Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

On 7 July, a new European Union requirement came into force requiring new vehicles sold in Europe to implement “Advanced Driver Distraction Warning” technology.

These systems are essentially designed to monitor whether a driver is keeping their eyes on the road, meaning sensors and software constantly monitor the driver’s face and eye movements and warn them when the system decides that they are distracted.

Under this system, buying a new car means accepting technology that constantly watches your movements and analyses where you are looking while you drive. To me, this represents a profound shift in the way we interact with our vehicles and marks another step towards the acceptance of constant monitoring and surveillance.

In-Car Surveillance Systems in Australia?

Now, you might say, “but that’s only happening in Europe.” However, the Australian government’s own National Connected and Automated Vehicle Action Plan provides for the development or updating of Australian Design Rules, including rules for driver-monitoring systems.

It states that, wherever possible, Australian vehicle standards will be aligned with relevant international standards. The Action Plan does not itself mandate driver-monitoring technology, but it shows that Australian regulators are actively considering standards in this area and that regulatory developments overseas are likely to influence the rules ultimately adopted here.

So, is the European model likely to be the template for what happens in other parts of the world like Australia down the track and is that the tip of the privacy iceberg as vehicles collect more and more data?

Well, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations has recently considered a Proposal for a new UN Regulation on Advanced Driver Distraction Warning System, which was based on a draft proposal submitted by “experts from Australia”.

Despite the overtures about safety and privacy of these systems, Australians are certainly within their rights to be wary. I have previously discussed my concerns about vehicle data collection on my podcast, which you can watch here:

Who Is Actually Making the Rules in Australia?

Drivers should not be forced to accept these systems if they want to purchase a new car. However, that appears to be the direction in which we are headed.

Road safety is obviously very important, but so are privacy and the choice to voluntarily opt in or out of these technologies.

I am tired of  constantly hearing that such measures are necessary “for your safety”, and of important questions affecting the lives of Australians seemingly being settled overseas ahead of time by globalist entities rather than at home.

___

Based Podcast Transcript with Andrea Amico

Alex: Welcome, Andrea Amico, from Atlanta in the United States. Straight off the bat on this podcast — a car spying on me. Should I know something about this?

Andrea: Probably yes. Well, it depends on what you drive. If you drive a very old vehicle from 30 or 40 years ago, you’ll be fine. But if you drive something newer —

Alex: It’s a brand new Ford Ranger, unfortunately. I’ve seen it on your website, so I’m being watched everywhere.

Andrea: You’re being watched everywhere. It’s a fascinating topic. The reason I reached out to you the other day was because I saw a podcast you did with another person, and I was just fascinated by it. Here in Australia, we talk a little bit about how much our phones spy on us, but I don’t think anyone is really across the topic of how much data is bleeding out through your cars. And obviously, newer cars make this worse. So what’s the lay of the land? Should we be worried here in Australia?

Alex: Yes — and the situation in Australia is unfortunately no different than in the United States, Canada, the UK, or Europe. We’ve done statistics in Australia as well, and the numbers are just about the same. Cars collect a lot of data. We can talk about what kind of data they collect. This data is typically stored and encrypted on your car — think of your car like an encrypted hard drive. When people sell it, nobody deletes it, so the next owner can have access to the previous owner’s text messages. The previous owner can locate and track the new owner. And there seem to be no safeguards in Australia yet.

Alex: There’s so much to take in there. Let’s start with the basics. The car itself is effectively a computer on wheels. It’s got cameras, its own SIM card, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth — many different angles through which data can be used and leaked. And of course there’s the smartphone with its own apps plugged in as well. Where does it start? What’s the snapshot of where this data is being taken — is it the phone, the car, or a combination of both?

Andrea: It’s a combination of both. Cars have a lot of sensors, and over time the number of sensors and their capabilities have grown. This should not be shocking to your audience. Before you even get in the car, your car is logging that you’re nearby because it senses the key. It logs when you open the door. As soon as you sit down, it logs how much you weigh. Then you turn it on, cameras and microphones activate, and you have literally terabytes of data being captured — all the time. And as you pointed out, people bring devices like the ones we carry in our pockets, and they connect them. Cars have been designed so that when you connect your phone, the car essentially downloads and stores a mini clone of your phone inside the vehicle. It’s unencrypted, and you can browse the contents of a phone with very little technological knowledge.

