he declared that the United States did not need the help of anyone, including Australia. At no point during the war did the Australian government publicly comment on the legality of the American and Israeli attacks under international law. When the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson appeared on ABC Televisionâs 7:30 programme on the nineteenth of March and accused the United States and Israel of terrorist acts, the Australian governmentâs response was to reiterate that questions of legality were matters for the United States and Israel to address.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the nineteenth of March, on the ABCâs 7:30 programme, the Prime Minister was asked about the war. He described the original objectives of the war as stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which he said had been âclearly achieved.â He added that the second objective of âdegrading the opportunity that Iran has for engaging in military actionâ had also been met, and that the third objective was âregime change.â The original justifications issued by the Trump administration had shifted between these and several others across the opening weeks of the war. The Prime Minister did not note the shifts. He presented the justifications in the form in which they had most recently been offered in Washington, as if they had been stable from the beginning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat the record shows\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe record I have set out above is not an interpretation. It is a sequence of documented events. Each item is supported by credible reporting in multiple sources, and I have tried where possible to note the points at which reporting diverges. A reader who doubts any specific item can verify it independently. The question is what the record, taken as a whole, shows about the conduct of the Australian government.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first thing it shows is that the government endorsed the war before it had any basis on which to assess the warâs justification. The joint statement was issued within hours of the attack. No independent intelligence assessment could have been completed in that window. No legal analysis of the actionâs compatibility with international law could have been produced, or at least none has been disclosed. No consultation with allies or with the parliament could have occurred. The simplest inference from the timing and sequence is that the endorsement was issued on the basis of an alliance practice in which endorsements are pre-committed, rather than on the basis of independent Australian assessment of the evidence. That is an inference, not a documented fact. It is, however, the explanation most consistent with what is publicly known about the sequence, and the government has offered no alternative account.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second thing it shows is that the governmentâs account of what was done has required continuous revision as events forced disclosure. The presence of Australian personnel on the USS Charlotte was acknowledged only after leaks forced acknowledgement. The SAS deployment was acknowledged only after leaks forced acknowledgement. The UAE deployment was announced in terms that did not connect it to any specific threat or objective. The Prime Ministerâs account of the warâs justifications has tracked the Trump administrationâs shifting explanations rather than offering any independent Australian asse
1ssment. In each case, the government has been a step behind disclosure. The operational-security justification for non-disclosure of special forces movements is legitimate, and the government will invoke it. What that justification does not explain is why the original political endorsement was issued within hours while questions of legality, purpose, and Australian strategic interest have been declined for six weeks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third thing it shows is that the Australian government has declined, at every opportunity, to make any public statement about the legality of the American and Israeli conduct under international law. This is not a small matter. Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Charter. The Charter prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. Neither condition has been established on any publicly disclosed basis, and the legal arguments offered by the United States and Israel for anticipatory self-defence are regarded by many international law scholars as inconsistent with the Charter. A state of sixty yearsâ standing as a member of the international rules-based order declined for six weeks to offer any judgement on whether the war was legal. Norwayâs Prime Minister issued a statement on the morning the attacks began describing the strikes as inconsistent with international law. Canada and New Zealand issued more cautious statements expressing concern. Australia said nothing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth thing it shows is that when the Australian governmentâs conduct was criticised by the Trump administration for being insufficient, the subsequent pattern of Australian deployments expanded rather than contracted. The deployment of the SAS in mid-March followed a period of public American complaint about inadequate Australian support. Temporal sequence does not prove causation, and defence planners may point to prior planning cycles as the explanation. What the sequence does show is that the direction of the Australian response to American pressure was toward further commitment rather than toward re-examination.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fifth and most consequential thing the record shows is that Royal Australian Navy personnel were physically present aboard the vessel that committed an act which, even on the most charitable reading of international maritime law, raises serious legal and moral questions. The attack on the Dena sank a ship that had been a guest at an Indian multilateral exercise and was returning peacefully to Iran 1,700 nautical miles from the nearest theatre of active hostilities. The submarine that fired the torpedoes left the scene without attempting search and rescue. Eighty-seven crew members were recovered as bodies. Approximately sixty remain missing. The claim that the Australian personnel on board were not at the consoles, even if accurate, does not alter the fact of their presence. The training arrangements that put them there were entered into under AUKUS, an agreement the Australian parliament was told would strengthen Australian sovereignty and contribute to regional stability. In the specific operation of the fourth of March, the arrangement instead placed Australian personnel as material witnesses to the sinking of an unarmed or lightly armed vessel returning from a peaceful multilateral exercise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat it means\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI do not offer this record in order to argue that Australia should have done something different. That is a separate conversation, and it belongs to the Australian people rather than to me. I offer it because the Australian people have not been told what their government did in their name, and a democracy cannot function when its citizens are kept in ignorance of the actions taken under their sovereign authority. The first requirement of self-government is knowledge of what oneâs government has done. Without that knowledge, every subsequent political choice is made on false ground.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I can say, within the discipline of the analytical framework this Briefing has used across the preceding series, is that the record described above is a textbook instance of the sovereign deficit the diagnostic series n
1amed. The government acted not on the basis of independent Australian judgement about Australian interests, but on the basis of pressures arriving from Washington and the expectations of an alliance relationship that has been calibrated over decades to prevent the exercise of independent judgement from occurring. The endorsement within hours was not the product of a deliberative process. The absence of public legal assessment was not an oversight. The concealment of deployments was not an accident of communications. Each of these is what the sovereign deficit looks like when it is applied to the actual conduct of a government under pressure. The pattern is consistent. The analysis is not speculative. The framework was built before these events occurred, and the events have fitted themselves into the framework without requiring any adjustment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not a partisan observation. The same pattern of deference was visible under the previous Coalition government, which signed the original AUKUS agreement in 2021 with the same absence of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, the same treatment of alliance expectations as a substitute for independent Australian assessment, and the same conflation of subordinate behaviour with strategic seriousness. The Liberal opposition has offered no meaningful critique of the current governmentâs conduct during the Iran war. The Coalitionâs defence spokesman James Paterson has called for greater Australian military support for the war, which is to say that his disagreement with the government is that it has not been subordinate enough to Washington. The problem is not that Labor is insufficiently conservative or that the Coalition is insufficiently progressive. The problem is that both major parties have, over several decades, co-created a strategic posture calibrated to an assumption about American judgement that the events of the past six weeks have shown to be untenable, and neither of them is currently capable of raising the question that the events demand be raised.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat comes next\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Available Remedies series, which began this week with an article on the upstream principle, is the longer work that will attempt to examine what might actually be done about the conditions the record above reveals. That work is slow by design. It is slow because the question of what to do about structural failure cannot be answered honestly in a single article, and because any answer that could be offered quickly would almost certainly be wrong.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut the work cannot begin from a false starting point. It cannot begin from the pretence that the conduct I have described above was not conduct that the Australian people had a right to know about, or that the gap between what was done and what was said about what was done was somehow narrower than it is, or that the sovereign deficit the diagnostic series named in the abstract was not now visible in the documented record of the past six weeks. The starting point has to be an honest reckoning with what has actually happened. That is what this article is. Not an argument about the future, but a statement about the present that has to be made before the argument about the future can be trusted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I have written here will be uncomfortable for readers who would prefer that it not be true. I understand the discomfort. I share it. I do not take any satisfaction in setting out a record that implicates a government in my own country in conduct that I find, as a citizen and as a parliamentarian and as a doctor, profoundly troubling. But the obligation to name what has happened is not reduced by the discomfort of naming it. A country cannot reform what it refuses to see. The first task, before any remedy can be examined, is to see.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is the moment when any citizen who, having seen the record, believes it matters, has an obligation to stand up and be counted. Not in performative solidarity with any faction, but in honest acknowledgement of the facts, and in the willingness to hold open the question of what the facts require of us. The question is uncomfortable. It is also unavoidable. The coming series will examine what response is available to a country that has arrived at this point. For this week, the task is simply to place the record before the reader, and to ask what the reader sees when they look at it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003chr\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis article is part of the Walker Briefing, published at bfwalker.substack.com. It should be read alongside âThe War That Proved the Diagnosisâ published previously, and as a companion to the new series, The Available Remedies, which examines structural responses to the conditions described.\u
1003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"68:T5b4f,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-available-remedies-part-one\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Available Remedies, Part One\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA note on what follows\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYesterday I examined how the condition this Briefing has been diagnosing appears at the centre of the international system. A war launched during active negotiations, justified in contradictory ways by the same administration within a single week, prosecuted without allied consultation, concluded by a ceasefire brokered by a third country that the belligerent party had not thought to involve in its planning. The piece argued that no functioning deliberative process could have produced this outcome, and that the condition the ZhÅng YÅng series has been naming for months is now visible at the highest level of international decision-making. That article stands on its own. I will not rehearse its argument here, except to note that it belongs to the diagnostic work of the original series. What follows belongs to something different.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is the first piece in a new series. It has a name, The Available Remedies, and it has a purpose that must be stated clearly before it begins, because the legitimacy of everything that follows depends on being honest about what this series is and what it is not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eII. The method, and what the series will not do\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe diagnostic series examined a condition. This series examines what can be done about it. The transition from diagnosis to remedy is the most dangerous moment in any inquiry of this kind, because it is the moment when analytical discipline is most likely to give way to advocacy. A thinker who has identified a structural problem is under enormous pressure, psychological and social, to announce the solution. The pressure comes from readers who want to know what to do, from the political environment that rewards decisive proposals, and from the thinkerâs own desire to be useful rather than merely observant. Almost every public inquiry of this kind has failed at this transition. The diagnosis has been disciplined and the prescription has been ideological.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis series will attempt not to make that mistake. It will do so by observing a small number of rules, which I want to set out now so that readers can hold me to them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first rule is that remedies are examined, not prescribed. The difference is not cosmetic. An examined remedy is one whose evidentiary basis is presented honestly, whose limitations and risks are acknowledged, and whose transferability to Australian conditions is tested rather than assumed. A prescribed remedy is one that the writer has decided to support, presented in the language of options. The test for the distinction is whether the writer could, on the evidence presented, have reached a different conclusion. If not, the piece is advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext is that the remedies examined in this series will not be pre-selected to fit a political programme. I am conscious, as the writer, of the political positions I hold, and I am conscious that those positions will shape what I notice and what I find persuasive. The discipline is not to pretend those positions do not exist. It is to allow the evidence to complicate them where the evidence genuinely complicates them, and to say so when it does. Readers will be able to judge whether this discipline is being observed, because a series that honestly examines remedies will occasionally arrive at conclusions that do not fit the writerâs prior preferences. If that never happens, the series has failed its own standard.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing this comes the third rule that each remedy will be assessed against a consistent set of questions. What is the evidence that this remedy addresses the condition the diagnostic series identified, rather than some other condition? Where has it been tried? What did it achieve there, and at what cost? What were its unintended consequences, and how serious were they? What conditions in the original jurisdiction enabled it to work, and are those conditions present in Australia? What obstacles to adoption exist in Australia specifically, and are they obstacles of constitutional structure, political incentive, or public culture? Each of these questions must be answered, or its absence acknowledged, before a remedy can be said to have been examined.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourthly is that the examination proceeds under the same philosophical discipline that governed the diagnostic series. The ZhÅng YÅng tradition holds that proportionate judgement requires calibration to conditions rather than to pressures. That applies as forcefully to the examination of remedies as it did to the examination of failure. A remedy pursued with disproportionate enthusiasm, adopted because it fits a preferred political identity rather than because it addresses the condition, reproduces the very pattern of misjudgement the remedy was meant to correct. The cure, in other words, is subject to the same tests as the disease.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd finally the rule is that the examination belongs to the reader, not to the writer. I will set out what I have found. I will try to set it out clearly and without mani
1pulation. The decision about what any of it means, and what should be done, does not belong to me. It belongs to Australians, and it belongs to them collectively through whatever mechanisms of deliberation their system permits. The question of what those mechanisms are, and whether they are adequate, will itself become part of what the series examines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese rules are not a disclaimer. They are a contract with the reader, and I expect to be held to them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhy upstream\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first remedy in any examination of structural recovery is not actually a remedy at all. It is a principle that governs how remedies are chosen. The principle has various names in different fields. In medicine it is called prevention. In systems theory it is called root cause analysis. In the work of the Australian writer John Macgregor, whose book The Mechanics of Changing the World I will be engaging with at various points in this series, it is called the upstream principle. The name I will use is Macgregorâs, because his formulation is the sharpest and because it is the one I have found most useful in thinking about Australian conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe upstream principle is not original to Macgregor, and he would not claim it was. The concept exists in various forms across medicine, systems theory, engineering, and public health. What Macgregor has done is to apply it with unusual rigour to the question of democratic design, and to show how its absence from conventional political analysis is itself a diagnostic feature of the condition he and I are both attempting to describe. His formulation is embedded in a larger argument about structural reform that readers who want to test my characterisation can engage with directly. Macgregor writes at \u003ca href=\"https://johnmacgregor.substack.com/?ref=localhost\"\u003ejohnmacgregor.substack.com\u003c/a\u003e, and I would encourage readers who find the upstream principle useful to read him in his own words rather than relying solely on my account of his work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe upstream principle holds that a problem is best addressed as high as possible in its causal chain. If a stream is carrying pollution into a lake, you do not solve the problem by cleaning the lake. You walk upstream until you find the source of the pollution and you stop it there. The lake will clean itself. If you clean the lake without stopping the source, you will spend forever cleaning the lake, and the lake will get dirtier every year despite your efforts, and eventually you will conclude that lakes are simply dirty and the best you can do is manage the dirt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe metaphor is simple but the principle it describes is not. Almost every political system in the democratic world is currently engaged in the cleaning of lakes. Enormous resources are devoted to managing the downstream consequences of decisions that were made upstream. The language of politics reflects this. We speak of crisis management, of response capacity, of service delivery, of intervention points. All of these concepts assume that the problem is something that has already happened, and that the task of government is to mitigate its effects. The possibility that the problem could have been prevented at an earlier stage, by a decision made somewhere further up the causal chain, is rarely part of the conversation. When it is raised, it is dismissed as naïve or utopian or politically impossible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMacgregor has a phrase for what this produces. He describes contemporary democracy as âthe architecture of repair, a trillion-dollar infrastru
1cture to mend what was preventable: collapsed banks, oil spills, terrorism, poverty, and free-wheeling pandemics.â The phrase is accurate, and the architecture it names is the one we have built in Australia as thoroughly as any other Western democracy. What follows is what that architecture looks like in practice, and what the upstream alternative would require.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne further observation is necessary before the application begins, because it connects this series to the diagnostic work that preceded it. The article published yesterday examined the loss of proportionate judgement at the level of international decision-making, using the Iran war as its primary case. A reader might reasonably ask why the next piece turns from strategic collapse at the centre of the international system to domestic questions of health and housing in Australia. The answer is that these are not separate questions. A country that cannot act upstream in its own domestic systems will not be capable of acting upstream in its defence posture, its alliance management, or its strategic planning. The capacity for proportionate long-term decision-making is not domain-specific. It is a quality of the deliberative process itself, and a system that has lost it in one domain will exhibit the same loss in every other. Australiaâs strategic resilience, its ability to maintain coherent policy across electoral cycles, its capacity to plan for circumstances that have not yet arrived, all of these depend on the same structural conditions that determine whether the health system can prevent disease or the housing system can shelter its workforce. The upstream principle is not an argument about social policy as distinct from strategic policy. It is an argument about the prior conditions of national capacity, and the strategic questions that confronted this country last month cannot be addressed without attention to the domestic conditions examined in this one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe clinical case, and why it matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am a general practitioner. I have spent my working life, when I have not been in parliament, in consulting rooms with patients whose conditions were mostly preventable. Type two diabetes, heart disease, chronic kidney disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: these are the conditions that fill Australian hospitals and consume the largest share of the health budget. A general practitioner working in Western Australia sees this pattern with particular clarity, because the distance between a preventable condition and the nearest specialist intervention is measured in hundreds of kilometres as well as in dollars, and because a state whose economy depends on a mobile skilled workforce pays a visible price when that workforce is unwell. Each of these conditions has a downstream presentation that is enormously expensive to treat and an upstream causation that is considerably cheaper to address. The evidence for this is not contested in the medical literature. It is contested, if at all, only in the political system that decides how health budgets are allocated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2023 to 2024, Australia spent $270.5 billion on health (figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfareâs Health Expenditure Australia 2023-24 report). Of that, the proportion of government health spending directed to public health activities, the category that includes prevention, was 2.9 per cent. The National Preventive Health Strategy, published in 2021, set a target of 5 per cent of total health spending on prevention by 2030. We are not halfway there. The share actually fell between 2022-23 and 2023-24, as the post-pandemic public health budgets were wound back.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsider what these numbers describe. A country spends more than a quarter of a trillion dollars a year treating conditions, a substantial proportion of which could be prevented or delayed by measures costing a small fraction of the treatment bill. The prevention measures are known. The evidence for them is strong. The cost-benefit calculation favours them overwhelmingly. And yet the share of the health budget directed to prevention remains at a level that almost guarantees the treatment budget will c
1ontinue to grow faster than the country can afford.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not a failure of medical knowledge. The medical profession has known for decades which interventions prevent which diseases and at what cost. It is not a failure of public awareness. Australians broadly understand that diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol, and chronic stress are the drivers of the conditions that are killing them. It is not a failure of policy innovation. Other OECD countries have implemented preventive health programmes with measurable results, and their methods are available for study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is a failure of the deliberative process. The health system is structured so that treatment generates visible outputs (procedures performed, beds filled, patients discharged) while prevention generates invisible outputs (diseases that did not occur, admissions that did not happen, money that did not need to be spent). Visible outputs attract political credit and budget allocation. Invisible outputs do not. Over time, the system allocates resources to the activities that produce visible outputs, and the invisible outputs decline. The consequence is a health system that is, as I have written previously, efficient at the wrong things.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe upstream alternative is not complicated in its description. It would involve the systematic reallocation of health resources from treatment to prevention, the introduction of structural measures that make healthier choices easier (food labelling, advertising restrictions on unhealthy products, urban design that encourages physical activity, alcohol and tobacco pricing calibrated to discourage consumption), and the long-term commitment to maintain these measures across electoral cycles so that their effects can accumulate. The obstacles to this alternative are also not complicated in their description. They are the food industry, the alcohol industry, the advertising industry, the urban planning profession, the political donation structures that connect these industries to both major parties, and the news cycle that cannot tolerate reforms whose benefits arrive on timescales longer than the next election. None of these obstacles is a law of nature. Each of them is a structural condition that could, in principle, be changed. Whether it can be changed in practice in Australia is a question the rest of this series will examine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe housing case, and why it matters more\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf the health system demonstrates the upstream principle at the individual level, the housing system demonstrates it at the level of a generation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cost of a Western Australian home is, by any historical standard, extraordinary. A generation ago, the median house price in a major Australian city represented roughly three to four times the median household income. Today, in many parts of the country, the ratio is closer to ten to one. A young person starting their working life in 2026 confronts a housing market in which the prospect of ownership is, for the first time in the countryâs postwar history, not realistically available to the majority of their cohort. This is not a cyclical problem. It has persisted across two decades of both major parties holding power, under different economic conditions, with different levels of immigration, through booms and recessions. It is a structural condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe downstream responses to this condition are familiar. First home owner grants, stamp duty concessions, shared equity schemes, deposit guarantees, social housing subsidies, rent assistance, increases to the pension. Each of these measures is directed at the symptom. Each of them is cheaper to announce than to fund adequately. Each of them is marketed as a solution. And each of them has produced almost no measurable change in the underlying affordability trajectory. The downstream architecture of repair is working precisely as Macgregorâs framework predicts: it absorbs enormous resources, it generates political theatre, and it does not address the condition it purports to treat.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUpstream of all these measures lies a set of decisions that were made over a period of roughly forty years, mostly quietly, mostly by both major parties, and mostly without public deliberation. The treatment of housing as an investment asset rather than as shelter. The capital gains tax discount, introduced by the Howard government in 1999. Negative gearing, briefly abolished by the Hawke government in 1985 and reinstated in 1987 under political pressure from property investors. The reliance on immigration to sustain population growth faster than the housing stock can expand. The restriction of urban density in areas where demand is highest. The structural subordination of affordability to the protection of existing asset values, because existing asset values represent the wealth of the generation that votes most reliably. These decisions produced the condition. They were upstream, they were structural, and they were the product of a deliberative process that was functioning exactly as its participants intended.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is worth noting that this analysis is not a partisan position. The housing settings examined here have been defended by both major parties across decades. Labor reinstated negative gearing in 1987. The Coalition introduced the capital gains discount in 1999. Both parties have governed during the peri
1od in which the price-to-income ratio has tripled, and neither has used its time in office to reverse the underlying settings. The critique offered here is not directed at one side of Australian politics. It is directed at a structural arrangement that both sides have sustained.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is the point that matters. The housing crisis is not the result of deliberative failure in the sense that the Iran war was the result of deliberative failure. The Iran war was produced by a process that had collapsed. The housing crisis was produced by a process that was working correctly, for the people who designed it, at the expense of the people it was going to affect later. This is a more difficult kind of failure to address, because it cannot be corrected by restoring deliberation. The deliberation produced the outcome. The deliberation itself has to be restructured so that the people who will bear the consequences of a decision have standing in the decision.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow that restructuring might be attempted is the subject of the next several articles in this series. For this piece, the point is simpler. Both the health case and the housing case illustrate the same principle. Downstream responses to structural problems absorb enormous resources without addressing the problem. Upstream responses are cheaper, more durable, and harder to implement, because the structural conditions that produced the problem are also the conditions that protect it from correction. Any serious examination of available remedies has to begin upstream, because the alternative is to spend the next generation cleaning the lake.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat this commits the series to\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe upstream principle is not itself a remedy. It is the criterion by which remedies will be assessed in the articles that follow. A proposal that operates downstream, that addresses the symptoms of a condition rather than its causes, will be treated with scepticism not because downstream responses are wrong, but because a system dominated by downstream responses is, by definition, a system that has given up on addressing the causes. The reader can hold the series to this criterion as it unfolds. If a proposed remedy later in the series turns out to be a downstream patch dressed in upstream language, that will be evidence that the discipline has failed, and the reader should say so.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second commitment is that the series will not confine its attention to remedies that are currently politically fashionable. Some of the remedies examined in the coming articles will be uncomfortable for progressive readers. Others will be uncomfortable for conservative readers. That is not because I have set out to balance the discomfort. It is because the upstream principle has no political alignment. It is a structural test, and structural tests are indifferent to the preferences of the people applying them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe next consultation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe original ZhÅng YÅng series ended with the image of a patient in a consulting room, confronting a diagnosis and the question of what to do about it. The transitional piece published earlier this month returned to that image and noted that the next phase of the relationship between practitioner and patient, in any competent clinical practice, is the consultation about what can be done. That consultation has now begun.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat it has not yet produced is any specific proposal. The piece you have just read has said only that remedies will be examined upstream rather than down, and that the examination will follow a set of disciplines that the reader can observe and, if necessary, object to. That is a small thing to have established in nearly three thousand words. It is also the essential thing, because without it nothing that follows in this series can be trusted as analysis rather than advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe next article will examine the first substantive remedy: the use of citizen assemblies and other forms of deliberative democracy to make decisions that the conventional political process has shown itself incapable of making well. The evidence for this approach is more substantial than most Australians realise, and it is more contested than most of its advocates will admit. Both the substance and the contestation will be examined honestly. The patient will be asked to consider it, and the decision about whether it represents a genuine option or a distraction will belong to the patient, as it must.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis article is part of The Available Remedies, a new series on the Walker Briefing examining structural responses to the conditions diagnosed in the preceding ZhÅng YÅng series. The full archive is available at bfwalker.substack.com.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"69:T3739,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSix weeks that answered a question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the last weeks I published the second article in a series on the Confucian concept of disciplined proportionate response. The article was titled âWhat Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires.â It asked whether Australia could afford to continue calibrating its strategic posture to the assumption that the senior partner in the AUKUS alliance possessed the institutional capacity to make decisions proportionate to the conditions it actually faced. The article did not answer the question. It could not. The evidence at the time was suggestive but not conclusive. Reasonable people could still argue that American strategic judgement, though visibly strained, remained fundamentally sound.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is no longer an argument reasonable people can make. The events of the past six weeks have answered the question I posed only recently. They have answered it with a clarity that should concentrate the mind of every Australian who has not yet grasped what has happened.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the twenty-eighth of February, the United States and Israel launched a surprise air war against Iran. The attack began during a period in which active negotiations were in progress. Iranian officials, including the countryâs foreign minister, had been engaged in scheduled talks with American counterparts in the days leading up to the strike, and a further round of negotiations was scheduled in Geneva. The attack killed Iranâs supreme leader and a number of senior officials on whose authority those negotiations had been proceeding. The Trump administration offered several different justifications for the war, in sequence and sometimes in parallel.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt was described as a pre-emptive action to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported only days earlier that it possessed no evidence of an organised nuclear weapons programme, while noting that Iran had denied it sufficient access to verify the programme was exclusively peaceful. The evidentiary basis for a surprise attack was therefore, on the agencyâs own assessment, uncertain in both directions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt was described as a response to Iranian protest crackdowns, though the connection between those events and a surprise aerial bombardment was never explained. It was described as a test of alliance commitment, a phrase the White House press secretary used explicitly in the days that followed. Each justification contradicted the others. The administration did not appear troubled by the contradictions, and neither did the commentary that accompanied them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe war ran for forty days. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global shipping. Iranian missiles struck American bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Hezbollah entered the war from Lebanon. Israel conducted massive air strikes on Lebanese territory. Iranâs currency collapsed further, though it had already collapsed. Global oil prices spiked. A ceasefire was eventually brokered, not by the United States but by Pakistan, under terms that Iran is credibly reported to consider a stronger bargaining position than the one it held before the war began. The ceasefire took effect on the eighth of April. Within hours, Israel launched strikes on Lebanon that Iran maintains violated the agreement. The Lebanese health ministry reports more than three hundred deaths from those strikes alone. As I write this, the ceasefire is holding in name only.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat the framework reveals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ZhÅng YÅng tradition provides a single test for strategic action. It asks whether the action is proportionate to what the situation requires, and whether the process by which the action was decided permitted the question to be asked honestly. Apply that test to the decision to launch the Iran war and the answer is not merely that the war was unwise. The answer is that no functioning deliberative process could have produced it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsider what such a process would have required. It would have required a clear and consistent statement of objective, because no action can be calibrated to a reality that has not been defined. It would have required an honest assessment of the evidence for the claimed threat, because action taken on inaccurate information cannot be proportionate to actual conditions. It would have required consultation with allies whose interests would be affected, because the credibility of the alliance structure depends on members being treated as participants rather than as subordinates. It would have required contingency planning for Iranian responses, because the question of what happens next is inseparable from the question of what to do now.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of these requirements was met. The objectives shifted from day to day. The evidentiary basis was contradicted by the administrationâs own intelligence services. The allies were not consulted and, when they declined to join the war, were blamed for its difficulties. The contingency planning, if it existed, did not survive contact with Iranian behaviour. A responsible process would have identified most of these problems before the first aircraft took off. The fact that it did not is not evidence of bad luck. It is evidence that the process itself has collapsed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA critic might object that earlier wars launched on faulty intelligence, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, were also failures of deliberative judgement. They were. But they were failures that preserved the outward procedural form of deliberation: congressional debate, allied consultation, intelligence assessments presented to the public, a single coherent justification maintained across time. What is distinctive about the 2026 case is that the procedural form itself has collapsed. The Iran war was not the result of deliberation that reached a wrong conclusion. It was produced without the kind of deliberation that could have reached any conclusion at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not a judgement I arrive at from ideological preference. It is the conclusion the framework produces when applied to the available facts. The framework was not designed for this case. It was constructed over the course of five articles published before the Iran war occurred, and it was built from cases drawn from contexts as different as domestic policy failure in Australia, the historical record of democratic collapse in interwar Europe, and the accumulating evidence of institutional decay across Western governance more generally. The Iran war is simply the most visible current instance of the condition the framework identifies. A reader who believes the framework has been tailored to produce this conclusion can test the claim by reading the original series, which is available in full on the archive. The framework was fixed before the facts arr
1ived. The facts are now testing the framework, and the framework is passing the test.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe NATO corollary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe consequences of the war for the alliance structure are now unfolding in real time. On the eighth of April, the same day the ceasefire took effect, the Trump administration formally raised the prospect of American withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The stated grievance was that NATO members had declined to join the Iran war. The White House described this as the alliance âfailing a test.â The President subsequently posted that âNATO wasnât there when we needed them, and they wonât be there if we need them again.â Formal withdrawal is legally constrained by a 2024 statute that requires congressional approval, a statute that was co-authored by the current Secretary of State when he was a senator. The legal constraint is real. The damage is not limited to what the law can prevent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat has already happened, regardless of whether formal withdrawal follows, is that the credibility of the American commitment to Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty has been visibly called into question by the President of the United States. European allies are now engaged in the conversation they were determined to avoid: what does a European security architecture look like if the American commitment cannot be assumed? French, German, and British officials are having that conversation with a seriousness they did not bring to it a year ago. The conversation is being forced by circumstances, not chosen. The circumstances were produced by the same administration that now complains about the results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is the pattern the series has been describing for months. A system loses the capacity for proportionate response. Its responses generate secondary consequences. Those consequences then require further responses, which are produced by the same impaired process that generated the original failure. The cycle is not accidental. It is the predictable behaviour of a system operating without the discipline of calibrated judgement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat this means for Australia\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI raise these events not as a commentary on American politics, which is not my brief, but because the sovereign deficit I named in the fourth article of the original series is not an abstract concept. It has direct and immediate consequences for the country I serve. Australiaâs strategic posture has been calibrated, across successive governments of both political traditions, to the assumption that the senior partner in our principal alliance possesses the capacity to make reasoned strategic decisions. That assumption is now demonstrably false. I do not make the claim lightly and I do not take pleasure in making it. The evidence compels the conclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe question that follows is not whether Australia should abandon its alliance relationships. It is whether Australia can continue to make decisions about its own strategic posture on the basis of an assumption that the events of the past six weeks have shown to be unsustainable. AUKUS, as currently structured, commits this country to a programme of industrial and strategic alignment with the United States on a timeframe that extends decades into the future. The plausibility of that commitment depends on the quality of American decision-making across those decades. The question is not whether a different administration might make different decisions. It is whether the structural conditions that produced these decisions have themselves changed, and there is no evidence that they have. If the quality of American decision-making in March and April of this year is indicative of the decision-making Australia will be relying upon in 2040, then the question is no longer whether AUKUS represents value for money. The question is whether it represents a prudent calibration of risk.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA sitting parliamentarian cannot resolve that question in an article. It is a question for the Australian government, for the defence establishment, and ultimately for the Australian people. What a sitting parliamentarian can do is name the question clearly enough that it cannot continue to be avoided. The events of the past six weeks have made the question impossible to avoid honestly. Whether it will actually be asked is a different matter.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe harder question beneath\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a question beneath the question about AUKUS and the alliance, and it is the question the series has been building toward from the beginning. The loss of proportionate judgement is not confined to Washington. It is a condition that afflicts political systems generally when the structural incentives governing those systems reward responses calibrated to pressures rather than to conditions. The American case is the most visible current example because the stakes of American failure are the highest. But the condition the framework identifies is present, in different forms and at different stages, in every contemporary democracy. It is present in Australia. It is present in the decisions we make about our own policies, our own alliances, our own priorities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe coming series, which begins next week, will examine what structural remedies exist for this condition and what their adoption would actually require. The diagnosis was the first phase. The examination of available remedies is the second. The events of the past six weeks should be understood not as a distraction from that examination but as the clearest possible demonstration of its urgency. A condition that can produce a war for which no coherent justification exists, and then respond to the consequences of that war by threatening the alliance structure whose support it had demanded, is not a condition that will correct itself through the ordinary mechanisms of political feedback. It requires structural response. That is
1what the coming series will examine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor this week, the task is simpler. It is to name clearly what has just happened and to ask whether Australia intends to behave as if it has noticed. The clinical framework permits no other reading of the evidence. The patient is in the consulting room. The diagnosis is on the desk. And a great power whose decisions Australia has calibrated its own posture to follow has, in the past six weeks, provided a demonstration of the condition the series exists to name.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe question now is whether this country will ask the next question honestly, or whether we will wait, as the historical pattern suggests, for catastrophe to make the alternative undeniable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis article is part of the Walker Briefing, published at bfwalker.substack.com. The preceding series on ZhÅng YÅng and the structural conditions producing political failure can be read in full on the Substack archive. The new series, The Available Remedies, begins this week.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"6a:T2640,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe consulting room\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the opening passage of the final article in this series, I described a moment familiar to any general practitioner: the moment after the investigations are complete, the referrals have returned, and the diagnosis is no longer in doubt. The patient sits across the desk. The films are on the screen. The question that remains is not what is wrong. It is what the patient is prepared to do about it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive articles and several weeks later, that question has not been answered. It was not meant to be. The series existed to reach the question, not to resolve it, and the decision about what comes next does not belong to the person who conducted the investigation. It belongs to the patient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia is the patient. And what the series established, across its five successive pieces, is a condition that is structural rather than incidental, that operates simultaneously across domains which are conventionally treated as unrelated, and that will not resolve through the ordinary mechanisms of the system that produced it. The sovereign deficit, as I named it in the fourth article, is not a policy failure awaiting a better policy. It is a failure of the deliberative process itself, a progressive loss of the institutional capacity to ask what a situation actually requires before acting on what the surrounding pressures prefer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat diagnosis stands. Nothing published since the series began, and nothing I have encountered in the responses it has generated, has caused me to revise it. If anything, the intervening weeks have sharpened it. The pattern of disproportionate response, of institutional action calibrated to pressure rather than to reality, continues to assert itself across the same domains the series examined, and in new ones.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut a diagnosis, however sound, is not a destination. It is a threshold.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat remains unexamined\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe series made one deliberate omission that must now be acknowledged. It diagnosed the condition but did not examine the available treatments. That was a conscious choice, not an oversight. A diagnostic framework that moves too quickly to prescription loses the very quality that distinguishes it from the advocacy it seeks to discipline: the capacity to examine before concluding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is, however, a limit to the usefulness of restraint. A practitioner who diagnoses a critical stenosis and then declines to discuss the options available to the patient has not exercised good clinical judgement. The practitioner has exercised a kind of intellectual cowardice dressed in the language of caution. At some point, the obligation to examine what can be done becomes as pressing as the obligation to understand what has gone wrong.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat point has been reached.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe responses to the series, both public and private, have converged on a single question, and it is the question I would expect from any patient confronting a serious diagnosis: what are the options? Not what should I do, which implies a certainty the situation does not yet support, but what exists, what has been tried, what does the evidence say about what works and what does not?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are the questions a competent practitioner addresses in the consultation that follows the diagnosis. The investigation is behind us. The next phase is the examination of what is available.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Available Remedies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe next series of articles on this Briefing will be published under that title. Its purpose is to examine, with the same analytical discipline the diagnostic series attempted to sustain, the structural remedies that have been proposed, tested, or implemented in democratic systems around the world, and to ask what they imply for Australia.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe territory is considerable. It includes the decontamination of political funding, the restructuring of media ownership, the introduction of proportional representation, the use of deliberative democracy through citizen assemblies, the devolution of power to more local jurisdictions, and the cultivation of civic literacy as a structural precondition rather than an optional extra. None of these subjects is new, unless we consider the lack of genuine innovation in the political sphere. Eac
1h has a substantial body of evidence behind it, drawn from jurisdictions as different as Switzerland, Ireland, New Zealand, and Mongolia. What has been largely absent, at least in Australian public discussion, is a serious attempt to examine them together, as components of a coherent structural response to the condition the diagnostic series identified.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is what this next phase will attempt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should be clear about what it will not attempt. It will not produce a manifesto. It will not endorse a programme. It will not tell the reader what to think or what to support. The posture of the diagnostic series, which insisted on examining before concluding and on distinguishing between what the evidence supports and what the analyst would prefer, will govern the new series as strictly as it governed the old. Where the evidence for a particular remedy is strong, I will say so. Where it is contested or incomplete, I will say that too. Where a proposal that sounds compelling in principle faces obstacles that its proponents have not adequately addressed, the obstacles will be named.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ZhÅng YÅng tradition that governed the first series will continue to govern this one. The discipline of proportionate response does not apply only to the diagnosis of failure. It applies equally to the examination of remedy. A treatment pursued with disproportionate enthusiasm, or adopted without adequate examination of its risks and limitations, reproduces the very pattern of misjudgement the treatment was meant to correct.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe question beneath the question\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is, beneath the practical question of what tools are available, a prior question that the diagnostic series raised but did not fully resolve. It is the question of whether the structures that have produced the sovereign deficit are capable of being reformed from within, or whether the nature of the deficit is such that recovery requires actors and mechanisms that the existing structures cannot generate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fifth article argued that the recovery of deliberative judgement requires structural independence from the pressures that suppress it, and that this independence is a condition, not a personality trait. If that argument is sound, then the examination of available remedies cannot confine itself to reforms that operate within the existing institutional architecture. It must also examine whether that architecture is capable of accommodating the remedies it needs, or whether something more fundamental is required.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not a comfortable question for a sitting parliamentarian to raise. But the function of an independent member, if it means anything at all, includes the obligation to ask whether the system is serving the people it was designed to serve, even when the question is unwelcome within the system itself. It implies that the institution in which I serve may be part of the problem I am attempting to diagnose. I raised that implication in the fifth article and I do not withdraw from it here. The obligation to examine the question honestly is not diminished by the discomfort of the person examining it. If anything, the willingness to sit with that discomfort is itself a small exercise of the quality the series has argued is most needed: the discipline of asking what the situation requires rather than what would be convenient to conclude.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat comes next\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first article in The Available Remedies will be published within the coming week. The series will proceed at roughly weekly intervals thereafter. Each piece will take a single structural question, examine the evidence bearing on it, test it against Australian conditions, and ask what it would mean in practice if taken seriously.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI do not know where this examination will lead. That is not a rhetorical gesture toward humility. It is a statement of fact. The diagnostic series arrived at conclusions I did not fully anticipate when it began, and I expect the same will be true of what follows. A writer who knows his conclusions before he begins his investigation is not investigating. He is performing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat I do know is that the question the diagnostic series left with its reader, the question of whether the capacity for proportionate judgement can be recovered before the consequences of its absence become unmanageable, is not a question that can be left indefinitely open. The historical record examined in the fifth article suggested that civilisations recover this capacity only after catastrophic failure has made the alternative undeniable. The purpose of examining available remedies now, before that point is reached, is to determine whether the historical pattern is a law or merely a tendency, and whether this country possesses the will to test the distinction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe patient is in the consulting room. The diagnosis is on the desk. The next consultation begins.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis article is part of the Walker Briefing, published at bfwalker.substack.com. The preceding series, on ZhÅng YÅng (ä¸åº¸ä¹é) and the structural conditions producing political failure, can be read in full on the Substack archive.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"6b:Ta4c,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eWhen I first entered parliament, a colleague took me aside and offered what he clearly considered a kind lesson. He explained to the me - the newbie - how the system actually works: stay on the right side of the party room, and you will be able to do things for your constituents. Cross it, and you will achieve nothing in four years. He was not a cynical man. He was not even wrong about how the system works. He believed it, completely and sincerely. That is the problem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvery three or four years, Australians choose representatives and send them to their respective parliament to exercise judgement on their behalf. What most voters do not see is what happens next. The party structure that delivered those representatives to office immediately begins constraining the very quality that was supposed to justify their presence: the capacity to assess a situation on its merits and act accordingly. Preselection depends on loyalty. Advancement depends on compliance. Committee positions, ministerial prospects, even the order in which a member is permitted to speak, all are governed by the question of whether that member can be relied upon to follow the agreed line. The representative who exercises independent judgement on a matter of consequence does not get rewarded for courage. They get marked as unreliable. Over time, the system does not attract people who lack judgement. It takes people who possess it and teaches them not to use it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis matters to you directly, not as a question of political theory but as a practical reality that affects your life. When a health policy is designed to serve a donor rather than a patient, you wait longer in an emergency department that was already failing before the latest round of cuts. When an energy decision is made to avoid a factional dispute rather than to address the evidence, your bill goes up and the transition that might have brought it down gets deferred another decade. When a housing policy is calibrated to protect an asset class rather than to shelter families, your children cannot afford to live near you. These are not failures of individual character. They are the predictable outputs of a system that has made independent judgement structurally inadvisable for the people you elected to exercise it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe longer version of this argument examines whether that pattern can be broken, and what kind of structural conditions would be required to break it, without pretending the answer is simple.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"6c:T7078,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhere are we now?\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a medical practitioner I often sit in front of a patient with the results of investigations and referrals which mandate an action. Perhaps it is a cardiovascular urgency: familial hyperlipidaemia has produced a 95 per cent stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. If we do not intervene, a stent or a bypass, the probability of sudden death is high. The investigations are complete. The diagnosis is not in doubt. The question that remains is not what is wrong. It is what the patient is prepared to do about it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia is the patient. This series has been conducting the equivalent of a sustained clinical investigation, and the findings are now before us.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross four articles, the series applied a concept from the Confucian philosophical tradition to the structural conditions producing political failure in domains as different as Middle Eastern security architecture, European democratic self-defence, Australian strategic posture, and domestic governance. The concept was ZhÅng YÅng: the disciplined capacity for proportionate response, sustained over time, calibrated to the reality of the situation rather than to the emotional or institutional pressures acting on those who must respond to it. The diagnosis, developed across each successive piece, was that this capacity has been progressively lost, not through individual incompetence but through structural conditions that select against its exercise. This article does not introduce new evidence. It draws together the findings established across those four pieces and asks what they imply when read as a single diagnosis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe preceding article named the integrating condition: a sovereign deficit, the accumulated cost of governing without the prior discipline of asking what Australian national interest actually requires before entering arrangements that narrow future choice. That deficit was shown to operate simultaneously across strategic, domestic, and institutional domains, producing failures that appear unrelated when examined in isolation but share a common structural origin when examined together.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne question remains, and it is the question the entire series exists to reach. If the sovereign deficit is the condition, and if it arises from structural capture of the deliberative process itself, then what kind of political actor can recover what has been lost? And why must that recovery come from outside the structures that produced the deficit, rather than from reform within them?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat the tradition demands of the remedy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ZhÅng YÅng text is explicit on a point that Western political theory has been reluctant to absorb. Institutional architecture is necessary but insufficient. The health of a political order depends ultimately on the cultivation of character among those who govern. You can build a constitutional system with separated powers, independent courts, and free elections, and still find that it loses its internal capacity for calibrated response, because the people operating within it have stopped exercising the discipline the system requires. That argument was established in the first article of this series. It needs to be completed here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe completion runs in the opposite direction. If institutions without cultivated character are insufficient, it is equally true that character without institutional independence is captive. A person of genuine judgement, placed within a structure that systematically penalises the exercise of that judgement, does not reform the structure. The structure reforms the person. The selection pressures are constant. The penalties for deviation are concrete: loss of preselection, loss of factional support, loss of ministerial prospects, loss of the career itself. The rewards for c
