 My name is Melanie Broder. I'm one of the Future Shaper delegates. I'm also a Sir Roland Wilson Scholar and it's an absolute honour to welcome you here tonight. We'd like to begin by acknowledging and celebrating the first Australians who have used traditional manners we meet and pay our respects to the elders of the Ngunnawal people past, present and future. Tonight we will keep on to a fantastic panel. As a Sir Roland Wilson Scholar, I am researching cyber security, specifically cyber deterrents. So I'm very excited to hear the answers to who's going to save the world. And without further ado, I'd like to hand over to Khan Karapane Djianotidis. My name is Khan Karapane Djianotidis. I'm the CEO and founder of the asylum security resource centre. I want to start by also paying my respects to the fact that we gather on the land of the Ngunnawal people 3,000 generations of First Nations culture and knowledge and we stand on the land of the oldest continuous living culture on Earth. I have five minutes to tell you how we're going to save the world. Not only wave to me in five minutes, I have stopped. I want you to do a little thing with me to help me. Nothing is planned. Stand up if any of the following applies to you. So I just want you to stand up if the following applies to you. Stand up if you're passionate about something. Stand up if you want a fairer world. Look around you. You are the people that are going to save the world. Sit down. We live in a time where people despair. We live in a time where people are disillusioned. We live in a time where we sit there and go, these timp hot little men like Peter Dutton and Malcolm Timbald and Tony Abbott. No one is going to be building a monument to them at ANU saying, here stands these great men whose legacy was division and mediocrity and fear mongering, avarice and an attempt to actually whip away our moral imagination and compass. These are not the men that are going to change the world or leave the future. We are. And we are going to do it the old fashioned way. We are going to do it through hope. And hope is not a fool's pack. Hope is a belief in the best of who we can be as people. It is a belief in the best of us as a community. We know that despair itself is not a strategy. Love is the actual power of love. The ability to actually see the humanity and value and purpose and meaning and worth in every single bloody one of us. Community is what is going to change the world. Our ability to come together as people have been doing all day at the Future Shapers Conference here in Canberra around coming together as allies, amplifying in solidarity, standing together whether it's First Nations rights, women's rights, whether it's LGBTIQA rights, refugee rights, standing up for mother nature. We stand together in solidarity because we are stronger together. Who is going to save the world is us. Are those who dream? Are those willing to make trouble? Are those willing to actually take that passion and that anger and that resilience that burns so brightly in you and do something good with it? It's us by starting anywhere, doing anything, beginning anywhere, protest, right, organise, start a start-up, start a group, whatever the hell it is, start something, start a fire, start a change. Our politicians want to defeat us. They want us to be conquered by fear. They want us to be divided by fear. They want us to have a paralysis of our hearts and imagination by telling us that compassion and love and decency that our living income is beyond us, that closing the gap is beyond us, that bringing the refugees here from menacing the route is beyond us, by acting on climate change is beyond us. That the time is not now, well it is now, the time is here, the time is now. We are that time. We are those people. And we need to be bloody angry. We need to be fired up because life is on the line. Our environment is on the line. Our oldest living culture on earth is on the line. We need to be angry, but in a way that is constructive and purposeful and meaningful, we cannot afford to despair. We cannot afford to say we are fatigued because that is not the luxury that our homeless have. That is not the luxury that people living in are part of like conditions have. I was reading today in the Northern Territory it is now 100% of young people in our prisons are indigenous. There is no time for fatigue. There is no time to say it's too hard. There are people at work or on the phone every day trying to talk 10-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 8-year-olds on the roof from taking their own lives. We have governments, we have these men bereft of any vision in any decency sitting there trying to crush hope, sitting there trying to crush people for simply being poor or black or gay or Muslim. No more. These are our people. We are those people. Look around you. This is what our country looks like. Sounds like. This. But we need to defend it. And we need to be willing to take risks. And we need to be willing to embrace our fears. There is no failure in living alone. There is no defeat in standing up for what you believe in and to start anywhere. Anywhere. What is not an option is do nothing. And for all of those people that are sitting there telling you about what about this and what about that they are the do nothing generation who want you to give a shit about no one. We are the do something generation that sits and faces into this and goes we have a solution. We have a way forward. We have the intelligences. We have the ha. We have the power of women behind us. We have the power of the oldest living culture behind us. We have the power of technology. We have the power of prosperity. We have the power of us. Yeah, don't we? Are we helpless? Anyone here defeated? Anyone here wants to sign up to giving up? Who wants solutions? Who wants vision? Who wants a way forward? All I've heard today in talking with young people is I want an inclusive country that leaves no one behind. I want a fair Australia that I can be proud of where we will have the leaders that we demand and tolerate and expect. So maybe we need to start running for offers far more often. And we will only have the diversity in our workplaces, in our communities and our quality that we are willing to demand and speak up for and stand up for. I'm probably close to five minutes so I have no time, sense of time. Am I there? I am. I have one minute. In my closing remarks dream dream dream dream love deeply the worse it gets love more the more despairing it gets fight more the more unjust you see things push back mobilise organise amplify stand up together we can win together we can triumph we will save the world because the world is worth saving because our ideals are worth standing up for because we are on the right side of history now we can write its future in moments like today and when you walk out from here don't just walk out going I'm feeling expired and excited those words are worthless unless you're willing to put something on the line live it, model it stand up for it fight for it, breath it do it. Thank you. Thank you Con that was very inspiring I know you told us just not to use that word just now so I apologise very inspiring and very optimistic Well ladies and gentlemen hello my name is Jan Fran for those of you who don't know who I am I host a show called The Feed on SBS or as my grandmother calls it that food show on the ABC it's like when are you going to cook something from your show look we live in very interesting times we're living with rapidly evolving technology we're living with increasingly sophisticated AI we're living with an increasingly warming planet we're living with polarised ways of communicating an erosion of confidence in governments not just in Australia but around the world on top of that we're dealing with usual challenges of impending nuclear war global inequality and all of the things that existed 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago today we hope to answer the question though of who will save the world or to try and make it a little bit more specific who is best place to address the challenges that we face as a country in the next 50 years is it the government is it business is it no, someone shaking their head definitely not business well you don't know because we haven't started the panel yet is it entrepreneurs is it you as individuals is it universities who is it and how will they do it to help us answer these questions we have a very esteemed panel please allow me to introduce them we've got up here the manager of AI firm Affinity and of course he's the former federal minister for innovation and the youngest former federal minister I think he's just here to make everybody feel bad about what they didn't achieve before the age of 25 that's what Wyatt's doing Anna Rose next to Wyatt who is also a community organizer and a campaigner whose key aim is to tackle climate change the latest organization that she's founded I believe is farmers for climate action I helped some farmers set it up but the farmers did most of the work okay good to clarify Esan Navavi did I pronounce that correctly Navavi that's the one he's a research fellow at the 3a institute at the A&U and he's working on building a new applied science framework I had to ask him technically what that means it's essentially you tell him so we are at the 3a institute we are working on building new body of knowledge and because we think that in the future we definitely need a new generation we should train not only on computer science but also philosophy anthropology, sociology so it's a very interdisciplinary body of knowledge okay good I believe that's the exact thing you said to me outside which I very conveniently forgot and Imogen next to Esan who works for square peg capital she's the head of community there and square peg for those of you who don't know is an organization they say brilliantly so I'm just going to