"key news"?

Hardly. Well not for the vast majority of Australians. Some bloke who despite earlier warnings decided he enjoyed the media spotlight a little more than his academic position is now disputing the price.

Of all the aggrieved people putting their cases to the Federal Court why do you think this should get special attention? Can we have logical reasons not ideological please.

Key news is communication of relevant evidence proving or indicating a cause of damage that if not addressed with proper solutions will continue and worsen and compound. Consequences of such damage include devastation of coral worldwide, not just coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Also there is chronic hardship involving protein deficiency under-nutrition and resulting NCD and early death among Pacific Islands people.

Blaming or pointing the finger at CO2 emissions and farmers for GBR damage is quite different to blaming municipal sewage nutrient loads dumped daily, un-managed nutrient that is amounting to nutrient pollution and waterway and ocean dead zones. Reducing CO2 emissions will not reduce dissolved N&P bonded to fresh water that can be transported long distances by surface water currents driven by prevailing wind.

Government should be seeking truth and debate to implement effective solutions. Public debate and knowledge can inspire correct public spending, for example on scientific research instead of on non-viable traffic jamming tram 'infrastructure'.

Our publicly funded and duly obligated ABC should be reporting apparently justified concern about the GBR, indicated as follows?

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/02/foi-regime-thwarts-bid-to-expose-great-barrier-reef-lobbying-researcher-says

What the government should be seeking is the truth that Peter Ridd has highlighted, that our academics & universities have become grannt chasers, to better then ambulance chasing lawyers.

If Peter is right, & from my personal experience he is in at least some cases, the ABC should be screaming to the heavens of the corruption in academia. Not much chance when the ABC is a major part of the problem, giving air space to every bit of garbage that comes from them.

Bet your boots, they will be screaming in 10 Ft high headlines that Ridd has lost if he does.

Dear Hasbeen,

How it going old cock? Good to see you still at it.

What Peter Ridd should have done was raise his concerns without denigrating his colleagues. He is paying the price for something he was appropriately warned about.

It is your lot who want to turn this into a big anti-GW free speech issue when it appears just to have been not abiding by the rules which were clearly stated.

Time to move on me thinks.

SteeleRedux,
The fact that this was about a trivial breach of the rules is precisely why it is important!
Academic misconduct, whether by him or his opponents, should be exposed not covered up.

Surely the Peter Ridd case is also about whether or not one scientist was justified in making the relevant comments about other scientists.

It appears GBR science is dysfunctional and damage to coral is continuing without communication and debate about appropriate solutions to the causes of coral (and ecosystem) damage.

There is no evidence CO2 emissions are the only cause of AGW and coral damage, there may be two or three causes so why stifle or cover up or gag relevant science and local knowledge news and debate?