Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Shulmeister, Professor, University of Canterbury

Climate Explained is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.

If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz

What was the climate and sea level like at times in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at 400ppm?

The last time global carbon dioxide levels were consistently at or above 400 parts per million (ppm) was around four million years ago during a geological period known as the Pliocene Era (between 5.3 million and 2.6 million years ago). The world was about 3℃ warmer and sea levels were higher than today.

We know how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere contained in the past by studying ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. As compacted snow gradually changes to ice, it traps air in bubbles that contain samples of the atmosphere at the time. We can sample ice cores to reconstruct past concentrations of carbon dioxide, but this record only takes us back about a million years.

Read more: Climate explained: what caused major climate change in the past?

Beyond a million years, we don’t have any direct measurements of the composition of ancient atmospheres, but we can use several methods to estimate past levels of carbon dioxide. One method uses the relationship between plant pores, known as stomata, that regulate gas exchange in and out of the plant. The density of these stomata is related to atmospheric carbon dioxide, and fossil plants are a good indicator of concentrations in the past.

Another technique is to examine sediment cores from the ocean floor. The sediments build up year after year as the bodies and shells of dead plankton and other organisms rain down on the seafloor. We can use isotopes (chemically identical atoms that differ only in atomic weight) of boron taken from the shells of the dead plankton to reconstruct changes in the acidity of seawater. From this we can work out the level of carbon dioxide in the ocean.

The data from four-million-year-old sediments suggest that carbon dioxide was at 400ppm back then.

Sea levels and changes in Antarctica

During colder periods in Earth’s history, ice caps and glaciers grow and sea levels drop. In the recent geological past, during the most recent ice age about 20,000 years ago, sea levels were at least 120 metres lower than they are today.

Sea-level changes are calculated from changes in isotopes of oxygen in the shells of marine organisms. For the Pliocene Era, research shows the sea-level change between cooler and warmer periods was around 30-40 metres and sea level was higher than today. Also during the Pliocene, we know the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was significantly smaller and global average temperatures were about 3℃ warmer than today. Summer temperatures in high northern latitudes were up to 14℃ warmer.

This may seem like a lot but modern observations show strong polar amplification of warming: a 1℃ increase at the equator may raise temperatures at the poles by 6-7℃. It is one of the reasons why Arctic sea ice is disappearing.

Read more: Climate explained: why carbon dioxide has such outsized influence on Earth’s climate

Impacts in New Zealand and Australasia

In the Australasian region, there was no Great Barrier Reef, but there may have been smaller reefs along the northeast coast of Australia. For New Zealand, the partial melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is probably the most critical point.

One of the key features of New Zealand’s current climate is that Antarctica is cut off from global circulation during the winter because of the big temperature contrast between Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. When it comes back into circulation in springtime, New Zealand gets strong storms. Stormier winters and significantly warmer summers were likely in the mid-Pliocene because of a weaker polar vortex and a warmer Antarctica.

It will take more than a few years or decades of carbon dioxide concentrations at 400ppm to trigger a significant shrinking of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. But recent studies show that West Antarctica is already melting.

Sea-level rise from a partial melting of West Antarctica could easily exceed a metre or more by 2100. In fact, if the whole of the West Antarctic melted it could raise sea levels by about 3.5 metres. Even smaller increases raise the risk of flooding in low-lying cities including Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington.

– ref. Climate explained: what the world was like the last time carbon dioxide levels were at 400ppm – https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-the-world-was-like-the-last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-were-at-400ppm-141784

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dallas Rogers, Associate Dean, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney

A target of 70% private and 30% public dwellings is an accepted standard for public housing renewal projects in several Australian states. This level of private ownership is said to be necessary to counter stigma and the supposed demotivating impacts of concentrated disadvantage. When we looked at the impact of applying this model to the planned Waterloo redevelopment in inner Sydney, the demographic projections were revealing.

Read more: Why the focus of stimulus plans has to be construction that puts social housing first

Our analysis shows the project would reduce the suburb’s proportion of social housing dwellings from 30% to about 17%. About 30% of households in the suburb would be owner-occupiers. Private renters might rise to more than 50% of households.

Why set social mix targets?

Social mix is often proposed as an antidote to a range of presumed problems associated with public housing estates. With the need for a social housing stimulus package receiving attention, and the Victorian government announcing a A$500 million program, it’s timely to revisit the mix of tenancies in estate redevelopments.

Read more: Class divide defies social mixing and keeps public housing stigma alive

State housing authorities favour a mix of public and private residential tenures when they redevelop large public housing estates. Authorities can then sell the majority of new dwellings to private owners and investors.

As Kate Shaw, Janet McCalman and Deborah Warr have explained in The Conversation, the strategy doesn’t always work as promised. Drawing on extensive empirical research into mixed-tenure renewal neighbourhoods, the evidence shows simple mathematical “one size fits all” targets do not work. Decisions on the residential mix need to be sensitive to local settings and needs.

Nonetheless, an orthodoxy has emerged among some housing authorities that social housing tenants should make up 30% of households while 70% should be sold to owner-occupiers and investors.

Read more: Social mix in housing? One size doesn’t fit all, as new projects show

The case of Waterloo

In Waterloo, limitations of the fixed-ratio approach relate to the likely composition of the post-renewal resident population.

The Waterloo estate site now contains about 1,900 public housing units. The renewal plan proposes retaining this number in the context of a three-fold increase in dwellings with a 70:30 private-public tenure mix. This will result in a total of about 6,500 dwellings.

At the suburb or neighbourhood level, Waterloo had 6,151 dwellings in 2016. As the table below shows, almost exactly 30% of these were let to social housing tenants.

The table also shows the large variation in tenure mix across five Sydney suburbs and the Greater Sydney area. Some 44% of all dwelling stock in Waterloo was already rented privately. That’s almost 50% more than the Sydney-wide average of just under 30%.

Importantly, 63% of private dwellings in Waterloo are privately rented – double the Greater Sydney proportion.

Located close to three universities and the CBD, Waterloo is dominated by investor-owned rental housing. Future occupation is likely to follow this pattern.

Read more: We still live here: public housing tenants fight for their place in the city

More like 17% social housing

State housing authorities measure tenure mix within public housing estates. But the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute recommends measuring tenure mix at the neighbourhood scale.

Adding 4,500 new private households, while maintaining current social housing numbers, will reduce the proportion of social housing in the suburb of Waterloo to about 17%.

Projecting the current rate of renters in private dwellings onto the proposed 70:30 renewal mix might be expected to result in 63% of new private dwellings being privately rented.

The suburb would then comprise 52% private renters. Less than one-third of residents would be owner-occupiers.

The chart below shows how applying the 70:30 target to redeveloping the public housing estate could actually reduce tenure diversity for Waterloo.

Read more: Voices of residents missing in a time of crisis for public housing

Many private renters struggle too

The need for more social and affordable housing in well-serviced, inner-urban areas is well recognised. Getting the residential tenure mix right through renewal is key.

In the only full-length book on social mix in Australia, Kathy Arthurson notes social disadvantage occurs in both public and private rental housing. She writes:

The omission of private rental from the social mix literature is problematic, as in Australia and elsewhere most poor renters are in private rental and not in public housing.

Read more: Private renters are doing it tough in outer suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne

A key element of the case for limiting social housing to 30% in redevelopment projects is the belief that any more would scare off potential private buyers and reduce developer returns.

However, an RMIT evaluation of the Victorian Public Housing Renewal Program showed the presence of social housing had little effect on sales of private apartments in renewed inner-city public housing estates.

Another evaluation of the Kensington renewal project in Carlton, Victoria, found strong investor sales but fewer owner-occupiers than anticipated.

Key takeaways

Recent research in Melbourne and Sydney suggests the supposed benefits of social mix are based on owner-occupiers, not more transient private renters.

It also shows social mix renewals that apply a simplistic 70:30 target within a narrowly defined boundary around an “estate” risk seriously undervaluing large public housing assets.

