Distilling the traditions of whisky: 15 minutes with James Buntin
Scotsman James Buntin knows a thing or two about whisky. Known as ‘the whisky ambassador’, here he shares his love of Australia — and a wee dram
4 min
In our occasional series with Australia’s movers and shakers, James Buntin describes his introduction whisky and how it has shaped his life.
For more stories like this, pick up the latest issue of Kanebridge Quarterly magazine here.
Q How did you find yourself living in Australia?
I originally moved here in 1999 to further my career in the hospitality industry. However I have had a love affair with Australia since the early 90s when I came here as a backpacker and felt instantly at home in this beautiful country of ours.
Q. When did you first start drinking whisky? Describe
the experience.
My first encounter with whisky was during my early years in Scotland. I vividly remember my father and uncle David taking me with them on their distillery visits around the whisky
regions of Scotland.
I was hooked, not on the whisky yet but more on the romance, history and sense of tradition that surrounded it. It was like stepping back in time. My first whisky was with my dad at new year (Hogmanay). I have no idea how old l was and the dram was probably 50/50 or more cut with water. The older I got the less the water added.
Q. When did you host your first tasting or masterclass?
I remember this well. My father, uncle and I returned from a trip visiting distilleries in the highlands of Scotland where we collected amber samples from each one. Upon our return to Edinburgh my father encouraged me to present these delights along with information on the distilleries and locations we had visited to my family and friends. It was 1984 and I was 15 and still have the picture.
Q. What is the best way to drink whisky in your view?
The best way to enjoy whisky and fully appreciate its nuances is with a few drops of water. This helps to open up the more delicate aromas and flavours that are often masked by the alcohol. Although there are some who would say the only thing that you should add to whisky is more whisky!
Q. What is it about the traditions of whisky distillation and drinking that appeals to you?
The traditions of whisky distillation and drinking appeal to me because they connect us with the past. It’s a craft that has been refined over centuries — one that you can experience though taste.
Q. Is there a nostalgic element about it?
Absolutely, there’s a strong nostalgic element. It reminds me of my Scottish heritage, my roots, and the stories passed down through generations. Whisky for me is a gateway to the past activated by aroma and taste. I have on many occasions been given a whisky not knowing what it is until the first sip and ‘bang’, I’m reminiscing a happy memory.
Q. Is that nostalgia also why you enjoy classic cars like the Morgan? Tell me about your experience with that car.
My love for classic cars like the Morgan stems from a similar sentiment. The craftsmanship and timeless design are reminiscent of the traditions I hold dear. I was the brand ambassador for The Balvenie in the UK a few years ago and the promotion of craft was a big priority for me. Bespoke things made by the hands of talented craftspeople are always the best and most desirable objects.
I collaborated with Morgan Motors to create a four-seater sports car. The video of the car being built is up on YouTube and is well worth a watch to see them bringing it to life using wood from an Ash tree.
Q. How has your Scottish heritage influenced your interest?
I am a proud Scot and whisky produced from my homeland is something that I am extremely passionate about. I have represented a large number of Scotch whiskies and that fills me with a great deal of national pride due to its quality and taste.
Q. You’ve worked for some of the best whisky brands in the world. What do they all have in common?
The best whisky brands all have strong values that uphold the commitment to quality, craftsmanship, and share a deep respect for tradition whilst looking to the future. These values are non-negotiable.
Q. Is there such a thing as bad whisky?
“There is no such thing as bad whisky — only good whisky and better!” someone once said, and it’s true there are certainly variations in quality. Older whisky is a harmony of flavours and balance, whereas younger, lesser ones might lack depth or complexity. It really is all about time in the wood.
Q. Why is whisky drinking most commonly associated with men, more than women?
The association of whisky with men is historical, but that’s changed. Women are increasingly drawn to whisky, and it’s a positive evolution. There are some amazing women in every aspect of the whisky industry from the field to the glass. I am lucky to have them as friends and colleagues. Australians have grown more appreciative of whisky over the years. The variety and accessibility of whisky options have expanded, making it a prominent part of the Australian drinking culture.
Borrowers cannot control the Reserve Bank, but they can control how exposed their household budget is to its next decision. The RBA meets on 29 September with inflation concerns still elevated and major-bank economists increasingly bringing forward their rate-rise calls. Fixed mortgage rates have also been moving, reducing the value of waiting for perfect certainty. …
Continue reading “What mortgage holders should do before the next RBA decision”
Australian shares finished higher on Tuesday, September 22, as a technology rally and lower oil prices outweighed weakness in energy companies and continued anxiety about domestic interest rates. The S&P/ASX 200 closed 25.9 points, or 0.30 per cent, higher at 8,757.8. The All Ordinaries gained 0.36 per cent to 8,951.0, while the All Technology index …
Continue reading “ASX Wrap: Technology lifts the ASX as falling oil relieves inflation pressure”
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
From Italian vegetable-tanned leather to real-world training insight, Australian brand PK9 Gear is redefining what luxury means for discerning dog owners.
Rising rates, construction inflation and shrinking investor confidence are pushing Australia deeper into a dangerous housing spiral that monetary policy alone cannot fix.