1ompliance are equally concrete. Over time, the rational response to those incentives is compliance, and the institutional culture reflects this. Those who cannot comply leave. Those who remain learn to call compliance judgement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not a moral failing. It is a structural outcome. The Confucian tradition would recognise it immediately, because the tradition insists that the conditions under which governance is exercised shape the quality of the governance produced. Character is not a fixed personal attribute that survives any institutional environment unchanged. It is a capacity that requires conditions favourable to its exercise. When those conditions are absent, the capacity atrophies even in people who possessed it at the outset.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe philosophical conclusion follows directly. If the sovereign deficit is produced by the structural capture of deliberative judgement, then the recovery of that judgement requires actors whose structural position permits its exercise. Independence of judgement is not a personality trait. It is a structural condition. It requires freedom from the specific pressures, factional, financial, and career-based, that produce the capture the series has diagnosed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe architecture that selects against judgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe major-party system in Australia is not broken. It is, on its own terms, functioning as designed. The distinction matters, because it determines whether reform from within is a plausible remedy or a category error. A system that consistently suppresses accurate judgement in those who operate it does not produce stability. It produces delayed instability, and the delay is what makes the eventual correction more severe.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsider what the architecture actually selects for. Preselection in both major parties is controlled by factional structures whose internal logic rewards loyalty, service to the faction, and the accumulation of numbers within the organisational machinery. The qualities that secure preselection are, in the main, the qualities of coalition management: the capacity to build alliances within the party, to trade support across factional lines, and to demonstrate reliable alignment with the factionâs priorities over a sustained period. These are not trivial skills. They require persistence and tactical competence of a high order. They are also, by their nature, skills of compliance rather than independent analysis. The person who has spent a decade building factional support within a party has been practising a discipline. It is the discipline of alignment, not the discipline of asking whether the alignment serves the public interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOnce in parliament, the selection pressures intensify rather than relax. The party whip system, the conventions of cabinet solidarity, the threat of expulsion, the career structure that places ministerial appointment at the summit of political achievement and makes that appointment contingent on the leaderâs confidence: these are not incidental features of the system. They are its operating logic. The system is designed to produce coordinated legislative action, and it achieves this by penalising deviation. A member who votes against the party on a matter of genuine conscience does not receive institutional reward for the exercise of judgement. The member receives a reprimand, a loss of committee positions, or in the most serious cases, expulsion from the party that controls the memberâs electoral viability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe donor architecture operates on the same logic at a different level. Major-party funding flows from sources whose interests are served by the continuation of existing policy settings. The relationship between funding and access is not, in most cases, a crude transaction. It operates through the subtler mechanism of alignment: parties whose policy positions are congenial to major donors receive sustained financial support, and parties that contemplate positions uncongenial to those donors are aware of the financial consequences before the position is adopted. This does not require corruption in the legal sense, and I am not alleging any. What I am describing is a structural alignment effect, observable in the pattern of policy positions that attract sustained funding and those that do not, rather than a transactional relationship between specific donors and specific decisions. The effect requires only that the systemâs financial architecture makes certain questions more expensive to ask than others. The questions that threaten concentrated interests are the expensive ones. Over time, they stop being asked.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am describing a system, not accusing individuals within it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMany people enter major-party politics with genuine conviction and a sincere desire to serve the public interest. The structural point is that the system they enter does not reward that conviction. It rewards the capacity to operate within constraints that progressively narrow the range of permissible judgement. The person who emerges from that process into a position of ministerial authority has been shaped by two decades of selection pressure that has consistently favoured compliance over independent analysis. That the system then fails to produce the quality of deliberation the country requires is not surprising. It is the predictable output of the architecture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe completed pattern\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe geopolitical casebook this series has assembled was not assembled for its own sake. It was assembled because the pattern visible across those cases could not be seen in any one of them alone, and because the pattern answers a question that the domestic analysis, by itself, leaves open. The cases examined, Geneva, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Australia, were selected not for their agreement but for their divergence. That they converge on the same structural failure is what gives the pattern its analytical weight.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Geneva consultations, the information existed. The Defence Intelligence Agency assessment was available. The National Intelligence Councilâs classified finding, that military action was unlikely to produce regime change, was in the hands of those who ordered the strikes. The Arms Control Associationâs analysis, that the negotiating process had not been exhausted, is a matter of public re
1cord. The system could not act on what it knew. It acted instead on what the surrounding pressures preferred. The pressures were structural: allied lobbying, domestic political incentives, the institutional momentum of a security apparatus oriented toward action rather than continued negotiation. No individual needed to be malevolent. The architecture produced the outcome.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Europe, the same structural logic produced a different expression of the same failure. Institutions confronted with a corrective political force, the populist movements arising from genuine material grievance, responded with the measure proportionate to the emotional intensity of the threat rather than to the structural nature of the problem. In Germany, a decade of exclusion has produced a more radical, not a weaker, force. In Hungary, a corrective impulse that reached power without adequate institutional constraint became the new imbalance and engineered the conditions for its own perpetuation. In Italy, stronger institutional friction produced partial accommodation. In Poland, electoral success against an entrenched populist revealed that winning the election and repairing the institution are not the same achievement. The common thread across all four cases is a system whose response was calibrated to preserve itself rather than to address the conditions generating the challenge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn Australia, the sovereign deficit operates at every level simultaneously. Strategic commitments entered without independent derivation from national interest. Domestic policy settings that have outsourced sovereign responsibilities to market mechanisms the state cannot override when those mechanisms fail. A health system spending fourteen billion dollars a year with increasing sophistication on the wrong question. The specific figures cited in the preceding article are Western Australian, because that is the jurisdiction I serve and know most precisely, but the structural pattern is not jurisdictional. Every Australian state budget tells a version of the same story, and the federal architecture reproduces it at national scale. Beneath all of it, the same structural condition: the absence of actors with sufficient independence to ask what the situation actually requires rather than what the institutional pressures prefer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe completed pattern is this. In every theatre the series has examined, the failure was not one of intelligence or information or institutional architecture. It was the absence of the deliberative independence that would have permitted those assets to be used as the situation demanded. The information existed. The institutions existed. The capacity to act on the information through those institutions, free from the capture of interested pressures, did not. That capacity is what the ZhÅng YÅng tradition calls the cultivated mean. Its absence is what the series has named the sovereign deficit. And its recovery is not a matter of better policy within existing structures. It is a matter of who governs, and on what terms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat gives this pattern its present urgency is not that it is new. It is that the systems exhibiting it are now encountering stresses they were not designed to absorb, and are doing so simultaneously. A global food supply chain that depends on a single maritime chokepoint, managed by a security order that has lost the capacity for proportionate response, is not a stable arrangement. An electoral architecture in which a quarter of the Australian population has moved its support to a party the existing structures have no strategy for engaging with, and in which comparable movements are contesting power across Europe, is not a stable arrangement. A domestic governance model spending fourteen billion dollars a year on a health system that cannot keep nurses while less than a quarter of one per cent is directed at preventing the conditions filling the wards is not a stable arrangement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are not separate crises. They are the same structural deficit expressing itself across every domain it touches, and the tolerance for continued failure is narrowing. The margin within which the current system can absorb its own dysfunction without producing consequences that are genuinely disruptive, not merely uncomfortable but structurally destabilising, is thinner than
1it has been at any point in the post-war period. That is not a prediction of catastrophe. It is an observation about the distance between the demands being placed on the system and the quality of deliberation the system is capable of producing. When that distance becomes too great, the system does not reform. It is reformed by events, and the terms of that reformation are considerably less gentle than the terms that voluntary recovery would have permitted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe diagnostic model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have been a general practitioner for four decades. In that time I have learned one thing about the exercise of clinical judgement that applies with direct precision to political life.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA general practitioner exercises independent judgement in every consultation. The patientâs employer wants them back at work. The insurer wants the cheapest intervention. The hospital wants the bed freed. The pharmaceutical representative wants the newer drug prescribed. The health bureaucracy wants the consultation completed within its allocated time. The GPâs obligation is to the patient, and the exercise of that obligation requires structural independence from every other interest in the room. Not hostility to those interests, nor ignorance of them. Independence from their capacity to determine the clinical decision. The GP who allows the employerâs preference to shape the diagnosis has not made a clinical error. The GP has made a structural one: the GP has allowed an interest other than the patientâs to govern the exercise of judgement that the patientâs welfare depends on.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe parallel to political life is not decorative. The independent parliamentarianâs obligation is to the constituents. The exercise of that obligation requires structural independence from every other interest in the chamber: the party leadershipâs preference, the donorâs expectation, the factionâs demand, the career incentive that rewards compliance with the whip over fidelity to the evidence. A parliamentarian who allows any of these to govern the exercise of judgement has not merely made a political choice. The parliamentarian has surrendered the structural condition under which genuine deliberation, the kind the ZhÅng YÅng tradition demands of those who govern, remains possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe GP model illuminates something else that matters here. Clinical independence is not the same as clinical isolation. A competent GP consults colleagues, reads the evidence, refers to specialists, and operates within institutional frameworks that coordinate care across the system. What the GP does not do is allow any of those relationships to override the clinical judgement exercised in the consulting room with the patient sitting across the desk. Coordination is not the same thing as capture, and the distinction is structural. It is the distinction that political life in Australia has largely lost.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat independence requires\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGenuine political independence is not the absence of commitment. It is the presence of a prior commitment, to the exercise of honest judgement against a stated framework of values, that takes precedence over all subsequent loyalties. The independent does not arrive in the chamber empty of conviction. The independent arrives with convictions derived from a source other than the party machinery: from professional experience and community obligation, from a considered account of the public interest that has been developed and tested before the pressures of political life begin to act on it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis must be stated with care, because the argument has a vulnerability that intellectual honesty requires naming. Independence is a necessary condition for the recovery of deliberative judgement. It is not a sufficient one. An independent parliamentarian can be wrong, captured by personal certainty, poorly informed, or simply inadequate to the complexity of the questions the role presents. The structural freedom from party discipline does not guarantee wisdom. What it guarantees is the possibility of wisdom: the structural space within which genuine deliberation can occur, undeformed by the pressures that the series has shown produce the sovereign deficit. Whether that space is used well depends on the character of the person occupying it, and that returns us to the Confucian insistence that institutional conditions and cultivated character are both necessary and neither is sufficient alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNor does independence eliminate the risk of capture. It relocates it. An independent parliamentarian remains subject to personal ideology, constituent pressure, media incentive, and the limitations of individual knowledge. The difference is that these sources of influence are fewer, more visible, and less structurally enforced than the comprehensive apparatus of party discipline. They can be named and contested. The capture that operates through factional machinery, donor architecture, and career incentive is harder to see and harder to resist, precisely because it presents itself not as capture but as normal professional conduct.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should also name what would count as evidence against this argument, because an argument that cannot specify the conditions of its own failure is not an argument but a conviction. If the major-party system were producing, with reasonable consistency, the quality of deliberative judgement the series has argued it suppresses, the thesis would fail. If members within that system were regularly exercising independent judgement on consequential votes without career penalty, the structural claim would be refuted. If the policy outcomes documented across this series, the Geneva sequence, the AUKUS procurement gap, the health systemâs upstream neglect, were isolated exceptions rather than a recurring pattern across multiple domains and governments, the integrating diagnosis would not hold. The reader can asse
1ss whether the available evidence supports the thesis or contradicts it. The argument does not ask to be taken on faith.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a further distinction that must be drawn, because without it the argument proves more than it should. The case against structural capture is not a case against all political organisation. People who share values and coordinate their efforts to advance those values are not engaged in capture. They are engaged in democratic participation. The line between coordination and capture is crossed when the organisational structure acquires the power to override the individual memberâs judgement on questions of substance, and when the penalties for exercising independent judgement become severe enough to make compliance the rational response. A loose coalition of independent actors who consult, collaborate, and occasionally disagree in public is a different structure from a disciplined party that demands uniformity and punishes deviation. The first preserves the conditions for genuine deliberation. The second, whatever its other virtues, does not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat independence requires, then, is not solitude but the right kind of institutional relationship: one in which the obligation to the constituents and to the evidence governs every vote, every speech, and every question asked in the chamber, and in which no organisational loyalty is permitted to override that obligation. It requires financial independence from the donor structures that make certain questions too expensive to ask. It requires the willingness to say, publicly and without evasion, that the evidence is incomplete and that the question deserves more time than the news cycle permits. These are qualities the current system penalises. They are also the qualities that the current situation demands.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am an independent parliamentarian making the philosophical case for independent judgement in political life. The reader is entitled to notice that interest and to weigh it. The test of the argument is whether it holds when separated from the person making it. If the structural analysis is sound, it would be sound regardless of who wrote it. If it is not, no amount of philosophical scaffolding saves it. I would rather the reader assess the logic and reject it on its merits than accept it on the basis of who presented it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe question that remains\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvery civilisational tradition that has examined the cycle of institutional failure and recovery has arrived at a version of the same observation. The cycle does not interrupt itself. It is interrupted by people who recover, in themselves and then in the communities they serve, the capacity for honest judgement that the failing system has ceased to reward. The Confucian tradition places this observation at the centre of its political philosophy. The European Enlightenment, for all its structural differences, rests on a comparable insistence: that the exercise of independent reason is the foundation of legitimate governance, and that its suppression is the precondition of tyranny. The post-war reconstruction of democratic institutions across Europe was undertaken not by systems that had reformed themselves but by people who had chosen, under extreme pressure, to exercise a quality of judgement the surrounding order had abandoned.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntellectual honesty requires acknowledging a discomforting feature of that record. In nearly every case, the recovery of deliberative capacity followed catastrophic failure rather than preceding it. The Enlightenment followed the Wars of Religion. The post-war reconstruction followed the deadliest conflict in human history. The Confucian renewal cycles followed dynastic collapse. If the historical pattern is that civilisations recover their capacity for proportionate judgement only after the consequences of losing it have become unignorable, then the case for pre-emptive recovery is not less urgent. It is more so, because the alternative is to wait for the catastrophe the historical pattern predicts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat historical record does not justify optimism in the therapeutic sense. It does not promise that recovery will occur. What it establishes, across a sufficient range of cases to constitute evidence rather than anecdote, is that the capacity for independent judgement is never permanently extinguished. It can be selected against, structurally suppressed, allowed to atrophy under conditions that reward compliance and penalise honesty. But it is a human capacity, not an institutional product, and it can be recovered by people who choose to exercise it. That choice is individual before it is collective. It begins not with a programme or a platform but with the decision, taken by enough people in enough places, that the quality of deliberation governing their lives matters more than the convenience of delegating it to structures that have demonstrated, with accumulating evidence, that they cannot be trusted with it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is, moreover, a feature of the present moment that distinguishes it from comfortable historical analogy and deserves to be stated honestly. The cycles of institutional failure the Confucian tradition documents, and the European parallels that accompany them, unfolded over decades and sometimes centuries. The current moment is compressed. The consequences of structural failure arrive faster, transmit further, and compound more rapidly than any previous generation has experienced. A decision made in Washington on a Frid
1ay afternoon reshapes food prices in Dhaka within weeks. An electoral result in Adelaide registers in commentary about European democratic resilience within hours. The system must recover its capacity for proportionate judgement not at the pace of gradual reform but at the pace the situation is actually moving. That compression does not make recovery impossible. It makes the cost of delay higher than it has ever been, and it makes the case for acting now, rather than waiting for the system to correct itself, not merely philosophical but practical.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI do not know whether Australia possesses, or can cultivate in sufficient numbers, the kind of political actors this analysis describes. I do not know whether the electorate, habituated across generations to a system that asks them to choose between two managed alternatives, is ready to trust judgement over programme, to accept the discomfort of representatives who say they do not yet know, and to value the honest exercise of deliberation above the reassuring performance of certainty. These are genuinely open questions. The series has not answered them and does not pretend to.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the series has attempted to establish, across five articles and several thousand words, is the prior case: that the conditions producing the failures we are living through are structural, that they are not self-correcting, that they operate with the same logic across domains as different as Middle Eastern security and Western Australian housing, and that the quality of governance they produce will continue to deteriorate for precisely as long as the structures producing it remain unchallenged by actors with the independence to ask the question the system cannot ask of itself.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ZhÅng YÅng tradition, which has governed this series from the beginning, closes with a passage worth reading closely. The text observes that the path of the mean is not difficult because it is hidden. It is difficult because it is so close to ordinary life that people walk past it without recognition. The recovery of proportionate judgement in political life is not a grand project requiring extraordinary actors or revolutionary transformation. It is the recovery of something ordinary: the habit of asking, before any decision, what the situation actually requires. That habit has been lost. It can be recovered. Whether it will be is the question the series leaves with its reader.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"6d:T74d2,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch2 id=\"the-integrating-question\"\u003eThe integrating question\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a discipline that experienced practitioners in any complex field eventually develop, though they rarely name it explicitly. It is the habit of distrust toward the presenting complaint. Not distrust of the patient, nor of the reality of the symptom, but of the completeness of the account it offers. A complaint that explains one thing while leaving three others unexplained is not a diagnosis. It is the beginning of one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia, examined honestly across the past several months, has been presenting with symptoms in three distinct domains at once. Strategic exposure deepening beyond any proportionate assessment of risk. Domestic material insecurity, housing, healthcare costs, financial resilience, eroding faster than any combination of cyclical factors can account for. And institutional governance struggling to maintain the quality of deliberate judgement in the face of accelerating analytical complexity. Each of these has been discussed. Each has attracted policy response. Each has resisted resolution.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen multiple systems fail at once, and when each failure proves resistant to treatment directed at the symptom alone, the responsible question is not which failure demands the most urgent attention. It is what underlying condition most consistently accounts for all of them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis piece attempts that question. The answer it offers is not comfortable, but it is, on the available evidence, the most parsimonious explanation the observed pattern supports. Australia is experiencing what might most precisely be called a sovereign deficit: the accumulated cost of a governing habit, lost gradually across several decades and multiple governments, of asking what Australian national interest actually requires before entering any arrangement that narrows future choice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat habit is the practical content of sovereignty. Its absence is the condition this series has been diagnosing from different angles. Naming it plainly is the necessary step before any credible account of recovery becomes possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-first-presentation-strategic-exposure\"\u003eThe first presentation: strategic exposure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia has for several decades treated alliance management as a substitute for independent strategic thought rather than as an instrument in its service. That substitution is not a recent development. It hardened through a series of incremental commitments, each defensible on its own terms, none examined against a stated account of Australian national interest, until the accumulated weight of them produced a posture that can no longer be adjusted at the margin.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cost of that substitution is no longer hypothetical. The Geneva timeline, the sequence in which active negotiations with Iran and the USA produced an agreed continuation that was abandoned 48 hours later without consultation with allies, by a partner acting on justifications that shifted across six distinct rationales in the days that followed, is a completed event. The industrial evidence regarding AUKUS submarine delivery, documented in American defence assessments and Congressional Research Service reports, raises material doubt regarding delivery on the timelines publicly stated to the Australian people. These are not projections. They are matters of record.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat has not yet been stated plainly is what the strategic sovereign deficit actually consists of at the institutional level. It is not simply that Australia has made a poor defence procurement decision. It is that no standing institutional discipline exists to prevent the next one. There is no mechanism that requires a major strategic commitment to be evaluated against an account of Australian national interest derived independently before it is entered. There is no parliamentary architecture with sufficient authority to audit whether commitments made are being delivered on the terms agreed. There is no published sovereign interest framework against which alliance obligations are measured and found proportionate or otherwise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the absence of such discipline, strategic decisions are made by inertia. Alliance loyalty substitutes for strategic judgement. Each commitment narrows the range of options available for the next one. The sovereign deficit deepens not through a single catastrophic choice but through the accumulation of choices made without the prior question being asked.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Zhong Yong framework introduced at the beginning of this series n
1ames this with precision. Governance that cannot distinguish between what a situation actually requires and what interested parties prefer has lost the disciplined capacity for proportionate response. Australiaâs strategic posture has, on the available evidence, lost that capacity in the domain that matters most.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-second-presentation-domestic-material-failure\"\u003eThe second presentation: domestic material failure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe domestic dimension of the sovereign deficit is visible with particular clarity in Western Australia, which serves here not as a parochial case study but as a precise illustration of the condition operating within a jurisdiction representative of the national pattern.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe figures require only brief restatement, because they carry the force that precise numbers carry when the reality they describe has been systematically managed rather than honestly confronted. The Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre documented, in 2025, that 210,000 Western Australian households considered their housing unaffordable, a 91 per cent increase since 2022. Affordable rentals below $350 per week declined by 82 per cent over the same period. The public housing waitlist reached approximately 35,000 applicants, having grown continuously in every reporting period. Rough sleeping increased by 114 per cent since 2016. One in ten specialist homelessness service clients is now employed: not unemployed, not welfare-dependent, but working, and still unable to secure stable shelter.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the same period, Western Australia recorded a state budget surplus of $4.5 billion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat coexistence, documented, persistent, and acknowledged in the budget papers without structural response, is not a funding problem. It is a determination problem, and it shares its root with the strategic failure described above. The governing model that spread across advanced economies from the 1980s onward, relocating economic determination from democratic institutions to market mechanisms on the explicit assumption that markets would reliably serve the public interest without independent political judgement, produced the same pattern in the domestic domain as alliance management produced in the strategic one. Determination was outsourced. The capacity to exercise it atrophied. When the mechanisms to which it had been delegated produced outcomes incompatible with public wellbeing, the institutional habit of reclaiming it had already been largely lost.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe governing model that treats housing as a market commodity has outsourced a sovereign responsibility to price mechanisms it cannot override when those mechanisms fail the population they are supposed to serve. The determination of what Western Australians require from their state, stable shelter as the foundation of economic and social participation, has been delegated to investor incentive structures and supply dynamics that operate on entirely different objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe health consequences of this delegation are not abstract. They are arriving in clinical settings across the state with increasing regularity and severity. The literature on housing insecurity as a health determinant is extensive and not seriously contested: chronic housing stress is associated with elevated rates of anxiety, depression, cardiovascular disease, and immune dysfunction. Children in insecure housing environments show measurable effects on cognitive development and educational attainment. Adults managing persistent financial precarity present to general practice with conditions whose proximate cause is a physiological stress response to circumstances they cannot resolve through behaviour change alone. The cost pressures compounding housing insecurity, energy costs, food costs, insurance premiums rising at rates that outpace wage growth year after year, are not separate phenomena. They are the downstream flow of the same upstream failure: a governing model that has consistently prioritised the efficiency of markets over the resilience of the households those markets are supposed to serve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA general practitioner of four decadesâ standing sees this pattern not in aggregate statistics but in individual consulting rooms. The patient presenting with disturbed sleep, elevated blood pressure, and somatic symptoms of anxiety who, when asked about their circumstances, describes three rental increases in two years, a waitlist letter that has not moved, and a choice between medication and food. These are not rare presentations. They are becoming routine. Routine presentations in general practice are the leading indicator of what a health system will be managing at scale in five years, if the conditions producing them continue to be addressed as individual clinical problems rather than as the downstream costs of structural failure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-third-presentation-the-governance-vacuum\"\u003eThe third presentation: the governance vacuum\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a version of institutional failure that is harder to see than either strategic misjudgement or domestic neglect, because it presents not as the absence of activity but as the presence of activity pointed in the wrong direction. Western Australiaâs health system offers the most precise available illustration, and it is worth examining in some detail before drawing the broader conclusion.\u
1003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 2025-26, Western Australia will spend $14.2 billion on the delivery of health services through WA Health alone, a figure representing a 61 per cent increase on 2016-17 expenditure, as stated in the Treasurerâs Budget Speech. The Mental Health Commission adds a further $1.6 billion. In September 2025, Western Australian ambulances spent more than 7,200 hours parked outside hospitals waiting to transfer patients, a new state record. In February 2026, before winter had begun and in the absence of any unusual epidemiological pressure, the system produced a new February ramping record. The governmentâs winter strategy, released in the same month as that record, was welcomed with qualified approval by professional bodies while the AMA noted the detail remained to be resolved and the Australian Nursing Federation raised questions about delivery mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgainst $14.2 billion in total health expenditure, the initiatives clearly labelled as preventive in the budget papers aggregate to approximately $32 million. Less than a quarter of one per cent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt would be a distortion to ignore the real pressures the system is operating under: an ageing population producing genuine increases in acute demand, workforce shortages that constrain capacity expansion regardless of available funding, and federal-state funding arrangements that create persistent structural misalignment between where health dollars are raised and where health need is greatest. These are not pretexts. They are real constraints, and any honest account of the system must acknowledge them. The question they do not answer is why, across many years and across successive governments managing those same constraints, the proportion of expenditure directed at the upstream conditions generating demand has remained below a quarter of one per cent. That consistency of neglect is not the product of constraints. It is the product of design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe system is efficient. It processes an estimated 1.17 million emergency department attendances and 3.44 million outpatient service events annually with considerable operational competence. It is efficient at the wrong things. Its incentive architecture rewards the management of acute demand. A prevented hospital
1isation does not appear in any performance metric. A general practitioner who keeps a patient with early-stage metabolic disease out of the emergency department for three years generates no event that the accounting system registers. The system has been optimised for the production of episodes, and it produces them with increasing volume and increasing cost, because the conditions generating demand upstream are not addressed and are, as the preceding section described, worsening.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInto this system, artificial intelligence is now being introduced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe potential of AI in health service delivery is real, and intellectual honesty requires acknowledging it. Predictive modelling, pattern recognition, coordinated resource management: these are capabilities with practical applications. The State Health Operations Centre, allocated $17.5 million in the 2025-26 budget, represents a meaningful development. But technology takes the shape of the system it enters. It amplifies existing patterns. A more capable instrument applied to a misaligned system does not correct the misalignment. It accelerates it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe governance problem this illustrates is precisely what John Elkington, writing following the EcoVadis SUSTAIN 2026 conference in Paris, has termed insight inflation: the condition in which artificial intelligence, deployed to solve the problem of analytical scarcity, produces instead an abundance of conclusions whose authority derives from the apparent rigour of the process generating them rather than from the quality of the prior question directing that process. When AI systems generate abundant analysis of acute demand management, they produce more sophisticated answers to the wrong question. The bottleneck has not been removed. It has migrated from the production of analysis to the determination of what the analysis is for. The system spends $14.2 billion managed by increasingly sophisticated tools and still cannot tell a nurse with four yearsâ training why she should stay.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is the third expression of the sovereign deficit. The governing habit of asking the prior question, what is this system actually designed to serve, before deploying any instrument, technological or otherwise, has been lost. Its loss produces exactly what is visible in the WA health system: a technically sophisticated operation, backed by increasing public expenditure, producing outcomes that diverge further from the populationâs actual requirements with each additional year of investment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-integrating-diagnosis\"\u003eThe integrating diagnosis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree domains. Three distinct presentations. One explanatory hypothesis, consistent across all of them, and more parsimonious than any account that treats them as unrelated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn each case the governing failure is the same in structure even as it differs in expression. Australiaâs strategic posture has outsourced the determination of national interest to alliance management. Its domestic economic policy has outsourced the determination of material security to market mechanisms. Its institutional governance is in the process of outsourcing the determination of analytical priority to AI systems whose outputs are only as useful as the questions directing them, and whose directing questions have not been publicly determined at all.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese failures share not merely a structural pattern but a traceable historical origin. The governing shift that reshaped advanced economies from the 1980s onward involved specific, documented institutional changes: the corporatisation and partial privatisation of public services previously under direct democratic accountability; the deregulation of financial markets and the removal of capital controls that had previously given governments discretion over domestic investment; the introduction of fiscal rules and independent central bank mandates that relocated macroeconomic determination from elected parliaments to technocratic institutions; and the progressive transfer of procurement, service delivery, and infrastru
1cture provision to private sector mechanisms operating on commercial rather than public interest criteria. Each of these changes relocated determination, consistently and deliberately, from democratic institutions to external frameworks. Strategic determination migrated to alliance management on the assumption that shared interests would reliably serve Australian purposes without independent assessment. Economic determination migrated to market mechanisms on the assumption that price signals would reliably allocate resources toward social wellbeing without political intervention. Analytical determination is now migrating to AI systems on the assumption that computational capacity can substitute for the prior institutional judgement that directs it usefully. In each transition the same logic operated: external frameworks were more efficient than independent determination, and efficiency was the appropriate measure of governance. What was not asked at each step, because the habit of asking it had already weakened, was whether the external framework would continue to serve Australian interests under conditions it had not been designed for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the sovereign deficit. It is not a crisis. Crises announce themselves. They arrive with visible rupture and unambiguous demand for response. A condition reveals itself when the system is stressed, when the housing crisis and the strategic exposure and the governance vacuum are all visible together and all resistant to the responses that have previously contained them. The revealing of it is not an emergency. It is a diagnostic moment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat, then, would sovereign sufficiency consist of in practical terms? At a minimum, it would require three institutional conditions to be present simultaneously: a standing cross-domain framework for evaluating major commitments against Australian national interest before they are entered, with sufficient authority to pause or qualify commitments that do not meet that standard; parliamentary mechanisms with real auditing authority over the delivery of those commitments once made; and a governing culture, embedded in public administration and political practice, that treats the prior question, what does Australian national interest require here, as the routine starting point of decision rather than as a challenge to existing arrangements. A state possessing those three conditions in reasonable working order would not face the sovereign deficit in its present form. Australia does not possess them. That is the deficit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiagnostic moments, properly understood, are not occasions for alarm. They are occasions for the kind of structured response that the situation actually requires rather than the kind of reactive management that political incentive prefers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-path-sovereignty-as-precondition\"\u003eThe path: sovereignty as precondition\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe affirmative case for sustainable sovereignty begins with a proposition the series has been building toward but has not yet stated in full: serious engagement with Australiaâs Asian regional neighbourhood, the engagement on which Australian long-term security and prosperity actually depend, is not available to a dependent nation in the way it is available to a sovereign one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis requires unpacking, because it is easily misread as a counsel for isolation or a rejection of partnership. Neither reading is correct. The claim is about the conditions under which partnership of substance becomes possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe nations of Southeast Asia, of the Pacific, and of the broader Indo-Pacific region are not naive about power. They have spent centuries navigating between competing great powers with the accumulated strategic intelligence of states that could not afford reflexive alignment. Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand: each has developed, in its own way, the practice of engaging multiple external powers on terms that preserve its own capacity for determination. They do not always succeed. The pressures are real and the practice is demanding. But the practice exists, and its existence is recognised within the regional diplomatic culture in ways that unconditional alignment with any external power simply is not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen Australia approaches these nations from a posture of deep strategic dependence, when its foreign policy positions are legible as extensions of alliance preferences rather than expressions of an independently derived Australian judgement, the engagement that follows is managed proximity rather than working partnership. The ASEAN partner across the table is assessing not what Australia thinks but what Washington thinks, because the two have been made indistinguishable. This is not a theoretical observation. When the AUKUS arrangement was announced in September 2021, multiple Southeast Asian governments, including Indonesia and Malaysia, publicly expressed concern about its implications for regional stability and the potential for a new arms dynamic in the Indo-Pacific. Those responses were not anti-Australian in their character. They were assessments of what Australiaâs strategic posture, as communicated by its choices, signalled about its capacity for independent regional engagement. The relationship is cordial, the communiques are warm, and the substantive strategic engagement is thin, because one party to the conversation has not yet determined, on its own terms, what it actually wants.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe nations that command real respect in Southeast Asian and Pacific diplomatic circles are those that arrive with a clearly stated account of their own interests, a demonstrated willingness to hold positions under pressure, and the practical capacity to say no when alignment would require acting against those interests. New Zealandâs standing in the Pacific is built, in significant measure, on the knowledge that its stated positions reflect genuine determination rather than external instruction. Singaporeâs extraordinary diplomatic reach for a city-state derives from precisely this quality: every government in the region understands that Singapore has thought through its position and that it will not be moved by pressure alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA sovereign Australia would engage its regional neighbourhood differently across at least four dimensions that deserve to be stated with some specificity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt would engage on trade and investment with the clarity of a nation whose economic relationships are expressions of mutual benefit rather than strategic signalling. The iron ore relationship with China, the LNG relationships across Northeast Asia, the agricultural and services trade across Southeast Asia: these are working economic partnerships that serve Australian interests and should be conducted as such, without the overlay of strategic anxiety that deep alliance dependence produces. The diversification of Australiaâs trade relationships, already underway for sound economic reasons, would proceed on better terms if driven by Australian sovereign interest rather than managed defensively around alliance expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt would engage on regional security with the credibility of a nation that has demonstrated the capacity for independent judgement. The Indo-Pacific security architecture is not a binary between American dominance and Chinese assertiveness. It is a complex regi
1onal system in which middle powers, ASEAN institutions, and bilateral relationships between states of comparable weight all play roles that a sovereign Australia is well placed to support, facilitate, and in some cases lead. Australiaâs geographic position, its economic weight in the region, its relationships across the Pacific Islands, and its cultural connections to the diaspora communities of Southeast Asia are assets that an independently derived foreign policy would deploy with purpose. They are currently underutilised because the governing framework treats regional relationships as secondary to alliance management rather than as the primary terrain on which Australian interests are at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt would engage on the governance of emerging technologies, on climate adaptation, on food security, and on the multilateral institutions that give smaller and middle powers their most reliable mechanisms for shaping international norms, with the authority of a nation that has thought carefully about what it wants from those institutions rather than taking its positions from briefings that originated elsewhere. The nations of Asia are themselves grappling with the governance of AI, with the institutional management of climate risk, with the challenge of developing without reproducing the fragility that characterised earlier development models. Australia has substantive intellectual and institutional contributions to make to those conversations. A sovereign Australia would make them on its own terms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt would engage honestly on the question of what the regional order requires for stability, including the question of how Chinaâs interests as a major regional power can be accommodated within a framework that does not require the subordination of smaller nations. This is not accommodation in the sense of deference. It is the application of the same analytical discipline that the Zhong Yong framework demands: asking what the situation actually requires, rather than what the inherited alliance framework prefers. A sovereign Australia does not need to choose between American alliance and engagement with China. It needs to determine, without external instruction, what each relationship should consist of and on what terms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of this is within reach from inside the sovereign deficit. A nation that has outsourced strategic determination cannot conduct the prior analysis that serious regional engagement requires. The recovery of sovereign capacity is not the destination of this argument. It is the precondition for the destination. The destination is an Australia that is present in its own region, trusted by its neighbours, engaged on its own terms, and capable of the sustained exercise of judgement that the complexity of the Indo-Pacific demands.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat Australia is within reach. It requires the recovery of a governing habit lost through incremental outsourcing rather than deliberate surrender. The recovery is not simple, and the pieces that follow in this series will attempt to make its requirements more concrete. What this piece has established is that the recovery is necessary, that its necessity is demonstrated across three domains simultaneously, and that the three demonstrations point to a common origin.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"what-the-diagnosis-requires\"\u003eWhat the diagnosis requires\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe sovereign deficit names a single condition. Its recovery requires a single governing habit applied consistently across all three domains: the prior determination of what Australian national interest requires, before any arrangement is entered that narrows future choice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the strategic domain, this means an independently derived grand strategy, built outside the institutional frameworks with a vested interest in existing conclusions, and evaluated against clearly stated Australian sovereign interests rather than alliance expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the domestic domain, it means a public determination, made deliberately and stated plainly, that the material security of Australiaâs population is a sovereign obligation. Housing, healthcare access, and the financial resilience of households are the foundations of the sovereign capacity the nation requires. They cannot be managed as downstream effects of arrangements made for other purposes, and the connection between their neglect and the health burden now accumulating in clinical settings and emergency departments across the country is not a coincidence. It is the mechanism of the deficit operating in human terms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the institutional domain, it means restoring the prior question as the governing discipline of public administration: what is this system for, what does this instrument serve, and what determines whether its deployment advances or narrows the capacity for the determinations that follow. The accelerating adoption of AI systems without that prior determination is a sovereignty problem before it is a technology problem.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are not three separate policy agendas. They are three expressions of the same recovery. The series will develop each in the pieces that follow.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe evidence assembled across this and the preceding pieces points toward a conclusion the structural logic of the argument has earned: Australia requires the recovery of sovereign capacity across all three domains as a single, integrated project rather than as three separate reform programmes. That recovery is the precondition for the regional engagement on which Australian long-term security and prosperity depend. Whether the political will to pursue it exists is the question this series will continue to press.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe habit of sustainable sovereignty is within reach. The question is whether Australia chooses it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrian Walker is a Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council and a general practitioner of four decadesâ standing. He is elected for the State of Western Australia and is Leader of Legalise Cannabis Western Australia.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"6e:T7c8c,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOn Democratic Self-Defence and the Paradox It Has Produced\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Measure That Cannot Be Borrowed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eZhÅng YÅng\u003c/em\u003e (ä¸åº¸) does not ask for the midpoint between competing positions. That is the most common misreading, and it is worth correcting at the outset, because the article that follows depends on the distinction. What the doctrine of the mean actually describes is the disciplined capacity to respond to each condition with exactly the measure it requires, neither more nor less, sustained over time even when the surrounding environment is pressing hard toward excess. It is a demanding standard. It asks not for moderation as a temperamental preference but for calibration as a continuous practice, which requires both accurate diagnosis of the condition being responded to and the institutional capacity to act on that diagnosis without being captured by the pressures of the moment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsed here as an interpretive discipline rather than a causal explanation, the framework does not tell us why particular actors made particular choices. It asks what conditions a political system must sustain in order to remain capable of genuine self-correction, and what the observable signs are when those conditions are eroding. That question turns out to be a useful one to bring to the current state of European democracy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat standard is particularly relevant when a political system is under stress, because stress tends to produce responses that are proportionate to the emotional intensity of the threat rather than to the structural nature of the problem. And the evidence accumulating across several European democracies over the past decade suggests that the responses those systems have deployed against corrective political forces have, in a number of cases, produced the opposite of their intended effect. The excluded force has not diminished. It has, in some of the most instructive cases, intensified and radicalised. The system generating this outcome continues to apply the same response, attributing the failure to the stubbornness of the problem rather than to the inadequacy of the medicine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is the paradox this article attempts to examine, through three European cases that sit at different points in the same structural sequence: a corrective impulse excluded from power and in consequence radicalising; a corrective impulse that reached power and diverged, one expression of it moderating toward institutional accommodation, another consolidating a new form of imbalance; and a corrective impulse that succeeded electorally against an entrenched populist government and is now discovering that winning the election and repairing the institution are not, in any straightforward sense, the same thing. The cases are Germany, Hungary and Italy, and Poland. They are not presented as equivalent. They are presented as different phases of the same structural problem, and the differences between them are as analytically important as the common pattern.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Excluded Force: Germany and the Logic That Has Not Worked\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) has been a feature of German political life since 2013. For most of that period the response of established parties has been consistent: the cordon sanitaire, the principled refusal to govern with the AfD or to treat it as a legitimate coalition partner at any level. The constitutional and moral reasoning behind this position is not negligible. Germany carries a history that makes the normalisation of a party its own domestic intelligence agency has labelled a proven right-wing extremist organisation a matter of considerably more than ordinary electoral caution. The firewall has been maintained by parties whose differences on almost everything else have been set aside in order to keep it in place.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe problem is that this strategy, maintained now for over a decade, has achieved its narrow objective of keeping the AfD out of government while producing a situation that its architects did not anticipate and cannot easily explain. The AfD is not smaller than it was. It is larger. It is not more moderate than it was. It is, by the consistent assessment of analysts who study it closely, more radical. In two eastern German states, Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, it is currently polling at or above 39 per cent, levels at which it could take part in government or block coalition formation entirely. It is the strongest political force in Germany by national polling. And it is achieving these results while becoming more extreme in its rhetoric and more elaborate in its organisational structures, not less.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a structural explanation for this that the \u003cem\u003eZhÅng YÅng\u003c/em\u003e framework renders visible. A corrective impulse that is blocked from entering the normal processes of political accountability does not dissolve. The evidence across the German case is at least consistent with intensification in proportion to the blockage: the grievance that produced the movement remains unaddressed, while the exclusion adds a further grievance, that the system is protecting itself against accountability by disqualifying those who would demand it. That structural argument has limits worth stating plainly. Not every political movement that arises from genuine material failure functions as a corrective force in any useful sense. Some are pathological expressions of real grievance that would deepen the imbalance rather than resolve it, and whether any given movement crosses that line cannot be settled by pointing to the conditions it emerged from. The firewallâs architects understood this. What they did not adequately reckon with was that treating exclusion as the primary instrument, without a parallel effort to address the underlying governance failures, was unlikely to reduce the problem over time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most significant recent data point is not the AfDâs national polling. It is the age distribution of its support. In the 2024 European Parliament elections, the AfD nearly tripled its share among voters aged sixteen to twenty-four, reaching around 16 per cent and in some analyses emerging as the strongest single party in that cohort, a sharp departure from a generation that had previously gravitated toward the Greens. This shift is not primarily explicable by reference to disinformation or social media radicalisation, though both are present. It reflects something more durable: the values and belonging needs of a generation that came of age through the financial crisis, the pandemic, and a cost of living emergency are not being addressed by the abstract commitments to European values and democratic norms that mainstream parties continue to offer. The AfD is providing an identity structure and a sense of cultural agency within a system that has become, for many young people, both materially unreliable and institutionally illegible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChancellor Merzâs government, in office since May 2025, has maintained the firewall while pursuing an ambitious programme of fiscal stimulus and defence rearmament that has broken with the CDUâs longstanding fiscal orthodoxy. He has gained international respect for his foreign and security policy positioning. He has lost ground at home. The coalition is fragile, the CDUâs own activists are beginning to question whether the firewall is narrowing their electoral options more than it is containing the AfD, and the super election year of 2026, with five state parliaments going to the polls, is the test that will determine whether the strategy can survive the evidence being accumulated against it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of this implies that the appropriate response would have been to invite the AfD into government. A party formally designated by domestic intelligence as a proven right-wing extremist organisation poses real risks to a constitutional order that cannot simply be wished away. The point at issue is narrower and in some ways more uncomfortable for the established parties: treating exclusion as the primary instrument of democratic self-defence, without a parallel effort to address the underlying governance failures, has not achieved its own stated objectives. The firewall has contained AfD participation in formal power, but it has not reduced AfD support, moderated AfD rhetoric, or restored confidence in the institutions whose failures helped generate that support. \u003cem\u003eZhÅng YÅng\u003c/em\u003e names this precisely. The firewall is a response proportionate to the emotional intensity of the AfDâs worst positions, not to the structural nature of the problem that produced the AfD. Applied in isolation from any serious attempt to address the material and institutional conditions generating that support, it is symptom management mistaken for treatment. The symptom is becoming harder to manage with each passing cycle.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Corrective Force in Power: One Divergence, Two Outcomes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Italian and Hungarian cases offer a natural comparison that is rarely made with sufficient analytical care, because the dominant framing places both countries in the same category of democratic concern. The comparison rewards closer attention precisely because it disrupts that framing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiorgia Meloni came to power in October 2022 leading a coalition that included the post-fascist Fratelli dâItalia alongside Berlusconiâs Forza Italia and Salviniâs Lega. The international response was one of considerable alarm. The first female prime minister of Italy was also the first from a party with direct genealogical connections to Mussoliniâs Italian Social Movement. The alarm was not unreasonable. What followed was more complicated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeloni has governed in ways that have surprised some observers across the political spectrum, particularly on foreign and fiscal policy, even as critics continue to contest her record on media freedom and civil rights. O
