Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Cole-Hunter, Research fellow, Queensland University of Technology

When it comes to handling the waste crisis in Australia, options are limited: we either export our waste or bury it. But to achieve current national targets, policy-makers are increasingly asking if we can instead safely burn waste as fuel.

Proposals for waste incinerators are being considered in the Greater Sydney region, but these have been lambasted by the Greens and independent members of the NSW parliament, who cite public health concerns.

Meanwhile, the ACT government has recently put a blanket ban on these facilities.

Read more: China’s garbage ban upends US recycling – is it time to reconsider incineration?

But are their concerns based on evidence? In our systematic review of the scientific literature, we could identify only 19 papers among 269 relevant studies — less than 10% — that could help address our question on whether waste-to-energy incinerators could harm our health.

This means the answer remains unclear, and we therefore call for a cautious approach to waste-to-energy technology.

One person, one year, 500 kilograms of waste

Australia’s waste crisis began in 2018 when China greatly reduced how much waste it imported. China’s waste market was handling about half of the world’s recyclable materials, including Australia’s.

On average, Australia produces roughly 500 kilograms of municipal (residential and commercial) waste each year. This aligns with the OECD average.

New Zealand in comparison, despite its strong environmental stance, is among the worst offenders for producing waste in any OECD country. It produces almost 800 kilograms per person per year.

Now, most recyclable or reusable waste in Australia goes to landfill. This poses a potential risk to both climate and health with the emission of potent greenhouse gases such as methane and the leaching of heavy metals such as lead into the groundwater. As a result, local governments may want to seek alternative options.

Burning waste in Denmark

“Waste-to-energy” incineration is when solid waste is sorted and burned as “refuse-derived” fuel to generate electricity. This can replace fossil fuel such as coal.

Read more: The recycling crisis in Australia: easy solutions to a hard problem

The technology is on the rise among OECD countries. Denmark and Japan, for example, rely on waste-to-energy incineration to reduce their dependency on landfills and reach carbon neutrality.

In fact, Denmark’s waste-to-energy incinerator, Amager Bakke, is so well known it has become a tourist attraction, and is celebrated as one of the world’s cleanest waste-to-energy incinerators.

Every day, around 300 trucks filled with non-recyclable municipal solid waste are sent to Amager Bakke.

This fuels a furnace that runs at 1,000℃, turning water into steam. And this steam provides electricity and heat to around 100,000 households. Generally, people in Denmark warmly welcome it.

So what’s the problem?

In Australia and the US, community reception towards the building of new incinerators has been cold.

The big concern is burning waste may release chemicals that can harm our health, such as nitrogen oxide and dioxin. Exposure to high levels of dioxin can lead to skin lesions, an impaired immune system and reproductive issues.

However, control measures, such as the technologically advanced filters used in Amager Bakke, can bring the amount of dioxin released to near zero.

Another concern is that implementing waste-to-energy incineration may go against recycling schemes, due to the potential for an increased demand for non-recyclable plastics as fuel.

Supply of this plastic could come from the waning fossil fuel industry. This would work against the goal of establishing a “circular economy” that reuses and recycles goods where possible.

An analysis from 2019 found that to meet European Union circular economy goals, Nordic countries would need to increase their recycling, and significantly shift away from incineration.

This concern is understandable given incinerators operate cleanest when fuelled at full capacity. This is because a higher temperature means a more complete combustion — a bit like less ash and smoke coming off of a well-built campfire.

A lack of evidence

As with many policy solutions, determining the safety of burning waste is complicated.

Our review found a lack of evidence to fully reject well-designed and operated facilities. However, based on the limited number of health studies we found, we support a precautionary planning approach to waste-to-energy proposals.

Read more: Garbage in, garbage out: Incinerating trash is not an effective way to protect the climate or reduce waste

This means we need appropriate health risk assessment and life cycle analyses built into the approval process for each and every incinerator proposed in the near-future.

The studies we found were all performed in the last 20 years. None were from the Nordic countries, however, where waste-to-energy incineration has been in use for many decades.

The reasons for the Nordic embrace of this technology are speculative. One reason may be that their level of economic development allows large capital investment for safe, state-of-the-art design and operation.

Where to from here?

If councils are determined to pursue waste-to-energy incineration, we suggest they prioritise specific applications.

For example, we found the process with the most favourable life-cycle assessment (the most beneficial to health compared to traditional fossil fuel use) was the “co-incineration” of refuse-derived fuel for industrial cement.

Read more: South African study highlights growing number of landfill sites, and health risks

Currently, cement kilns are mostly fuelled by burning coal, and it’s difficult to reach the high temperatures required with traditional renewables. This means substituting coal for refuse-derived fuel could reduce the industry’s dependency on coal, when renewables aren’t an option.

Another solution is to focus instead on the waste hierarchy. This means first minimising waste production, maximising energy efficiency and maximising recycling and reuse of waste materials.

So, while we wait for more knowledge on how waste-to-energy incineration may affect our health, let’s focus on improving our waste hierarchy, rather than exporting our waste to feed a global crisis.

– ref. Can we safely burn waste to make fuel like they do in Denmark? Well, it’s complicated – https://theconversation.com/can-we-safely-burn-waste-to-make-fuel-like-they-do-in-denmark-well-its-complicated-148250

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olivia Karaolis, PhD Student, University of Sydney

Children come into the world ready to communicate. A baby cries and coos to express their feelings and respond to sounds. The ability to communicate develops quickly but uniquely in every child.

By the age of three, most children are able to understand simple requests such as, “pick up your shoes and bring them to me”. They can identify colours, shapes or food groups and use familiar names to recognise important people in their lives, like “grandma”. And they can respond to “who”, “what” or “where” questions.

At three, your child may be saying a lot of words and putting them together into simple sentences. They may ask questions (often a lot of questions) such as, “Where are we going?”

It is an exciting and wonderful time for children to learn about their world and share their discoveries. It can also be a time of anxiety, if a child is not showing the communication signs the parent expects them to at a particular age.

Children learn to speak and develop their communication through day-to-day interactions with their parents and caregivers.

In 2019 as part of my yet unpublished research (that draws on previous work in the United States), I went to three different preschools to work with three to four year olds using puppets. I observed all the children — including kids with a disability, those learning English as an additional language or those who are very shy — communicated more often and more effectively when talking to a puppet.

Research with school-aged children shows puppets, like a favourite doll or teddy bear, can encourage learning and improve communication and behaviour. Talking to a puppet, as opposed to a person, makes the conversation feel less personal and more pretend. It is a play-based technique sometimes used in therapy to help the child feel less self-conscious, and open up.

Read more: Children can’t always read between the lines. Sometimes it’s better to be explicit

I noticed the joy puppets brought to the children, as well as a growth in their understanding of feelings and the feelings of others. The children showed greater confidence when speaking to puppets and engaged in positive social interactions such as taking turns and sharing.

Parents can also use puppets to support their child’s development at home. Here are three things puppets can help with.

1. Use puppet play to encourage conversation

We introduced a range of puppets to children and quickly discovered the type of puppet used was important. Dinosaurs were very popular as was a duckling named Mabel and a Great White Shark called Bruce.

Think about the animals, characters, colours or creatures your child likes before choosing a puppet to add to your family. You can even make a simple puppet with an old sock.

Once you have your puppet, introduce it thoughtfully to your child. For example, you may pat it softly and have your child touch it with you. Ask your child to help you discover the sounds the puppet makes, its name and what it likes to play.

Make your child the expert in bringing your puppet to life. Through the creation of the puppet you can build your child’s vocabulary by modelling descriptive words and longer sentences.

For young children, try narrating their actions with the puppet. For example, “You are patting the puppet’s yellow beak, I think he likes it”.

Play peek-a-boo, sing songs or tell stories. The important thing to remember is to have fun.

2. Use puppets to get your child to answer questions

Try using a puppet to ask questions about your child’s day at preschool, their favourite part of a story or about their drawings or play.

Your puppet can help your little one by offering prompts such as, “Tell me about what you ate at snack time” or “I wonder what you made in the sandbox outside”?

Children may open up more to the puppet because they are funny and create a relaxed and playful environment, which is ideal for interactions.

Read more: Tinker Bell, Batman, Ben 10… if your kids are in character, they’re more likely to help around the house

Other ideas may include using the puppet to make up stories together or to take the puppet on a walk and ask questions about the things you see together.

3. Use a puppet to talk about feelings

Three year olds may find it hard to name their feelings or identify the reason they may be happy or upset. A puppet can act as a soothing way to have children tell you how they feel or learn the names of feelings.

For example, the puppet can use an angry voice or be crying to express emotion. Involve your child in helping the puppet by naming its feelings and coming up with possible solutions to their distress.

Two puppets can act out a frustrating situation and model new approaches such as sharing a favourite toy, trying new foods or cleaning up.

Puppets are a creative way to bring about speech and communication with your child. By bringing fun and imaginative play into your day, you can help your child develop their ability to share their world with you.

Read more: Children learn through play – it shouldn’t stop at preschool

– ref. Talking through play: 3 ways puppets can help your child open up – https://theconversation.com/talking-through-play-3-ways-puppets-can-help-your-child-open-up-132353

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Counsel assisting the NSW Inquiry into the suitability of Crown Resorts to operate Sydney’s new Barangaroo casino summed up this week by telling the Commissioner Crown was

not a suitable person to continue to give effect to the licence, and that Crown Resorts is not a suitable person to be a close associate of the licensee

Adam Bell SC reached the conclusion after considering the deleterious impact on the good governance of Crown Resorts caused by its dominant shareholder [James Packer’s Consolidated Press Holdings] and ultimately, Mr Packer”.

He reminded the inquiry that protection of the public interest was a key objective of the NSW Casino Control Act.

The Barangaroo casino is yet to open, but Crown already operates two other Australian casinos, one in Melbourne and one in Perth, and one in London.

The Melbourne casino has been the centre of multiple whistle-blower and other allegations connected with tampering with gambling machines, associations with criminal identities and the arrest of 19 Crown staff in China in 2016.

The Sydney inquiry was initiated after the Nine network and The Age and Sydney Morning Herald published allegations about money laundering and links with criminals.

A tale of two cities

The Melbourne regulator, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, acted more quietly, initiating a still-uncompleted inquiry into the arrest of Crown staff in China in 2017 and putting its inquiry into the money laundering allegations on hold until it had seen the outcome of the NSW inquiry.

Belatedly, last month, a full eight months after the NSW hearings began, it issued Crown with a “show cause” notice relating to money laundering controls.

The state government had asked it to act as “a matter of priority” in mid 2019.

In 2017, Victoria’s auditor general identified serious issues relating to the Commission’s oversight of Crown.

It highlighted a “lack of leadership”, the second lowest staff satisfaction levels in the Victorian public sector, a lack of a “coherent organisation-wide approach to casino supervision” and insufficient attention to key areas of risk in the casino’s operations including money laundering.

In its five-yearly review of Crown’s licence in 2018 the Commission identified some concerns.

The concerns involved compliance with money laundering rules, the lack of engagement of independent directors with an oversight of the Melbourne casino, an uninspiring adoption of the responsible gambling rules, and a less than complete honouring of requests for self-exclusion.

It nevertheless concluded that it was in the public interest for Crown to maintain its license.

Fines rather than sanctions

Fines have been its the Commission’s preferred means of dealing with breaches of licence conditions.

In 2018 it fined Crown A$300,000 for gambling machine tampering and $25,000 in 2018 for a breach of junket rules.

It said it believed fines were enough in the light of

Crown’s past compliance history and general and specific deterrence, balanced against the level of co-operation, remorse, contrition and corrective action taken by Crown

Yet the NSW inquiry has heard evidence from James Packer and the company’s directors and management pointing to multiple continued failures in all these categories, in Melbourne.

The NSW premier has signalled concern about the casino’s planned opening in December, given that inquiry is not due to report until February.

West Australia’s regulator found no issues with Crown Burswood in its most recent (2018-19) annual report, but says it is monitoring the NSW inquiry.

Too big to touch?

It might be that Crown has become too big to regulate, at least in Victoria.

For some reason, the company has had enormous success with deflecting criticism. Along with other gambling operators, it has recruited powerful political figures from both major parties to assist it and is a major political donor.

There was ample evidence of the problems in Victoria well before the NSW inquiry identified them.

Read more: The Crown allegations show the repeated failures of our gambling regulators

The Victorian regulator’s slow and overly respectful approach might be because it felt Crown was too important to be held to account, or had too many political connections, or was too important as an employer or contributor to government revenue.

Or it might be because, as the auditor suggested, it has problems with staff.

But if we are to have any faith in Victoria’s ability to regulate gambling and crime, it’ll need to do more. NSW is showing how.

Read more: Gaming the board: Crown Resorts shows you just can’t bet on ‘independent’ directors

– ref. If Crown is unfit to hold a Sydney casino licence, what about Melbourne, and Perth? – https://theconversation.com/if-crown-is-unfit-to-hold-a-sydney-casino-licence-what-about-melbourne-and-perth-149443

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janna Thompson, Professor of Philosophy, La Trobe University

In 2017, when a biology professor in a state college in Washington protested against a proposed day-long ban on the presence of white students on campus, radical students shut the campus down.

The ban was part of a yearly college event designed to give black and minority students and staff a separate space in which to discuss the issues they face. Tensions were high that year. White nationalist groups had invaded the campus, targeting black students and members of staff.

The comments by the professor, Bret Weinstein, and his opposition to the colllege’s equity programs, led to campus protests against him. In protest against the failure of the college administration to quell the students, he resigned from his job.

Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, the authors of the new book Cynical Theories: How Universities Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody regard Weinstein as a victim of an ideology they call Social Justice Theory.

They hold humanities departments responsible for bringing it into existence, and their aim is to explain why it is so pernicious.

Read more: Is ‘cultural Marxism’ really taking over universities? I crunched some numbers to find out

Social Justice Theory

Pluckrose, a US magazine editor who describes herself as an exile from the humanities, and Lindsay, a mathematician and writer on politics and religion, were participants in the controversial 2018 Grievance Studies project, which aimed to discredit gender and race studies by submitting hoax articles to academic journals.

By getting articles on bogus topics through the reviewing processes of respected journals and into print, the authors believed they were proving that studies focusing on identity issues are “corrupt” and unscientific.

One hoax article, published in a journal of “feminist geography” looked at “human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity” at dog parks in Portland, Oregon; another purported to be a two-year study involving “thematic analysis of table dialogue” to explore why heterosexual men like to eat at Hooters.

Critics of their hoax quickly pointed out there was no scientific evidence to suggest that journals in fields focusing on identity are corrupt — indeed such hoaxes had happened in other areas of study too.

Pluckrose and Lindsay’s book, which grew out of the 2018 project, traces the evolution and growing influence during the late 20th century of theories about how the language we use to think and talk about the world structures our relationships.

The book takes aim at postmodern and post-structuralist thinkers, particularly the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault. The authors blame him for propagating the view that all discourses, including science, create relations of power and subordination.

Read more: Explainer: the ideas of Foucault

In the new millennium, these postmodernist and deconstructionist projects morphed — according to Pluckrose and Lindsay — into the political weapon they call Social Justice Theory, or simply Theory.

In Cynical Theories, the pair trace the march of Theory as a political ideology through post-colonial studies, queer theory, feminism, and studies of race, disability and body size.

In their view, Theory is a harmful, anti-scientific ideology. It divides society into the oppressed — whose subordinate identities are constructed by hierarchies of power — and the oppressors who, wittingly or not, maintain oppressive relationships through their participation in political and social discourses and institutions.

Constructed identities

This Theory is cynical, according to the authors, because it finds oppression everywhere — even in the best intentions of progressive people and their movements of reform.

And it is bad for everyone, including disadvantaged groups, they say, because it gets in the way of an empirical approach to understanding and correcting social ills.

One aim of Pluckrose and Lindsay is to defend the central liberal value of freedom of inquiry against what they regard as an attack on free speech by the rise of identity politics — spawned by Theory.

The application of Theory is also harmful, they say, because it provokes a backlash from people who cannot understand why being white or male puts them into the camp of racists or sexists.

The result, they argue, is a racial politics that becomes increasingly fraught. We hear that:

racism is embedded in culture and that we cannot escape it. We hear that white people are inherently racist. We are told that only white people can be racist. […] Adherents actively search for hidden and overt racial offences until they find them.

According to the authors, these categories — race, sex, gender, being gay or straight, abled or disabled, fat or of normal body size — are forced onto individuals by the organising power of dominant discourses in politics, social life and science.

Adherents of Theory, they say, then argue these constructed identities are, nevertheless, real and inescapable experiences. For Theory, identity determines how a person thinks, acts and what she knows. A black person is not an individual who happens to be black. Blackness is central to who he is. Being black makes him into a victim of discourses that privilege whites.

Respecting the standpoint of those who have a subordinate position in hierarchies created by the ways we speak and act — blacks, women, people with minority sexual identities, victims of colonial power, the disabled and the fat — is a key political demand for activists influenced by Theory.

No truth, only discourse

Social hierarchies exist. Prejudice can be perpetuated by the unthinking behaviour of individuals. Discriminatory treatment of women and black people is sometimes embedded in institutions.

Pluckrose and Lindsay do not deny this.

They admit legal reforms have not eliminated racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination. They recognise discriminatory treatment and prejudice can blight the lives of victims and undermine their ability to access the opportunities of their society.

What, then, is wrong with what they call Social Justice Theory?

The authors’ main contention is that Theory is relativist and unscientific. For its theorists, there is no objective truth — only the perspectives of people with different identities. And they demand the same respect for the standpoint of an oppressed group as for the views of scientists.

Pluckrose and Lindsay write:

It is no exaggeration to observe that Social Justice Theories have created a new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation and disagreement of any kind.

Because Theory is a faith, it can insulate itself from criticism, say the authors.

It can dismiss dissenters, like the aforementioned biology professor, as the purveyors of an oppressive discourse.

‘Cancel culture’

Is Social Justice Theory as pernicious as Pluckrose and Lindsay want us to believe? Their criticism gets most of its plausibility from applications of Theory that do seem harmful and even absurd.

Disability, for instance, is not merely a social construction. Treating it as such may prevent the use of treatments that could make the lives of people better.

When doctors tell obese people they should lose weight they are not engaging in an act of oppression, but in healthcare.

Pluckrose and Lindsay are right to point out that campaigns to expose oppressive speech and behaviour can cause unjustified harm to individuals who are called out and “cancelled” for minor misdemeanours, or for stating a view that identity activists deem unacceptable.

The abuse heaped on J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, for saying that sexual differences are real and not constructed by discourse is an example.

Read more: Is cancel culture silencing open debate? There are risks to shutting down opinions we disagree with

In my opinion, however, the authors overstate both the illiberal tendencies of Theory and its influence on culture.

You do not have to be a relativist to think the opinions and feelings of people from minority groups ought to be respected. You are not anti-science if you think scientific research sometimes ignores the needs and perspectives of women and minorities.

Advocates of Theory aim to make institutions more inclusive and respectful of differences.

Liberals — as advocates of critical engagement — should be open to the possibility that Theory, despite faults, has detected forms of prejudice our society tends to overlook.

The question of universities

The most problematic aspect of Pluckrose and Lindsay’s book is the blame it heaps on humanities departments of universities for stirring up a cancel culture and the culture wars.

This gives ammunition to those who want to defund humanities and discourage students from taking humanities courses.

It gives support to the position of the Australian Federal Education Minister, Dan Tehan, who thinks that Australian universities have succumbed to a left-wing culture that “cancels” conservatives and their opinions.

This accusation, also made by conservative groups like the Institute of Public Affairs, is the reason why critics of universities want to force them to sign up to a free speech code.

But according to Glyn Davis, Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University, there is no evidence of a meaningful or growing threat to free speech in Australian universities.

Read more: Special pleading: free speech and Australian universities

Those who emphasise the dangers of a cancel culture often ignore more serious threats to universities and an open society. The students at the Washington college were reacting to the presence of groups that threatened the safety of black students.

They were responding to a real threat.

Combatants in the war

Pluckrose and Lindsay agree that threats to free speech can come from the right as well as the left, but their preoccupation with the latter indicates where they want to put most of the blame.

Cynical Theories is, on one hand, a scholarly book. Pluckrose and Lindsay are well versed in the literature they criticise, as their participation in the Grievance Studies hoax indicates.

Their book provides an in depth discussion of the works they want to criticise. Their critique of what they call Social Justice Theory deserves to be taken seriously.

But by overstating their case and aiming their weapons at humanities and universities they cannot pass themselves off as objective contributors to a search for truth.

They are combatants in the culture wars.

Cynical Theories: How Universities Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody, by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, is published by Swift Press.

– ref. Friday essay: a new front in the culture wars, Cynical Theories takes unfair aim at the humanities – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-a-new-front-in-the-culture-wars-cynical-theories-takes-unfair-aim-at-the-humanities-148524

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Associate Professor, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University

The US presidential election may still be extremely close, but one thing is clear: those pundits and pollsters who predicted Trump was in no position to win will be going back to the drawing board.

In any case, “Trumpism” is unlikely to disappear even after he’s gone — including in New Zealand.

Hardcore Trump supporters in the US may make up as few as 12% of America’s registered voters. But polls have consistently underestimated Trump’s numbers compared with actual election results.

The Real Clear Politics pre-election poll average had Joe Biden up by 7.2 points nationally, but as of November 5 he led by only 2.1 points. Perhaps there really is a “hidden Trump vote”.

Meanwhile in New Zealand, with Jacinda Ardern in charge of the country’s most diverse cabinet ever, the prospect of a Trump-like leader might seem remote. However, in online surveys conducted by Stuff.co.nz and Massey University in 2017 and 2020, we found a significant minority in support of Trump.

Kiwis for Trump

In mid-2017, 13% of respondents said they would have voted for Trump had they been able to, compared to a scientifically sampled poll in mid-2016 that found 9% support for Trump.

How to explain the difference? Trump’s victory in November 2016 may have boosted that support slightly. The Stuff/Massey survey is reader-initiated and non-representative, and may have over-represented disaffected conservatives. Or people may be more willing to indicate support for Trump online than by phone.

Nonetheless, there was a measurable level of support for Trump in New Zealand.

In the mid-2020 survey, we asked respondents if they hoped Trump would win or lose in the November election. This time, 11% said they hoped he would win (after weighting for gender due to the sample having a male bias of 61.2%).

Read more: An embarrassing failure for election pollsters

The Stuff/Massey survey sample also had a conservative bias, as 36.8% said they supported National — above where the party was polling at the time, and well above its election night result of 26.8%.

But let’s say roughly one in ten New Zealanders is a Trump supporter. Under New Zealand’s electoral system, that’s well above the threshold of 5% for a party to win parliamentary seats.

Of the 55,147 who answered the question in the mid-2020 survey, 6,833 said they hoped Trump would win. So, who are these Kiwi Trumpers? And what do they really think?

Even demographic spread

They are evenly spread across age-groups, but slightly higher (15.4%) in the 18-24 range. This may reflect a known phenomenon in which populist leaders boost young people’s satisfaction with democracy — or, to put it another way, help to reverse the trend towards political disengagement in democracies.

Kiwi men are more than twice as likely to support Trump than women — a much wider gender gap than was found in the US after the 2016 election.

Read more: US election: why democratic legitimacy remains at stake

Kiwi Trumpers are distributed evenly across lower and middle income brackets, and support declines only slightly in the upper income brackets.

Perhaps surprisingly, 15.6% of Pasifika respondents and 20% of those who ticked the “gender-diverse” box hoped Trump would win — above the overall 11% result.

A whopping 92% of the Kiwi Trumpers said we should leave statues of figures from our colonial past where they are, compared to the 49.8% of those who hoped Trump would lose.

National is the preferred party

Very few Kiwi Trumpers identified with arch-populist Winston Peters, however. Only 4.9% of them said he is the party leader they felt closest to, perhaps because of his coalition with Labour after the 2017 election. They were more attached to National’s Judith Collins (46.6%) and ACT Party leader David Seymour (30.2%).

Only 20% of National supporters overall said they hoped Trump would win. But this sub-group of National supporters made up 56% of the entire cohort of Kiwi Trumpers. A further 23% of Kiwi Trumpers supported ACT. So, the National Party is the preferred party of the Kiwi Trumper.

The far-right New Conservative Party’s supporters were only 1.2% of our sample, and that party won only 1.5% of the vote at the October election. But a clear majority of them (69%) supported Trump.

Read more: Can New Zealand’s most diverse ever cabinet improve representation of women and minorities in general?

In general, Kiwi Trumpers see society as more discontented, and politicians as less trustworthy, than the average New Zealander.

Some 47.5% of the Trump supporters endorsed conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 virus. For them, it was either “an invention of shadowy forces that want to control us” (11%) or “a biological weapon created by one of the world’s super-powers” (35.5%).