– ref. Public housing ‘renewal’ likely to drive shift to private renters, not owners, in Sydney – https://theconversation.com/public-housing-renewal-likely-to-drive-shift-to-private-renters-not-owners-in-sydney-133352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison M Joubert, Lecturer in Marketing, The University of Queensland

Cancel culture — withdrawing support for public figures when they do or say something offensive — has become so widespread it was Macquarie Dictionary’s 2019 word of the year.

A practice where people come together to remove the offender’s cultural capital and “cancel” them, the phenomenon has intensified since the outbreak of COVID-19. With so many people staying at home there has been a rise in social media use, and with more time on social media there is more time for “cancellations”.

JK Rowling was cancelled for anti-trans remarks. Lana Del Rey, criticised as using anti-feminist lyrics, was cancelled after her response to these criticisms on Instagram. Popular YouTuber Jenna Marbles announced she was leaving the platform following criticism of early videos featuring offensive lyrics, gender stereotypes and blackface.

Read more: Goodbye Google+, but what happens when online communities close down?

Everyone is cancelled

Fandom is deeply rooted in identity and values, and fans are likely to “cancel” people who violate norms of justice and moral responsibility. As fandoms represent community and comfort, fans are quick to denounce threats to these spaces.

Following the controversy of Rowling’s recent tweet, many fans are working to distance themselves from “Harry Potter and the author who failed us”.

Actors from the Harry Potter movies and spinoffs, including Daniel Radcliffe, Eddie Redmayne, Noma Dumezweni, and Emma Watson, have criticised Rowling’s remarks. Staff at her publisher Hachette are reportedly refusing to work on her newest book.

In 2018, the New York Times declared “everyone is cancelled”. It can take just one thing – seemingly nothing – for someone to be cancelled, argued the the story.

In many cases, cancel culture is criticised as mob mentality echoing the same principles of bullying. Cancel culture has become reactive instead of proactive: knee-jerk reactions and lashing out rather than progressive calls for accountability.

Our research shows fandoms can be spaces where people with shared interests build on visible collective identities and camaraderie. But fandoms can also be spaces of invisible emotional attachments: private “friendships” with real or imagined characters.

Read more: Missing your friends? Rereading Harry Potter might be the next best thing

So, when the centre of a fandom is cancelled, the collective and personal identities and friendships can be challenged.

Cancelled fandoms

The unexpected departure (or self-cancellation) of vlogger Jenna Marbles (real name Jenna Mourey) from YouTube epitomises the dangers of cancel culture.

Many fans were left devastated when Mourey announced her departure. While some fans are very critical of her offensive early videos, featuring gender stereotypes and blackface, others saw her moving away from this content as a symbol of how much Mourey has grown.

In an impassioned video (which has now also been removed from YouTube), Mourey gave an authentic apology for videos from 2011 and 2012 which have not been public on her account for several years. She said:

[…] I just want to make sure the things I’m putting in the world aren’t hurting anyone […] so I need to be done with this channel, for now or for forever […]

Fans and public figures praised Mourey’s accountability, but were left divided over her decision to leave the platform, many arguing cancel culture has gone too far.

The spirit of cancel culture — holding people accountable for their actions — is lost when being cancelled means there is no opportunity for change nor space for growth.

The practice is becoming more like activism as entertainment: where people join in because they find it fun, rather than because they believe it to be a worthy cause.

Towards a context culture

Instead of “cancelling” public figures, we believe it is time to create a context culture. Understanding context means denouncing historical mistakes while acknowledging potential for growth. People can learn from and outgrow their past, and should be given the space to do so.

A context culture does not mean giving public figures a free pass to say or do what they like; it’s not giving up on holding them accountable. It means opportunities to learn and change should not be shut down prematurely.

A context culture reduces the likelihood of mob mentality, and ensures criticism can be constructive.

Fandoms can outgrow people and brands who refuse to be accountable or demonstrate growth. Fans can rid their lives of toxicity by returning to the proactive internet activism form of the practice.

Jameela Jamil, a long-time advocate of accountability alongside growth embodied this in a recent Instagram post:

[…] YOU have the power. YOU control every Market. YOU choose what and who is trendy. Unfollow the people who tell you things that hurt your self esteem. Don’t let the debris of their damage spill out onto you. Unfollow people/brands that don’t make you feel powerful and happy and grateful for what you have. You’re the boss and none of them are shit without you […]

Fan communities can stay intact when the centre of their fandom has been outgrown. Fans can continue to build worthwhile real and imagined friendships, focusing on their own positivity and growth.

The original object of a fandom — be it a celebrity or an artistic product — can last beyond a cancellation.

As Daniel Radcliffe said, if something has resonated with you “it is sacred. […] Nobody can touch that”.

– ref. Celebrities can be cancelled. Fandoms are forever – https://theconversation.com/celebrities-can-be-cancelled-fandoms-are-forever-141775

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary-Louise McLaws, Professor of Epidemiology Healthcare Infection and Infectious Diseases Control, UNSW

From midnight Wednesday, all of Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire will return to Stage 3 lockdown for six weeks. There are only four reasons for residents to leave their homes: shopping for essentials, care-giving, exercise, and work and study if it can’t be done from home.

But it should have happened weeks ago.

It’s now time to consider measures aimed at stemming the spread among families, by admitting infected people to hospitals or other health facilities.

Read more: Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire return to lockdown: this is just how vigilant we have to be until a COVID-19 vaccine is found

Victoria was a slowly boiling frog

The problem with watching daily numbers is small numbers do not show a clear pattern until it’s too late. To choose a larger period to observe a pattern, epidemiologists usually use the length of time an average person takes to become infected (the incubation period). If you use 14 days (roughly twice the incubation period) this approach is a classic epidemiological method to tell if an outbreak is getting out of control.

Using this method, the two weeks up to June 18 suggested the spread was becoming out of control. From June 5 to June 18 the total number of cases was 102. Then the subsequent 14-day periods doubled to 224 cases and doubled again to 441 cases.

As these numbers show, controlling the outbreak becomes extremely difficult once this number hits 100.

The cumulative number of cases from the last 14 days in Victoria is now 1,048. This is similar to the numbers seen Australia-wide in late March, near the peak of Australia’s pandemic so far.

Victoria will likely see even greater increases in the next few days, especially as people who don’t realise they’re infected spread the virus further.

Ultimately, governments around the world face the tough choice of being proactive or reactive during the pandemic. Being proactive to small spikes might be perceived as being heavy-handed, especially economically. Victoria, so far, has been more reactive than proactive — but the time has come to consider different approaches.

Admitting infected people to hospital

We know many people pick up the virus in their own homes from another family member, even if the infected individual isolates in one room. This is partially because indoor environments often have crowding and poor ventilation. It’s also quite difficult to practice good sanitation, cleaning high-touch surfaces properly with detergent or bleach.

The best option is to relocate an infected family member to reduce the risk of spread to the rest of the family. An option is to relocate them to hospitals or other suitable purpose-built health facilities. Victoria’s numbers will get worse unless infected individuals are relocated. This is a particular risk for crowded high-rise housing.

Victorians should also be wearing masks in all public places. Recent evidence suggests wearing masks reduces the risk of catching and spreading the virus. The World Health Organisation released updated guidelines on June 5 acknowledging masks can reduce transmission when physical distancing can’t be maintained or in places of high prevalence. Metropolitan Melbourne is now a place of high prevalence.

Read more: Victorians, and anyone else at risk, should now be wearing face masks. Here’s how to make one

Ring-fencing didn’t work

Ring-fencing is an effective control method when the pattern of infection is not the same across regions. Recently, China lifted lockdown of Wuhan and then ring-fenced hotspots to effectively repress a spike in case numbers.

As of July 1, hotspots in Melbourne were ring-fenced, which gave other regions with very low or zero cases a reprieve from unnecessary restrictions.

But we’ve since seen cases leaking out of these hotspots and rising rates of community transmission. This forced the government to apply a wider lockdown.

Further, ring-fencing is an effective control method when people’s needs — food, heating and internet access — are well looked after. If we get that wrong, we lose people’s collective good will and cooperation. The “hard lockdown” of public housing towers in Melbourne’s north and northwest hasn’t been done in a compassionate manner that meets people’s immediate needs, which erodes trust in the process.