just parrot what they say they invest in outstanding entrepreneurs solving important problems so please welcome our panel for tonight I will say obviously before we start phones on silent and also there will be an opportunity for audience questions I'll try and leave as much time as possible on why it's suggestion go hard if you have anything that you disagree with you disagree with the panelists on please feel free to bring it up we want to have as robust a discussion as possible so without further ado we shall begin I guess I'll start with a general question to the panel just to set the scene a little bit here because we're talking about who will save the world and implicit in that is that the world somehow needs saving so what do you all see as being the biggest challenges for Australia in the next 50 years what do we need to save I think there will be a range of policy discussions that we can have everyone will have things that they are passionate about and I think that's really great and we draw it out for me when I look at the world you mentioned in the beginning about this rate of change that we're seeing and if you look at human history you know change is a constant we've always seen change throughout human history but I think the thing that defines our time is actually the rate of change so we're seeing this exponential rate of change happening and that is predominantly driven by technology you know the world is a much smaller place than it's ever been and it's much easier to talk to each other in human history now that has a whole bunch of impacts but the one that I worry about the most is actually its impact on democracy because if you kind of look around the world and you know we have long philosophical conversations about this but the foundation I think of our ability to deal with the problems facing the world to save the world is some level of engagement in some format with the democratic system you know that might be activism it might be parliaments it might be whatever but ultimately when you know citizens can have their say when their voices are heard fairly equally equitably and that's the system that you use to create a decision about how you change the world hopefully for the better then that really matters and if you look at what's happening to the democratic system around the world I mean that has fundamentally changed in like two years or four years or five years you know if you said we were talking on the way in I was at the airport the other day and you know watching Trump and the North Korean leader doing whatever it was that they were doing and you know five years ago if you said to anybody that that's going to happen they would have said you're insane you're crazy you know we've seen Brexit in France you know it might actually be quite a good thing for the country but the idea that in Macron you have somebody who was a socialist party minister from a completely failed government who left created his own political party you had two political parties that had dominated forever and he was elected not a landslide but certainly won well had a landslide in the parliament if you said to someone five years ago that was going to happen they would have said you're crazy Greece, Spain, Italy were seeing this huge turbulence in the democratic system and I think my view about what might be driving that is effectively this it's how we communicate and if you imagine you know when the printing press was developed you saw the enlightenment you saw huge changes in society and politics and economics because people could communicate with each other differently and putting a super computer in the hands of every human being on the planet I actually think it's probably an even bigger jump than the printing press and I'm sure like two years after the printing press was developed people didn't think that the changes that would happen happened but they did and for us you know obviously everyone kind of scratches their head and said you know how did Donald Trump become elected and you know how did Brexit happen it is because of the way that we communicate is different so the body politic before you know politicians whoever people that had to convince people of their ideas normally had to win kind of mainstream arguments in newspapers, radios, TV you know SBS interviews whatever it might be you could never win in an SBS interview I tried, I tried hard much nicer than the ABC so I think the danger in this is when we can all have a very very large microphone which is actually quite a good thing you want people to have a large microphone you want people to be able to express their opinions it also creates I think it has two impacts it creates silos of opinion it creates echo chambers so if I have a strong left wing view or a right wing view it doesn't really matter essentially all I kind of hear from is people that share my view and I think that's a really dangerous thing because you know how you create a better outcome for society is you have a contest of ideas you have people who would be respectfully but challenge each other and hopefully that contest of ideas that difference of the gene pool not everyone having the same view but you have a better outcome and this way that we communicate now creates the opposite impact the other thing that I think that it's done is in history to make progressive change to do good things there are winners and losers in all of that or perceived winners and losers and when smaller groups or maybe smaller is the wrong word but people with very strong particular opinions one way or the other now have extreme microphones so when society tries to move forward there is huge resistance to that that might not have existed at the same level because so many people can be so loud and be so aggressive and so the sort of level of debate that we've seen and then you can have success of people like Trump who spew hate or you can have perhaps more positive impact so I think for me how we deal with that and how we ensure people have trust in our institutions and democracy and ensure that they're listening to people have different opinions to them and we can determine about how we rise to meet these challenges because if we all think we're the smartest people on the planet and everyone should just follow us it's kind of like it's all over at that point so the rate of change, the way that it impacts democracy and the way in which we communicate the way that impacts our involvement in the democratic process Anna what do you see as being some of the biggest challenges that we face so definitely agree with why our political system is broken and particularly the rise of corporate influence in politics in a lot of western democracies is very alarming I think there are three other systems that are also like as you said there are a lot of issues that we can say need fixing but at a systems level I think it is our political system our economic system I mean inequality is growing we have so much wealth it has not trickled down I was just listening on the radio in Canberra one third of the people coming to homeless services in Canberra are being turned away it's going to be freezing when we walk out of here and there will be people who have nowhere to sleep our energy system in Australia it is completely broken and then our ecosystems our maridaling is dying our great barrier reef is dying and as a community and this probably comes back to the political system we do not have political support bipartisan political support for a plan to address really any of those challenges that we are facing so many systems need needing work but I guess we can talk about solutions soon which is the more exciting part that's right and we will this is kind of just a bit of an overview of problems first solutions later I would probably start with the title of the foreign I think one of the biggest challenges that we are facing is that we need some people to ask good questions and the good question I will explain it later it's all about the imagination of the future and how we imagine the future and the frame that we the frame of questions that we have in our mind how we imagine the future so I will start with the title that who will save the world it's very small but there are multiple tacit assumptions first who second say in the world so we think that who is all about the people and person so it's like a superman, superwoman a prophet a selected tribe there are many other examples that we can think of but not for non-human so artificial intelligence even like religious people that they think that the holy book maybe is going to save them the second is to save it's all about the saving so think about we are always flooded by the crisis from the norse time so it's always a feeling of there is a need for norse arc to save us so what's the meaning of the saving being safe, assurance we should ask always when we see a question and the third is the world so the very maybe we take for granted that we don't know what do we mean by world but I think there are at least two distinction, first is a pale blue dot in the universe which is the earth and the other world is that the world of an American wake up in the morning compared to the as a refugee or a migrant wake up in the future camps so there are two different worlds and so just put everything together we can think about how we can come up with different questions and different question and different framing will bring us to different answer and different solution so we should be very mindful of what do we mean by the question and so I think that one of the biggest challenges that we are facing is to ask better question because I think we are in the future shapers conference and the future shapers conference I think the future shapers are simply are those who are successful in the past in framing good question and if you are not happy with our present we should ask better question for the future you