Only 7.7% of Trump opponents ticked either of those statements. And, overall, 85.8% of the sample agreed that the virus came from a natural source.

Moreover, only 11.7% of Trump supporters agreed the New Zealand government was taking the right approach to dealing with the economic impact of COVID-19, while 62% of Trump opponents agreed.

And 84% of the Kiwi Trumpers preferred the government take a “cautious and sceptical” approach to climate change, compared with 23.8% of opponents.

Could a Trump emerge in NZ?

Unsurprisingly, 54.6% of Kiwi Trumpers were in favour of New Zealand developing a closer alignment with the USA, compared with only 6.2% of Trump opponents. The vast majority (80.9%) of survey respondents preferred that New Zealand aim for greater independence from both the USA and China.

National’s Judith Collins made favourable comments about Trump during a pre-election debate, perhaps aware of support for him within her base.

Read more: A Biden presidency might be better for NZ, but the big foreign policy challenges won’t disappear with Trump

Suppose, then, that the National Party chose as leader a Trump-like conservative “non-politician” — someone who divided rather than united, and who put economic liberty ahead of health and human lives.

Bearing in mind that this inference is based on a non-scientific survey, he or she could energise perhaps an existing base of one-fifth of National’s supporters, while winning over others from parties further to the right.

Traditional conservatives and centre-right liberals within National would be aghast. But, desperate to change the government, they may have nowhere else to turn.

Then again, it could all end badly. Those voters who switched from National to Labour in 2020 may not want to switch back. And in New Zealand politics, the winning party is the one that wins those centrist voters.

– ref. Who are Donald Trump’s supporters in New Zealand and what do we know about them? – https://theconversation.com/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-in-new-zealand-and-what-do-we-know-about-them-149424

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Joe Hockey, former Australian ambassador to the United States who’s now in business there, came under sharp attack for some ill-informed comments about the high Democrat vote in Washington, DC.

Despite this faux pas, Hockey’s description of the American system as a dog’s breakfast – with states, counties and even some cities having responsibility for running presidential elections – is actually not far off the mark.

“In Australia you have the Australian Electoral Commission, thank god,” Hockey said.

Indeed, let’s give thanks not just for the AEC, but also for a few other features of our system, not least compulsory voting.

On a pure view of people’s rights in a democracy, they shouldn’t be forced to vote. But for the overall health of the polity, compulsory voting is a boon, on two levels.

It prevents attempts to game or defraud the system by using tactics that are dubious, or worse, to get out the vote or to discourage participation.

Compulsory voting also works to contain the extremes in the political debate, because contests are won or lost in the centre (broadly defined).

All the legal action we’re hearing about in the US is not the way of things in Australia. Challenges are rare, although there is one big recent exception.

The dual citizenship crisis embroiling a swathe of federal parliamentarians hugely disrupted the last parliament; even so, this was handled in an orderly manner via the High Court and byelections.

A strong political system has a calming effect.

Even allowing that Donald Trump is a one-off phenomenon, can anyone imagine an Australian leader giving the sort of speech he did in the early hours after election day?

In Australia, people were tut-tutting when Malcolm Turnbull was a touch graceless on election night in 2016.

Which goes, in part, to political culture. Australia is a more bound-together society than the US, economically and socially.

But we should beware. As in other countries, there’s been an increasing loss of trust in political institutions (although trust here has been boosted, at least temporarily, during COVID).

To keep our democracy in good shape, we must nurture and increase trust, ensure the economy works for the population generally, and maintain a strong social safety net. There is a significant relationship between economic security and a well-functioning political system.

We also need to do what’s possible to keep the political debate civil. Social media and polarisation in the mainstream media have already coarsened the conversation. That hasn’t undermined our democracy yet, but there are risks.

Without being complacent – and recognising there are many faults in government and elsewhere that should be vigorously called out – this is a week in which to celebrate what we have in this country.

After conquering the second wave of COVID, we’re in an enviable position on the virus – nearly at elimination, although that isn’t government policy. Looking at the deterioration in Britain and Europe, and the American situation, the contrast is dramatic.

The big challenge for Australia is, and will remain, the path out of recession. Many people will have a rotten Christmas, unemployed or with their businesses having failed or collapsing.

But we are continuing to see an official commitment to do what can be done to get the economy moving.

In the package it unveiled this week, the Reserve Bank pulled out all stops available to it to stimulate the economy, although its firepower is limited. It’s taking this action even as it revises up its forecasts on growth and unemployment.

Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe said on Tuesday: “Unemployment is a major economic and social problem that damages the fabric of our society. So, it is important that it is addressed.

Read more: 5 ways the Reserve Bank is going to bat for Australia like never before

“The Board recognises that, in the context of the pandemic, the responsibility for job creation falls mainly on the shoulders of business and government. But the Reserve Bank can, and will, make a contribution too.”

In the months ahead, the pressure will be on the Morrison government to ensure Australians are, in economic terms, best protected in these bad times.

One very significant decision the government will have to soon make is the longer-term level of JobSeeker, currently bolstered by the Coronavirus Supplement.

The government also must assess whether more stimulus is needed to get those unemployment numbers down as far and fast as possible.

How the Australian economy fares will depend on the responses of business and consumers, which goes to confidence, as well on the performance of the world economy, which is highly uncertain, affected by the course of the virus and countries’ economic decisions.

As the count stands, a Biden presidency is the most probable outcome in the US but it would be one constrained by a likely Republican Senate, making it harder for Biden to deliver the level of stimulus he has promised.

From Australia’s standpoint, what Joe Biden did on China would be vitally important. He might seek to dial down tensions somewhat – although it would be a matter of degree – and that would have implications for Australia’s policy.

A Biden presidency would put Australia on the spot over climate change. This is expected increasingly to become a major issue for the Morrison government internationally in 2021.

Already British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pointedly stressed to Morrison, in a recent telephone conversation, “that we need bold action to address climate change”.

Johnson noted “the UK’s experience demonstrates that driving economic growth and reducing emissions can go hand-in-hand”, according to the official Downing Street read-out of the call.

“Looking ahead to the Climate Ambition Summit on 12 December and COP26 in Glasgow next year, [Johnson] emphasised the importance of setting ambitious targets to cut emissions and reach Net Zero.”

The read-out from Morrison’s office omitted the zero target reference.

Morrison developed a functional relationship with Donald Trump and was feted at the White House by a president who didn’t have many friends among international leaders.

Assuming things go Biden’s way, Morrison would pivot to what would be a more conventional presidency, although one that would bring its own challenges for him, especially on climate policy.

If he were wise, Morrison would make a beeline for a Biden White House as quickly as he could get a time slot in early 2021.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: A Biden presidency would put pressure on Scott Morrison over climate change – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-a-biden-presidency-would-put-pressure-on-scott-morrison-over-climate-change-149548

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Taylor, Early Career Research Leader, Emerging Viruses, Inflammation and Therapeutics Group, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University

The federal government’s announcement of agreements to supply vaccines from Novavax and Pfizer/BioNTech potentially increases the pool of COVID-19 vaccines Australians will be able to access.

These two vaccines are in addition to supply arrangements for vaccines from Oxford University/AstraZeneca and the University of Queensland/CSL, announced in September. Australia will also have access to vaccines via the World Health Organisation-backed COVAX initiative.

However, these arrangements depend on whether the vaccines are shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials, which are still ongoing. So what do we know about the two vaccines in this latest deal?

Read more: Scott Morrison to announce two new COVID vaccine deals

What do we know about the Novavax vaccine?

The Novavax vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, contains purified pieces of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

These proteins are administered with an adjuvant, a molecule that enhances the immune response. The idea is that when this vaccine is administered, the body recognises its contents as “foreign” and mounts a protective immune response.

Early clinical trials were performed in Australia. In the phase 1 clinical trials, the vaccine was generally well-tolerated and produced strong antibody responses, stronger than what we see in patients recovering from COVID-19.

Read more: From adenoviruses to RNA: the pros and cons of different COVID vaccine technologies

In September, Novavax launched a phase 3 clinical trial in the United Kingdom. Further large-scale clinical trials are planned for other countries in late 2020 and early 2021.

If the Novavax vaccine is successful 40 million doses are expected to be available in Australia during 2021, with the option to buy a further 10 million.

What do we know about the Pfizer vaccine?

The vaccine developed by Pfizer, BNT162b2, is based on the genetic material mRNA (or messenger ribonucleic acid). Such mRNA vaccines carry a piece of genetic material that codes for viral proteins, or parts of them. Once inside your cells, the mRNA instructs your cells’ protein factories to make copies of these viral proteins. These then stimulate your immune system to mount a protective immune response.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine codes for the virus’ full-length spike protein.

In early clinical trials, the vaccine was generally safe with no serious side-effects. The vaccine also produced a robust immune response after two doses.

When older adults (65-85 years of age) were vaccinated, they produced a greater neutralising antibody response than seen in patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 naturally.

Interestingly, BNT162b2 is one of the first COVID-19 vaccines to be tested in adolescents (12-18 years of age).

In July, Pfizer announced the launch of large-scale phase 2/3 trials. Trials are under way in several countries, including the United States, Germany, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa, involving 44,000 participants.

One of the challenges facing this vaccine is distribution, as it needs to be stored below -70℃. This is costly and makes transportation difficult, particularly in developing regions.

If BNT162b2 is successful, 10 million doses will be available in Australia from early 2021.

Read more: Australia’s just signed up for a shot at 9 COVID-19 vaccines. Here’s what to expect

What happens next?

Both vaccines, if successful in clinical trials, will be manufactured outside Australia.

This will allay fears Australia might miss out on mRNA vaccines as the country does not have the technology and capacity to make these vaccines itself.

A successful COVID-19 vaccine will also need to navigate the rigorous assessment and approval processes of the Therapeutic Goods Administration for use in Australia.

Read more: Australia may miss out on several COVID vaccines if it can’t make mRNA ones locally

Hedging our bets

It is unlikely all COVID-19 vaccines currently in development will be successful. We have already seen COVID-19 vaccine trials temporarily halted due to safety issues. And not all vaccines will provide a consistent level of immunity. Some vaccines may only provide immunity for limited periods of time and require a booster shot.

By investing in numerous front-running candidates, the Australian government’s strategy of not putting all its eggs in one basket is a wise one.

Investing in a range of vaccine technologies also has benefits, should more than one vaccine become available. This is because different vaccine technologies may be more effective or safe in different populations. This increases the likelihood all sections of society — young and old, with or without existing medical complications — could be targeted.

– ref. What do we know about the Novavax and Pfizer COVID vaccines that Australia just signed up for? – https://theconversation.com/what-do-we-know-about-the-novavax-and-pfizer-covid-vaccines-that-australia-just-signed-up-for-149522

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah John, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University

Facing the gradual erosion of early leads in several battleground states — and increasingly likely defeat in the presidential election — the Trump campaign is launching a well-planned legal assault to challenge the validity of ballots and the process of vote-counting itself.

The Biden campaign is responding with an equally well-coordinated legal defence and a grassroots fundraising effort called the “Biden Fight Fund”.

Once again, the courts will be called in to resolve a US presidential election, although it is unlikely any rulings will change the results significantly — unless the election comes down to extremely narrow margins in Pennsylvania or Georgia.

Read more: Even if Biden has a likely win, leading a deeply divided nation will be difficult

Trump targets mail-in and early votes

The unusual nature of the 2020 election — with a record 100 million people voting early — ensured a topsy-turvy election night. Compounding the problem has been the large partisan divide in how people voted, with Democrats favouring early and mail-in voting and Republicans favouring in-person voting on election day.

Many states quickly reported the results from in-person ballots on election night, giving Trump an early lead in several battleground states. Those leads were then offset as mail-in and early votes were added to the tallies.

Trump has been encouraging his supporters to view these shifting totals as fishy, claiming:

This is a major fraud on our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the US Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop.

So far, Trump has indicated he will bring challenges in four states. This is what he is claiming and the chances he will ultimately be successful.

Wisconsin: Trump requests a recount

In Wisconsin, where Biden leads Trump by less than a percentage point, the Trump campaign announced it will seek a recount. This is a relatively routine occurrence when margins are tight. Indeed, small margins often trigger automatic recounts in many states.

After Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016 by less than a combined total of 80,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, requested a recount. The courts denied the request in Pennsylvania, but partial recounts occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin.

As FiveThirtyEight noted in 2016, recounts rarely change the results of elections, except when margins are razor thin.

It is unlikely Biden’s current 20,000 vote margin over Trump in Wisconsin would be severely dented by a recount.

Read more: History tells us that a contested election won’t destroy American democracy

Michigan: Trump seeks a (temporary) halt to counting

In Michigan, the Trump campaign has filed a complaint seeking to halt the vote count on the basis that Republican Party “election inspectors” (that is, poll workers) do not have access to venues where the counting is taking place.

It is not uncommon for poll workers in the US to be affiliated with a political party. Many states, including Michigan, require poll workers from both parties to be present when votes are counted.

However, the filing provides no evidence that Republican poll workers have been denied access to vote-counting sites. Additionally, the legal bases of the claim appear weak.

For example, the complaint alleges Michigan is breaching the equal protection clause of the US Constitution because it is treating some voters differently from others in the state. Presumably, as the campaign alleges, this is because Democratic poll workers have been granted access to vote-counting sites that Republicans have not.

The complaint seeks a “speedy hearing,” which the Court of Claims has yet to grant. If it does, both the Trump campaign and the Michigan secretary of state will have to provide evidence of the access given to poll workers of different parties on election day.

Pennsylvania: taking it to the Supreme Court

In Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign has initiated court procedings to stop the vote count.

The first part of the lawsuit is similar to the challenge in Michigan: the campaign is seeking to stop vote-counting until Republican poll observers are given access to the sites.

Deputy campaign manager Justin Clark alleges Republican poll observers were unable to observe vote counting because they were forced to be too far away – a claim conspicuously absent in the Michigan filing.

The second part of the Pennsylvania action seeks to reject mail-in ballots from first-time voters who did not provide proof of identity when they registered.

The campaign claims Pennsylvania’s secretary of state didn’t follow the proper process in deciding to accept the ballots from these voters — a breach of federal law. However, the campaign has yet to produce evidence that significant numbers of first-time voters did not prove their identity.

This is perhaps the more interesting legal argument. The Help America Vote Act of 2002, a federal law passed in response to the contested 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, does require new voters to provide identification to register to vote.

If the Trump campaign’s lawsuit is successful, it could result in the removal of a swathe of mail-in ballots from the Pennsylvania vote tally.

Read more: Over 1 million mail-in ballots could be rejected in the US election — and the rules are changing by the day

In addition to these two challenges, the Trump campaign is appealing a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to allow the counting of mail-in ballots received within three days after election day to the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court rejected the Republican Party’s petition to fast-track a challenge to the decision in October, but appeared willing to consider it after election day.

As of yet, we do not know how many ballots could be affected by this ruling — and the counting of ballots continues.

Georgia: confusion created by courts takes centre stage

Finally, in Georgia, the Trump campaign has filed a petition to prevent any potential counting of late-arriving mail-in ballots.

In one sense, this action is the most straightforward of all the challenges. The petition seeks an order that the existing law be enforced: that all mail-in ballots arriving after 7pm on election day are excluded from the count.

However, the deadline for mail-in ballots in Georgia was also the subject of pre-election legal challenges — meaning voters could have been confused by the rules.

A court initially ruled these ballots could be counted for up to three days after the election, but this decision was then overturned by a higher court.

Challenges are unlikely to be Trump’s path to victory

For now, the Trump campaign has not launched any challenges in the other battleground states of Nevada and Arizona.

We may not end up seeing any challenges in these states, given the tight deadlines involved with elections. All litigation must be resolved or halted by December 8 so the election results can be certified and the Electoral College process can continue. This culminates in the vote that legally chooses the next president on January 6.

The legal challenges are a long shot for the Trump campaign to change the outcome of the election.

If Biden is declared the winner this week and the challenges fail, there may be another repercussion. It could further undermine confidence in the electoral process — a strategy Trump has employed, with varying degrees of success, throughout the race.

– ref. Re-election hopes fading, Trump tries for an election win in the courts – https://theconversation.com/re-election-hopes-fading-trump-tries-for-an-election-win-in-the-courts-149520

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Yeo, Honorary Research Fellow, English and Cultural Studies, University of Western Australia

In a year that began during one of the worst bushfire seasons in living memory and then saw a global pandemic take hold, rereading Ben Elton’s Stark offers an eerily prescient window into 2020 as the end of the world.

First published in 1989, Elton’s debut novel offered a doubly prophetic vision. First, his depiction of environmental destruction. Second, his vision of high-stakes private space exploration.

The world of Elton’s Stark is ruled by a shadowy ultra-rich cabal (akin to the Bilderberg Group), known as the Stark Conspiracy. Members of Stark have long been aware their profit-seeking activities have caused irrevocable environmental damage. They realise the Earth’s “vanishing point”, a scenario of total environmental collapse, is imminent.

The novel begins with the world facing a mass extinction event:

The earth was dying. To be more specific, the earth was being killed. Done to death by its fond owners. Killed by the pursuit of money. For the men gathered round the table it was utterly frustrating to have inherited the earth and then have the damn thing die on you.

Rereading Elton’s dystopian fiction today is unsettling. His prediction the world would be ruled, or rather owned, by the ultra-rich is closer to reality than fiction.

Read more: How 19th century fairy tales expressed anxieties about ecological devastation

Off the page

In 2019, months before the Australian bushfire crisis, the United Nations observed that around 1 million plant and animal species were threatened with extinction. Californian bushfires recently ravaged 4 million hectares of land, double the 2019 record.

That we are moving closer to a vanishing point is no longer confined to the realm of fiction. The last decade was one of the hottest on record.

In Stark, Elton predicts how deforestation will lead to irreversible salinisation of the landscape:

Now the trees are gone and Western Australia — like many hot parts of the world where surface evaporation is speedy and the forests have been cleared — faces a terrible problem with the salt of the earth.

The most unnerving similarity between Elton’s novel and the world of today is the speed at which the effects of climate change and environmental degradation take place.

Species of animals that were not meant to die out until mid twenty-first century were already extinct. Trees were proving far less resilient against acid ‘die-back’ than had been hoped.

Elton’s novel can be considered a product of the 1980s, when depletion of the ozone layer due to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was a hot topic.

He has reflected, with scepticism, on Margaret Thatcher’s commitment to reducing CFCs. The influence of this socio-cultural milieu is evidenced by the book’s cover art — showing an aerosol-shaped spaceship leaving the earth.

While Elton has described the writing of Stark as from the perspective of an “outsider looking in”, its success and subsequent adaptation into a TV series is a testament to its compelling (and depressingly) poignant commentary. Before his debut novel Elton was a stand-up comic who co-wrote British television hits The Young Ones and Blackadder.

Read more: Ben Elton’s wrong – TV sitcoms aren’t dead, they’ve just changed since his day

Abandon ship

Responding to the imminent threat of annihilation, the members of the Stark conspiracy provide for themselves a creative solution: colonising the moon.

In 2020, Elton’s vision of colonising space is an increasingly immediate reality. Likewise, only for those who can afford it.

Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and the world’s richest man, has poured billions of dollars into his space exploration company Blue Origin.

Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic spruiks a company view that humanity’s challenges lie in “better use of space”. In May, one of Tesla founder Elon Musk’s SpaceEx rocket ships launched two NASA astronauts into the earth’s orbit.

Elton sits among a pantheon of fiction writers in the ecocritical tradition, including David Mitchell (Cloud Atlas), Margaret Atwood (The Year of the Flood), Richard Powers (The Overstory) and Ian McEwan (Solar).

Stark stands out from other ecocritical texts for its weaving of humour, conspiracy, a critique of capitalism in a narrative with a distinctively dry (Western) Australian flavour.

The conspiracy theory elements of the novel that sounded outlandish in 1989 are far more believable in 2020. Indigenous land rights and the fictional town of “Kalgoorkatta” (a play on the Western Australian mining town of Kalgoorlie) feature as key plot points in the novel.

Though the text is satirical, readers recognised enough elements to make it Elton’s first bestseller. He has since written 14 bestsellers, including Popcorn, Inconceivable, Dead Famous, and High Society, three West End plays and three musicals.

Read more: Five must-read novels on the environment and climate crisis

A weary indictment

So, Elton’s dual depictions of global environmental destruction and space colonisation by the rich were light years ahead of their time. Yet the novel ends with a weary indictment of society’s unwillingness to make environmental change:

Too much money was involved, it simply wasn’t economical. Nothing had been done and now the reckoning was upon them all.

Elton’s vision is scarily poignant when re-read today. The book exemplifies the quote by Frederic Jameson:

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.

– ref. ‘The Earth was dying. Killed by the pursuit of money’ — rereading Ben Elton’s Stark as prophecy – https://theconversation.com/the-earth-was-dying-killed-by-the-pursuit-of-money-rereading-ben-eltons-stark-as-prophecy-147256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Yeo, Honorary Research Fellow, English and Cultural Studies, University of Western Australia

In a year that began during one of the worst bushfire seasons in living memory and then saw a global pandemic take hold, rereading Ben Elton’s Stark offers an eerily prescient window into 2020 as the end of the world.

First published in 1989, Elton’s debut novel offered a doubly prophetic vision. First, his depiction of environmental destruction. Second, his vision of high-stakes private space exploration.

The world of Elton’s Stark is ruled by a shadowy ultra-rich cabal (akin to the Bilderberg Group), known as the Stark Conspiracy. Members of Stark have long been aware their profit-seeking activities have caused irrevocable environmental damage. They realise the Earth’s “vanishing point”, a scenario of total environmental collapse, is imminent.

The novel begins with the world facing a mass extinction event:

The earth was dying. To be more specific, the earth was being killed. Done to death by its fond owners. Killed by the pursuit of money. For the men gathered round the table it was utterly frustrating to have inherited the earth and then have the damn thing die on you.

Rereading Elton’s dystopian fiction today is unsettling. His prediction the world would be ruled, or rather owned, by the ultra-rich is closer to reality than fiction.

Read more: How 19th century fairy tales expressed anxieties about ecological devastation

Off the page

In 2019, months before the Australian bushfire crisis, the United Nations observed that around 1 million plant and animal species were threatened with extinction. Californian bushfires recently ravaged 4 million hectares of land, double the 2019 record.

That we are moving closer to a vanishing point is no longer confined to the realm of fiction. The last decade was one of the hottest on record.

In Stark, Elton predicts how deforestation will lead to irreversible salinisation of the landscape:

Now the trees are gone and Western Australia — like many hot parts of the world where surface evaporation is speedy and the forests have been cleared — faces a terrible problem with the salt of the earth.

The most unnerving similarity between Elton’s novel and the world of today is the speed at which the effects of climate change and environmental degradation take place.

Species of animals that were not meant to die out until mid twenty-first century were already extinct. Trees were proving far less resilient against acid ‘die-back’ than had been hoped.

Elton’s novel can be considered a product of the 1980s, when depletion of the ozone layer due to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was a hot topic.

He has reflected, with scepticism, on Margaret Thatcher’s commitment to reducing CFCs. The influence of this socio-cultural milieu is evidenced by the book’s cover art — showing an aerosol-shaped spaceship leaving the earth.

While Elton has described the writing of Stark as from the perspective of an “outsider looking in”, its success and subsequent adaptation into a TV series is a testament to its compelling (and depressingly) poignant commentary. Before his debut novel Elton was a stand-up comic who co-wrote British television hits The Young Ones and Blackadder.

Read more: Ben Elton’s wrong – TV sitcoms aren’t dead, they’ve just changed since his day

Abandon ship

Responding to the imminent threat of annihilation, the members of the Stark conspiracy provide for themselves a creative solution: colonising the moon.

In 2020, Elton’s vision of colonising space is an increasingly immediate reality. Likewise, only for those who can afford it.

Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and the world’s richest man, has poured billions of dollars into his space exploration company Blue Origin.

Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic spruiks a company view that humanity’s challenges lie in “better use of space”. In May, one of Tesla founder Elon Musk’s SpaceEx rocket ships launched two NASA astronauts into the earth’s orbit.

Elton sits among a pantheon of fiction writers in the ecocritical tradition, including David Mitchell (Cloud Atlas), Margaret Atwood (The Year of the Flood), Richard Powers (The Overstory) and Ian McEwan (Solar).

Stark stands out from other ecocritical texts for its weaving of humour, conspiracy, a critique of capitalism in a narrative with a distinctively dry (Western) Australian flavour.

The conspiracy theory elements of the novel that sounded outlandish in 1989 are far more believable in 2020. Indigenous land rights and the fictional town of “Kalgoorkatta” (a play on the Western Australian mining town of Kalgoorlie) feature as key plot points in the novel.

Though the text is satirical, readers recognised enough elements to make it Elton’s first bestseller. He has since written 14 bestsellers, including Popcorn, Inconceivable, Dead Famous, and High Society, three West End plays and three musicals.