1n Ukraine she has been consistently pro-Western and pro-NATO, in direct contradiction to the positions of her coalition partners and to the expectations of those who saw her election as a harbinger of Italian Euroscepticism. On European Union fiscal arrangements she has operated within institutional constraints rather than seeking to rupture them, despite substantial domestic pressure to do otherwise. The social conservatism of her government on migration and civil rights is genuine and consequential, but it operates through legislative process rather than systematic institutional capture. Italyâs judiciary, media landscape, and constitutional architecture remain contested rather than systematically colonised in the way Hungaryâs now are.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eZhÅng YÅng\u003c/em\u003e reading of the Italian case is this: a corrective force that reached power found itself constrained by the weight of institutional reality in ways that moderated its more extreme tendencies. The responsibility of governance, the discipline of European institutional membership, the practical requirements of managing a large economy in a complex geopolitical environment, all of these produced a partial accommodation that the corrective impulse, in opposition, had not anticipated needing. This is not a success story without qualification. Meloniâs government has caused real harm in specific policy domains. But it has not dismantled the institutional architecture through which future correction remains possible. The corrective force overshot in its rhetoric, found the limits of what governing permits, and has partially recalibrated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHungary presents the other outcome, and it is the more important one analytically. Viktor Orbán came to power in 2010 on a genuine wave of popular disgust with the corruption and economic mismanagement of the Socialist-led governments that preceded him. The corrective impulse was real. The trajectory from there to the system that now exists, in which the electoral architecture has been restructured to resist correction, the media landscape brought under effective state control, constitutional boundaries redrawn using supermajorities obtained under a distorted electoral system, and opposition parties have had to withdraw from an election rather than divide a vote that might otherwise defeat him, that trajectory is not a story about a man of singular malevolence. It is a story about what happens when a corrective force reaches power without adequate institutional constraint, when the corrective becomes the new imbalance and then engineers the conditions for its own perpetuation. Structural conditions enabled this trajectory. They did not determine it. The choices made at each stage were choices, made by agents who understood their consequences, and that distinction matters for how accountability is assigned even when systemic explanation is the more productive analytical frame.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe distinction between the Italian and Hungarian outcomes is not primarily about the character or intentions of the leaders involved. It is about the institutional environments within which those corrective forces operated. Italyâs constitutional architecture, European institutional membership, and the balance of forces within the governing coalition provided friction that Hungaryâs more weakly institutionalised system did not. Institutional design matters more than leadership quality in explaining the divergence. That is an uncomfortable conclusion for those who prefer the personalised account, but it is the one the comparative evidence most consistently supports.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Pending Test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs this article is written, Hungary is four weeks from an election that may be the most consequential parliamentary contest in Europe this year. Péter Magyar, a former Fidesz insider who broke with the party in 2024, has built the Tisza party from nothing to a position where independent polling shows it ahead of Fidesz for the first time in a decade. The rival mass rallies held in Budapest on 15 March, drawing hundreds of thousands to both sides, represent the most vivid public demonstration of what is at stake.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analytical complications are worth naming honestly. The polling is contested: government-aligned pollsters and independent ones are producing results that political scientists have described as unexplainable by legitimate research methodology. The electoral system has been restructured to Fideszâs advantage through boundary changes and laws that make opposition organisation harder. The campaign is being fought on Orbánâs chosen terrain, war and peace, Hungaryâs relationship with Russia and Ukraine, the threat of being drawn into a conflict by a European establishment that does not have Hungarian interests at heart. Magyarâs campaign has been fought on economic grounds, specifically the corruption and deteriorating living standards that Orbánâs model has produced for ordinary Hungarians after the relative prosperity of the early years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe outcome is genuinely uncertain. If Magyar wins, the analytically pressing question will be whether a government elected on a mandate to restore democratic institutions can actually do so, operating within an electoral and judicial architecture specifically designed to prevent it. If Orbán wins, the analytically pressing question will be whether a corrective force can sustain popular energy over another electoral cycle in a system calibrated against it, and what that failure implies for the democratic mechanism as a tool of accountability in highly distorted institutional environments. Either outcome will therefore test, in different ways, the claim that institutional degradation can be reversed through ordinary electoral alternation once it has crossed a certain threshold.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe article will be updated once the result is known. What can be said now is that the Hungarian case is the point at which the \u
1003cem\u003eZhÅng YÅng\u003c/em\u003e framework is most directly tested, and the question it raises is one that extends well beyond Hungary: whether institutional equilibrium, once sufficiently degraded, can be recovered through the very mechanisms that degradation has compromised.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Restoration Problem: Poland and the Contaminated Tool\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePoland is the case that should occupy serious democratic thinkers most persistently, precisely because it has received the least analytical attention relative to its importance. It is the only European country in which the full cycle is now visible: institutional failure under a populist government, the electoral correction of that government, and the subsequent discovery that restoring what was damaged is considerably harder than removing those who damaged it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDonald Tuskâs coalition came to power in December 2023 following eight years of Law and Justice government that had systematically captured Polandâs constitutional tribunal, its national council of the judiciary, its public broadcasting, and significant portions of its prosecution service. The mandate was explicit and the popular majority was clear, produced by a 74 per cent turnout that constituted one of the most powerful democratic signals in postwar European history. The restoration project began. And then it encountered the problem that no amount of electoral success could resolve: the institutions designed to confer legitimacy on a reforming government were themselves among the institutions that had been captured.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo elements of the Polish situation deserve particular attention. The first is
1what legal scholars have begun calling the dilemma of post-illiberal reform: that restoring democratic institutions after their capture requires confronting a series of traps. Acting strictly within the letter of the law may entrench the harm, because the law itself has been restructured by those who captured it. Acting outside the letter of the law risks replicating the very norm-aversion that produced the capture in the first place. Tusk himself acknowledged this in September 2024 when he invoked the concept of militant democracy and conceded that necessary reforms might require actions that were, in his words, inconsistent with the letter of the law. That acknowledgement captured the dilemma clearly, but it also underlined how easily the rhetoric of democratic self-defence can be deployed by both those who degrade institutions and those who seek to repair them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe symmetry here is deliberate and troubling. Orbán used the language of popular legitimacy and national restoration to justify moves that hollowed out institutional checks; Tusk now invokes militant democracy to justify steps that may need to depart from strict legality in order to repair those same institutions. The structural predicament is that both projects rely on claims to represent the real nation against a captured or corrupted order. Naming this symmetry is not false equivalence. It is the honest acknowledgement that the tools of democratic self-defence are structurally available to actors whose purposes are fundamentally different, and that Tuskâs invocation of militant democracy in service of institutional restoration and Orbánâs invocation of popular legitimacy in service of institutional capture are not morally equivalent simply because they share a rhetorical structure. The distinction between them is real and consequential. It cannot, however, be established by the rhetorical form alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second element is the presidential election of May 2025, in which the PiS-backed candidate Karol Nawrocki defeated the government-backed RafaÅ Trzaskowski in a second-round run-off by 50.89 per cent to 49.11 per cent, a margin narrow enough to be described in Polish and international coverage as razor-thin. This result was not simply an electoral setback. It restructured the terms of the entire restoration project, because Polandâs constitution gives the president significant powers of legislative veto, and Nawrocki has exercised those powers with considerable energy since taking office in August 2025. The judicial reform legislation that the Tusk government prepared over the first phase of its term has been blocked. The government that won a clear mandate in 2023 to restore the rule of law is now operating in cohabitation with a president whose principal constitutional function, as it is being exercised, is to prevent that restoration from occurring.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScholars who have examined the Polish case in depth have noted something worth stating plainly: the Tusk government has, in certain policy domains, particularly migration and national security, adopted positions that are not obviously distinguishable from those of its predecessor. The argument made in justification is that these are responses to genuine security conditions rather than ideological commitments. That may be so. What the pattern also illustrates is the observation, made with increasing frequency by analysts of post-populist governance, that the mechanisms of executive power left by a populist predecessor are not automatically dismantled by a pro-democratic successor. They remain available. And governments under pressure tend to use the tools available to them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is no clean tool in a contaminated environment. There are only more or less damaging ways of using contaminated instruments to begin the repair, and more or less honest ways of acknowledging the risks involved. The practical implication is stark: where institutional legitimacy has been sufficiently degraded, every available instrument of repair carries within it some element of the damage it is intended to correct. Poland still has an active civil society, an engaged electorate demonstrated by that extraordinary October 2023 turnout, and a reforming government that remains, by any comparative measure, substantially more committed to democratic norms than its predecessor. The difficulty is a counsel of realism about the timescales involved in restoring institutional health once it has been seriously degraded, not a counsel of fatalism about the possibility of recovery. It is, however, a counsel that has direct relevance for the question sitting beneath all three European cases examined in this article: at what point in the process of institutional degradation does the restoration cost exceed what the electoral cycle and normal political patience can sustain?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Common Structure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross these three cases, the surface variation is considerable. Germany has not experienced populist government. Hungary is in its sixteenth year of it. Poland is attempting recovery from eight years of it. Italy occupies a position that confou
1nds easy categorisation. But the structural pattern running beneath all of them is recognisable, and the \u003cem\u003eZhÅng YÅng\u003c/em\u003e framework makes it visible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn each case, the proximate cause of the corrective impulse is a genuine governance failure, not a manufactured grievance or a disinformation artefact. In Germany: deindustrialisation, wage stagnation, and an immigration policy administered without adequate institutional support over an extended period. In Hungary: the corruption and economic mismanagement of the Socialist governments that preceded Orbán. In Italy: decades of political dysfunction and the particular humiliation of the 2011 sovereign debt crisis and its management by an unelected technocratic government. In Poland: a transformation that produced economic growth at the national level while leaving large sections of the rural and small-town population feeling culturally displaced and politically invisible. These factors are not exhaustive, nor do they carry equal weight across the cases. They are recurring patterns identified across multiple analyses, and they sit alongside competing explanations that emphasise identity, media dynamics, and the particular signals that governing elites send about whose concerns they regard as legitimate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross all four cases, the established political response treated the corrective impulse as primarily a communication or management problem rather than as a signal of genuine institutional failure requiring structural response. The symptoms were managed. The underlying pathology was not addressed. And the pathology, left unaddressed for long enough, produced corrective forces that the existing institutional architecture was not designed to absorb, or, in two of the cases, was subsequently redesigned to resist.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat varies is the institutional resilience of the environment within which those corrective forces operated. Where institutional friction was sufficient, the corrective force was constrained by the weight of governing reality. Where it was insufficient, the corrective force consolidated in ways that produced a new form of imbalance. Where the institutions themselves had been captured before a counter-correction could succeed, the restoration proved harder than anticipated and remains incomplete.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe policy prescription implied by this structural analysis is considerably more demanding than any of the symptomatic treatments currently on offer. It requires addressing the material conditions that produced the legitimate grievance at the root of corrective movements: wage stagnation, housing unaffordability, the sense of cultural displacement, and the progressive disconnection of governing institutions from the lived experience of large portions of the electorate. These are long-horizon structural changes. They require decision-making authority placed as close as possible to those affected by its consequences, and institutions designed for human wellbeing and resilience rather than administrative convenience or abstract efficiency. No government currently in power in any of the countries examined here is pursuing those changes at the scale the diagnosis implies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA Signal in the Southern Hemisphere\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia is not Germany. It is not Hungary or Poland. Its institutional architecture is more robust than Hungaryâs was before 2010, and its political culture retains characteristics that have historically provided a degree of insulation from the dynamics examined above. These are genuine differences, not grounds for complacency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe recent polling that showed One Nation reaching the low twenties in national primary support, at points overtaking the Liberal Party and drawing level with or surpassing the broader Coalitionâs combined vote for the first time in Australian political history, is not primarily a story about Pauline Hanson or about the specific policy positions One Nation represents. It reflects a set of conditions that are structurally recognisable from the European experience examined above: cost of living and wage pressures that have not been adequately addressed by successive governments of either party, a perception that major-party politics is conducted in a different economic and cultural universe from the votersâ own lives, and a growing willingness to treat non-mainstream options as viable first preferences rather than vehicles for registering a protest that will be walked back in the polling booth. On 21 March 2026, that willingness produced a concrete result. In the South Australian state election, One Nation recorded approximately 21 per cent of the primary vote against the Liberal Partyâs 19 per cent, the worst result for a Liberal or conservative party in any Australian state or federal election since federation. The ABCâs chief election analyst described the outcome as an earthquake with implications for the entire country. That One Nationâs primary surge did not translate into lower house seats, largely because Labor directed preferences against it in 44 of 47 electorates, is itself analytically significant: the institutional mechanisms absorbed the signal without resolving the conditions that produced it. Pre-election analysis found that over half of One Nationâs voters described themselves as feeling unrepresented by the major parties. That is not a fringe sentiment. It is a structural finding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are not signals alone. One of them is now a result. The question of whether to read it as a prediction of the European trajectory remains open, and importing a template wholesale from one political context to another is an analytical error this article has been at pains to avoid. What the South Australian result does establish is that the conditions identified throughout this piece, genuine material grievance, institutional distance, and a corrective impulse that the existing system channelled without addressing, are not hypothetical in the Australian context. They have now produced a measurable electoral expression at the state level. The question is whether the institutional response will be diagnostic or merely mechanical.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe European experience suggests that how established institutions respond to the early indicators of a corrective impulse matters enormously, because that response shapes whether the impulse remains within the normal range of democratic politics or intensifies into something less tractable. Responding with exclusion, diagnosis of disinformation, and reassertion of existing positions has not served European democracies well. Responding with genuine engagement with the legitimate grievances underlying the corrective movement, without endorsing the movementâs less defensible positions, requires both political courage and institutional capacity that is not always available when the pressure is most acute.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Prior Responsibility\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePoland raises the hardest question in this series of articles, and it is one that extends well beyond Polandâs borders. If the restoration of institutional equilibrium is, beyond a certain point of degradation, compromised by the very tools available to pursue it, then the most important question is not how to restore equilibrium once it has been lost. It is how the obligation to maintain it is understood by those in a position to do so before it is lost.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is a question directed at governing institutions generally, at the parties and leaders who hold power within systems that have not yet reached the advanced stages of dysfunction visible in Hungary, and who face the daily political pressures that make the sustained, unglamorous work of institutional maintenance less immediately rewarding than the management of acute crises. It is a question about the relationship between the short
1-term incentives of political life and the long-horizon responsibilities of democratic stewardship.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the European cases suggest, viewed through the \u003cem\u003eZhÅng YÅng\u003c/em\u003e, is that equilibrium is not a natural resting state of political systems. It is an achievement, requiring continuous attention and the institutional capacity for honest self-examination. It does not maintain itself. And the cost of losing it, as Poland is discovering, is not measured only in electoral cycles but in the structural damage to the very mechanisms through which future correction becomes possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the cases suggest more persistently is that this question is almost always asked too late, by actors who had the capacity to act on it earlier and found, in the ordinary pressures of political life, sufficient reason not to.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThis is the third article in a series applying the ZhÅng YÅng framework to contemporary geopolitics.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"6f:T100d,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I have seen countless conditions that do not respond to traditional pharmacy shelf medicines. From the agony of chronic pain to the suffocating weight of anxiety, patients often find their own way to relief. Often, that relief comes from a plant they grow in their own garden. Yet, under our current laws, that act of self-care is treated as a crime.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-diagnosis-of-a-failed-policy\"\u003eThe diagnosis of a failed policy\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor decades, governments have subjected us to a strict ban on cannabis based on fear rather than science. We have been told it is a substance without merit, even as the medical evidence mounts to the contrary. I recently presented Parliament with thousands of international studies proving the benefits of cannabis for a vast range of conditions. The evidence is clear: there is no meaningful difference between medical and recreational cannabis when used in moderation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe risk of maintaining the status quo is visceral. By keeping cannabis in the shadows, we force vulnerable people into the arms of criminal syndicates. We create a situation where a grandmother managing her arthritis is treated with the same hand as a drug trafficker. This is not just a matter of bureaucracy; it is a systemic failure that targets the well-being of our citizens.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the major parties have historically played politics with this issue, we choose to look at the data. A staggering 78 percent of our population now supports at least the decriminalisation of cannabis. The people are ahead of the politicians, and it is time for the law to catch up with the community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-sensible-plan-for-growth\"\u003eA sensible plan for growth\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecently in the Legislative Council, I introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Lawful Personal Use of Cannabis) Bill 2026. This legislation is a measured and compassionate response to a century of prohibition. It is designed to allow adults to take control of their health while ensuring robust protections for the most vulnerable in our society.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnder this Bill, an adult would be permitted to grow up to six plants at home. This is not about creating a wild west; it is about ensuring that those who use cannabis as a remedy have a sufficient, reliable supply without ever having to step foot in an illicit market. It also allows for the gifting of small amounts of cannabis between adults, much like a home brewer might share a bottle of ale with a friend.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you want to stay informed on how we are bringing evidence-based policy to the centre of the conversation, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribe to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates from the House.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"protecting-the-next-generation\"\u003eProtecting the next generation\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a doctor, the safety of minors is my primary concern. This Bill is actually stricter than our current approach to alcohol and tobacco in some respects. It specifically prohibits an adult from smoking cannabis in any way that exposes a young person to the fumes. We are creating a framework that respects adult autonomy while building a wall of safety around our children.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe benefits of this shift are profound. By legalising home cultivation for personal use, we allow the police to stop wasting their time chasing gardeners and start focusing on the serious crimes that actually keep us awake at night. We can reduce the influence of criminal elements and ease the burden on our courts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis isn't just about a plant. It is about enhancing social peace, the rule of law, and basic human compassion. It is about diagnosing a broken system and prescribing a cure that works for everyone. You can read the full details of the Bill in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-19/5?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe it is time for a science-first approach to our laws, I encourage you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"70:T109b,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch3 id=\"the-heavy-cost-of-a-legal-habit\"\u003eThe heavy cost of a legal habit\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a practising general practitioner, I have seen many things that a doctor never wants to see. I have sat with patients whose lives have been entirely ruined by a substance they can buy on almost any street corner. Recently, I treated a young man whose future was slipping through his fingers. He came to me for a medical certificate following seizures caused by alcohol withdrawal. Two convulsions later, he was in hospital with a head injury, his intelligent brain struggling to maintain the cognitive processes required for even the simplest work. It is a heartbreaking waste of potential.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have reached a point where alcohol is so deeply normalised that we often ignore the visceral danger it poses to our families and our safety. The net social cost of alcohol in Australia was estimated years ago at 36 billion dollars per annum. Today, that figure has likely doubled to 72 billion dollars. This is not just a ledger of numbers: it is a record of emergency department ramping, hospitalisations, and lives lost to preventable chronic disease. While we play politics with regulation, our healthcare system is buckling under a weight that is largely self inflicted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-shadow-in-our-homes\"\u003eThe shadow in our homes\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerhaps the most painful aspect of this diagnosis is the role alcohol plays in domestic violence. It is not merely a correlate; it is a primary pharmacological driver. Alcohol acts as a disinhibitor, suppressing the prefrontal cortex and activating aggression pathways in a way that is scientifically undeniable. It is implicated in up to 50 percent of all domestic violence incidents in Australia. This is a clear and present danger to the most vulnerable members of our community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you find these insights valuable and want to stay informed on how we can use science to drive better policy, I invite you to subscribe to my YouTube channel for more updates: \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003eSubscribe to Dr Brian Walker\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen we compare this to cannabis, the pharmacology tells a different story. Evidence from jurisdictions where cannabis has been legalised shows statistically significant reductions in intimate partner violence. Cannabis is not associated with the same aggressive pathways. While I cannot recommend intoxication of any kind, we must follow the evidence. By keeping cannabis in the hands of criminals, we are not protecting anyone; we are simply removing our ability to regulate, educate, and prevent harm.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"separating-medicine-from-the-black-market\"\u003eSeparating medicine from the black market\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe status quo is a paradox that defies medical logic. We legalise a substance that causes irreversible brain damage through Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and fuels a multi billion dollar drain on our economy, yet we criminalise a plant that could offer a billion dollar profit to our state through a regulated market. This isn't just about recreational use: it is about unlocking a hemp industry that could revolutionise manufacturing, from pet bedding to carbon neutral building materials. Fear has made this industry unviable for too long.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProhibition does not keep cannabis away from young people; it ensures that the only people they can buy it from are criminals who have no interest in health and every interest in profit. By regulating properly, we can separate the markets, provide clinical guidance, and focus on genuine harm reduction. As forward thinkers, we must ask ourselves: how many more people have to be harmed before we adopt best practice? The evidence is clear. The current approach is costing us lives, money, and a healthy future. It is time for a framework based on science, not stigma.\u
1003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full record of this debate in the official \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-19/6?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe it is time for a sensible, evidence based approach to drug law in Western Australia, please consider \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoining Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"71:Tcc2,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eImagine walking through the quiet, sun-dappled paths of Fremantle Cemetery. It is a place of reflection, but it is also a living archive of our collective identity. Recently, a project surfaced to establish a women's history trail there. It is a noble goal. We are talking about an opportunity for remarkable women, those who shaped the very bedrock of our state, to be acknowledged and remembered.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-tale-of-two-voices\"\u003eA tale of two voices\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a medical practitioner, I have learned that consistency is the hallmark of trust. When a patient tells me one thing in the clinic but their records show another, we have a problem. I am seeing a similar symptom in our political health. The Minister for Women was happy to provide glowing quotes to the press about this trail. She spoke with pride about celebrating these women. Yet, when I stood up in the House to seek further details, I was met with a sudden case of silence. The Minister referred me elsewhere, suggesting it was a matter for a different department entirely.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-selective-silence\"\u003eThe danger of selective silence\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not just a matter of administrative preference: it is a matter of transparency. When the government chooses to speak through the media but refuses to engage with the same level of detail in Parliament, the public is left in the dark. We lose the thread of accountability. If a project is important enough to celebrate in a newspaper, it is important enough to discuss openly under the scrutiny of the Legislative Council. We cannot afford a culture where ministers only speak when the cameras are flashing but retreat into bureaucracy when asked for the facts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you value a science-first approach to politics where evidence and honesty come before spin, I invite you to subscribe to my channel for more updates from the House: \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"restoring-the-balance\"\u003eRestoring the balance\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eI pressed for a clear answer today. I wanted to know why it is appropriate to speak for the government in the local press but not to treat the House with the same courtesy. The response was a polite but firm insistence that the Minister stands by her previous comments, while still directing the technical responsibility elsewhere. While I am glad she stands by the importance of these women, the process remains murky. We are forward-thinkers. we believe in a Western Australia that honours its past with the same integrity it applies to the present.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe health of our democracy depends on ministers being present and accountable to the people who elected them. We will continue to watch this space and ensure that our history is not just a PR opportunity, but a genuine commitment to the truth. You can read the full exchange in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-19/19?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial record of Parliament\u003c/a\u003e. To help us fight for more transparency and evidence-based policy, please consider \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoining Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"72:T542d,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003ch2 id=\"the-question-the-series-has-been-building-toward\"\u003eThe question the series has been building toward\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe preceding pieces in this series have examined, from different angles, the same underlying condition: a political order losing its capacity for proportionate response, and an Australian strategic posture that has failed to reckon honestly with what that loss means for us. The Zhong Yong framework established in the first piece provides the diagnostic discipline. It asks, before any other question, what the situation actually requires. Not what alliance habit prefers nor what institutional inertia produces and not what is politically convenient for those who have built careers on existing arrangements. It asks what the situation, examined without those pressures, actually calls for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis piece attempts to answer that question directly. It is the first piece in this series to do so. The earlier pieces were necessary preparation: establishing the evidential ground, naming the structural failure, and demonstrating that what is happening is not aberration but pattern. That preparation is now complete. The question that remains is not whether Australiaâs strategic posture requires fundamental reassessment. It is what that reassessment, conducted honestly, indicates we must do.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am a Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council and a general practitioner of four decadesâ standing. Both disciplines have trained me in the same habit: the willingness to name what the evidence shows, even when the naming is uncomfortable for those who preferred the earlier diagnosis. I intend to exercise that habit here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-precedent-that-matters\"\u003eThe precedent that matters\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn 1985, the newly elected Labour government of New Zealand banned nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered vessels from its ports and territorial waters. The decision was not made in a vacuum of risk. New Zealand knew precisely what it stood to lose. The United States responded by suspending its security obligations under ANZUS, withdrawing intelligence-sharing arrangements, and applying sustained diplomatic pressure designed to demonstrate the cost of independent judgement. The pressure was real. The relationship was genuinely damaged for years.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNew Zealand held its position.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt did not leave the alliance family. It did not adopt a posture of hostility toward the United States. It did not surrender its participation in Five Eyes intelligence arrangements, which were eventually restored. What it did was define a limit, state it clearly, and absorb the consequences of holding it. Forty years later, New Zealandâs strategic credibility in the region is not diminished by that decision. It is, in significant measure, built upon it. The nations of the Pacific and Southeast Asia have learned that New Zealandâs stated positions reflect genuine commitments rather than reflexive alignment. That reputation is a strategic asset of considerable value.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe differences between New Zealandâs position and Australiaâs are real and should be acknowledged plainly. New Zealand had made no financial commitments equivalent to AUKUS. It hosts no foreign military basing arrangements of comparable scale or strategic significance. Its proximity to contested sea lanes is less acute than Australiaâs. And its post-1985 defence capability has attracted sustained criticism from alliance partners on grounds of under-investment, criticism that carries its own lessons about the costs of principled independence pursued without adequate strategic preparation. These differences matter. They mean the specific form of Australiaâs path cannot simply replicate New Zealandâs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the New Zealand precedent establishes, however, is a principle rather than a template. It demonstrates that the space between unconditional alliance integration and dangerous isolation is real, navigable, and survivable. The binary that Australian political debate currently accepts as given, align completely or stand dangerously alone, is not a description of the available options. It is a constructed frame that serves those who profit from the current arrangement. New Zealandâs 1985 decision is the refutation of that frame. A nation of comparable size, comparable cultural and strategic inheritance, and considerably less strategic exposure than Australia demonstrated that defined limits can be held under American pressure, and that the relationship survives the holding of them. The principle is transferable even where the specific circumstances are not.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe model New Zealand demonstrated is not neutrality. Neutrality is the studied absence of position. What New Zealand exercised was principled strategic independence: the capacity to assess each question on its merits, to align where interests and values genuinely coincide, and to hold a defined limit when they do not. That capacity is what Australia must now begin, deliberately and urgently, to build.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"what-the-doctrine-demands-of-us-now\"\u003eWhat the doctrine demands of us now\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Zhong Yong framework does not permit the luxury of indefinite diagnosis. Its demand is practical: once the situation has been examined clearly, the requirement of proportionate response must be named. This framework was not developed in response to the current conflict. It was introduced in these pages in February 2026 as a
1standing analytical discipline applicable to any situation in which governance loses its capacity for calibrated response. The events of recent weeks have not created the need for the framework. They have made its application to Australiaâs specific position unavoidable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThose events are now a matter of documented record. Australiaâs closest ally launched a military operation against a nation with which it was conducting active negotiations, 48 hours after those negotiations produced an agreed continuation. It did so without consulting its allies. It offered six distinct and mutually inconsistent justifications for the action across the days that followed. Its own intelligence agencies had concluded, in a classified assessment completed weeks before the strikes, that the action was unlikely to produce its stated objective of regime change. That assessment was not acted upon. The decision-makers had access to it. They chose otherwise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Strait of Hormuz, through which passes approximately 35 per cent of globally traded fertiliser, is now disrupted during the Northern Hemisphereâs peak spring planting season. The food security consequences of that disruption will fall most heavily on populations in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South America who had no representation in the rooms where the decision was made. Australian agricultural exporters, who depend on those same populations as customers, will not be insulated from the downstream effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeanwhile, the structural condition of the AUKUS submarine programme warrants honest examination. The United States is producing Virginia-class submarines at a rate that senior American defence officials have acknowledged, on the record, is insufficient to meet the United States Navyâs own requirements. Independent analysis of the American submarine industrial base, including assessments by the Congressional Research Service, documents a production capacity that cannot be expanded to meet allied commitments without either diverting vessels from American strategic requirements or extending delivery timelines substantially beyond those publicly stated. On the available industrial evidence, delivery of Virginia-class submarines to Australia on the promised schedule is not achievable under current production conditions. Whether that gap can be closed, and over what timeframe, remains genuinely uncertain. What is not uncertain is that the optimistic framing presented to the Australian public has not been reconciled with the production data that the American defence establishmentâs own assessments describe.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe basing arrangements that AUKUS entails present a related question. The facilities being developed at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia are structured, on the publicly available terms of the arrangement, primarily around the operational requirements of American and British vessels in the Indo-Pacific. The extent to which Australian operational priorities will govern the use of those facilities, in conditions of genuine strategic tension rather than peacetime cooperation, is not established in any publicly available document. An arrangement whose terms give Australia limited governance over facilities on its own territory, serving strategic requirements it did not independently derive, is not a partnership of equals. It is an arrangement whose costs and risks are borne locally while its strategic direction is determined elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Zhong Yong framework asks: what does this situation actually require? The answer that the structural analysis supports is not comfortable, but it is clear. Australia requires a strategic posture it does not currently possess: one derived independently from Australian national interest, oriented toward the regional order in which we actually live, and capable of holding defined limits under external pressure. The term I would use for this is Australian sustainable sovereignty. It is not a slogan. It is a description of what functional, durable, independent governance of a nation in our position requires.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-question-that-must-be-answered-directly\"\u003eThe question that must be answered directly\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a misreading of this argument that I wish to address before it is made, because it will be made. The argument for principled strategic independence will be characterised, by those whose institutional interests it threatens, as accommodation with China. That characterisation is wrong, and the wrongness is not a matter of degree. It is categorical. To be explicit about what this argument does not claim: it does not claim that American and Chinese strategic behaviour are morally or structurally equivalent. They are not, and the argument does not require that they be.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChinese assertiveness in the South China Sea is real and documented. The economic coercion applied to Australia between 2020 and 2023, including tariffs on Australian barley and wine, import bans on Australian coal and timber, and restrictions on Australian beef and seafood, demonstrated with considerable clarity that Beijing is willing to use trade as a political instrument against a partner on whom it depends for resources it cannot readily source elsewhere. That willingness has not disappeared because the restrictions were subsequently eased. The pattern of behaviour by which China has sought to reshape the regional order through unilateral action, including the construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea and the systematic disregard of adverse rulings by international tribunals, is not in dispute. None of this is consistent with the principles of sovereignty, proportionality, and the genuine wellbeing of affected populations that the Zhong Yong framework requires of governance. Australia has legitimate concerns about Chinese strategic behaviour that do not disappear because American strategic behaviour has also become a source of legitimate concern.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrincipled strategic independence is independence from any external powerâs preferences about how Australia should act, including Chinese preferences. An independently derived Australian grand strategy would be more capable of engaging China on genuinely Australian terms, not less, precisely because it would not be legible as an extension of American strategic preferences. The nations of Southeast Asia understand this distinction with considerable clarity. They have spent decades managing relationships with both great powers without surrendering their capacity for independent judgement. Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Singapore have each developed the habit of engaging China on economic and di
1plomatic terms while maintaining positions on sovereignty and maritime law that China has not endorsed. They have done so without either unconditional alignment with the United States or accommodation of Chinese strategic ambitions. Australia, uniquely positioned geographically and economically, has been slower to learn this lesson.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe choice Australia faces is not between American alignment and Chinese accommodation. It is between reflexive dependence on a single external framework and the development of a genuinely Australian strategic identity. Those are different problems, requiring different responses, and conflating them serves no one except those who wish to prevent the second question from being asked.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"what-sustainable-sovereignty-actually-requires\"\u003eWhat sustainable sovereignty actually requires\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralian sustainable sovereignty is not a destination that can be proclaimed. It is a capacity that must be built, deliberately and over time, across at least four dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is an independently derived grand strategy. Australia does not currently possess one. What we have is an alliance posture supplemented by capability procurement decisions and diplomatic positioning that are all, to varying degrees, oriented toward maintaining alignment rather than expressing independent judgement. A genuine grand strategy begins with a clear-eyed assessment of Australian national interests, geographical realities, economic dependencies, and the regional relationships that actually determine our long-term security and prosperity. It then derives strategic settings from those interests, and evaluates alliance commitments against that derivation, rather than treating alliance commitments as the strategy itself. This is not a radical proposition. It is the minimum intellectual discipline that any serious nation owes its own people.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second is diplomatic and economic reorientation toward the regional order. Australiaâs prosperity has always depended on Asia. Our five largest trading partners are all in the Asian region. The communities whose decisions will most directly shape Australian security and economic opportunity over the coming decades are our immediate neighbours, not the Atlantic powers whose strategic frameworks were built for a different geography and a different century. Sustainable sovereignty requires that Australian diplomatic investment, foreign aid, regional institution-building, and economic partnership reflect this reality rather than continuing to treat the region as a secondary consideration in a framework whose primary orientation lies elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third is an honest national reckoning with AUKUS. The industrial evidence regarding submarine delivery timelines has not been stated honestly to the Australian public by either of the major parties, because both are institutionally committed to a framework that neither designed with full information nor can now revise without political cost. That silence is a failure of the duty of honest governance. Australia needs an independent public assessment of what AUKUS will actually deliver, at what cost, on what timeline, and under what operational governance arrangements. It needs that assessment conducted outside the institutional frameworks that have a vested interest in its conclusions. And it needs to be genuinely prepared to act on the findings, even if those findings require decisions that are politically uncomfortable for those who have publicly defended the programme.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth is the political courage to hold an independent position under pressure. New Zealand demonstrated in 1985 that this is possible. It is not cost-free. American displeasure is a genuine thing and its short-term consequences are real. But the alternative, a posture of alignment so unconditional that it cannot be distinguished from strategic dependence, carries costs that are larger and less recoverable. The nations of Southeast Asia, of the Pacific, and of the broader Indo-Pacific region will extend far more genuine strategic partnership to an Australia that can say no when its values and interests require it than to an Australia whose positions can be predicted entirely from Washingtonâs preferences. Strategic credibility is built by demonstrated independence of judgement. It is eroded by its visible absence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"the-view-from-inside-the-system\"\u003eThe view from inside the system\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am aware that arguments of this kind are sometimes dismissed as the province of those who do not bear institutional responsibility. Let me be precise about my position.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am a sitting Member of the Crossbench in the Western Australian Legislative Council. I have legislative responsibilities across health, law reform, and a range of policy areas directly affecting the people of Western Australia. My parents served in war, I served in a smaller degree, and I have a family member currently serving in Australiaâs armed forces. I have lived and worked as a doctor in the Soviet Union, China, Germany, and across the United Kingdom, as well as in Australia, and I have spent four decades in general practice developing the clinical discipline of differential diagnosis: the systematic refusal to accept the first available explanation when the pattern of evidence points elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat discipline is what I am applying here. The pattern of evidence does not support the conclusion that deeper integration with a demonstrably less predictable alliance partner, under financial commitments whose delivery is structurally in doubt, through basing arrangements whose operational governance serves requirements Australia did not independently derive, constitutes a credible approach to Australian security. A clinician
1who continued prescribing a treatment whose risks had materially increased and whose benefits had materially diminished would be failing their patient. The same applies to a legislator who continues to support a strategic posture whose foundational assumptions have been overtaken by events.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Australian political class is not currently providing the honest reassessment that the evidence requires. Both major parties are institutionally committed to a framework they cannot revise without cost. The voices calling for genuine examination are present but marginalised. The public conversation that a democracy owes its citizens on a question of this magnitude, involving hundreds of billions of dollars, the operational governance of Australian facilities, and the genuine risk that Australian service personnel will be committed to conflicts whose strategic rationale has not been independently assessed, has not taken place.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt needs to.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"what-the-evidence-points-toward\"\u003eWhat the evidence points toward\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe preceding analysis has established the following: that Australiaâs current strategic posture rests on assumptions that have been materially undermined by events; that the alliance framework through which that posture is expressed has demonstrated, in the Geneva timeline and its consequences, a willingness to act without consultation, without proportionality, and without regard for the interests of those not represented in the decision; that the specific commitments made under AUKUS do not, on the available industrial and governance evidence, serve Australian interests on the terms their proponents claimed; and that the nations of our region and the long-term requirements of Australian prosperity and security point in a direction that the current posture actively impedes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe doctrine of Zhong Yong requires that governance name what the situation actually demands, rather than what interested parties prefer. I will name it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralia requires a staged, deliberate, and publicly honest transition toward principled strategic independence. This means the development of an independently derived grand strategy, conducted outside the existing institutional frameworks that have a vested interest in existing conclusions. It means a fundamental reorientation of Australian diplomatic and economic investment toward the Asian regional order in which we actually live. It means an honest independent assessment of AUKUS, with findings made available to the Australian public and genuine willingness to act on what that assessment finds. And it means the cultivation, in Australian political culture and in Australian institutional life, of the habit that New Zealand demonstrated is possible and that the Confucian tradition identified two and a half thousand years ago as the foundation of durable governance: the willingness to ask what the situation actually requires, and the seriousness to say so when the answer is inconvenient for those already holding power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralian sustainable sovereignty is not a comfort. It is a discipline. It is available to us. The question is whether we have the seriousness to choose it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrian Walker is a Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council and a general practitioner of four decadesâ standing.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"73:Tc97,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eWhen I walk through the quiet rows of a cemetery, I see more than just headstones and marble. I see the medical history of our state, the stories of lives fought for, and the legacy of those who built the very foundation of our society. In my years as a GP, I have seen how important it is to honour the journey of life, right through to its conclusion. It is a matter of dignity and respect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"an-unexpected-answer-to-a-vital-question\"\u003eAn unexpected answer to a vital question\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecently, I stood in the House to ask about a wonderful new initiative: a historical women's walk trail at Fremantle Cemetery. This trail aims to honour the lives and achievements of notable women interred there. It is a fantastic bridge to our past, but it raised a worrying question in my mind. What happens when these graves come up for renewal? In Western Australia, cemetery renewal programs mean that if a lease isn't renewed, a grave can be reused. This isn't just a bureaucratic process; it is a risk to our living history. I wanted to know if the Minister for Women had spoken with the Minister for Local Government to ensure these specific, significant graves would be protected from the bulldozer of progress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstead of a collaborative plan to protect our heritage, the response I received today was cold and dismissive. I was told that the matter remains strictly with the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board and the Minister for Local Government. This kind of siloed thinking is exactly what frustrates forward-thinkers who believe in evidence-based governance. We should be working across departments to protect our cultural identity, not passing the buck while history is at risk of being paved over.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you value common sense politics and want to see more of my work in Parliament, please consider \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003esubscribing to my YouTube channel\u003c/a\u003e for regular updates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-human-cost-of-forgetting\"\u003eThe human cost of forgetting\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe anxiety this causes is real for many families and historians. Imagine the frustration of creating a trail to celebrate these women, only to have the graves themselves discarded later because they didn't fit into a administrative spreadsheet. We are talking about the physical evidence of women who broke barriers in science, politics, and community service. The