shouldn't be doing the same thing because at the end of the day present is the product of the past and it's just if we are experiencing something it's the product of those who frame the questions not now I mean previously and so another thing that I think very important about the world it just keeps me awake at night seemingly so it's all about the future do we have one future we have multiple documents reports that saying that it is our common future today we had a discussion about the future we want for next 50 years who is that we so we should talk about this we question and our question because the future are multiple it's a heterogeneous it's for everyone and who dominates that we that's the minds of future so again we should ask question because it's like that often we heard about the technology as a saviour but who controls the technology so always we should ask what's the imagination behind anything any question if we see something think about what's the imagination behind the question who gets what who controls and how and who says what and why so asking many questions so I think that one of the biggest challenges we are facing is that we train people who ask better questions for the future and Imogen what are the biggest challenges we are facing my co-panelists took politics the entire economic system all of the world and philosophy kind of left with nothing I guess but humanity which I think is actually what is up for grabs at the moment I think it is I don't think we spend enough time discussing what the social contract between us should look like I don't think we spend enough time we should move into one of this with cat videos and Instagram and what our former best friend at childhood was wearing on her wedding day and we are not talking about what the kind of world is that we actually want to live in we are not doing 100 year plans for our families or our communities we are not thinking about what business might look like in 100 years or what government should look like in 100 years it is incredibly short term it is incredibly short term mindset and I think when we have the Syrian war going on we have more refugees now than in almost any other time in history it is actually our human consciousness that is up for grabs I think it is up to us ultimately to decide which side of history we want to be on do we want to take an active role in this challenge do we want to ignore it and it is not really happening to us it doesn't happen here, it is not happening on my doorstep do we want to engage do we want to completely disengage do we want to leave it to others to solve this for ourselves I think the problem with all of these challenges is that the bigger all of these problems are really complex and the more complex they are the harder they are to grasp and it is so hard to come I think the thing I struggle with is that the refugees think maybe not so much it is just obvious what we should be doing but some of the issues are so complex it is really difficult to come to a firm conclusion so often it is easy to step away from them and let someone else solve it but ultimately it is down to us and I think if conversations like this are so insightful and important that I think what we risk by not having them is that in 50 years we look back and realise we have really fucked it for everyone, forever and we are the only generation who are ever going to get that chance to change it so it is important we have got a bunch of issues I think that we are all kind of we have got a few there we have got 45 minutes to fix it I think I am optimistic I guess I guess one of the key questions I sort of start with the political system because that kind of underlies well our lives really our day to day and we know not just around the world but in Australia that there is a disenfranchisement with certainly both major parties you can see that we are kind of losing the centre a little bit what do you think is actually stepping in to fill that void of people losing confidence with governments sure and so I think if you think about membership of political parties I think Melbourne Cricket Club has a bigger membership than the ALP or the Liberal Party and I think they have like a 200,000 people waitlist it is 25 years to get into Melbourne Cricket Club but there is something really insightful about this which is like why are we more comfortable aligning ourselves with an institution like the Melbourne Cricket Club than with a political party and I think it comes back to this complexity issue which is like big problems big juicy problems are really complex and the two party system in Australia are now three party or have many parties the pirate party join whichever party you want like struggle ultimately to build an agenda which is meaningful and is values driven enough for ordinary voters and so instead there is this wonderful Wajial called New Power kind of breaks down this concept of old power being centralized held by the few long term affiliation things like political parties and new power is decentralized so you no longer have long term affiliation with organizations you are much more likely to do because power can be decentralized you can organize a mob to seek change in a particular area and so people are less more fickle you don't benefit anymore from being long term in your view with membership of organizations like political parties instead what you can do is flip back and forth which is I think why we see Brexit take us by surprise because you know what the fuck happened in Brexit it was like what do you mean you are voting to leave but actually people could because there was a mobilization of enough people at the right time to cause a dramatic shift in politics it's exactly the same thing Donald Trump ding ding that I think the kind of new wave of decentralized power and the ability to mobilize people at an instant through the internet means that people can fickle vote in whichever way and so instead what's stepping into this void are kind of almost it doesn't have to be local because the internet means it can be large but communities that fulfill a particular need within us and so like what is a community group of people that seek to solve a problem which means you no longer have to be identify yourself as a member of the Labour Party which I was back in the UK said I can be like the person who is really into cat videos but also the person who is really into championing this same-sex marriage when that was on like that was something I would have identified with when that was happening like I was into that but it can be short term and now I can turn my focus and attention to another issue that I'm really passionate about so it's difficult I think it's harder to track this stuff because it's short term bursts but I don't think people are less interested in their own interests I think they're just expressing them differently why you obviously were in our federal parliament for many years you were very young when you were 20 I had just turned 20 when I was 19 why did you do it? to make a difference it's a horrible cliche I don't come from a political family my family traditionally vote for the Labour Party and I'm obviously in the Liberal Party I'm the first person in my family to finish high school including two older brothers no one in my family had ever gone past grade 9 that alone anything else so there was never an expectation at all of going into parliament but how it happened I was helping out a mate of mine who very sadly passed away a couple of years ago but we were very very close and he had spinal muscular atrophy and I was his participation assistant so I was like a carer for him and I was relatively good at economics and it was my economics lecturer who said you understand economics but you understand social justice and it's very very rare that people understand both and if you connect the two you can this cliche make a difference and she said you know you should get involved in the political process not with the idea of becoming an MP at 20 but in that case it was actually contributing to disability policy and I was really relaxing about it I didn't want to do it or whatever but took her up on it and went to a couple of things became involved in some policy stuff and I realised and I think this is kind of a theme that I think sometimes is missed is if you actually get involved if you're confident without being arrogant and like there's a huge difference and if you are prepared to kind of have your say without liking the sound of your own voice you're actually as much as there's always vile and hate and all this terrible stuff up here just underneath that I think actually the public wants some hope I mean you know we heard this in the introduction we'll disagree about what we want to achieve but they want to see some vision they want to see someone who wants to do something and so I started speaking you know at some party stuff and went to some things and said hey we could do things differently and we could change our approach and people responded to that and they said you should run for parliament which is you know a crazy proposition at the time I thought because I was 19 and I called some people and I said look you haven't got anything to lose and one of the really really good things about my political party at least in Queensland is it's a hugely democratic process so as long as you're a party member and you live locally you vote so it's kind of like a US style primary really contested pre-selection very generic sort of candidates you know spoke about how good politics can be rather than how bad it is people responded to that and I overwhelmingly won a pre-selection you know because it's pretty controversial they wanted to get rid of me and they couldn't and then won a general election and won another one and lost a third just from my personal knowledge when you did win at 20 were you like oh shit I won it's pretty happy