Read more: Five must-read novels on the environment and climate crisis

A weary indictment

So, Elton’s dual depictions of global environmental destruction and space colonisation by the rich were light years ahead of their time. Yet the novel ends with a weary indictment of society’s unwillingness to make environmental change:

Too much money was involved, it simply wasn’t economical. Nothing had been done and now the reckoning was upon them all.

Elton’s vision is scarily poignant when re-read today. The book exemplifies the quote by Frederic Jameson:

It is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.

– ref. ‘The Earth was dying. Killed by the pursuit of money’ — rereading Ben Elton’s satiric novel Stark as prophecy – https://theconversation.com/the-earth-was-dying-killed-by-the-pursuit-of-money-rereading-ben-eltons-satiric-novel-stark-as-prophecy-147256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

At the time of writing we don’t yet know who will win the US presidential election.

But we do know this for sure: Donald Trump will be able to win with less than half the votes cast. Put another way, Joe Biden will be able to lose even if he wins the popular vote.

Election analyst Nate Silver believes Biden would have to win by three to four percentage points to have a better than 50% chance of winning the presidency.

The same was true in 2016. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by around two percentage points but lost the presidency. And in 2000. Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency.

Part of the reason is the geographically-based US electoral college system in which voters don’t directly elect the president but elect representatives who will vote on their behalf in an electoral college.

But another part is the result of a more general problem called Gerrymandering.

The term is named after a governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry who, in 1812, drew a district (with a pencil, on a map, on the floor of the study in his house in Cambridge MA) so oddly shaped that political cartoonists said it resembled a salamander.

They christened his plan a “Gerrymander”.

Oddly shaped electorates can be designed to combine voters in very specific ways, limiting an opposing party’s ability to win many electorates.

The 4th Congressional district in Illinois, in the United States, is a famous example – combining votes from the North and South sides of Chicago, and running along a freeway at one point.

Even without odd shapes, where ever there is a geographic allocation of voters to electoral districts or states (as in the UK, Australia and many other countries) there is the prospect – indeed likelihood – that the popular vote won’t coincide with the winner of the majority of seats or states.

It’s possible to lose lots of seats by big margins and to still come out on top by winning slightly more by narrow margins.

Read more: More Americans are suing over gerrymandered state maps – but the Supreme Court is not likely to step in

At least in Australia and the United Kingdom, districts aren’t drawn by politicians, but in many states they are in the US.

While this doesn’t matter much for presidential elections, it has led people like me to spend a fair amount of time devoted to seeking to understand the motives of gerrymanders, whether they have advantaged incumbents, how to draw geographically-sensible looking districts, and how to use automatic means to change district boundaries as populations change.

One problem in the US is that even if the rules don’t change, voters naturally move between districts, often congregating with like-minded people, creating the effect of a gerrymander.

Read more: 4 reasons gerrymandering is getting worse

Even an independent electoral commission, such as Australia’s will find it hard to ensure that the party that wins the majority vote will be the party that takes office.

And they are not required to.

For federal elections the redistribution commissioners are required only to ensure that the number of voters in each electorate is roughly the same as in other electorates within the state.

In doing it they are required to take account of communities of interests, means of travel, and physical features.

Gerrymandering is semi-automatic

To look at the distribution of each party’s supporters and ensure it was evenly spread between electorates would be a highly political act.

It would involve making political judgements.

South Australia’s Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission was required to make those judgements between 1991 and 2016.

During those years it was told to ensure

as far as practicable, that the redistribution was fair to prospective candidates and groups of candidates, so that if candidates of a particular group attracted more than 50 per cent of the popular vote, including preferences, they would be elected in sufficient numbers to enable a government to be formed.

Until the law was repealed amid accusations about which side of politics would benefit South Australia was the only Australian state in which authorities were required to give consideration to political outcomes when drawing up electorates.

We are told that it no longer happens in South Australia and happens nowhere else in Australia. And it doesn’t, explicitly.

Read more: Explainer: how do seat redistributions work?

Yet implicitly redistribution commissions do make those calls making judgements that will either advance majority rule or retard it, regardless of whether they say or think they are.

It’s something that as voters and citizens, we should be aware of.

– ref. Vital Signs: Sure, the US election is gerrymandered, but so are others, and its hard to stop – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-sure-the-us-election-is-gerrymandered-but-so-are-others-and-its-hard-to-stop-149454

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kendall George, Lecturer, Nursing and Midwifery and Midwifery Program Leader, University of the Sunshine Coast

For most people, running a marathon sounds like a lot of work — and they probably wouldn’t even consider completing more than one within 24 hours.

The will to go the extra mile is what lies at the very heart of ultra-endurance events (and that’s exactly why they’re called “ultra”).

These events are for athletes who go beyond the typical marathon distance of about 42km, or engage in physical exertion for more than six hours. They’re generally performed via biking, swimming or running, but can also be held in activities such as kayaking.

Our new research published in the journal PLOS One looks at the role of “mental toughness” in the performance of ultra-endurance runners. Our findings suggest mind over matter is a real phenomenon — but can only get you so far.

The nitty-gritty of ultra-endurance events

On-foot ultra-marathons are notoriously challenging, with distances starting around 56km and going upwards of 150km. They’re often held in remote mountainous settings and almost always involve unpredictable course conditions and massive shifts in altitude.

Read more: I ran 100 miles in a day – this is what happened to my body

Unsurprisingly, research on ultra-marathon runners has found this unique population experiences a range of difficult circumstances during these events.

The most common physical reasons for withdrawal include nausea, vomiting, blisters and/or muscle pain. Alongside extreme physical pain and discomfort, it’s also common to experience intense fatigue, unpleasant emotions and negative thoughts.

Is it really mind over matter?

“Mental toughness” is usually associated with the ability to either remain consistent in the face of challenges, or to quickly recover from setbacks and adversity.

We wanted to investigate what motivates ultra-endurance athletes to keep going despite obvious physical and mental challenges. To do this, we focused on a group of 56 ultra-marathon runners who competed in the Hawaiian Ultra Running Trail 100, or HURT100.

This 160.1km endurance run is a difficult five-lap course in the mountains above the city of Honolulu, Hawaii. The track has little clear running space and runners spend most of the course navigating through tree roots and crossing streams. Topping it off is about 7,500m of cumulative elevation gain and loss over the course.

The elite athletes in our study completed two questionnaires, from which we found mental toughness didn’t seem to predict performance within the group.

Thus, we conclude there may be a “threshold” level of mental toughness one must overcome to even be able to prepare for, and compete in, such an event. But beyond this, other psychological, physical and logistical factors appear to have a greater impact on performance.

We also compared our group of ultra-marathon runners to athletes in other sports including hockey, tennis, professional football, high performance male athletics and mixed martial arts. We discovered the runners had significantly higher levels of mental toughness.

In terms of which specific characteristics led to greater mental toughness, such as confidence, commitment, personal responsibility or control over one’s thoughts — “self-efficacy” scored high.

This refers to an athlete’s belief in their ability to execute a task. For example, whether they believed they could complete the HURT100 distance within the 36-hour cut off time.

Read more: Will the genetic screening of athletes change sport as we know it?

Traversing the human mind

Our research has practical implications for athletes, whether they want to increase their own mental toughness, or know what it takes to run in an ultra-marathon event.

Having advanced knowledge of the mechanisms underpinning mental toughness (such as self-efficacy) could also help sport psychologists and coaches create more effective and targeted training programs.

That said, our findings do open doors to more questions. What other factors could predict performance in ultra-marathon runners? How wide is the range of characteristics that can be linked to mental toughness? And can these be learned by anyone?

Some may argue people are just born with greater levels of mental toughness and it’s in their genes. Others claim this can be developed over time as a result of individual experiences. It seems the age-old nature versus nurture debate persists.

Acknowledgement: the author would like to acknowledge the study’s first author, Anthony Brace, who is a Master of Psychology Candidate (Sport and Exercise) at the University of Queensland.

– ref. We studied mental toughness in ultra-marathon runners. Mind over matter is real — but won’t take you all the way – https://theconversation.com/we-studied-mental-toughness-in-ultra-marathon-runners-mind-over-matter-is-real-but-wont-take-you-all-the-way-149447

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Victoria Manning, Associate Professor, Monash University

Around one in five Australians will develop an alcohol use disorder, such as dependence, during their lifetime.

Reports suggest some people have been drinking more during the COVID pandemic, potentially putting themselves at greater risk of becoming dependent.

While some people will seek treatment for problem drinking, more than half of patients who go through inpatient withdrawal treatment, or detox, relapse within two weeks of discharge.

My team and I have found a new form of brain training can have positive results for people going through detox.

The conscious brain versus the subconscious brain

When we want to change a behaviour like alcohol use, we might use our conscious brain to think about the benefits quitting will bring, such as improved sleep and being sharper in the mornings. We might reflect on the downsides if we continue to drink, like the unwanted calories, the cost, and the risk of harm to our physical or mental health.

But despite these conscious thought processes, we still may find ourselves reaching into the fridge for a beer, or pouring a glass of wine, as though on “autopilot”. This is because our subconscious brain is in action, driving the desire to drink alcohol.

Over time, when we drink frequently, alcohol cues such as places, sights, smells and social situations that remind us of drinking subconsciously capture our attention and drive impulses to drink. This tendency is called cognitive bias.

In Australia, we’re continually bombarded with alcohol cues, whether from bottle shops, pubs, or advertising. Recent research found we’re targeted by an alcohol advertisement as often as every 35 seconds on social media.

But by reducing cognitive bias towards alcohol cues, we can increase the likelihood our behaviour will be driven by our conscious rather than our subconscious brain.

Read more: Does brain training work? That depends on your purpose

Training our subconscious brain

A relatively new form of brain training that directly targets cognitive biases is showing promising results in treating alcohol use disorders.

Cognitive bias modification is a computerised brain-training program that trains people to repeatedly “avoid” alcohol-related cues, and to “approach” neutral or positive ones.

Using a joystick, the user repeatedly pushes away pictures of alcohol, and pulls healthier alternatives, such as bottled water, towards them. By practising this over and over again, the avoidance of alcohol cues becomes automatic, thereby disabling the autopilot response to these cues.

European researchers have shown that when added to a residential rehabilitation program, cognitive bias modification reduced rates of relapse to drinking by 8-13% 12 months after treatment.

Cognitive bias modification is delivered in several residential rehabilitation facilities in Germany, where it’s recommended in treatment guidelines.

It’s not yet available in Australia.

Read more: Women are drinking more during the pandemic, and it’s probably got a lot to do with their mental health

What we did

Our study, published today in JAMA Psychiatry, was a randomised control trial with 300 patients from four alcohol withdrawal units in Melbourne.

Roughly half were allocated to the intervention group, to receive one 15-minute session of cognitive bias modification a day for four consecutive days during their week-long detox treatment. The other half were allocated to a control group and received a pretend version of the training.

Before the treatment, participants generally had an automatic tendency to approach alcohol cues with the joystick. But we found the cognitive bias modification generally shifted this to an automatic tendency to avoid them.

Most importantly, cognitive bias modification increased rates of abstinence by 17% at two weeks after discharge. Some 63.8% of the brain-training group reported no alcohol use, compared with 46.8% of the control group.

The main limitation of our study was that alcohol use after treatment was self-reported. The vast geographical catchment of the withdrawal units meant we had to do follow-up interviews over the phone, so we couldn’t use tools like breathalysers or blood tests to verify abstinence.

Nonetheless, we feel confident cognitive bias modification can optimise outcomes for patients receiving treatment for alcohol addiction. The training is simple, safe, easy to implement and cost-effective, and we believe it should be routinely offered as part of inpatient withdrawal treatment in Australia.

Now we’re trialling an app version

Inpatient treatment services are geared towards people with moderate to severe alcohol use disorders. But these people represent only a fraction of those who want to reduce or stop drinking.

Recognising this, we’ve developed a smartphone version of cognitive bias modification called SWiPE. It enables users to personalise their training by selecting the alcohol beverages or brands they wish to avoid.

At the same time, the app aims to strengthen motivation for quitting or reducing alcohol use by training users to repeatedly swipe towards meaningful, goal-related images they select from their photo libraries (for example, of family, friends, hobbies, travel, and so on).

Read more: Thinking about taking a break from alcohol? Here’s how to cut back or quit

We’re currently running a trial to test whether SWiPE effectively reduces alcohol consumption and craving. Early results, not yet peer-reviewed or published, are encouraging.

In today’s culture where we make instantaneous decisions with the swipe of a finger, if it proves to be effective, this app could be adapted to weaken the subconscious drivers of other unhealthy habits we wish to break, such as smoking and the overconsumption of unhealthy foods.

– ref. How a simple brain training program could help you stay away from alcohol – https://theconversation.com/how-a-simple-brain-training-program-could-help-you-stay-away-from-alcohol-148431

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, La Trobe University

On Saturday, The Age reported the Andrews government had been discussing the possibility of a single coronavirus hospital to treat and quarantine Victorians who test positive to COVID.

The designated hospital would aim to relieve pressure on the state’s health-care system and minimise the spread of the virus within hospitals and the wider community.

Read more: Rising coronavirus cases among Victorian health workers could threaten our pandemic response

The decision on whether to create a single hospital dedicated to COVID cases in Victoria is still some way off. And agreeing on a site and getting it up and running is even further away. But with reports the government is weighing up whether this is the right approach, it’s worth exploring the issues around this decision.

Localising risk

It’s important not to conflate the issue of whether establishing a single dedicated hospital makes sense with the issue of whether all COVID cases should be hospitalised.

These are two completely separate matters.

The question of whether all cases should be hospitalised, regardless of the severity of their infection, speaks to a broader range of issues. This article focuses on whether a single dedicated hospital makes sense for cases with severe illness.

The rationale for a dedicated hospital is primarily about giving better care to COVID patients who need medical intervention, while minimising the risk of disease being spread to other patients as well as health-care workers.

Read more: Should all aged-care residents with COVID-19 be moved to hospital? Probably, but there are drawbacks too

Putting the practical issues of costs and logistics aside, the theoretical case for establishing such a hospital is based on several considerations.

What’s the case for a designated COVID hospital?

There’s no doubt it can be a real challenge to keep health-care workers healthy during a pandemic. Melbourne has seen well over 3,000 COVID infections among health-care workers since the beginning of the pandemic. More than 70% of them were infected at work.

Cultivating a very specialised workforce, with the most appropriate facilities, who are highly competent in Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), seems like a sensible option to keep health-care workers safe. A designated COVID hospital would also make it easier to design workforce strategies to contain a cluster in staff if it were to occur.

Locating all COVID patients at one site also helps prevent patients at other hospitals from being infected with COVID while in hospital.

It’s not just health-care workers and patients who stand to benefit. Adopting best-practice infection control at a dedicated COVID hospital would also potentially limit opportunities for infections to spread back into the community from health-care settings. If we’ve learned anything over the past few months, it’s how easy it is for infections to move from the community to high-risk settings and back again.

Other issues

While this sounds very promising, a single COVID hospital would also present challenges. Implementing it would be a considerable task — including finding a suitable site and equipping it with appropriate facilities and staff.

It’s hard to know whether the cost-benefit equation would favour the proposal.

The government would need to work to ensure, after focusing many resources on such a facility, it doesn’t become overrun if there is another wave. On the contrary, it also runs the risk of becoming a white elephant if it isn’t used enough to justify the time and money.

The problem, of course, is it’s hard to make predictions about the future course of COVID in Victoria.

Read more: PPE unmasked: why health-care workers in Australia are inadequately protected against coronavirus

Things to consider

At this stage, according to the Victorian government, a single coronavirus hospital is on the table as just one of many options to help navigate this once-in-a-generation pandemic.

The fact it is being discussed, whether it is deemed appropriate or not, is a good thing. Victoria needs to be exploring all available options. We should hope for the best while planning for the worst.

As with most things, the detail of the proposal will be key to determining whether this is the right path to take. How patients and health-care staff are managed will need to be considered carefully.

We also know many COVID patients with severe disease will have a range of other illnesses too. For this reason, it will be important any dedicated coronavirus hospital has the expertise to manage patients’ full range of needs.

– ref. A dedicated COVID hospital in Victoria would be good for patients and staff. But we can’t be sure yet it will be needed – https://theconversation.com/a-dedicated-covid-hospital-in-victoria-would-be-good-for-patients-and-staff-but-we-cant-be-sure-yet-it-will-be-needed-149268

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Maund, Research Affiliate, School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle

Last week, the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements (the “bushfire royal commission”) handed down its anticipated final report, with 80 recommendations on managing future emergencies.

Last summer’s horror bushfire season claimed 33 lives, although the real cost in human life might have been greater when smoke-related health issues are taken into account. More than 3,000 houses were destroyed in the 24 million hectares that burned.

Read more: Summer bushfires: how are the plant and animal survivors 6 months on? We mapped their recovery

It’s clear Australia has a lot to learn about managing risk and adapting to future extreme seasons, and the most effective strategy is better planning where and how we live and build. As the royal commission noted, “planning decisions and exposure to risk are inextricably linked”.

But while the report is extensive, covering many aspects of natural disasters and planning around land use, the royal commission stops short of recommending a national town planning policy.

Recommendations on planning

The commission considered all natural hazards, including drought, storms and floods, as well as bushfires.

It found the Australian community expected national leadership, and it pleaded for action and unity from all levels of government to improve natural disaster arrangements as risk grows under climate change. Ultimately, it writes, the federal government should “enhance and support” state and local government.

Read more: We can build homes to survive bushfires, so why don’t we?

The commission also determined where people choose to live affects the extent of damage and harm from a disaster, even if consequences aren’t felt until decades later. Its recommendations around planning and building include:

• improved communication of risk and hazard information for prospective property buyers

• guidance from insurers on what risk mitigation strategies will be recognised for existing buildings

• mandatory consideration of natural disaster risk in land-use planning decisions by state, territory and local government

• review of the National Construction Code and its standards to understand how effective they are in reducing risk.

Adopting these recommendations is important because, as the Bushfire Building Council estimates in the report:

90% of buildings in bushfire prone areas in Australia have not been built to bushfire planning and construction regulations as they were built prior to regulation being applied.

Inheriting risk

Prospective landowners inherit risk when they purchase property, so effectively communicating this is essential and would encourage better “buy in”. While this is already occurring in some states, requirements vary considerably and communication should move beyond risk awareness.

Purchasers should also be provided with a detailed understanding of measures that can be implemented to reduce risk. This could be, for example, annual reminders for property maintenance, such as pruning trees and cleaning gutters.

Insurance also should also play a larger role. By August 2020, almost 38,500 insurance claims valued at an estimated A$2.33 billion were lodged due to the bushfires.

Insurers need to provide guidance on what changes can be made to buildings to reduce risk, and we should encourage a consistent national insurance policy for these measures. This should be reflected in reduced insurance premiums.

Smarter town planning

Effective building standards are vital, but they should not be the primary mechanism for risk reduction. There must also be a focus on town planning to locate buildings in less hazard-prone areas.

Town planning functions and responsibilities are often managed by local government. However, state and territory governments still remain accountable to ensure local government has sufficient support.

Read more: The bushfire royal commission has made a clarion call for change. Now we need politics to follow

The importance of town planning in managing disaster risk has also been recognised by the United Nations, Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, Planning Institute of Australia and NSW Rural Fire Service.

Despite these calls, homes continue to be built in high risk areas. As written in the royal commission’s report:

all states permit homes to be built in bushfire and flood prone areas, and the degree to which planning or building standards act to mitigate risk varies across jurisdictions.

Furthermore, the Insurance Council of Australia stated in the report that there’s “clear evidence of recent planning decisions placing communities at a known and obvious risk of disaster”.

For example, development for the suburb of Idalia in Townsville was only partially completed before it was inundated by a flood in February 2019. More than 3,300 homes were damaged.

Likewise, the town of Wytaliba lost about 25 homes in the recent bushfires, which is more than half of its total number of houses.

Why we need a national policy

The commission has provided recommendations on what needs to be done — now we need the how.

The royal commission recognises the role of state, territory and local government in planning. But having diverse planning policies means there are differences in where we locate buildings, creates confusion and exposes communities to different levels of risk.

This is why Australia needs a national approach, with a consistent national policy that all levels of government should be responsible for managing.

Read more: The NSW bushfire inquiry found property loss is ‘inevitable’. We must stop building homes in such fire-prone areas

A national approach would avoid development in high-risk areas, while still providing housing, employment, food and water security and environmental protection.

It would allow communities to make decisions within an agreed, evidence-based framework that’s understood by all stakeholders — the community, emergency sector, government and insurance industry. And it would establish boundaries to the level of risk that’s acceptable.

This policy would include a combination of avoidance of high-risk areas, improved building standards and standardised risk assessments. Importantly, it would get support from politicians, government, professionals and the entire community to boost resilience.

It’s of the utmost importance Australia gets this right, as more extreme bushfire seasons are undoubtedly in our future. As the royal commission stated, “support is one thing — action is another”.

Read more: Set up national air fleet to fight fires, says royal commission, warning of worsening weather

– ref. 90% of buildings in bushfire-prone areas aren’t built to survive fires. A national policy can start to fix this – https://theconversation.com/90-of-buildings-in-bushfire-prone-areas-arent-built-to-survive-fires-a-national-policy-can-start-to-fix-this-149154

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gwilym Croucher, Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne

This is an edited extract of a new history, Australian Universities: A history of common cause, by Gwilym Croucher and James Waghorne (UNSW Press). In the early 1950s the universities faced an acute financial crisis, forcing them to find creative ways to lobby the Menzies government. The outcome was a resounding affirmation of the national importance of universities.

Unresolved problems of Commonwealth support for universities came to a head in 1952, when the funding recommended by the 1950 Mills Committee expired. Despite his oft-expressed affection for Australian universities, Robert Menzies’ refusal to appoint a standing committee to manage university funding or new inquiry left future Commonwealth support and funding uncertain. The government’s practice of delaying the passage of the States Grants (Universities) Act until just in time for the following year tested universities’ nerve.

Coupled with this uncertainty was the problem of inflation, which had soared after the previous Labor government’s wage controls were lifted. The Commonwealth allocations so precisely calibrated in the middle of 1950 were increasingly inadequate. By 1952, the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC, predecessor of Universities Australia) estimated inflation had reduced the effective Commonwealth allocation by “up to 40%”.

In October 1951 universities used the opportunity of the ceremony installing the first ANU chancellor, Stanley Melbourne Bruce, to send a deputation to the prime minister to urge him to initiate a “co-ordinated plan of development”. Menzies was unavailable. The visiting vice-chancellors had to be content with Paul Hasluck, minister for territories, as the prime minister’s representative.

The UWA vice-chancellor, Sir George Currie, later confessed to other universities that he “was not optimistic regarding the result”. Hasluck indicated the Commonwealth had limited interest in establishing a new committee that might bind it to increasing funding.

Their discreet appeals having failed, universities were compelled to adopt a more public stance. This meant a degree of co-ordinated public action universities had only infrequently practised. The University of Sydney appointed communications professionals to develop the public case.

They were not alone, though, in public advocacy. During a speech on the responsibility of science in the modern world, Ian Clunies Ross, head of the CSIRO and former Sydney professor, “turned an elegant celebration on the traditional role of the university into an urgent appeal for help”.

Facing a pressing funding shortfall, universities took the unprecedented step of preparing a booklet, A Crisis in the Finances and Development of the Australian Universities. Signed by vice-chancellors, it set out a reasoned case on university finances.

The publication shed the previous restraint of the AVCC’s public statements and presented the situation facing universities as a “crisis”. The combination of the loss of Commonwealth funding and rising inflation meant universities were worse off in real terms than they had been in 1939. The booklet presented concerns to the public, and made the case that the public should value universities’ contribution:

Universities are destined to play an increasingly important role in Australian development. Their future is a matter of grave concern to you and to every other member of the community. Yet there is an alarming degree of public apathy regarding their affairs. While they are accepted as an integral part of our educational system, there is little public appreciation of the wide nature of their responsibilities to the community.

The universities argued their role had expanded in the years after the second world war and they now performed many functions of vital national significance. Their tasks of transmitting knowledge to students, along with the training of professionals with technical expertise, such as “architects, engineers, scientists, doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers, economists”, were now undertaken to meet national priorities.

Another role was in Commonwealth-supported research. Universities distinguished their contribution from the CSIRO’s mission-oriented investigation of specified problems. Universities had the freedom to advance knowledge and make discoveries where the end result was unknown. Moreover, they were the primary source of “specialist training in professions and science” essential for the national research enterprise.

All these benefits crossed state boundaries and had wide public utility. Research, for example, was not the private work of individuals, but rather provided a “threefold advantage”: in “advancing knowledge”, training research workers for government and industrial employment, and “indirectly maintaining the interest and vigour of the staff with a benefit to teaching standards”. Acknowledging that research did not always produce immediate economic benefits, they argued that their research training provided an essential prerequisite for growth of the economy.