Australia, actually, is where the very first cases I know of came from — domestic abuse cases perpetrated by people using this technology in cars. So yes, cars not only have privacy problems, but those privacy problems tend to become security problems, safety problems, and financial problems. You may have read articles recently about people whose insurance was raised because their car told the insurance company how they were driving, without the driver really knowing. Cars are a very interesting and peculiar case — complex, and that’s my little area of expertise.

Alex: How did you come into this? You’ve obviously got a fair depth of knowledge. What was the moment that brought you into understanding this and then getting involved in, I suppose, the fight against it?

Andrea: I was in automotive for a while. One of the companies I was running was a large used car inspection business — we inspected cars when they were returned at the end of a rental or before they were resold, mainly for mechanical things: does the car have any damage, that sort of thing. But one of my clients was being investigated by a federal agency over how they were treating customer data — nothing to do with cars, but I was curious. They were due for an audit, and I sat down in a car. I remember it like yesterday. I’m sitting in the car, and after a minute I thought, “Uh oh.” I opened Google Maps on my phone, turned to satellite view, and started counting. I looked at a house and counted: one, two, three garage doors. I had one, two, three garage door opener codes. I knew where this lady lived, where she worked, where she took her kids to school, that she was a breast cancer survivor, and I had a great list of her favourite restaurants — which is great, but that was shocking to me.

I started talking to people about what I could find in cars, and nobody really seemed to know much about it. Or worse, they didn’t believe what I was telling them was real. So I got curious and started looking into it. I’m credited with doing the first statistical analysis of what data is left in cars. From there I started hacking into cars, and that’s when it became really interesting — because I discovered you could do things people thought were very hard. I actually taught my eight-year-old daughter how to hack into her mum’s car and extract text messages. That became a passion project. I’m not in your position where I can pass laws, so if I wanted to make a difference, the only thing I knew how to do was start a company. So I started a company with the mission of making the world of cars a little bit more private — and that’s what we do.

Alex: It feels like the technology revolution has changed all the old norms. I always say that social media has disrupted the news business. We still have laws in Australia that prevent one person or one company from owning all the media, but it feels like the laws haven’t caught up with a lot of these technological aspects. Privacy in cars and privacy on your phone are really another example of that — the laws just haven’t adapted to the fast pace of technology.

To understand it and know what to do about it, it would help to have a real-life example. Could you step me through the sort of data that would be leaked or siphoned off through a simple trip — say, a person getting in their car to visit their parents on the other side of town? Starting with plugging your phone in, or even earlier — what would that look like in real terms?

Andrea: Cars create logs. Everything you do in your car is logged based on the sensors, and the nature and detail of those logs vary from car to car. But let’s suppose it’s your car — you said you drive a brand new Ford. As soon as you approach the car, it will sense you. It will know it’s you because it recognises your key versus, say, your wife’s key. When you sit down, it takes your weight. You start the car — that event is logged. The infotainment powers up, your phone syncs automatically, so whatever is new since the last time you were in the car gets downloaded into the vehicle again.

Then you start driving, and everything from how you press the brakes and throttle to whether you’re speeding or cornering hard — all those events are logged. If you’re travelling with somebody, the car knows: which door opened, is it front or back, is it likely an adult or a child based on the weight.

With newer cars like yours, there is a driver monitoring system — a little camera hidden in there, no red light flashing, but you’re being recorded. Smile, you’re on camera. Those systems were originally engineered to detect whether you’re paying attention to the road — where are your eyes, are you looking at your phone? If so, you typically get some kind of alert. That was born out of safety. But one of the largest providers of these systems bought, two years ago, a company that specialises in detecting emotions through AI. So as you drive, your emotions are now being logged.

And I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but when little icons populate on your infotainment system, it’s because the manufacturer is being paid by those companies to place essentially a mini billboard on your navigation screen. Your data is being collected. Whatever was originally used for safety, over the last ten years companies started to look at that data as a gold mine to monetise. So it doesn’t matter whether you paid 50 or 60,000 Australian dollars for your car — your data is also being monetised. People don’t realise this because the disclosures are buried in very long and very complex legal documents. Dealerships don’t really tell you, and frankly they often don’t know themselves. In the United States, for Ford alone, it takes five or six hours to read all the documents to try to understand what happens to your data — and I don’t think you’d really understand it even then. Which consumer does that? Nobody. And in that ignorance, companies are thriving because they get to use data in ways people don’t understand.