I gotta tell you winning is a lot better than losing I've done both winning is definitely better no I actually honestly you are so there's so much adrenaline going through you and it is like fight or flight at that moment and you're so focused on doing a good job what actually happened so like six months I just didn't like you don't register it literally because you're just focusing on what you're doing my first day at parliament I just had like a swarm of cameras following me everywhere but like six months later I was in Afghanistan I visited the troops and I remember like walking out of this building and that was the moment you go like fuck how did I get here and it was six months later I went oh shit but it doesn't happen on day one the reason why I'm sort of asking is because obviously there was a point in your life where you did believe that going into politics and entering parliament was going to begin avenue to change something and yeah so that's the question now looking back where are you at do you still have faith in the government and in parliament as the change makers it's not a question of is government the change maker and I'm a liberal I believe in small government so I'm like unlike governments get government out of my life leave us alone that sort of philosophy but what I do believe is that the easiest thing in life is to sit on the sidelines and complain it comes naturally to us as human beings the hardest thing to do is actually to step into the breach and say this is who I am this is what I believe in to try and convince other people of the merit of those arguments and take them with you now in my mind being part of a major political party being part of the parliament being part of the executive obviously that's a very big lever to move the dial and you know I changed the tax system I changed the education system I changed the visa system you can't do that in private enterprise so obviously it's a great forum to do that but equally you know don't complain about something join a group about it exactly as we heard and for me you know being a part of a political party is not about like signing up as a clone and saying this is what we're going to do it's about actually being part of the process genuinely I don't believe I'm the smartest person and political parties work their best and the parliament works its best when you have as I said before that contest of ideas you know sometimes I'll be right sometimes I'll be wrong but let's have the conversation together let's try and change it and you know if you're a minister in the Commonwealth you can actually make stuff happen so you know by becoming involved in that process and trying to make a difference you actually can I mean people can say how terrible parliament is and how terrible politicians are and you know probably agree with them a lot of the time but it's a great place to to move the needle but society shouldn't say it's up to government to solve all our problems we should be part of that process because there's a 2016 I believe it was ANU who did the study that Australians trust in politicians has dropped to its lowest level since 1969 that's not great I'm sure they didn't trust them in 1969 either but I'm sure like people like it's obviously terrible but I'm sure like people weren't running around saying in 1969 I love politicians they're so great you know no they weren't that's the point exactly and why do you think that is I reckon people want to see a better world and politics is very adversarial and it's often also a lot of ordinary people can't see a place for themselves in it so it's amazing that a young person can put their hand up run for parliament and make it happen it's also very rare it shouldn't be that rare I believe the voting age should be 16 when people are in school hopefully learning about how our elections work and how our democracy works like in the lead up to the marriage equality survey 100,000 new people joined the electoral role and two thirds were under 24 so clearly when there's something that people feel is worth voting for they will enroll, show up take it to a post office but there's a big disconnect between people's ordinary lives and what they think politics is about do you think that's always been the case or do you see that's kind of gotten worse over the last say 10 years or so well I wasn't around in 19 whenever it was I guess none of us were I've been involved in activism and campaigning since I was 14 and I think that social movements are just as energised now as they were like 20 years ago when I started to get involved I'm involved now in the stop adani campaign so many people from all different walks of life are involved in that has the internet changed anything though well I guess it's made it easier for people to watch cat videos which might make it more distracting I guess in terms of kind of social movements and mobilising around the court for sure like we talk about the agents like you're mentioning Jeremy's book people can get involved in a cause they can donate their time, their money join a group of people and then they move on to the next thing so it's just like with political parties you don't sign up to a political party for life you don't also sign up to a campaign or an activist group for life either it's exactly the same so yeah the internet's helped in a lot of ways and I think we've seen like the rise of me too and lots of social movements but in giving a platform to a group of people's stories that otherwise would not have previously been shared but it's also for everything that the internet's done to make it easier to be involved in a social movement it's also probably made it harder because you know I look back throughout history and see big social changes always coming from people powered social movements and so obviously there's always a risk of people just being behind a computer and thinking that that's enough and not actually taking that next step which is much more active participation in society yeah what sort of I guess what sort of role does because technology's been the kind of I guess the defining thing about era really particularly in the way in which we communicate that's changed so extensively and so rapidly the question is I guess I'll throw to you first the sign if that's alright what role do you sort of see technology playing in addressing social and political issues and addressing really big problems it could be very massive I mean like but this is not the first time in the history that we are dealing with the technological change as you said it's all about the rate of change yeah at three years we have like an analogy and an example of a steam engine that the steam engine when introduced to the public it changed everything steam engine so and it changed everything not only from the technical perspective of those who are working with the steam engine but changed the transportation the way people trade and more importantly very interesting one the way that people understand the time so many aspects relate to one technological change that affects different part of the society and as well the political system that the society lives in so in the future so the future we have the AI different notions that it's all about the revolution of the future how it changed everything I think that it's we are facing the same problem so it's not different from the steam engine so and the role that these kind of technology can play it's very massive but it's up to us to think about it so another thing that I really like to mention I'm just coming from the background from as a water engineer civil engineer so in water system we had the revolution they call it dam revolution back in 1950s that was a promise that was a technology came to the to the world of politics and society promised very interesting thing for the future but what happened next was that all the environmental movement all the sustainability paradigm all these concerns about how we should think about the unintended consequence of that revolution that technological revolution and it was not just started maybe it started in developed countries like the US and they exported to some other countries like in the Middle East in Asia it's all about infrastructure development dam building and dam building and it ruined everything so what I'm trying to suggest that these new waves of revolution needs more in terms of considering the role the massive role in changing our culture but when things are changing so fast what happens when there's not enough room for that thought so there's another good point here so there's always a point about the fear an urgency to act so we put this together we killed the moment for doing something right now without thinking about the future consequences and it is often used by the technicians and the engineers like myself to push the politicians to do something right now and they just killed the moment that you have to bring everyone on board so the thing is that you have a water crisis and you say that we have to do something right now you don't have time for the consultation so we have the same issue with the climate change there is a saying that we should in the academic paper we should put democracy on hold so this is again we are dealing with the same paradigm we should do something right now it's all about the future of apocalyptic the future that we are facing it's okay but I'm thinking that we should bring everyone on board it's all about because it's all about the imagining of the future we should bring everyone here to talk about that future we are here to think about what the future is look like if you are thinking about what's the shape of the future who is that we who shape that future so again what I'm trying to suggest is that it's massive in terms of the role but we should think that we are not alone for making decisions we should consider more participatory collaboration on these issues how do