Two thousand copies of the Crisis booklet were distributed to politicians, university governing bodies, professors and others “interested in increasing government support”. A media statement was drafted emphasising the problem of inflation. Journalists were encouraged to quote from the booklet as the official position of Australian universities.

In the wake of the publication of the booklet, Menzies reiterated his support for Australian universities. More promisingly, he indicated broad support for an immediate 20% increase in “second level” Commonwealth assistance, which benefited the smaller universities, and the establishment of a committee to respond to immediate needs and prepare a long-term plan for university development.

Yet by the following February the process had slowed. Universities became increasingly frustrated.

The 1953 Premiers’ Conference was scheduled for the day after the universities met, and the vice-chancellors telegraphed the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Department, Allen Brown: “would it be possible to obtain the Prime Minister’s views on additional assistance for universities in current year”. Brown telephoned in reply that the Premiers’ Conference would be dealing with “weighty problems” and unfortunately would not have time to consider universities’ appeal.

The plight of universities was discussed at the conference and, in response to appeals from Victoria for more support, Menzies replied that they had done well “without a Commonwealth grant”. Left with little recourse, the vice-chancellors again wrote to the prime minister, reiterating their requests.

As universities sought to build a case for federal funds, they faced growing internal pressures to raise academic salaries. These had declined in real terms as inflation eroded their value. Some disciplines struggled to attract quality candidates.

In response, in 1952 staff formed a Federal Council of University Staff Associations of Australia (FCUSAA). In 1953 it pressed universities to support its campaign for wage increases.

In this, universities were hamstrung by their separate relationships with their respective state governments. While some universities, such as Sydney and Melbourne, had independently granted wage increases, others, such as Adelaide and Western Australia, were not in a financial position to do so. Nevertheless, universities supported the proposal with a statement of principle that academic salaries were “inadequate in view of changed economic conditions”.

While the funding impasse continued, the weight of the number of enrolments that had grown since the second world war squeezed operations, leaving little capacity to expand universities’ activities in line with international trends. In response to the deteriorating state of affairs, the AVCC conducted its own survey of the needs of universities to prepare for the appointment of a full government inquiry and to provide greater specificity to universities’ requests for funding in the meantime. The task of compiling a “Survey of University Needs” proved challenging and there was no certainty the members would agree to what emerged.

As the survey was being compiled, the AVCC prepared a public statement on the absolute minimum requirements of Australian universities. The timing was significant. On the eve of the May 29 1954 federal election, Menzies responded that he was “anxious not to involve the Commonwealth government in the internal affairs of universities”.

The AVCC report sought to answer profound questions about the shape and character of the whole system, such as the “optimum size of a university”, the “essential” facilities, what “special types of university” were necessary, considerations in determining the location of these universities, what residential component was important, what departments were “too expensive to be duplicated”, and where new facilities and departments were needed to overcome “overcrowding”.

It concluded that each should commence with Arts and Science, plus “at least one other faculty reflecting the needs of the district where the university or college is located”. These departments should be headed by professors and as “adequately staffed as possible”. Staff–student ratios should be as low as possible, with 2,500 to 3,000 students considered optimal, even though the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne had already grown to twice this size.

The report also acknowledged that larger universities, with more extensive offerings and a broad range of departments, had stronger reputations. The tension between good education and reputation was difficult to resolve.

At the March 1956 meeting, the AVCC chair, George Paton, announced the plans for university co-ordination would be shelved. He considered them no longer “desirable at the present stage” and went on to explain that Menzies had joined him for a private dinner at the Melbourne staff club, University House, at which he agreed to appoint a new inquiry, subject to approval from the states. Menzies asked universities for a list of names of “persons in the United Kingdom who would be suitable for appointment as chairman of such a committee”.

This breakthrough was greeted with acclamation by universities, which drew up a list at the top of which was the chair of the University Grants Committee in Britain, Sir Keith Murray. Vice-chancellors had been instrumental in the appointment of Murray, and Murray sought guidance from them upon his arrival.

Universities set out a template for the “ideal conditions” for a visit to an Australian university, including the time for a tour of the facilities and the order in which to speak to interest groups. Each visit began with an official exposition of the university’s submission, followed by informal talks with professorial and then non-professorial staff, then a meeting with student representatives. Finally, a formal meeting would be held with a university’s governing body, with subsequent informal conversations to “clear up points of doubt”.

Receiving this advice with gratitude, Murray agreed in a way that gave comfort to vice-chancellors that “the problems appeared to be immediate and large”. “Was anybody thinking in revolutionary terms?” he asked.

The universities’ planning work that went into formulating a co-ordinated approach was not wasted. It formed the basis of the AVCC submission to the Murray Committee. Drafted by Paton, the report emphasised the need for “long-range” planning, so universities were not “faced with a similar problem in two years’ time”, as they had been after the Mills Inquiry.

Although constitutional impediments prevented the “translating” of the University Grants Committee into Australia directly, the AVCC submission urged Murray to investigate the creation of an equivalent body. To clarify this for the British members of the committee, Paton explained:

If the Universities are to develop as they should, we must of necessity depend more on the Commonwealth for our financial requirements, while the Commonwealth has the superior power over taxation. But we are equally anxious that anything the Commonwealth might contribute should not merely ease the financial responsibilities of the States towards the Universities.

The Murray Committee considered the vice-chancellors’ submission alongside those of student groups and industry representatives, and undertook the review at remarkable speed with the support of Menzies. The final report drew particular attention to the vice-chancellors’ request for a similar organisation to the British University Grants Committee.

Menzies adopted the recommendations within three days of the report’s release. The government pledged to establish a permanent body with the support of the state governments. The body would reside in the Prime Minister’s Department, separate from the Office of Education, so as to distinguish it from the provision of primary and secondary education. It would have its own secretariat and, although Murray recommended that it act informally, at least at the beginning, it would be established as a statutory authority in 1959.

This went much of the way to meeting the vice-chancellors’ request, although they might have preferred the body to have a more public role.

The Murray Report cited Commonwealth estimates that the number of students would almost double over the following decade, following “rapid” population growth and the increasing numbers remaining in secondary school to matriculation. This, Murray argued, would require existing universities to take more students, as well as a new university in Sydney and Melbourne.

Yet this grossly underestimated the demand for higher education that came only a few years later. The [newly established] Australian Universities Commission immediately found itself grappling with a system growing more rapidly than anybody had imagined. New universities cast from the mould of the old would require unprecedented levels of public investment. In just five years a new committee of inquiry would be appointed to determine how this expansion could be supported.

An extract from Australian Universities: A history of common cause by Gwilym Croucher and James Waghorne, UNSW Press, November 2020, $39.99RRP.

– ref. Universities in crisis? They’ve been there before, and found a way out – https://theconversation.com/universities-in-crisis-theyve-been-there-before-and-found-a-way-out-149439

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Williams, Associate Professor in Urban Ecology and Urban Horticulture, University of Melbourne

High demand for green space under COVID restrictions led councils in Melbourne to temporarily open golf courses to non-golfers and fuelled public calls to “unlock” or repurpose them permanently. However, this must be done carefully because many golf courses are oases of biodiversity in Australian cities. If more people visit golf courses, increased disturbance of wildlife is just one of the results that may be incompatible with their nature conservation values.

Read more: Our cities are full of parks, so why are we looking to golf courses for more open space?

Between 2011 and 2014 we studied the biodiversity of green spaces throughout Melbourne’s south-eastern suburbs. We compared golf courses to nearby public parks and residential areas as these are the land uses that most commonly replace golf courses when they close.

The results surprised us. Golf courses contained the greatest diversity and abundance of beetles, bees, birds and bats of all the green spaces we studied. We found ground-nesting native bees that do not occur in much of the urban landscape because it is dominated by built surfaces and exotic flowering plants.

The minimum number of bird species we saw on a golf course was always higher than the maximum numbers at other green spaces. We found much more evidence of birds breeding. There was also a diverse array of insect-eating birds, which are in decline in many parts of Australia.

Some golf courses supported all ten bat species known to occur in this part of metropolitan Melbourne. Bat activity was ten times greater than in nearby areas of housing. Golf courses also supported twice as many bat species considered “sensitive” to urbanisation.

Read more: The 39 endangered species in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and other Australian cities

Why is biodiversity greater on golf courses?

There are many reasons golf courses support far more than the typical “urban-adapted” fauna we see in our cities. A key factor is the complex vegetation structure in the large parts of golf courses where you don’t want to hit your golf ball – the “rough” and “out of bounds” areas.

These areas of long grass and dense, often native, shrubs have little to no human intervention. These conditions are rarely found in urban parks and residential gardens, which typically have highly managed vegetation. The relatively high proportion of native plant species, many indigenous to the area, is also very important.

This complex vegetation is critical habitat for a wide array of animals such as small insect-eating birds, larger reptiles and ground-dwelling mammals. For example, occurrence records show Northcote Golf Course is an important refuge for the small population of swamp wallabies living along Merri Creek in Melbourne’s inner north.

Greater leaf litter accumulation and lower soil compaction mean these areas have healthier soils with more biological activity. These soils can also absorb stormwater more effectively, reducing the risk of urban flooding.

Another reason is that golf courses have many more large, old native trees. These mature trees are critical to the breeding success of hundreds of Australia’s animal species as they contain hollows, which are rare in urban areas. Because golf courses often prevent other uses, old trees can be left standing longer than is tolerated in other parts of the city.

Another important factor is the exclusion of dogs and ability to control foxes and cats, which protects vulnerable fauna.

Golf courses also provide a large expanse of dark vegetated habitat in an otherwise illuminated landscape. This habitat is critical for nocturnal animals such as bats, as well as many birds and invertebrates. Artificial light at night is emerging as one of the most pervasive threats to urban wildlife.

Large refuges of dark habitat in cities are unique and ought to be protected. However, this may be at odds with increased human activity, particularly if night lighting is needed to satisfy safety concerns.

Read more: Getting smarter about city lights is good for us and nature too

Shared use is possible but must be managed

We are not suggesting golf courses should not be made more accessible to the public. The COVID-19 restrictions on human movement have highlighted the value of urban green spaces as places to exercise, socialise and connect with nature. But if city golf courses are opened to the public, it is vital it not be done at the expense of their biodiversity.

Indeed, shared-use models may ensure golf courses remain viable in Australian cities. Recognition of their biodiversity, cooling and social benefits via mechanisms such as council rate rebates could help ease the financial pressures of decreasing membership.

The potential for golf course managers to improve the habitat that sustains biodiversity is also great. Ways to achieve this include tree planting, direct seeding of native grasses and wildflowers, and regeneration burns. Many course managers are eager to do this, although they have to proceed cautiously because it can affect the speed of play.

Australian cities have some of the highest population growth rates in the developed world. This growth is putting pressure on our biodiversity, decreasing human liveability and increasing conflict about the use of increasingly crowded green spaces.

Some urban golf courses support threatened species and communities, but all are biodiversity refuges in what can be a hostile urban landscape. We need to consider this when contemplating alternative uses.

– ref. Urban golf courses are biodiversity oases. Opening them up puts that at risk – https://theconversation.com/urban-golf-courses-are-biodiversity-oases-opening-them-up-puts-that-at-risk-148634

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emlyn Dodd, Greece Fellow, Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens; Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Ancient Cultural Heritage and Environment, Macquarie University

Pompeii is famed for plaster-cast bodies, ruins, frescoes and the rare snapshot it provides of a rather typical ancient Roman city. But less famous is its evidence of viticulture.

Wild grapevines probably existed across peninsular Italy since prehistory, but it is likely the Etruscans and colonising Greeks promoted wine-making with domesticated grapes as early as 1000 BCE.

Pompeii, preserved after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE, sits within Campania on fertile volcanic soil with a temperate Mediterranean climate and reliable sources of water.

Pliny the Elder, living nearby Pompeii in 77 CE wrote of the “vine-growing hills and noble wine of Campania” and the poet Martial described vats dripping with grapes, and the “ridges Bacchus loved more than the hills of Nysa”.

The Greeks even referred to Campania as Oenotria – “the land of vines”.

A famous wine region

Over 150 Roman farms have been discovered in the Vesuvian region, and many engaged in viticulture. Some of the most famous ancient wines came from this region, including the honey-sweet and expensive Falernian wine.

Falernian was said to ignite when a flame was applied, suggesting an alcohol content of at least 40% – significantly higher than the 11% you could expect to buy from the bottle shop today.

While the Falernian was believed to be white, most ancient wines were red due to the less laborious production process.

A wide variety of wines could be found on the Roman wine market, flavoured with sea water, resin, spices and herbs like lavender and thyme, or even fermented in a smoke-filled room to impart flavour.

There is even possible evidence for early counterfeit wine. Archaeologists have identified imitation ceramic transport jars produced elsewhere and stamped with fake Pompeian merchant stamps.

Agriculture among an ancient city

Within Pompeii’s city walls, vineyards hid behind taverns and inns as families and bar-keepers grew grapes on a smaller scale for their own tables and wine.

When vines were covered by the volcanic eruption and later decomposed, they left cavities in the debris. By filling these cavities with plaster, archaeologists were able to reveal vineyards over entire city blocks.

Excavations have revealed carbonised grape seeds and even whole preserved grapes caramelised from the volcanic eruption – their high sugar content gives them a glassy appearance easily spotted amongst the soil.

Gardens were everywhere in Pompeii. The archaeologist Wilhelmina Jashemski noticed at least one in each house and, in some larger elite residences, up to three or four. Many included vines to grow grapes for fruit and wine, but also to provide shade over triclinia dining areas.

If you visit the modern town surrounding Pompeii today, you will notice not much has changed in 2,000 years.

Read more: Walking, talking and showing off – a history of Roman gardens

The ‘Foro Boario’ vineyard

Opposite Pompeii’s amphitheatre is the Foro Boario. Misnamed because archaeologists originally thought the site was a cattle market, excavations in the 1960s revealed it was once actually an extensive vineyard.

Over 2,000 vines were found, with almost the exact spacing between each vine as recommended by the ancient agricultural writers Pliny and Columella. Each vine was attached to a stake and 58 fruit trees were also planted in the vineyard.

Local workers at the time of excavation even commented that the four depressions found around root cavities were identical to the holes holding water in their own vineyards.

At the back of the vineyard was found a small two-room structure housing a lever wine press and ten dolia – large ceramic fermentation jars buried into the ground to keep temperatures consistently cool.

There are also numerous triclinia for eating and drinking scattered among the vineyard, suggesting the owner did a thriving business opposite the amphitheatre, with gladiatorial patrons coming to relax, eat and drink before and after spectacles.

Resurrecting ancient wine

That such large and valuable pieces of land within the city walls were dedicated to wine-making gives insight to the profitable nature and high esteem viticulture held in Roman communities.

Today, many of these vineyards have been replanted as they were at the time of the eruption, with relatives of ancient grape varieties like the Piedirosso: a fruity and floral grape with light herb and spiced flavours, perhaps related to Pliny’s ancient Columbina variety.

Read more: Wine and climate change: 8,000 years of adaptation

In 1996, the local Campanian winemaker, Mastroberardino, cultivated and processed these grapes using Roman techniques and created the Villa dei Misteri wine: ruby red in colour with a complex taste, including hints of vanilla, cinnamon and notes of spice and cherry.

It can be aged for 30 years or more – just like the 60-year-old Falernian drunk by Julius Caesar at his celebration banquet in 60 BC.

– ref. Pompeii is famous for its ruins and bodies, but what about its wine? – https://theconversation.com/pompeii-is-famous-for-its-ruins-and-bodies-but-what-about-its-wine-147011

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The government has secured deals for two further COVID-19 vaccines, taking its portfolio of agreements to four.

Under the latest agreements, to be announced by Scott Morrison on Thursday, Novavax would supply 40 million vaccine doses and Pfizer/BioNTech would provide 10 million doses.

The Novavax and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines are expected to be available in Australia from early to mid next year, subject to the success of trials and the needed approvals.

This brings the government’s vaccine investment to more than $3.2 billion, with a total of 134 million doses.

Morrison, while cautioning that there was no assurance of an effective vaccine, said: “By securing multiple COVID-19 vaccines we are giving Australians the best shot at early access to a vaccine, should trials prove successful.

“We aren’t putting all our eggs in one basket and we will continue to pursue further vaccines should our medical experts recommend them.

“There are no guarantees that these vaccines will prove successful, however our strategy puts Australia at the front of the queue, if our medical experts give the vaccines the green light.”

The earlier vaccine agreements involve the University of Queensland/CSL and Oxford/AstraZeneca.

People are likely to need two doses of Novavax Inc’s vaccine, hence the 40 million doses. The vaccine, if it is found safe and effective, would be expected to arrive from early next year. It would be manufactured in the United States and the Czech Republic.

Novavax’s vaccine candidate began phase three clinical trials in the United Kingdom in September.

Under the other new agreement, the vaccine Pfizer and BioNTech are jointly developing would also be expected early next year, if the vaccine – now in phase three clinical trials – passes muster. It would be manufactured in the US, Belgium and Germany.

The Pfizer/BioNTech is a messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) type vaccine and the Novovax vaccine is a protein type vaccine.

Australia’s COVID-19 vaccine portfolio now has two protein vaccines and one mRNA and one viral vector type vaccine.

Health Minister Greg Hunt said: “The goal and the expectation is that Australians who sought vaccination will be vaccinated within 2021.”

Workers in health and aged care, and older people and others most vulnerable to COVID would have first access.

Vaccination places would initially include GPs, GP respiratory clinics, state and territory vaccination sites and workplaces such as aged care facilities.

The vaccine would be free and not mandatory.

The federal government is consulting with the states and territories, medical experts and industry peak bodies about the initial roll-out of the vaccination program early next year.

Internationally, Australia has also joined the COVAX facility, which would provide access to a large portfolio of vaccination candidates and manufactures around the world for up to half of the Australian population.

– ref. Scott Morrison to announce two new COVID vaccine deals – https://theconversation.com/scott-morrison-to-announce-two-new-covid-vaccine-deals-149458

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Wilson, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago

Following the sixth COVID-19 incursion in three months, New Zealand needs to shift from a one-size-fits-all strategy to a risk-based approach to border management.

Two staff have recently tested positive after coming into contact with international seafarers in the course of their duties at a managed isolation facility in Christchurch, where 31 mariners with COVID-19 remain in quarantine.

Mandatory testing of international mariners, who may be only briefly in the country to join their vessels, is being introduced from this week.

This latest incursion follows five earlier border failures since early August. One of these led to the recent outbreak in Auckland.

We propose an urgent shift to a traffic-light approach to border control. This system would facilitate travel to New Zealand from places that are free of COVID-19 (some Australian states and Pacific islands), while reducing the risk associated with travellers from jurisdictions with uncontrolled spread.

Keeping COVID-19 at the border

One of the recent border failures led to the relatively serious outbreak in Auckland, with 179 cases, three deaths and major social and economic impacts.

Two other outbreaks, including one from a returnee infected in a quarantine facility and the latest from port workers infected by incoming seafarers, were controlled at an early stage.

The others involved infections of border facility workers: health workers on two occasions and a maintenance worker.

These six events represent system failures — the goal should be to have complete containment of infection at the border and no cases in the community.

Read more: COVID-19 and small island nations: what we can learn from New Zealand and Iceland

Contributing factors include the use of hotels for quarantine (for which they are not designed) and poor system design, including the lack of testing of seafarers flying into the country to join their ships.

Such failures could increase if the proportion of infected travellers coming to New Zealand increases as many parts of the world experience resurgences and rising infection rates. Given the marked difference in the intensity of the COVID-19 pandemic in different regions and countries, we propose a traffic-light system of risk stratification for jurisdictions from which travellers arrive in New Zealand.

New Zealand has much of the infrastructure already in place to support this shift, including a booking system that could help to manage it. We would also get very rapid data on whether it is working, based on the rate of positive cases detected at the border.

Green: quarantine-free travel with precautions

A growing number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region have eliminated COVID-19, notably most states of Australia. Some Pacific island jurisdictions have never had cases.

Quarantine-free travel should be possible from these jurisdictions, provided an assurance program is in place to ensure elimination requirements are being met, including adequate levels of testing. Since there is always a small risk of outbreaks from border control failures (Australia also uses hotels for quarantine, which failed in Victoria), we would need to consider retaining aome controls, such as:

• rapid testing (using PCR methods) on arrival in New Zealand, or rapid antigen tests once these are considered reliable enough and are available in New Zealand

• digital tracking for the first three weeks in New Zealand (via a traveller’s smartphone and with government-provided phones for those who don’t have their own)

• paying a bond (eg NZ$1000) to be returned after three weeks if the traveller has adhered to the digital tracking system.

Read more: How to use COVID-19 testing and quarantining to safely travel for the holidays

Amber: current border quarantine and testing

These could be states with evidence of ongoing pandemic spread, but where it is relatively well controlled (for example, in Japan, South Korea, Singapore). For this zone, the current measures (facility-based quarantine for 14 days and testing twice during that period) could apply, albeit with some refinements.

Facility-based quarantine periods could be shorter and replaced with home quarantine. The isolation period at home could be combined with the usual PCR testing, digital tracking, mask use and heavy fines for any breaches.

Various East Asian jurisdictions, including Taiwan, have successfully used home quarantine.

As above, a bond could be used to encourage adherence to the conditions.

Red: additional measures or no travel

Jurisdictions with uncontrolled pandemic spread (including US, UK, Russia and India) would fall into this category. For New Zealanders returning from these places, the government could require pre-travel measures in addition to the current quarantine.

The form of these measures needs careful development, but could include evidence of both pre-travel home quarantine (for three days or more) and negative pre-travel test results.

New Zealand should evaluate the experience in countries already using pre-travel COVID-19 testing to determine the most feasible approach. Currently, Cyprus, Bahamas, Bermuda, Hawaii, Hong Kong and Italy require proof of a negative result on arrival.

Read more: Of all the places that have seen off a second coronavirus wave, only Vietnam and Hong Kong have done as well as Victorians

Such measures add to the burden these travellers face, but can be justified. They reduce the risk of outbreaks on incoming aircraft as well as the load on the isolation/quarantine facilities.

Quarantine facilities for these travellers could be restricted to those outside of Auckland, for example at the Ōhakea air base, ideally in purpose-built facilities with properly designed ventilation and no shared spaces.

If all these measures still resulted in high numbers of infected travellers arriving in New Zealand, we would need to consider suspending travel from these red-zone jurisdictions. New legislation could empower the government to allow for such constraint on the right of citizens to return to New Zealand from high-risk countries during a global pandemic.

– ref. New Zealand needs a ‘traffic light’ system to stop COVID-19 creeping in at the border  – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-needs-a-traffic-light-system-to-stop-covid-19-creeping-in-at-the-border-149262

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kayleen Manwaring, Senior Lecturer, School of Taxation ＆ Business Law, UNSW

The Internet of Things (IoT) is already all around us. Online devices have become essential in industries from manufacturing and healthcare to agriculture and environmental management, not to mention our own homes. Digital consulting firm Ovum estimates that by 2022 Australian homes will host more than 47 million IoT devices, and the value of the global market will exceed US$1 trillion.

The IoT presents great opportunities, but it brings many risks too. Problems include excessive surveillance, loss of privacy, transparency and control, and reliance on unsafe or unsuitable services or devices.

Read more: Explainer: the Internet of Things

In some places, such as the European Union, Germany, South Korea and the United Kingdom, governments have been quick to develop policies and some limited regulation to take advantage of the technology and mitigate its harmful impacts.

Australia has been late to react. Even recent moves by the federal government to make IoT devices more secure have been far behind international developments.

A report launched today by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) may help get Australia up to speed. It supplies a wide-ranging, peer-reviewed base of evidence about opportunities, benefits and challenges the IoT presents Australia over the next decade.

Benefits of the Internet of Things

The report examines how we can improve our lives with IoT-related technologies. It explores a range of applications across Australian cities and rural, regional and remote areas.

Some IoT services are already available, such as the Smart Cities and Suburbs program run by local and federal governments. This program funds projects in areas such as traffic congestion, waste management and urban safety.

Health applications are also on the rise. The University of New England has piloted the remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms using IoT-enabled pulse oximeters.

Augmented and virtual reality applications too are becoming more common. IoT devices can track carbon emissions in supply chains and energy use in homes. IoT services can also help governments make public transport infrastructure more efficient.

The benefits of the IoT won’t only be felt in cities. There may be even more to be gained in rural, regional and remote areas. IoT can aid agriculture in many ways, as well as working to prevent and manage bushfires and other environmental disasters. Sophisticated remote learning and health care will also benefit people outside urban areas.

Opportunities for the Australian economy

The IoT presents critical opportunities for economic growth. In 2016-17, IoT activity was already worth A$74.3 billion to the Australian economy.

The IoT can facilitate more data-informed processes and automation (also known as Industry 4.0). This has immediate potential for substantial benefits.

