ESG Voice

If former Clinton strategist, James Carville, was advising Australia’s political leaders today, he’d be telling them to focus on the current cost of living crisis.

The idea that the interests of a company’s stakeholders are unrelated to those of its shareholders is as outdated as it is misguided, as evidenced at this year’s Qantas AGM.

It’s great that corporate Australia is getting behind women’s participation in traditionally male sports, but, given men’s interest in these codes, I wonder if this is the easier starting point. Getting similarly enthusiastic about the sport most Australi

Telethon is a Team WA moment, recognising that, despite our relative wealth, excellent public services and social safety net, there is still plenty of need in the community. It is also a beacon, in a country not known for its philanthropy.

While it may not be easy, Yes supporters have to believe a path forward can be found with the almost 70 per cent of Australians who originally supported the Voice.

I’m voting Yes because a No vote would be a continuation of the we-know-best approach that has got us to where we are today. And because I know how I’d feel if the No vote was directed at me.

In wind, solar and gas rich WA, we shouldn’t need nuclear to achieve our energy security and climate change goals. But, there will be a growing global market for our uranium, in the existential fight against climate change.

Could the tone and content of No campaigners be intimidating Yes supporters into keeping their thoughts to themselves? If so, I hope they find their voice on referendum day.

The mining industry can’t rely upon the positive purpose of supplying the energy transition, alone. In addition, it must be seen to operate to high ESG standards in pursuit of that purpose.

As we’ve seen with Brexit and Trump, misinformation and disinformation divide countries and deliver outcomes that hurt, more than help, ordinary people. The debate over the Voice referendum is another unfortunate example of this.