Alex: We would all have seen the privacy statements and privacy policies. Presumably buried in there is the detail about what the companies do with your data. But what do they actually say? I mean, we’ve all seen the notifications in new cars — “put your seat belt on” is a simple one. It knows you’re there, it knows someone’s in the passenger seat. You’re saying the cars are collecting that data and storing it somewhere on the vehicle’s memory?

Andrea: Yes. Your car would typically hold somewhere between one and two years of history stored locally. And then some of that data gets transferred via telematics — your car has its own little cell phone. So even if you don’t connect your phone, your car is a bit like E.T.: it calls home all the time. For some things that’s great — you get traffic updates, you may get a software update so a security patch is automatically applied. Those things are wonderful. But it also means that everything you’re doing in the car, all that data, gets transferred not just to the manufacturer but to literally hundreds of companies that provide the services and systems inside the vehicle. And if you read the privacy policies, they will tell you that those companies reserve the right to use that data for essentially whatever they want.

Alex: There’s big money in data collection. What sort of money are we talking about, and who are the companies taking it? If you put an app on your phone, it’s communicating through your car to the app manufacturers. The map makers are a big one. We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars per annum, presumably?

Andrea: Oh yes. Back in 2017 or 2018, McKinsey — I used to work there, it’s a management consulting company — estimated that vehicle data by 2030 would be worth 750 billion globally. The current revised estimate has come down, but it′s still somewhere 400 and $600 billion. A lot of money, and of course everyone wants a slice of that.

Alex: Many people would have seen this on their maps software — the programs pick up where you’ve been, sometimes highlight places you’ve visited, where your car is parked. I suppose we all assume that stays local, but that information is being sent away. That’s effectively how these map programs work — they tell you about traffic because they’re sending your data, aggregated with other people’s, and forming a view of where congestion is. It’s actually pretty obvious when you think about it.

Andrea: Yes, and look — there are a lot of very good use cases. Data from cars can be used for wonderful things: making cars safer, reducing traffic, providing convenience and services that consumers want. I think the challenge the automotive industry is facing right now is that things got a little out of hand. They wanted to monetise the data without consumers really understanding what was going to happen with it. There’s now a moment of backlash, which really started here in the United States due to a number of disclosures — including from us — about what type of data cars collect.

But recently, I’m amazed — Australia is starting to be a place where people are paying attention to this. I think it’s partly the result of a series of data breaches you’ve had, mainly on the telco side. The Australian community is increasingly concerned about data security, and they should be. Vehicles are just another cell phone. Just because it has four tyres and an engine doesn’t mean it works any differently — it’s exactly the same type of technology, and unfortunately it creates the very same risks. Plus, of course, cars can be potentially dangerous on the road. So I’m grateful you’re speaking about this in Australia, because I think it’s really a great time to start raising these issues here.

Alex: I think it’s something Australians generally are not broadly aware of. People assume the phone does it, and maybe the car is an extension of that, but there’s more to it as well. What equipment inside a car goes over and above the phone? You mentioned the car has its own SIM card — but there are cameras, microphones, other computer systems. What are the things additional to your phone that track, store, and transmit data?

Andrea: Modern cars are a cluster of anywhere between 50 to 100-plus computers, all connected in a network. Imagine a pile of computers with wires attached to each other sitting in your driveway — that’s exactly what a car is inside nowadays. People don’t realise that 40% of the cost of a car today is driven by the electronics. It’s no longer mainly the metal and the plastic. It is a large piece of consumer electronics.

As you said, the car clearly picks up data from our own phones, but it also has its own phone — and sometimes more than one. Say you go to a dealership and they tell you that you can reduce your insurance costs by installing a tracker. Now you have a third cell phone inside that vehicle. All of these work exactly the same way. They have their own SIM card — and this is something people really don’t realise — every car has a phone number. You can’t call it and talk to your car, but it has a data connection just like your mobile phone. It is essentially a mobile hotspot, and that’s how people also get in-car Wi-Fi, which provides great convenience and services. But there is a dark side to it that people need to be aware of.