One opportunity for Australia is niche manufacturing. Making bespoke products would be more efficient with IoT capability, which would let Australian businesses reach a consumer market with wide product ranges but low domestic volumes due to our small population.

Agricultural innovation enabled by the IoT, using Australia’s existing capabilities and expertise, is another promising area for investment.

Read more: Six things every consumer should know about the ‘Internet of Things’

Risks of the Internet of Things

IoT devices can collect huge amounts of sensitive data, and controlling that data and keeping it secure presents significant risks. However, the Australian community is not well informed about these issues and some IoT providers are slow to explain appropriate and safe use of IoT devices and services.

These issues make it difficult for consumers to tell good practice from bad, and do not inspire trust in IoT. Lack of consistent international IoT standards can also make it difficult for different devices to work together, and creates a risk that users will be “locked in” to products from a single supplier.

In IoT systems it can also be very complex to determine who is responsible for any particular fault or issue, because of the many possible combinations of product, hardware, software and services. There will also be many contracts and user agreements, creating contractual complexity that adds to already difficult legal questions.

Read more: Are your devices spying on you? Australia’s very small step to make the Internet of Things safer

The increased surveillance made possible by the IoT can lead to breaches of human rights. Partially or fully automated decision-making can also to discrimination and other socially unacceptable outcomes.

And while the IoT can assist environmental sustainability, it can also increase environmental costs and impacts. The ACOLA report estimates that by 2050 the IoT could consume between 1 and 5% of the world’s electricity.

Other risks of harmful social consequences include an increased potential for domestic violence, the targeting of children by malicious actors and corporate interests, increased social withdrawal and the exacerbation of existing inequalities for vulnerable populations. The recent death of a woman in rural New South Wales being treated via telehealth provides just one example of these risks.

Maximising the benefits of the IoT

The ACOLA report makes several recommendations for Australia to take advantage of the IoT while minimising its downsides.

ACOLA advocates a national approach, focusing on areas of strength. It recommends continuing investment in smart cities and regions, and more collaboration between industry, government and education.

ACOLA also recommends increased community engagement, better ethical and regulatory frameworks for data and baseline security standards.

The ACOLA report is only a beginning. More specific work needs to be done to make the IoT work for Australia and its citizens.

The report does outline key areas for future research. These include the actual experiences of people in smart cities and homes, the value of data, environmental impacts and the use of connected and autonomous vehicles.

– ref. How Australia can reap the benefits and dodge the dangers of the Internet of Things – https://theconversation.com/how-australia-can-reap-the-benefits-and-dodge-the-dangers-of-the-internet-of-things-149428

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian today announced the border with Victoria will reopen on November 23.

It will be the first time people can freely cross the border since early July.

My preference would be to wait until both states have an extended period of time with zero community transmission of COVID. But I think the risk of a substantial outbreak from opening the border is low.

Victoria has done exceptionally well in squashing its second wave, and has now recorded five consecutive days of zero new cases. Even more pleasingly, the number of mystery cases — those with an unknown source — has dropped to just two in the past fortnight. In saying that, we’ll have to wait another week or so to see the effects of the latest round of eased restrictions.

For the first time in months, it looks as if the COVID situation is worse in NSW than Victoria. Arguably the risk of opening the border is greater for Victoria right now than it is for NSW. Indeed, Berejiklian said today that Victoria “may have, because of the lockdown, actually gone down a path of having eliminated it at this point in time”.

Today NSW recorded nine new cases, six of them among people already in hotel quarantine and three locally acquired. However, those three were already in isolation having previously been identified as close contacts of an existing case.

Elimination is on the cards

I’m concerned NSW is not going for elimination. It leaves the state as an outlier in Australia, with Victoria now joining all other states and territories by having zero community transmission (although Victoria’s official strategy is “aggressive suppression” rather than outright elimination).

I’d like to see NSW tighten restrictions in a few areas, because I think Australia now has a real shot at eliminating COVID. For example, NSW residents are currently allowed up to 20 visitors at a time, despite the Chief Health Officer recommending no more than ten. As homes are one of the greatest risk areas, why not follow this advice?

In saying that, NSW has shown it’s capable of controlling outbreaks with rapid contact tracing. And Victoria has substantially improved its contact-tracing system over the past few months.

Read more: Border closures, identity and political tensions: how Australia’s past pandemics shape our COVID-19 response

Time for a national approach

Unfortunately, border reopening is likely to make contact tracing more difficult. Many people will cross state borders during summer, particularly over Christmas and New Year.

Contact tracing is currently done on a state-by-state basis, by local teams using their own data sets. It’s not clear whether and how these data will be shared as borders reopen.

For example, if someone is infectious while on a road trip holiday and visits a restaurant in regional Victoria, before driving to towns in NSW and then Queensland, how will contact tracing be organised and shared?

I’d like to see a coordinated national effort to centralise these data. Ideally, there should be a centralised body, such as an independent federal Centre for Disease Control, which could handle national contract tracing, with regional hubs in each state and territory. This would ensure all states and territories would use the same contact-tracing software, using staff trained to the same level.

A national contact tracing database would then enable the tracking of people travelling interstate. Perhaps a QR code system could be implemented on a national level, so visiting a pub in South Australia means it is recorded in a centralised national database.

A federal disease control agency could also ensure consistency of hotel quarantining, and training of security staff.

Read more: Where did Victoria go so wrong with contact tracing and have they fixed it?

Rapid testing could help

In late September, the Therapeutic Goods Administration approved four rapid antigen tests for COVID.

These tests work by detecting proteins on the outside of the virus, called antigens, from nasal swabs. And they can deliver results in 15 minutes or even quicker.

Yes, their accuracy is not quite as good as the standard COVID tests in that they tend to have a higher rate of false negatives. But I think there’s potential for these to be used as interstate travel increases.

For example, interstate travellers could get one of these tests while waiting for their flights in airports, while crossing land borders by car, or when leaving or arriving by sea.

Read more: The new 15-minute test has potential, but standard tests are still the best way to track COVID-19

Australia has done a fantastic job at controlling COVID, and is the envy of much of the world. Ideally, it would be good to have New South Wales take the extra step to eliminate COVID before borders are completely open, though this might be politically hard. Introducing additional measures like rapid antigen tests, and a hub and spokes contact-tracing system, would go a long way to ameliorating the small risks to other jurisdictions from New South Wales retaining its current suppression approach.

– ref. The NSW-Vic border will reopen this month, and ironically the risk is greatest for Victoria – https://theconversation.com/the-nsw-vic-border-will-reopen-this-month-and-ironically-the-risk-is-greatest-for-victoria-149437

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Mares, Lead Moderator, Cranlana Centre for Ethical Leadership, Monash University

If you’re in a super fund, then, like it or not, you’ve got ethical decisions to make.

More than 10 million Australians have a superannuation account. Which means, effectively, more than 10 million of us are mini-shareholders with the capacity to influence future business decisions.

With that power, however small, comes responsibility. And nowhere more apparent than in relation to climate change.

Last month, the world’s biggest asset manager, BlackRock, surprised Australia’s biggest electricity producer and carbon dioxide emitter, AGL, by backing a motion that would have forced it to close its coal-fired plants earlier than planned.

The resolution at AGL’s annual general meeting failed, but when a global firm managing more than US$7 trillion in investors’ savings says it’s time to accelerate the exit from coal, it’s wise sit up and take notice.

Interestingly though, some of Australia’s biggest industry super funds, among them Cbus, Hesta and Aware, refused to support the motion, which was put forward by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility.

Work ‘behind the scenes’

It’s been a pattern with industry super funds.

Rather than using their overt voting power to try to change corporate behaviour, or divest from companies altogether, they say they prefer to exert influence behind the scenes, through conversations in board rooms and executive suites.

Take, UniSuper, to which I contribute. It says it engages with companies “to encourage rapid decarbonisation of their operations and supply chains”.

UniSuper is one of only three industry funds to commit to achieving net zero carbon emissions across its portfolio by 2050 — the others are Cbus and HESTA.

Yet doubling down on gas

UniSuper has joined eight other funds in divesting from companies that predominantly make their money from producing coal for electricity generation.

Yet if your retirement savings are in UniSuper’ default balanced option, then they are partly invested in Woodside, a company seeking to build a huge new gas hub on the Burrup Peninsula in Western Australia.

Woodside says the hub, which will operate for “decades into the future”, could process more gas than the entire volume extracted so far from another of its resource projects, the North West Shelf which began operations 36 years ago.

If you’ve chosen UniSuper’s conservative option, then you are not only invested in Woodside, but also in Santos, which is behind the contested Narrabri coal seam gas project in NSW.

UniSuper’s annual report on climate risk also reveals smaller investments in gas producers Origin and Oil Search.

Experts say worldwide gas use needs to peak before 2030 in order to keep global warming below agreed levels.

It means UniSuper, and other big funds, are investing our collective retirement savings in firms whose corporate strategies threaten our collective future.

Read more: UniSuper take note: there’s no retirement on a dead planet

UniSuper cites AGL as an example why it stays with polluting companies. While it runs power stations fuelled by coal and gas, it also invests in renewable technology.

It says, if it were to divest, its AGL shares might be acquired by investors with less concern for the environment.

it can be in the best interests of the environment and society for the assets to be held by a responsible and reputable entity.

It’s a justification that could equally be used to defend running a gambling venue — if I didn’t install poker machines, someone else would, and at least I care for my customers.

(As it happens, UniSuper’s “balanced” option includes shares in Aristocrat Leisure, a leading maker of gaming machines.)

Super funds have more power than they use

The justification sidesteps the question of whether the investment itself is defensible.

And it ignores the opposing argument — that divestment by a leading super fund can send a powerful signal to the market that a company is not properly addressing climate risk or developing an appropriate strategies for a carbon-constrained world.

Any company not doing these things is putting our savings at risk.

According to expert legal opinion, its directors might be breaching their obligations under the Corporations Act.

We’ve got power ourselves

There are legitimate arguments to be had about the best way for super funds to push businesses to act more urgently on climate change, but as fund members, and the ultimate owners of our money, we need to make up our own minds and act accordingly.

To sit back and let others do it on our behalf is an abrogation of responsibility.

Superannuation may be compulsory, but we still have choices.

We can find out which companies our retirement savings are invested in, and swap to a more sustainable option in the same fund.

Read more: Super funds are feeling the financial heat from climate change

This can take some digging around, but as with UniSuper, some the information is available on the fund’s website or can be obtained by asking questions.

Or we can consider switching to a different fund altogether. There are websites that track and compare superannuation investments in fossil fuels.

For a range of reasons, it’s more difficult to switch to a new fund for UniSuper members.

But even where it isn’t possible, we can write to our funds, urging them to engage more actively on climate change. It’s easy to find the addresses. They are forever sending us emails.

Read more: Super power: why the future of Australian capitalism is now in Greg Combet’s hands

It’s what they say they do with fossil fuel companies — engage them in conversations. We can tell them where we want our savings invested and how we want them to use their clout to influence company decisions and vote at shareholder meetings.

We can do this as individuals, and we can band together with like-minded fund members to speak with one voice.

With a combined A$2.9 trillion in assets, one fifth of which are invested in Australian companies listed on the stock exchange, super funds own a fair chunk of Australia’s most important companies.

It would be wrong for them not to take that responsibly seriously, just as it would be wrong of us not to take seriously what our savings are being used for.

– ref. Saving for retirement gives you power, and ethical responsibilities – https://theconversation.com/saving-for-retirement-gives-you-power-and-ethical-responsibilities-148349

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Beck, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Monash University

While Australians were distracted last week by Melbourne’s lockdown ending and the final days of the Queensland and United States elections, both major parties joined forces in federal parliament to weaken political donations laws.

This will make it easier for federal politicians to accept secret donations from property developers.

What’s the backstory?

In 2019, the High Court upheld Queensland laws banning property developers from making donations to political parties. The ban was introduced by the Palaszczuk government after a recommendation by the state’s Crime and Corruption Commission.

The Queensland ban applies to donations made to state and local political campaigns as well as general donations to political parties. A general donation might be used for federal, state or local political purposes or for the costs of running a party.

Read more: Fundraising questions have interrupted the Queensland LNP’s election campaign. What does the law say?

At the same time, the High Court also struck down a 2018 federal law that said property developers could ignore state laws banning them from making general donations to political parties. (Yes — federal parliament really did pass a law overriding state anti-corruptionpowers!). The High Court said federal parliament has no power to regulate political donations that merely “might be” used for federal campaigns.

Property developers are also banned from making political donations in New South Wales and the ACT.

Allowing secret donations from dodgy donors

The legislation passed last week overrides state bans on property developer donations in two ways.

First, the legislation introduces a new provision to replace the 2018 federal law struck down by the High Court. This new provision allows property developers (and others banned from making donations under state laws) to ignore state laws banning them from making political donation where the donation is “for federal purposes”.

Second, the legislation allows property developers and political parties to ignore state laws requiring that donations be disclosed. In NSW and Queensland, donations of $1,000 or more need to be disclosed. Under the new federal law, only donations of $14,300 or more made by property developers “for federal purposes” need to be disclosed.

The explanation given for the new laws is that state laws shouldn’t apply to federal donations.

According to Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, the new laws “better clarify” the interaction between federal and state electoral laws.

The revised provisions ensure that federal law only applies exclusively to donations that are expressly for federal purposes, while fully respecting the application of state laws to amounts used for state purposes.

Labor’s Don Farrell, who is shadow Special Minister of State, told the Senate,

it’s not Labor’s intention in any way to weaken any of those provisions already in place in the states, but the Commonwealth parliament should be able to make laws with respect to Commonwealth elections, and those laws should not be overridden by the states.

Why this is bad for integrity

If you are a property developer wanting to curry favour with the NSW Labor Party or the Queensland Liberal National Party, you are now allowed to make a donation of $14,299 and no one will ever know. All you need to do is tell the party the money is “for federal purposes”.

While the law requires parties to keep money donated “for federal purposes” in separate bank accounts, a donation “for federal purposes” frees up money from other, general donations to be used for state purposes.

The Greens and independent MPs lined up to criticise the new law. As member for Indi, Helen Haines told parliament

this bill locks in the status quo when it comes to the current political donations culture at the federal level.

Meanwhile, Tasmanian lower house MP Andrew Wilkie described the law as allowing “brazen money laundering”. Senator Jacqui Lambie said the law was “a doozy” of a way “to hide big donor money from the voters” and “the latest in a long line of betrayals of the public’s trust”.

Federal integrity laws are too weak

Federal parliament had an opportunity to introduce better federal political transparency measures. They could have lowered the federal donations disclosure threshold so the public knows where federal politicians get their money. They could have introduced real-time reporting of donations so the public doesn’t have to wait until after each election to find out the identities of the biggest donors.

Labor has introduced bills on both these measures. Instead of dealing with those, both major parties took the time and effort to override state anti-corruption laws.

To add icing on top, the Morrison government has now released a draft bill for a federal integrity commission with proposed powers so much weaker than existing state anti-corruption commissions that a former judge called it a “feather duster”.

Australians deserve much better than this.

Read more: Explainer: what is the proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission and how would it work?

– ref. Federal parliament just weakened political donations laws while you weren’t watching – https://theconversation.com/federal-parliament-just-weakened-political-donations-laws-while-you-werent-watching-149171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Hansen, Deputy Editor and Chief of Staff, The Conversation

The US has already seen record early voting in the presidential election, with more than 100 million people casting ballots before election day.

Now, the counting begins. With a variety of differences in when early votes and mail-in ballots can be tallied, as well as different closure times for polling places, the results will trickle in throughout the day (and evening).

We’ll be regularly updating this article as data becomes available and relying on The Associated Press to call individual state races.

There are plenty of other races being contested around the country, including, most importantly, the Senate. More than a third of the Senate seats (35 out of 100) are being contested — and the Democrats have a good chance of taking back control from the Republicans.

Of the 35 seats, the Republicans are defending 23 and the Democrats 12. The Democrats need a net gain of three seats to control the Senate if Joe Biden wins the presidency, and a net gain of four seats if Donald Trump is re-elected.

– ref. US election 2020: live count of the race to the White House and state-by-state breakdown of Senate races – https://theconversation.com/us-election-2020-live-count-of-the-race-to-the-white-house-and-state-by-state-breakdown-of-senate-races-149266

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peta Malins, Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Justice Studies, RMIT University

In an open letter, more than 1,200 academics from universities and institutes across Australia have written to the Victorian government to protest against the destruction of Djab Wurrung country as part of a highway duplication in the west of the state.

The letter follows the removal of the Directions Tree last week. The signatories listed below are both Indigenous and non-Indigenous.

We are Australian academics* writing to condemn the destruction of the 350 year-old sacred Djab Wurrung Directions Tree at the hands of the Victorian government. We call on the government to urgently halt works and protect the remaining Djab Wurrung trees and land from destruction.

We are historians, geographers, lawyers, criminologists, sociologists, scientists, anthropologists, social workers, linguists, archaeologists, artists, architects, philosophers, psychologists and other academics from universities around Australia. We have come together in our sorrow and anger at the colonial violence currently being perpetrated by the Victorian government against the Djab Wurrung people, and against all First Nations people in Australia.

While all trees hold value, especially in a climate crisis, the Djab Wurrung trees are so much more than “just trees”; they are living entities with significant historical, cultural and spiritual value and meaning. They are part of an important songline, and have been physically shaped by hundreds of years of First Nations culture and ceremonial practice.

Read more: Churches have legal rights in Australia. Why not sacred trees?

Take the Directions Tree, for example, which was cut down with a chainsaw last week, and carted away unceremoniously on the back of a dump truck. This massive and strikingly beautiful 350-year-old Yellowbox tree with distinctive swirling bark, had been planted as a seed with the placenta from a Djab Wurrung child’s birth and its branches actively shaped and directed over time.

It would have been difficult to look at this tree — to truly bear witness to it — without forever changing the way one understands trees, our interconnectedness with nature, and the strength, depth, beauty and longevity of First Nations culture.

Consider too, the Birthing Tree, also known as a Grandmother Tree, estimated to be 800 years old and currently under imminent threat of destruction. She has a hollow at her base where over 50 generations of Djab Wurrung babies have been born, the fluids from their births merging with the root system and literally becoming part of the tree.

Nearby, and leaning towards it, is the Grandfather Tree, believed to have been planted at the same time and connected via underground root systems. And surrounding them both are hundreds of other significant trees and artefacts, many of which are yet to be formally documented.

The Victorian government’s decision to clear this sacred Djab Wurrung land to make way for a particular version of highway re-routing that will save drivers two minutes travel time, is completely unnecessary. It represents the ongoing violence of our colonial state and its contempt for First Nations culture and people. It makes any talk of a Treaty with First Nations Victorians completely disingenuous.

We, as academics, therefore condemn the cutting down of the Directions Tree and the planned destruction of further sacred trees and artefacts. We condemn the timing of the destruction, under the cover of ongoing COVID rules, preventing defenders from traveling to the site, and under the cover of media and public focus on Melbourne’s long-awaited easing of lockdown.

Read more: What kind of state values a freeway’s heritage above the heritage of our oldest living culture?

We condemn the Victorian government’s apparent attempts to create doubt about which tree was destroyed and its significance, and to imply agreements with one group of government-recognised stakeholders amounted to respectful consultation. And we condemn the use of police and security to violently evict the peaceful Djab Wurrung Embassy, which was established by local elders to protect the site.

We urge the Victorian government to take up one of the other options for highway improvements that do not involve further destruction of this significant site, to urgently have these trees recognised as the culturally significant entities they are, and to enable the Djab Wurrung people to continue protecting them for future generations.

*The views expressed in this letter are those of the signatories and not their universities or institutions.