1se are our pioneers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe can do better than this. It requires a government that looks at the big picture and values the soul of our community over the sheer efficiency of land management. Those of us who value history and science know that once these sites are gone, they are gone forever. We cannot reconstruct the past once it has been cleared away for the sake of convenience.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full exchange from the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-18/19?ref=localhost\"\u003eOfficial Hansard Record\u003c/a\u003e here. If you believe in standing up for our heritage and common sense reform, please consider \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoining Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e as we fight for a more compassionate and sensible Western Australia.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"74:T6cdd,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe discipline of equilibrium\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Chinese concept known as ä¸åº¸ä¹é (ZhÅng YÅng ZhÄ« Dà o) is almost always mistranslated in Western commentary as the Way of the Mean, and that mistranslation does considerable damage to the idea it is supposed to convey. The word âmeanâ arrives carrying its English freight of moderation, compromise, the split difference between opposing positions. It suggests a studied neutrality, a refusal of conviction, the equidistance that politicians sometimes mistake for wisdom. The Confucian concept is not this. It is something more demanding, and considerably more interesting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eZhÅng, the first character, means centre, balance, equilibrium: not centrism, but the internal condition that precedes action, the stillness of mind that exists before disturbance arrives. YÅng carries the sense of constancy, of something enduring and practically applied in the conduct of daily life. Together, translated with some fidelity, the concept names what the Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong), the classical Confucian text from which it comes, describes as the highest form of cultivated governance. Not the absence of conviction, but the disciplined refusal to be captured by extremes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe text draws a distinction that repays attention. Before the feelings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy arise, it says, that condition is called equilibrium. When those feelings arise and each finds its proper proportion, that is called harmony. The ideal leader, in this account, is not one who suppresses emotion or retreats from difficulty. He is one who brings to every situation exactly the appropriate degree of response, calibrated to the reality in front of him rather than to the emotional pressure of the moment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is not a counsel of caution. The Confucian tradition is explicit on this point, and a Western audience needs to hear it plainly. ZhÅng YÅng demands firm action in response to injustice. It demands courage in the face of power. What it refuses is the logic of excess, whether the excess of reaction, the excess of inaction, or the excess of escalation untethered from any proportionate objective.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am raising this concept now, in March 2026, because I believe it names with unusual precision the quality that is disappearing from political life across much of the world. Not intelligence nor technical capacity. and not even individual courage. What is disappearing is the disciplined capacity for proportionate response, and the cost of that disappearance is becoming visible in burning cities, in supermarket prices, and in the calculations of governments who will spend the next decade managing consequences that a different quality of governance could have avoided.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWhat the doctrine demands of those who govern\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Confucian philosophers were not naive about the difficulty of what they proposed. The Doctrine of the Mean is explicit that the cultivation of equilibrium requires sustained moral effort. It is not an institutional arrangement, not a procedural safeguard, not a structural guarantee. It is a quality of character that must be developed and maintained across a political life.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis has a corollary that is even more uncomfortable for modern political theory. The text insists that the health of a political order depends ultimately on the cultivation of character among those who govern, and that institutions, however well designed, cannot substitute for that cultivation. You can build a constitutional system with separated powers, independent courts, and free elections, and still find that it gradually loses its internal capacity for calibrated response, because the people operating within it have stopped exercising the discipline the system requires.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am not arguing against institutions. I am arguing that they are necessary but insufficient. The Western liberal democratic tradition has spent two centuries refining the architecture of governance, and has produced much that is genuinely worth protecting. It has paid considerably less attention to the question of what qualities of mind are required to operate that architecture with integrity. When those qualities erode, the architecture does not immediately collapse. It begins, slowly and then faster, to serve purposes other than the ones it was designed for.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe philosophers who developed ZhÅng YÅng were writing in the context of a civilisation that had already seen multiple cycles of dynastic flourishing and collapse. They were not theorising from comfort. They were trying to understand why political orders that had every structural advantage eventually destroyed themselves, and what quality of governance might interrupt that cycle. Their answer, reduced to its essence, was this: the loss of equilibrium in governance begins with the loss of the capacity to distinguish between what a situation requires and what the forces acting on a decision-maker would prefer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat distinction, between what the situation requires and what interested parties prefer, is precisely what the events of the past several weeks have made visible. But before examining those events, it is necessary to understand the structural conditions that shaped them, because the individual loss of judgement and the systemic erosion of equilibrium are not separate phenomena. They are the same process, operating simultaneously at different levels. The structural conditions I am about to describe are precisely the conditions under which the quality of character that ZhÅng YÅng demands becomes, for those who govern, progressively harder to maintain.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe structural condition that precedes the event\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolitical systems organised around highly concentrated wealth and power develop a structural tendency to generate and sustain division. This is not a conspiracy. No room of powerful people need meet and decide that social conflict serves their interests, though the historical record suggests that some do. The mechanism operates at the level of incentive rather than
1intent. When the accumulation of political and economic advantage depends on the continuous mobilisation of constituencies, and when those constituencies can most reliably be mobilised through the activation of fear or tribal identity, then the architecture of the system produces conflict as a natural output. The division is a byproduct. The benefit it confers on those at the top of the system is structural, not orchestrated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA straightforward structural audit of the current moment asks not whether anyone planned this outcome but who profits from its continuation. The answer is not obscure. When the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted, non-Persian Gulf energy producers benefit from elevated prices. When sanctions on Russian oil are simultaneously lifted, as the Trump administration has done, a state under sustained economic pressure gains material relief at the precise moment global attention is directed elsewhere. When populations are focused on an external military confrontation, they attend less to domestic conditions. When fear is the dominant political register, rational analysis of proportionality becomes politically costly. These are structural advantages that flow from the conditions being described. They do not require orchestration. They require only the continuation of a system that nobody with the power to change it has a sufficient incentive to redesign.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Confucian framework names this as the condition from which the loss of equilibrium flows. When the private interests of those who govern diverge sufficiently from the genuine interests of those they govern, and when that divergence becomes a settled structural feature rather than a temporary corruption, the system loses its capacity for calibrated response. It begins instead to optimise for its own continuation, including the continuation of the conditions, among them conflict and division, that sustain concentrated advantage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am aware that this argument can be mistaken for cynicism. I do not intend it as such. Cynicism is the refusal of moral seriousness. What I am offering is structural analysis, because structural analysis is more useful than moral outrage in understanding why these things happen, and more reliable than individual blame in identifying what would need to change for them to happen differently. The structural explanation is, if anything, more damning than the conspiratorial one. A conspiracy can be exposed and dismantled. A structural condition requires civilisational redesign.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe architecture I have just described is not an abstraction. It shaped the specific decisions taken in Geneva and afterwards, and it shaped the conditions that made those decisions politically possible. It is to those events I now turn.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneva, and what was abandoned there\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn 26 February 2026, the United States and Iran concluded their third round of indirect nuclear negotiations in Geneva, mediated by Omanâs Foreign Minister. Both parties described the talks as the most substantive yet. Iranâs Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the two sides had identified the main elements of a possible agreement and reached a general understanding of how to resolve most outstanding issues. The Omani mediator characterised the discussions as producing significant progress and announced that technical talks between nuclear experts would proceed in Vienna the following week. A fourth high-level round of negotiations was scheduled.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo days later, on 28 February, the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury, the official US military designation for the campaign. The opening salvo killed Iranâs Supreme Leader. The Vienna technical talks did not take place.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Arms Control Association, assessing the diplomatic record in detail, has concluded that the Trump administration did not exhaust the negotiating process before resorting to military action. That assessment is consistent with the documented sequence of events. What the Geneva talks produced was not a completed agreement. The outstanding differences on enrichment, sanctions relief, and verification were real and substantial. What they did produce was an agreed continuation: a scheduled next step that both parties had publicly committed to pursuing. That continuation was abandoned 48 hours after it was confirmed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe precision of this claim matters. During the Geneva session, a senior adviser to the Supreme Leader wrote publicly, while talks were ongoing, that if a declaration renouncing nuclear weapons was the central American demand, it aligned with established Iranian religious doctrine, and that an immediate agreement was within reach. Iranâs lead negotiator stated that his delegation had sufficient support and authority to conclude a deal. The
1se are the expressed positions of a government that, two days later, found its Supreme Leader killed in an opening military salvo.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Washington Post reported, citing four people familiar with the matter, that the decision to strike came after weeks of private lobbying by Israel and Saudi Arabia, with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman making multiple direct calls to Trump advocating military action, despite publicly supporting diplomacy. Saudi Arabia has denied this account. It rests on anonymous sourcing and should be treated accordingly, as a credibly reported claim requiring attribution rather than an established fact. What is not disputed, because it was stated on the record by members of the United States Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees with access to classified intelligence, is that there was no imminent threat from Iran to the United States at the time the strikes were launched. Senator Tim Kaine, drawing on his classified access, stated this plainly. Senator Mark Warner, briefed as one of the eight congressional leaders with access to the most sensitive intelligence, said the same.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Defence Intelligence Agencyâs own published assessment, from 2025, placed any Iranian ICBM capability targeting the continental United States at the earliest in 2035, conditional on Iran making a determined push to develop it. That assessment was available to every decision-maker in Washington. It was not the basis on which the action was publicly justified. The justifications shifted across six distinct rationales in the days following the strikes: imminent threat, pre-emption of Iranian retaliation after an expected Israeli attack, destruction of missile capabilities, prevention of nuclear weapons acquisition, securing natural resources, and regime change. A political system retaining its capacity for proportionate response does not offer six different justifications for the same action. It offers one, because it has asked the prior question carefully: what does this situation actually require?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe National Intelligence Council completed a classified assessment in February 2026, shortly before the strikes, concluding that military intervention was not likely to produce regime change, and that Iranâs establishment would preserve continuity of power even if the Supreme Leader was killed. Within days of Khameneiâs death, his son was selected as his successor by Iranâs leading clerics, in line with the assessmentâs findings. The assessment existed. It was not acted upon.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is the ZhÅng YÅng failure in concentrated form. The concept requires that action be proportionate to the objective being pursued, and that it be taken only when genuinely necessary to achieve that objective. The Geneva timeline presents the diagnostic question with unusual clarity: what did the situation actually require at that moment? Not what interested parties were urging. Not what the domestic political logic preferred. What did the situation, examined without those pressures, call for?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe cost falls furthest from the room\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Strait of Hormuz is a waterway approximately 33 kilometres wide at its narrowest point, sitting between the coast of Iran to the north and the Musandam Peninsula to the south. It is the only maritime exit from the Persian Gulf to the open ocean. Through it, in normal times, passes approximately 20 per cent of global petroleum liquids, 20 per cent of global LNG exports, and, according to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, approximately 35 per cent of globally traded urea, the most widely used nitrogen fertiliser. There is no alternative route for these volumes. There is no strategic fertiliser reserve, in the way there are strategic petroleum reserves. When the strait is disrupted, the fertiliser does not take another route. It stops.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe disruption that began on 28 February has coincided with the Northern Hemisphere spring planting season, the peri
1od of peak fertiliser demand across the agricultural systems that feed most of the worldâs population. Qatar, one of the worldâs largest urea producers, halted production after suspending LNG operations following the conflictâs onset. Indian fertiliser manufacturers, who source more than 40 per cent of their urea from Gulf suppliers, have cut output and some have suspended operations entirely. Urea prices at the New Orleans import hub had risen approximately 26 per cent by 11 March compared with prices on the eve of the strikes, according to CSIS data. Vessels from the Persian Gulf to the US Gulf coast take approximately 30 days in transit, which means that supply disruptions in early March affect peak spring planting windows directly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe people who decided to launch this operation made that decision in rooms in Washington and Tel Aviv. The cost of the decision, if the disruption to the strait persists through the planting season, will fall most heavily on farmers in India and Bangladesh, on food-insecure populations across Sub-Saharan Africa, on communities in Brazil and across the developing world who depen
1d on affordable grain grown with fertiliser that currently is not moving. These populations had no representation in those rooms. They had no voice in the calculations that will shape whether their children eat adequately in 2026. They are the denominators that the decision-makers did not count.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should be precise about what remains uncertain. The food security consequences of the Strait of Hormuz disruption are, at the time of writing, a probable downstream effect of documented supply chain disruptions, not a completed humanitarian outcome. The duration of the disruption, the extent to which alternative supply routes can compensate, and the policy responses of major importing nations will all shape the eventual scale of harm. What is not uncertain is the structural exposure. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has described the absence of strategic fertiliser reserves, the concentration of production in the Gulf, and the complete dependence on the strait as a compounded vulnerability with no available buffer. This is not a crisis that could not have been foreseen. It is a crisis that the architecture of the decision made likely once the decision was made.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis is what the Confucian obligation of the ruler to the wellbeing of the people requires in practical terms: the full accounting of consequence, including and especially the consequences that fall on those with no capacity to influence the decision. A governance system that cannot see beyond its immediate political constituency is not governing in the sense the doctrine describes. It is managing a coalition of interests while calling the result policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe pattern of which this is the latest expression\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt would be a significant analytical error to treat the current conflict as an aberration produced by the particular characteristics of the current American administration. The administration has accelerated and intensified the dynamics that produced this outcome. But the pattern itself is considerably older, and the error of treating it as exceptional is part of how it persists.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe United States has been in continuous military engagement in the Middle East for more than twenty-five years. Each engagement has been justified by a distinct rationale. None has produced the stated objectives without generating new instability sufficient to require the next engagement. Iraq was followed by the effort to stabilise Iraq, which was followed by the Syrian engagement, which was followed by involvement in Yemen, which was followed by the 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, which are now followed by the current operation. At each stage, the stated objective has been security. At each stage, the conditions for the next confrontation have been established.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA medical practitioner would recognise this pattern immediately. It is the patient treated repeatedly for the same presenting complaint, over many years, without the physician ever undertaking a differential diagnosis of what is generating the complaint. The treatment provides temporary relief. The condition returns, more advanced. The discipline of ZhÅng YÅng, applied to this cycle, asks the question the clinical model demands: what is the simplest systemic explanation that accounts for all the observed dysfunction? The answer is not flattering to any of the administrations involved, nor to the broader institutional culture that has sustained the pattern across them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI am arguing this at a high level of abstraction, and deliberately so. Each engagement in this sequence had its own distinct causal structure, its own actors, its own internal logic. The case for reading them as a pattern rather than as a series of separate events will be made in detail in subsequent pieces in this series. What I am establishing here is the diagnostic question: why does a system with every advantage of wealth, intelligence capacity, and institutional experience keep producing the same category of outcome? The pattern is the evidence that requires explaining, even before the explanation is complete.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat the Confucian framework says about interrupting such a cycle is, as I noted earlier, uncomfortable. Institutional reform is necessary but not sufficient. The cycle interrupts when those who govern develop, or recover, the capacity to ask what the situation actually requires rather than what the pressure of the moment prefers. That is a moral and intellectual quality, not a policy prescription. It is harder to achieve, and more consequential when it is.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAustralia, and what the surge reveals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI want to bring this framework closer to home, because it has implications that are more proximate than Tehran or Geneva or the Strait of Hormuz.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRoy Morgan polling in the week of 26 January to 1 February 2026 recorded One Nation at a primary vote of 25 per
1cent, with the Coalition on 18 per cent. It was, as the polling organisation noted, the first time a nationwide Australian survey had shown a minor party on equal footing with a traditional major party. Subsequent polling has shown some moderation from that peak, but the trajectory across 2025 and into 2026 is not in dispute. A party treated for much of the past decade as a contained political phenomenon has moved to a position where it is plausibly competitive at scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe conventional response to this development, in commentary and in major party strategy, is to treat it as a problem of messaging, or of failure to address particular policy concerns, or of voters being captured by simplified narratives. These responses are not entirely without foundation, but they are radically insufficient, because they address the symptom rather than examining what produced it. ZhÅng YÅng asks a different question: what institutional failure generated this corrective force? Because corrective forces of this kind arise when systems lose equilibrium, and the nature of the corrective force is itself diagnostic. It reveals the character of the imbalance that generated it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA quarter of the Australian electorate indicated a primary preference for One Nation in January 2026. These are not, in the main, people who have carefully evaluated the partyâs policy platform and found it superior to the available alternatives. They are people who have concluded, on the basis of lived experience, that the existing institutions do not adequately represent their interests or take their concerns seriously. The structural explanation for that conclusion is not difficult to find: two decades in which economic growth has been concentrated in ways that left substantial sections of the population with diminished security, reduced agency, and less confidence in the future than the generation before them had. Major parties that have competed primarily for the preferences of constituencies in inner metropolitan areas, while describing their policy frameworks as universal. A political culture that has developed a tendency to pathologise dissent from its preferred positions rather than examine what might be producing the dissent.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI should be clear about what this analysis does and does not imply. ZhÅng YÅng does not endorse One Nationâs policy positions or its political register. What it identifies is the structural logic of the surge. An excess in one direction has produced a corrective force that risks becoming an excess in another. The corrective force is real in its causes, even where it may be misdirected in its proposed solutions. Opposing it by describing its supporters as the victims of manipulation, or as people who have failed to understand their own interests, is precisely the kind of response that ensures the cycle continues. It adds condescension to the list of institutional failures that produced the reaction in the first place.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is required is something harder: a genuine examination of the institutional failures that produced the conditions in which one quarter of voters felt this was the most honest option available to them. That examination is possible. It is not comfortable. It requires exactly the quality of governance the Confucian tradition identifies as the foundation of equilibrium: the willingness to ask what the situation actually requires, before asking what is most convenient for those already holding power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe question this series will pursue\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a question that sits beneath everything this series of articles will attempt to examine, and I want to name it plainly before closing, because I believe the next two or three years will determine whether it has an answer in the context of our own political culture.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe structural conditions I have been describing, the concentrated interests that benefit from division, the architecture of political systems that rewards escalation over calibration, the erosion of the capacity for proportionate response, are not new. They are features of human political organisation that the Confucian philosophers were already diagnosing two and a half thousand years ago. They are features that civilisations have periodically overcome, at considerable cost, and periodically failed to overcome, at greater cost. The question is not whether these conditions can be changed. It is whether the people operating within them can develop the quality of attention required to see them clearly enough to change them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat ä¸åº¸ä¹é offers, and what I intend to develop across the coming weeks through case studies drawn from the current global environment, is not a programme. It is a diagnostic discipline: a way of asking what any given situation actually requires, and a practice of naming clearly when the answer being offered by those in power diverges from that requirement. The discipline begins with the individual capacity for proportionate judgement, and extends outward to the design of institutions capable of sustaining and rewarding that judgement rather than punishing it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe conflict now under way in Iran will not resolve the underlying questions it has made visible. The food price consequences of the Strait of Hormuz disruption will persist beyond any ceasefire. The democratic dislocations visible across Western societies, including our own, are expressions of structural conditions that will not be addressed by the next election cycle. These are the longer-term problems that a governance culture oriented toward genuine equilibrium would be working on now, alongside the immediate management of acute crises, rather than treating the crises as the whole of the task.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ancient question, posed with unusual clarity in the Doctrine of the Mean, is whether a political community can govern itself without surrendering to extremes. It has been answered differently by different societies at different moments in history, and the answer has depended less on the quality of their institutional architecture than on whether enough of the people operating within it retained the habit of asking what the situation actually required, and the seriousness to say so when the answer was inconvenient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat habit is worth cultivating. Whether it remains available to us is, at this moment, genuinely uncertain.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrian Walker is a Member of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and a general practitioner of four decadesâ standing.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"75:T11a6,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I learned that a patientâs health rarely improves by ignoring the underlying cause of their ailment. The same principle applies to the state of our energy system. What we are seeing in Parliament today is not a cure, but a temporary bandage on a deep and festering wound. The introduction of the Collie Coal (Griffin) Agreement Amendment Bill 2026 is a startling admission that the transition to clean energy has stalled.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-admission-of-a-failed-plan\"\u003eThe admission of a failed plan\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis bill exists because the government has run out of time and options. We are being asked to extend coal mining at the Ewington pits until mid 2031, despite repeated assurances that the state would move away from fossil fuels much sooner. It is a visceral reminder of the danger we face when rhetoric outpaces reality. While the major parties play politics and congratulate one another on their shared vision, the evidence is clear: the lights only stay on because we are propping up an unstable, aging industry with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. This is what it looks like when you fail to have a plan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are currently in a position where our state-owned coal infrastructure is so decrepit that we have become dependent on privately owned, financially shaky coal to keep our energy system going. It is a crisis of our own making. For years, forward-thinkers have pointed to the necessity of building renewable energy at scale, yet we find ourselves hurriedly planning new gas-fired stations and extending coal leases. The cost of this delay is passed directly to you, the taxpayer, while the health of our environment continues to decline.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-legal-loophole-for-corporations\"\u003eThe legal loophole for corporations\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerhaps most concerning to me is the legal architecture of this bill. It includes a general supremacy clause, meaning this agreement can override almost any other law of the state. It explicitly subordinates the Environmental Protection Act. This establishes a dangerous precedent where an executive agreement sits above the laws designed to protect our water, our forests, and our health. In my medical view, you cannot treat the symptoms of an energy crisis by poisoning the land that sustains us.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you find these Parliamentary discussions as vital as I do, I invite you to stay informed by subscribing to my YouTube channel at \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003ethis link\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpecifically, the bill allows the government to release a multinational company from its decommissioning and rehabilitation responsibilities. We are essentially giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to a corporation that has already received hundreds of millions in public subsidies. The traditional custodians of the land, the Wilman people, and the residents of Collie deserve better than a future where toxic waste is left behind because cleaning it up became too expensive or too complicated for a foreign entity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-prescription-for-real-change\"\u003eA prescription for real change\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe often hear that those who critique lack solutions. This is not true. The science-first approach is simple: we need legislated renewable energy targets and clear emission reduction milestones. We need to build the transmission infrastructure that opens up the Wheatbelt and other regions to wind and solar excellence. We should be incentivising households and renters to adopt rooftop solar and battery storage today, rather than waiting for massive, expensive gas projects that may never even secure the necessary turbines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe sinking feeling many Western Australians get when they see their energy bills or look at the degradation of our natural landscape is justified. We are witnessing an energy transition in crisis, propped up by the very fuels we need to leave behind. We must demand a more honest, evidence-based strategy that puts the health of our communities and our environment ahead of the convenience of multinational corporations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou can read the full details of this debate in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-17/5?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you believe it is time for a more sensible, common-sense approach to our state's future, I invite you to \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoin Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e and help us fight for a smarter, healthier Western Australia.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"76:Td54,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a medical practitioner, I have learned that the best treatments are often those that the system is slowest to adopt. We see this today with hemp. It is not just an agricultural crop; it is a pharmaceutical powerhouse, a sustainable building material, and a textile of the future. While other nations are embracing this green revolution to build a cleaner future, Western Australia risks being left in the dust of our own bureaucracy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-untapped-potential-of-the-emerald-plant\"\u003eThe untapped potential of the emerald plant\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eToday in Parliament, I raised the issue of how we are supporting our local hemp innovators. On the Emerald Isle, hemp is already playing a vital role in creating a sustainable environmental future. It is a plant that heals the soil and the economy alike. Yet here, I fear our innovators are forced to navigate a maze of red tape rather than being empowered to lead the world. The risk is real. If we do not act, we are not just losing a crop; we are losing jobs, investment, and a chance to decarbonise our industries. We are effectively watching a cure sit on the shelf while the patient waits in the hall.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a doctor and a scientist, I look at the evidence. The evidence says hemp is a multi-billion dollar opportunity. The evidence says it is carbon negative. The evidence says the global market is hungry for WA innovation. My colleagues and I in the science-first community know that the status quo is failing us. We are the forward-thinkers who see the potential where the major parties see only a difficult conversation they would rather avoid.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you believe that evidence and science should lead our policy decisions, I invite you to subscribe to my YouTube channel for more updates on my work in Parliament: \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-booster-for-the-bold\"\u003eA booster for the bold\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Minister for Science and Innovation pointed towards the New Industries and Innovation Fund and the Innovation Booster Grants as paths for hemp companies to find support. While these funds exist, the question remains whether the government truly recognises the unique value of the hemp sector. The sinking feeling many entrepreneurs experience when trying to access these funds is a symptom of a larger problem. When I asked about the long-promised hemp review, I was directed back to a different department. This kind of buck-passing is what keeps Western Australia from thriving.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe need a government that talks to itself. Cabinet colleagues must work together to ensure the economic benefits are seized before the opportunity passes us by completely. Innovation does not happen in a vacuum, and it certainly does not happen when the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. We are fighting for a future where science dictates the law, not outdated stigma.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe full record of today's questions can be viewed in the \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-17/15?ref=localhost\"\u003eofficial Hansard record\u003c/a\u003e. If you want to see a Western Australia that embraces the full potential of this incredible plant, please consider \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoining Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"77:T777b,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2 id=\"on-insight-inflation-institutional-failure-and-the-politics-of-knowing-in-an-age-of-artificial-intelligence\"\u003eOn insight inflation, institutional failure, and the politics of knowing in an age of artificial intelligence\u003c/h2\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-problem-behind-the-problem\"\u003eThe Problem Behind the Problem\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eJohn Elkington is one of the more reliable early-warning systems in international sustainability discourse. He coined the Triple Bottom Line. He has been mapping the terrain between business, society and environment for longer than most current commentators have been professionally active. When he identifies a new structural phenomenon, the observation is worth taking seriously.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn a recent essay written following the EcoVadis SUSTAIN 2026 conference in Paris, Elkington introduced the concept of âinsight inflation.â The argument, stated plainly in his recent Substack article, is this: we built artificial intelligence to solve the problem of data overload, and in doing so we have created a second-order version of the same problem. Instead of drowning in raw data, we now face the prospect of drowning in conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is a well-constructed argument and it rests on a legitimate intellectual foundation. The progression Elkington traces is coherent. The industrial age suffered from scarcity of data. The digital age suffered from abundance of data and the cognitive overload that followed. The AI age now threatens to produce abundance of conclusions, each arriving with the apparent authority of analysis behind it, each demanding a response from decision-makers who are already overwhelmed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept is well named. Inflation, in its classical economic sense, describes what happens when the supply of a medium outpaces the underlying value it is meant to represent. When insight is produced faster than wisdom can absorb it, something very similar occurs. The currency of knowledge depreciates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eElkington is right about all of this. And yet the essay stops at a point where the deeper implications remain only partially explored.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn clinical medicine, the experienced practitioner learns to distrust the presenting symptom as the full account of the problem. A patient who arrives complaining of fatigue may be describing anaemia, or depression, or malignancy, or simple overwork. The symptom is real. It points toward a pathology. But treating the symptom without understanding the pathology produces, at best, temporary relief and, at worst, dangerous delay.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInsight inflation is a genuine symptom. The pathology it points toward is something rather more serious. The pathology is power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-progression-nobody-planned\"\u003eA Progression Nobody Planned\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo understand where we are, it helps to understand how we arrived here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlvin Tofflerâs Future Shock, published in 1970, diagnosed a psychological condition he called âinformation overloadâ: the trauma produced not by ignorance but by the acceleration of change and the proliferation of stimuli beyond the capacity of the human mind to process them. A decade later, in The Third Wave, Toffler provided the structural explanation: industrial
1civilisation was giving way to an information civilisation, and the transition would be neither smooth nor painless.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTofflerâs predictions have held up with remarkable accuracy. What he perhaps underestimated was the degree to which the internet, which lay some distance in the future when he wrote, would reassemble concentrated power rather than distributing it. He imagined fragmentation and personalisation. He got those things. He did not fully anticipate that fragmentation and personalisation would be orchestrated by a small number of platform monopolies whose commercial interest lay precisely in maximising the volume and velocity of information flowing through their systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data produced by those systems grew at a rate that few anticipated. Total captured and accessible global data reached approximately sixty zettabytes by 2020, with industry analyst projections, which should be read as directional estimates rather than precisely measured quantities, suggesting figures in the range of one hundred and sixty to one hundred and eighty zettabytes by 2025. The subjective experience of that growth is visible in survey data. The Reuters Institute Digital News Report for 2024 found that thirty-nine per cent of respondents across forty-seven countries reported feeling worn out by the volume of news, compared with twenty-eight per cent in 2019. In the workplace, the research firm OpenText reported in 2025 that eighty per cent of global workers now experience information overload, up from sixty per cent in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe World Health Organisation, confronting the co-occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic with a proliferation of competing and often false health information, coined the term âinfodemicâ to describe an excess of information that made it harder rather than easier for populations to make sound decisions. The psychologist David Lewis had identified the same phenomenon in professional contexts a generation earlier, in research commissioned by Reuters in the 1990s, which he described as Information Fatigue Syndrome: a condition characterised by anxiety, impaired decision-making, memory difficulties, shortened attention spans, and damaged working relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe progression can now be stated clearly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first stage was ignorance: the limiting factor in human civilisation was access to knowledge. The second stage was information overload: the limiting factor became the capacity to process knowledge. The third stage, the one Elkington correctly identifies, is insight inflation: the limiting factor is the capacity to evaluate competing interpretations of knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is, however, a fourth stage that the insight inflation frame gestures toward without quite naming. It is the stage at which the production of interpretation becomes so abundant, and the cognitive costs of evaluation so high, that most individuals and most institutions are compelled to delegate the filtering of insight to others.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat stage is not a technical problem. It is a political one.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-question-elkington-did-not-ask\"\u003eThe Question Elkington Did Not Ask\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe question Elkington did not ask, but which the logic of his argument makes unavoidable, is this: when insight becomes cheap and abundant, who controls the filters? This is not an abstract question. It has immediate institutional and geopolitical consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsider the contemporary landscape of great power competition and military-strategic decision-making. Intelligence analysis, in its traditional form, was always a filtering problem: how to distil enormous quantities of raw signals, human intelligence, and open-source information into a manageable set of assessments that could reach a principal decision-maker in time to influence action. The resources required for that process were large, the expertise scarce, and the institutions that performed the function, the intelligence agencies of major states, wielded significant influence precisely because they controlled what reached the desk of the decision-maker.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eArtificial intelligence does not dissolve that problem. It intensifies it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen AI systems can generate hundreds of plausible scenarios, risk assessments, and strategic recommendations from the same underlying data, the bottleneck does not disappear. It migrates. The constraint is no longer the production of analysis. It is the selection of which anal
1ysis is presented, to whom, at what moment, and in what framing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analyst who once spent weeks synthesising a judgement now supervises a system capable of producing fifty competing judgements in an afternoon. The briefer who once carried a single carefully constructed assessment to the minister now faces the question of which of the machineâs outputs to include, which to suppress, and how to characterise the degree of consensus or uncertainty within the analytical product.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are not technical decisions. They are decisions saturated with interpretive, institutional, and political consequence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current international environment illustrates the stakes with uncomfortable clarity. In periods of acute geopolitical tension, whether in the context of great power confrontation, nuclear brinkmanship, or proxy conflict, the most consequential question facing democratic governments is not whether sufficient information exists. Information is now superabundant. The question is whose filtering of that information reaches the principal, and what institutional incentives shaped that filtering.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHistory offers repeated examples of catastrophic decision-making not from information scarcity but from information curation failure: the selective presentation of intelligence, the suppression of contradictory assessments, the cognitive pressure on analysts to produce conclusions consistent with the preferences of those commissioning the analysis. The Iraq War intelligence failures of 2002 and 2003 were not primarily a problem of insufficient data. They were a problem of institutional filtering under political pressure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt should be noted that the full historical record of that episode remains contested across multiple official inquiries, and scholars continue to debate the relative weight of analytical failure, politicised presentation, and genuine intelligence ambiguity. What is documented across those inquiries, however, including the Butler Review and the Chilcot Inquiry, is that the filtering layer between raw intelligence and political decision-maker was subject to pressures that narrowed the range of interpretations reaching those with authority to act. That structural finding is the relevant one for the argument made here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAI does not make that problem less likely. It makes the filtering layer more opaque, more technically complex, and therefore less susceptible to the kinds of scrutiny that democratic oversight mechanisms were designed to provide.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eElkington notes, correctly, that the internet âreassembled centralised power rather than dissolving it.â The same structural pattern is already visible in AI. The systems capable of producing strategic-grade insight at scale are controlled by a small number of technology firms and state actors. The markets for AI-generated analysis are consolidating rapidly. The institutions that gain early dominance over AI insight pipelines will acquire a structural advantage in shaping the informational environment within which their clients, whether corporations, governments, or electorates, make decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThat is not insight inflation as a cognitive challenge. That is insight inflation as a mechanism of power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most substantial objection to this argument deserves direct engagement. It is frequently observed that artificial intelligence democratises analytical capacity: a researcher, a journalist, or a citizen with internet access can now run queries that would previously have required a research team and significant institutional resource. That observation is accurate. It does not, however, address the relevant question. Democratisation of access is not the same as democratisation of interpretive authority. The systems performing the underlying analysis, setting the training parameters, weighting the outputs, and determining what the model treats as credible evidence, are controlled by a small number of actors whose architectural choices are neither transparent nor democratically accountable. What is distributed to the many is the interface. What is retained by the few is the infrastru
1cture of interpretation. The distinction matters enormously.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"what-medicine-already-knows\"\u003eWhat Medicine Already Knows\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a domain in which the pathology of analytical abundance has been studied with rigour over several decades. It is medicine.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe phenomenon known as diagnostic inflation describes what happens when the availability of tests outpaces the capacity of clinical judgment to interpret them wisely. When imaging technology became widely accessible, the incidental finding became a new category of clinical problem: an abnormality detected not because a patient was symptomatic but because the technology was looking. Many incidental findings are benign. Some require investigation. A small proportion are genuinely significant. But the volume of findings produced by modern imaging creates pressure for further investigation of everything, which produces further findings, which creates further pressure, in a cascade that increases cost, patient anxiety, and the probability of iatrogenic harm from investigation and treatment that would not otherwise have been initiated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe false positive is a direct analogue of what Elkington calls the AI-generated insight. It is a conclusion produced by a process that is technically sound but applied in a context where the prior probability of genuine significance is low. And because it arrives from a legitimate diagnostic system, it carries authority that makes it cognitively difficult to discard.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe clinical literature on this problem has identified several principles relevant to the broader challenge of insight inflation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first is the importance of a prior hypothesis. Experienced clinicians do not order investigations without a clinical question. They do not generate data in the hope that something useful will emerge. They reason from the patientâs presentation toward a differential diagnosis and use investigations to adjudicate between possibilities they have already identified as plausible. This is not a limitation of ambition. It is a disciplined approach to the management of analytical resources and cognitive bandwidth.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second principle is the value of the explicitly sceptical role. In high-stakes clinical contexts, the second opinion is not a courtesy. It is a structural safeguard. The consultant who reviews the imaging report with a different clinical lens, the pathologist who examines the tissue with a different set of questions, the pharmacist who reviews the prescription with knowledge of interactions the prescribing clinician may not have considered: these are institutionalised forms of designated scepticism.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third principle, perhaps the most important, is that clinical judgment cannot be automated out of existence by the abundance of data. The physician who receives fifty diagnostic suggestions from different algorithms must still decide which hypothesis matters most for this patient, at this moment, given this history and these values. The responsibility for that decision is not transferred to the algorithm. It remains with the clinician. And the clinicianâs accountability to the patient is not diminished by the sophistication of the tools available.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach of these principles maps directly onto the governance problem that Elkington identifies but does not resolve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganisations, whether corporations, governments, or regulatory bodies, that wish to navigate insight inflation without being captured by it will need prior hypotheses about what questions matter before they engage AI systems. They will need formally designated sceptical functions whose role is not to consume AI output but to interrogate it. And they will need to maintain, clearly and unambiguously, that accountability for decisions based on AI-generated analysis rests with identifiable human beings, not with the systems that produced the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese are not novel principles. They are extensions of intellectual practices that professions committed to high-stakes decision-making have developed over generations. The challenge is that most institutional structures were not built around them, and the arrival of AI at scale is exposing that gap with considerable speed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"what-institutions-were-not-designed-for\"\u003eWhat Institutions Were Not Designed For\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eGovernance structures, almost universally, were designed for a world in which anal
1ysis was scarce, expensive, and slow to produce.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe committee system of a modern parliament was designed for a world in which a minister received a briefing document prepared over days or weeks by officials who had themselves synthesised available information through extended professional effort. The document was scarce. It was therefore presumed to have been worth preparing. It was read carefully because it represented a significant investment of institutional resource.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe board of a major corporation received quarterly reports prepared by teams of analysts over extended periods, audited by external professionals, and presented by executives who had spent time understanding the material they were presenting. The report was scarce. The meeting time allocated to reviewing it was therefore considered proportionate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe intelligence community presented its principal assessments, the carefully calibrated documents that summarise national intelligence on a given subject, to senior decision-makers at intervals that reflected the time required to synthesise, verify, and express analytical judgement responsibly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNone of these institutional forms was designed for a world in which an AI system can generate fifty plausible scenarios from a given data set in the time it once took an analyst to draft a single paragraph.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe volume problem is obvious. Less obvious, but more consequential, is the authority problem. When analysis was scarce, its scarcity was itself a quality signal. A briefing document that had survived institutional preparation processes carried implicit assurance that it had been considered worth producing. When analysis becomes abundant, that quality signal disappears. The board or the committee or the minister must now evaluate the credibility of conclusions rather than simply receiving conclusions whose credibility was embedded in the process that produced them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost institutions have not yet confronted this change explicitly. They continue to receive AI-generated analysis through the same channels, in the same formats, and with the same procedural trappings as the analysis that preceded it. The form gives an impression of continuity. The underlying epistemics have changed entirely.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis has a particular resonance for a jurisdiction such as Western Australia. Western Australia serves here not as a parochial case but as a precise illustration of how the abstract problem of insight inflation operates within a jurisdiction that is structurally representative of many peripheral democracies: prosperous, globally integrated, and almost entirely dependent on the analytical judgments of institutions it does not control. The mechanism is not theoretical. When Chinese steel demand projections were systematically misread in the period leading to the 2015 to 2016 iron ore price collapse, the consequences arrived in Western Australia with considerable precision: state budget revenues fell by billions of dollars, infrastructure programmes were deferred, and household conditions in communities dependent on the resources sector deteriorated in ways that took years to recover. The proximate cause was a pricing correction. The upstream cause was a sustained misreading of policy intentions within a major economy, filtered through multiple layers of institutional interpretation before reaching the markets and governments that depended on it.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWestern Australia sits at considerable remove from the primary centres of geopolitical and economic decision-making. The strategic intelligence assessments that inform Australian federal policy are produced in Canberra, filtered through the architecture of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, and shaped by the analytical frameworks of institutions in Washington, London, and Langley. By the time a strategic picture reaches the policy environment of Perth, it has passed through multiple layers of institutional curation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnder conditions of insight inflation, each of those layers becomes a potential point at which the quality of the filtering matters enormously. The question is not merely whether Western Australia receives accurate information about the world. It is whether the institutions that mediate that information, federal agencies, intelligence assessors, departmental briefing chains, are themselves equipped to maintain the quality of judgment that genuine filtering requires, rather than simply transmitting whatever the upstream AI system has generated
1with most confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe economic stakes are direct. Western Australiaâs prosperity is structurally connected to commodity markets that are acutely sensitive to geopolitical conditions. The iron ore trade, the LNG industry, the growing defence and technology investment associated with AUKUS commitments: each of these depends on an accurate reading of international conditions that are themselves increasingly shaped by the informational environment in which great power decisions are made.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen strategic miscalculation is possible, in part because AI-generated assessments have displaced the more cautious and qualified judgements that experienced analysts might have offered, the consequences do not remain abstractions in distant capitals. They arrive, with economic and social precision, in the communities of a state that has historically been the last to be consulted and the first to bear the consequences of decisions made elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe case for robust institutional judgment at the state level is therefore not merely a matter of good governance in the abstract. It is a concrete requirement of self-interest in an environment where the quality of filtering at higher levels of the system cannot be assumed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-scarce-resource\"\u003eThe Scarce Resource\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a productive paradox at the centre of this analysis. When insight becomes abundant, judgment becomes scarce.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe value of any resource is a function of its relative scarcity and its utility. Data was once valuable because it was scarce. In the current environment, data is superabundant and its value as a commodity has declined accordingly. Processed information followed the same trajectory with some delay. Insight, in Elkingtonâs formulation, is now beginning the same cycle: produced at scale by AI systems, losing marginal value with each additional unit generated, eventually becoming a noise problem rather than a signal resource.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat AI cannot easily produce is accountable decision-making. It can generate scenarios. It can produce recommendations. It can synthesise evidence. What it cannot do is bear responsibility for the decision that follows.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResponsibility remains human even when reasoning is machine-assisted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnd because responsibility remains human, the quality of human judgment, the capacity to decide which interpretation matters, which risk is real, which recommendation is sound, and which conclusion is an artefact of the systemâs training data and incentive structure rather than a genuine reflection of the world, becomes the genuinely scarce resource in the AI age.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eElkington captures part of this when he observes that human conviction may recover some of its lost value precisely because it is harder to manufacture than machine-generated analysis. That observation is correct but understated. What recovers value is not conviction alone. It is trained discernment: the capacity for judgment that has been developed through extended engagement with complex problems, real consequences, and the kind of intellectual accountability that comes from having been wrong in ways that mattered.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe professions that have historically commanded social authority, medicine, law, the senior civil service, the judiciary, did not do so merely because they possessed knowledge that others lacked. They commanded authority because they were accountable for judgments made under conditions of genuine uncertainty, and because the training required to make those judgments responsibly was long, demanding, and not easily replicated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAI does not eliminate the value of those judgments. It creates a new context in which their value is more visible, because the alternative to human judgment is no longer ignorance but the potentially worse condition of insight without accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe institutional response to this recognition is what might be called epistemic infrastru