Alex: So it’s communicating with cell phone towers along the journey, but there are also other sensors out there picking up Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals. Local highway equipment, local council equipment — there are many ways in which data is leaked.

Andrea: Yes, many ways. Your licence plate can be tracked, and that data can be combined with your Wi-Fi identifier or Bluetooth identifier. You can overlay all that information and draw very detailed pictures of where people are, where they’re going, what they’re doing in their cars. So cars are not very private.

Alex: Apart from data brokers and companies selling and receiving the data, is there any evidence that law enforcement is using it or monitoring people in the United States — without warrants or phone taps?

Andrea: Yes. Two interesting things. First, two US senators recently analysed whether companies were giving data to law enforcement only with a warrant, or also without one. It turns out the norm is that companies will often give data to law enforcement or government upon a simple request — no due process whatsoever.

The other thing you’ll find interesting is that if I stop you and want to extract data from your cell phone, I need a warrant — unless you voluntarily give it to me. But with a car it’s not the same. There’s a large company called Berla that creates hardware and software to essentially hack into cars and extract whatever they want — and they operate in Australia as well. There’s no need for a warrant because the information in a car, once synced, loses its encryption and therefore its legal protections. That is one of the big loopholes that the legislative branch should be looking at.

Alex: So are you talking about someone walking past a car with a device, or remotely accessing it from an office somewhere?

Andrea: Forensics used to be done locally — you’d plug into the car. But that’s starting to change, because your car has a cell phone and your data is going out to a number of places. It doesn’t just stay in the car anymore. In fact, there have been recent news reports of two or three murder cases in which police presented as evidence information that was collected by the manufacturer or by big data companies — the data had migrated out of the car entirely, and through it investigators could reconstruct what someone was doing. There are positive uses of this, as you can imagine, for solving serious crimes. But shouldn’t we follow the same due process we’re required to follow for everything else?

Alex: And that’s the point, isn’t it — the old norms of protection haven’t been overlaid onto the new way of doing things. I think Australians would be absolutely shocked to learn some of this. There’s also the criminal angle — people have banking apps on their phones, photos, videos, text messages, basically everything about a person’s life potentially being transmitted via their car. Their shopping habits, which shopping centres they visit — all of that. The last car I rented, I could see the YouTube history of the previous person.

Andrea: Yes. Cars now know your Google login because they get it from your phone if you use certain applications. I go into a rental car, I can see the person’s photo, the Gmail thumbnails, the exact email address. There’s an icon on the dashboard that says YouTube, and you click it and see exactly what that person was watching. That’s not right.

And it would only take a minute or a minute and a half for rental companies to remove this data. They vacuum the car, but they don’t vacuum the infotainment system. I think that’s crazy. And it’s not just an embarrassing example — nowadays you also see cases of financial fraud stemming from this.

Alex: What about when you’re plugging your phone into a rental car — you’re likely leaving text messages, phone logs, all sorts of data behind for the next renter?

Andrea: Absolutely. In fact, all the major rental companies have already been sued multiple times over this issue. What they do is prefer to settle rather than actually fix the problem. I think about it in terms of my own old phones — when I bring them for ethical recycling, I try to delete the data myself, and I trust that the recycling centre will take care of removing it properly. I wouldn’t give my computer to someone else without wiping it. The fact that we don’t do the same with cars is absolutely nuts — it’s simply because people look at a car as something that takes you from A to B. The more people realise that they’re actually sitting on a pile of computers that record them as they go from A to B, the better. Once consumers understand that, they’re pretty mad — and they should be.

Alex: Is this universal across all makes and models of new cars?

Andrea: There are some differences, but they’re mainly across time. With newer cars, more technology is added, which means more data is collected, more data is left behind, and more data is transmitted. Those three numbers keep going up every year. If you want a private car, you probably need to buy something old — but that’s not a pragmatic solution. You can’t tell consumers to buy a 20-year-old car. People have other concerns: budget, safety, family needs. Privacy should not be something that prevents you from getting the car you need.

Alex: That’s a very good point. The temptation would be to go out and drive a 1980 Ford pickup instead of a 2023 one, but it’s not practical. And in any event, the world around us is tracking people in ways we probably don’t imagine anyway. This really is just another piece in the puzzle of the surveillance state — the corporate sector playing its part. Here in Australia, just like in the US, we have cameras that detect whether you’re touching your phone while driving, sensors around the city, often for good reason. But the flip side is giving away your information, your data, your liberty. These cars are presumably going to play a very important role in the future surveillance of citizens. It would be very hard to do anything the government and the corporate sector don’t know about.