Open letter signatories

• Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Indigenous Studies, RMIT University
• Professor Irene Watson, Law, University of SA
• Professor Bronwyn Fredericks, Education and Health, University of Queensland
• Dr Vicki L Couzens, Media, RMIT University
• Dr Gary Foley, History, Victoria University
• Tiriki Onus, Fine Arts and Music, University of Melbourne
• Dr Lou Bennett AM, Social and Political Science, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Chelsea Bond, Social Sciences and Health, University of Queensland
• Alison Whittaker, Law, University of Technology Sydney
• Amanda Porter, Law, University of Queensland
• Kim Kruger, Moondani Balluk Academic Centre, Victoria University
• Professor Bronwyn Carlson, Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University
• Professor Gregory Phillips, Indigenous Health, Griffith University
• Professor Peter Anderson, Education, Queensland University of Technology
• Professor Yin Paradies, Sociology, Deakin University
• Dr Ali Gumillya Baker, Indigenous and Australian Studies, Flinders University
• Associate Professor Leesa Watego, Business, Queensland University of Technology
• Associate Professor Sana Nakata, Political Science, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Sandy O’Sullivan, Indigenous Studies, University of the Sunshine Coast
• Dr Nikki Moodie, Sociology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Sharlene Leroy-Dyer, Aboriginal Studies, University of Queensland
• Dr Anthony McKnight, Education, University of Wollongong
• Dr Summer May Finlay, Public Health, University of Wollongong
• Dr Suzi Hutchings, Anthropology, RMIT University
• Dr Tess Ryan, Leadership and Research Pathways, Australian Catholic University
• Dr Danièle Hromek, Indigenous Design, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Crystal McKinnon, Social and Global Studies, RMIT University
• Dr Jessa Rogers, Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University
• Dr Julia Hurst, Aboriginal History, University of Melbourne
• Aleryk Fricker, Indigenous Education, RMIT University
• Ashley Perry, Indigenous Culture and Visual Art, University of Melbourne
• Brett Biles, Indigenous Health, University of NSW
• Cammi Murrup-Stewart, Aboriginal Wellbeing, Monash University
• Catherine Doe, Indigenous Studies, RMIT University
• Charlotte Franks, Indigenous Education, RMIT University
• Dale Rowland, Psychology, Griffith University
• Dominique Chen, Indigenous Studies, University of Queensland
• Eddie Synot, Law, Griffith University
• Emma Gavin, Indigenous Knowledges, Swinburne University
• Aileen Marwung Walsh, History, Australian National University
• Eugenia Flynn, Literary Studies, Queensland University of Technology
• Holly Charles, Law, RMIT University
• Jacynta Krakouer, Social Work, University of Melbourne
• Jason Brailey, Indigenous Education, RMIT University
• Latoya Rule, Social Work and Social Planning, Flinders University
• Lewis Brown, Indigenous Education, RMIT University
• Luke Williams, Science, RMIT University
• Maddee Clark, Literature, University of Melbourne
• Michael Colbung, Education, University of Adelaide
• Mykaela Saunders, Indigenous Studies, University of Sydney
• Natasha Ward, Indigenous Education and Research, RMIT University
• Nicole Shanahan, Indigenous Education, RMIT University
• Robyn Oxley, Criminology, Western Sydney University
• Stacey Campton, Indigenous Engagement, RMIT University
• Natalie Ironfield, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Neika Lehman, Film and Media, Anthropology, RMIT University
• Dr Aaron Collins, Medicine, University of Melbourne
• Aaron Magro, History, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Abby Mellick Lopes, Design, University of Technology Sydney
• Adam Crowe, Geography, Curtin University
• Adam Spellicy, Media, RMIT University
• Dr Adam Starr, Music, Melbourne Polytechnic
• Associate Professor Adele Wessell, History, Southern Cross University
• Dr Adrian Farrugia, Sociology, La Trobe University
• Agata Pukiewicz, Legal Studies, Australian National University
• Dr Aidan Craney, Anthropology, La Trobe University
• Ainslee Meredith, Conservation, University of Melbourne
• Dr Ainslie Meiklejohn, Humanities, Griffith University
• Aisha Malik, Humanities, University of Sydney
• Emeritus Professor Alan Rumsey, Anthropology, Australian National University
• Associate Professor Alana Lentin, Humanities, Western Sydney University
• Dr Alana Piper, History, University of Technology Sydney
• Alana West, Sociology, University of Technology Sydney
• Professor Alex Broom, Sociology, University of Sydney
• Alex Cain, Philosophy, Monash University
• Dr Alex Gawronski, Art, University of Sydney
• Dr Alex Hansford-Smith, Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne
• Dr Alex Kusmanoff, Conservation, RMIT University
• Dr Alexandra Crosby, Design, University of Technology Sydney
• Alexandra Haschek, Psychology, La Trobe University
• Alexandre da Silva Faustino, Geography, RMIT University
• Alexia Adhikari, Development, University of Adelaide
• Alice Bellette, Literature, Deakin University
• Associate Professor Alice Gaby, Linguistics, Monash University
• Dr Alice Jones, Ecology, University of Adelaide
• Alice Wighton, Anthropology, Australian National University
• Alicia Flynn, Education, University of Melbourne
• Alisa Yuko Bernhard, Musicology, University of Sydney
• Alison Burns, International Studies, Deakin University
• Dr Alison Holland, History, Macquarie University
• Dr Alison Lullfitz, Ethnobiology, University of WA
• Dr Alison Peel, Science, Griffith University
• Alison Winning, Social Science, James Cook University
• Professor Alison Young, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Alissa Flatley, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Alissa Macoun, Politics, Queensland University of Technology
• Professor Alistair McCulloch, Education, University of SA
• Dr Alistair Sisson, Geography, University of NSW
• Allison Larmour, Politics, University of Sydney
• Alys Young, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Alyssa Choat, Design, University of Technology Sydney
• Alyssa Sigamoney, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Amal Osman, Health, Flinders University
• Dr Amanda Coles, Employment Relations, Deakin University
• Professor Amanda Kearney, Anthropology, Flinders University
• Dr Amelia Hine, Geography, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Amelia Johns, Media, University of Technology Sydney
• Amélie Scalercio, Fine Arts, Monash University
• Dr Amie O’Shea, Health, Deakin University
• Dr Amy Barrow, Law, Macquarie University
• Dr Amy Carrad, Public Health, University of Wollongong
• Amy Cleland, Social Science, University of SA
• Amy Hampson, Neuroscience, University of Melbourne
• Dr Amy McKernan, Education, University of Melbourne
• Dr Amy McPherson, Education, Australian Catholic University
• Dr Amy Prendergast, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Amy Thomas, Education, University of Technology Sydney
• Amy-Jo Jory, Art, Swinburne University
• Dr Ana Maria Ducasse, Languages, RMIT University
• Ananya Majumdar, Social Science, RMIT University
• Dr Anastasia Kanjere, Humanities, La Trobe University
• Dr Anastasia Powell, Criminology, RMIT University
• Professor Andrea Lamont-Mills, Psychology, University of Southern Queensland
• Professor Andrea Durbach, Law, University of NSW
• Associate Professor Andrea Rizzi, Arts, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Andrew Bonnell, History, University of Queensland
• Dr Andrew Brooks, Humanities, University of NSW
• Associate Professor Andrew Butt, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Dr Andrew Lapworth, Geography, University of NSW
• Dr Andrew Miller, Art, Flinders University
• Associate Professor Andrew Murphie, Media, University of NSW
• Andrew Murray, Architecture, University of Melbourne
• Professor Andrew Scholey, Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University
• Andrew Treloar, Art, University of Melbourne
• Professor Andrew Vallely, Public Health, University of NSW
• Dr Andrew Whelan, Sociology, University of Wollongong
• Andy Bates, Design, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Andy Kaladelfos, Criminology, University of NSW
• Andy White, Music, Melbourne Polytechnic
• Dr Angela Dean, Environment Studies, Queensland University of Technology
• Associate Professor Angela Kelly-Hanku, Anthropology, University of NSW
• Angela Kintominas, Law, University of NSW
• Angela Osborne, Communication, Deakin University
• Dr Angelika Papadopoulos, Social Work, RMIT University
• Angus Burns, Psychology, Monash University
• Ani Landsu-Ward, Social Science, RMIT University
• Professor Anina Rich, Neuroscience, Macquarie University
• Dr Anita Trezona, Public Health, Deakin University
• Associate Professor Anitra Nelson, Social Science, University of Melbourne
• Anja Dickel, Pharmacy, University of SA
• Dr Anja Kanngieser, Geography, University of Wollongong
• Dr Anna Bowring, Public Health, Burnet Institute
• Anna Dunn, Anthropology, University of Sydney
• Anna Gross, Resources, University of Newcastle
• Dr Anna Hermkens, Anthropology, Macquarie University
• Dr Anna Hopkins, Ecology, Edith Cowan University
• Anna Krohn, Education, University of Melbourne
• Anna Loewendahl, Arts, University of Melbourne
• Anna Nervegna, Architecture, University of Melbourne
• Anna Tweeddale, Architecture, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Anna Willis, Archaeology, James Cook University
• Dr Annalea Beattie, Writing, RMIT University
• Dr Anne Décobert, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Anne Elvey, Theology, Monash University
• Associate Professor Anne Junor, Employment Relations, University of NSW
• Dr Anne Marie Ross, Education, University of Newcastle
• Dr Annette Kroen, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Dr Annie Delaney, Industrial Relations, RMIT university
• Dr Annie Gowing, Education, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Anthony Hopkins, Law, Australian National University
• Dr Anthony Kent, Social Science, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Anthony Langlois, International Relations, Flinders University
• Anthony Schulx, Music, Melbourne Polytechnic
• Anthony Smith, Sociology, University of NSW
• Antoine Mangion, Education, Australian Catholic University
• Anwar Hossain, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Dr April Reside, Ecology, University of Queensland
• Arden Haar, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Arlo Mountford, Arts, RMIT University
• Dr Ascelin Gordon, Conservation, RMIT University
• Ash Johnstone, Humanities, University of Wollongong
• Ashley Barnwell, Sociology, University of Melbourne
• Ashley Thomson, Anthropology, Australian National University
• Dr Astrida Neimanis, Cultural Studies, University of Sydney
• Badrul Hyder, Urban Studies, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Barbara Kelly, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Dr Barry Morris, Anthropology, Newcastle University
• Associate Professor Bastien Llamas, Evolutionary Genomics, University of Adelaide
• Dr Bek Christensen, Ecology, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Ben Silverstein, History, Australian National University
• Associate Professor Ben Spies-Butcher, Sociology, Macquarie University
• Dr Ben Vezina, Biology, Monash University
• Dr Benjamin Cooke, Geography, RMIT University
• Dr Benjamin Habib, International Relations, La Trobe University
• Dr Benjamin Hegarty, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Bernard Keo, History, Monash University
• Dr Beth Cardier, Communications, Griffith University
• Beth Marsden, History, La Trobe University
• Bethany Kenyon, Social Sciences, RMIT University
• Bethia Burgess, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Betty Luu, Psychology, University of Sydney
• Dr Bianca Fileborn, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Bianca Hennessy, Pacific Studies, Australian National University
• Professor Billie Giles-Corti, Public Health, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Bina Fernandez, Development Studies, University of Melbourne
• Dr Bindi Bennett, Social Work, University of the Sunshine Coast
• Dr Blair Williams, Political Science, Australian National University
• Dr Blue Mahy, Education, Monash University
• Professor Bob Hodge, Communication studies, Western Sydney University
• Dr Bonny Cassidy, Writing, RMIT University
• Dr Brian Cuddy, History, Macquarie University
• Dr Bridget Harris, Criminology, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Bridget Lewis, Law, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Brigid Magner, Literature, RMIT University
• Briony Neilson, History, University of Sydney
• Dr Briony Towers, Psychology, RMIT University
• Dr Brodie Evans, Social Justice, Queensland University of Technology
• Bronwyn Ann Sutton, Education, Deakin University
• Dr Bronwyn Cumbo, Education, Monash University
• Dr Brooke Wilmsen, Geography, La Trobe University
• Associate Professor Cai Wilkinson, International Studies, Deakin University
• Professor Callum Morton, Fine Art, Monash University
• Cally Mills, Nursing, Australian Catholic University
• Cameron Coventry, History, Federation University
• Professor Cameron Tonkinwise, Design, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Can Yalcinkaya, Media, Macquarie University
• Dr Candice Boyd, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Professor Carey Curtis, Planning, Curtin University
• Professor Carla Treloar, Social Science, University of NSW
• Dr Carly Monks, Archaeology, University of WA
• Carmen Jacques, Anthropology, Edith Cowan University
• Carol Que, Arts, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Carol Warren, Anthropology, Murdoch University
• Dr Caroline Mahoney, Education, Deakin University
• Dr Caroline Wake, Theatre, University of NSW
• Carolyn D’Cruz, Gender Studies, La Trobe University
• Dr Carolyn Eskdale, Art, RMIT University
• Professor Carolyn Whitzman, Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
• Casey Hosking, Psychology, La Trobe University
• Cat Macleod, Architecture, Melbourne Polytechnic
• Professor Catherine Althaus, Public Administration, University of NSW
• Professor Catherine Greenhill, Mathematics, University of NSW
• Dr Catherine Hartung, Education, Swinburne University
• Dr Catherine Innes Clover, Fine Art, Swinburne University
• Professor Catherine McMahon, Health, Macquarie University
• Dr Catherine Phillips, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Catherine Townsend, Architecture, University of Melbourne
• Catherine Weiss, Philosophy, RMIT University
• Dr Cayne Layton, Ecology, University of Tasmania
• Associate Professor Cecily Maller, Geography, RMIT University
• Dr Chantel Carr, Geography, University of Wollongong
• Charity Edwards, Architecture, Monash University
• Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Public Health, Monash University
• Dr Charles Robb, Visual Arts, Queensland University of Technology
• Professor Charles Sowerwine, History, University of Melbourne
• Charlie Cooper, Psychology, University of Melbourne
• Charlie Sofo, Visual Art, Monash University
• Charlotte Day, Art, Monash University
• Dr Chin Jou, History, University of Sydney
• Dr Chloe Ward, European Studies, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Chris Healy, Cultural Studies, University of Melbourne
• Dr Chris Maylea, Social Work, RMIT University
• Dr Chris Pam, Anthropology, James Cook University
• Dr Chris Peers, Education, Monash University
• Dr Chris Urwin, Archaeology, Monash University
• Christel Antonites, Humanities, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Christina David, Social Work, RMIT University
• Dr Christine Agius, Politics, Swinburne University
• Dr Christo Bester, Neuroscience, University of Melbourne
• Christopher Cordner, Philosophy, University of Melbourne
• Christopher Hallam, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Christopher McCaw, Education, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Christy Newman, Sociology, University of NSW
• Professor Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh, Politics, Griffith University
• Dr Ciemon Caballes, Ecology, James Cook University
• Claire Akhbari, Indigenous Studies, University of Melbourne
• Dr Claire Loughnan, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Claire Nettle, Politics, Flinders University
• Dr Claire Spivakovsky, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Clare Cooper, Design, University of Sydney
• Associate Professor Clare Corbould, History, Deakin University
• Dr Clare Land, History, Victoria University
• Clare Rae, Fine Art, University of Melbourne
• Dr Clare Southerton, Sociology, University of NSW
• Dr Clare Weeden, Medicine, University of Melbourne
• Professor Clare Wright, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Claudia Marck, Public Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Clemence Due, Psychology, University of Adelaide
• Connor Jolley, Geography, RMIT University
• Dr Coralie Boulet, Microbiology, La Trobe University
• Professor Corey Bradshaw, Ecology, Flinders University
• Dr Corrinne Sullivan, Geography, Western Sydney University
• Dr Courtney Babb, Urban Planning, Curtin University
• Dr Courtney Morgans, Ecology, University of Queensland
• Dr Courtney Pedersen, Visual Arts, Queensland University of Technology
• Craig Lyons, Geography, University of Wollongong
• Dr Cristy Clark, Law, University of Canberra
• Dr Crystal Legacy, Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
• Dr Cullan Joyce, Philosophy, University of Divinity
• Dr Cynthia Hunter, Anthropology, University of Sydney
• Daisy Bailey, History, Monash University
• Daisy Gibbs, Public Health, University of NSW
• Dr Dallas Rogers, Urbanism, University of Sydney
• Associate Professor Damien Cahill, Politics, University of Sydney
• Dr Dan Golding, Media, Swinburne University
• Dr Daniel Brennan, Philosophy, Bond University
• Dr Daniel Lopez, Philosophy, La Trobe University
• Dr Daniel Ohlsen, Botany, University of Melbourne
• Professor Daniel Palmer, Art, RMIT University
• Daniel Reeders, Regulation and Governance, Australian National University
• Associate Professor Daniel von Sturmer, Fine Art, Monash University
• Dr Daniella Forster, Education, University of Newcastle
• Professor Danielle Celermajer, Sociology, University of Sydney
• Dr Dara Conduit, Politics, Deakin University
• Professor Darryl Jones, Environmental Science, Griffith University
• Dr Dave McDonald, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr David Brophy, History, University of Sydney
• Professor David Carlin, Writing, RMIT University
• Dr David Coombs, Public Policy, University of NSW
• Dr David Hurwood, Ecology, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr David Kelly, Geography, RMIT University
• Dr David Pollock, Politics, RMIT University
• Dr David Ripley, Philosophy, Monash University
• Dr David Rousell, Education, RMIT University
• Emeritus Professor David Rowe, Sociology, Western Sydney University
• Dr David Singh, Sociology, University of Queensland
• Associate Professor David Slucki, Sociology, Monash University
• Dr David Smith, Politics, University of Sydney
• Dr David Spencer, Communication, University of Canberra
• Associate Professor Dawn Darlaston-Jones, Behavioural Science, University of Notre Dame
• Dr Deb Batterham, Social Science, Swinburne University of Technology
• Dr Debbi Long, Anthropology, RMIT University
• Dr Deborah Apthorp, Psychology, University of New England
• Dr Deborah Cleland, Governance, Australian National University
• Deborah Lee-Talbot, History, Deakin University
• Dr Deborah Moore, Education, Deakin University
• Dr Debra McDougall, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Declan Martin, Urban Planning, Monash University
• Professor Deirdre Coleman, English, University of Melbourne
• Dr Deirdre Hayes, Australian Studies, University of SA
• Professor Devleena Ghosh, Social Science, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Diana Johns, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Diana Shahinyan, English, Sydney University
• Dimity Hawkins, History, Swinburne University
• Dion Tuckwell, Design, Monash University
• Dr Dolly Kikon, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Dominic De Nardo, Medicine, Monash University
• Dr Dominique Moritz, Law, University of the Sunshine Coast
• Dr Dominique Potvin, Ecology, University of the Sunshine Coast
• Associate Professor Donna Houston, Geography, Macquarie University
• Dr Duc Dau, Humanities, University of WA
• Dr Eden Smith, History, University of Melbourne
• Dr Eduardo Jordan, Journalism, Griffith University
• Dr Effie Karageorgos, History, University of Newcastle
• Dr Elena Benthaus, Humanities, Deakin University
• Dr Elena Prieto, Education, University of Newcastle
• Elena Tjandra, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Elese Dowden, Philosophy, University of Queensland
• Dr Elise Klein, Public Policy, Australian National University
• Dr Elizabeth Branigan, Anthropology, La Trobe University
• Elizabeth Culhane, Philosophy, University of Queensland
• Elizabeth Duncan, Geography, Sydney University
• Elizabeth King, English, Macquarie University
• Dr Elizabeth Orr, Social Work, University of Melbourne
• Professor Elizabeth Povinelli, Anthropology, Charles Darwin University
• Dr Elke Emerald, Education, Griffith University
• Ellen Corrick, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Elliot Gould, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Ellyse Fenton, Politics, University of Queensland
• Dr Emily Brayshaw, History, University of Technology Sydney
• Emily Corbett, Gender Studies, La Trobe University
• Dr Emily Gray, Education, RMIT University
• Emily McColl-Gausden, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Emily Miller, Justice Studies, University of SA
• Emily Miller, Archaeology, Griffith University
• Dr Emily O’Gorman, Geography, Macquarie University
• Associate Professor Emily Potter, Literature, Deakin University
• Dr Emily Rugel, Epidemiology, University of Sydney
• Emily Toome, Social Sciences, RMIT University
• Dr Emily van der Nagel, Communication, Monash University
• Emma Barnes, Social Science, University of NSW
• Dr Emma Colvin, Criminology, Charles Sturt University
• Emma George, Occupational Therapy, University of Adelaide
• Professor Emma Kowal, Anthropology, Deakin University
• Dr Emma Rehn, Environmental Science, James Cook University
• Dr Emma Robertson, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Emma Russell, Legal Studies, La Trobe University
• Dr Emma Whatman, Gender Studies, Deakin University
• Emmalee Ford, Biochemistry, University of Newcastle
• Emmeline Kildea, Media, RMIT University
• Dr Emmett Stinson, Literature, Deakin University
• Epperly Zhang, Translation and Interpreting, RMIT University
• Dr Erica Millar, Legal Studies, La Trobe University
• Professor Erik Eklund, History, Federation University
• Dr Erin Fitz-Henry, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Erin O’Donnell, Law, University of Melbourne
• Erina McCann, Conservation, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Euan Ritchie, Ecology, Deakin University
• Associate Professor Eva Alisic, Social Science, University of Melbourne
• Dr Eve Mayes, Education, Deakin University
• Dr Eve Vincent, Anthropology, Macquarie University
• Dr Ewan McDonald, Nursing, La Trobe University
• Dr Fabian Kong, Epidemiology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Faith Valencia-Forrester, Education, Griffith University
• Felicia Jaremus, Education, University of Newcastle
• Felicity Gray, Governance, Australian National University
• Associate Professor Felicity Meakins, Linguistics, University of Queensland
• Fernanda Quilici Mola, Fashion, RMIT University
• Fernanda Soares, International Relations, RMIT University
• Dr Fincina Hopgood, Screen Studies, University of New England
• Dr Fiona Cameron, Heritage studies, Western Sydney University
• Professor Fiona Haines, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Fiona Lee, English, University of Sydney
• Associate Professor Fiona Miller, Geography, Macquarie University
• Professor Fiona Paisley, History, Griffith University
• Professor Fiona Probyn-Rapsey, Humanities, University of Wollongong
• Fran van Riemsdyk, Fine Art, RMIT University
• Dr Francesca Dominello, Law, Macquarie University
• Dr Francis Markham, Geography, Australian National University
• Dr Freya Higgins-Desbiolles, Tourism, University of SA
• Freya McLachlan, Justice, Queensland University of Technology
• Freya Scott, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Gabriel Caluzzi, Public Health, La Trobe University
• Dr Gabriel da Silva, Engineering, University of Melbourne
• Gabriela Franich, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Garrity Hill, Sociology, Swinburne University
• Dr Gemma Hamilton, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Geoff Browne, Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
• Dr Geoffrey Brown, Humanities, La Trobe University
• Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Samuel, Anthropology, University of Sydney
• George Burdon, Geography, University of NSW
• Dr George Dertadian, Criminology, University of NSW
• George Hatvani, Social Sciences, Swinburne University
• Associate Professor George Newhouse, Law, Macquarie University
• Georgia Carr, Linguistics, University of Sydney
• Dr Georgia Garrard, Conservation, RMIT University
• Dr Gerald Roche, Anthropology, La Trobe University
• Gerard Ryan, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Gerlinde Koeglreiter, Information Systems, Australian National University
• Gerry McLoughlin, eUrbanism, Swinburne University
• Professor Ghassan Hage, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Gilad Bino, Science, University of NSW
• Dr Giles Fielke, Art History, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Gillian Kidman, Education, Monash University
• Professor Gillian Wigglesworth, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Giselle Newton, Sociology, University of NSW
• Gisselle Vila Benites, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Giulia Torello-Hill, Languages, University of New England
• Dr Glenda Mejia, Global Studies, RMIT University
• Glenn Abblitt, Education, RMIT University
• Dr Glenn Althor, Environmental Science, Australian National University
• Dr Graham Fulton, Biology, University of Queensland
• Associate Professor Grant Hamilton, Ecology, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Greg Giannis, Education, La Trobe University
• Professor Greg Hainge, Languages, University of Queensland
• Professor Greg Restall, Philosophy, University of Melbourne
• Guy Webster, Literature, University of Melbourne
• Dr Hanna Torsh, Linguistics, Macquarie University
• Dr Hannah McCann, Cultural Studies, University of Melbourne
• Hannah Reardon-Smith, Music, Griffith University
• Dr Hannah Robert, Law, La Trobe University
• Hannah Weeramanthri, Social Work, University of Melbourne
• Hanne Worsoe, Anthropology, University of Queensland
• Associate Professor Hans Baer, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Haripriya Rangan, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Harriette Richards, Cultural Studies, University of Melbourne
• Harrison Spratling, Education, Deakin University
• Adjunct Professor Hartmut Fünfgeld, Geography, RMIT University
• Hayden Moon, Theatre, Sydney University
• Dr Hayley Henderson, Urban Planning, Australian National University
• Dr Heather Francis, Neuropsychology, Macquarie University
• Heather Jarvis, Media, RMIT University
• Dr Helen Corney, Urban Studies, RMIT University
• Professor Helen Dickinson, Public Administration, University of NSW
• Dr Helen Grimmett, Education, Monash University
• Dr Helen Johnson, Fine Art, Monash University
• Dr Helen Keane, Sociology, Australian National University
• Dr Helen Mayfield, Conservation, University of Queensland
• Dr Helen Ngo, Philosophy, Deakin University
• Dr Helen Pringle, Politics, University of NSW
• Helen Rowe, Urban Policy, RMIT University
• Helen South, Education, Charles Sturt University
• Helen Taylor, Management, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Henk Huijser, Education, Queensland University of Technology
• Hiranya Anderson, Health, Macquarie University
• Dr Hoda Afshar, Humanities, University of Melbourne
• Dr Holly Doel-Mckaway, Law, Macquarie Law School
• Associate Professor Holly High, Anthropology, University of Sydney
• Dr Holly Sitters, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Holly Smith, Palaeontology, Griffith University
• Dr Honni van Rijswijk, Law, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Hugh Davies, Ecology, Charles Darwin University
• Professor Hugh Possingham, Ecology, University of Queensland
• Dr Ibolya Losoncz, Governance, Australian National University
• Associate Professor Ilana Mushin, Linguistics, University of Queensland
• Dr Imogen Bell, Mental health, University of Melbourne
• Imogen Carr, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Imogen Richards, Criminology, Deakin University
• Dr Indigo Willing, Sociology, Griffith University
• Associate Professor Iris Duhn, Education, Monash University
• Dr Iris Levin, Urban Planning, Swinburne University
• Isabel Mudford, Sociology, Australian National University
• Dr Isabel O’Keeffe, Linguistics, University of Sydney
• Isabella Capezio, Photography, RMIT University
• Isabella Saunders, Social science, University of NSW
• Ishita Chatterjee, Architecture, University of Melbourne
• Ivy Scurr, Anthropology, University of Newcastle
• Associate Professor Jaap Timmer, Anthropology, Macquarie University
• Dr Jack Noone, Psychology, University of NSW
• Jackson Holloway, Philosophy, La Trobe University
• Jaclyn Hopkins, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Jacqueline Bradley, Visual Arts, National Art School
• Dr Jacqueline Gothe, Design, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Jacqui Shelton, Fine Art, Monash University
• Dr Jacquie Tinkler, Education, Charles Sturt University
• Professor Jago Dodson, Urban Policy, RMIT University
• Dr Jamee Newland, Health, University of NSW
• James Barker, Ecology, University of Wollongong
• James Blackwell, Politics, University of NSW
• Dr James Bradley, History, University of Melbourne
• Dr James Cleverley, Cultural Studies, University of Melbourne
• Dr James Dunk, History, University of Sydney
• Dr James Findlay, History, University of Sydney
• Dr James Flexner, Archaeology, University of Sydney
• Dr James Lesh, Heritage Studies, University of Melbourne
• Professor James McCaw, Science, University of Melbourne
• James Meese, Communications, RMIT University
• Associate Professor James Oliver, Design, RMIT University
• Dr James Radford, Ecology, La Trobe University
• James Upjohn, Science, Monash University
• Dr Jan-Hendrik, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Jane Carey, History, University of Wollongong
• Professor Jane Wilkinson, Education, Monash University
• Associate Professor Janet Hunt, Development Studies, Australian National University
• Associate Professor Janet Stanley, Interdisciplinary, University of Melbourne
• Janice Wright, Social Sciences, University of Wollongong
• Janine Gertz, Sociology, James Cook University
• Jannett Nieves, Social Studies, RMIT University
• Dr Jarrod Hore, History, University of NSW
• Jasmin McAleer, Archaeology, Australian National University
• Dr Jasmine Westendorf, Politics, La Trobe University
• Rev/Dr Jason Goroncy, Theology, University of Divinity
• Javed Anwar, Education, RMIT University
• Professor Javier Alvarez-Mon, Archaeology, Macquarie University
• Dr Jay Daniel Thompson, Communications, RMIT University
• Dr Jaye Early, Art, University of SA
• Jaye Hayes, Arts Therapy, MIECAT Institute
• Dr Jayne Rantall, History, La Trobe University
• Professor Jayne White, Education, RMIT University
• Dr Jayne Wilkins, Archaeology, Griffith University
• Dr Jaz Hee-jeong Choi, Design, RMIT University
• Professor Jeanette Kennett, Philosophy, Macquarie University
• Jeanine Hourani, Public Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Jeannette Walsh, Social work, University of Wollongong
• Associate Professor Jeannie Rea, Planetary Health, Victoria University
• Associate Professor Jeff Babon, Biologist, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
• Jen Hocking, Midwifery, Australian Catholic University
• Dr Jen Martin, Science, University of Melbourne
• Dr Jenna Mead, English, University of WA
• Jenna Mikus, Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Jennifer Audsley, Infectious Diseases, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Jennifer Balint, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Jennifer Biddle, Visual Anthropology, University of NSW
• Dr Jennifer Bleazby, Education, Monash University
• Jennifer Campbell, Engineering, Griffith University
• Dr Jennifer Caruso, History, University of Adelaide
• Dr Jennifer Dowling, Languages, University of Sydney
• Professor Jennifer Firn, Ecology, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Jennifer McConachy, Social Work, University of Melbourne
• Jennifer Newsome, Musicology, Australian National University
• Dr Jennifer Seevinck, Design, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Jennifer Silcock, Ecology, University of Queensland
• Jennifer Witheridge, Urban Studies, Swinburne University
• Dr Jeremiah Brown, Financial Wellbeing, University of NSW
• Jeremy Eaton, Visual Art, University of Melbourne
• Jeremy Gay, Social Science, RMIT University
• Dr Jess Coyle, Indigenous Australian Studies, Charles Sturt University
• Jess Hardley, Media, Murdoch University
• Dr Jess Reeves, Environmental Science, Federation University
• Dr Jessica Birnie-Smith, Linguistics, La Trobe University
• Dr Jessica Campbell, Speech Pathology, University of Queensland
• Dr Jessica Edwards, Health, University of Adelaide
• Dr Jessica Gannaway, Languages, University of Melbourne
• Dr Jessica Gerrard, Education, University of Melbourne
• Jessica Gibbs, Archaeology, University of Queensland
• Dr Jessica Hazel Horton, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Jessica Kean, Gender Studies, University of Sydney
• Jessica Lea Dunn, Design, University of Sydney
• Dr Jessica Manousakis, Neuroscience, Monash University
• Dr Jessica Megarry, Political Science, University of Melbourne
• Jessica Priemus, Design, Curtin University
• Dr Jessica Roberts, Ecology, Monash University
• Associate Professor Jessica Wilkinson, Creative Writing, RMIT University
• Dr Jessie Wells, Environmental Science, University of Queensland
• Jidde Jacobi, Cognitive Sciences, Macquarie University
• Dr Jill Fielding-Wells, Education, Australian Catholic University
• Jill Pope, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Jill Vaughan, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Dr Jillian Healy, Biological Science, Deakin University
• Dr Jing Qi, Education, RMIT University
• Jo Grant, Medical Anthropology, University of Newcastle
• Dr Joanna Cruickshank, History, Deakin University
• Dr Joanna Kyriakakis, Law, Monash University
• Dr Joanne Dawson, Astronomy, Macquarie University
• Dr Joanne Faulkner, Cultural Studies, Macquarie University
• Dr Joanne Quick, Languages, Deakin University
• Dr Joanne Watson, Disability and Inclusion, Deakin University
• Jocelyn Bosse, Law, University of Queensland
• Dr Jodi McAlister, Writing, Deakin University
• Dr Joe Fontaine, Environmental Science, Murdoch University
• Dr Joe Hurley, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Joe MacFarlane, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Joel Barnes, History, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr John Cox, Anthropology, La Trobe University
• John Cumming, Creative Arts, Deakin University
• Professor John Frow, English, University of Sydney
• Professor John Langmore, Politics, University of Melbourne
• Professor John Sinclair, Sociology, University of Melbourne
• Dr John Taylor, Anthropology, La Trobe University
• Professor Jon Barnett, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Jon Roffe, Philosophy, Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy
• Jonas Ropponen, Fine Art, Monash University
• Dr Jonathan Dimond, Arts, Melbourne Polytechnic
• Dr Jonathan Symons, Politics, Macquarie University