1cture: systems and roles whose function is not to generate more analysis but to adjudicate between competing analyses. The designated sceptic that Elkington mentions briefly is one element of this infrastructure. But the concept is broader.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt encompasses the parliamentary committee operating as a formal house of review, interrogating the analytical foundations of legislation rather than simply receiving them. It encompasses the clinical governance board that reviews diagnostic pathways for evidence of systematic bias rather than simply processing individual cases. It encompasses the intelligence oversight committee that scrutinises the analytical assumptions embedded in the assessments it receives rather than simply noting their conclusions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn practical terms, a designated sceptic role within a board or parliamentary committee would carry defined authority to commission independent assessments of AI-generated analytical products, to require that key assumptions be made explicit and documented, and to record formally when conclusions have been discarded and on what grounds. This is not a novel institutional concept. It draws on existing models in clinical governance, financial audit, and intelligence oversight. What is novel is the urgency of formalising it before the volume and velocity of AI-generated analysis makes unchallenged acceptance the institutional default rather than the exception.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese institutions are not new. What is new is the urgency of their function in an environment where the volume and velocity of analytically credible conclusions makes unexamined acceptance the path of least resistance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-philosophical-problem-before-a-technical-one\"\u003eA Philosophical Problem Before a Technical One\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThere is a tendency in contemporary discourse to treat the challenges associated with artificial intelligence as technical problems awaiting technical solutions. More sophisticated models, better training data, more rigorous alignment processes, improved regulatory frameworks: these are the proposed remedies, and they are not without merit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBut the problem that insight inflation reveals is not primarily technical. It is philosophical. The fundamental question it poses is not how to produce better analysis. It is how to decide what questions deserve to be asked in the first place.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eElkington gestures toward this when he writes that good judgment in the age of insight overload may look very much like what good judgment has always looked like: knowing what you are trying to understand before you begin looking. That observation is correct. But it does not go far enough.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowing what questions matter is not a computational skill. It is a product of values, experience, institutional memory, and the kind of engagement with consequence that comes from having lived with the results of decisions over time. It requires familiarity with what has been tried before and why it failed. It requires the capacity to hold uncertainty without resolving it prematurely into a false confidence. It requires, in a word, wisdom.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInformation describes reality. Insight interprets reality. Wisdom chooses how to act within reality. Artificial intelligence expands the first two categories with extraordinary efficiency. It does not expand the third.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe civilisational challenge of the current moment is not that we lack information or interpretation. It is that we risk constructing institutional and political cultures in which the appetite for wisdom has been displaced by the appetite for the rapid confident conclusion, the algorithmic certainty that feels like an answer even when the underlying question has not been properly formed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemocratic institutions, at their best, are mechanisms for negotiating between competing interpretations of reality in ways that preserve accountability and allow for revision. A legislature that deliberates slowly, a judiciary that reasons from precedent, a scientific community that requires replication before acceptance: these are not inefficiencies awaiting optimisation. They are structural features of systems designed to resist the seductive authority of premature certainty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe insight inflation problem does not threaten democracy only through disinformation, though that threat is real. It threatens democracy through the subtler mechanism of authoritative consensus: the production, at scale and at speed, of conclusions that carry the epistemological markings of careful analysis but were generated
1without the institutional accountability that genuine analysis requires.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eElkington has opened a genuinely important intellectual door. What lies beyond it is a set of questions about the distribution of interpretive power, the design of institutions capable of maintaining the quality of judgment under conditions of analytical abundance, and the preservation of the specifically human capacity for accountable wisdom in a world that increasingly rewards the rapid and the confident over the considered and the honest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThose are not questions for technologists to answer alone. They are for legislators, clinicians, jurists, educators, and citizens. They are, in the most direct sense, political questions. And they require political answers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Walker Briefing is published by Hon Dr Brian Walker MLC, Leader of Legalise Cannabis Western Australia and Member of the Western Australian Legislative Council. Dr Walker is a practising general practitioner and Deputy Chair of Committees in the Western Australian Parliament.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"78:T115d,"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"\u003cp\u003eWhen a patient comes into my clinic with a persistent cough, I do not just hand them a lozenge and send them on their way. I look for the infection, the inflammation, or the environmental trigger. I look for the cause. If we only ever treat the symptoms, the underlying disease continues to ravage the body. This week in Parliament, as we debated the Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, I couldn't help but feel that we are once again reached for a cosmetic fix for a deep-seated social malaise.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"the-danger-of-a-symptomatic-fix\"\u003eThe danger of a symptomatic fix\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe government tells us this legislation is an urgent response to horrific events, including the tragedy at Bondi and an attempted attack here in Perth. These events were truly horrifying. Fear is a powerful motivator, and when we are afraid, we are easily persuaded to do what feels right in the moment. However, as I stood in the House, I had to ask: who actually benefits from these new powers? It is certainly not the safety of our people. The measures proposed, from banning face coverings to expanding protest regulations, do nothing to enhance the actual security of our population. Instead, they offer a narrative of action while leaving the structural drivers of radicalisation and social fragmentation completely untouched.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe are looking at a decline in social cohesion and a growing institutional distrust. These are the infections in our body politic. This bill does not address the radicalisation pathways that lead to violence. It does not address why people feel so disconnected from their community that they turn to depraved behaviour. While the major parties play politics with public anxiety, we must look at the evidence. The evidence suggests that increasing coercive powers without addressing why people are angry or desperate only pushes them further to the margins.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"a-prescription-for-community-trust\"\u003eA prescription for community trust\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn my years as a GP, I never saw a patient cured by red tape or restrictive mandates. True health, whether in a person or a society, requires trust. By handing unbridled, ill-defined powers to the police, we risk further eroding the bond between the citizen and the state. We are granting the power to determine what constitutes intimidation or apprehension based on bendable definitions. This isn't just bureaucracy; it is a step-by-step limitation of the freedoms we have long enjoyed. If we make laws that make people more antagonistic toward the institutions meant to protect them, we are failing in our primary duty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf you value evidence-based policy and want to see more common sense in our laws, please consider subscribing to my YouTube channel for regular updates from the House:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u0026ref=localhost\"\u003ehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIGBIf3b385BV5d48Y1U2A?sub_confirmation=1\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3 id=\"focusing-on-the-real-medicine\"\u003eFocusing on the real medicine\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe need to be very focused. To have true order in our society, we must address the underlying causes of disorder. This means focusing on social cohesion programs. It means asking how we can help the person lying in the street who is hungry, thirsty, and unsheltered, rather than simply expanding the powers of a police officer to walk by them or move them along. These structural drivers remain untouched by this bill. The sinking feeling many Western Australians have when they look at the state of the world won't be cured by banning masks or complicating protest permits. It will be cured when they feel heard, valued, and safe in a cohesive community.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eI supported the motion to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Legislation because it desperately needs a diagnostic review. We cannot simply pretend that policing symptoms will make the disease vanish. We must move toward a phase where we encourage the ordinary man and woman in the street to believe in our institutions again by actually solving the problems that affect their daily lives. You can read the full record of my contribution in \u003ca href=\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-12/8?ref=localhost\"\u003eHansard\u003c/a\u003e. If you want to help us fight for a fairer, more sensible Western Australia, please consider \u003ca href=\"https://www.lcwaparty.org.au/join?ref=localhost\"\u003ejoining Legalise Cannabis WA\u003c/a\u003e today.\u003c/p\u003e"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"8:[[\"$\",\"$L14\",null,{}],[\"$\",\"main\",null,{\"className\":\"min-h-screen bg-gradient-to-b from-white to-gray-50\",\"children\":[[\"$\",\"section\",null,{\"className\":\"relative bg-gradient-to-r from-[#00653b] to-[#6cc24a] text-white py-20\",\"children\":[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"className\":\"container mx-auto px-4\",\"children\":[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"className\":\"max-w-4xl mx-auto text-center\",\"children\":[[\"$\",\"h1\",null,{\"className\":\"text-4xl md:text-5xl lg:text-6xl font-bold mb-6\",\"children\":\"News \u0026 Updates\"}],[\"$\",\"p\",null,{\"className\":\"text-xl md:text-2xl text-white/90\",\"children\":\"Stay informed on my parliamentary work, healthcare advocacy, and policy reforms\"}]]}]}]}],[\"$\",\"$10\",null,{\"fallback\":[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"className\":\"container mx-auto px-4 py-16\",\"children\":[\"$\",\"p\",null,{\"className\":\"text-center text-gray-600\",\"children\":\"Loading posts...\"}]}],\"children\":[\"$\",\"$L15\",null,{\"featuredPosts\":[],\"regularPosts\":[{\"id\":\"6ab9945539c68f0001088033\",\"uuid\":\"015ee1ee-f093-48e2-9693-e38246c4c9af\",\"title\":\"Informed Consent\",\"slug\":\"informed-consent\",\"html\":\"$16\",\"comment_id\":\"6ab9945539c68f0001088033\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-27T22:10:29.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-27T22:10:29.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-28T21:00:28.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"What turns a doctor into a criminal? Lack of informed consent. Patients have every right to expect that what a doctor does is for their benefit, and when there is real risk of anything going wrong, especially then, I sit down with them and go through a form. There are four parts to consider, none of\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/informed-consent\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/informed-consent/\",\"excerpt\":\"What turns a doctor into a criminal? Lack of informed consent. Patients have every right to expect that what a doctor does is for their benefit, and when there is real risk of anything going wrong, especially then, I sit down with them and go through a form. There are four parts to consider, none of\",\"reading_time\":14,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Informed Consent\",\"og_description\":\"What turns a doctor into a criminal? Lack of informed consent. Patients have every right to expect that what a doctor does is for their benefit, and when there is real risk of anything going wrong, especially then, I sit down with them and go through a form. There are four parts to consider, none of\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Informed Consent\",\"twitter_description\":\"What turns a doctor into a criminal? Lack of informed consent. Patients have every right to expect that what a doctor does is for their benefit, and when there is real risk of anything going wrong, especially then, I sit down with them and go through a form. There are four parts to consider, none of\",\"meta_title\":\"Informed Consent\",\"meta_description\":\"What turns a doctor into a criminal? Lack of informed consent. Patients have every right to expect that what a doctor does is for their benefit, and when there is real risk of anything going wrong, especially then, I sit down with them and go through a form. There are four parts to consider, none of\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6ab059deacfa7f0001d1e8ee\",\"uuid\":\"0f223e32-40e8-49d3-9342-1bd4878897e2\",\"title\":\"Who Profits?\",\"slug\":\"who-profits\",\"html\":\"$17\",\"comment_id\":\"6ab059deacfa7f0001d1e8ee\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-3.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-20T22:10:38.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-20T22:10:38.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-21T21:01:05.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"On Tuesday the Minister for Police stood up in the other place and gave the House some numbers. The Other Place is how
1we in the Legislative Council refer to the Legislative Assembly. It is the place we do not like to refer to and perhaps one reason why is described in the next sentences. The Minist\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/who-profits\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/who-profits/\",\"excerpt\":\"On Tuesday the Minister for Police stood up in the other place and gave the House some numbers. The Other Place is how we in the Legislative Council refer to the Legislative Assembly. It is the place we do not like to refer to and perhaps one reason why is described in the next sentences. The Minist\",\"reading_time\":11,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-3.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Who Profits?\",\"og_description\":\"On Tuesday the Minister for Police stood up in the other place and gave the House some numbers. The Other Place is how we in the Legislative Council refer to the Legislative Assembly. It is the place we do not like to refer to and perhaps one reason why is described in the next sentences. The Minist\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-3.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Who Profits?\",\"twitter_description\":\"On Tuesday the Minister for Police stood up in the other place and gave the House some numbers. The Other Place is how we in the Legislative Council refer to the Legislative Assembly. It is the place we do not like to refer to and perhaps one reason why is described in the next sentences. The Minist\",\"meta_title\":\"Who Profits?\",\"meta_description\":\"On Tuesday the Minister for Police stood up in the other place and gave the House some numbers. The Other Place is how
1we in the Legislative Council refer to the Legislative Assembly. It is the place we do not like to refer to and perhaps one reason why is described in the next sentences. The Minist\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6aa9176f0d67fb0001758a21\",\"uuid\":\"c940a9e2-352e-4abb-8d13-6ccf8379a375\",\"title\":\"Protecting Our Retail Workers From Violence in Western Australian Shops\",\"slug\":\"protecting-our-retail-workers-from-violence\",\"html\":\"$18\",\"comment_id\":\"6aa9176f0d67fb0001758a21\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_ebd81ddb4084285ae9f671eee769f2dd.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-15T10:01:19.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-15T10:01:19.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-15T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the Retail Barring Orders Bill, arguing that while legislative protection is vital, we must address the underlying causes of societal violence.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-15/8\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6aa9176f0d67fb0001758a22\",\"name\":\"Retail\",\"slug\":\"retail\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/retail/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff07926a97700014b0796\",\"name\":\"Safety\",\"slug\":\"safety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/safety/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6aa9176f0d67fb0001758a22\",\"name\":\"Retail\",\"slug\":\"retail\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/retail/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/protecting-our-retail-workers-from-violence/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the Retail Barring Orders Bill, arguing that while legislative protection is vital, we must address the underlying causes of societal violence.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_ebd81ddb4084285ae9f671eee769f2dd.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Retail Safety: Why Our Workers Deserve Better Protection\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the new Retail Barring Orders legislation and the urgent need to address the root causes of retail violence.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_ebd81ddb4084285ae9f671eee769f2dd.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Retail Safety: Why Our Workers Deserve Better Protection\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the new Retail Barring Orders legislation and the urgent need to address the root causes of retail violence.\",\"meta_title\":\"Retail Safety: Why Our Workers Deserve Better Protection\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the new Retail Barring Orders legislation and the urgent need to address the root causes of retail violence.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6aa713b90d67fb00017589d6\",\"uuid\":\"1fa954d5-49b0-4504-a4ec-e9ea99c52ff4\",\"title\":\"The Word Decides\",\"slug\":\"the-word-decides\",\"html\":\"$19\",\"comment_id\":\"6aa713b90d67fb00017589d6\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-2.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-13T21:20:57.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-13T21:20:57.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-14T21:02:28.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Let me describe one person twice. The first is a woman in her forties, a mother of three children and a nurse with a bad back from lifting patients for twenty years. She has been prescribed opiates in the past but now is using medical cannabis
1in the evening which allows her to sleep well, work with\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-word-decides\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-word-decides/\",\"excerpt\":\"Let me describe one person twice. The first is a woman in her forties, a mother of three children and a nurse with a bad back from lifting patients for twenty years. She has been prescribed opiates in the past but now is using medical cannabis in the evening which allows her to sleep well, work with\",\"reading_time\":10,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-2.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Word Decides\",\"og_description\":\"Let me describe one person twice. The first is a woman in her forties, a mother of three children and a nurse with a bad back from lifting patients for twenty years. She has been prescribed opiates in the past but now is using medical cannabis in the evening which allows her to sleep well, work with\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-2.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Word Decides\",\"twitter_description\":\"Let me describe one person twice. The first is a woman in her forties, a mother of three children and a nurse with a bad back from lifting patients for twenty years. She has been prescribed opiates in the past but now is using medical cannabis in the evening which allows her to sleep well, work with\",\"meta_title\":\"The Word Decides\",\"meta_description\":\"Let me describe one person twice. The first is a woman in her forties, a mother of three children and a nurse with a bad back from lifting patients for twenty years. She has been prescribed opiates in the past but now is using medical cannabis
1in the evening which allows her to sleep well, work with\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6aa8c1770d67fb0001758a0b\",\"uuid\":\"24de4dc1-3728-47cb-b3c6-c8f7d64c6c3f\",\"title\":\"Unprecedented powers at Land Forces: A diagnosis of democratic risk\",\"slug\":\"land-forces-special-powers-bill\",\"html\":\"$1a\",\"comment_id\":\"6aa8c1770d67fb0001758a0b\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_059fa30d847fc58bcf797612a805e6e2.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-15T03:54:31.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-15T03:54:31.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-10T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker shares his concerns regarding the excessive reach of the Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill and the implications for public dissent and civil liberties.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-10/8\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"694254b71339c70001aadb5e\",\"name\":\"Politics\",\"slug\":\"politics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/politics/\"},{\"id\":\"6a8e3d0b5a885e00019eb474\",\"name\":\"HumanRights\",\"slug\":\"humanrights\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/humanrights/\"},{\"id\":\"692fb7d126a97700014b06d2\",\"name\":\"WA\",\"slug\":\"wa\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/wa/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/land-forces-special-powers-bill/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker shares his concerns regarding the excessive reach of the Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill and the implications for public dissent and civil liberties.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_059fa30d847fc58bcf797612a805e6e2.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the extraordinary policing powers, loss of oversight, and risks to civil liberties in the Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_059fa30d847fc58bcf797612a805e6e2.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the extraordinary policing powers, loss of oversight, and risks to civil liberties in the Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the extraordinary policing powers, loss of oversight, and risks to civil liberties in the Land Forces Event Special Powers Bill.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6aa8c1770d67fb0001758a0c\",\"uuid\":\"47cf1bd8-3665-4d71-88bf-92418f5028b1\",\"title\":\"When the System Fails Our Children: A Medical Doctorâs Perspective\",\"slug\":\"when-the-system-fails-our-children\",\"html\":\"$1b\",\"comment_id\":\"6aa8c1770d67fb0001758a0c\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_4d7803f635f42bcb93d1d73121ee52b7.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-15T03:54:31.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-15T03:54:31.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-09T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC discusses the harrowing Children's Court findings regarding the Department of Communities and the urgent need to prioritise child welfare over bureaucracy.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-09/7\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6aa1125511165e000143b5f2\",\"name\":\"ChildProtection\",\"slug\":\"childprotection\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/childprotection/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd12826a97700014b0728\",\"name\":\"Accountability\",\"slug\":\"accountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/accountability/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6aa1125511165e000143b5f2\",\"name\":\"ChildProtection\",\"slug\":\"childprotection\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/childprotection/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/when-the-system-fails-our-children/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC discusses the harrowing Children's Court findings regarding the Department of Communities and the urgent need to prioritise child welfare over bureaucracy.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_4d7803f635f42bcb93d1d73121ee52b7.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"When the System Fails Our Children: A Doctor's Perspective\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the systemic failures in child protection exposed by recent Children's Court findings and the need for urgent reform.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_4d7803f635f42bcb93d1d73121ee52b7.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"When the System Fails Our Children: A Doctor's Perspective\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the systemic failures in child protection exposed by recent Children's Court findings and the need for urgent reform.\",\"meta_title\":\"When the System Fails Our Children: A Doctor's Perspective\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the systemic failures in child protection exposed by recent Children's Court findings and the need for urgent reform.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6aa8a6dd0d67fb00017589f4\",\"uuid\":\"f247b162-d6f9-4e9d-9713-47f2abf5b5c7\",\"title\":\"Closing the loopholes that leave our most vulnerable children at risk\",\"slug\":\"closing-loopholes-protecting-vulnerable-children\",\"html\":\"$1c\",\"comment_id\":\"6aa8a6dd0d67fb00017589f4\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_988a14a20d58f3b6257a0195f1b9cd12.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-15T02:01:01.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-15T03:54:31.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-08T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker presents a petition addressing systemic failures in police reporting of child neglect, advocating for mandatory receipts and oversight to ensure no child is left behind by administrative secrecy.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-08/8\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/trans
1parency/\"},{\"id\":\"694295991339c70001aadbe7\",\"name\":\"ChildSafety\",\"slug\":\"childsafety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/childsafety/\"},{\"id\":\"6aa8a6dd0d67fb00017589f5\",\"name\":\"PoliceAccountability\",\"slug\":\"policeaccountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policeaccountability/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/transparency/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/closing-loopholes-protecting-vulnerable-children/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker presents a petition addressing systemic failures in police reporting of child neglect, advocating for mandatory receipts and oversight to ensure no child is left behind by administrative secrecy.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_988a14a20d58f3b6257a0195f1b9cd12.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Protecting children by fixing Section 300 police reporting\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker presents a petition to fix how police report child neglect, ensuring accountability and safety for our children.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_988a14a20d58f3b6257a0195f1b9cd12.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Protecting children by fixing Section 300 police reporting\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker presents a petition to fix how police report child neglect, ensuring accountability and safety for our children.\",\"meta_title\":\"Protecting children by fixing Section 300 police reporting\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker presents a petition to fix how police report child neglect, ensuring accountability and safety for our children.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6aa8b4e40d67fb00017589fe\",\"uuid\":\"a8ed290b-9b9f-4649-bff0-af39db40ee10\",\"title\":\"The Land Forces Bill: When Parliamentary Speed Trumps Citizen Rights\",\"slug\":\"land-forces-special-powers-bill-8-september-2026\",\"html\":\"$1d\",\"comment_id\":\"6aa8b4e40d67fb00017589fe\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_18e371257a77f70f721891675dbd242f.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-15T03:00:52.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-15T03:54:31.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-08T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the concerning implications of the Land Forces Event (Special Powers) Bill, questioning the necessity of sweeping new police powers and the potential impact on public freedom.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-09-08/41\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"693140a35bfba80001a60e38\",\"name\":\"Civil Liberties\",\"slug\":\"civil-liberties\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/civil-liberties/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/trans
1parency/\"},{\"id\":\"6aa8b4e40d67fb00017589ff\",\"name\":\"PolicePowers\",\"slug\":\"policepowers\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policepowers/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/land-forces-special-powers-bill-8-september-2026/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the concerning implications of the Land Forces Event (Special Powers) Bill, questioning the necessity of sweeping new police powers and the potential impact on public freedom.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_18e371257a77f70f721891675dbd242f.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Land Forces Bill: Parliamentary Speed vs Citizen Rights\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the controversial Land Forces Event Bill, questioning its necessity and the erosion of civil liberties in Western Australia.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/image_18e371257a77f70f721891675dbd242f.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Land Forces Bill: Parliamentary Speed vs Citizen Rights\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the controversial Land Forces Event Bill, questioning its necessity and the erosion of civil liberties in Western Australia.\",\"meta_title\":\"The Land Forces Bill: Parliamentary Speed vs Citizen Rights\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the controversial Land Forces Event Bill, questioning its necessity and the erosion of civil liberties in Western Australia.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a9dd91011165e000143b5b9\",\"uuid\":\"692e135c-ef9b-4037-98b0-36c1c0cb3d14\",\"title\":\"Who the System Punishes\",\"slug\":\"who-the-system-punishes\",\"html\":\"$1e\",\"comment_id\":\"6a9dd91011165e000143b5b9\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-1.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-06T21:20:16.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-06T21:20:16.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-09-07T21:02:16.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Has your doctor ever cried beside you? Probably not, we are taught to keep our emotions aside from our professional behaviour when dealing with issues which could be life-threatening or challenging. We see these things pretty much every day, so it is no surprise that some become numb to the events, \",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/who-the-system-punishes\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/who-the-system-punishes/\",\"excerpt\":\"Has your doctor ever cried beside you? Probably not, we are taught to keep our emotions aside from our professional behaviour when dealing with issues which could be life-threatening or challenging. We see these things pretty much every day, so it is no surprise that some become numb to the events, \",\"reading_time\":8,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-1.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Who the System Punishes\",\"og_description\":\"Has your doctor ever cried beside you? Probably not, we are taught to keep our emotions aside from our professional behaviour when dealing with issues which could be life-threatening or challenging. We see these things pretty much every day, so it is no surprise that some become numb to the events, \",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover-1.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Who the System Punishes\",\"twitter_description\":\"Has your doctor ever cried beside you? Probably not, we are taught to keep our emotions aside from our professional behaviour when dealing with issues which could be life-threatening or challenging. We see these things pretty much every day, so it is no surprise that some become numb to the events, \",\"meta_title\":\"Who the System Punishes\",\"meta_description\":\"Has your doctor ever cried beside you? Probably not, we are taught to keep our emotions aside from our professional behaviour when dealing with issues which could be life-threatening or challenging. We see these things pretty much every day, so it is no surprise that some become numb to the events, \",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a9618dfb9fa2e00017a6c65\",\"uuid\":\"b430d217-0a3f-41f2-b832-6381544df4eb\",\"title\":\"Whose Body Is It?\",\"slug\":\"whose-body-is-it\",\"html\":\"$1f\",\"comment_id\":\"6a9618dfb9fa2e00017a6c65\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-09-01T00:14:23.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-09-01T00:14:23.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-31T21:00:57.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"âI have cancer of ... â is the beginning of many a consultation. What follows appears to be a pattern, perhaps because a self-selecting group have heard of a less rigid approach to wellness. In my view, oneâs health belongs to the individual, and my job is to give the best advice I can. It is the jo\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/whose-body-is-it\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/whose-body-is-it/\",\"excerpt\":\"âI have cancer of ... â is the beginning of many a consultation. What follows appears to be a pattern, perhaps because a self-selecting group have heard of a less rigid approach to wellness. In my view, oneâs health belongs to the individual, and my job is to give the best advice I can. It is the jo\",\"reading_time\":10,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Whose Body Is It?\",\"og_description\":\"âI have cancer of ... â is the beginning of many a consultation. What follows appears to be a pattern, perhaps because a self-selecting group have heard of a less rigid approach to wellness. In my view, oneâs health belongs to the individual, and my job is to give the best advice I can. It is the jo\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/09/cover.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Whose Body Is It?\",\"twitter_description\":\"âI have cancer of ... â is the beginning of many a consultation. What follows appears to be a pattern, perhaps because a self-selecting group have heard of a less rigid approach to wellness. In my view, oneâs health belongs to the individual, and my job is to give the best advice I can. It is the jo\",\"meta_title\":\"Whose Body Is It?\",\"meta_description\":\"âI have cancer of ... â is the beginning of many a consultation. What follows appears to be a pattern, perhaps because a self-selecting group have heard of a less rigid approach to wellness. In my view, oneâs health belongs to the individual, and my job is to give the best advice I can. It is the jo\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a8f5b0d5a885e00019eb481\",\"uuid\":\"c639ce68-98c7-4996-8b20-45c3bcc5cc91\",\"title\":\"Put the Number Back\",\"slug\":\"put-the-number-back\",\"html\":\"$20\",\"comment_id\":\"6a8f5b0d5a885e00019eb481\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-6.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-26T21:30:53.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-26T21:30:53.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-27T21:01:17.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"When your own numbers have gone the wrong way three years in a row, you want a doctor who looks harder at that line, not one who takes it off the chart. Western Australia has just had the second kind of doctor. That is all I want to say this week, and everything below is the working.\\nWestern Austral\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/put-the-number-back\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/put-the-number-back/\",\"excerpt\":\"When your own numbers have gone the wrong way three years in a row, you want a doctor who looks harder at that line, not one who takes it off the chart. Western Australia has just had the second kind of doctor. That is all I want to say this week, and everything below is the working.\\nWestern Austral\",\"reading_time\":9,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-6.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Put the Number Back\",\"og_description\":\"When your own numbers have gone the wrong way three years in a row, you want a doctor who looks harder at that line, not one who takes it off the chart. Western Australia has just had the second kind of doctor. That is all I want to say this week, and everything below is the working.\\nWestern Austral\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-6.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Put the Number Back\",\"twitter_description\":\"When your own numbers have gone the wrong way three years in a row, you want a doctor who looks harder at that line, not one who takes it off the chart. Western Australia has just had the second kind of doctor. That is all I want to say this week, and everything below is the working.\\nWestern Austral\",\"meta_title\":\"Put the Number Back\",\"meta_description\":\"When your own numbers have gone the wrong way three years in a row, you want a doctor who looks harder at that line, not one who takes it off the chart. Western Australia has just had the second kind of doctor. That is all I want to say this week, and everything below is the working.\\nWestern Austral\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a8b92fd5a885e00019eb46c\",\"uuid\":\"c5a2edd3-e9fb-4d00-946b-4cacd4265080\",\"title\":\"The Lie in the File\",\"slug\":\"the-lie-in-the-file\",\"html\":\"$21\",\"comment_id\":\"6a8b92fd5a885e00019eb46c\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-5.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-24T00:40:29.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-24T00:40:29.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-24T21:02:05.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Three years ago a car pulled up outside my practice and a woman I knew got out of the driverâs seat, which was wrong, because her husband never let anyone else drive. He was in the passenger seat. He had been driving when it started, she told me; he had suddenly stopped making sense, and she had som\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-lie-in-the-file\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-lie-in-the-file/\",\"excerpt\":\"Three years ago a car pulled up outside my practice and a woman I knew got out of the driverâs seat, which was wrong, because her husband never let anyone else drive. He was in the passenger seat. He had been driving when it started, she told me; he had suddenly stopped making sense, and she had som\",\"reading_time\":8,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-5.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Lie in the File\",\"og_description\":\"Three years ago a car pulled up outside my practice and a woman I knew got out of the driverâs seat, which was wrong, because her husband never let anyone else drive. He was in the passenger seat. He had been driving when it started, she told me; he had suddenly stopped making sense, and she had som\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-5.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Lie in the File\",\"twitter_description\":\"Three years ago a car pulled up outside my practice and a woman I knew got out of the driverâs seat, which was wrong, because her husband never let anyone else drive. He was in the passenger seat. He had been driving when it started, she told me; he had suddenly stopped making sense, and she had som\",\"meta_title\":\"The Lie in the File\",\"meta_description\":\"Three years ago a car pulled up outside my practice and a woman I knew got out of the driverâs seat, which was wrong, because her husband never let anyone else drive. He was in the passenger seat. He had been driving when it started, she told me; he had suddenly stopped making sense, and she had som\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a8625249e1caf0001e51a0b\",\"uuid\":\"c41b7d46-dfb4-45da-b064-b9390ea16266\",\"title\":\"Who pays for Western Australia\",\"slug\":\"who-pays-for-western-australia\",\"html\":\"$22\",\"comment_id\":\"6a8625249e1caf0001e51a0b\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-19T21:50:28.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-19T21:50:28.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-20T21:01:10.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Photo: Nathan Hurst, Unsplash\\nYou have been told, repeatedly and accurately, that you live in the strongest economy in the country. And if you rent, or you are under thirty five, or you have looked lately at what a house costs, you may have noticed that none of this appears to have happened to you. \",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/who-pays-for-western-australia\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/who-pays-for-western-australia/\",\"excerpt\":\"Photo: Nathan Hurst, Unsplash\\nYou have been told, repeatedly and accurately, that you live in the strongest economy in the country. And if you rent, or you are under thirty five, or you have looked lately at what a house costs, you may have noticed that none of this appears to have happened to you. \",\"reading_time\":9,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Who pays for Western Australia\",\"og_description\":\"Photo: Nathan Hurst, Unsplash\\nYou have been told, repeatedly and accurately, that you live in the strongest economy in the country. And if you rent, or you are under thirty five, or you have looked lately at what a house costs, you may have noticed that none of this appears to have happened to you. \",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Who pays for Western Australia\",\"twitter_description\":\"Photo: Nathan Hurst, Unsplash\\nYou have been told, repeatedly and accurately, that you live in the strongest economy in the country. And if you rent, or you are under thirty five, or you have looked lately at what a house costs, you may have noticed that none of this appears to have happened to you. \",\"meta_title\":\"Who pays for Western Australia\",\"meta_description\":\"Photo: Nathan Hurst, Unsplash\\nYou have been told, repeatedly and accurately, that you live in the strongest economy in the country. And if you rent, or you are under thirty five, or you have looked lately at what a house costs, you may have noticed that none of this appears to have happened to you. \",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a8698339e1caf0001e51a1f\",\"uuid\":\"4e736e06-1bbe-4fa3-81bf-453326bb8c36\",\"title\":\"Protecting Western Australia from a Six Billion Dollar Threat\",\"slug\":\"protecting-western-australia-gst\",\"html\":\"$23\",\"comment_id\":\"6a8698339e1caf0001e51a1f\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_6f18e063f24f9b502f4b3317ad9ac26b.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-20T06:01:23.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-20T06:01:23.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-20T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the urgent need to protect Western Australia's GST revenue share following concerning recommendations from the Productivity Commission.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-20/8\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6a8698259e1caf0001e51a13\",\"name\":\"GST\",\"slug\":\"gst\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/gst/\"},{\"id\":\"692fb22a26a97700014b068a\",\"name\":\"Western Australia\",\"slug\":\"western-australia\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/western-australia/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6a8698259e1caf0001e51a14\",\"name\":\"Economics\",\"slug\":\"economics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/economics/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6a8698259e1caf0001e51a13\",\"name\":\"GST\",\"slug\":\"gst\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/gst/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/protecting-western-australia-gst/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the urgent need to protect Western Australia's GST revenue share following concerning recommendations from the Productivity Commission.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_6f18e063f24f9b502f4b3317ad9ac26b.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Protecting Western Australia's GST share\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the threat posed by the Productivity Commission report to WA's financial stability.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_6f18e063f24f9b502f4b3317ad9ac26b.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Protecting Western Australia's GST share\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the threat posed by the Productivity Commission report to WA's financial stability.\",\"meta_title\":\"Protecting Western Australia's GST share\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the threat posed by the Productivity Commission report to WA's financial stability.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a86de9b9e1caf0001e51a48\",\"uuid\":\"8018efaf-297c-4529-8aed-b3592ecefa39\",\"title\":\"Unlocking the future of Western Australian hemp through science and vision\",\"slug\":\"unlocking-wa-hemp-industry\",\"html\":\"$24\",\"comment_id\":\"6a86de9b9e1caf0001e51a48\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_33a15409150d6c09412fd8c5d0782f1d.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-20T11:01:47.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-20T11:01:47.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-20T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on their lack of engagement with national hemp industry recommendations, questioning why Western Australia remains hesitant to embrace this vital economic and agricultural opportunity.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-20/18\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6920548e16dbdf000169574b\",\"name\":\"Hemp\",\"slug\":\"hemp\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/hemp/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695712\",\"name\":\"Agriculture\",\"slug\":\"agriculture\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/agriculture/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6920548e16dbdf000169574b\",\"name\":\"Hemp\",\"slug\":\"hemp\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/hemp/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/unlocking-wa-hemp-industry/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on their lack of engagement with national hemp industry recommendations, questioning why Western Australia remains hesitant to embrace this vital economic and agricultural opportunity.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_33a15409150d6c09412fd8c5d0782f1d.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the future of WA hemp\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on their commitment to the national hemp industry and the missed opportunities for our state.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_33a15409150d6c09412fd8c5d0782f1d.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the future of WA hemp\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on their commitment to the national hemp industry and the missed opportunities for our state.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the future of WA hemp\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on their commitment to the national hemp industry and the missed opportunities for our state.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a8e3d0b5a885e00019eb473\",\"uuid\":\"8ff72eaf-bd57-4f68-9c23-fb1b49035d8e\",\"title\":\"Special Powers for a Weapons Fair: A Dangerous New Precedent\",\"slug\":\"special-powers-weapons-fair-precedent\",\"html\":\"$25\",\"comment_id\":\"6a8e3d0b5a885e00019eb473\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_fe9078ee39be4e3aa86d05c1e43031a1.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-26T01:10:35.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-26T01:10:35.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-20T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the Land Forces Event (Special Powers) Bill, questioning the normalization of extraordinary police powers and the erosion of our fundamental democratic rights.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-20/9\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6a8e3d0b5a885e00019eb474\",\"name\":\"HumanRights\",\"slug\":\"humanrights\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/humanrights/\"},{\"id\":\"692fc94026a97700014b06e4\",\"name\":\"Policing\",\"slug\":\"policing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":n
1ull,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policing/\"},{\"id\":\"6a8e3d0b5a885e00019eb475\",\"name\":\"CivilLiberties\",\"slug\":\"civilliberties\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/civilliberties/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/special-powers-weapons-fair-precedent/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the Land Forces Event (Special Powers) Bill, questioning the normalization of extraordinary police powers and the erosion of our fundamental democratic rights.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_fe9078ee39be4e3aa86d05c1e43031a1.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: The Dangers of the Land Forces Special Powers Bill\",\"og_description\":\"We are normalizing extraordinary police powers. As a doctor, I see the symptoms of a state drifting away from democratic norms.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_fe9078ee39be4e3aa86d05c1e43031a1.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: The Dangers of the Land Forces Special Powers Bill\",\"twitter_description\":\"We are normalizing extraordinary police powers. As a doctor, I see the symptoms of a state drifting away from democratic norms.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: The Dangers of the Land Forces Special Powers Bill\",\"meta_description\":\"We are normalizing extraordinary police powers. As a doctor, I see the symptoms of a state drifting away from democratic norms.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a8562e69e1caf0001e519ed\",\"uuid\":\"8a6f2cf8-4856-4d02-8da7-79deb8990759\",\"title\":\"Why Our Palliative Care Promises Are Dying On The Vine\",\"slug\":\"why-our-palliative-care-promises-are-dying-on-the-vine\",\"html\":\"$26\",\"comment_id\":\"6a8562e69e1caf0001e519ed\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_8389108abcea954ba4791f6d3e8ddbe6.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-19T08:01:42.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-19T08:01:42.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-19T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the urgent need for government transparency regarding broken promises in palliative care and the real-world impact on Western Australian families.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-19/6\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6a8562c09e1caf0001e519e4\",\"name\":\"Palliative Care\",\"slug\":\"palliative-care\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/palliative-care/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/why-our-palliative-care-promises-are-dying-on-the-vine/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the urgent need for government transparency regarding broken promises in palliative care and the real-world impact on Western Australian families.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_8389108abcea954ba4791f6d3e8ddbe6.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Palliative Care in WA: A Call for Accountability\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on delayed palliative care reforms that are leaving vulnerable Western Australians behind.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_8389108abcea954ba4791f6d3e8ddbe6.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Palliative Care in WA: A Call for Accountability\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on delayed palliative care reforms that are leaving vulnerable Western Australians behind.\",\"meta_title\":\"Palliative Care in WA: A Call for Accountability\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on delayed palliative care reforms that are leaving vulnerable Western Australians behind.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a859b0d9e1caf0001e51a01\",\"uuid\":\"fb27cf75-7e8d-4239-bf0d-ede15e4851f9\",\"title\":\"Why is the government keeping medicinal cannabis driving reforms hidden from us\",\"slug\":\"medicinal-cannabis-driving-reforms-transparency\",\"html\":\"$27\",\"comment_id\":\"6a859b0d9e1caf0001e51a01\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_cb0c5db1fc9f0a6142b86e01c8b5e921.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-19T12:01:17.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-19T12:01:17.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-19T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the government's lack of transparency regarding the Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report and the impact on WA patients.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-19/20\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6942a88b1339c70001aadc3c\",\"name\":\"Driving\",\"slug\":\"driving\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/driving/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/medicinal-cannabis-driving-reforms-transparency/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the government's lack of transparency regarding the Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report and the impact on WA patients.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_cb0c5db1fc9f0a6142b86e01c8b5e921.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving reform and government silence\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on why the WA government is stalling on vital medicinal cannabis driving law reforms.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_cb0c5db1fc9f0a6142b86e01c8b5e921.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving reform and government silence\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on why the WA government is stalling on vital medicinal cannabis driving law reforms.\",\"meta_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving reform and government silence\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on why the WA government is stalling on vital medicinal cannabis driving law reforms.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a851aa39e1caf0001e519c9\",\"uuid\":\"823205eb-d677-4a48-b4ac-7139c6670959\",\"title\":\"Evidence based road safety requires transparency not government silence\",\"slug\":\"evidence-based-road-safety-requires-transparency\",\"html\":\"$28\",\"comment_id\":\"6a851aa39e1caf0001e519c9\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_a4c849c647892aee4dbd90186be12c33.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-19T02:53:23.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-19T02:53:23.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-18T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the lack of transparency regarding road safety statistics and their influence on current medicinal cannabis driving reforms.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-18/20\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff07926a97700014b0796\",\"name\":\"Safety\",\"slug\":\"safety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://l
1ocalhost:2368/tag/safety/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/evidence-based-road-safety-requires-transparency/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the lack of transparency regarding road safety statistics and their influence on current medicinal cannabis driving reforms.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_a4c849c647892aee4dbd90186be12c33.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Road safety and medicinal cannabis data in WA\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands road safety data to inform medicinal cannabis driving reforms in Western Australia.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_a4c849c647892aee4dbd90186be12c33.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Road safety and medicinal cannabis data in WA\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands road safety data to inform medicinal cannabis driving reforms in Western Australia.\",\"meta_title\":\"Road safety and medicinal cannabis data in WA\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands road safety data to inform medicinal cannabis driving reforms in Western Australia.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a851aca9e1caf0001e519d1\",\"uuid\":\"280665af-a8b2-4123-b5f0-c2afe3e245a3\",\"title\":\"Why Ignoring Basic Science in Perth Development Puts Our Future at Risk\",\"slug\":\"ignoring-science-in-perth-development-risks-our-future\",\"html\":\"$29\",\"comment_id\":\"6a851aca9e1caf0001e519d1\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_9b1cb25364e67d09146d85eb249cda00.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-19T02:54:02.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-19T02:54:02.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-18T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the urgent need to address flawed drainage and soil analysis in North Ellenbrook development plans to prevent long-term flooding disasters.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-18/8\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"69a0987597c573000165f25d\",\"name\":\"Planning\",\"slug\":\"planning\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/planning/\"},{\"id\":\"69200a2916dbdf00016956d0\",\"name\":\"Environment\",\"slug\":\"environment\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/environment/\"},{\"id\":\"6942ad851339c70001aadc5e\",\"name\":\"Housing\",\"slug\":\"housing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/housing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/ignoring-science-in-perth-development-risks-our-future/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the urgent need to address flawed drainage and soil analysis in North Ellenbrook development plans to prevent long-term flooding disasters.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_9b1cb25364e67d09146d85eb249cda00.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The High Cost of Poor Planning in North Ellenbrook\",\"og_description\":\"We are ignoring the science of soil and water in Perth. My recent motion in Parliament highlights the urgent need to pause before we repeat past mistakes.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_9b1cb25364e67d09146d85eb249cda00.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The High Cost of Poor Planning in North Ellenbrook\",\"twitter_description\":\"We are ignoring the science of soil and water in Perth. My recent motion in Parliament highlights the urgent need to pause before we repeat past mistakes.\",\"meta_title\":\"The High Cost of Poor Planning in North Ellenbrook\",\"meta_description\":\"We are ignoring the science of soil and water in Perth. My recent motion in Parliament highlights the urgent need to pause before we repeat past mistakes.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a822bf29e1caf0001e519c2\",\"uuid\":\"cbde6162-6940-48c6-8ee8-597e88779a73\",\"title\":\"How a Doctor Learns to See\",\"slug\":\"how-a-doctor-learns-to-see\",\"html\":\"$2a\",\"comment_id\":\"6a822bf29e1caf0001e519c2\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-3.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-16T21:30:26.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-16T21:30:26.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-17T21:01:47.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"I remember the day she came to the ward with abdominal pain and clearly some sort of intra-abdominal issue. I palpated the abdomen but could not locate an area of concern. She was treated with antibiotics but did not improve. So we did what was usually done in those days. We took her to theatre and \",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/how-a-doctor-learns-to-see\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/how-a-doctor-learns-to-see/\",\"excerpt\":\"I remember the day she came to the ward with abdominal pain and clearly some sort of intra-abdominal issue. I palpated the abdomen but could not locate an area of concern. She was treated with antibiotics but did not improve. So we did what was usually done in those days. We took her to theatre and \",\"reading_time\":10,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-3.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"How a Doctor Learns to See\",\"og_description\":\"I remember the day she came to the ward with abdominal pain and clearly some sort of intra-abdominal issue. I palpated the abdomen but could not locate an area of concern. She was treated with antibiotics but did not improve. So we did what was usually done in those days. We took her to theatre and \",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-3.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"How a Doctor Learns to See\",\"twitter_description\":\"I remember the day she came to the ward with abdominal pain and clearly some sort of intra-abdominal issue. I palpated the abdomen but could not locate an area of concern. She was treated with antibiotics but did not improve. So we did what was usually done in those days. We took her to theatre and \",\"meta_title\":\"How a Doctor Learns to See\",\"meta_description\":\"I remember the day she came to the ward with abdominal pain and clearly some sort of intra-abdominal issue. I palpated the abdomen but could not locate an area of concern. She was treated with antibiotics but did not improve. So we did what was usually done in those days. We took her to theatre and \",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a7ce38db6c189000114f9fc\",\"uuid\":\"9164b95a-fd53-448a-a658-16da2cd8b8de\",\"title\":\"The Step Down\",\"slug\":\"the-step-down\",\"html\":\"$2b\",\"comment_id\":\"6a7ce38db6c189000114f9fc\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-2.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-12T21:20:13.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-12T21:20:13.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-13T21:00:58.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"My father died at fifty. My mother lived to eighty and could have seen ninety-five. Smoking took both of them, and it took my little brother, who grew up watching what it did to them and started anyway. He is dead too.\\nI have detested tobacco since I was five years old, arguing with my parents at th\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-step-down\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-step-down/\",\"excerpt\":\"My father died at fifty. My mother lived to eighty and could have seen ninety-five. Smoking took both of them, and it took my little brother, who grew up watching what it did to them and started anyway. He is dead too.\\nI have detested tobacco since I was five years old, arguing with my parents at th\",\"reading_time\":7,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-2.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Step Down\",\"og_description\":\"My father died at fifty. My mother lived to eighty and could have seen ninety-five. Smoking took both of them, and it took my little brother, who grew up watching what it did to them and started anyway. He is dead too.\\nI have detested tobacco since I was five years old, arguing with my parents at th\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-2.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Step Down\",\"twitter_description\":\"My father died at fifty. My mother lived to eighty and could have seen ninety-five. Smoking took both of them, and it took my little brother, who grew up watching what it did to them and started anyway. He is dead too.\\nI have detested tobacco since I was five years old, arguing with my parents at th\",\"meta_title\":\"The Step Down\",\"meta_description\":\"My father died at fifty. My mother lived to eighty and could have seen ninety-five. Smoking took both of them, and it took my little brother, who grew up watching what it did to them and started anyway. He is dead too.\\nI have detested tobacco since I was five years old, arguing with my parents at th\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a7d6be0b6c189000114fa0c\",\"uuid\":\"1ab52331-2ce6-49ce-af58-e2e02abfb322\",\"title\":\"Why Curiosity is the Best Medicine for Our State\",\"slug\":\"why-curiosity-is-the-best-medicine-for-our-state\",\"html\":\"$2c\",\"comment_id\":\"6a7d6be0b6c189000114fa0c\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_92817a0aa9ef91f940d143d4da15b506.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-13T07:01:52.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-13T07:01:52.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-13T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the importance of scientific inquiry and the necessity of challenging the status quo for a healthier, more transparent Western Australia.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-13/7\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0752\",\"name\":\"Scie