Andrea: Cars are particularly important to look at for a number of reasons. First, they’re very expensive — a significant purchase. Consumers can’t just say “oh darn, it tracks me” and immediately buy a different car. There should be special consideration for that alone. Second, they’re highly necessary. In Australia, just like in the United States, you can cover extremely large distances, and having your own vehicle is often essential to participating in society and having a productive life. You could argue that social media is optional — increasingly less so, but at least in theory you could try to avoid it. But you cannot get to work or take your kids to school or your mother to hospital without a car. It’s a very different level of fundamental need.

Third, there are safety and security implications with cars that are really not the same as, say, your home Alexa device. Unfortunately, the industry tends to do exactly the opposite of what’s needed — industry players look at laws and say, “Well, the law doesn’t say the word ‘car’, so it doesn’t apply to us.” I often point out that privacy laws don’t say “computer” or “tablet” either, but that doesn’t mean those laws don’t apply to them. There’s a bit of a log jam in the industry because of the enormous gold prize at the end of the rainbow — hundreds of billions of dollars — and so privacy just isn’t very convenient for them.

Personally, I think they have the wrong perspective. If consumers want privacy, why not give it to them? I think companies that focus on privacy would actually be very successful in selling cars.

Alex: And people are paying for the privilege of letting others spy on them — as you say, 40% of the cost of the car is the electronics. It seems a bit crazy. On that note, if cars are accessible wirelessly via the internet, is there any evidence that cars could be remotely accessed and controlled?

Andrea: Yes. There’s unfortunately a very long history of real-world cases. It used to be only researchers doing these things, but nowadays we’re starting to see criminal hackers actually tapping into vehicle systems and doing harmful things with the data collected by vehicles. This is a real and truly happening concern. The industry is paying attention to security, but there’s a lot of pressure right now — particularly in the United States — around understanding how Chinese manufacturers are using data collected from cars. In the United States we haven’t had Chinese car imports yet, but for Australia that’s a reality today. People need to recognise that this is a very real consideration. In China, for instance, government officials are not allowed to drive Teslas, and Teslas are not permitted on military or government compounds. If they are concerned, why shouldn’t we be concerned about vehicles from other countries?

Alex: Just to be clear — are we talking about someone accessing and controlling the motion of the car? Is that a very real concern?

Andrea: First, surveilling people via cars — that is definitely a clear possibility, and it’s probably happening today with millions of cars on the road. When it comes to remote control, there have been a number of hackers who have achieved this in the past. Companies are paying close attention to this, as you can imagine, because if you learn how to hack a particular make and model, it’s not just one car you can affect — you can potentially affect millions. The consequences are so severe that companies are investing heavily in securing their vehicles. But people really need to realise that every time you connect something, you significantly raise the stakes in terms of security and privacy.

Alex: What are the basic steps people can take? A lot of this is presumably integral to the operation of the vehicle — you can’t just remove a SIM card and expect the car to function properly. What can people do?

Andrea: There are a few things. First, I believe informed consumers are always better off. Nobody likes reading privacy policies, but we have started analysing the Australian privacy policies of a number of manufacturers — we haven’t published them yet, but I think that will happen later this year. In the meantime, you can either go to the Mozilla Foundation’s report — Mozilla is a nonprofit — and read the report for your automaker, or use a website we created called Vehicle Privacy Report. You enter your car’s VIN number. Change the geography, because we don’t cover Australia and New Zealand yet — give it a few months — but if you look at the disclosures in Canada, the United States, and the UK, it’s the same car, working pretty much the same way. You’ll start to understand what type of data your car collects, where it goes, whether it’s shared or sold, and what features the car has.

For instance, as a consumer you want to know: does my car have its own SIM card? Does it have a GPS? Sometimes a car doesn’t have navigation but still has GPS, so people assume it doesn’t when it actually does. Start by knowing what your car does.

If you’re shopping for a car, I’d recommend doing the same research first. And at the very least, when you’re ending a rental or selling your car, make sure you delete your data. Don’t leave a mini clone of yourself behind. If you don’t know how to do it, ask the salesperson at the dealership or the rental company to do it for you — and make sure they either do it in front of you or give you written confirmation, because unfortunately we have a lot of evidence that people are promised certain things will happen but they actually don’t.