we do that because that sounds to me like a very nice idea but I'm very curious as to how we actually put that in motion how do you see that happening it is difficult of course because it's not engineering process it's not a blueprint process you start from here you finish there it's a very interesting if you can just prescribe something that you start from here you finish there and it's easy for the politician to sell as well for the public however there is a literature on that there is lots of work on the participation so even think that this is acknowledge this challenge that this is a challenging task however we should deal with this challenge we shouldn't not just ignoring that because it's not possible or impossible what I'm trying to suggest is that at least let's dream about it and then work on it so it's not just saying that no it's impossible and from many aspects we deal with this question we cannot do that so let's ignore it because it's important so again what I'm trying to suggest is that go back into the history bring some good question think about the damn revolution think about the old steam engine revolution so are we happy with our present of course with some issues yes some not so why we are not happy and take those questions on board I'll come back to you for this question but just quickly because you keep talking about asking the right questions so what are they I'm not the person who asking those right questions what I'm trying to suggest is that we who is that we so I'm not just an academic we need to think deeper about the issues and the question itself so we are talking about the world whose world so so that's my argument okay you mentioned AI I might just go to you quickly and then I'll come to you Imjin as well AI can you tell us what that is in 140 characters please I'll do my best 140 characters AI is essentially finding patterns in data that is artificial intelligence is using huge amounts of data and finding patterns in them and use that to solve problems AI is actually not a new concept what is the change that we've seen and why it's so in vogue now to talk about AI is a huge jump in computational power so if you look at the algorithms that are applied to all sorts of things they've actually in many cases existed for a very very long time maybe 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years what is different is our ability to process just massive amounts of data to solve that so the algorithms that exist in robots learning from machine vision actually existed a long time ago but something that took a week to process can now be done in a microsecond so that's what AI is here's a lot of data here's what are the patterns that we find and how do you apply that to save a problem because there is so much promise that comes with that massively in terms of changing well in changing the world in fixing the world but what are the downsides are there anything that we should be wary of moving forward in AI this will be played out massively and you know you've got Elon Musk saying the robots are coming and it's all over because I have seen X Machina you and I are going to jump on a Harley after this I'm going to go shut down SkyNet but I don't prescribe to that world view at the moment I think at some point in the future that's possible but you wouldn't you're the managing director of Affinity exactly it's a very benevolent technology but the I don't really want to talk about my company essentially what we do is we create better pairings between human beings we do that in a bunch of organizations we actually create demand for labor so because we created demand for human beings to interact so often people say AI is taking jobs the application of our AI is actually increasing demand for labor so there's not all these evil sort of things out there the point that I would make is the argument really about is AI evil is will it be smarter than humans and therefore it will start doing things that we don't like that is such a huge jump in computational power I think that's very unlikely in the medium term the other thing that I would say is the people that are designing the algorithms, the people that are building the algorithms are human beings and that in itself is a huge safety check but of course you want to keep an eye on it and you want governments to be involved the biggest problem currently with AI in terms of regulation is the people regulating it have zero understanding of it I don't know if you saw Zuckerberg at the congress hearings he looked like a man who just made a huge mistake he's unusual there unusual but like it shows you the people that are regulating it have frankly very limited idea of what they're doing my friend Macron in France he's clearly I think one of the world leaders in this space because he's he actually makes the point that I can't turn the internet off I can't turn AI off but what I can do is prepare the world for it and that's his job as a policy maker so there is hope there but I wouldn't I don't think you know terminator is about to walk in and take us all down no that's right but we do have issues in terms of the changing nature of our future workforce because of automation for example yeah and this is a challenge this is a really big challenge because we've got obviously an increasing population and there's going to be a huge number of people set to potentially lose their jobs and in the not too distant future that is a huge disruption that is a massive challenge for society who's going to fix that where do you place the optimism yeah well I I had this conversation with a very senior executive used to be a very senior executive Google and she said to me her saying it not me I put that question to her and she said I'm completely optimistic and confident for my grandkids because they'll grow up in a world where they'll have new skills and abilities and new jobs and a new workforce I'm terrified for my children because there's that transition that will be hard but I mean you're right all through human history this change has happened and technology has come and it's not like everyone's unemployed but there's always been a transition period so if I'm the truck driver in Bunderberg I'd be worried about automation because at some point that job might disappear and I can't become a data scientist the next day I can't walk into that high paying role so how we manage that transition is really really hard all parts of society have to be part of that it's hugely important in that part the ability to get people the skills they need for new jobs but the idea that we're going to wake up and nobody's employed is just wrong but that transition to that point where I don't think anyone's making that claim but it's coming I'll come to you in a second Imogen but back to you Anna you mentioned quite when I asked you that initial question there were some really big ticket issues that were problematic corporate influence in politics general inequality in Australia there were some issues to be growing our energy systems our ecosystems who do you see as best placed or what do you see as being best placed to tackle all these if they're multifaceted to cite several examples yes social movements people power ordinary people and that's how big progressive change has happened throughout history I mean we need allies in parliament we need business I mean a good example is the divestment movement at the moment you've got this intersection of businesses that are divesting from fossil fuels and supporting the rapid growth of renewable energy and that has been driven by a social movement which has been driven by ordinary people saying we want to act on climate change we want to see more renewable energy we want to phase out fossil fuels and so it's an economic shift but it's also a shift in social licence and the politicians will catch up who do you see as doing the best job in Australia to really collectivise around social movements and social issues it's a huge ecosystem of organisations working on different issues there's a large amount of collaboration between groups it's not like I'm working on climate change but I have very good friends working on indigenous justice and on inequality and lots and lots of other fights and struggles I think that we're all in this together so if you want to donate money I support donating to Farmers for Climate Action the Australian Youth Climate Coalition SEED Indigenous Youth Climate Network there's lots of organisations that you can support and you can get involved in but I guess for you guys thinking about how you can make change and where's the best way to spend your time everyone has their own journey and finding something at the intersection of your skills and what the world needs like that's your happy place there and we'll kind of come back to that idea of what you can do as individuals to kind of bring about change but Imogen just over to you so Square Peg Capital that's who you work for that is an investment firm and you invest in people in entrepreneurs who are essentially out there trying to fix the world's problems can you give me an example of what that looks like or an example of something that's worked so Square Peg is an early stage venture capital firm and so we invest in early stage technology companies really agnostic and often these are really boring problems so these aren't the like juicy social change issues ultimately we have to make a return for our investors and so to give you an example but you know it's still really meaningful work that impact really important industries so one of our most recent investments is into a business called Agri Digital that's run by an amazing CEO called Emma Westin and Emma's business is essentially revolutionizing the way that people kind of track and sell commodities so she works specifically in agriculture agriculture is basically it's one of the most important industries in the world like everyone needs