• Dr Joni Meenagh, Criminology, RMIT University
• Jordan Hinton, Psychology, Australian Catholic University
• Dr Jordana Silverstein, History, La Trobe University
• Professor Joseph Pugliese, Cultural Studies, Macquarie University
• Dr Josephine Browne, Sociology, Griffith University
• Joshua Badge, Philosophy, Deakin University
• Joshua Hernandez, Philosophy, La Trobe University
• Joshua Hodges, Ecology, Charles Sturt University
• Dr Jovana Mastilovic, Law, Griffith University
• Judy Annear, Art History, University of Melbourne
• Dr Judy Bush, Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
• Dr Judy Taylor, Health, James Cook University
• Dr Julia Dehm, Law, La Trobe University
• Julia Hartelius, International Studies, RMIT University
• Julia Lane, Cultural Studies, Edith Cowan University
• Julian Aubrey Smith, Fine Arts, RMIT University
• Julian McKinlay King, Political Science, University of Wollongong
• Dr Julie Dean, Health, University of Queensland
• Professor Julie Fitness, Psychology, Macquarie University
• Dr Julie Healer, Science, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
• Dr Julie Kimber, Politics, Swinburne University of Technology
• Dr Julie Moreau, Biology, Monash University
• Associate Professor Julie Rudner, Community Development, La Trobe University
• Juliet Gunning, Performing Arts, Swinburne University
• Associate Professor Juliet Rogers, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Jumana Bayeh, Arts, Macquarie University
• Dr June Rubis, Geography, University of Sydney
• Justin McCulloch, Geography, University of SA
• Dr Justine Shih Pearson, Literature, University of Sydney
• Jutta Beher, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Kai Tanter, Philosophy, University of Melbourne
• Professor Kama Maclean, History, University of NSW
• Professor Kane Race, Humanities, University of Sydney
• Kara Sandri, Social Science, RMIT University
• Karen Carlisle, Health, James Cook University
• Dr Karen Cheer, Health, James Cook University
• Dr Karen Crawley, Law, Griffith University
• Associate Professor Karen Jones, Philosophy, University of Melbourne
• Dr Karen Marangio, Education, Monash University
• Professor Karen Trimmer, Education, University of Southern Queensland
• Dr Kari Lancaster, Social Science, University of NSW
• Karly Cini, Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Kassel Hingee, Statistics, Australian National University
• Kate Barber, Art, Monash University
• Kate Brody, Medicine, University of Melbourne
• Kate Clark, Cultural Studies, Monash University
• Dr Kate Davison, History, University of Melbourne
• Dr Kate Dooley, Political science, University of Melbourne
• Dr Kate Helmstedt, Mathematics, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Kate Howell, Food Systems, University of Melbourne
• Kate Hume, Environmental Sciences, University of Melbourne
• Dr Kate Johnston-Ataata, Sociology, RMIT University
• Dr Kate Just, Art, University of Melbourne
• Dr Kate O’Connor, Education, La Trobe University
• Professor Kate Sweetapple, Design, University of Technology Sydney
• Associate Professor Kate Thompson, Education, Queensland University of Technology
• Kate Toone, Social work, Flinders University
• Dr Kate Young, Public Health, Queensland University of Technology
• Katerina Kokkinos-Kennedy, Performing Arts, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Katerina Teaiwa, Pacific Studies, Australian National University
• Professor Kath Gelber, Political Science, University of Queensland
• Katherine Berthon, Ecology, RMIT University
• Dr Katherine Curchin, Public Policy, Australian National University
• Associate Professor Katherine Ellinghaus, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Katherine Giljohann, Science, University of Melbourne
• Professor Katherine Johnson, Community Psychology, RMIT University
• Dr Kathleen Aikens, Education, Monash University
• Dr Kathleen Flanagan, Sociology, University of Tasmania
• Dr Kathleen Neal, History, Monash University
• Kathleen Pleasants, Education, La Trobe University
• Kathleen Smithers, Education, University of Newcastle
• Dr Kathleen Tait, Education, Macquarie University
• Dr Kathryn Coleman, Visual Art, University of Melbourne
• Kathryn Knights, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Kathryn Reardon-Smith, Ecology, University of Southern Queensland
• Dr Kathryn Sellick, Social Work, University of Melbourne
• Professor Kathryn Williams, Psychology, University of Melbourne
• Professor Kathy Bowrey, Law, University of NSW
• Associate Professor Katie Barclay, History, University of Adelaide
• Professor Katie Holmes, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Katie O’Bryan, Law, Monash University
• Dr Katie Woolaston, Law, Queensland University of Technology
• Katitza Marinkovic, Health, University of Melbourne
• Katrin Koenning, Visual Art, RMIT University
• Dr Katrina Raynor, Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
• Kavita Gonsalves, Urban Studies, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Kaya Barry, Geography, Griffith University
• Keagan Ó Guaire, Social Science, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Keely Macarow, Art, RMIT University
• Dr Keith Armstrong, Visual Arts, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Kelly Donati, Food studies, William Angliss Institute
• Dr Kelly Gardiner, English, La Trobe University
• Dr Kelly Hussey-Smith, Art, RMIT University
• Dr Kelsie Long, Palaeoenvironments, Australian National University
• Dr Kerrie Saville, Management, Deakin University
• Dr Kerryn Drysdale, Health, University of NSW
• Dr Kevin Lowe, Education, University of NSW
• Kia Zand, Art, University of Melbourne
• Kieran Stevenson, Writing, Deakin University
• Dr Kim Davies, Education, Deakin University
• Kim Newman, Archaeology, Griffith University
• Kimberley de la Motte, Science, University of Queensland
• Dr Kirrily Jordan, Politics, Australian National University
• Dr Kirsten Small, Health, Griffith University
• Kirstin Kreyscher, Humanities, Deakin University
• Kirsty Howey, Cultural Studies, University of Sydney
• Kris Vine, Health, James Cook University
• Dr Kristal Cain, Biology, Australian National University
• Kristen Bell, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Kristina Tsoulis-Reay, Fine Art, Monash University
• Associate Professor Kurt Iveson, Geography, University of Sydney
• Dr Kyle Harvey, History, University of Tasmania
• Associate Professor Kym Rae, Indigenous Health, University of Queensland
• Kymberly Louise, Disability Studies, Flinders University
• Dr Lana Hartwig, Geography, Griffith University
• Lanie Stockman, Social Policy, RMIT University
• Dr Lara Palombo, Cultural Studies, Macquarie University
• Dr Laresa Kosloff, Art, RMIT University
• Larissa Fogden, Social Work, University of Melbourne
• Dr Larissa Sandy, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Laura Alfrey, Education, Monash University
• Dr Laura Henderson, Cultural Studies, University of Melbourne
• Dr Lauren Gawne, Linguistics, La Trobe University
• Lauren Gower, Fine Art, University of Melbourne
• Dr Lauren Istvandity, Cultural Studies, University of the Sunshine Coast
• Dr Lauren Pikó, History, University of Melbourne
• Dr Leah Barclay, Design, University of the Sunshine Coast
• Dr Leah Lui-Chivizhe, History, University of Sydney
• Dr Leah Williams Veazey, Sociology, University of Sydney
• Dr Leanne Morrison, Accounting, RMIT University
• Lee Valentine, Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Lenise Prater, Literary Studies, Monash University
• Lenka Thompson, Social Science, University of Technology Sydney
• Leonetta Leopardi, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Dr Leonie Brialey, Creative Writing, University of Melbourne
• Professor Lesley Head, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Professor Lesley Hughes, Ecology, Macquarie University
• Professor Lesley Stirling, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Dr Leslie Eastman, Fine Art, RMIT University
• Dr Leslie Roberson, Conservation, University of Queensland
• Letitia Robertson, Finance, University of Southern Queensland
• Dr Lew Zipin, Education, Victoria University
• Dr Liam Ward, Media, RMIT University
• Dr Libby Kruse, Medical Biology, University of Melbourne
• Professor Libby Porter, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Dr Ligia Lopez Lopez, Education, University of Melbourne
• Dr Lila Moosad, Public Health, University of Melbourne
• Lina Koleilat, Ethnography, Australian National University
• Lindall Kidd, Ecology, RMIT University
• Dr Lindy Orthia, Science Communication, Australian National University
• Dr Lisa Carson, Politics, University of NSW
• Lisa de Kleyn, Social Science, RMIT University
• Dr Lisa Hunter, Education, Monash University
• Lisa Siegel, Education, Southern Cross University
• Lisa Theiler, Anthropology, La Trobe University
• Dr Lisa Vallely, Public Health, University of NSW
• Associate Professor Lisa Wynn, Anthropology, Macquarie University
• Dr Liz Barber, Public Health, University of SA
• Dr Liz Brogden, Architecture, Queensland University of Technology
• Associate Professor Liz Conor, History, La Trobe University
• Liz Dearn, Mental Health, RMIT University
• Liz McGrath, Social Work, RMIT University
• Dr Lizzil Gay, Media, RMIT University
• Dr Llewellyn Wishart, Education, Deakin University
• Dr Lloyd White, Anatomy, La Trobe University
• Dr Lobna Yassine, Social Work, Australian Catholic University
• Professor Lorana Bartels, Criminology, Australian National University
• Loretta Bellato, Social Sciences, Swinburne University
• Dr Lorna Peters, Psychology, Macquarie University
• Dr Louisa Willoughby, Linguistics, Monash University
• Professor Louise D’Arcens, English, Macquarie University
• Dr Louise Dorignon, Geography, RMIT University
• Louise Weaver, Fine Art, RMIT University
• Lu Lin, Cultural Studies, RMIT University
• Luara Karlson, English, University of Melbourne
• Dr Luci Pangrazio, Education, Deakin University
• Lucinda Strahan, Writing, RMIT University
• Dr Lucy Buzacott, Arts, University of Melbourne
• Dr Lucy Gunn, Urban Studies, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Lucy Nicholas, Sociology, Western Sydney University
• Dr Lucy Van, Literature, University of Melbourne
• Dr Luigi Gussago, Languages, La Trobe University
• Professor Luke McNamara, Law, University of NSW
• Luke Stafford, Biology, La Trobe University
• Lydia Pearson, Fashion, Queensland University of Technology
• Lyndall Murray, Cognitive Science, Macquarie University
• Professor Lyndsey Nickels, Cognitive Science, Macquarie University
• Dr Lyrian Daniel, Architecture, University of Adelaide
• Madeline Dans, Biomedics, Burnet Institute
• Dr Madeline Mitchell, Plant Sciences, RMIT University
• Madeline Taylor, Design, University of Melbourne
• Dr Maia Gunn Watkinson, Cultural Studies, University of NSW
• Dr Maia Raymundo, Ecology, James Cook University
• Dr Mandy Truong, Public Health, Monash University
• Dr Marc Mierowsky, English, University of Melbourne
• Dr Marc Pruyn, Education, Monash University
• Dr Marcelo Svirsky, Politics, University of Wollongong
• Marco Gutierrez, Environmental Policy, RMIT University
• Dr Marcus Banks, Economics, RMIT University
• Professor Marcus Foth, Design, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Maree Pardy, International Studies, Deakin University
• Margareta Windisch, Social Work, RMIT University
• Dr Margot Ford, Education, University of Newcastle
• Dr Maria Giannacopoulos, Law, Flinders University
• Dr Maria Karidakis, Linguistics, The University Of Melbourne
• Maria Korochkina, Cognitive Science, Macquarie University
• Dr Mariana Dias Baptista, Forest Science, RMIT University
• Professor Marie Brennan, Education, University of SA
• Dr Mariko Smith, Museum Studies, University of Sydney
• Marita McGuirk, Ecologist, University of Melbourne
• Dr Mark Bahnisch, Sociology, International College of Management
• Associate Professor Mark Kelly, Philosophy, Western Sydney University
• Mark Parfitt, Humanities, Curtin University
• Dr Mark Shorter, Fine Arts, University of Melbourne
• Dr Markela Panegyres, Visual Arts, University of Sydney
• Dr Marnee Watkins, Education, University of Melbourne
• Dr Marnie Badham, Creative Arts, RMIT University
• Dr Martin Breed, Ecology, Flinders University
• Associate Professor Martin Porr, Archaeology, University of WA
• Professor Mary Lou Rasmussen, Sociology, Australian National University
• Dr Mary Tomsic, History, Australian Catholic University
• Dr Mathew Abbott, Philosophy, Federation University
• Matt Novacevski, Planning, University of Melbourne
• Dr Matthew Champion, History, Australian Catholic University
• Professor Matthew Fitzpatrick, History, Flinders University
• Dr Matthew Harrison, Education, Melbourne Graduate School of Education
• Matthew Mitchell, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Matthew Selinske, Conservation, RMIT University
• Dr Max Kaiser, History, University of Melbourne
• Dr Meagan Dewar, Biology, Federation University
• Dr Meagan Tyler, Industrial Relations, RMIT University
• Professor Meaghan Morris, Cultural Studies, University of Sydney
• Dr Meera Varadharajan, Education, University of NSW
• Dr Meg Foster, History, University of NSW
• Dr Megan Evans, Environmental Policy, University of NSW
• Dr Megan Good, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Megan McPherson, Creative Arts, University of Melbourne
• Megan Tighe, Politics, University of Tasmania
• Dr Megan Weier, Social Policy, University of NSW
• Mel Campbell, Media, University of Melbourne
• Melanie Ashe, Media, Monash University
• Dr Melanie Baak, Education, University of SA
• Dr Melanie Davern, Public Health, RMIT University
• Dr Melinda Mann, Education, Central Queensland University
• Dr Melissa Hardie, English, University of Sydney
• Professor Melissa Haswell, Health, University of Sydney
• Melissa Laing, Social work, RMIT University
• Dr Melissa Lovell, Political Science, Australian National University
• Dr Melissa Neave, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Melissa Norberg, Psychology, Macquarie University
• Dr Melissa Wolfe, Education, Monash University
• Mercedes Zanker, Philosophy, La Trobe University
• Dr Meredith Turnbull, Fine Art, Monash University
• Dr Mia Martin Hobbs, History, University of Melbourne
• Dr Micaela Pattison, History, University of Sydney
• Dr Micaela Sahhar, Palestine Studies, University of Melbourne
• Michael Bojkowski, Communications, RMIT University
• Dr Michael Callaghan, Ethics, Deakin University
• Professor Michael Gard, Human Movement, University of Queensland
• Dr Michael Griffiths, English, University of Wollongong
• Michael Julian, Indigenous Arts, University of Melbourne
• Professor Michael McCarthy, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Michael McNally, Education, University of Queensland
• Michael Pearson, History, Australian Catholic University
• Dr Michael Richardson, Cultural Studies, University of NSW
• Dr Michael Savic, Sociology, Monash University
• Professor Michael Stumpf, Biology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Michal Glikson, Visual Arts, Charles Darwin University
• Michel Gerencir, Visual Language, Griffith Film School
• Professor Michele Acuto, Politics, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Michele Ruyters, Legal Studies, RMIT University
• Professor Michelle Arrow, History, Macquarie University
• Dr Michelle Carmody, Latin American Studies, University of Melbourne
• Dr Michelle Langley, Archaeology, Griffith University
• Dr Michelle Ludecke, Education, Monash University
• Dr Michelle Redman-MacLaren, Public Health, James Cook University
• Michelle Toy, Law, University of Technology Sydney
• Professor Miguel Vatter, Politics, Flinders University
• Dr Mike Jones, History, Australian National University
• Dr Millicent Churcher, Philosophy, University of Sydney
• Associate Professor Miranda Forsyth, Law, Australian National University
• Dr Miranda Smith, Infectious Diseases, University of Melbourne
• Dr Miri Forbes, Psychology, Macquarie University
• Mittul Vahanvati, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Dr Moira Williams, Biology, University of Sydney
• Dr Monica Barratt, Social Sciences, RMIT University
• Dr Monica Behrend, Research Education, University of SA
• Dr Monica Campo, Sociology, University of Melbourne
• Monica Sestito, Italian Studies, University of Melbourne
• Dr Monika Barthwal-Datta, International Relations, University of NSW
• Monique Moffa, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Morgan Harrington, Anthropology, Australian National University
• Dr Morgan Tear, Psychology, Monash University
• Morganna Magee, Design, Swinburne University
• Muhammad Ali, Education, University of Queensland
• Dr Nadia Rhook, Indigenous Studies, University of WA
• Nahum McLean, Design, University of Technology Sydney
• Naimah Talib, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Professor Nan Seuffert, Law, University of Wollongong
• Dr Naomi Indigp, Science, University of Queensland
• Dr Naomi Parry, History, University of Tasmania
• Dr Natalie Hendry, Media, RMIT University
• Dr Natalie Osborne, Geography, Griffith University
• Dr Natalya Turkina, Business, RMIT University
• Natasha Cadenhead, Conservation, University of Melbourne
• Natasha Heenan, Politics, University of Sydney
• Dr Natasha Pauli, Geography, University of WA
• Natasha Ufer, Ecology, University of Queensland
• Dr Nathalie Butt, Ecology, University of Queensland
• Nathan Pittman, Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
• Dr Neil Maclean, Anthropology, University of Sydney
• Nicholas Carson, Sociology, RMIT University
• Dr Nicholas Hill, Sociology, RMIT University
• Dr Nicholas Mangan, Fine Art, Monash University
• Nicholas Ross, Politics, Australian National University
• Dr Nicholas Tochka, Music, University of Melbourne
• Dr Nick Brancazio, Philosophy, University of Wollongong
• Dr Nick Kelly, Design, Queensland University of Technology
• Dr Nick Schultz, Ecology, Federation University
• Associate Professor Nick Thieberger, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Dr Nicky Dulfer, Education, University of Melbourne
• Dr Nicola Carr, Education, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Nicola Henry, Social Sciences, RMIT University
• Nicola Laurent, Archives, University of Melbourne
• Nicole Davis, History, University of Melbourne
• Professor Nicole Gurran, Urban Planning, University of Sydney
• Associate Professor Nicole Rogers, Law, Southern Cross University
• Dr Nikita Vanderbyl, Indigenous Studies, University of Melbourne
• Professor Nikos Papastergiadis, Media, University of Melbourne
• Dr Nikos Thomacos, Psychology, Monash University
• Dr Nilmini Fernando, Sociology, Griffith University
• Dr Nina Williams, Geography, University of NSW
• Dr Niro Kandasamy, History, University of Melbourne
• Olivia Price, Public Health, University of NSW
• Dr Olwyn Stewart, Philosophy, University of Auckland
• Dr Orana Sandri, Environmental Studies, RMIT University
• Padraic Gibson, History, University of Technology Sydney
• Pamela Buena, Education, University of NSW
• Paris Hadfield, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Pashew Nuri, Education, Monash University
• Emeritus Professor Patricia Grimshaw, History, University of Melbourne
• Dr Patrick Kelly, Media, RMIT University
• Dr Paul Munro, Geography, University of NSW
• Professor Paul Patton, Philosophy, Flinders University
• Professor Paul Tacon, Archaeology, Griffith University
• Dr Paula Satizabal, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Payal Bal, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Peta Malins, Criminology, RMIT University
• Peta Phelan, Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Peta White, Education, Deakin University
• Dr Peter Balint, Politics, University of NSW
• Dr Peter Chambers, Criminology, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Peter Christoff, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Peter Ellis, Fine Art, RMIT University
• Peter Hogg, Architecture, Melbourne Polytechnic
• Professor Peter Marius Veth, Archaeology, University of WA
• Professor Peter Otto, Literary Studies, University of Melbourne
• Dr Philippa Chandler, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Phillipa Bellemore, Sociology, Macquarie University
• Dr Phoebe Everingham, Geography, University of Newcastle
• Dr Phoebe Smithies, Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne
• Pia Treichel, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Pip Henderson, Public Health, Flinders University
• Dr Piper Rodd, History, Deakin University
• Polly Bennett, Sociology, Deakin University
• Dr Poppy de Souza, Media, University of NSW
• Dr Prashanti Mayfield, Geography, RMIT University
• Priya Kunjan, Politics, University of Melbourne
• Dr Quah Ee Ling Sharon, Sociology, University of Wollongong
• Dr Rachael Burgin, Criminology, Swinburne University
• Dr Rachael Dwyer, Education, University of the Sunshine Coast
• Rachael Fernald, Social Work, RMIT University
• Dr Rachel Buchanan, Education, University of Newcastle
• Dr Rachel Burke, Linguistics, University of Newcastle
• Dr Rachel Busbridge, Sociology, Australian Catholic University
• Dr Rachel Chapman, Education, Melbourne Polytechnic
• Dr Rachel Deacon, Health, University of Sydney
• Rachel England, Environmental Studies, Australian National University
• Dr Rachel Forgasz, Education, Monash University
• Associate Professor Rachel Heath, Psychology, University of Newcastle
• Rachel Iampolski, Geography, RMIT University
• Dr Rachel Joy, Criminology, Australian College of Applied Psychology
• Dr Rachel Loney-Howes, Criminology, University of Wollongong
• Professor Rachel Nordlinger, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Dr Rachel Thompson, Public Health, University of Sydney
• Dr Rachel Toovey, Physiotherapy, University of Melbourne
• Rachele Gore, Microbiology, RMIT University
• Dr Radha O’Meara, Creative Writing, University of Melbourne
• Radha Pathy, Psychology, Macquarie University
• Associate Professor Raimondo Bruno, Psychology, University of Tasmania
• Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, Sociology, Macquarie University
• Dr Rea Saunders, Indigenous Studies, University of Queensland
• Dr Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, Law, University of Queensland
• Rebecca Clements, Urban Planning, University of Melbourne
• Dr Rebecca Colvin, Social Science, Australian National University
• Dr Rebecca Defina, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Rebecca Hiscock, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Rebecca Olive, Cultural Studies, University of Queensland
• Dr Rebecca Runting, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Rebecca Wheatley, Ecology, University of Tasmania
• Dr Renae Fomiatti, Sociology, La Trobe University
• Renee Cosgrave, Fine Art, Monash University
• Dr Rhian Morgan, Anthropology, James Cook University
• Dr Riccarda Peters, Neuroscience, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Richard McDermid, Science, Macquarie University
• Rifaie Tammas, Politics, University of Sydney
• Dr Rimi Khan, Cultural Studies, RMIT University
• Ritika Skand Vohra, Fashion, RMIT University
• Professor Rob Moodie, Public Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Robert Boncardo, European Studies, University of Sydney
• Associate Professor Robert Parkes, Education, University of Newcastle
• Robert Polglase, Urban Studies, RMIT University
• Dr Robin Bellingham, Education, Deakin University
• Dr Robin Torrence, Archaeology, Australian Museum
• Dr Robyn Babaeff, Education, Monash University
• Robyn Boldy, Environmental Science, University of Queensland
• Dr Robyn Schofield, Environmental Science, University of Melbourne
• Dr Robyn Williams, Indigenous Health, Charles Sturt University
• Dr Roger Alsop, Arts, University of Melbourne
• Romana Begicevic, Health, Curtin University
• Dr Ronnie Scott, Writing, RMIT University
• Rosalie Willacy, Conservation, University of Queensland
• Rose Macaulay, Psychology, University of Melbourne
• Rosemary Gilby, Education, Monash University
• Dr Rosey Billington, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Roshan Sharma, Conservation, RMIT University
• Rosie Joy Barron, Education, University of Melbourne
• Dr Rosie Welch, Education, Monash University
• Professor Rosita Henry, Anthropology, James Cook University
• Rowena Booth, Education, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Rowena Maguire, Environmental Law, Queensland University of Technology
• Emeritus Professor Russell Meares, Psychiatry, University of Sydney
• Dr Russell Richards, Systems Modelling, University of Queensland
• Dr Ruth De Souza, Nursing, RMIT University
• Dr Ruth Ford, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Ruth Gamble, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Ruth Morgan, History, Australian National University
• Dr Ruth Richards, Feminist Theory, RMIT University
• Dr Ryan Al-Natour, Teacher Education, Charles Sturt University
• Dr Ryan Frazer, Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University
• Dr Ryan Gustafsson, Philosophy, University of Melbourne
• Sab D’Souza, Visual Arts, University of Technology Sydney
• Sabrina Nemorin, Health, RMIT University
• Dr Sadhbh Byrne, Psychology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Sahar Ghumkhor, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Sal Clark, International Relations, Swinburne University
• Dr Sally Baker, Education, University of NSW
• Sally Olds, Creative Writing, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Sally Treloyn, Ethnomusicology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Sam Schulzq, Education, Federation University
• Associate Professor Samantha Ashby, Occupational Therapy, University of Newcastle
• Dr Samantha Balaton-Chrimes, Politics, Deakin University
• Samantha Bennett, Education, RMIT University
• Samantha Colledge, Public Health, University of NSW
• Samantha Mannix, Public Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Samantha McMahon, Education, University of Sydney
• Sancintya Simpson, Fine Art, Griffith University
• Associate Professor Sandie Suchet-Pearson, Geography, Macquarie University
• Dr Sandra D’Urso, Theatre and Performance Studies, University of Melbourne
• Sandra Penman, Forest Science, University of Melbourne
• Associate Professor Sango Mahanty, Geography, Australian National University
• Sara Fuller, Geography, Macquarie University
• Associate Professor Sara Motta, Politics, University of Newcastle
• Professor Sarah Bekessy, Ecology, RMIT University
• Sarah Callahan, Gender Studies, Swinburne University
• Dr Sarah Casey, Communication, University of the Sunshine Coast
• Sarah Gurr, Education, University of Newcastle
• Dr Sarah Holcombe, Anthropology, University of Queensland
• Sarah Jane Jones, Communications, University of Technology Sydney
• Professor Sarah Larkins, Health, James Cook University
• Dr Sarah MacLean, Sociology, La Trobe University
• Professor Sarah Maddison, Politics, University of Melbourne
• Sarah McColl-Gausden, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Sarah McCook, Gender Studies, RMIT University
• Dr Sarah Milne, Human Geography, Australian National University
• Dr Sarah Pinto, History, Deakin University
• Sarah Robertson, Geography, RMIT University
• Dr Sarah Young, Education, University of Melbourne
• Dr Sascha Fuller, Anthropology, University of Newcastle
• Scheherazade Bloul, Politics, Deakin University
• Scott Lyon, Communications, Swinburne University
• Dr Scott Webster, Cultural Studies, Sydney University
• Dr Seán Kerins, Politics, Australian National University
• Dr Sean Lowry, Art, University of Melbourne
• Dr Sebastian Cordoba, Social Work, RMIT University
• Dr Serene Ho, Land Administration, RMIT University
• Sertan Saral, Gender Studies, University of Sydney
• Shaez Mortimer, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Shakira Hussein, Sociology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Shannon Woodcock, Indigenous Education, RMIT University
• Dr Sharon Andrews, Public Policy, RMIT University
• Dr Sharon Cooper, Education, University of Newcastle
• Sharon Reid, Environmental Science, Federation University
• Sharon Simon, Criminology, RMIT University
• Shaunagh O’Sullivan, Mental Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Shayne beaver, Design, Queensland University of Technology
• Associate Professor Shelley Marshall, Law, RMIT University
• Shelly McGrath, Indigenous Studies, University of Newcastle
• Dr Sherridan Emery, Education, University of Tasmania
• Shirley Clifton, Education, University of Newcastle
• Dr Sianan Healy, History, La Trobe University
• Associate Professor Sigi Jottkandt, English, University of NSW
• Professor Simon Batterbury, Environmental Studies, University of Melbourne
• Simon Christie, Linguistics, University of Melbourne
• Simona Castricum, Architecture, University of Melbourne
• Dr Simone Louwhoff, Conservation, Federation University
• Dr Simone Schmidt, Mental Health, University of Melbourne
• Simone Sherriff, Public Health, University of Sydney
• Siobhán Costigan, Communications, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Siobhan Irving, Anthropology, Macquarie University
• Dr Siobhan McDonnell, Law, Australian National University
• Siri Hayes, Fine Art, Monash university
• Dr Sky Croeser, Internet Studies, Curtin University
• Somaieh Ebrahimi, Sociology, RMIT University
• Sonia Hines, Public Health, Flinders University
• Sonia Qadir, Law, University of NSW
• Soon-Tzu Speechley, Architecture, University of Melbourne
• Dr Sophia Imran, Professional Studies, University of Southern Queensland
• Sophie Hindes, Criminology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Sophie Hollitt, Physics, University of Adelaide
• Sophie Langley, Creative Arts, RMIT University
• Sophie Pezzutto, Anthropology, Australian National University
• Dr Sophie Rudolph, Education, University of Melbourne
• Sophie Russell, Law, University of Technology Sydney
• Sophie Smit, Cognitive Science, Macquarie University
• Sophie-May Kerr, Geography, University of Wollongong
• Soraya Zwahlen, Biology, Australian National University
• Dr Stefan Lie, Design, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Stefanie Plage, Sociology, University of Queensland
• Stella Marr, Archivist, University of Melbourne
• Dr Stephanie Lavau, Sociology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Stephanie Lusby, Anthropology, La Trobe University
• Dr Stephen Atkinson, Art, University of SA
• Dr Stephen Bell, Social Sciences, University of NSW
• Dr Stephen Dann, Marketing, Australian National University
• Professor Stephen Muecke, Cultural Studies, Flinders University
• Dr Steven Geroe, Law, La Trobe University
• Steven Kickbusch, Education, Queensland University of Technology
• Stevie Howson, Law, University of Wollongong
• Stuart Geddes, Communications, RMIT University
• Professor Stuart Parsons, Biologist, Queensland University of Technology
• Professor Stuart Phinn, Geography, University of Queensland
• Sudha Soma, Business, University of Southern Queensland
• Professor Sue Jackson, Geography, Griffith University
• Dr Sue Meares, Psychology, Macquarie University
• Professor Sue O’Connor, Archaeology, Australian National University
• Professor Sujatha Fernandes, Sociology, University of Sydney
• Dr Susan Clarke, Health, University of Sydney
• Dr Susan Olney, Public Policy, University of Melbourne
• Dr Susan Potter, Film Studies, University of Sydney
• Dr Susanne Gannon, Education, Western Sydney University
• Associate Professor Susie Moloney, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Suzannah Henty, Art History, University of Melbourne
• Dr Suzanne Macqueen, Education, University of Newcastle
• Dr Suzy Killmister, Philosophy, Monash university
• Taiba Khelwaty, Education, Flinders University
• Dr Tal Fitzpatrick, Visual Arts, University of Melbourne
• Talei Mangioni, Pacific Studies, Australian National University
• Tallace Bissett, Criminology, RMIT University
• Dr Tamara Borovica, Social Sciences, University of Melbourne
• Dr Tania Canas, Arts, University of Melbourne
• Dr Tanja Dreher, Media, University of NSW
• Tanya Eccleston, Fine Art, RMIT University
• Dr Tanya King, Anthropology, Deakin University
• Tasnim Sammak, Education, Monash University
• Tayhla Ryder, Anthropology, Macquarie University
• Taylah Gray, Law, University of Newcastle
• Taylor Hardwick, Media, Swinburne University
• Professor Ted Goranson, Information Science, Griffith University
• Teresa Capetola, Health Promotion, Deakin university
• Terri Ann Quan Sing, Literary Studies, La Trobe University
• Dr Terry Leahy, Sociology, University of Newcastle
• Tessa Toumbourou, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Professor Thalia Anthony, Law, University of Technology Sydney
• Thao Nguyen, Art History, RMIT University
• Dr Thao Phan, Media Studies, Deakin University
• Associate Professor Theresa Petray, Sociology, James Cook University
• Dr Thomas Baudinette, International Studies, Macquarie University
• Thomas Moore, Sociology, RMIT University
• Dr Thomas Mullaney, Ecology, University of NSW
• Dr Thomas Naderer, Biochemistry, Monash University
• Thomas Norman, Public Health, La Trobe University
• Professor Thomas Reuter, Anthropology, University of Melbourne
• Tianna Killoran, History, James Cook University
• Tierney Marey, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, University of NSW
• Tim Calabria, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Tim Curran, Ecology, Lincoln University
• Dr Tim Doherty, Ecology, University of Sydney
• Dr Tim Werner, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Timo Rissanen, Fashion, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Timothy Jones, History, La Trobe University
• Tina Grandinetti, Urban Studies, RMIT University
• Tinonee Pym, Communications, Swinburne University
• Dr Toby Fitch, Creative Writing, University of Sydney
• Dr Toby Freeman, Public Health, Flinders University
• Dr Toby Reed, Architecture, University of Melbourne
• Dr Tom Heenan, Australian Studies, Monash University
• Dr Tom Roberts, Geography, UNSW Canberra
• Professor Tony Bennett, Cultural Studies, Western Sydney University
• Emeritus Professor Tony Dalton, Urban Policy, RMIT University
• Tony Williams, History, Monash University
• Associate Professor Tooran Alizadeh, Urbanism, University of Sydney
• Dr Trent Brown, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Tresa LeClerc, Communications, RMIT University
• Professor Trevor Lithgow, Microbiology, Monash University
• Dr Trevor Mccandless, Education, Deakin University
• Dr Tristan Duncan, Public Health, La Trobe University
• Tristan Ryan, Heritage, University of Sydney
• Tyler King, Environmental Science, Deakin University
• Tyler Riordan, Tourism, University of Queensland
• Dr Tyne Daile Sumner, Literature, University of Melbourne
• Una Stone, Criminology, RMIT University
• Professor Valerie Harwood, Education, University of Sydney
• Professor Vanessa Lemm, Philosophy, Flinders University
• Vicki Holliday, Health, University of Newcastle
• Associate Professor Vicki McKenzie, Educational Psychology, University of Melbourne
• Vickie Zhang, Geography, University of Melbourne
• Dr Victoria Mason, Political Science, Murdoch University
• Dr Victoria Stead, Anthropology, Deakin University
• Dr Victoria Tedeschi, Literary Studies, Deakin University
• Dr Vince Polito, Cognitive Science, Macquarie University
• Professor Wanning Sun, Media, University of Technology Sydney
• Dr Wendy Bunston, Social Work, La Trobe University
• Associate Professor Wendy Steele, Urban Planning, RMIT University
• Associate Professor Wendy Wright, Conservation, Federation University
• Yasaman Samie, Fashion, RMIT University
• Dr Yasmine Musharbash, Anthropology, Australian National University
• Adjunct Professor Yoland Wadsworth, Sociology, RMIT University
• Dr Yung En Chee, Ecology, University of Melbourne
• Dr Yuri Cath, Philosophy, La Trobe University
• Professor Yves De Deene, Biomedical Engineering, Macquarie University
• Dr Yves Rees, History, La Trobe University
• Dr Zoe Dzunko, Writing, RMIT University
• Professor Zoë Laidlaw, History, University of Melbourne
• Zoe Teh, Mental Health, University of Melbourne
• Dr Zoe Thomas, English, La Trobe University
• Dr Zora Simic, History, University of NSW
• Dr Zukeyka Zevallos, Sociology, Swinburne University