1nce\",\"slug\":\"science\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/science/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0752\",\"name\":\"Science\",\"slug\":\"science\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/science/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/why-curiosity-is-the-best-medicine-for-our-state/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the importance of scientific inquiry and the necessity of challenging the status quo for a healthier, more transparent Western Australia.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_92817a0aa9ef91f940d143d4da15b506.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Why Curiosity is the Best Medicine for Our State\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the vital role of curiosity, evidence-based policy, and the scientific method in shaping the future of Western Australia.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_92817a0aa9ef91f940d143d4da15b506.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Why Curiosity is the Best Medicine for Our State\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the vital role of curiosity, evidence-based policy, and the scientific method in shaping the future of Western Australia.\",\"meta_title\":\"Why Curiosity is the Best Medicine for Our State\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the vital role of curiosity, evidence-based policy, and the scientific method in shaping the future of Western Australia.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a7c367ab6c189000114f9df\",\"uuid\":\"e0b79407-a792-4954-8e24-480d201a27c1\",\"title\":\"Restoring Faith in Our Local Councils Through Smarter Oversight\",\"slug\":\"local-government-inspector-oversight\",\"html\":\"$2d\",\"comment_id\":\"6a7c367ab6c189000114f9df\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_62f7d050603657700c2bfc5d5635a24b.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-12T09:01:46.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-12T09:01:46.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-12T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the need for regular parliamentary engagement with the Local Government Inspector to ensure transparency, accountability, and support for Western Australian local councils.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-12/4\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"69a0ecc88ebcfc0001a19f15\",\"name\":\"LocalGovernment\",\"slug\":\"localgovernment\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/localgovernment/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd12826a97700014b0728\",\"name\":\"Accountability\",\"slug\":\"accountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/accountability/\"},{\"id\":\"69322d87f0f2bc0001e6d982\",\"name\":\"Governance\",\"slug\":\"governance\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/governance/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"69a0ecc88ebcfc0001a19f15\",\"name\":\"LocalGovernment\",\"slug\":\"localgovernment\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/localgovernment/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/local-government-inspector-oversight/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the need for regular parliamentary engagement with the Local Government Inspector to ensure transparency, accountability, and support for Western Australian local councils.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_62f7d050603657700c2bfc5d5635a24b.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Strengthening Local Government Oversight in Western Australia\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines how parliamentary oversight of the Local Government Inspector can restore public trust and support our local councils.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_62f7d050603657700c2bfc5d5635a24b.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Strengthening Local Government Oversight in Western Australia\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines how parliamentary oversight of the Local Government Inspector can restore public trust and support our local councils.\",\"meta_title\":\"Strengthening Local Government Oversight in Western Australia\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines how parliamentary oversight of the Local Government Inspector can restore public trust and support our local councils.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a7c60a2b6c189000114f9f2\",\"uuid\":\"1b15bca7-c242-4dec-b616-22836530dc32\",\"title\":\"Learning From Germany on Cannabis Reform and Road Safety\",\"slug\":\"learning-from-germany-on-cannabis-reform-and-road-safety\",\"html\":\"$2e\",\"comment_id\":\"6a7c60a2b6c189000114f9f2\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_6302cd7deddbadd9d2a50912314a7bf3.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-12T12:01:38.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-12T12:01:38.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-12T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the government on German cannabis legalisation and its impact on driving, urging reliance on scie
1ntific evidence rather than stalling tactics to ensure road safety and sensible reform.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-12/19\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/learning-from-germany-on-cannabis-reform-and-road-safety/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the government on German cannabis legalisation and its impact on driving, urging reliance on scientific evidence rather than stalling tactics to ensure road safety and sensible reform.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_6302cd7deddbadd9d2a50912314a7bf3.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Cannabis, Germany, and Road Safety Evidence\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores how German cannabis legalisation impacts road safety and why Western Australia must look at the global evidence.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_6302cd7deddbadd9d2a50912314a7bf3.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Cannabis, Germany, and Road Safety Evidence\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores how German cannabis legalisation impacts road safety and why Western Australia must look at the global evidence.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Cannabis, Germany, and Road Safety Evidence\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores how German cannabis legalisation impacts road safety and why Western Australia must look at the global evidence.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a8547489e1caf0001e519da\",\"uuid\":\"f0b3c175-d897-46e9-939d-2e62773abce3\",\"title\":\"Why Our State Must Finally Protect Animals In Local Government Shelters\",\"slug\":\"protecting-animals-in-shelters\",\"html\":\"$2f\",\"comment_id\":\"6a8547489e1caf0001e519da\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_c1e3635dc85fe137024657370040e7d1.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-19T06:03:52.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-19T06:03:52.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-12T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker advocates for mandatory, science-based standards of care in all Western Australian animal shelters to prevent suffering and ensure consistent treatment.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-12/2\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6a7c1a40b6c189000114f9c4\",\"name\":\"AnimalWelfare\",\"slug\":\"animalwelfare\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/animalwelfare/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"},{\"id\":\"69322d87f0f2bc0001e6d982\",\"name\":\"Governance\",\"slug\":\"governance\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/governance/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6a7c1a40b6c189000114f9c4\",\"name\":\"AnimalWelfare\",\"slug\":\"animalwelfare\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/animalwelfare/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/protecting-animals-in-shelters/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker advocates for mandatory, science-based standards of care in all Western Australian animal shelters to prevent suffering and ensure consistent treatment.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_c1e3635dc85fe137024657370040e7d1.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Urgent Need for Animal Shelter Standards\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for mandatory, science-based standards of care for all animal pounds and shelters in Western Australia.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_c1e3635dc85fe137024657370040e7d1.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Urgent Need for Animal Shelter Standards\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for mandatory, science-based standards of care for all animal pounds and shelters in Western Australia.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Urgent Need for Animal Shelter Standards\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for mandatory, science-based standards of care for all animal pounds and shelters in Western Australia.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a7bda64b6c189000114f9a9\",\"uuid\":\"3893eed5-549a-4fcb-ac42-4519b87ec07d\",\"title\":\"Fixing the Energy Grid: Why Planning and Transparency Must Come First\",\"slug\":\"fixing-energy-grid-trans
1parency\",\"html\":\"$30\",\"comment_id\":\"6a7bda64b6c189000114f9a9\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_7c620fcad0e14d21159b804f726465a9.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-12T02:28:52.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-12T02:28:52.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-11T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the government's flawed energy transition plans and the urgent need for transparency in the new capital charges legislation for Western Australia's grid.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-11/50\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fd0a326a97700014b0716\",\"name\":\"Energy\",\"slug\":\"energy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/energy/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fb7d126a97700014b06d2\",\"name\":\"WA\",\"slug\":\"wa\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/wa/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fd0a326a97700014b0716\",\"name\":\"Energy\",\"slug\":\"energy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/energy/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/fixing-energy-grid-transparency/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the government's flawed energy transition plans and the urgent need for transparency in the new capital charges legislation for Western Australia's grid.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_7c620fca
1d0e14d21159b804f726465a9.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Energy Industry Amendment Bill: A Doctor's View on Grid Planning\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the Electricity Industry Amendment (Capital Charges) Bill, arguing for genuine planning over band-aid legislative fixes.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_7c620fcad0e14d21159b804f726465a9.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Energy Industry Amendment Bill: A Doctor's View on Grid Planning\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the Electricity Industry Amendment (Capital Charges) Bill, arguing for genuine planning over band-aid legislative fixes.\",\"meta_title\":\"Energy Industry Amendment Bill: A Doctor's View on Grid Planning\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the Electricity Industry Amendment (Capital Charges) Bill, arguing for genuine planning over band-aid legislative fixes.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a7bda92b6c189000114f9b2\",\"uuid\":\"197b0458-ea3f-4f35-a5ae-73faa96d5acc\",\"title\":\"When Policy Collides With Reality: The Urgent Need For Better Cannabis Training\",\"slug\":\"cannabis-impairment-training-reality-check\",\"html\":\"$31\",\"comment_id\":\"6a7bda92b6c189000114f9b2\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_e4960cc24c48925955c0db5144d2344d.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-12T02:29:38.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-12T02:29:38.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-11T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the disconnect between current police training for cannabis impairment and the evidence-based approaches needed to ensure fair and accurate roadside assessment in Western Australia.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-11/46\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0752\",\"name\":\"Science\",\"slug\":\"science\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/science/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/cannabis-impairment-training-reality-check/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the disconnect between current police training for cannabis
1impairment and the evidence-based approaches needed to ensure fair and accurate roadside assessment in Western Australia.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_e4960cc24c48925955c0db5144d2344d.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Cannabis Impairment and Police Training\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the lack of practical police training regarding cannabis impairment in Western Australia.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_e4960cc24c48925955c0db5144d2344d.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Cannabis Impairment and Police Training\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the lack of practical police training regarding cannabis impairment in Western Australia.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Cannabis Impairment and Police Training\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the lack of practical police training regarding cannabis impairment in Western Australia.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a7bdac1b6c189000114f9bb\",\"uuid\":\"ef26b7c6-9124-4092-b669-bfade0b19050\",\"title\":\"Bringing Clarity to Medicinal Cannabis Patients Behind the Wheel\",\"slug\":\"medicinal-cannabis-driving-reforms\",\"html\":\"$32\",\"comment_id\":\"6a7bdac1b6c189000114f9bb\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_67fc80ce1a37f61321d4fb8d297af0d8.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-12T02:30:25.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-12T02:30:25.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-11T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the current status of medicinal cannabis driving reforms, pushing for evidence-based changes to protect patients who rely on legal medication.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-08-11/25\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692f98c826a97700014b0626\",\"name\":\"Road Safety\",\"slug\":\"road-safety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/road-safety/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/medicinal-cannabis-driving-reforms/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the current status of medicinal cannabis driving reforms, pushing for evidence-based changes to protect patients who rely on legal medication.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_67fc80ce1a37f61321d4fb8d297af0d8.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Urgent updates on medicinal cannabis driving reform\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the latest updates regarding medicinal cannabis and THC driving reforms for patients across Western Australia.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/image_67fc80ce1a37f61321d4fb8d297af0d8.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Urgent updates on medicinal cannabis driving reform\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the latest updates regarding medicinal cannabis and THC driving reforms for patients across Western Australia.\",\"meta_title\":\"Urgent updates on medicinal cannabis driving reform\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the latest updates regarding medicinal cannabis and THC driving reforms for patients across Western Australia.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a78ecb5b6c189000114f998\",\"uuid\":\"ecb40898-0751-4a3b-a5c8-7bb323fc66cb\",\"title\":\"The Courage to Look\",\"slug\":\"the-courage-to-look\",\"html\":\"$33\",\"comment_id\":\"6a78ecb5b6c189000114f998\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-1.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-09T21:10:13.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-09T21:10:13.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-10T21:01:44.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"A patient was driving home on a long weekend. They take a prescribed medicine for anxiety. It happens to be a cannabis medicine, and they had taken the dose the evening before, the way the prescription recommends. There was no sign of impairment when the police pulled them over, and n
1o test for impa\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-courage-to-look\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-courage-to-look/\",\"excerpt\":\"A patient was driving home on a long weekend. They take a prescribed medicine for anxiety. It happens to be a cannabis medicine, and they had taken the dose the evening before, the way the prescription recommends. There was no sign of impairment when the police pulled them over, and no test for impa\",\"reading_time\":6,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-1.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Courage to Look\",\"og_description\":\"A patient was driving home on a long weekend. They take a prescribed medicine for anxiety. It happens to be a cannabis medicine, and they had taken the dose the evening before, the way the prescription recommends. There was no sign of impairment when the police pulled them over, and no test for impa\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover-1.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Courage to Look\",\"twitter_description\":\"A patient was driving home on a long weekend. They take a prescribed medicine for anxiety. It happens to be a cannabis medicine, and they had taken the dose the evening before, the way the prescription recommends. There was no sign of impairment when the police pulled them over, and no test for impa\",\"meta_title\":\"The Courage to Look\",\"meta_description\":\"A patient was driving home on a long weekend. They take a prescribed medicine for anxiety. It happens to be a cannabis medicine, and they had taken the dose the evening before, the way the prescription recommends. There was no sign of impairment when the police pulled them over, and n
1o test for impa\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a6fea6abc3521000174d54f\",\"uuid\":\"d34324b0-f4b7-4e6d-afa1-0d289e8eab29\",\"title\":\"Why a Doctor Went Into Politics\",\"slug\":\"why-a-doctor-went-into-politics\",\"html\":\"$34\",\"comment_id\":\"6a6fea6abc3521000174d54f\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-08-03T01:10:02.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-08-03T01:10:02.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-08-04T00:30:13.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"A man sat down in front of me a few years ago and I have not really stopped thinking about him since.\\nHe had served. He came home from that service carrying things the rest of us were spared, and by the time he reached my room the word for it was PTSD, though the word tells you almost nothing about \",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/why-a-doctor-went-into-politics\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/why-a-doctor-went-into-politics/\",\"excerpt\":\"A man sat down in front of me a few years ago and I have not really stopped thinking about him since.\\nHe had served. He came home from that service carrying things the rest of us were spared, and by the time he reached my room the word for it was PTSD, though the word tells you almost nothing about \",\"reading_time\":6,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Why a Doctor Went Into Politics\",\"og_description\":\"A man sat down in front of me a few years ago and I have not really stopped thinking about him since.\\nHe had served. He came home from that service carrying things the rest of us were spared, and by the time he reached my room the word for it was PTSD, though the word tells you almost nothing about \",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/08/cover.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Why a Doctor Went Into Politics\",\"twitter_description\":\"A man sat down in front of me a few years ago and I have not really stopped thinking about him since.\\nHe had served. He came home from that service carrying things the rest of us were spared, and by the time he reached my room the word for it was PTSD, though the word tells you almost nothing about \",\"meta_title\":\"Why a Doctor Went Into Politics\",\"meta_description\":\"A man sat down in front of me a few years ago and I have not really stopped thinking about him since.\\nHe had served. He came home from that service carrying things the rest of us were spared, and by the time he reached my room the word for it was PTSD, though the word tells you almost nothing about \",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a667a2e72968e0001b62f8e\",\"uuid\":\"2639aa5f-10b3-4dba-9ade-4f8111a0f577\",\"title\":\"The Question of Will\",\"slug\":\"the-question-of-will\",\"html\":\"$35\",\"comment_id\":\"6a667a2e72968e0001b62f8e\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-07-26T21:20:46.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-07-26T21:20:46.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-07-27T21:01:04.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The last piece left a question hanging, the way the one before it left a question for that. If some of what divides us is real and some of it is only made to look that way, and a person can now tell which is which, then we are no longer asking whether we secretly agree. We are asking something harde\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-question-of-will\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-question-of-will/\",\"excerpt\":\"The last piece left a question hanging, the way the one before it left a question for that. If some of what divides us is real and some of it is only made to look that way, and a person can now tell which is which, then we are no longer asking whether we secretly agree. We are asking something harde\",\"reading_time\":19,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Question of Will\",\"og_description\":\"The last piece left a question hanging, the way the one before it left a question for that. If some of what divides us is real and some of it is only made to look that way, and a person can now tell which is which, then we are no longer asking whether we secretly agree. We are asking something harde\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Question of Will\",\"twitter_description\":\"The last piece left a question hanging, the way the one before it left a question for that. If some of what divides us is real and some of it is only made to look that way, and a person can now tell which is which, then we are no longer asking whether we secretly agree. We are asking something harde\",\"meta_title\":\"The Question of Will\",\"meta_description\":\"The last piece left a question hanging, the way the one before it left a question for that. If some of what divides us is real and some of it is only made to look that way, and a person can now tell which is which, then we are no longer asking whether we secretly agree. We are asking something harde\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a5d3af28f2dcd0001aeab33\",\"uuid\":\"a2001b56-8be5-457e-b0b5-c57c3f3d5fbd\",\"title\":\"Which of Our Divisions Are Real\",\"slug\":\"which-of-our-divisions-are-real\",\"html\":\"$36\",\"comment_id\":\"6a5d3af28f2dcd0001aeab33\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-3.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-07-19T21:00:34.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-07-19T21:00:34.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-07-20T21:00:09.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Telling a real divide from a distorted one\\nThe last piece ended with a question I left hanging. I had sorted the reasons a good idea takes so long to catch on into four kinds, and said that telling them apart was the whole of the job. I closed by asking something harder. When we look at everything t\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/which-of-our-divisions-are-real\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/which-of-our-divisions-are-real/\",\"excerpt\":\"Telling a real divide from a distorted one\\nThe last piece ended with a question I left hanging. I had sorted the reasons a good idea takes so long to catch on into four kinds, and said that telling them apart was the whole of the job. I closed by asking something harder. When we look at everything t\",\"reading_time\":22,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-3.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Which of Our Divisions Are Real\",\"og_description\":\"Telling a real divide from a distorted one\\nThe last piece ended with a question I left hanging. I had sorted the reasons a good idea takes so long to catch on into four kinds, and said that telling them apart was the whole of the job. I closed by asking something harder. When we look at everything t\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-3.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Which of Our Divisions Are Real\",\"twitter_description\":\"Telling a real divide from a distorted one\\nThe last piece ended with a question I left hanging. I had sorted the reasons a good idea takes so long to catch on into four kinds, and said that telling them apart was the whole of the job. I closed by asking something harder. When we look at everything t\",\"meta_title\":\"Which of Our Divisions Are Real\",\"meta_description\":\"Telling a real divide from a distorted one\\nThe last piece ended with a question I left hanging. I had sorted the reasons a good idea takes so long to catch on into four kinds, and said that telling them apart was the whole of the job. I closed by asking something harder. When we look at everything t\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a555b57c7d02f0001c04c86\",\"uuid\":\"4fb623c1-9dc9-4434-9aed-3411b89d4a04\",\"title\":\"Neither the Fright Nor the Shrug\",\"slug\":\"neither-the-fright-nor-the-shrug\",\"html\":\"$37\",\"comment_id\":\"6a555b57c7d02f0001c04c86\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-2.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-07-13T21:40:39.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-07-13T21:40:39.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-07-14T21:02:18.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"On the sixth of July a Chinese submarine fired a long-range missile into the Pacific. It carried no warhead, only a dummy, and it came down, by the best reckoning available, in the southern reaches of the ocean. Within a day the event had its shape in the headlines, and the shape was fright.\\n\\n\\nWalke\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/neither
1-the-fright-nor-the-shrug\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/neither-the-fright-nor-the-shrug/\",\"excerpt\":\"On the sixth of July a Chinese submarine fired a long-range missile into the Pacific. It carried no warhead, only a dummy, and it came down, by the best reckoning available, in the southern reaches of the ocean. Within a day the event had its shape in the headlines, and the shape was fright.\\n\\n\\nWalke\",\"reading_time\":6,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-2.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Neither the Fright Nor the Shrug\",\"og_description\":\"On the sixth of July a Chinese submarine fired a long-range missile into the Pacific. It carried no warhead, only a dummy, and it came down, by the best reckoning available, in the southern reaches of the ocean. Within a day the event had its shape in the headlines, and the shape was fright.\\n\\n\\nWalke\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-2.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Neither the Fright Nor the Shrug\",\"twitter_description\":\"On the sixth of July a Chinese submarine fired a long-range missile into the Pacific. It carried no warhead, only a dummy, and it came down, by the best reckoning available, in the southern reaches of the ocean. Within a day the event had its shape in the headlines, and the shape was fright.\\n\\n\\nWalke\",\"meta_title\":\"Neither the Fright Nor the Shrug\",\"meta_description\":\"On the sixth of July a Chinese submarine fired a long-range missile into the Pacific. It carried no warhead, only a dummy, and it came down, by the best reckoning available, in the southern reaches of the ocean. Within a day the event had its shape in the headlines, and the shape was fright.\\n\\n\\
1nWalke\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a54050dd09c5900012fdc02\",\"uuid\":\"7069b4f3-c2ba-4254-a74c-6565942bacbc\",\"title\":\"Why the Good Thing Waits\",\"slug\":\"why-the-good-thing-waits\",\"html\":\"$38\",\"comment_id\":\"6a54050dd09c5900012fdc02\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-1.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-07-12T21:20:13.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-07-12T21:20:13.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-07-13T21:00:38.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"(Article 14 of The Available Remedies)\\nYou hear it and something in you tightens. Somewhere, someone has shown that a job can be done faster, or cheaper, or with less harm. The proof is in. The trial has been run. And still the country goes on doing it the old way, year after year, as though none of\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/why-the-good-thing-waits\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/why-the-good-thing-waits/\",\"excerpt\":\"(Article 14 of The Available Remedies)\\nYou hear it and something in you tightens. Somewhere, someone has shown that a job can be done faster, or cheaper, or with less harm. The proof is in. The trial has been run. And still the country goes on doing it the old way, year after year, as though none of\",\"reading_time\":16,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-1.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Why the Good Thing Waits\",\"og_description\":\"(Article 14 of The Available Remedies)\\nYou hear it and something in you tightens. Somewhere, someone has shown that a job can be done faster, or cheaper, or with less harm. The proof is in. The trial has been run. And still the country goes on doing it the old way, year after year, as though none of\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover-1.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Why the Good Thing Waits\",\"twitter_description\":\"(Article 14 of The Available Remedies)\\nYou hear it and something in you tightens. Somewhere, someone has shown that a job can be done faster, or cheaper, or with less harm. The proof is in. The trial has been run. And still the country goes on doing it the old way, year after year, as though none of\",\"meta_title\":\"Why the Good Thing Waits\",\"meta_description\":\"(Article 14 of The Available Remedies)\\nYou hear it and something in you tightens. Somewhere, someone has shown that a job can be done faster, or cheaper, or with less harm. The proof is in. The trial has been run. And still the country goes on doing it the old way, year after year, as though none of\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a4acf3a0286de000147e8bb\",\"uuid\":\"d9b92255-20d8-4c7e-97fc-f65618051978\",\"title\":\"Who Holds The Pen?\",\"slug\":\"the-democratic-arts\",\"html\":\"$39\",\"comment_id\":\"6a4acf3a0286de000147e8bb\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-07-05T21:40:10.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-07-05T21:40:10.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-07-06T21:00:07.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Civic education is the remedy I am readiest to believe in. This article is the test I owe it before I ask anyone else to.\\nThrough these chapters the people have mostly turned up as the ones things are done to. We pulled the structures apart, followed the money, traced the incentives, and all the way\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-democratic-arts\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-democratic-arts/\",\"excerpt\":\"Civic education is the remedy I am readiest to believe in. This article is the test I owe it before I ask anyone else to.\\nThrough these chapters the people have mostly turned up as the ones things are done to. We pulled the structures apart, followed the money, traced the incentives, and all the way\",\"reading_time\":16,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Who Holds The Pen?\",\"og_description\":\"Civic education is the remedy I am readiest to believe in. This article is the test I owe it before I ask anyone else to.\\nThrough these chapters the people have mostly turned up as the ones things are done to. We pulled the structures apart, followed the money, traced the incentives, and all the way\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/07/cover.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Who Holds The Pen?\",\"twitter_description\":\"Civic education is the remedy I am readiest to believe in. This article is the test I owe it before I ask anyone else to.\\nThrough these chapters the people have mostly turned up as the ones things are done to. We pulled the structures apart, followed the money, traced the incentives, and all the way\",\"meta_title\":\"Who Holds The Pen?\",\"meta_description\":\"Civic education is the remedy I am readiest to believe in. This article is the test I owe it before I ask anyone else to.\\nThrough these chapters the people have mostly turned up as the ones things are done to. We pulled the structures apart, followed the money, traced the incentives, and all the way\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a4194e05c671f000150493b\",\"uuid\":\"5de472c6-64fc-41e2-8016-469cec25215e\",\"title\":\"Why Democracy Is Failing\",\"slug\":\"why-democracy-is-failing\",\"html\":\"$3a\",\"comment_id\":\"6a4194e05c671f000150493b\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-28T21:40:48.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-28T21:40:48.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-29T21:00:46.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Where to Look\\nIn the middle of 2026 something happened in Australian politics that had never happened before. More people told the pollsters they would put One Nation first than would put either of the two big parties first. Not one stray poll. Several of them, run by different firms, all leaning th\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/why-democracy-is-failing\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/why-democracy-is-failing/\",\"excerpt\":\"Where to Look\\nIn the middle of 2026 something happened in Australian politics that had never happened before. More people told the pollsters they would put One Nation first than would put either of the two big parties first. Not one stray poll. Several of them, run by different firms, all leaning th\",\"reading_time\":12,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Why Democracy Is Failing\",\"og_description\":\"Where to Look\\nIn the middle of 2026 something happened in Australian politics that had never happened before. More people told the pollsters they would put One Nation first than would put either of the two big parties first. Not one stray poll. Several of them, run by different firms, all leaning th\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Why Democracy Is Failing\",\"twitter_description\":\"Where to Look\\nIn the middle of 2026 something happened in Australian politics that had never happened before. More people told the pollsters they would put One Nation first than would put either of the two big parties first. Not one stray poll. Several of them, run by different firms, all leaning th\",\"meta_title\":\"Why Democracy Is Failing\",\"meta_description\":\"Where to Look\\nIn the middle of 2026 something happened in Australian politics that had never happened before. More people told the pollsters they would put One Nation first than would put either of the two big parties first. Not one stray poll. Several of them, run by different firms, all leaning th\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a3894122e580e0001252b41\",\"uuid\":\"28e1e188-2a41-4f5d-bff9-d200c0936283\",\"title\":\"Subsidiarity and the Question of Scale\",\"slug\":\"subsidiarity-and-the-question-of\",\"html\":\"$3b\",\"comment_id\":\"6a3894122e580e0001252b41\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-3.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-22T01:46:58.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-22T01:46:58.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-22T21:01:05.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Which People?\\nThink about two problems. A streetlight out on your road, and a disease spreading through the country. Nobody would send the broken light to Canberra. Nobody would leave the epidemic to your local council. We already know, without being taught, that some decisions belong close to home \",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/subsidiarity-and-the-question-of\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/subsidiarity-and-the-question-of/\",\"excerpt\":\"Which People?\\nThink about two problems. A streetlight out on your road, and a disease spreading through the country. Nobody would send the broken light to Canberra. Nobody would leave the epidemic to your local council. We already know, without being taught, that some decisions belong close to home \",\"reading_time\":12,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-3.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Subsidiarity and the Question of Scale\",\"og_description\":\"Which People?\\nThink about two problems. A streetlight out on your road, and a disease spreading through the country. Nobody would send the broken light to Canberra. Nobody would leave the epidemic to your local council. We already know, without being taught, that some decisions belong close to home \",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-3.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Subsidiarity and the Question of Scale\",\"twitter_description\":\"Which People?\\nThink about two problems. A streetlight out on your road, and a disease spreading through the country. Nobody would send the broken light to Canberra. Nobody would leave the epidemic to your local council. We already know, without being taught, that some decisions belong close to home \",\"meta_title\":\"Subsidiarity and the Question of Scale\",\"meta_description\":\"Which People?\\nThink about two problems. A streetlight out on your road, and a disease spreading through the country. Nobody would send the broken light to Canberra. Nobody would leave the epidemic to your local council. We already know, without being taught, that some decisions belong close to home \",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a338a066774f70001252637\",\"uuid\":\"3aca4f6b-5d68-4b3b-ac75-435957ecd717\",\"title\":\"Restoring Excellence: Why Our Schools Need an Urgent Reality Check\",\"slug\":\"restoring-excellence-in-wa-education\",\"html\":\"$3c\",\"comment_id\":\"6a338a066774f70001252637\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781762563384_h7fx1s.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-18T06:02:46.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-18T06:02:46.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-18T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores a vital parliamentary motion regarding the decline in WA education standards, discussing workloads, technology, and the need for critical thinking.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-18/9\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"693a74c90bf67100011a5067\",\"name\":\"Education\",\"slug\":\"education\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/education/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6a3389d36774f7000125262d\",\"name\":\"Schools\",\"slug\":\"schools\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/schools/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"693a74c90bf67100011a5067\",\"name\":\"Education\",\"slug\":\"education\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/education/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/restoring-excellence-in-wa-education/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores a vital parliamentary motion regarding the decline in WA education standards, discussing workloads, technology, and the need for critical thinking.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781762563384_h7fx1s.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: It is time to fix Western Australia's education system\",\"og_description\":\"Declining standards, excessive administrative burdens, and the need for a common-sense approach to our children's future in the classroom.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781762563384_h7fx1s.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: It is time to fix Western Australia's education system\",\"twitter_description\":\"Declining standards, excessive administrative burdens, and the need for a common-sense approach to our children's future in the classroom.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: It is time to fix Western Australia's education system\",\"meta_description\":\"Declining standards, excessive administrative burdens, and the need for a common-sense approach to our children's future in the classroom.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a33cfef6774f70001252641\",\"uuid\":\"a1288f04-51cb-44ef-8735-e25393f332e4\",\"title\":\"Why is the government keeping our cannabis driving research hidden from public view\",\"slug\":\"why-is-the-government-keeping-our-cannabis-driving-research-hidden-from-public-view\",\"html\":\"$3d\",\"comment_id\":\"6a33cfef6774f70001252641\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781780457203_a0aits.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-18T11:01:03.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-18T11:01:03.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-18T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the government on the status of taxpayer-funded THC driving reform research, highlighting a concerning lack of transparency for Western Australians.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-18/27\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/trans
1parency/\"},{\"id\":\"6942a88b1339c70001aadc3c\",\"name\":\"Driving\",\"slug\":\"driving\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/driving/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/why-is-the-government-keeping-our-cannabis-driving-research-hidden-from-public-view/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the government on the status of taxpayer-funded THC driving reform research, highlighting a concerning lack of transparency for Western Australians.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781780457203_a0aits.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The truth about our THC driving reform findings\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency on state funded medical cannabis driving research as the government continues to withhold findings.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781780457203_a0aits.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The truth about our THC driving reform findings\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency on state funded medical cannabis driving research as the government continues to withhold findings.\",\"meta_title\":\"The truth about our THC driving reform findings\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency on state funded medical cannabis driving research as the government continues to withhold findings.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a33de076774f70001252653\",\"uuid\":\"bee52505-c576-4ed3-9ebd-0f4db64ee5ba\",\"title\":\"Why the government keeps the truth about medicinal cannabis driving hidden\",\"slug\":\"why-the-government-keeps-the-truth-about-medicinal-cannabis-driving-hidden\",\"html\":\"$3e\",\"comment_id\":\"6a33de076774f70001252653\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781784068102_wlmlwq.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-18T12:01:11.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-18T12:01:11.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-18T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the ongoing secrecy surrounding Western Australia's ministerial working group findings into THC driving reform, highlighting the urgent need for evidence-based policy for medicinal cannabis patients.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-18/28\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6a01499eca54420001fcc886\",\"name\":\"Medicinal Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"medicinal-cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/medicinal-cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/trans
1parency/\"},{\"id\":\"6a33de076774f70001252654\",\"name\":\"Driving Laws\",\"slug\":\"driving-laws\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/driving-laws/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6a01499eca54420001fcc886\",\"name\":\"Medicinal Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"medicinal-cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/medicinal-cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/why-the-government-keeps-the-truth-about-medicinal-cannabis-driving-hidden/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the ongoing secrecy surrounding Western Australia's ministerial working group findings into THC driving reform, highlighting the urgent need for evidence-based policy for medicinal cannabis patients.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781784068102_wlmlwq.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The truth about WA medicinal cannabis driving reform\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government continues to hide the findings of its ministerial working group on THC driving laws.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781784068102_wlmlwq.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The truth about WA medicinal cannabis driving reform\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government continues to hide the findings of its ministerial working group on THC driving laws.\",\"meta_title\":\"The truth about WA medicinal cannabis driving reform\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government continues to hide the findings of its ministerial working group on THC driving laws.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a32545a7036750001357dfd\",\"uuid\":\"971b67de-1921-48e0-8803-fad0fa938cde\",\"title\":\"Bringing rational science to the urgent challenge of road safety in Western Australia\",\"slug\":\"road-safety-driver-impairment\",\"html\":\"$3f\",\"comment_id\":\"6a32545a7036750001357dfd\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781683286920_kkcrts.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-17T08:01:30.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-17T08:01:30.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-17T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker advocates for a comprehensive approach to road safety, calling for increased police resources and fair, scientifically backed testing for all forms of driver impairment on Western Australian roads.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-17/4\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692f98c826a97700014b0626\",\"name\":\"Road Safety\",\"slug\":\"road-safety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/road-safety/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"}
1,{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0752\",\"name\":\"Science\",\"slug\":\"science\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/science/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692f98c826a97700014b0626\",\"name\":\"Road Safety\",\"slug\":\"road-safety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/road-safety/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/road-safety-driver-impairment/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker advocates for a comprehensive approach to road safety, calling for increased police resources and fair, scientifically backed testing for all forms of driver impairment on Western Australian roads.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781683286920_kkcrts.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Road Safety and Driver Impairment\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for a science-based approach to road safety and fair testing for all forms of driver impairment.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781683286920_kkcrts.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Road Safety and Driver Impairment\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for a science-based approach to road safety and fair testing for all forms of driver impairment.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Road Safety and Driver Impairment\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for a science-based approach to road safety and fair testing for all forms of driver impairment.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a31490f29963c00010be5e0\",\"uuid\":\"d37c7161-4e9c-41d6-88b6-6d23edad29de\",\"title\":\"Why our state is lagging on fair medicinal cannabis driving laws\",\"slug\":\"lagging-on-medicinal-cannabis-driving-laws\",\"html\":\"$40\",\"comment_id\":\"6a31490f29963c00010be5e0\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781614860035_ko89g9.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-16T13:01:03.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-16T13:01:03.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-16T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines why Western Australia continues to stall on common-sense medicinal cannabis driving reforms while other states move forward.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-16/18\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"},{\"id\":\"6942a88b1339c70001aadc3c\",\"name\":\"Driving\",\"slug\":\"driving\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/driving/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/lagging-on-medicinal-cannabis-driving-laws/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines why Western Australia continues to stall on common-sense medicinal cannabis driving reforms while other states move forward.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781614860035_ko89g9.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Medicinal Cannabis Driving Laws\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the stalled progress on medicinal cannabis driving reform in Western Australia compared to other states.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781614860035_ko89g9.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Medicinal Cannabis Driving Laws\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the stalled progress on medicinal cannabis driving reform in Western Australia compared to other states.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Medicinal Cannabis Driving Laws\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the stalled progress on medicinal cannabis driving reform in Western Australia compared to other states.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a34f734ad1d6900010eca4d\",\"uuid\":\"4188dbea-da0d-4
1623-9a40-5ee4cb6746db\",\"title\":\"Protecting Sacred Ground From The Push For A Private Brewery\",\"slug\":\"protecting-sacred-ground-hall-park-reserve\",\"html\":\"$41\",\"comment_id\":\"6a34f734ad1d6900010eca4d\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781856048918_ncran4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-19T08:00:52.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-19T08:00:52.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-16T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions government plans to excise sacred land from Mandurah's Hall Park Reserve for private commercial development.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-16/36\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a3\",\"name\":\"Heritage\",\"slug\":\"heritage\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/heritage/\"},{\"id\":\"6a31c7b57036750001357dd3\",\"name\":\"Mandurah\",\"slug\":\"mandurah\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/mandurah/\"},{\"id\":\"69a0987597c573000165f25d\",\"name\":\"Planning\",\"slug\":\"planning\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/planning/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a3\",\"name\":\"Heritage\",\"slug\":\"heritage\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/heritage/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/protecting-sacred-ground-hall-park-reserve/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions government plans to excise sacred land from Mandurah's Hall Park Reserve for private commercial development.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781856048918_ncran4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Protecting Sacred Land at Hall Park Reserve\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the proposed excision of sacred land at Hall Park Reserve in Mandurah for a private brewery.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781856048918_ncran4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Protecting Sacred Land at Hall Park Reserve\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the proposed excision of sacred land at Hall Park Reserve in Mandurah for a private brewery.\",\"meta_title\":\"Protecting Sacred Land at Hall Park Reserve\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the proposed excision of sacred land at Hall Park Reserve in Mandurah for a private brewery.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null}
1,{\"id\":\"6a2f1fe62baf4100012d9d4a\",\"uuid\":\"58f00af0-493e-42c7-9386-690dc2a7b202\",\"title\":\"Who Gets to Decide?\",\"slug\":\"who-gets-to-decide\",\"html\":\"$42\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2f1fe62baf4100012d9d4a\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-2.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-14T21:40:54.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-14T21:40:54.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-15T21:01:40.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Direct Democracy as Structural Remedy\\nThe previous article in this series traced how votes become seats. The question there was the translation machinery: the architecture that converts marks on a ballot into the composition of a chamber, and the finding that the geometry of that conversion is a str\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/who-gets-to-decide\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/who-gets-to-decide/\",\"excerpt\":\"Direct Democracy as Structural Remedy\\nThe previous article in this series traced how votes become seats. The question there was the translation machinery: the architecture that converts marks on a ballot into the composition of a chamber, and the finding that the geometry of that conversion is a str\",\"reading_time\":16,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-2.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Who Gets to Decide?\",\"og_description\":\"Direct Democracy as Structural Remedy\\nThe previous article in this series traced how votes become seats. The question there was the translation machinery: the architecture that converts marks on a ballot into the composition of a chamber, and the finding that the geometry of that conversion is a str\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-2.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Who Gets to Decide?\",\"twitter_description\":\"Direct Democracy as Structural Remedy\\nThe previous article in this series traced how votes become seats. The question there was the translation machinery: the architecture that converts marks on a ballot into the composition of a chamber, and the finding that the geometry of that conversion is a str\",\"meta_title\":\"Who Gets to Decide?\",\"meta_description\":\"Direct Democracy as Structural Remedy\\nThe previous article in this series traced how votes become seats. The question there was the translation machinery: the architecture that converts marks on a ballot into the composition of a chamber, and the finding that the geometry of that conversion is a str\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2e29a375346a00013bf81f\",\"uuid\":\"656cb8b4-44f2-471a-8d2e-e889f93586fb\",\"title\":\"Who Decides What You Get to Vote On\",\"slug\":\"who-decides-what-you-get-to-vote\",\"html\":\"$43\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2e29a375346a00013bf81f\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-1.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-14T04:10:11.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-14T04:10:11.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-15T03:58:35.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Does anyone else agree that my writing style is too dense? I write like I speak in parliament, perhaps. My next article comes tomorrow, but here is a rewrite of that article in normal English. Please let me know which you prefer!\\nPicture a ballot paper in your hand. There is a question printed on it\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/who-decides-what-you-get-to-vote\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/who-decides-what-you-get-to-vote/\",\"excerpt\":\"Does anyone else agree that my writing style is too dense? I write like I speak in parliament, perhaps. My next article comes tomorrow, but here is a rewrite of that article in normal English. Please let me know which you prefer!\\nPicture a ballot paper in your hand. There is a question printed on it\",\"reading_time\":8,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-1.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Who Decides What You Get to Vote On\",\"og_description\":\"Does anyone else agree that my writing style is too dense? I write like I speak in parliament, perhaps. My next article comes tomorrow, but here is a rewrite of that article in normal English. Please let me know which you prefer!\\nPicture a ballot paper in your hand. There is a question printed on it\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover-1.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Who Decides What You Get to Vote On\",\"twitter_description\":\"Does anyone else agree that my writing style is too dense? I write like I speak in parliament, perhaps. My next article comes tomorrow, but here is a rewrite of that article in normal English. Please let me know which you prefer!\\nPicture a ballot paper in your hand. There is a question printed on it\",\"meta_title\":\"Who Decides What You Get to Vote On\",\"meta_description\":\"Does anyone else agree that my writing style is too dense? I write like I speak in parliament, perhaps. My next article comes tomorrow, but here is a rewrite of that article in normal English. Please let me know which you prefer!\\nPicture a ballot paper in your hand. There is a question printed on it\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2a3325fb20dd0001060187\",\"uuid\":\"940b55b4-5dc8-4920-8a62-5d483c6ae590\",\"title\":\"Bringing Fairness to the Forefront of Our Legislative Agenda Today\",\"slug\":\"equal-opportunity-amendment-bill\",\"html\":\"$44\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2a3325fb20dd0001060187\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781150498772-zaf1k3h2ybl.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-11T04:01:41.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-11T04:01:41.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-11T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker introduces the Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill 2026, marking a significant step toward addressing systemic imbalances and ensuring fairness within our state laws.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-11/2\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"69a08a6497c573000165f251\",\"name\":\"Equality\",\"slug\":\"equal
1ity\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/equality/\"},{\"id\":\"692fb7d126a97700014b06d2\",\"name\":\"WA\",\"slug\":\"wa\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/wa/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/equal-opportunity-amendment-bill/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker introduces the Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill 2026, marking a significant step toward addressing systemic imbalances and ensuring fairness within our state laws.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781150498772-zaf1k3h2ybl.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker Introduces Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker brings a new Bill to the Legislative Council to tackle inequality and ensure fairer treatment for all Western Australians.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781150498772-zaf1k3h2ybl.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker Introduces Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker brings a new Bill to the Legislative Council to tackle inequality and ensure fairer treatment for all Western Australians.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker Introduces Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker brings a new Bill to the Legislative Council to tackle inequality and ensure fairer treatment for all Western Australians.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null}
1,{\"id\":\"6a2a9585fb20dd00010601a4\",\"uuid\":\"9834a327-5c76-4213-908b-fa2a30dfd521\",\"title\":\"The data gap in our current THC roadside testing laws\",\"slug\":\"the-data-gap-in-our-current-thc-roadside-testing-laws\",\"html\":\"$45\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2a9585fb20dd00010601a4\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781175681441-z7p8topk5.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-11T11:01:25.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-11T11:01:25.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-11T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the Minister for Police on the lack of data regarding THC driving prosecutions and the resulting impact on Western Australian drivers.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-11/18\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6942a88b1339c70001aadc3c\",\"name\":\"Driving\",\"slug\":\"driving\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/driving/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-data-gap-in-our-current-thc-roadside-testing-laws/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the Minister for Police on the lack of data regarding THC driving prosecutions and the resulting impact on Western Australian drivers.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781175681441-z7p8topk5.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The data gap in our current THC roadside testing laws\",\"og_description\":\"We are demanding transparency on THC driving prosecutions and the real human cost of current licence suspensions.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781175681441-z7p8topk5.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The data gap in our current THC roadside testing laws\",\"twitter_description\":\"We are demanding transparency on THC driving prosecutions and the real human cost of current licence suspensions.\",\"meta_title\":\"The data gap in our current THC roadside testing laws\",\"meta_description\":\"We are demanding transparency on THC driving prosecutions and the real human cost of current licence suspensions.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2b9c7e351f64000166931f\",\"uuid\":\"37c1e432-510e-45b6-9c43-4e8fc0b612a2\",\"title\":\"Ensuring the Auditor General Can Shine a Light on Government Spending\",\"slug\":\"auditor-general-powers-trans
1parency\",\"html\":\"$46\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2b9c7e351f64000166931f\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781243003112-vhjwt7ttmc8.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-12T05:43:26.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-12T05:43:26.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-11T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the importance of empowering the Auditor General to conduct thorough financial investigations to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively rather than wasted by government bureaucracy.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-11/45\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd12826a97700014b0728\",\"name\":\"Accountability\",\"slug\":\"accountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/accountability/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/transparency/\"},{\"id\":\"692fb7d126a97700014b06d2\",\"name\":\"WA\",\"slug\":\"wa\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/wa/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"}