Alex: Some of it’s unavoidable, but presumably things like reducing the number of apps you have and limiting location services on those apps are helpful too, even if it feels like bailing water out of the Titanic?

Andrea: Laws will be very helpful in fixing those kinds of things, and what you can do also varies by geography. But there are things within your control. On the manufacturer’s app specifically, I actually go against the current wisdom and tell everyone: you should absolutely download the manufacturer’s app, and you should register yourself as the owner. That’s how you’ll typically know whether somebody else has also been attached to the car — and believe me, you don’t want that. In the wrong hands, access to your car is worse than a spare key; it’s a stalking machine plus a spare key. So download the app, create an account, make sure you’re assigned as the rightful owner. Then it’s up to you whether you want to ditch the app because you don’t want to be tracked by it, or keep it for the convenience features. But at the very least, make sure nobody else has unauthorised access to your car.

Alex: It’s staggering information. The last topic I wanted to cover is the legislative angle. Are there things happening in the United States that are pushing lawmakers in this direction? You mentioned some Senate inquiries earlier about law enforcement access to data, but is the issue getting any traction?

Andrea: Not so much at the federal level. The US is trying to pass a federal privacy law and it’s just not getting done. But states have acted — right now I think there are 16 or 17 states that have passed their own privacy laws, so you have a big patchwork. Canada is also trying to update its privacy law, and I’m aware that Australia is trying to pass an updated privacy law as well, so good luck — I hope it brings some additional protection to consumers.

Enforcers have also been very active. California created its own enforcement agency, and the very first action they announced was that they would be investigating cars — not social media, not search engines, but cars. I think that should tell you where the real ugliness is right now. There’s an active investigation in Texas that has become public, and many other state attorneys general are also investigating these matters.

You may have seen news stories about people paying more for insurance because their car sold data to a data broker, whose insurance rates then doubled, or whose insurer dropped them entirely. The more stories like this emerge, the harder it becomes for companies to maintain the stance that this data is valuable and should be monetised at all costs. They should really be asking: is this what consumers want when they buy a car? And the answer is increasingly no.

Alex: From Australia’s point of view, what should we be doing to protect consumers and their privacy?

Andrea: I’m not sure I’m the best person to advise on that specifically, but I can tell you that Europe has extremely strong laws, though enforcement hasn’t quite been there. The United States hasn’t had very strong laws, with a few state exceptions, but enforcement has been very active. And I can tell you from our perspective that companies in the United States have been a lot more responsive in trying to do the right thing because of the pressure from consumers being vocal, being exposed in the news, and the fact that we are a very litigious country. That has created a situation where companies have been moved to act. In fact, many finance companies, dealerships, and insurance companies here have started establishing proper processes for what to do with vehicle data — when a vehicle is financed, when it’s a total loss, when a trade-in is accepted, when a new or used car is sold, and so on.

It’s obviously not happening in a vacuum — it’s happening because consumers read the news and are upset. I saw a recent statistic here in the United States: nine out of ten consumers don’t trust the manufacturer with their data. That doesn’t paint a good picture of the industry. And 40% of consumers say data privacy is highly important to their vehicle shopping experience. Last year, that number was essentially zero. So I know that today, for many in your Australian audience, this is probably the first time they’ve thought about vehicle privacy — but I promise you, this topic is going to pick up steam. Everybody has a car, and we all have a personal relationship with them — I remember naming my first car. To have that trusted companion rat you out and raise your insurance premium? That’s just not good.

Alex: It’s a fascinating topic, and there’s so much more to cover. People can learn more at privacyforcars.com — that’s privacy, the number four, cars — and the other website is vehicleprivacyreport.com, which gives a snapshot of what your car is doing. I think people will find it fascinating — maybe horrifying, but important.

Andrea: Fascinating and horrifying, absolutely.

Alex: Andrea Amico, thank you so much. Thank you for the work you’re doing, and thanks for coming on and sharing this information. I think Australians are going to be pretty interested. We look forward to following your work in the future.

Andrea: Absolutely, thank you, Alex.

Republished with thanks to Senator Alex Antic. Image courtesy of Adobe.