It also lacks epidemiological sense. Forcing people into even closer quarters creates a pressure cooker environment where family outbreaks are even more likely.

A pandemic is a long term project, so it’s essential trust is built and maintained over time. Building trust is an investment in resilience that enables our community to continue to respond well during this extended outbreak.

Read more: Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire return to lockdown: this is just how vigilant we have to be until a COVID-19 vaccine is found

Important lessons

All is not lost. To prevent the virus spreading further all Melburnians should wear a mask when in public places.

It’s widely hoped the lockdown will help to reduce case numbers but this must be done with compassion and ethics.

Victoria’s experience should be a lesson to governments everywhere that it’s crucial to act quickly and early when flareups occur. Don’t wait until the moment of crisis arrives.

It’s also time for the Victorian government to closely consider how to reduce transmission among families, and part of that may be housing infected people outside the home until they are well again.

This article is supported by the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas.

– ref. Melbourne’s lockdown came too late. It’s time to consider moving infected people outside the home – https://theconversation.com/melbournes-lockdown-came-too-late-its-time-to-consider-moving-infected-people-outside-the-home-142162

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Vaz, Senior Lecturer, Department of Banking and Finance, Monash University

The reimposition of stage 3 restrictions on metropolitan Melbourne is, as Victorian premier Daniel Andrews says, a matter of life or death. That’s also true for small businesses.

A further six weeks of stay-at-home orders for the city’s 5 million residents will kill off many small and medium sized businesses unless there are critical changes to federal and state government assistance policies.

Read more: Six-week lockdown for Melbourne as record 191 new cases in latest tally

Even with assistance many will not survive. But ensuring those that are viable are not lost is crucial to the recovery of both the Victorian and national economies.

Small businesses are the engine of economic growth. They are typically the first to innovate and respond to economic changes. The abnormal economic shock wrought by the necessary public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic means they have generally been hit hardest. Without policies and money to address their core needs, this second wave of restrictions will be a killer blow.

Three fundamentals

These fundamentals are absolute to the success of small business.

First, and most obviously, they need customers. Those providing essential local goods and services, such as groceries or health services, may cope. But those offering discretionary goods and services, such as hospitality, will suffer both from loss of foot traffic and suppressed consumer spending, as people save more in uncertain times.

Second, they need access to credit. This is much harder for small businesses to obtain than large businesses with assets. Small businesses are typically started by entrepreneurs who finance their endeavours with their own savings, through mortgaging their homes, or taking out personal loans.

They typically have extremely limited cash reserves to ride out tough times. Many juggle their bills from month to month to stay afloat.

Third, they rely on momentum. They grow by acquiring both customers and knowledge of their market. When repeat business stop, they lose that momentum. If they have to shed employees, they lose “business knowledge”, which sets them back even further in their recovery.

Calamitous damage

All economic slowdowns typically reduce demand, but this health/economic crisis has calamitously damaged all three aspects.

The federal government’s Job Keeper program and subsidies being provided through the Australian Taxation Ofice to boost business cash flow has enabled business to hold on to employees for now. But without customers or credit, even extending these measures beyond their scheduled September 30 end won’t be enough.

It’s my view it will take three to five years for consumer confidence and spending to return to pre-COVID levels. This assessment is based on past recessions where high unemployment prevailed compounded by the novel problem that health fears will suppress consumer confidence long after the coronavirus is contained and things return to “normal” (or at least a new normal).

Read more: Forget JobSeeker. In our post-COVID economy, Australia needs a ‘liveable income guarantee’ instead

The Melbourne outbreak of COVID-19 underlines there is no quick fix to the COVID-19 crisis. The only light at the end of tunnel is a possible a vaccine, which might take years, or never be found. The economy must therefore adjust. Not all businesses are viable. To continue indefinitely to pump public money into direct grants to prop them up is unsustainable.

To do so will lead to “perverse” consequences – providing windfalls to businesses that would have failed anyway – as many small business ventures do – while providing inadequate support to those that are important and would have survived but for the crisis.

Three suggestions

Therefore I offer three suggestions.

First, continue JobKeeper and the tax office’s cashflow boost for as long as COVID-19 restrictions are in place. Businesses would need to apply for this on a month-by-month basis, and need to meet set criteria.

Read more: Forget JobSeeker. In our post-COVID economy, Australia needs a ‘liveable income guarantee’ instead

Second, the government should ensure easy access to low-interest loans for the next two to three years. Loans are more efficient than direct grants or subsidies. The fact the loans have to be repaid will encourage only those businesses with a good chance of being sustainable of seeking them.

Getting a loan is slow and hard for small businesses because banks scrutinise them due to the risk. Few small business have the skills to prepare the extensive documentation banks require. Banks will be motivated to lend faster and to more businesses if governments remove the risk by buying those loans.

To speed up the lending application process, there should also be subsidies to licensed financial advisers to prepare those applications.

Third, a system of subsidised vouchers for financial management advice from accountants and financial advisers (who are also mostly small businesses).

Financial services are critical for small businesses. In tough times it might be tempting to dispense with these services. But sound financial advice will be critical to business owners making the right decision – including whether they should be borrowing money to sustain their businesses or making the hard decision to cut their losses and move on.

– ref. Melbourne’s second lockdown spells death for small businesses. Here are 3 things government can do to save them – https://theconversation.com/melbournes-second-lockdown-spells-death-for-small-businesses-here-are-3-things-government-can-do-to-save-them-142173

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW

After early success in suppressing COVID-19, we are facing a resurgence in Victoria, which is threatening disease control for the whole country.

Outbreaks in northwestern Melbourne, including in public housing tower blocks in inner Melbourne, and now in the twin border towns of Albury-Wodonga, signal a risk of losing our hard-won gains. These gains have already come at a heavy price to the economy and mental health, which is all the more reason to throw everything we can at this resurgence – including widespread use of face masks, as we have seen in other countries such as the United States and United Kingdom.

With 191 new cases announced on July 7, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has announced a return to stage 3 restrictions for six weeks from July 9 for metro Melbourne and Mitchell Shire. This means residents will be confined to their homes except for essential trips such as work, medical care, exercise or shopping for essentials. The evidence suggests both sick and healthy people wearing masks will help curb the spread of COVID-19 during this precarious time.

Read more: Coronavirus spike: why getting people to follow restrictions is harder the second time around

Australia is one of the few countries that has suppressed COVID-19 after a peak in disease incidence in late March. The current resurgence, unlike the peak in March which was largely travel-related, has arisen mostly from community transmission, which is a more serious concern.

Health authorities have a range of measures at their disposal, including expanded testing to find all new cases, diligent contact tracing, travel bans, border closures and quarantine of returning travellers. As members of the public, there are five main things we can do to stop the spread: get tested if we have symptoms, download the COVIDSafe App, practise physical distancing, wash our hands often, and wear a face mask.

Why masks help

The most extreme form of physical distancing is a lockdown, already enforced in Melbourne. Keeping at least 1.5 metres away from others also dramatically reduces the risk of COVID-19, even in crowded households. Victorians should think about wearing a mask, especially in indoor spaces like shops or public transport or in outdoor crowds. There may be epidemics developing in other states, so people at risk in those states should think about masks too.

There’s no doubt masks help stop the spread. A recent study commissioned by the World Health Organisation showed that face masks reduce the risk of infection with viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, by 67% if a disposable surgical mask is used, and up to 95% if specialist N95 masks are worn, although these are not widely available to the public.

This study prompted the WHO to change its position to recommending community mask use. It had long advised masks should be worn only by sick people to stop them infecting others, although this was perhaps motivated in part by concerns over supplies.

Many countries, perhaps most notably the United States, initially adopted this advice but then began to encourage community-wide mask use when the epidemic began to get out of hand.

Why not in Australia?

Australia has not yet adopted community masking as a tool in the fight against COVID-19. The WHO issued a long list of dangers of mask wearing, including that masks give “a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene”.

There is no scientific evidence to support this – in fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. In an illustrative exercise, Italian researcher Massimo Marchiori found people stayed more than twice as far away from him when he wore a mask.