1,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/auditor-general-powers-transparency/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker discusses the importance of empowering the Auditor General to conduct thorough financial investigations to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively rather than wasted by government bureaucracy.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781243003112-vhjwt7ttmc8.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Strengthening financial oversight for a better Western Australia\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC explains why expanded powers for the Auditor General are essential for government accountability and value for money.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781243003112-vhjwt7ttmc8.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Strengthening financial oversight for a better Western Australia\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC explains why expanded powers for the Auditor General are essential for government accountability and value for money.\",\"meta_title\":\"Strengthening financial oversight for a better Western Australia\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC explains why expanded powers for the Auditor General are essential for government accountability and value for money.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2ba0a9351f64000166932a\",\"uuid\":\"9f0b8e68-637e-4af4-ba33-6206cfbe0173\",\"title\":\"Harnessing the relentless Western Australian sun for our bright energy future\",\"slug\":\"harnessing-the-relentless-western-australian-sun\",\"html\":\"$47\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2ba0a9351f64000166932a\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781244070279_bsc2gs.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-12T06:01:13.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-12T06:01:13.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-11T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores why Western Australia should adopt mandatory solar car park canopies to boost our renewable energy capacity, referencing international successes from France.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-11/35\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6a2aa3e4fb20dd00010601be\",\"name\":\"Solar\",\"slug\":\"solar\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/solar/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd0a326a97700014b0716\",\"name\":\"Energy\",\"slug\":\"energy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/energy/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0751\",\"name\":\"Policy\",\"slug\":\"policy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/policy/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6a2aa3e4fb20dd00010601be\",\"name\":\"Solar\",\"slug\":\"solar\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/solar/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/harnessing-the-relentless-wester
1n-australian-sun/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores why Western Australia should adopt mandatory solar car park canopies to boost our renewable energy capacity, referencing international successes from France.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781244070279_bsc2gs.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Why WA must look to France for solar inspiration | Dr Brian Walker\",\"og_description\":\"Western Australia is gifted with intense sun. I am questioning why we are not mandating solar car park canopies to supercharge our energy grid.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/image_1781244070279_bsc2gs.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Why WA must look to France for solar inspiration | Dr Brian Walker\",\"twitter_description\":\"Western Australia is gifted with intense sun. I am questioning why we are not mandating solar car park canopies to supercharge our energy grid.\",\"meta_title\":\"Why WA must look to France for solar inspiration | Dr Brian Walker\",\"meta_description\":\"Western Australia is gifted with intense sun. I am questioning why we are not mandating solar car park canopies to supercharge our energy grid.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2935e91ee32200014fb546\",\"uuid\":\"c289e2f3-baa6-4d0a-a34f-b6ee8b29f340\",\"title\":\"The Price of Silence: Why Transparency Matters in our Parliament\",\"slug\":\"the-price-of-silence-parliamentary-transparency\",\"html\":\"$48\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2935e91ee32200014fb546\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781085670058-sro0z0wn8z.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-10T10:01:13.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-10T10:01:13.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-10T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the critical need for government accountability and clear, honest answers in Parliament, arguing that evasive responses threaten our democracy.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/9\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/transparency/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd12826a97700014b0728\",\"name\":\"Accountability\",\"slug\":\"accountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/accountability/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"694254b71339c70001aadb5e\",\"name\":\"Politics\",\"slug\":\"politics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/politics/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/trans
1parency/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-price-of-silence-parliamentary-transparency/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the critical need for government accountability and clear, honest answers in Parliament, arguing that evasive responses threaten our democracy.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781085670058-sro0z0wn8z.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Price of Silence: Why Transparency Matters in our Parliament\",\"og_description\":\"We need government accountability. When ministers offer evasive answers, it damages public trust. Time for change in our Legislative Council.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781085670058-sro0z0wn8z.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Price of Silence: Why Transparency Matters in our Parliament\",\"twitter_description\":\"We need government accountability. When ministers offer evasive answers, it damages public trust. Time for change in our Legislative Council.\",\"meta_title\":\"The Price of Silence: Why Transparency Matters in our Parliament\",\"meta_description\":\"We need government accountability. When ministers offer evasive answers, it damages public trust. Time for change in our Legislative Council.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2952301ee32200014fb54f\",\"uuid\":\"0b81ee91-2545-435e-ba2d-20a030db81be\",\"title\":\"A Prescription for Change: Why Our Budget Must Value Human Dignity\",\"slug\":\"a-prescription-for-change-budget-dignity\",\"html\":\"$49\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2952301ee32200014fb54f\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781092909321-nmlc59zjl.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-10T12:01:52.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-10T12:01:52.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-10T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the state budget, highlighting the disparity in aged-care standards and the ongoing need for government transparency to serve the people effectively.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/14\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/transparency/\"},{\"id\":\"6a2952301ee32200014fb550\",\"name\":\"AgedCare\",\"slug\":\"agedcare\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/agedcare/\"},{\"id\":\"694254b71339c70001aadb5e\",\"name\":\"Politics\",\"slug\":\"politics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/politics/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/a-prescription-for-change-budget-dignity/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the state budget, highlighting the disparity in aged-care standards and the ongoing need for government transparency to serve the people effectively.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781092909321-nmlc59zjl.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"A Doctor's Diagnosis of Our State's Misplaced Budget Priorities\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the budget, questioning why our state's aging population lacks the dignity and care seen in other parts of the world.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781092909321-nmlc59zjl.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"A Doctor's Diagnosis of Our State's Misplaced Budget Priorities\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the budget, questioning why our state's aging population lacks the dignity and care seen in other parts of the world.\",\"meta_title\":\"A Doctor's Diagnosis of Our State's Misplaced Budget Priorities\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the budget, questioning why our state's aging population lacks the dignity and care seen in other parts of the world.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2952631ee32200014fb55a\",\"uuid\":\"df36630a-e996-450f-bbee-b9e89f8baeb9\",\"title\":\"Uncovering the truth behind criminal property confiscation and financial targets\",\"slug\":\"criminal-property-confiscation-transparency\",\"html\":\"$4a\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2952631ee32200014fb55a\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781092959215-0xax50qbg5pf.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-10T12:02:43.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-10T12:02:43.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-10T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on the existence of criminal confiscation targets, advocating for transparency and accountability within the justice system to ensure public trust.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/41\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0705\",\"name\":\"Justice\",\"slug\":\"justice\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/justice/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/trans
1parency/\"},{\"id\":\"692fc9a926a97700014b06f3\",\"name\":\"Law\",\"slug\":\"law\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/law/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/criminal-property-confiscation-transparency/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on the existence of criminal confiscation targets, advocating for transparency and accountability within the justice system to ensure public trust.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781092959215-0xax50qbg5pf.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Criminal Property Confiscation Transparency\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker investigates the nature of financial targets in criminal property confiscation and the need for government transparency.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781092959215-0xax50qbg5pf.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Criminal Property Confiscation Transparency\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker investigates the nature of financial targets in criminal property confiscation and the need for government transparency.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Criminal Property Confiscation Transparency\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker investigates the nature of financial targets in criminal property confiscation and the need for government transparency.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2a4bd8fb20dd0001060191\",\"uuid\":\"d23a7a96-705f-45ad-8e07-9794b5199af6\",\"title\":\"The Hidden Reality of Our State Budget and the Cost of Inaction\",\"slug\":\"hidden-reality-state-budget\",\"html\":\"$4b\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2a4bd8fb20dd0001060191\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781156821400-ymcral3wing.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-11T05:47:04.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-11T05:47:04.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-10T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker critiques the state fiscal framework, exposing how headline surpluses mask deep systemic failures in health, housing, and the justice system.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/48\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"69f9c39aa5853400019a5153\",\"name\":\"Budget\",\"slug\":\"budget\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/budget/\"},{\"id\":\"692fb7d126a97700014b06d2\",\"name\":\"WA\",\"slug\":\"wa\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/wa/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0705\",\"name\":\"Justice\",\"slug\":\"justice\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/justice/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/hidden-reality-state-budget/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker critiques the state fiscal framework, exposing how headline surpluses mask deep systemic failures in health, housing, and the justice system.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781156821400-ymcral3wing.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: The Truth Behind WA's Budget Surpluses\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the structural cracks in the state budget, from prison failures to the missed opportunities for genuine social reform.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781156821400-ymcral3wing.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: The Truth Behind WA's Budget Surpluses\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the structural cracks in the state budget, from prison failures to the missed opportunities for genuine social reform.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: The Truth Behind WA's Budget Surpluses\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the structural cracks in the state budget, from prison failures to the missed opportunities for genuine social reform.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2952921ee32200014fb563\",\"uuid\":\"d8a2c577-b3ea-45b6-867b-efb76dfe6f8b\",\"title\":\"Equity should not be a privilege for the few in Western Australia\",\"slug\":\"equity-should-not-be-a-privilege\",\"html\":\"$4c\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2952921ee32200014fb563\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781093237093-nyyswv4tcte.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-10T12:03:30.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-12T00:23:26.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-10T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines why government funding for driving equity excludes medicinal cannabis patients, highlighting the urgent need for fair and evidence-based road safety reform.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-10/21\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"694254b71339c70001aadb5e\",\"name\":\"Politics\",\"slug\":\"politics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/politics/\"},{\"id\":\"69a08a6497c573000165f251\",\"name\":\"Equality\",\"slug\":\"equal
1ity\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/equality/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/equity-should-not-be-a-privilege/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines why government funding for driving equity excludes medicinal cannabis patients, highlighting the urgent need for fair and evidence-based road safety reform.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781093007455-9x316us74hi.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Why our driving laws fail medicinal cannabis patients\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on discriminatory driving laws that leave medicinal cannabis patients behind despite road safety funding.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781093007455-9x316us74hi.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Why our driving laws fail medicinal cannabis patients\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on discriminatory driving laws that leave medicinal cannabis patients behind despite road safety funding.\",\"meta_title\":\"Why our driving laws fail medicinal cannabis patients\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker challenges the government on discriminatory driving laws that leave medicinal cannabis patients behind despite road safety funding.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a28e29b1ee32200014fb528\",\"uuid\":\"377ca126-3838-462d-a9b1-f66e3d31053e\",\"title\":\"Why is our government ignoring clear medical cannabis driving solutions from interstate\",\"slug\":\"medical-cannabis-driving-reforms-stalled\",\"html\":\"$4d\",\"comment_id\":\"6a28e29b1ee32200014fb528\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781064343384-8g3nx3u2xwj.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-10T04:05:47.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-10T04:05:47.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-09T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why Western Australia continues to stall on medicinal cannabis driving reforms while other states move ahead with clear, evidence-based solutions for patients.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-09/34\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6942a88b1339c70001aadc3c\",\"name\":\"Driving\",\"slug\":\"driving\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/driving/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/medical-cannabis-driving-reforms-stalled/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why Western Australia continues to stall on medicinal cannabis driving reforms while other states move ahead with clear, evidence-based solutions for patients.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781064343384-8g3nx3u2xwj.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Medical cannabis driving reforms stalled in Western Australia\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on why medical cannabis driving reforms remain delayed in WA despite workable models existing elsewhere.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781064343384-8g3nx3u2xwj.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Medical cannabis driving reforms stalled in Western Australia\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on why medical cannabis driving reforms remain delayed in WA despite workable models existing elsewhere.\",\"meta_title\":\"Medical cannabis driving reforms stalled in Western Australia\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on why medical cannabis driving reforms remain delayed in WA despite workable models existing elsewhere.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a28e31b1ee32200014fb53a\",\"uuid\":\"37720b71-a3a1-4abb-b326-3678d138bb6b\",\"title\":\"Radiation risks at Fleet Base West and the need for public safety\",\"slug\":\"radiation-risks-at-fleet-base-west\",\"html\":\"$4e\",\"comment_id\":\"6a28e31b1ee32200014fb53a\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781064472175-kcdjun1vt3.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-10T04:07:55.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-10T04:07:55.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-09T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the adequacy of public health preparedness for potential radiation emergencie
1s associated with nuclear-powered vessels docking in Western Australia.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-09/52\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fedf026a97700014b076d\",\"name\":\"AUKUS\",\"slug\":\"aukus\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/aukus/\"},{\"id\":\"6a28e31b1ee32200014fb53b\",\"name\":\"Public Health\",\"slug\":\"public-health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/public-health/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff07926a97700014b0796\",\"name\":\"Safety\",\"slug\":\"safety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/safety/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fedf026a97700014b076d\",\"name\":\"AUKUS\",\"slug\":\"aukus\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/aukus/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/radiation-risks-at-fleet-base-west/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the adequacy of public health preparedness for potential radiation emergencies associated with nuclear-powered vessels docking in Western Australia.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781064472175-kcdjun1vt3.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"AUKUS radiation safety and public health planning\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the health department on iodine stockpiles and emergency preparedness regarding nuclear-powered vessels in Cockburn Sound.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781064472175-kcdjun1vt3.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"AUKUS radiation safety and public health planning\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the health department on iodine stockpiles and emergency preparedness regarding nuclear-powered vessels in Cockburn Sound.\",\"meta_title\":\"AUKUS radiation safety and public health planning\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the health department on iodine stockpiles and emergency preparedness regarding nuclear-powered vessels in Cockburn Sound.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2aa477fb20dd00010601ee\",\"uuid\":\"309de536-8543-433f-adab-884061bfbb26\",\"title\":\"Stuck in the slow lane while patients are left behind\",\"slug\":\"stuck-in-the-slow-lane\",\"html\":\"$4f\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2aa477fb20dd00010601ee\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781179508082-oe1oumkd9s.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-11T12:05:11.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-11T12:05:11.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-09T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker highlights the stark contrast between WA and NSW regarding medicinal cannabis driving laws, questioning the government's inertia and lack of urgency on this critical public health issue.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-09/33\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"694254b71339c70001aadb5e\",\"name\":\"Politics\",\"slug\":\"politics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/politics/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/stuck-in-the-slow-lane/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker highlights the stark contrast between WA and NSW regarding medicinal cannabis driving laws, questioning the government's inertia and lack of urgency on this critical public health issue.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781179508082-oe1oumkd9s.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on why WA is lagging on medicinal cannabis driving\",\"og_description\":\"Western Australia is falling behind on medicinal cannabis driving reform. Dr Brian Walker examines why our government is choosing delay over progress.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781179508082-oe1oumkd9s.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on why WA is lagging on medicinal cannabis driving\",\"twitter_description\":\"Western Australia is falling behind on medicinal cannabis driving reform. Dr Brian Walker examines why our government is choosing delay over progress.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on why WA is lagging on medicinal cannabis driving\",\"meta_description\":\"Western Australia is falling behind on medicinal cannabis driving reform. Dr Brian Walker examines why our government is choosing delay over progress.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a2b9a03351f640001669316\",\"uuid\":\"347bcc6d-2dcb-4ad4-93eb-e90459a0ed38\",\"title\":\"Radiation Risks and the Silent Preparation Behind Our AUKUS Naval Rollout\",\"slug\":\"radiation-risks-aukus-naval-rollout\",\"html\":\"$50\",\"comment_id\":\"6a2b9a03351f640001669316\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781242367917-h9nqm0rfv1n.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-12T05:32:51.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-12T05:32:51.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-09T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the public health implications of nuclear-powered vessels in local waters and the state government's preparedness for potential radiation emergencie
1s.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-06-09/51\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692fedf026a97700014b076d\",\"name\":\"AUKUS\",\"slug\":\"aukus\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/aukus/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff07926a97700014b0796\",\"name\":\"Safety\",\"slug\":\"safety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/safety/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/transparency/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/radiation-risks-aukus-naval-rollout/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the public health implications of nuclear-powered vessels in local waters and the state government's preparedness for potential radiation emergencies.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781242367917-h9nqm0rfv1n.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Radiation Preparedness and the AUKUS Naval Rollout in Western Australia\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions government health preparedness plans regarding radiation risks from nuclear vessels in Cockburn Sound.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/1781242367917-h9nqm0rfv1n.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Radiation Preparedness and the AUKUS Naval Rollout in Western Australia\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions government health preparedness plans regarding radiation risks from nuclear vessels in Cockburn Sound.\",\"meta_title\":\"Radiation Preparedness and the AUKUS Naval Rollout in Western Australia\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions government health preparedness plans regarding radiation risks from nuclear vessels in Cockburn Sound.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a25ea08e1ea9000013070cd\",\"uuid\":\"558336e1-75f5-42af-b846-85bad8931231\",\"title\":\"The Geometry of the Vote\",\"slug\":\"the-geometry-of-the-vote\",\"html\":\"$51\",\"comment_id\":\"6a25ea08e1ea9000013070cd\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-06-07T22:00:40.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-06-07T22:00:40.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-08T21:59:27.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Electoral Architecture as Structural Variable\\n\\nOn 21 March 2026, more South Australians gave their first preference to One Nation than to the Liberal Party in the contest for the House of Assembly. Across the state One Nation drew 256,
1022 primary votes, or 22.9 per cent, against the Liberalsâ 211,55\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-geometry-of-the-vote\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-geometry-of-the-vote/\",\"excerpt\":\"Electoral Architecture as Structural Variable\\n\\nOn 21 March 2026, more South Australians gave their first preference to One Nation than to the Liberal Party in the contest for the House of Assembly. Across the state One Nation drew 256,022 primary votes, or 22.9 per cent, against the Liberalsâ 211,55\",\"reading_time\":12,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Geometry of the Vote\",\"og_description\":\"Electoral Architecture as Structural Variable\\n\\nOn 21 March 2026, more South Australians gave their first preference to One Nation than to the Liberal Party in the contest for the House of Assembly. Across the state One Nation drew 256,022 primary votes, or 22.9 per cent, against the Liberalsâ 211,55\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/06/cover.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Geometry of the Vote\",\"twitter_description\":\"Electoral Architecture as Structural Variable\\n\\nOn 21 March 2026, more South Australians gave their first preference to One Nation than to the Liberal Party in the contest for the House of Assembly. Across the state One Nation drew 256,022 primary votes, or 22.9 per cent, against the Liberalsâ 211,55\",\"meta_title\":\"The Geometry of the Vote\",\"meta_description\":\"Electoral Architecture as Structural Variable\\n\\nOn 21 March 2026, more South Australians gave their first preference to One Nation than to the Liberal Party in the contest for the House of Assembly. Across the state One Nation drew 256,
1022 primary votes, or 22.9 per cent, against the Liberalsâ 211,55\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a1ca639f686e00001b59a8d\",\"uuid\":\"a868cd04-c243-4f75-b65f-5d9ff121cc14\",\"title\":\"Who Owns the Channels\",\"slug\":\"who-owns-the-channels\",\"html\":\"$52\",\"comment_id\":\"6a1ca639f686e00001b59a8d\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-19.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-31T21:20:57.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-31T21:20:57.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-06-01T21:02:06.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Media Concentration and Counter-Architectures\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA democracy can reform the way it raises political money, redesign the chamber its representatives sit in, an\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/who-owns-the-channels\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/who-owns-the-channels/\",\"excerpt\":\"Media Concentration and Counter-Architectures\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA democracy can reform the way it raises political money, redesign the chamber its representatives sit in, an\",\"reading_time\":11,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-19.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Who Owns the Channels\",\"og_description\":\"Media Concentration and Counter-Architectures\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\
1n\\n\\n\\nA democracy can reform the way it raises political money, redesign the chamber its representatives sit in, an\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-19.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Who Owns the Channels\",\"twitter_description\":\"Media Concentration and Counter-Architectures\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA democracy can reform the way it raises political money, redesign the chamber its representatives sit in, an\",\"meta_title\":\"Who Owns the Channels\",\"meta_description\":\"Media Concentration and Counter-Architectures\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA democracy can reform the way it raises political money, redesign the chamber its representatives sit in, an\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a1374f140c4d400014f5bd2\",\"uuid\":\"e7139b6a-1b83-4291-9000-6ffabb984343\",\"title\":\"What the New Conditions Ask of Public Institutions\",\"slug\":\"what-the-new-conditions-ask-of-public\",\"html\":\"$53\",\"comment_id\":\"6a1374f140c4d400014f5bd2\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-18.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-24T22:00:17.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-24T22:00:17.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-25T21:01:11.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The shift in how public knowledge is produced extends beyond one writerâs practice. The institutions that produce and mediate public knowledge operate inside the same conditions. They include universities that train and credential its producers, newsrooms that publish its first drafts, and parliamen\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/what-the-new-conditions-ask-of-public\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/what-the-new-conditions-ask-of-public/\",\"excerpt\":\"The shift in how public knowledge is produced extends beyond one writerâs practice. The institutions that produce and mediate public knowledge operate inside the same conditions. They include universities that train and credential its producers, newsrooms that publish its first drafts, and parliamen\",\"reading_time\":10,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-18.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"What the New Conditions Ask of Public Institutions\",\"og_description\":\"The shift in how public knowledge is produced extends beyond one writerâs practice. The institutions that produce and mediate public knowledge operate inside the same conditions. They include universities that train and credential its producers, newsrooms that publish its first drafts, and parliamen\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-18.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"What the New Conditions Ask of Public Institutions\",\"twitter_description\":\"The shift in how public knowledge is produced extends beyond one writerâs practice. The institutions that produce and mediate public knowledge operate inside the same conditions. They include universities that train and credential its producers, newsrooms that publish its first drafts, and parliamen\",\"meta_title\":\"What the New Conditions Ask of Public Institutions\",\"meta_description\":\"The shift in how public knowledge is produced extends beyond one writerâs practice. The institutions that produce and mediate public knowledge operate inside the same conditions. They include universities that train and credential its producers, newsrooms that publish its first drafts, and parliamen\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a0a38465f87f90001366818\",\"uuid\":\"ee581a89-038d-4d0c-94fb-ea9cb71cd694\",\"title\":\"How The Walker Briefing Is Made\",\"slug\":\"how-the-walker-br
1iefing-is-made\",\"html\":\"$54\",\"comment_id\":\"6a0a38465f87f90001366818\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-17.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-17T21:51:02.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-17T21:51:02.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-18T21:01:37.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The architecture of public-facing analytical writing has shifted, and the shift carries a question for any writer who works inside the new conditions, namely what such conditions ask of them. The question is not optional neither does it answer itself.\\nWhat I have to settle, in writing under those co\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/how-the-walker-briefing-is-made\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/how-the-walker-briefing-is-made/\",\"excerpt\":\"The architecture of public-facing analytical writing has shifted, and the shift carries a question for any writer who works inside the new conditions, namely what such conditions ask of them. The question is not optional neither does it answer itself.\\nWhat I have to settle, in writing under those co\",\"reading_time\":10,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-17.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"How The Walker Briefing Is Made\",\"og_description\":\"The architecture of public-facing analytical writing has shifted, and the shift carries a question for any writer who works inside the new conditions, namely what such conditions ask of them. The question is not optional neither does it answer itself.\\nWhat I have to settle, in writing under those co\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-17.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"How The Walker Briefing Is Made\",\"twitter_description\":\"The architecture of public-facing analytical writing has shifted, and the shift carries a question for any writer who works inside the new conditions, namely what such conditions ask of them. The question is not optional neither does it answer itself.\\nWhat I have to settle, in writing under those co\",\"meta_title\":\"How The Walker Briefing Is Made\",\"meta_description\":\"The architecture of public-facing analytical writing has shifted, and the shift carries a question for any writer who works inside the new conditions, namely what such conditions ask of them. The question is not optional neither does it answer itself.\\nWhat I have to settle, in writing under those co\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a06a74446ac100001087149\",\"uuid\":\"8abba698-8b6c-4efc-9399-5795fdc6c5d0\",\"t
1itle\":\"When Political Theatre Replaces Accountability in the Legislative Council\",\"slug\":\"when-political-theatre-replaces-accountability\",\"html\":\"$55\",\"comment_id\":\"6a06a74446ac100001087149\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778820929102-0ur5zdq50jhl.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-15T04:55:32.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-15T04:55:32.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-14T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the rising trend of political obfuscation in Parliament, arguing that when question time becomes theatre, public trust and genuine accountability suffer significantly.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-14/4\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fd12826a97700014b0728\",\"name\":\"Accountability\",\"slug\":\"accountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/accountability/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff71a26a97700014b07d9\",\"name\":\"Democracy\",\"slug\":\"democracy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/democracy/\"},{\"id\":\"694254b71339c70001aadb5e\",\"name\":\"Politics\",\"slug\":\"politics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/politics/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fd12826a97700014b0728\",\"name\":\"Accountability\",\"slug\":\"accountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/accountability/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/when-political-theatre-replaces-accountability/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the rising trend of political obfuscation in Parliament, arguing that when question time becomes theatre, public trust and genuine accountability suffer significantly.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778820929102-0ur5zdq50jhl.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Accountability in the Legislative Council: A GP View\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores why political obfuscation is degrading our democracy and what we can do to restore genuine ministerial accountability.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778820929102-0ur5zdq50jhl.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Accountability in the Legislative Council: A GP View\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores why political obfuscation is degrading our democracy and what we can do to restore genuine ministerial accountability.\",\"meta_title\":\"Accountability in the Legislative Council: A GP View\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores why political obfuscation is degrading our democracy and what we can do to restore genuine ministerial accountability.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a06a8d146ac10000108715c\",\"uuid\":\"ec627b12-0c8b-4b96-80d3-cb2ccc3ce242\",\"title\":\"Road safety reform remains trapped in the halls of government bureaucracy\",\"slug\":\"road-safety-reform-trapped-in-bureaucracy\",\"html\":\"$56\",\"comment_id\":\"6a06a8d146ac10000108715c\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821326099-vax21qfo7z9.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-15T05:02:09.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-15T05:02:09.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-13T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why the government is still sitting on a vital safety report concerning medicinal cannabis patients and their ability to drive legally.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-13/22\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff07926a97700014b0796\",\"name\":\"Safety\",\"slug\":\"safety\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/safety/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/road-safety-reform-trapped-in-bureaucracy/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why the government is still sitting on a vital safety report concerning medicinal cannabis patients and their ability to drive legally.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821326099-vax21qfo7z9.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Road Safety Report Still Under Consideration\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on the stalled medicinal cannabis and road safety report currently gathering dust in the halls of government.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821326099-vax21qfo7z9.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Road Safety Report Still Under Consideration\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on the stalled medicinal cannabis and road safety report currently gathering dust in the halls of government.\",\"meta_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Road Safety Report Still Under Consideration\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on the stalled medicinal cannabis and road safety report currently gathering dust in the halls of government.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a06a90146ac100001087164\",\"uuid\":\"4eb0138a-41d6-447f-bc21-aab4d9139aee\",\"title\":\"Protecting vital mental health services from the silence of bureaucracy\",\"slug\":\"protecting-vital-mental-health-services\",\"html\":\"$57\",\"comment_id\":\"6a06a90146ac100001087164\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821375007-kr711qeynm.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-15T05:02:57.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-15T05:02:57.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-13T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the recent uncertainty surrounding the Listening Lounge funding and stresses the critical need for reliable, peer-based mental health support for our community.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-13/41\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"69324e9df0f2bc0001e6d9e0\",\"name\":\"MentalHealth\",\"slug\":\"mentalhealth\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/mentalhealth/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956bd\",\"name\":\"Community\",\"slug\":\"community\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/community/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"69324e9df0f2bc0001e6d9e0\",\"name\":\"MentalHealth\",\"slug\":\"mentalhealth\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/mentalhealth/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/protecting-vital-mental-health-services/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the recent uncertainty surrounding the Listening Lounge funding and stresses the critical need for reliable, peer-based mental health support for our community.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821375007-kr711qeynm.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Why we must protect the Listening Lounge mental health service\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the uncertainty surrounding the Listening Lounge and advocates for consistent support for peer-led mental health services.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821375007-kr711qeynm.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Why we must protect the Listening Lounge mental health service\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the uncertainty surrounding the Listening Lounge and advocates for consistent support for peer-led mental health services.\",\"meta_title\":\"Why we must protect the Listening Lounge mental health service\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the uncertainty surrounding the Listening Lounge and advocates for consistent support for peer-led mental health services.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a151476256e1100016ea9f8\",\"uuid\":\"911c6d42-9e9d-45a4-8aa4-e095037e6167\",\"title\":\"The Dingo Dilemma: Is it time to rethink our approach to native predators?\",\"slug\":\"the-dingo-dilemma-rethinking-native-predators\",\"html\":\"$58\",\"comment_id\":\"6a151476256e1100016ea9f8\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1779766386994-uu7nop5har.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-26T03:33:10.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-26T03:33:10.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-13T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the urgent need to move beyond outdated, lethal methods of managing Australia's apex predator toward a model based on science and respect.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-13/8\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"pro
1file_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6a06a8a046ac100001087152\",\"name\":\"Dingoes\",\"slug\":\"dingoes\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/dingoes/\"},{\"id\":\"69200a2916dbdf00016956d0\",\"name\":\"Environment\",\"slug\":\"environment\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/environment/\"},{\"id\":\"6a151476256e1100016ea9f9\",\"name\":\"Biosecurity\",\"slug\":\"biosecurity\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/biosecurity/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd3a126a97700014b0752\",\"name\":\"Science\",\"slug\":\"science\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/science/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6a06a8a046ac100001087152\",\"name\":\"Dingoes\",\"slug\":\"dingoes\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/dingoes/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-dingo-dilemma-rethinking-native-predators/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker reflects on the urgent need to move beyond outdated, lethal methods of managing Australia's apex predator toward a model based on science and respect.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1779766386994-uu7nop5har.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Dingo Dilemma: Time for a New Approach to Native Predators\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the controversial management of Australia's native dingoes and explores a more compassionate, evidence-based path forward.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1779766386994-uu7nop5har.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Dingo Dilemma: Time for a New Approach to Native Predators\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the controversial management of Australia's native dingoes and explores a more compassionate, evidence-based path forward.\",\"meta_title\":\"The Dingo Dilemma: Time for a New Approach to Native Predators\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the controversial management of Australia's native dingoes and explores a more compassionate, evidence-based path forward.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a06a93346ac10000108716c\",\"uuid\":\"2ddd0459-25d0-49b3-ba1e-ca1c26a0e718\",\"title\":\"Why is the government hiding the medicinal cannabis driving report from us\",\"slug\":\"hiding-medicinal-cannabis-driving-report\",\"html\":\"$59\",\"comment_id\":\"6a06a93346ac10000108716c\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821424559-jslko222tba.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-15T05:03:47.
1000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-15T05:03:47.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-12T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the ongoing delay and lack of transparency surrounding the government's review of the Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-12/18\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/transparency/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/hiding-medicinal-cannabis-driving-report/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions the ongoing delay and lack of transparency surrounding the government's review of the Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821424559-jslko222tba.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Driving Report: Government Obfuscation\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government stalls on the vital Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778821424559-jslko222tba.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Driving Report: Government Obfuscation\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government stalls on the vital Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report.\",\"meta_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Driving Report: Government Obfuscation\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government stalls on the vital Medicinal Cannabis and Safe Driving Working Group report.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a014ad4ca54420001fcc890\",\"uuid\":\"64855da1-ee56-47af-8543-0182ed84bc33\",\"title\":\"How Public Knowledge Is Made Now\",\"slug\":\"how-public-knowledge-is-made-now\",\"html\":\"$5a\",\"comment_id\":\"6a014ad4ca54420001fcc890\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-14.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-11T03:19:48.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-11T03:19:48.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-11T21:00:17.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"I\\nAsked what they expect of news produced with the help of artificial intelligence, audiences across forty-eight markets reply in a consistent pattern. They expect such news to be cheaper to make, by a net margin of twenty-nine percentage points, and more up-to-date, by sixteen. They expect it to be\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/how-public-knowledge-is-made-now\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/how-public-knowledge-is-made-now/\",\"excerpt\":\"I\\nAsked what they expect of news produced with the help of artificial intelligence, audiences across forty-eight markets reply in a consistent pattern. They expect such news to be cheaper to make, by a net margin of twenty-nine percentage points, and more up-to-date, by sixteen. They expect it to be\",\"reading_time\":9,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-14.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"How Public Knowledge Is Made Now\",\"og_description\":\"I\\nAsked what they expect of news produced with the help of artificial intelligence, audiences across forty-eight markets reply in a consistent pattern. They expect such news to be cheaper to make, by a net margin of twenty-nine percentage points, and more up-to-date, by sixteen. They expect it to be\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-14.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"How Public Knowledge Is Made Now\",\"twitter_description\":\"I\\nAsked what they expect of news produced with the help of artificial intelligence, audiences across forty-eight markets reply in a consistent pattern. They expect such news to be cheaper to make, by a net margin of twenty-nine percentage points, and more up-to-date, by sixteen. They expect it to be\",\"meta_title\":\"How Public Knowledge Is Made Now\",\"meta_description\":\"I\\nAsked what they expect of news produced with the help of artificial intelligence, audiences across forty-eight markets reply in a consistent pattern. They expect such news to be cheaper to make, by a net margin of twenty-nine percentage points, and more up-to-date, by sixteen. They expect it to be\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69fc7113ec248f0001b3fc17\",\"uuid\":\"2bf4cede-9843-4bdc-9936-6d13c58f4dd4\",\"title\":\"Stalling on medicinal cannabis safety laws leaves Western Australians in the dark\",\"slug\":\"stalling-on-medicinal-cannabis-safety-laws\",\"html\":\"$5b\",\"comment_id\":\"69fc7113ec248f0001b3fc17\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778151695380-ftrtuyj665i.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-07T11:01:39.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-07T11:01:39.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-07T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker presses the government for the release of key recommendations regarding medicinal cannabis and driving, highlighting the ongoing lack of transparency for patients in Western Australia.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-07/23\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/trans
1parency/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/stalling-on-medicinal-cannabis-safety-laws/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker presses the government for the release of key recommendations regarding medicinal cannabis and driving, highlighting the ongoing lack of transparency for patients in Western Australia.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778151695380-ftrtuyj665i.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Driving Laws: Why Is The Government Stalling?\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government continues to withhold vital recommendations on medicinal cannabis and safe driving laws.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778151695380-ftrtuyj665i.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Driving Laws: Why Is The Government Stalling?\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government continues to withhold vital recommendations on medicinal cannabis and safe driving laws.\",\"meta_title\":\"Medicinal Cannabis Driving Laws: Why Is The Government Stalling?\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands transparency as the government continues to withhold vital recommendations on medicinal cannabis and safe driving laws.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69fc75c1ec248f0001b3fc20\",\"uuid\":\"46afdd77-7de5-4cb7-a92b-326e513ac8e5\",\"title\":\"Breaking our addiction to expensive foreign fuel with local innovation\",\"slug\":\"breaking-our-addiction-to-expensive-foreign-fuel\",\"html\":\"$5c\",\"comment_id\":\"69fc75c1ec248f0001b3fc20\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778152893537-9hsk59dcq4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-07T11:21:37.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-07T11:21:37.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-07T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the potential for Western Australian biofuel production to provide local solutions to international fuel price volatility and secure our energy future.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-07/40\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fd0a326a97700014b0716\",\"name\":\"Energy\",\"slug\":\"energy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/energy/\"},{\"id\":\"69fc75c1ec248f0001b3fc21\",\"name\":\"Biofuels\",\"slug\":\"biofuels\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/biofuels/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695712\",\"name\":\"Agriculture\",\"slug\":\"agriculture\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/agriculture/\"},{\"id\":\"692fb7d126a97700014b06d2\",\"name\":\"WA\",\"slug\":\"wa\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/wa/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fd0a326a97700014b0716\",\"name\":\"Energy\",\"slug\":\"energy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/energy/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/breaking-our-addiction-to-expensive-foreign-fuel/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the potential for Western Australian biofuel production to provide local solutions to international fuel price volatility and secure our energy future.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778152893537-9hsk59dcq4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Breaking WA's reliance on foreign oil with local biofuels\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the need for local biofuel production to protect Western Australians from international fuel price shocks and energy insecurity.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778152893537-9hsk59dcq4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Breaking WA's reliance on foreign oil with local biofuels\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the need for local biofuel production to protect Western Australians from international fuel price shocks and energy insecurity.\",\"meta_title\":\"Breaking WA's reliance on foreign oil with local biofuels\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker explores the need for local biofuel production to protect Western Australians from international fuel price shocks and energy insecurity.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69faf7aa3d091500011abd04\",\"uuid\":\"d7843dfd-fe65-4545-8620-6edaa8151055\",\"title\":\"A state of stagnation: Why our legislative agenda is failing Western Australia\",\"slug\":\"a-state-of-stagnation-legislative-failure\",\"html\":\"$5d\",\"comment_id\":\"69faf7aa3d091500011abd04\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778055079117-lf40t4wwqyc.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-06T08:11:22.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-06T08:11:22.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-06T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the legislative backlog and the government's inability to deliver on long-promised reforms that impact every Western Australian citizen.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-06/4\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"69faf7aa3d091500011abd05\",\"name\":\"Law Reform\",\"slug\":\"law-reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/law-reform/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd12826a97700014b0728\",\"name\":\"Accountability\",\"slug\":\"accountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/accountability/\"},{\"id\":\"69faf7aa3d091500011abd06\",\"name\":\"Government\",\"slug\":\"government\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/government/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"69faf7aa3d091500011abd05\",\"name\":\"Law Reform\",\"slug\":\"law-reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/law-reform/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/a-state-of-stagnation-legislative-failure/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the legislative backlog and the government's inability to deliver on long-promised reforms that impact every Western Australian citizen.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778055079117-lf40t4wwqyc.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on government failure to deliver essential law reform\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls out the government for years of inaction on critical law reforms that affect the daily lives of Western Australians.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778055079117-lf40t4wwqyc.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on government failure to deliver essential law reform\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls out the government for years of inaction on critical law reforms that affect the daily lives of Western Australians.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on government failure to deliver essential law reform\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls out the government for years of inaction on critical law reforms that affect the daily lives of Western Australians.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69fbc857ec248f0001b3fc04\",\"uuid\":\"1768d74e-f202-4ff1-b545-044f6cd2d9c8\",\"title\":\"The endless waiting game for medicinal cannabis patients in Western Australia\",\"slug\":\"the-endless-waiting-game-for-medicinal-cannabis-patients\",\"html\":\"$5e\",\"comment_id\":\"69fbc857ec248f0001b3fc04\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778108500052-4t3h6r7zfwx.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-06T23:01:43.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-06T23:01:43.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-06T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the persistent government delays surrounding medicinal cannabis driving laws and the real world impacts on patients waiting for legislative reform.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-06/19\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"694254b71339c70001aadb5e\",\"name\":\"Politics\",\"slug\":\"politics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/politics/\"},{\"id\":\"6942a88b1339c70001aadc3c\",\"name\":\"Driving\",\"slug\":\"driving\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:236
18/tag/driving/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-endless-waiting-game-for-medicinal-cannabis-patients/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the persistent government delays surrounding medicinal cannabis driving laws and the real world impacts on patients waiting for legislative reform.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778108500052-4t3h6r7zfwx.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving laws remain stuck in bureaucratic limbo\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why the government continues to stall on common sense medicinal cannabis driving law reform.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778108500052-4t3h6r7zfwx.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving laws remain stuck in bureaucratic limbo\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why the government continues to stall on common sense medicinal cannabis driving law reform.\",\"meta_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving laws remain stuck in bureaucratic limbo\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why the government continues to stall on common sense medicinal cannabis driving law reform.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a15400c256e1100016eaa0e\",\"uuid\":\"9a93bdc9-1eb4-4cc4-96e7-d55350c4dca6\",\"title\":\"The Brutal Reality Behind Our Collapsing State Housing System\",\"slug\":\"the-brutal-reality-behind-our-collapsing-state-housing-system\",\"html\":\"$5f\",\"comment_id\":\"6a15400c256e1100016eaa0e\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1779777545449-tlte1nutcvs.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-26T06:39:08.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-26T06:39:08.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-06T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the crisis in public housing, revealing the devastating wait times that thousands of Western Australians face while trying to secure a home.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-06/36\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6942ad851339c70001aadc5e\",\"name\":\"Housing\",\"slug\":\"housing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/housing/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"694254b71339c70001aadb5e\",\"name\":\"Politics\",\"slug\":\"politics\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/politics/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6942ad851339c70001aadc5e\",\"name\":\"Housing\",\"slug\":\"housing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/housing/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-brutal-reality-behind-our-collapsing-state-housing-system/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the crisis in public housing, reveal
1ing the devastating wait times that thousands of Western Australians face while trying to secure a home.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1779777545449-tlte1nutcvs.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The truth about the WA public housing crisis\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker exposes the failings of the state housing system as waitlists spiral out of control and thousands of families are left behind.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1779777545449-tlte1nutcvs.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The truth about the WA public housing crisis\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker exposes the failings of the state housing system as waitlists spiral out of control and thousands of families are left behind.\",\"meta_title\":\"The truth about the WA public housing crisis\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker exposes the failings of the state housing system as waitlists spiral out of control and thousands of families are left behind.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69fac00f3d091500011abcda\",\"uuid\":\"075f78c3-15f4-46fe-98a9-b374ff5c1b4c\",\"title\":\"The Hidden Costs of Normalised Government Spending in Western Australia Today\",\"slug\":\"hidden-costs-of-normalised-spending\",\"html\":\"$60\",\"comment_id\":\"69fac00f3d091500011abcda\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778040843922-428b6ztj1xe.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-06T04:14:07.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-06T04:14:07.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-05T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the concerning trend of normalised, unchecked government expenditure, calling for greater fiscal transparency and accountability in Western Australia.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-05/12\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"69f9c39aa5853400019a5153\",\"name\":\"Budget\",\"slug\":\"budget\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/budget/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0706\",\"name\":\"Transparency\",\"slug\":\"transparency\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/transparency/\"},{\"id\":\"69322d87f0f2bc0001e6d982\",\"name\":\"Governance\",\"slug\":\"governance\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/governance/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/hidden-costs-of-normalised-spending/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the concerning trend of normalised, unchecked government expenditure, calling for greater fiscal transparency and accountability in Western Australia.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778040843922-428b6ztj1xe.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why government spending through the Treasurer's Advance has become the new normal, bypassing scrutiny.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778040843922-428b6ztj1xe.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why government spending through the Treasurer's Advance has become the new normal, bypassing scrutiny.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker questions why government spending through the Treasurer's Advance has become the new normal, bypassing scrutiny.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69fac1a93d091500011abcfb\",\"uuid\":\"1b23d2f8-b210-4279-9224-83851c9d2e3a\",\"title\":\"Cutting Red Tape for Medicinal Cannabis Patients in Western Australia\",\"slug\":\"cutting-red-tape-medicinal-cannabis\",\"html\":\"$61\",\"comment_id\":\"69fac1a93d091500011abcfb\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778041254835-z4qw1k1znpq.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-06T04:20:57.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-06T04:20:57.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-05T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker highlights the ongoing battle to remove bureaucratic barriers for patients seeking medical cannabis access in Western Australia.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-05/40\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/cutting-red-tape-medicinal-cannabis/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker highlights the ongoing battle to remove bureaucratic barriers for patients seeking medical cannabis access in Western Australia.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778041254835-z4qw1k1znpq.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Progress on Medicinal Cannabis Regulations\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the current status of medicinal cannabis regulations and the long road to cutting red tape for Western Australian patients.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778041254835-z4qw1k1znpq.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Progress on Medicinal Cannabis Regulations\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the current status of medicinal cannabis regulations and the long road to cutting red tape for Western Australian patients.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker: Progress on Medicinal Cannabis Regulations\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker examines the current status of medicinal cannabis regulations and the long road to cutting red tape for Western Australian patients.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"6a01499eca54420001fcc885\",\"uuid\":\"538f7333-79a6-47bc-98fd-065736c32121\",\"title\":\"Stalling on driving reform leaves medicinal cannabis patients trapped in fear\",\"slug\":\"stalling-on-driving-reform-leaves-medicinal-cannabis-patients-trapped-in-fear\",\"html\":\"$62\",\"comment_id\":\"6a01499eca54420001fcc885\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778469275609-ltl106dhjed.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-11T03:14:38.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-11T03:14:38.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-05T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the government's frustrating delay in releasing the findings from the medicinal cannabis and driving working group, highlighting the ongoing impact on patients.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-05-05/22\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6a01499eca54420001fcc886\",\"name\":\"Medicinal Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"medicinal-cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/medicinal-cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6a01499eca54420001fcc886\",\"name\":\"Medicinal Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"medicinal-cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/medicinal-cannabis/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/stalling-on-driving-reform-leaves-medicinal-cannabis-patients-trapped-in-fear/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker addresses the government's frustrating delay in releasing the findings from the medicinal cannabis and driving working group, highlighting the ongoing impact on patients.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/1778469275609-ltl106dhjed.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving reform delayed by government inaction\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on delayed THC driving reform as patients face ongoing uncertainty and legal risks.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/