to eat, everyone needs food employees like half the world's population it's unbelievably important but provenance is a huge issue in agriculture so it's really difficult to track grain for example which is what they specialize in from one place to another it's really difficult to understand is this organic, is this not organic it's difficult for farmers to access financing because they can't prove that what they have in this bucket legally belongs to them so they're building a platform which utilizes blockchain technology to basically prove that who owns what actually owns that and then unlock financing so is it sexy? Not really is it really important? Absolutely and that's the kind of business that we like to finance Do you think that the Google generation I don't even know, I just made that term up I don't know what that means but the generation that's kind of grown up certainly with the internet and with social media do you think that they engage with social and political issues differently to the way that people used to? To rephrase the question how do you think the internet has impacted the way that people engage with social and political issues? I think it's massive I'm not a researcher in this particular field but just from a straw poll of me and my friends it's huge I don't know if everyone saw the millennia Trump disaster with her I don't care about her share 12 hours later someone bought a URL I really do care.org and it redirected to a charity page that meant that you could donate directly to charities supporting refugees children at the border and it got like 79,000 retweets on Twitter and there was just an enormous amount of money and that cost her $13 so the social change the social impact you can have using the internet is just unbelievably huge if you can channel it in the right way Cambridge Analytica is another example of technology used probably not the net good of society but ultimately it comes down to people that technology is a tool used by individuals if individuals are trying to fuck the world then they will and if they aren't then they won't So it's about trying to get individuals on board with not fucking the world I mean ultimately it's about That's even harder Technology used to be so difficult to build a technology company you have to literally code everything line by line these days there are platforms you can buy parts you can basically chunk together a technology business from stuff you can buy online it has never been easier to engage with building a technology company that has been today and I think that is really exciting I think the generation is growing up now are growing up swiping on books because they don't understand why there are iPads bit weird but great in so many ways I think the challenges is educating children and making sure that they have a really firm internal moral compass around what it means to be an adult in the world like what does it mean to be a global citizen what does it mean to be a member of my local community of my school of my country of my region what does it mean to be disadvantaged if I'm privileged all of these things are ultimately what we need to be teaching children how to understand, how to ask questions about and then the idea being that if you breed a generation of really engaged smart young people they will be able to use the tools at their disposal to create change in the world and I think technology is one of the best most powerful tools that they can use okay I'll just sort of go around the panel because I know that I do want to get to questions in just a wee bit but I mean you're here faced with an audience who we know are very passionate about something because they told us at the beginning of the session everybody stood up even the people who were like I don't know anything but everyone's standing so I'm just going to stand too that's alright I see you what would be I'll start with you Wyatt and I'll go around and kind of relatively succinctly I'm a politician I know that's why I had to say it but what would your advice be to people who are passionate and who do want to seek to make a change out there as individuals what can or should they do this is to keep it short is don't complain don't sit on the sidelines and complain if you actually believe in something get involved in one way or another that might be joining a political party it might be creating a start-up it might be becoming involved in an activist group don't complain and leave it up to somebody else the worst citizens are the ones that say therefore the world's terrible they need to fix it but get involved in what join a political party to change the problem that you want talk to your friends and neighbours about the problems so you don't have a particular preference over what you think works better I mean I think they should all join the Liberal Party sure okay we'll see how many people take it sure it's heavy in this crowd I think it might be a small number it's a great idea to join the Liberal Party the Liberal Party needs more progressive people in it like I've got your membership form just here we're into it but why not I mean if we're going to solve these problems we need to get bipartisan support this is a really good point like the one thing that I the great lament that I have about the parliament and where it's at actually is the lack of bipartisanship and the inability and that is a function of society as much as it is of the parliament so you know I think so it's really a passionate room with very passionate people who I'm sure think there are a lot of people who are wrong because they disagree with them and I would say to people you know the great challenge is not to take that aggressive approach but to actually engage people in conversation and disagree with you and that doesn't happen in the parliament and frankly it doesn't happen in society you know in the gay marriage debate it's just you know happened it's a good example I was one of the first liberal politicians that you know said that we should do this and I'm sure this audience all agree that we should have done it one of the things that I hated in that argument was when clearly I was passionate about it clearly I thought that we should do something about it you know if people held a different view to us who agreed for it people would call them bigots or hated or whatever you know whatever but when people came from different part of society a different history that's what we should be saying is convincing people the merit of the argument why is it that two people who love each other should be allowed to marry why is it that we should champion this we should be positive about that message and it's so easy to get into our silos and our bunkers and you know think that we're quite self-righteous because we've got a great world view but not convince anyone of the merits of our argument they're just wrong because they disagree with us and that's what's wrong with Trump that's what's wrong with you know and listen to them quickly Charlie the Irish assembly randomly picked 100 people and put them together for like a year to talk about policy issues like completely randomly chosen from the population and out of this came all kinds of they essentially were getting together to discuss what really the parliament should be doing but they were kind of like a collective of average humans and out of that came really insightful like these people were able to genuinely have a conversation and convince each other of a progressive what eventually became a much more progressive party stance and I kind of feel as though that is one thing that could be amazing if it happened in Australia is randomly choose 100 people put them in a room give them a bunch of thorny issues get them to talk about them I think that's called big brother I think it's called parliament I mean that is what the parliament should be at its best if you put anyone the constraints of office are that you ultimately need to behave in a certain way and sometimes you can't flip up on what you promise your electorate don't have freedom to change your mind I disagree people in parliament have to rise to that challenge yes but they haven't but that's the point I'll give you a great example of this my opposite number in innovation is a guy named Ed Husik Ed and I are great mates you know still you know I had lunch with him a week or two ago we travelled together we tried to genuinely change policies together both of us got massively criticised for that by who by our own political parties but that didn't stop us from engaging in that and trying to have that conversation and the way that he and I approached this is like really simple can we agree on the problems that's a big first step can we agree that there are problems can we agree on what the solutions might be now that's much harder but genuinely speaking we could kind of find consensus and say look here's 20 things I disagree on that, you disagree on that, here's 10 what can we actually kind of push through and get to that point and you know if I don't want to use the word aggressive but if better people, well not better people but you know the right people I love my former colleagues but if people with that mindset were running for parliament and more people took that approach into the parliament and there's nothing stopping anybody from running for parliament that's democracy our country is built on a foundation that anybody from anywhere can become anything and the parliament should reflect that if more people like that went into the parliament with that view it would change that's just a function of the reality but I think fundamentally we agree with each other which is that you can get two people together who agree on the problems say agree on the solutions it's like you need it I'm not saying that it's you know I think politics is absolutely and incredibly important leave it a pull when you're challenging things but