Not all masks are the same, however. For community use, the options are surgical masks and cloth masks. Surgical masks are single-use only and should not be re-used. If they are unavailable or too expensive, you can make an effective cloth version yourself if you follow a few key principles.

Read more: Should I wear a mask on public transport?

Cloth masks can vary widely depending on the material and design – a single or even double-layered mask or bandanna is likely not protective at all.

A cloth mask should have at least three or four layers, including a water-resistant outer layer, a fine weave and high thread count, and should be washed and worn fresh each day. It should fit snugly around your face, or air will flow through the gaps on the sides. A nylon stocking over the top can help.

Research shows a 12-layered cloth mask can be as good as a surgical mask, although you may not have the time or inclination to make a homemade version with 12 layers.

Modelling shows that even a modestly effective mask that delivers just a 20% reduction in viral transmission can successfully flatten the COVID-19 curve. Masks have a double benefit, stopping infected people spreading the virus and protecting uninfected people from catching it.

Given the possibility this coronavirus can also be spread by people without symptoms or even people who have already left the room, handwashing and physical distancing may not be enough. We need every tool at our disposal, and that includes masks.

Read more: Is the airborne route a major source of coronavirus transmission?

Masks can be worn in public or indoors. Surgical masks worn at home can prevent the spread of the coronavirus to family members, which may be worth considering if you live with a health worker or someone else at high risk.

As Melbourne and Australia struggle to regain control of COVID-19, positive promotion of face masks, and simple how-to guides for making, as well as wearing and removing them could be a powerful addition to our armoury. A clear, consistent public health directive in relation to masks is needed now to help avoid longer lockdowns and more draconian measures, and enable safer community activities.

– ref. Victorians, and anyone else at risk, should now be wearing face masks. Here’s how to make one – https://theconversation.com/victorians-and-anyone-else-at-risk-should-now-be-wearing-face-masks-heres-how-to-make-one-141980

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

As the world continues to grapple with the coronavirus pandemic, one question that keeps coming up is whether COVID-19 can be transmitted through the air.

In fact, 239 scientists in 32 countries have written an open letter to the World Health Organisation (WHO) arguing there is mounting evidence the airborne route plays a role in the transmission of COVID-19.

Like a lot of issues to do with the pandemic, what seems to be a relatively straightforward question is deceptively complex. We actually don’t know the answer for sure.

Why do we need to understand the modes of transmission?

Understanding how COVID-19 is transmitted from one person to the next enables us to design effective public health interventions to minimise the risk of transmission.

For instance, we’re advised to keep 1.5 metres away from others because there’s consensus one of the main ways the virus spreads is via large droplets.

These “large” droplets are usually greater than 5 micrometres in size and are propelled from an infected person’s nose or mouth in their mucus and saliva when they sneeze, cough or talk.

Thanks to gravity, these large droplets don’t generally travel far before landing. If you position yourself more than 1.5 metres from someone who is infected, the expectation is you’ll be clear of the droplets’ path.

Read more: Can coronavirus spread 4 metres?

Similarly, understanding these large droplets can land on surfaces and that the virus can survive on these surfaces means we know we need to wash our hands to avoid transferring the virus to our mouth, nose or eyes.

Until now, the WHO has maintained these large droplets are the major source of COVID-19 transmission. But the authors of the open letter suggest they are underplaying the role of airborne transmission.

Airborne transmission and COVID-19

In its simplest interpretation, airborne transmission refers to the ability of a virus to be spread by droplets small enough to be suspended in the air. These droplets are less than 5 micrometres in size and generally called aerosols.

Whereas large droplets can only travel short distances, these smaller droplets, in theory, can be spread further, or can linger in a room even after an infected person has left.

Evidence supporting the notion that transmission of COVID-19 can occur via the airborne route takes several forms.

First, laboratory studies have demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, can be aerosolised, and can survive for up to four hours in this form.

Second, genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in aerosols sampled at hospitals, including two hospitals in Wuhan, the Chinese city from which the pandemic emerged. But it’s important to note the presence of this genetic material doesn’t necessarily mean the virus is infectious in this form.

Read more: In many countries the coronavirus pandemic is accelerating, not slowing

Perhaps the strongest evidence, however, comes through the various case reports of superspreading events. These are situations in which many people appear to have been infected with coronavirus in the absence of close contact.

One notable early example was from a choir practice in the United States where almost 50 people were infected even though they maintained physical distance. Two died.

Another example is an outbreak in Guangzhou, China, where ten people from three families contracted COVID-19 after dining in a restaurant. Non-infected people were not in close contact with any infected person, but those who became infected were in the direct line of one air conditioning unit.

The study of this outbreak is not yet peer-reviewed but is part of the evidence the authors of the open letter draw on.

What are the implications of airborne transmission?

Airborne transmission of this novel coronavirus is potentially a worry, because if it occurs often, it means the virus may be commonly transmitted in the absence of close contact.

It also raises the possibility the virus may travel on air currents, and even be transmitted through air conditioning.

This means social distancing may not always be effective, and in particular, crowded indoor areas with poor ventilation pose a major threat.

So where does this leave us?

The key question is not whether airborne transmission is theoretically possible; it certainly is. But rather, how significant is its role in the transmission of COVID-19?

If, for example, most transmission of SARS-CoV-2 happens via large droplets and the airborne route plays a role only occasionally, this has very different implications to a scenario where the airborne route is a significant mode of transmission.

Reassuringly, the interventions that have been implemented to limit spread of the virus, such as social distancing, have been largely successful so far in most of Australia. This suggests even if the virus can be spread by the airborne route, it’s not likely to be a major route of transmission.

Given what we know, the dilemma is whether to employ the precautionary principle and assume the airborne route plays an important role in disease transmission — and adjust infection control measures accordingly. This may take the form of encouraging wider use of masks and looking at increasing ventilation in enclosed spaces.

The other approach is to wait for more definitive evidence before changing the public health advice.

We will await with interest the WHO’s response to the open letter.

Read more: Heading back to the office? Here’s how to protect yourself and your colleagues from coronavirus

– ref. Is the airborne route a major source of coronavirus transmission? – https://theconversation.com/is-the-airborne-route-a-major-source-of-coronavirus-transmission-141198

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

The Victorian government will lock down all metropolitan Melbourne for six weeks from Wednesday night, as a new wave of the coronavirus takes hold in the city.

The lockdown will also cover the Mitchell Shire, north of Melbourne, which includes the towns of Broadford, Seymour, Kilmore, Tallarook, Pyalong and Wallan.

Under the restrictions, people will only be able to leave their home to shop for essential goods and services, for care and compassionate reasons, exercise, and for work and study if it cannot be conducted from home.

The dramatic action comes as the Victoria-NSW border closes on Tuesday night, amid some chaos in Albury-Wodonga, and follows the lockdown of suburbs in 12 Melbourne postcode areas, and the “lock in” of 3,000 residents in nine community housing towers.

Read more: Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire return to lockdown: this is just how vigilant we have to be until a COVID-19 vaccine is found

Regional Victoria, which is not so far hit by the virus, has been saved from the latest restrictions.

On the key issue of schools, students in years 11 and 12 at government schools will return next week, after the holidays, and so will students in year 10 who are taking VCE subjects (for that component of their learning).

Specialist schools will also reopen next week for normal face-to-face programs. There will be supervised school holiday activity provided for the children of parents in essential jobs.

For other students, the school holidays will be extended by a week.

The government will announce more decisions on schooling by early next week. Talks are being held with Catholic and independent schools to reach consistent arrangements.

Victorian health authorities have been surprised by the number of school children who have been detected with the virus.

The Victorian restrictions will be a major blow to the re-opening of the national economy, and will have to be factored into the federal government’s July 23 economic statement on the road ahead. The new hit to the Victorian economy may mean more patchwork arrangements in federal government assistance.

Premier Daniel Andrews told a news conference he had just spoken to Scott Morrison and “I am confident that the Prime Minister knows and understands that there will be different forms of hardship in different parts of the country, different industries, different sectors”.