105/1778469275609-ltl106dhjed.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving reform delayed by government inaction\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on delayed THC driving reform as patients face ongoing uncertainty and legal risks.\",\"meta_title\":\"Medicinal cannabis driving reform delayed by government inaction\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker demands answers on delayed THC driving reform as patients face ongoing uncertainty and legal risks.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69fac1973d091500011abcf4\",\"uuid\":\"598eebf4-38d8-4769-a8ab-afa343d37578\",\"title\":\"The Beneficiary's Account\",\"slug\":\"the-beneficiarys-account\",\"html\":\"$63\",\"comment_id\":\"69fac1973d091500011abcf4\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-13.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-06T04:20:39.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-06T04:20:39.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-05-04T21:01:42.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Political Funding and the Architecture of Capture\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe Available Remedies, Part Four\\nThe previous article in this series examined deliberative democracy and\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-beneficiarys-account\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-beneficiarys-account/\",\"excerpt\":\"Political Funding and the Architecture of Capture\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\
1n\\n\\n\\nThe Available Remedies, Part Four\\nThe previous article in this series examined deliberative democracy and\",\"reading_time\":18,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-13.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Beneficiary's Account\",\"og_description\":\"Political Funding and the Architecture of Capture\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe Available Remedies, Part Four\\nThe previous article in this series examined deliberative democracy and\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-13.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Beneficiary's Account\",\"twitter_description\":\"Political Funding and the Architecture of Capture\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe Available Remedies, Part Four\\nThe previous article in this series examined deliberative democracy and\",\"meta_title\":\"The Beneficiary's Account\",\"meta_description\":\"Political Funding and the Architecture of Capture\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe Available Remedies, Part Four\\nThe previous article in this series examined deliberative democracy and\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69fa9e173d091500011abc5d\",\"uuid\":\"ab9de13d-de73-41a3-a7d3-a8b0728aff3b\",\"title\":\"What Deliberative Democracy Actually - IsThe Available Remedies, Part Two\",\"slug\":\"what-deliberative-democracy-actually-2\",\"html\":\"$64\",\"comment_id\":\"69fa9e173d091500011abc5d\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-2.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-06T01:49:11.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-06T01:49:11.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-04-27T21:01:05.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/what-deliberative-democracy-actually\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-briefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/what-deliberative-democracy-actually-2/\",\"excerpt\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"reading_time\":13,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-2.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"What Deliberative Democracy Actually - IsThe Available Remedies, Part Two\",\"og_description\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-2.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"What Deliberative Democracy Actually - IsThe Available Remedies, Part Two\",\"twitter_description\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"meta_title\":\"What Deliberative Democracy Actually - IsThe Available Remedies, Part Two\",\"meta_description\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69ed6acb3aaf860001d78d07\",\"uuid\":\"cb5d0b11-6b7b-44aa-ade3-c8df5c531c22\",\"title\":\"The Hand That Was Never Fed\",\"slug\":\"the-hand-that-was-never-fed\",\"html\":\"$65\",\"comment_id\":\"69ed6acb3aaf860001d78d07\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-6.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-04-26T01:30:51.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-04-26T01:30:51.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-04-27T00:27:40.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"In Perth in recent days, in a hotel function room, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the countryâs largest gas and mining companies sat down with the Premier and the Prime Minister and told them, with no apparent embarrassment, not to bite the hand that feeds them. The headline writers obliged.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-hand-that-was-never-fed\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-hand-that-was-never-fed/\",\"excerpt\":\"In Perth in recent days, in a hotel function room, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the countryâs largest gas and mining companies sat down with the Premier and the Prime Minister and told them, with no apparent embarrassment, not to bite the hand that feeds them. The headline writers obliged.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-6.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Hand That Was Never Fed\",\"og_description\":\"In Perth in recent days, in a hotel function room, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the countryâs largest gas and mining companies sat down with the Premier and the Prime Minister and told them, with no apparent embarrassment, not to bite the hand that feeds them. The headline writers obliged.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-6.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Hand That Was Never Fed\",\"twitter_description\":\"In Perth in recent days, in a hotel function room, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the countryâs largest gas and mining companies sat down with the Premier and the Prime Minister and told them, with no apparent embarrassment, not to bite the hand that feeds them. The headline writers obliged.\",\"meta_title\":\"The Hand That Was Never Fed\",\"meta_description\":\"In Perth in recent days, in a hotel function room, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy and the countryâs largest gas and mining companies sat down with the Premier and the Prime Minister and told them, with no apparent embarrassment, not to bite the hand that feeds them. The headline writers obliged.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69fa9e1c3d091500011abc6b\",\"uuid\":\"9f53edff-6a20-44d5-823b-4691bff11c7b\",\"title\":\"THE UPSTREAM PRINCIPLE - The Available Remedies, Part One\",\"slug\":\"the-upstream-principle-the-available-2\",\"html\":\"$66\",\"comment_id\":\"69fa9e1c3d091500011abc6b\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-05-06T01:49:16.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-05-06T01:49:16.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-04-20T20:01:01.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-upstream-principle-the-available\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-upstream-principle-the-available-2/\",\"excerpt\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"reading_time\":10,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"THE UPSTREAM PRINCIPLE - The Available Remedies, Part One\",\"og_description\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/05/cover-4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"THE UPSTREAM PRINCIPLE - The Available Remedies, Part One\",\"twitter_description\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"meta_title\":\"THE UPSTREAM PRINCIPLE - The Available Remedies, Part One\",\"meta_description\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69de9f299f3a160001765081\",\"uuid\":\"3b02a827-916e-4987-939c-215b54428cca\",\"title\":\"What Australia Actually Did\",\"slug\":\"what-australia-actually-did\",\"html\":\"$67\",\"comment_id\":\"69de9f299f3a160001765081\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-04-14T20:10:17.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-04-14T20:10:17.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-04-15T20:00:53.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The question that has not been asked\\nIn the six weeks between the twenty-eighth of February and the eighth of April, the Australian government took a series of decisions in response to the American and Israeli war against Iran. Most Australians do not know what those decisions were. The decisions we\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/what-australia-actually-did\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/what-australia-actually-did/\",\"excerpt\":\"The question that has not been asked\\nIn the six weeks between the twenty-eighth of February and the eighth of April, the Australian government took a series of decisions in response to the American and Israeli war against Iran. Most Australians do not know what those decisions were. The decisions we\",\"reading_time\":13,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"What Australia Actually Did\",\"og_description\":\"The question that has not been asked\\nIn the six weeks between the twenty-eighth of February and the eighth of April, the Australian government took a series of decisions in response to the American and Israeli war against Iran. Most Australians do not know what those decisions were. The decisions we\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"What Australia Actually Did\",\"twitter_description\":\"The question that has not been asked\\nIn the six weeks between the twenty-eighth of February and the eighth of April, the Australian government took a series of decisions in response to the American and Israeli war against Iran. Most Australians do not know what those decisions were. The decisions we\",\"meta_title\":\"What Australia Actually Did\",\"meta_description\":\"The question that has not been asked\\nIn the six weeks between the twenty-eighth of February and the eighth of April, the Australian government took a series of decisions in response to the American and Israeli war against Iran. Most Australians do not know what those decisions were. The decisions we\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69dc0a5da811580001bff7b4\",\"uuid\":\"feff256c-24fa-4db4-825d-67e64cc6263d\",\"title\":\"The Upstream Principle\",\"slug\":\"the-upstream-principle\",\"html\":\"$68\",\"comment_id\":\"69dc0a5da811580001bff7b4\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-3.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-04-12T21:10:53.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-04-12T21:10:53.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-04-13T20:01:13.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The Available Remedies, Part One\\n\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA note on what follows\\nYesterday I examined how the condition this Briefing has been diagnosing appears at the centre of \",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-upstream-principle\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-upstream-principle/\",\"excerpt\":\"The Available Remedies, Part One\\n\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA note on what follows\\nYesterday I examined how the condition this Briefing has been diagnosing appears at the centre of \",\"reading_time\":14,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-3.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Upstream Principle\",\"og_description\":\"The Available Remedies, Part One\\n\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA note on what follows\\nYesterday I examined how the condition this Briefing has been diagnosing appears at the centre of \",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-3.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Upstream Principle\",\"twitter_description\":\"The Available Remedies, Part One\\n\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA note on what follows\\nYesterday I examined how the condition this Briefing has been diagnosing appears at the centre of \",\"meta_title\":\"The Upstream Principle\",\"meta_description\":\"The Available Remedies, Part One\\n\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nA note on what follows\\nYesterday I examined how the condition this Briefing has been diagnosing appears at the centre of \",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69dab3fdbaa5090001f8ba62\",\"uuid\":\"7aa13096-b300-42d1-96fd-1d390c38b534\",\"title\":\"The War That Proved the Diagnosis\",\"slug\":\"the-war-that-proved-the-diagnosis\",\"html\":\"$69\",\"comment_id\":\"69dab3fdbaa5090001f8ba62\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-2.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-04-11T20:50:05.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-04-11T20:50:05.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-04-12T20:00:55.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Six weeks that answered a question\\nIn the last weeks I published the second article in a series on the Confucian concept of disciplined proportionate response. The article was titled âWhat Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires.â It asked whether Australia could afford to continue calibrating its\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-war-that-proved-the-diagnosis\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-war-that-proved-the-diagnosis/\",\"excerpt\":\"Six weeks that answered a question\\nIn the last weeks I published the second article in a series on the Confucian concept of disciplined proportionate response. The article was titled âWhat Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires.â It asked whether Australia could afford to continue calibrating its\",\"reading_time\":8,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-2.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The War That Proved the Diagnosis\",\"og_description\":\"Six weeks that answered a question\\nIn the last weeks I published the second article in a series on the Confucian concept of disciplined proportionate response. The article was titled âWhat Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires.â It asked whether Australia could afford to continue calibrating its\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-2.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The War That Proved the Diagnosis\",\"twitter_description\":\"Six weeks that answered a question\\nIn the last weeks I published the second article in a series on the Confucian concept of disciplined proportionate response. The article was titled âWhat Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires.â It asked whether Australia could afford to continue calibrating its\",\"meta_title\":\"The War That Proved the Diagnosis\",\"meta_description\":\"Six weeks that answered a question\\nIn the last weeks I published the second article in a series on the Confucian concept of disciplined proportionate response. The article was titled âWhat Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires.â It asked whether Australia could afford to continue calibrating its\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69d44bcfb9e210000116383b\",\"uuid\":\"cd118ab8-7f0e-481f-9c4c-bae71f3b54f5\",\"title\":\"What the Patient Decides\",\"slug\":\"what-the-patient-decides\",\"html\":\"$6a\",\"comment_id\":\"69d44bcfb9e210000116383b\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-1.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-04-07T00:11:59.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-04-07T00:11:59.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-04-06T20:00:59.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The consulting room\\nIn the opening passage of the final article in this series, I described a moment familiar to any general practitioner: the moment after the investigations are complete, the referrals have returned, and the diagnosis is no longer in doubt. The patient sits across the desk. The fil\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/what-the-patient-decides\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/what-the-patient-decides/\",\"excerpt\":\"The consulting room\\nIn the opening passage of the final article in this series, I described a moment familiar to any general practitioner: the moment after the investigations are complete, the referrals have returned, and the diagnosis is no longer in doubt. The patient sits across the desk. The fil\",\"reading_time\":6,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-1.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"What the Patient Decides\",\"og_description\":\"The consulting room\\nIn the opening passage of the final article in this series, I described a moment familiar to any general practitioner: the moment after the investigations are complete, the referrals have returned, and the diagnosis is no longer in doubt. The patient sits across the desk. The fil\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover-1.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"What the Patient Decides\",\"twitter_description\":\"The consulting room\\nIn the opening passage of the final article in this series, I described a moment familiar to any general practitioner: the moment after the investigations are complete, the referrals have returned, and the diagnosis is no longer in doubt. The patient sits across the desk. The fil\",\"meta_title\":\"What the Patient Decides\",\"meta_description\":\"The consulting room\\nIn the opening passage of the final article in this series, I described a moment familiar to any general practitioner: the moment after the investigations are complete, the referrals have returned, and the diagnosis is no longer in doubt. The patient sits across the desk. The fil\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69d02a7c847dd60001f2b8c5\",\"uuid\":\"7337e76a-a714-4cf4-9c78-2c82df6cee9a\",\"title\":\"The System That Teaches Silence\",\"slug\":\"the-system-that-teaches-silence\",\"html\":\"$6b\",\"comment_id\":\"69d02a7c847dd60001f2b8c5\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-04-03T21:00:44.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-04-03T21:00:44.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-04-04T20:00:44.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"When I first entered parliament, a colleague took me aside and offered what he clearly considered a kind lesson. He explained to the me - the newbie - how the system actually works: stay on the right side of the party room, and you will be able to do things for your constituents. Cross it, and you w\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-system-that-teaches-silence\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-system-that-teaches-silence/\",\"excerpt\":\"When I first entered parliament, a colleague took me aside and offered what he clearly considered a kind lesson. He explained to the me - the newbie - how the system actually works: stay on the right side of the party room, and you will be able to do things for your constituents. Cross it, and you w\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The System That Teaches Silence\",\"og_description\":\"When I first entered parliament, a colleague took me aside and offered what he clearly considered a kind lesson. He explained to the me - the newbie - how the system actually works: stay on the right side of the party room, and you will be able to do things for your constituents. Cross it, and you w\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/04/cover.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The System That Teaches Silence\",\"twitter_description\":\"When I first entered parliament, a colleague took me aside and offered what he clearly considered a kind lesson. He explained to the me - the newbie - how the system actually works: stay on the right side of the party room, and you will be able to do things for your constituents. Cross it, and you w\",\"meta_title\":\"The System That Teaches Silence\",\"meta_description\":\"When I first entered parliament, a colleague took me aside and offered what he clearly considered a kind lesson. He explained to the me - the newbie - how the system actually works: stay on the right side of the party room, and you will be able to do things for your constituents. Cross it, and you w\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69c98e599930e90001c3eb7e\",\"uuid\":\"a5dc1d30-ffed-4f82-a190-f2054838820f\",\"title\":\"The Recovery of Judgement\",\"slug\":\"the-recovery-of-judgement\",\"html\":\"$6c\",\"comment_id\":\"69c98e599930e90001c3eb7e\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-22.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-29T20:40:57.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-29T20:40:57.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-30T20:01:51.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Where are we now?\\nAs a medical practitioner I often sit in front of a patient with the results of investigations and referrals which mandate an action. Perhaps it is a cardiovascular urgency: familial hyperlipidaemia has produced a 95 per cent stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-recovery-of-judgement\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-recovery-of-judgement/\",\"excerpt\":\"Where are we now?\\nAs a medical practitioner I often sit in front of a patient with the results of investigations and referrals which mandate an action. Perhaps it is a cardiovascular urgency: familial hyperlipidaemia has produced a 95 per cent stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery\",\"reading_time\":16,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-22.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Recovery of Judgement\",\"og_description\":\"Where are we now?\\nAs a medical practitioner I often sit in front of a patient with the results of investigations and referrals which mandate an action. Perhaps it is a cardiovascular urgency: familial hyperlipidaemia has produced a 95 per cent stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-22.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Recovery of Judgement\",\"twitter_description\":\"Where are we now?\\nAs a medical practitioner I often sit in front of a patient with the results of investigations and referrals which mandate an action. Perhaps it is a cardiovascular urgency: familial hyperlipidaemia has produced a 95 per cent stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery\",\"meta_title\":\"The Recovery of Judgement\",\"meta_description\":\"Where are we now?\\nAs a medical practitioner I often sit in front of a patient with the results of investigations and referrals which mandate an action. Perhaps it is a cardiovascular urgency: familial hyperlipidaemia has produced a 95 per cent stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69c592c2c73fa6000117c3e9\",\"uuid\":\"1a6e8002-5c9d-4a44-b21b-f42eae421fa0\",\"title\":\"Coming to a Conclusion\",\"slug\":\"coming-to-a-conclusion\",\"html\":\"\u003cp\u003eYou have been exposed over the last few months to some seriously dense material. The last piece in this current series is arriving on Monday, and following that piece I promise I will revert to less challenging density and volume. Once I have these basics of deciphering the âwhatâ out of the way I will be freer to think about âhowâ we - you and I - can move to take action. Because action is needed. But you already know that, do you not?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBrian\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\u003c/p\u003e\",\"comment_id\":\"69c592c2c73fa6000117c3e9\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-21.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-26T20:10:42.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-26T20:10:42.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-27T20:01:27.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"You have been exposed over the last few months to some seriously dense material. The last piece in this current series is arriving on Monday, and following that piece I promise I will revert to less challenging density and volume. Once I have these basics of deciphering the âwhatâ out of the way I w\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/coming-to-a-conclusion\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/coming-to-a-conclusion/\",\"excerpt\":\"You have been exposed over the last few months to some seriously dense material. The last piece in this current series is arriving on Monday, and following that piece I promise I will revert to less challenging density and volume. Once I have these basics of deciphering the âwhatâ out of the way I w\",\"reading_time\":1,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-21.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"Coming to a Conclusion\",\"og_description\":\"You have been exposed over the last few months to some seriously dense material. The last piece in this current series is arriving on Monday, and following that piece I promise I will revert to less challenging density and volume. Once I have these basics of deciphering the âwhatâ out of the way I w\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-21.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"Coming to a Conclusion\",\"twitter_description\":\"You have been exposed over the last few months to some seriously dense material. The last piece in this current series is arriving on Monday, and following that piece I promise I will revert to less challenging density and volume. Once I have these basics of deciphering the âwhatâ out of the way I w\",\"meta_title\":\"Coming to a Conclusion\",\"meta_description\":\"You have been exposed over the last few months to some seriously dense material. The last piece in this current series is arriving on Monday, and following that piece I promise I will revert to less challenging density and volume. Once I have these basics of deciphering the âwhatâ out of the way I w\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69c440ff63bb600001a7c287\",\"uuid\":\"fcc4b97b-d55a-40e7-8ed8-6d307e07cfce\",\"title\":\"The Sovereign Deficit\",\"slug\":\"the-sovereign-deficit\",\"html\":\"$6d\",\"comment_id\":\"69c440ff63bb600001a7c287\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-20.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-25T20:09:35.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-25T20:09:35.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-26T20:01:07.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The integrating question\\nThere is a discipline that experienced practitioners in any complex field eventually develop, though they rarely name it explicitly. It is the habit of distrust toward the presenting complaint. Not distrust of the patient, nor of the reality of the symptom, but of the comple\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-sovereign-deficit\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-sovereign-deficit/\",\"excerpt\":\"The integrating question\\nThere is a discipline that experienced practitioners in any complex field eventually develop, though they rarely name it explicitly. It is the habit of distrust toward the presenting complaint. Not distrust of the patient, nor of the reality of the symptom, but of the comple\",\"reading_time\":16,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-20.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Sovereign Deficit\",\"og_description\":\"The integrating question\\nThere is a discipline that experienced practitioners in any complex field eventually develop, though they rarely name it explicitly. It is the habit of distrust toward the presenting complaint. Not distrust of the patient, nor of the reality of the symptom, but of the comple\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-20.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Sovereign Deficit\",\"twitter_description\":\"The integrating question\\nThere is a discipline that experienced practitioners in any complex field eventually develop, though they rarely name it explicitly. It is the habit of distrust toward the presenting complaint. Not distrust of the patient, nor of the reality of the symptom, but of the comple\",\"meta_title\":\"The Sovereign Deficit\",\"meta_description\":\"The integrating question\\nThere is a discipline that experienced practitioners in any complex field eventually develop, though they rarely name it explicitly. It is the habit of distrust toward the presenting complaint. Not distrust of the patient, nor of the reality of the symptom, but of the comple\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69c053b01908fa000175cb6d\",\"uuid\":\"8877c499-a65a-414a-bfc5-f25d48937581\",\"title\":\"The Corrective Forces That Overshoot\",\"slug\":\"the-corrective-forces-that-overshoot\",\"html\":\"$6e\",\"comment_id\":\"69c053b01908fa000175cb6d\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-19.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-22T20:40:16.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-22T20:40:16.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-23T20:00:57.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"On Democratic Self-Defence and the Paradox It Has Produced\\nThe Measure That Cannot Be Borrowed\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe ZhÅng YÅng (ä¸åº¸) does not ask for the midpoint between co\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-corrective-forces-that-overshoot\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-corrective-forces-that-overshoot/\",\"excerpt\":\"On Democratic Self-Defence and the Paradox It Has Produced\\nThe Measure That Cannot Be Borrowed\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe ZhÅng YÅng (ä¸åº¸) does not ask for the midpoint between co\",\"reading_time\":18,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-19.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Corrective Forces That Overshoot\",\"og_description\":\"On Democratic Self-Defence and the Paradox It Has Produced\\nThe Measure That Cannot Be Borrowed\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe ZhÅng YÅng (ä¸åº¸) does not ask for the midpoint between co\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-19.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Corrective Forces That Overshoot\",\"twitter_description\":\"On Democratic Self-Defence and the Paradox It Has Produced\\nThe Measure That Cannot Be Borrowed\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe ZhÅng YÅng (ä¸åº¸) does not ask for the midpoint between co\",\"meta_title\":\"The Corrective Forces That Overshoot\",\"meta_description\":\"On Democratic Self-Defence and the Paradox It Has Produced\\nThe Measure That Cannot Be Borrowed\\n\\n\\nWalker Briefing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n\\nThe ZhÅng YÅng (ä¸åº¸) does not ask for the midpoint between co\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69bbc98ae8a90d000107612d\",\"uuid\":\"4e291920-3331-479f-8aa0-50e3ccd7f447\",\"title\":\"A Prescription for Change: Why We Must Legalise Living Room Greenery\",\"slug\":\"prescription-for-change-legalise-personal-cannabis-wa\",\"html\":\"$6f\",\"comment_id\":\"69bbc98ae8a90d000107612d\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773914502954_ouvf84.webp\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-19T10:01:46.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-19T10:01:46.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-19T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker introduces a landmark bill to allow Western Australians to grow and possess cannabis for personal use, ending decades of failed prohibition and prioritising community health.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-19/5\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0705\",\"name\":\"Justice\",\"slug\":\"justice\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/justice/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0435bfba80001a60c95\",\"name\":\"Reform\",\"slug\":\"reform\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/reform/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/prescription-for-change-legalise-personal-cannabis-wa/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker introduces a landmark bill to allow Western Australians to grow and possess cannabis for personal use, ending decades of failed prohibition and prioritising community health.\",\"reading_time\":3,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773914502954_ouvf84.webp\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker Introduces Cannabis Personal Use Bill\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC introduces the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2026 to legalise personal cannabis use and home cultivation in WA.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773914502954_ouvf84.webp\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker Introduces Cannabis Personal Use Bill\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC introduces the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2026 to legalise personal cannabis use and home cultivation in WA.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker Introduces Cannabis Personal Use Bill\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC introduces the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 2026 to legalise personal cannabis use and home cultivation in WA.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69bbcbdbe8a90d0001076136\",\"uuid\":\"14271a7a-a914-4772-a368-36598
109e50fd\",\"title\":\"A Doctor Diagnoses the State: Why Alcohol Poses a Greater Danger Than Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"alcohol-cannabis-danger-comparison\",\"html\":\"$70\",\"comment_id\":\"69bbcbdbe8a90d0001076136\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773915095935_5h7fa8.webp\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-19T10:11:39.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-19T10:11:39.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-19T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker uses his medical expertise to contrast the staggering societal costs of alcohol with the potential benefits of a regulated cannabis market for Western Australians.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-19/6\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0705\",\"name\":\"Justice\",\"slug\":\"justice\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/justice/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0704\",\"name\":\"Cannabis\",\"slug\":\"cannabis\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/cannabis/\"},{\"id\":\"6930e0c75bfba80001a60cad\",\"name\":\"Alcohol\",\"slug\":\"alcohol\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/alcohol/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/alcohol-cannabis-danger-comparison/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker uses his medical expertise to contrast the staggering societal costs of alcohol with the potential benefits of a regulated cannabis market for Western Australians.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773915095935_5h7fa8.webp\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Alcohol vs Cannabis Dangers\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC compares the societal and medical costs of alcohol versus cannabis
1in a recent Parliament motion.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773915095935_5h7fa8.webp\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Alcohol vs Cannabis Dangers\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC compares the societal and medical costs of alcohol versus cannabis in a recent Parliament motion.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Alcohol vs Cannabis Dangers\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC compares the societal and medical costs of alcohol versus cannabis in a recent Parliament motion.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69bbce33e8a90d000107613f\",\"uuid\":\"127084ec-e9a5-4a73-913d-79d94afc61c3\",\"title\":\"Respecting the history of Western Australian women and the integrity of Parliament\",\"slug\":\"respecting-womens-history-parliamentary-integrity\",\"html\":\"$71\",\"comment_id\":\"69bbce33e8a90d000107613f\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773915695846_n6ln24.webp\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-19T10:21:39.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-19T10:21:39.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-19T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the gap between public relations and parliamentary accountability regarding a new local history trail celebrating the remarkable women of Western Australia.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-19/19\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a6\",\"name\":\"Women\",\"slug\":\"women\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/women/\"},{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a5\",\"name\":\"History\",\"slug\":\"history\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/history/\"},{\"id\":\"692fd12826a97700014b0728\",\"name\":\"Accountability\",\"slug\":\"accountability\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/accountability/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a6\",\"name\":\"Women\",\"slug\":\"women\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/women/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/respecting-womens-history-parliamentary-integrity/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the gap between public relations and parliamentary accountability regarding a new local history trail celebrating the remarkable women of Western Australia.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773915695846_n6ln24.webp\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Women's History and Accountability\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC questions the government on inconsistencies regarding a women's history trail at Fremantle Cemetery.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773915695846_n6ln24.webp\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Women's History and Accountability\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC questions the government on inconsistencies regarding a women's history trail at Fremantle Cemetery.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Women's History and Accountability\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC questions the government on inconsistencies regarding a women's history trail at Fremantle Cemetery.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69bbb4a6e8a90d0001076126\",\"uuid\":\"c9903f5b-ff00-4fb4-88fc-26b0213ef62e\",\"title\":\"What Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires\",\"slug\":\"what-sustainable-sovereignty-actually\",\"html\":\"$72\",\"comment_id\":\"69bbb4a6e8a90d0001076126\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-18.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-19T08:32:38.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-19T08:32:38.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-18T20:01:09.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The question the series has been building toward\\nThe preceding pieces in this series have examined, from different angles, the same underlying condition: a political order losing its capacity for proportionate response, and an Australian strategic posture that has failed to reckon honestly with what\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/what-sustainable-sovereignty-actually\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/what-sustainable-sovereignty-actually/\",\"excerpt\":\"The question the series has been building toward\\nThe preceding pieces in this series have examined, from different angles, the same underlying condition: a political order losing its capacity for proportionate response, and an Australian strategic posture that has failed to reckon honestly with what\",\"reading_time\":12,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-18.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"What Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires\",\"og_description\":\"The question the series has been building toward\\nThe preceding pieces in this series have examined, from different angles, the same underlying condition: a political order losing its capacity for proportionate response, and an Australian strategic posture that has failed to reckon honestly with what\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-18.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"What Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires\",\"twitter_description\":\"The question the series has been building toward\\nThe preceding pieces in this series have examined, from different angles, the same underlying condition: a political order losing its capacity for proportionate response, and an Australian strategic posture that has failed to reckon honestly with what\",\"meta_title\":\"What Sustainable Sovereignty Actually Requires\",\"meta_description\":\"The question the series has been building toward\\nThe preceding pieces in this series have examined, from different angles, the same underlying condition: a political order losing its capacity for proportionate response, and an Australian strategic posture that has failed to reckon honestly with what\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a2\",\"uuid\":\"39173a45-eb03-4e46-936e-89fbad7943f0\",\"title\":\"Protecting the Final Resting Places of Our Historical Trailblazers\",\"slug\":\"protecting-fremantle-cemetery-womens-history\",\"html\":\"$73\",\"comment_id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a2\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773835895166_o4stjg.webp\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-18T12:11:39.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-18T12:11:39.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-18T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC questions the government on how it plans to protect the graves of notable women from renewal programs at Fremantle Cemetery while celebrating a new historical walk trail.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-18/19\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a3\",\"name\":\"Heritage\",\"slug\":\"heritage\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/heritage/\"},{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a4\",\"name\":\"Fremantle\",\"slug\":\"fremantle\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/fremantle/\"},{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a5\",\"name\":\"History\",\"slug\":\"history\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/history/\"},{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a6\",\"name\":\"Women\",\"slug\":\"women\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/women/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"69ba967b5bcc500001f4a5a3\",\"name\":\"Heritage\",\"slug\":\"heritage\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/heritage/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/protecting-fremantle-cemetery-womens-history/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC questions the government on how it plans to protect the graves of notable women from renewal programs at Fremantle Cemetery while celebrating a new historical walk trail.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773835895166_o4stjg.webp\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Protecting Women's Graves in Fremantle\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for the protection of significant women's graves from cemetery renewal programs at Fremantle Cemetery.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/image_1773835895166_o4stjg.webp\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Protecting Women's Graves in Fremantle\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for the protection of significant women's graves from cemetery renewal programs at Fremantle Cemetery.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Protecting Women's Graves in Fremantle\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker calls for the protection of significant women's graves from cemetery renewal programs at Fremantle Cemetery.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69b863683444ec00014c7dc2\",\"uuid\":\"92c077c9-b6f7-4f13-95dd-f616009dc8bf\",\"title\":\"The Loss of Balance: ä¸åº¸ä¹é and the Age of Unravelling\",\"slug\":\"the-loss-of-balance-and-the-age-of\",\"html\":\"$74\",\"comment_id\":\"69b863683444ec00014c7dc2\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-4.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-16T20:09:12.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-16T20:09:12.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-17T20:00:45.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"The discipline of equilibrium\\nThe Chinese concept known as ä¸åº¸ä¹é (ZhÅng YÅng ZhÄ« Dà o) is almost always mistranslated in Western commentary as the Way of the Mean, and that mistranslation does considerable damage to the idea it is supposed to convey. The word âmeanâ arrives carrying its English freigh\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/the-loss-of-balance-and-the-age-of\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/the-loss-of-balance-and-the-age-of/\",\"excerpt\":\"The discipline of equilibrium\\nThe Chinese concept known as ä¸åº¸ä¹é (ZhÅng YÅng ZhÄ« Dà o) is almost always mistranslated in Western commentary as the Way of the Mean, and that mistranslation does considerable damage to the idea it is supposed to convey. The word âmeanâ arrives carrying its English freigh\",\"reading_time\":16,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-4.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"The Loss of Balance: ä¸åº¸ä¹é and the Age of Unravelling\",\"og_description\":\"The discipline of equilibrium\\nThe Chinese concept known as ä¸åº¸ä¹é (ZhÅng YÅng ZhÄ« Dà o) is almost always mistranslated in Western commentary as the Way of the Mean, and that mistranslation does considerable damage to the idea it is supposed to convey. The word âmeanâ arrives carrying its English freigh\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-4.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"The Loss of Balance: ä¸åº¸ä¹é and the Age of Unravelling\",\"twitter_description\":\"The discipline of equilibrium\\nThe Chinese concept known as ä¸åº¸ä¹é (ZhÅng YÅng ZhÄ« Dà o) is almost always mistranslated in Western commentary as the Way of the Mean, and that mistranslation does considerable damage to the idea it is supposed to convey. The word âmeanâ arrives carrying its English freigh\",\"meta_title\":\"The Loss of Balance: ä¸åº¸ä¹é and the Age of Unravelling\",\"meta_description\":\"The discipline of equilibrium\\nThe Chinese concept known as ä¸åº¸ä¹é (ZhÅng YÅng ZhÄ« Dà o) is almost always mistranslated in Western commentary as the Way of the Mean, and that mistranslation does considerable damage to the idea it is supposed to convey. The word âmeanâ arrives carrying its English freigh\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69b926ec3444ec00014c7dc9\",\"uuid\":\"9aec6342-c25a-4b24-9766-351705583c05\",\"title\":\"The high cost of failing to plan for our energy future\",\"slug\":\"high-cost-failing-plan-energy-future\",\"html\":\"$75\",\"comment_id\":\"69b926ec3444ec00014c7dc9\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773741799989-qtjc8svtuo.webp\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-17T10:03:24.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-17T10:03:24.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-17T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the government's admission of failure in the energy transition as Parliament moves to extend coal mining while bypassing established environmental protections.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-17/5\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"692fd0a326a97700014b0716\",\"name\":\"Energy\",\"slug\":\"energy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/energy/\"},{\"id\":\"69b926ec3444ec00014c7dca\",\"name\":\"Collie\",\"slug\":\"collie\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/collie/\"},{\"id\":\"69200a2916dbdf00016956d0\",\"name\":\"Environment\",\"slug\":\"environment\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/environment/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff64226a97700014b07c8\",\"name\":\"Economy\",\"slug\":\"economy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/economy/\"},{\"id\":\"692fb7d126a97700014b06d2\",\"name\":\"WA\",\"slug\":\"wa\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/wa/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"692fd0a326a97700014b0716\",\"name\":\"Energy\",\"slug\":\"energy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/energy/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/high-cost-failing-plan-energy-future/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC examines the government's admission of failure in the energy transition as Parliament moves to extend coal mining while bypassing established environmental protections.\",\"reading_time\":3,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773741799989-qtjc8svtuo.webp\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Collie Coal Extension Bill\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC critiques the government's decision to extend coal mining in Collie and the precedent of skipping environmental laws.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773741799989-qtjc8svtuo.webp\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Collie Coal Extension Bill\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC critiques the government's decision to extend coal mining in Collie and the precedent of skipping environmental laws.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Collie Coal Extension Bill\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC critiques the government's decision to extend coal mining in Collie and the precedent of skipping environmental laws.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69b936d53444ec00014c7dd5\",\"uuid\":\"1b9bd983-6896-47a9-9c2d-b280c4a1b4de\",\"title\":\"Unlocking the Green Future of Hemp Innovation in Western Australia\",\"slug\":\"green-future-hemp-innovation-wa\",\"html\":\"$76\",\"comment_id\":\"69b936d53444ec00014c7dd5\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773745873614-4thnpvx93n.webp\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-17T11:11:17.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-17T11:11:17.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-17T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC questions the government on missed opportunities for the hemp industry, advocating for a science-first approach to a
1sustainable and profitable green future.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-17/15\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6920548e16dbdf000169574b\",\"name\":\"Hemp\",\"slug\":\"hemp\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/hemp/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff64226a97700014b07c9\",\"name\":\"Innovation\",\"slug\":\"innovation\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/innovation/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff64226a97700014b07c8\",\"name\":\"Economy\",\"slug\":\"economy\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/economy/\"},{\"id\":\"69200a2916dbdf00016956d0\",\"name\":\"Environment\",\"slug\":\"environment\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/environment/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6920548e16dbdf000169574b\",\"name\":\"Hemp\",\"slug\":\"hemp\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/hemp/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/green-future-hemp-innovation-wa/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC questions the government on missed opportunities for the hemp industry, advocating for a science-first approach to a sustainable and profitable green future.\",\"reading_time\":2,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773745873614-4thnpvx93n.webp\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Western Australian Hemp Innovation\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC explores the economic and environmental potential of hemp innovation in Parliament.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773745873614-4thnpvx93n.webp\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Western Australian Hemp Innovation\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC explores the economic and environmental potential of hemp innovation in Parliament.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on Western Australian Hemp Innovation\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC explores the economic and environmental potential of hemp innovation in Parliament.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69b71bab8473860001860e54\",\"uuid\":\"eef150c9-e910-47d9-a738-d22fadcc4e25\",\"title\":\"WHO GUARDS THE GATEKEEPERS OF INSIGHT?\",\"slug\":\"who-guards-the-gatekeepers-of-insight\",\"html\":\"$77\",\"comment_id\":\"69b71bab8473860001860e54\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-3.jpg\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-15T20:50:51.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-15T20:50:51.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-16T20:01:13.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"On insight inflation, institutional failure, and the politics of knowing in an age of artificial intelligence\\nThe Problem Behind the Problem\\nJohn Elkington is one of the more reliable early-warning systems in international sustainability discourse. He coined the Triple Bottom Line. He has been mappi\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://bfwalker.substack.com/p/who-guards-the-gatekeepers-of-insight\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e084\",\"name\":\"Walker Briefing\",\"slug\":\"walker-br
1iefing\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/walker-briefing/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"699bf9f187a9400001c4e083\",\"name\":\"Substack\",\"slug\":\"substack\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/substack/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/who-guards-the-gatekeepers-of-insight/\",\"excerpt\":\"On insight inflation, institutional failure, and the politics of knowing in an age of artificial intelligence\\nThe Problem Behind the Problem\\nJohn Elkington is one of the more reliable early-warning systems in international sustainability discourse. He coined the Triple Bottom Line. He has been mappi\",\"reading_time\":16,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-3.jpg\",\"og_title\":\"WHO GUARDS THE GATEKEEPERS OF INSIGHT?\",\"og_description\":\"On insight inflation, institutional failure, and the politics of knowing in an age of artificial intelligence\\nThe Problem Behind the Problem\\nJohn Elkington is one of the more reliable early-warning systems in international sustainability discourse. He coined the Triple Bottom Line. He has been mappi\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/cover-3.jpg\",\"twitter_title\":\"WHO GUARDS THE GATEKEEPERS OF INSIGHT?\",\"twitter_description\":\"On insight inflation, institutional failure, and the politics of knowing in an age of artificial intelligence\\nThe Problem Behind the Problem\\nJohn Elkington is one of the more reliable early-warning systems in international sustainability discourse. He coined the Triple Bottom Line. He has been mappi\",\"meta_title\":\"WHO GUARDS THE GATEKEEPERS OF INSIGHT?\",\"meta_description\":\"On insight inflation, institutional failure, and the politics of knowing in an age of artificial intelligence\\nThe Problem Behind the Problem\\nJohn Elkington is one of the more reliable early-warning systems in international sustainability discourse. He coined the Triple Bottom Line. He has been mappi\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null},{\"id\":\"69b34fd8dcbe0e0001f7a7be\",\"uuid\":\"0f82173c-408a-4c82-8a76-6132384151d9\",\"title\":\"Why we must treat the causes of social disorder not just the symptoms\",\"slug\":\"treating-causes-not-symptoms-public-order-bill\",\"html\":\"$78\",\"comment_id\":\"69b34fd8dcbe0e0001f7a7be\",\"feature_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773359059727-uoj2q56y27r.webp\",\"featured\":false,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"created_at\":\"2026-03-12T23:44:24.000+00:00\",\"updated_at\":\"2026-03-12T23:44:24.000+00:00\",\"published_at\":\"2026-03-12T16:00:00.000+00:00\",\"custom_excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC critiques the Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, arguing that true safety comes from social cohesion and addressing root causes rather than expanding restrictive police powers.\",\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"custom_template\":null,\"canonical_url\":\"https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/daily/uh/2026-03-12/8\",\"authors\":[{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"}],\"tags\":[{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},{\"id\":\"692008ea16dbdf00016956ba\",\"name\":\"Parliament\",\"slug\":\"parliament\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/parliament/\"},{\"id\":\"692ff07926a97700014b0797\",\"name\":\"Rights\",\"slug\":\"rights\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/rights/\"},{\"id\":\"692fca1526a97700014b0705\",\"name\":\"Justice\",\"slug\":\"justice\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/justice/\"}],\"primary_author\":{\"id\":\"1\",\"name\":\"Brian Walker\",\"slug\":\"brian\",\"profile_image\":null,\"cover_image\":null,\"bio\":null,\"website\":null,\"location\":null,\"facebook\":null,\"twitter\":null,\"threads\":null,\"bluesky\":null,\"mastodon\":null,\"tiktok\":null,\"youtube\":null,\"instagram\":null,\"linkedin\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/author/brian/\"},\"primary_tag\":{\"id\":\"6920257016dbdf0001695711\",\"name\":\"Health\",\"slug\":\"health\",\"description\":null,\"feature_image\":null,\"visibility\":\"public\",\"og_image\":null,\"og_title\":null,\"og_description\":null,\"twitter_image\":null,\"twitter_title\":null,\"twitter_description\":null,\"meta_title\":null,\"meta_description\":null,\"codeinjection_head\":null,\"codeinjection_foot\":null,\"canonical_url\":null,\"accent_color\":null,\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/tag/health/\"},\"url\":\"http://localhost:2368/treating-causes-not-symptoms-public-order-bill/\",\"excerpt\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC critiques the Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, arguing that true safety comes from social cohesion and addressing root causes rather than expanding restrictive police powers.\",\"reading_time\":3,\"access\":true,\"comments\":false,\"og_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773359059727-uoj2q56y27r.webp\",\"og_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill\",\"og_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC warns that the Public Order Bill fails to address underlying social issues, opting for expanded police powers instead.\",\"twitter_image\":\"https://ghost.jaxius.net/content/images/2026/03/1773359059727-uoj2q56y27r.webp\",\"twitter_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill\",\"twitter_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC warns that the Public Order Bill fails to address underlying social issues, opting for expanded police powers instead.\",\"meta_title\":\"Dr Brian Walker on the Public Order Legislation Amendment Bill\",\"meta_description\":\"Dr Brian Walker MLC warns that the Public Order Bill fails to address underlying social issues, opting for expanded police powers instead.\",\"email_subject\":null,\"frontmatter\":null,\"feature_image_alt\":null,\"feature_image_caption\":null}]}]}],\"$L79\",\"$L7a\"]}],\"$L7b\"]\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"7c:I[22016,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/16db55413038cbc4.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/da8d21d672c27d5a.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/36e434ee1df01259.js\"],\"default\"]\n7d:I[13642,[\"/_next/static/chunks/dfd42464db1c458d.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/16db55413038cbc4.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/da8d21d672c27d5a.js\",\"/_next/static/chunks/36e434ee1df01259.js\"],\"default\"]\n79:[\"$\",\"section\",null,{\"className\":\"border-t border-gray-200 bg-white py-10\",\"children\":[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"className\":\"container mx-auto px-4 text-center\",\"children\":[[\"$\",\"h2\",null,{\"className\":\"text-2xl font-bold text-gray-900\",\"children\":\"Looking for an older article?\"}],[\"$\",\"p\",null,{\"className\":\"mx-auto mt-2 max-w-2xl text-gray-600\",\"children\":\"Browse every public article in the complete, chronological news archive.\"}],[\"$\",\"$L7c\",null,{\"href\":\"/news/archive\",\"className\":\"mt-5 inline-block rounded-lg border-2 border-[#00653b] px-6 py-3 font-bold text-[#00653b] transition-colors hover:bg-[#00653b] hover:text-white\",\"children\":\"Browse complete news archive\"}]]}]}]\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"7a:[\"$\",\"section\",null,{\"className\":\"py-16 bg-gradient-to-r from-[#00653b] to-[#6cc24a] text-white\",\"children\":[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"className\":\"container mx-auto px-4\",\"children\":[\"$\",\"div\",null,{\"className\":\"max-w-4xl mx-auto text-center\",\"children\":[[\"$\",\"h2\",null,{\"className\":\"text-3xl md:text-4xl font-bold mb-6\",\"children\":\"Stay Informed\"}],[\"$\",\"p\",null,{\"className\":\"text-xl mb-8 text-white/90\",\"children\":\"Get the latest updates directly in your inbox. Join thousands of Western Australians receiving real news from your Doctor in Parliament.\"}],[\"$\",\"$L7c\",null,{\"href\":\"/#help\",\"className\":\"inline-block bg-white text-[#00653b] px-8 py-4 rounded-lg font-bold text-lg hover:scale-105 transition-transform duration-200 shadow-lg\",\"children\":\"Subscribe to Newsletter\"}]]}]}]}]\n"])</script>
1<script>self.__next_f.push([1,"7b:[\"$\",\"$L7d\",null,{}]\n"])</script>
1</body></html>
Line numbers count LF bytes from the start of the resource, as the search results do. Vendor segments are library code the classifier recognised; they are stored but not indexed. Bytes are shown as Latin1 characters, one per byte.