you also need it's not perfect, it's really broken in so many ways and it's so important that we have people like you people like Tara who are shaking the tree from the inside but you also need you have to accept that the constraints of office prevent people from behaving in the way that they actually probably want to and which can be great sometimes and bad others but it doesn't discriminate between the two and I think polarization is probably amplified by the 24 hour news cycle and the mediums through which we have conversations such as Twitter and Facebook I was going to ask you a question but the one thing that we haven't discussed in this is the role of the media and you're in the media I mean do you I mean what do you think do you want to hear this or do you want to open all right yeah what's your question does the media have a role to play in saving the world absolutely it does is it doing a good job I think it's doing the best job that it can do and when we talk about the media I think it's do you think the parliamentarians are doing the best job I think it's doing the best job that it can do and when we talk about the media I don't think we can talk about it as a homogenous entity because it's not we exist in a 24 hour news cycle it is fast there is we are outputting more with less money so we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the we're under the They are, as you say, increasingly polarised, right? And we have tried. This is a question that, you know, I work for SBS, but I'm sure that there would be... Well, every media organisation would have certainly asked themselves these questions of, okay, well, how do we get around the polarisation that exists through these mediums, you know? How do we get our message out there to the audience when the audience is increasingly turning to Facebook and Facebook is structured in a particular way and we don't actually have the authority over Facebook at all. We don't as individuals, we don't as media operators and we don't as, you know, Australian governments. So I think the media has a very important role to play, but I fear and I do have a certain degree of pessimism here that the mediums through which we exist and the mediums through which we tell stories are not conducive to, you know, that space for discussion and it's what you were sort of touching on, I think, the idea of having the time to reflect and to really think about what it is that we're asking ourselves, we're very time poor and that's, you know, that's not the media's fault. I think it's starting, it's starting that like the business model of journalism is broken, you know? It's broken. People aren't prepared. In some ways it's like the best argument ever for an independently funded ABC. But like the... How about the ABC? I'll come to you in a bit. Yeah. But you know, the different newspapers are attacking this in a really different way. Some people are putting up paywalls, but fundamentally like good journalism is so important to an educated population, which is what we base our, you know, an informed electorate, is what we base our entire democracy on. We aren't able to inform our electorate. You know, how do we even, it's just... How many of you pay for a subscription? Well, all right. I feel like I wasn't surprised by that answer, but I imagine that... Who pays for a subscription for a paper they disagree with? That's a better question. That's a way better question. Almost none of us. And this is the problem. This is why we need balanced media. And the thing is, is we will not pay for it. So we're literally building our own echo chambers, which is why the ABC is so important. Because Facebook's not going to put something in front of us they know we dislike. Because it's broken with their business model. So like, ultimately it's so important to have independent journalism that's accessible by everyone. It's just like so much common sense. Otherwise you are just breeding more generations of people who believe exactly the same things as you do. And then is it like a race war to have the biggest family? It's just... No, but it certainly is a cultural world that is fanned by mediums like Facebook and Twitter. Hugely. And to our detriment I would argue. But let me open up to questions. Because we have 15 minutes and I know that there would be some of you who do have questions. All right. We've got a roving mic. I think we might start over here. Thanks for the wonderful panel. I wonder if it's the case that just because we subscribe to various platforms that we agree with, that means we're not being exposed to alternative views. Because, you know, we're still hearing lots of voices in different media platforms. It's not as though I don't hear what Tony Abbott has to say just because I subscribe to Crikey or New Matilda. I mean, there are, you know, especially with the concentration of media and News Corp and the views that it tends to advance through those platforms, there isn't really any way I can escape from, you know, from the hard-rump, the hard-rump of the LNP. Sometimes I'd like to not hear them. But I just wonder if, you know, if it's such a problem for people to be, are we really in silos? I mean, I actually question that. Are we really in silos? Yeah. And I think that there isn't really anything wrong with subscribing to the newspapers we agree with because I don't think that blocks out alternative views. And I think we do that because we want to refine. We don't want to just have people put into words that we already feel. We want to refine our view. And, you know, personally, I subscribe to more left-leaning media because it does challenge and critique itself. It's not as though that's a block of consensus either and it's not as though it's not engaging with alternative views. And that's part of the refining of opinions is delving into complex arguments, which I think is far more likely to be encountered in left-leaning media than right. Well, I'll throw this question to Wyatt because I think one of the things that you mentioned as being a real challenge for us is the way in which we communicate. So are we really in silos? Yes. I mean, respectfully, I strongly disagree. If you look at your point about the business model changing, essentially what we've seen is technology has disrupted the media industry. So before you used to have three or four big broadsheet newspapers, three or four TV channels, three or four radio stations. Now you have hundreds of thousands because they're in a more competitive market and social media has changed that. So the response, the business model, is if I talk to people who agree with my worldview, I will therefore sell more newspapers, get more clicks, get more listeners, Fox News talks to these people, Krikey talks to these people. My ex-girlfriend's uncle, who actually spent two or three days with was the editor of Krikey. So I always used to have this great argument with him. God, how was Christmas dinner? It was boring. So because of that business model, how I think the media has responded and tell me if you think I'm wrong is they've responded by the impetus is to be first, so to get the news out as quickly as possible. That then removes investigative journalism. That removes, I think impartiality. That removes the idea that the media should be reporting of fact, not opinion because opinion sells more. So opinion sells a lot more than factual reporting. And in that environment, I actually think if I read and I do this, I read all the news outlets to challenge me. If I read them, I'd say 80% of the content is comment now. Genuinely, 80% of the stuff out there is comment. So if you are reading Krikey, you're reading 80% comment, which is a filter applied to fact. And that is coming from a biased perspective. So that's just kind of my view on it and I do think it's a problem. We'll go to this gentleman over here. I think he had a question. My question is related to politicians and government being an agent for change that we were talking about earlier and there were different views that we heard. What about diffusing that power? So just expecting the portfolio at the national level to solve all the problems may not be the right idea. What about saying how about Sydney solves the climate change problem like New Yorkers, for example, or how does Melbourne solve homelessness the way LA is trying to solve it? This is not my idea. It's been floating around in different forums. So I just wanted to understand what's your view on that. Diffusing power to solve problems. Was there a particular person that you directed? So to the panel, just someone. Anna, do you want to take that? I mean it's very important when it comes to tackling climate change and reducing emissions. There's so much that cities can do, that local governments can do, and that they are doing. And in many places where you have seen progress stop at a national level like in Australia, it's been the states or local governments that have stepped up. That's happening in the United States. That's happening in Australia. Absolutely, if you're listening to why say run for parliament and you're like no, maybe think about running for local council or getting involved in local government in some way because there actually is so much that you can do at a local level. Really good point. Can I just say really quickly, I know I talk a lot, but just devolving power as close as possible to its citizens is a great idea. And the reason I'm saying this is I've got a liberal win. I think the largest purchaser of renewable power in the country is Brisbane City Council. 