Announcing the lockdown, Andrews warned: “There is simply no alternative other than thousands and thousands of cases and potentially more, many, many people in hospital and the inevitable tragedy that will come from that”.

He said the restrictions went no further than last time but “we’re in a more precarious, challenging and potentially tragic position now than we were some months ago.”

Read more: Coronavirus spike: why getting people to follow restrictions is harder the second time around

Andrew said he’d asked Morrison for another 260 members of the Australian Defence Force to help on the ground. They will support the police patrolling the perimeter of the metropolitan area where there will be spot checks of cars.

The premier said there now 772 active cases across the state. This included 69 cases linked to the towers.

He said the numbers were “unsustainably high” – it was impossible to have enough contact-tracing staff and other resources to continue to suppress the virus without more measures.

“We have to be realistic,” he said.

He said “I think a sense of complacency has crept into us as we let our frustrations get the better of us”.

He warned Melbournians they must stay in their main home, and not relocate to holiday homes. When people left their home for exercise they should not think of driving to regional Victoria for a bushwalk.

– ref. Six-week lockdown for Melbourne as 191 new cases in latest tally – https://theconversation.com/six-week-lockdown-for-melbourne-as-191-new-cases-in-latest-tally-142171

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip Russo, Associate Professor, Director Cabrini Monash University Department of Nursing Research, Monash University

Metropolitan Melbourne and the shire of Mitchell will returned to Stage 3 stay-at-home restrictions as of midnight Wednesday, Premier Daniel Andrews has announced, after 191 new cases were recorded in the state overnight – its highest ever daily case total.

The lockdown means for the next six weeks, people in metropolitan Melbourne and the shire of Mitchell will only be able to leave home for one of four reasons:

• food shopping
• caregiving
• exercise, and
• to study or work (if you can’t do it at home).

Andrews said people cannot leave metropolitan Melbourne to get daily exercise (so, no bushwalks or fishing outside the city) and people must stay at their principal place of residence. That means no escaping to a holiday home.

School holidays will be extended for many students, although some — including students in year 11 and 12 or specialist schools — will return to school when the holidays end, he said. Children of essential workers will be able to attend supervised holiday programs.

At least nine Melbourne housing blocks are now in day four of a hard lockdown, under which they are not allowed to leave for any reason.

Today’s announcement comes as NSW Police and Australian Defence Force personnel gather to enforce the NSW-Victorian border closure announced earlier this week. Police have warned of “dire consequences” — including jail time or hefty fines — for those who those who try to cross without an exemption permit.

A return to citywide lockdown is unsettling, but the good news is we know restrictions work when we adhere to the recommendations.

We can bring COVID-19 case numbers down, as long as we follow the golden rules: meticulous hand washing, maintaining physical distancing, staying home when unwell and getting tested if you have any COVID-19 symptoms.

From a public health point of view, a return to lockdown for the whole of metropolitan Melbourne is the logical thing to do right now. It’s time to accept that moving in and out of various levels of restriction may just be a part of life as we know it in 2020, and likely 2021.

Read more: Here’s how the Victoria-NSW border closure will work – and how residents might be affected

Life as normal doesn’t exist for 2020

For many Victorians, this will feel frustratingly like a reset; back to square one. For the rest of Australia, it’s disquieting news — a reminder this situation could occur at any time in any other state or territory. None of us can be complacent.

It’s hard, but this is just how vigilant we have to be until a vaccine is found. We’re all keen to go back to “life as normal” but the reality is, life as normal doesn’t exist for 2020.

Restrictions will have to be scaled up and down as needed in response to local outbreaks. It’s not just a matter of doing lockdown once and then going back to “normal” after the numbers come back down.

We have to accept the fact that this is an abnormal year, and the lives we had planned for ourselves as of January 1 aren’t going to pan out like we’d hoped.

We know people are getting weary of this; we are too. To go back to step one is a dent in the armour and authorities will need to think carefully about how to manage frustration. But we all need to prepared to be agile and flexible in how we respond to case numbers.

Read more: It’s time to admit our COVID-19 ‘exit strategy’ might just look like a more flexible version of lockdown

Hard lessons learned

Severe lessons have been learned along the way, chiefly the reported breaches in infection control guidelines at the quarantine hotels. It shows that even if 99% of the system is working, a breakdown in one aspect of infection control is enough to cause a resurgence.

In a way, the high number of cases being detected is a sign that the detection and contact tracing system is working. That’s reassuring.

But flareups have been a feature of this pandemic all along. What’s important is how they’re managed, and a return to restrictions is a necessary evil.

And, as always, the key messages are about getting tested if unwell, washing hands properly, following the stay at home recommendations, not mixing with others and understanding that physical distancing is still our best defence.

Masks on their own are not enough to keep you safe, but people who live in lockdown “hot spot” suburbs in Victoria should probably consider wearing them in places where physical distancing can’t be maintained in those areas, such as supermarkets.

But for the rest of Australia outside those hotspots, public wearing of masks is not yet recommended.

The bottom line is we all have a role to play when it comes to stemming the spread of COVID-19 and reducing the chance we will need another lockdown in future.

Clearly, that hasn’t always happened in Victoria and we are now seeing the consequences.

Read more: Coronavirus spike: why getting people to follow restrictions is harder the second time around

– ref. Metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire return to lockdown: this is just how vigilant we have to be until a COVID-19 vaccine is found – https://theconversation.com/metropolitan-melbourne-and-mitchell-shire-return-to-lockdown-this-is-just-how-vigilant-we-have-to-be-until-a-covid-19-vaccine-is-found-142165

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Borland, Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne

When a recession hits, no group of workers is immune. But some are harder hit than others. The latest labour market figures are giving us a good idea of who is being hardest hit this time.

So far, this COVID-19 recession is hitting hardest workers with lower earnings. In fact, workers in occupations in the lowest 30% of weekly earnings account for 60% of the decrease in hours worked from February to May.

The link between a worker’s earnings and how they are being affected can be seen in the chart below. It shows changes in hours worked when workers are split into ten groups based on the average weekly earnings of their occupation.

It shows that whereas workers in the bottom tenth of earnings had total hours cut by 27%, workers in the top tenth had them cut by only 5%.

What is driving the changes is well understood. Government-mandated business closures and COVID-19 induced changes to consumer spending have cut the demand for labour, and the cuts has been concentrated in a small set of industries.

Young victims, low-paid victims

Compared to a year ago, employment in the accommodation and food services, arts and recreation services and retail trade industries has fallen by about 430,000 – accounting for two-thirds of all the jobs lost.

It follows that workers who were employed in those three industries have been hit the hardest. Many of them are low-paid, but what is also notable is that they are disproportionately young (aged 15 to 24 years) and female.

Young people account for one in two of the jobs lost in in accommodation and food services, arts and recreation services and retail trade.

This means the impact on young people in those three industries explains one third of the total decline in employment.

And female victims

In previous recessions the jobs that have been lost have been overwhelmingly male, many of them taken from the male strongholds of manufacturing and construction.

This chart tracks the job losses for men and women in what until now has been the typical recession. It’s the average of job losses in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s recessions.

On average the proportion of women in work hasn’t fallen by much and has bounced back quickly. By contract, the proportion of men in work has collapsed and recovered only slowly.

Not this time. Because women are over-represented in the hardest hit industries, they have been harder hit than men.

Read more: Which jobs are most at risk from the coronavirus shutdown? 

While total monthly hours worked by men fell by 7.7% between March and May, total monthly hours worked by women fell 12%.

Understanding where the recession is hitting has important implications, all the more so if renewed lockdowns make it last longer.

While many of the businesses that are closing will eventually reopen, not all of the lost jobs will be restored.

Read more: The next employment challenge from coronavirus: how to help the young

This means support needs to be directed to the victims of this new different type of recession, rather than the victims of typical ones.

Bringing out the old playbook, supporting the industries that are usually hurt, won’t be good enough.