– ref. An open letter from 1,200 Australian academics on the Djab Wurrung trees – https://theconversation.com/an-open-letter-from-1-200-australian-academics-on-the-djab-wurrung-trees-149147

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Archa Fox, Associate Professor and ARC Future Fellow, University of Western Australia

The Australian government is in talks with pharmaceutical company Pfizer about potentially supplying its COVID-19 vaccine. The company has also secured preliminary clearance to apply for a type of fast-tracked regulatory approval for this vaccine.

But even if clinical trials showed this vaccine was safe and effective, Australia couldn’t make enough doses. We just don’t have the manufacturing capacity or technology in place.

So, has Australia missed a trick in not tooling up for these mRNA vaccines?

What are mRNA vaccines?

mRNA vaccines are coated molecules of mRNA, similar to DNA, that carry the instructions for making a viral protein.

After injection into muscle, the mRNA is taken up by cells. Ribosomes, the cell’s protein factories, read the mRNA instructions and make the viral protein. These new proteins are exported from cells and the rest of the immunisation process is identical to other vaccines: our immune system mounts a response by recognising the proteins as foreign and developing antibodies against them.

mRNA vaccines have several advantages. Their production process is almost identical for any possible mRNA. This means mRNA vaccines can be rapidly designed for new viruses or strains. This speed of design is why the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are current frontrunners, and will probably be the first to get approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

mRNA vaccines can be potentially quicker and cleaner to make than other vaccines. Unlike other types of vaccines made in living cells such as chicken eggs or genetically modified cell cultures, mRNA molecules can be made in an apparatus called a bioreactor. Some mRNA vaccines, such as Imperial College London’s vaccine now undergoing testing, are even self-replicating. This means the mRNA can copy itself inside our cells, so protein production lasts longer and, potentially, fewer doses are needed.

However, mRNA vaccines also have some disadvantages. As a new technology, no mRNA vaccine has ever been approved for clinical use. Unlike other vaccines, we do not have years of data on the safety of this type of vaccine to reassure the public.

They also need to be stored at very low temperatures. For example, Moderna’s needs to be kept at -20℃ and Pfizer’s at -70℃. At normal refrigerator temperatures of 2-8℃, they tend to last just a day or two. This means distribution may be difficult, especially in the developing world.

And crucially, most countries — including Australia — don’t have the mRNA manufacturing capability needed to make these vaccines at the required scale. So while the production of mRNA is cleaner, it may also be slowed by supply chain issues.

Which mRNA vaccines are the frontrunners?

There are six mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in clinical trials:

• mRNA-1273 (Moderna, US) and BNT162 (Pfizer/BioNTech, Germany), both in phase 3 trials

• CvnCoV (CureVac, Germany), phase 2

• LUNAR-COV19 (Arcturus/Duke-NUS, Singapore), phase 1-2

• COVAC1 (Imperial College, UK) and Covidvax (People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Sciences/Walvax Biotech, China), both in phase 1.

The Moderna and CureVac candidates are both part of the COVAX initiative, a World Health Organisation-sponsored drive to boost vaccine research and give member countries a wider range of potential candidates.

Read more: Australia’s just signed up for a shot at 9 COVID-19 vaccines. Here’s what to expect

As a COVAX member, Australia will have access to buy and distribute either of these vaccines if successful in clinical trials, and could also license the technology to make the vaccines domestically.

But Australia does not currently have the capacity to manufacture clinical-grade mRNA vaccines. Melbourne-headquartered global biotech firm CSL can make protein-based vaccines, and has expanded its capacity to include DNA/viral vaccines, but not mRNA.

CSIRO has facilities for making clinical-grade proteins for phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, but not vaccine-grade mRNA, and not at the scale needed for clinical trials, let alone for immunising the entire population.

Concerns raised

Australian scientists recently raised concerns about the lack of capacity for mRNA vaccine production.

In August, federal science and technology minister Karen Andrews, called on Australian businesses to come forward if they can help with vaccine production and distribution.

It is not publicly known whether any company responded indicating it could make mRNA vaccines.

With the federal government prepared to invest A$330 million in research for COVID vaccines and treatment, and mRNA vaccines clearly leading the global race, it’s possible some Australian biotech firms could pivot to mRNA production.

The CSL global product pipeline includes an mRNA vaccine against the flu in pre-clinical development. But CSL has issued no public statement about its capacity for Australian production of clinical-grade mRNA vaccines if this, or one of the COVID-19 mRNA candidate vaccines, requires a local supply. CSL has not declared any desire to establish mRNA manufacturing in Australia at this time.

So what should Australia do?

Australia’s first option will be to buy doses from overseas. But despite the COVAX deal it may still be at the end of a long queue, given the hundreds of millions of doses of Pfizer mRNA vaccine already pre-purchased by the United States, Japan and the European Union, and similar deals for these and other countries in negotiation with Moderna.

Compare this with Germany, where a planned rollout of the Pfizer vaccine to the elderly will start 24 hours after emergency approval, potentially as early as this month.

With the dose costing US$20-40 per person, even if we can secure doses, it could cost up to A$1 billion to immunise the Australian population if we buy the vaccine.

The second option is to to set up production of mRNA vaccines here, potentially led by a biotech firm with approval to make clinical-grade therapeutics. As a rough estimate, we calculate it could cost as little as A$100 million to make sufficient vaccine domestically. But it will mean a significant lag time, perhaps 12 months, to set up the infrastructure and train staff.

The lack of capacity to make mRNA is both a threat and an opportunity for the Australian biotechnology sector. Given the speed at which this technology has been applied to COVID-19, it would be useful to have this production capacity in Australia, so we can quickly respond to future pandemics.

Beyond vaccines, mRNA could be used for other promising therapies for cancer and other genetic diseases.

There is also the opportunity for creative innovation in this area. Tesla used its robotics capacity to create an mRNA synthesis platform for German biotech firm CureVac.

With investment by the federal government and willingness from the private sector, Australia could be part of this innovation wave. This technology would be useful for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, future pandemics, and future medicines more broadly.

The author thanks the following researchers for contributions that helped inform this article: Damian Purcell, Peter Doherty Institute, University of Melbourne; Colin Pouton, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences; Thomas Preiss, John Curtin School of Medical Research, ANU; Pall Thordarson, UNSW; and Nigel McMillan, Griffith University.

– ref. Australia may miss out on several COVID vaccines if it can’t make mRNA ones locally – https://theconversation.com/australia-may-miss-out-on-several-covid-vaccines-if-it-cant-make-mrna-ones-locally-148996

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brenton Zampatti, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO

This year marks a decade since the end of the Millennium Drought, when flood waters reached the mouth of the River Murray in 2010. For 1,200 days prior, Australia’s most iconic river had ceased flowing to the sea, causing populations of fish and other aquatic animals to plummet.

In particular, native migratory fish, including congolli (Pseudaphritis urvilli) and pouched lamprey (Geotria australis), were severely impacted by barriers to migration — such as barrages and weirs — and a lack of river flow.

However, our research has shown some clever engineering and increasing volumes of water for the environment are helping congolli and pouched lamprey to bounce back in record numbers.

With native fish in the Murray-Darling Basin just a fraction of what they were before European colonisation, rebuilding populations will be a long process. But learning from successes like this along the way will aid in the journey toward a healthier river.

What happened to fish in the Millennium Drought?

From 2001 to 2009, south-eastern Australia experienced the most severe drought in recorded history.

Unprecedented low rainfall and water extraction for irrigation and human consumption reduced water flows in the lower Murray by around 70%. Water levels in the Lower Lakes at the terminus of the river system fell to more than one metre below sea level.

To prevent saltwater from the ocean mixing with critical storages of freshwater, tidal barrages (dam-like structures) were closed, and the River Murray was disconnected from the sea.

Read more: What California can learn from Australia’s 15-year millennium drought

This was a big problem for a number of migratory species, including pouched lamprey and congolli, which need to migrate between freshwater and saltwater to complete their lifecycles.

During the Millennium Drought, no lamprey were seen in the Lower Lakes and Coorong, while numbers of juvenile congolli declined. After more than three years of barrage closure, local populations were threatened with extinction.

But in late 2010, both species were saved by major flooding, when the Murray once again flowed to the sea, and abundances have continued to steadily improve over the past decade.

Several management initiatives were also critical in supporting recovery, even through the most recent drought. Notably, the installation of fish ladders and better water management. Fish ladders are water-filled channels with a series of steps that enable fish to swim around or over dams and weirs.

Supporting fish migrations

Native fish populations in the Murray-Darling Basin are estimated to be approximately 10% of those pre-European settlement. Barriers to fish movement and altered river flows are two principal causes of decline.

The Murray Barrages were constructed in the 1930s, without consideration of fish passage, and it was 70 years before the first fish ladder was constructed in 2003.

Read more: A good plan to help Darling River fish recover exists, so let’s get on with it

In 2020, there are now 11 fish ladders spread across the Murray Barrages, and our research has shown they effectively support vital migrations.

More fish ladders have been built on upstream weirs, together opening more than 2,000 kilometres of the River Murray to fish migration.

However, water must be available to operate the fish ladders, and this is where environmental water plays a role.

In 2009-10, approximately 120 gigalitres of environmental water were delivered across the Basin. By 2017-18, this volume was greater than 1,200 gigalitres and included substantial volumes across the Murray Barrages.

Read more: The Darling River is simply not supposed to dry out, even in drought

This increase has enabled the River Murray to continuously flow to the sea, restoring its natural characteristics, albeit at a significantly reduced volume.

What’s more, water for the environment has supported constant operation of the barrage fish ladders since 2010 — a huge win for lamprey and congolli.

The bounce back

From the lows of the Millennium Drought we have so far this year caught a record 101 individual pouched lamprey moving through the barrage fish ladders and proceeding upstream. This is up from last year’s catch of 61 fish.

Congolli populuations are also booming. From 2007 to 2010, we sampled a combined total of just over 1,000 congolli. Compare this to the summer of 2014-15, when we sampled more than 200,000 passing through the fishways.

Congolli is now one of the most abundant fish in the Coorong and upstream of the barrages in the Lower Lakes.

What the rest of the basin can learn from this

Fish ladders and environmental water have been successful in supporting fish migration at the Murray Barrages, yet across the Murray-Darling Basin, thousands of barriers remain and more are being considered, particularly in the northern Basin.

These barriers can impede the movements of fish that migrate wholly within freshwater, such as golden perch (Macquaria ambigua) and the threatened silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus). This includes the spawning migrations of adults and downstream dispersal of juveniles.

Mitigating the impacts of existing and new structures on the movement of fish is crucial to restoring native fish populations in the Murray-Darling Basin.

To help restore migratory fish throughout the basin, there must be greater understanding of the movement requirements of all fish life stages, the construction of effective fish ladders, and river flows must be sufficient to facilitate downstream movement, including of eggs and larval fish. The removal of barriers may also be a feasible option.

In any case, after 15 years of experience in the lower River Murray we’ve learnt protecting migratory fish is best achieved when researchers, the community, water managers and river operators collaborate closely. Such partnerships are the bedrock to establishing a healthier river.

Read more: Last summer’s fish carnage sparked public outrage. Here’s what has happened since

– ref. Good news from the River Murray: these 2 fish species have bounced back from the Millennium Drought in record numbers – https://theconversation.com/good-news-from-the-river-murray-these-2-fish-species-have-bounced-back-from-the-millennium-drought-in-record-numbers-148433