100% of Brisbane City Council's buildings are renewable energy and it's been done under a liberal government and has been a liberal government for a very long time. A great example of local activism at that level responding and those progressive liberals you were talking about having good public policy. Excellent. God, you just had to get that one in. I had to get that one in. All right. Well, do we have any more? Yeah, we've got somebody over here. Thank you. I've had to think of a question. Oh. That's different. Really? Can we use the technology to help address some of these issues? Does it always have to sink to the lowest level in all of this? I did a quick search on Wyatt and came up with a 2015 policy hack on government with bright-eyed, bushy-tailed startups thinking about what can we do for government? Are there possibilities for coming up with innovative new ways to use the tech to have a positive useful debate? Can I? There's a start-up base in London which is run by another young global leader, weirdly, part of the World Economic Forum community. They are building a platform of public policy, like cutting-edge public policy open to all public servants trying to open-source the best policy available because ultimately, governments have to reinvent the wheel every time they come up with a challenge and it's largely to do with the human capital that they have available and how can we solve this one or just Google it or now you can Google it in a database of other public servants who've solved this before. So for policy-specific ones, yes, technology can absolutely be used. Can you use technology to get more engagement? Yeah, like you see politicians doing live streams and Q&As on Facebook. There's so many ways to solve it. There's so many tools available. It's just about making sure that they're accessible to all. Technology can actually fix the problem and not politics as well. Like if you look at the energy debate at the moment, it's a terrible debate, very polarised, all the rest of it. Technology will make great, far more significant jumps in solving those challenges than politicians ever will. Apply it to the water crisis that we talked about before. Water globally will be one of the biggest challenges we deal with. Getting Israelis and Palestinians and Jordanians to sit down and agree how they're going to separate water might be a bit tricky but using technology to solve that problem is actually quite good and easy. It can do both. I might go to this gentleman over here. Sorry, yeah. It's always about which direction, not how fast. It's all about when we want to pick about technology. It's about the debate about which technology is right for us as a community to just pursue. It's not how fast it can get us to the point that we want. I agree with you about the whole point that you made. But I mean thinking that all again about the consequence of the technology it's all about technology so it can help us in different ways but what direction that we want to go. So it can be helpful for different reasons, for different purposes but again we should zoom out. So it's a process for zoom in and zoom out because technology is developed for more optimization for optimizing our behavior to just, you know, we help us do not to do a repetitive action. But we should always think about the zoom out process to think about what does that technology whether it helps us to get to the point that we want to achieve as a community again going back to the way that we should imagine the future. So where we want to go as a community. Yeah. Yeah, good day. So we've heard a lot about politics, technology or other stuff. Each panel member I just want one very short sentence on who will save the world or where do we look for the person to save the world. Do I need to call up Superman or something like that to get it done or is there one group or technology? All right, great. Short sentence. Social movements. That was a very short sentence. Why? Everyone. Yeah. Business, society, parliament. In the mirror. Who did you say? In the mirror. In the mirror. Yeah, good one. I love to yourself. Yeah. Okay. There you go. Wonderful. Good. You should moderate next time. You're way better at this. Straight in the core. Hey, handsome. Did you hear this? No. Yeah, we'll come over here. Thank you. Yeah. People love us. They don't. He needs a job on the SPS. What's that? He needs a job on the SPS. You want my job? Sure. Good, because you can't have it. All right. Hi. I have a few points I'd really like to make, but I'll try and keep it brief. So going back a bit to the question of the distrust in the government compared back with the 60s, my suggestion is that, and I think that the use of the internet certainly has had a big impact on this. Looking at people waking up to the fact that a lot of politics is driven by fear and greed. That as was mentioned in the opening speech, there is a lot of fear mongering and politicians themselves, but also the way in which politicians are gaining support and making policies is driven largely, not completely, but arguably more so by fear and greed than by the desire to help people to make things better. So I think that a really important question that we could be asking, which touches on not only asking the right questions, but looking at the human consciousness being up for grabs, is how can we spread the love? I think there's been a lot of talk about what can we do to make the world a better place and I think it's been relatively unanimous that we are the ones who are going to save the world, but what if we're not ready? What if before we try to save the world we need to save ourselves? And then once we've saved ourselves, we can save each other, so I think how do we do that? I don't have the answer to that question. It's just a question I'd really like to present, but I think how can we spread the love, touching again on the moral imagination and compass? How can we develop that? We do have a lot of opposing views, but I think that the idea of opposing sides with regards to politics, for example, is somewhat a falsehood because we're looking at, okay, so who is the world? Well, it's a cliche, but we are the world. So we've touched on talking to people who disagree with you and convincing them of your argument, and I think that focusing on what keeps us separate is possibly not the best approach and maybe looking at what it is that actually brings us together, what it is that we share, and I think that the biggest thing that we share is humanity, and we're probably always going to have situations where people don't always agree with each other, but how can we foster kindness? How can we develop a skill set so that people are capacitated to take on these discussions where people are having opposing views? These are important skills which can be quite tricky to learn, can take a lot of practice for people to have the confidence to challenge someone. I might have to stop you there, sorry. I feel like you are making a very, very good point. But we are actually out of time. I do think that that's a really interesting point to end on though. It's how do we foster kindness, how do we spread the love, because that's kind of something that needs to essentially happen before we work out the ways in which to do it. So thank you for that, and thank you to everybody who asked questions, and thank you very much to our panelists. Thank you. Closing remarks. We're going to flip it. Closing remarks, not a question, not a long story, a line. How are you going to save the world? Get up and say it. What was yours, come on. We've done a talking, that's your turn. I'm going to save the world by... Getting involved. Getting involved. I'm going to save the world by... Giving a share. Giving a share. I'm going to save the world by... I'm going to save the world. Come on. Telling a joke. Telling a joke. Yes, do it again. Yes. I don't mean a bad one. Being the change is... Being the change you want to see in the world. Yes. Hell yes, I like that. We need sides. How are you going to change the world? Shout it out. Okay, alright. Read... No, I read The Herald Sun every day. So I know what I'm up against. Come on. How are you going to change the world? Shout it out. Stop a climate change. Stop a climate change. Go on. Australian Republic. Australian Republic? Yeah. Go. Yep, fantastic. The people at the back, come on. Ask the right questions to the right people. Fostering dialogue. Fostering dialogue. Having empathy. Having empathy. Science in the sun. Something around science in the sun. Yes? Excellent. Listening. Listening. Love. Love. Lots and lots of love. Love is in the room tonight. Yes, final couple people. Loving our children. Loving our children. Yeah, raise the generation. Raise the generation of boys that are going to respect women. Love. Respect. Last two. Be sensible. Be sensible. Good. Yes. And have manners.Minus takes you a long way to life. Last person. Peace building and making. The point is stop looking here. Stop looking to people like me or any of these amazing people here. Stop doing that. It's actually got to start with all of us. It doesn't take any super skill. Super status. Super following on social media. కైటినాలా వభెంలినిలినికైரింపలవ్ని It takes just giving a shit and dreaming and loving and caring, and that's the note in which I would like to now pass it over to our lovely host. Thank you for an extremely heartfelt call to arms. That was absolutely fantastic. We'd like to thank the Churchill Trust and the Sir Roland Wilson Foundation for partnering together tonight to put on such a brilliant event. Thanks very much to Jan Fran for hosting. I will admit to a little bit of fangirling. I watched the feed. And thank you so much to our brilliant panel for such a balanced discussion. It's really wonderful to have a discussion on such an important issue with people who are really engaged and such an excited and engaged audience as well. So thank you so much everyone for coming tonight. Sir Roland Wilson, the delegates who are future shapers meeting your dinner parties outside, your groups will be in the foyer and you're looking for your team person who has the sign with your group number on it. And your transport will be arranged for you as well. Thank you very much and good evening.