– ref. Low-paid, young women: the grim truth about who this recession is hitting hardest – https://theconversation.com/low-paid-young-women-the-grim-truth-about-who-this-recession-is-hitting-hardest-141892

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Wilcox, Lecturer in Music and Sound Design, University of Technology Sydney

Prolific composer Ennio Morricone has died in Rome at the age of 91.

From his origins in Italian radio, Morricone became renowned internationally as a groundbreaking film composer. Composing over 500 film scores, he received five Academy Award nominations before being conferred an Honorary Academy Award in 2007 for his “contributions to the art of film music”.

In 2016, he finally won the Oscar for Best Original Score for Quentin Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight.

Pursuit of craft

Morricone was born in Rome in 1928 to Libera Ridolfi and Mario Morricone, a professional trumpeter.

During the American occupation of Rome in World War II, Ennio joined his father playing trumpet in variety and dance revue bands. He would later say his father’s “influence on me was fundamental”.

Morricone quickly realised his passion for composition. He studied under Italian composer Goffredo Petrassi (1904–2003), who instilled in Morricone an abiding “pursuit of a craft and creative morality”.

In 1952, Radio Audizioni Italiane hired Morricone as an arranger – bringing his own interpretation to compositions. In 1960, he started the unconventional experimentation which would define his career, taking inspirations from musique concrète (non-instrumental recordings) and using the sound of a can rolling along the street and mixing it into a percussion rhythm in an arrangement of Gianni Meccia’s Il Barattolo (The Can).

Citing the influence of avant-garde composer John Cage, Morricone wrote:

I am known for incorporating real-world sounds into my music, but it is always a natural inclusion that I use when it works easily and plays a role in connecting to people.

Space for composition

Among Morricone’s most loved cinema scores are those he composed over two decades for the Italian director Sergio Leone.

Leone and Morricone met as schoolboys, and began collaborating in 1964 with A Fistful of Dollars.

Leone, described Morricone, “wanted more from the musical score than other directors and he gave it more space.”

Their so-called “Spaghetti Westerns” left a lasting legacy on film music: the coyote calls, whistling, and twanging electric guitar of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966); the searing melody in the Man with a Harmonica theme from Once Upon a Time in the West (1968); the elegant Deborah’s Theme from Once Upon a Time in America (1984), somewhere between aria and hymn.

His signature folk instrumentations (as evident in Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Tragedy of a Ridiculous Man in 1981) and lyrical melodies (heard in 1972’s For Love One Can Die) have their roots in opera and traditional Italian music. While the doors to Hollywood opened for Morricone, he always remained an Italian composer.

Morricone’s Oscar-winning score for The Hateful Eight was, in part, originally composed for John Carpenter’s sci-fi classic The Thing (1982). Carpenter rejected Morricone’s orchestral score, which would later became the basis of his score for Tarantino.

The soundtrack shifts between epic orchestral textures and unsettling discords, reminiscent of Giallo, a cinematic genre of horror, drama, mystery and thrillers derived from 1930-40s Italian crime novels.

Read more: Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight: review and cast interview

The Giallo score aesthetic is also present in Morricone’s music for John Boorman’s Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977), in particular the famous Regan’s theme which shows his unusual use of strong vocal melodies in his underscore.

Vocals are also used to striking effect in many other films, notably, Once Upon a Time in the West, My Name is Nobody (1973), and The Mission (1986).

“Perhaps more than any other music, [The Mission] score represents me spiritually and technically,” said Morricone. In the film, he applied all his skills as an orchestrator: layering traditional music of the Guarani Indigenous people, medieval motet and Jesuit choral music.

It was nominated for an Oscar in 1987. Although considered the favourite, Morricone lost to Herbie Hancock and his score for ‘Round Midnight.

Beyond the screen

From 1964 to 1980, Morricone was a member of the Gruppo di Improvvisazione Nuova Consonanza, an improvisational music collective influenced by contemporary popular music and avant-garde composers such as Cage, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez and La Monte Young.

The collective’s music would spill over into Morricone’s soundtracks: their album The Private Sea of Dreams (1967) became score for A Quiet Place in the Country (1968); the funk-inflected jam of The Feed-Back (1970) was used in the thriller Cold Eyes of Fear (1971).

Morricone also composed some 100 works for the concert hall.

Voci dal silenzio (Voices from the Silence) was composed in 2002 in response to the events of 9/11 in New York City. It premiered in 2007 at the United Nations General Assembly Hall to celebrate Ban Ki-Moon’s appointment as the UN’s General Secretary.

Missa Papae Francisci (Mass for Pope Francis) was commissioned to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the restoration of the Jesuit Order in 2014. Morricone’s Mass connected all of the threads of his output across his hundreds of compositions: “all the history of church music I studied at the Conservatorio, the soundtrack from The Mission and my own recognisable blending of sounds came together in this piece”, he said.

Tireless passion

His tireless passion and work ethic led to an extraordinary musical output across a long career. His musical range spanned popular music, free improvisation, haunting soundscapes for cinema and serious music for the concert hall.

With his wife Maria and his four children by his side, Morricone led a rich and fulfilling life in his beloved Italy. Of his music, he humbly wrote: “I would like to think that I have my own thread in the history of music, some sort of acceptance”.

Not only do we accept you Maestro, we salute you!

– ref. Vale Ennio Morricone: a master composer with breathtaking musical range – https://theconversation.com/vale-ennio-morricone-a-master-composer-with-breathtaking-musical-range-142082

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sue McIntyre, Honorary Professor, Australian National University

Last week we learned woody vegetation in New South Wales is being cleared at more than double the rate of the previous decade – and agriculture was responsible for more than half the destruction.

Farming now covers 58% of Australia, or 385 million hectares, and accounts for 59% of water extracted.

It’s painfully clear nature is buckling under the weight of farming’s demands. In the past decade, the federal government has listed ten ecological communities as endangered, or critically endangered, as a result of farming development and practices.

So how can we accommodate the needs of both farming and nature? Research shows us how – but it means accepting land as a finite resource, and operating within its limits. In doing so, farmers will also reap benefits.

Healthy grazing landscapes

In the 1990s, I worked as a research ecologist in the cattle country of sub-tropical Queensland. The prevailing culture valued agricultural development over conservation. Yet many of these producers lived on viable farms that supported a wealth of native plants and animals.

They made a living from the native grassy eucalypt woodlands, an ecosystem that extends from Cape York to Tasmania. In these healthy landscapes, vigorous pastures of tall perennial grasses protected the soil, enriched it with carbon and fed the cattle.

Read more: IPCC’s land report shows the problem with farming based around oil, not soil

NSW and Victoria have similar eucalypt grassy vegetation, but farming here has taken a very different path.

Fertilised legumes and grasses grown for livestock fodder have replaced hundreds of native grassland plants. Over time, native trees and shrubs stopped regenerating and remaining trees became unhealthy, destroying wildlife habitat. The transformation was hastened by aerial applications of fertiliser and herbicide.

By 2006, 4.5 million hectares of box-gum grassy woodland – or 90% – in temperate Australia had been destroyed.

A template for sustainability

Back in Queensland in the 1990s, my colleagues and I devised a template for sustainable land use. Funded by the livestock industry and a now-defunct federal corporation, we worked with producers and government agencies to find the right balance between farm production and conserving natural resources.

Our research concluded that for farming to be sustainable, intensive land uses must be limited. Such intensive uses include crops and non-native pastures. They are “high input”, typically requiring fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides, and some form of cultivation. They return greater yields but kill native plants, and are prone to soil and nutrient runoff into waterways.

But our template was not adopted as conventional farming practice. In the past 20 years, Australia’s cropping area has increased by 18,200 square kilometres.

Regenerating the land

Hearteningly, our research was recently revived in a multidisciplinary study of regenerative grazing on the grassy woodlands of NSW. The template was used to assess the ecological condition of participating farms.

The study examined differences in profitability between graziers who had adopted regenerative techniques such as low-input pasture management, and all other sheep, sheep-beef and mixed cropping-grazing farmers in their region.

Read more: Three ways farms of the future can feed the planet and heal it too

It found regenerative grazing was often more profitable than other types of farming, especially in dry years. Regenerative farmers also experienced significantly higher than average well-being compared with other NSW farmers.

So what does our template involve? First, it identifies four types of land use relevant to farmed grassy woodland regions.

Second, it specifies the proportion of land that should be allocated to each use, in order to achieve landscape health (see pie chart below). The proportions can be applied to single farm, or entire districts or regions.

Intensive land use involves activities that replace nearly all native species. If these activities occupy more than 30% of the landscape, there’s insufficient habitat to maintain many native species, especially plants.

At least 10% of land must be devoted to nature conservation. The remaining 60% of the land should involve low-intensity activity such as grazed native pasture and timber production. If managed well, these land uses can support human livelihoods and a diversity of native species.

Within that split of land use, total native woodland should be no less than 30%. This guarantees connected habitats for native plants and animals, enabling movement and breeding opportunities.

Respect the land’s limits

Australians ask a lot of our land. It must make space for our houses, businesses, and roads. It should support all species to prevent extinctions. And it must produce our food and fibre.

Global population growth demands a rapid rise in food production. But relying on intensive agriculture to achieve this is unsustainable. Aside from damaging the land, it increases greenhouse gas emissions though mechanisation, fertilisation, chemical use and tree clearing.

Read more: Australian farmers are adapting to climate change

To meet the challenges of the future we must ensure farmed landscapes retain their ecological functions. In particular, maintaining biodiversity is key to climate adaptation. And as many of Australia’s plants and animals march towards extinction, the need to reverse biodiversity loss has never been greater.

Farmers can be profitable while maintaining and improving the ecological health of their land. It’s time to look harder at farming models that respect the limits of nature, and recognise that less can be more.

– ref. Intensive farming is eating up the Australian continent – but there’s another way – https://theconversation.com/intensive-farming-is-eating-up-the-australian-continent-but-theres-another-way-130877

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chongyi Feng, Associate Professor in China Studies, University of Technology Sydney

Chinese law professor Xu Zhangrun, who completed his PhD at the University of Melbourne, has become the latest high-profile critic of President Xi Jinping to be silenced for his views. It’s a clear sign the Communist Party leadership has decided to completely shut down any political criticism, even from academics.

Xu was detained in Beijing this week on spurious charges, more than a year after being suspended by Tsinghua University in Beijing and placed under “investigation” by the Chinese security apparatus.

According to witnesses, more than a dozen police officers, from both Beijing and the southwestern city of Chengdu, came in several cars to take Xu away from his residence in the suburbs of Beijing.

Read more: How vulnerable is Xi Jinping over coronavirus? In today’s China, there are few to hold him to account

Xu’s wife should have received a certificate for retention, but for some reason the certificate has not been released to the public. According to a friend of Xu’s, the police told his wife he was detained for visiting prostitutes in Chengdu.

These kinds of ridiculous allegations against political dissidents are not uncommon in China. Whatever the excuse the Chinese authorities come up with to punish Xu, everyone knows he is in trouble because of his academic and political writings.

Xu’s detention clearly demonstrates the focus of Xi’s crackdown against dissent has expanded from activists to scholars. But it also reveals Xi’s profound sense of insecurity in the face of criticism from those within the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese thinking public, civil society and foreign governments.

Who is Xu Zhangrun?

Xu was born in 1962 in a rural town in Anhui province, one of China’s poorest regions. He earned his Master’s degree in law in China and completed his PhD at the University of Melbourne. His PhD thesis, an exploration of the relationship between Chinese Confucian tradition and the law, was later published as a book.

Xu specialises in legal philosophy and constitutional theories, and has published several books in these areas. He had been a professor for more than 20 years at the prestigious Tsinghua University, which had been attended by Xi and other Communist Party leaders.

Xu is, however, best known for a series of major essays published since 2016, which provide an overview of Chinese modern history and the disasters caused by the Chinese Communist Party.

The most noteworthy of these essays include Imminent Fears, Immediate Hopes published in July 2018; Viral Alarm: When Fury Overcomes Fear, published in February 2020; and his final essay, China as a Lone Ship on the Vast Ocean of World Civilisation, published in May.

Read more: Why the coronavirus has become a major test for the leadership of Xi Jinping and the Communist Party

What has he written about Xi Jinping?

In these works, Xu makes scathing criticisms of Xi, the “people’s leader” in charge of the party, state and army, with lifetime tenure. He denounces Xi for turning to totalitarian rule since his rise to the top in 2012, blaming him for the political, economic and cultural regression of China.

He dissects the sheer folly, as well as the dangers, resulting from Xi’s restoration of a Mao-style, strongman autocracy in China.

As he writes in Imminent Fears,

It is feared that in one fell swoop China will be cast back to the terrifying days of Mao. Along with this constitutional revision [in March 2018 to abandon the term limits on the presidency] there is also a clamour surrounding the creation of new personality cult, something that in particular has provoked the Imminent Fears.

Xu also condemns Xi’s deplorable responses to the COVID-19 outbreak, including the initial cover-up at the start of the pandemic in Wuhan and the suppression of freedom of speech among those trying to sound alarms about the severity of the outbreak.

In Viral Alarm, which has been translated into English by sinologist Geremie Barme, Xu describes these government failures in unsparing terms:

It is a system that turns every natural disaster into an even greater man-made catastrophe. The coronavirus epidemic has revealed the rotten core of Chinese governance; the fragile and vacuous heart of the jittering edifice of the state has thereby been shown up as never before.

In his essays, Xu makes biting observations that are couched in an erudite and elegant style of prose, one that is both powerfully engaging and glories in its own literary brilliance.

Here’s another excerpt from Viral Alarm:

The bureaucratic and governance system of China that is now fully on display is one that values the mediocre, the dilatory, and the timid. The mess they have made in Hubei Province, and the grotesque posturing of the incompetents involved [in dealing with the coronavirus] have highlighted a universal problem. A similar political malaise infects every province and the rot goes right up to Beijing.

Why Xu was right to be worried

Xu’s is a global vision; it embraces the unfolding story of modern Chinese history covering a span of nearly two centuries.

In his essays, he reaffirms the vital value of democracy and constitutionalism and examines both the successes and limitations of the “reform and openness” policies of the past 40 years.

He also evaluates China’s current state and advocates for the country to pursue the path of ongoing transformation toward constitutional democracy.

Xu’s essays have been banned in China since 2018, but have circulated widely over the internet through private channels. They have led to heated discussions in China and received extensive international attention.

He knew he was in great danger by making these criticisms. Xi is known to have a particularly pusillanimous nature, and is always alert to slights and prepared to mete out punishment. He regards all outspoken criticism to be like a dagger aimed at his heart.

In Xu’s final essay, China as a Lone Ship, he called for a change in leadership – one which now seems virtually impossible.

Enough, the mouldy campaigns of deification and personality cult; enough, the monstrous lies and endless sufferings; enough the blood-sucking red dynasty and greedy party-state; enough, the absurd policies and practices in trying to put the clock back [to a more Mao-style leadership] over the past seven years; enough, the mountains of bodies and seas of blood resulting from the red tyranny over the past 70 years.

Read more: Yang Hengjun case a pivotal moment in increasingly tense Australia-China relationship

– ref. ‘The rot goes right up to Beijing’: Why detained professor Xu Zhangrun is such a threat to China’s leadership – https://theconversation.com/the-rot-goes-right-up-to-beijing-why-detained-professor-xu-zhangrun-is-such-a-threat-to-chinas-leadership-142074

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Campbell, Senior research fellow and ARC Future Fellow, Monash University

Lithium is used in everything from medication to mobile phone batteries, but where does it come from? We know it is mined here on Earth, but where it is created in the universe is less well understood.

We studied hundreds of thousands of stars like our own Sun and found they produce huge amounts of lithium late in their lives. This discovery, published today in Nature Astronomy, was not predicted by our best models of stars, indicating that some physical process must be missing from stellar theory.

A fragile element

Lithium is a special element – it was the only metal produced in the Big Bang that created the universe 13.7 billion years ago. While other elements have been produced in copious amounts by stars since then, the amount of lithium has increased relatively little.

The source of even this small amount of lithium is still a matter of scientific debate. About half is thought to come from high-energy cosmic rays hitting heavier elements like carbon and oxygen in interstellar space and breaking them up into lighter atoms.

Astronomers regard lithium as fragile, easily destroyed in the hot interiors of stars. By analysing starlight astronomers can determine how much of the various elements, including lithium, they contain. Observations of lithium on the surface of stars has confirmed that it is gradually destroyed as stars get older.

Read more: They might be giants: a mind-blowing sense of stellar scale

The enigmatic lithium-rich giant stars

However, there is one group of stars that is a notable exception to this rule of lithium destruction: the so-called “lithium-rich giants”. These stars, first discovered about 40 years ago, contain up to 1,000 times as much lithium as other giant stars.

Although not very common – only 1% of giant stars are very lithium-rich – just how they create their lithium remains a mystery.

One of the main problems astronomers have faced in identifying a way these stars could produce so much lithium was our lack of knowledge about exactly what type of red giant stars they were.

All Sun-like stars eventually become red giant stars when the have burned through all the hydrogen in their cores, becoming brighter and more red in colour. They expand their size by hundreds of times, often engulfing the planets orbiting them. (Don’t worry – the Sun won’t do this for another 5 billion years.)

When stars become giants they progress through three different giant phases (which all look quite similar in colour and brightness), so it is crucial to understand what phase lithium-rich stars are in when they produce lithium.

Of the many theories, one has now come to the fore. About ten years ago our group recognised that the lithium-rich giants were likely in the second giant phase (also known as the red clump stage). These giants burn helium in their cores for about 100 million years.

This theory was later confirmed by studying the oscillations of these stars to determine their exact point in their life cycles.

We now know for sure that the vast majority of very lithium-rich giants are red clump stars.

Investigating the red clump giants

In our new study, we used an Australian survey of one million stars called Galah and a European space telescope survey called Gaia to investigate the lithium-rich giants.

Our 200,000-strong sample of Sun-like stars (with mass and metallicity similar to the Sun) confirmed that lithium-rich stars are in the red clump phase.

We also detected the expected destruction of lithium in the “red giant branch” phase, which comes just before the red clump.

Sun-like stars become lithium factories later in life

But something strange stood out – other stars in the red clump, although not extremely lithium-rich, contained much more lithium than stars in the late stage of the red giant branch. As the red clump phase comes directly after the red giant branch phase, we concluded the stars must be producing lithium when moving from one phase to the next.

Importantly, it appeared that all of the red clump stars contained more lithium than those in the red giant branch phase. This implies the Sun itself will manufacture lithium in the future, as our study focused on Sun-like stars.

In effect, by studying only the extremely lithium-rich stars, representing just 1% of giants, astronomers had been focusing on just the tip of the “lithium iceberg”. It now appears all red clump stars have been enriched with lithium, and the extremely lithium-rich stars are only the tail end of the distribution.

In our paper we show that, on average, the stars increase their lithium content by a factor of 40. The amount of lithium produced in just one of these stars would be enough to make electric car batteries for 20,000 trillion cars.

Not predicted by theory

How this lithium enrichment comes about is unknown. It is not predicted by our best models of stars. Clearly there is some physical process missing in stellar theory.

What we can say with our data is how often it occurs – it appears to happen to all Sun-like stars. We can also say when it occurs – some time between the end of the red giant branch phase and the beginning of the red clump phase.

For our next study we will attempt to constrain the timing of the lithium-production phase more precisely. This information will help stellar theorists, including those in our group, to determine what physical process is behind the lithium production.

Finally, since at least some of the newly created lithium will end up being blown off the star in stellar winds, it will also help us understand how much these stars enrich our galaxy with lithium, and, ultimately, planets like Earth.

– ref. Revealed: the Sun’s secret plan to become a lithium factory – https://theconversation.com/revealed-the-suns-secret-plan-to-become-a-lithium-factory-141976

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janak Rogers, Associate Lecturer, Broadcast Journalism, RMIT University

The case for a more diverse and representative media should be clear by now – it’s been made time and time again.

But it’s instructive to take stock every now and then. Over the last month alone, we’ve seen a number of clear examples of why greater diversity in media matters:

At the heart of the issue – and why it remains recurrent – is an unresolved contradiction: Australia is a multicultural society, but our media tells a very different story.

Australian diversity not represented in media

One in four of Australia’s 25 million people were born overseas, 46% have at least one parent who was born overseas and nearly 20% speak a language other than English at home.

Yet, in 2016, PriceWaterhouseCoopers released a now much-cited report that found 82.7% of the Australia’s media workers are monolingual and speak only English at home. Broadcast radio was even more homogeneous, with on-air talent being 75% male, white and over 35.

Because of the prevalence of media workers living in Sydney’s inner suburbs, PwC, an organisation not known for hyperbole (or, indeed, pop culture references), even compared them to those millennial stoners, the Bondi Hipsters.

The report concluded that a lack of diversity – in ethnicity, gender and age – is slowing the media industry’s growth.

Read more: The problem with Apu: why we need better portrayals of people of colour on television

Views on race have a long history

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised: it’s not that long ago that Australia was an openly racist country. The last vestiges of the White Australia policy remained in place until the 1970s.

For many Australians, the memory of a largely white, monocultural country (which necessarily excludes Indigenous experience) forms part of the nostalgic fabric of their childhoods.

It’s arguably only natural – even understandable – those ideas and structures would manifest in our media, both in the make-up of the workforce and in the ways otherness is depicted.

In the book Racism, Ethnicity and the Media, published by UTS academics in 1994 but clearly still relevant today, the authors write:

From the perennial all-white suburban streets of Neighbours, to the marginalised and threatening images of urban Aborigines, to the eroticised representation of ‘foreign women’, the media ‘work’ on reality, constructing narratives which play a vital role in how we see ourselves and others.

In short, Australia’s racism is wired in.

Diversity at ABC, by the numbers

These days, Australian media organisations are beginning to take the challenge of diversity and representation seriously – some more than others.

The ABC and SBS publish regular diversity reports, and arguably, the very existence of these reports shows some progress is being made.

In the ABC’s Diversity and Inclusion Plan 2019-2022, Managing Director David Anderson writes,

If we want our content to authentically reflect and appeal to all Australians, we need to ensure our people – both on-air and behind the scenes – are as diverse as the Australian community we serve.

The report highlights a range of initiatives at the ABC – including targeted hiring, working groups, mentoring and better auditing – that demonstrate its commitment to diversity.

It’s a cheery-looking document with, apparently, as many photos of the ABC’s diverse stars as could fit into 31 pages. (An unfortunate side-effect of concentrating so much diversity in one place is it inadvertently highlights how white the ABC normally is. It just doesn’t look like the ABC.)

Still, it’s good to have some stated values and accompanying statistics. In 2019, the report shows 2.7% of the ABC’s employees were Indigenous, 13.7% were from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds and 5.3% had disabilities. Among CALD employees, 9.8% were in executive roles and 9.2% were in content-maker roles.

Read more: Friday essay: diversity in the media is vital – but Australia has a long way to go

Are things then improving? In 2018, the ABC reported it had 13.5% employees from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB, as they were called back then – a 0.2% improvement this year); 2.8% Indigenous employees (0.1% worse off this year), 8.7% NESB employees in executive roles (a 1.1% improvement this year) and 9.4% NESB employees in content-maker roles (a 0.2% slide this year).

The recent $84 million in cuts to the ABC, which resulted in 250 job losses and the gutting of ABC Life, an outlet that housed many CALD journalists and celebrated their stories, is a further setback in the wider push for greater diversity.

So, on balance, some things have improved a little, some are a little worse, but basically not much has changed. (And more cuts may be on the way.)

But it’s unfair to single out the ABC; they are at least making an effort. Commercial networks seem to simply ignore the problem – or, often, compound it by fear mongering, peddling stereotypes and targeting prominent CALD voices.

Ways to bring more diversity to newsrooms

Diversity and inclusion are long-standing challenges in Australia, and there is admittedly no quick fix. It requires sustained, multi-pronged initiatives that provide practical pathways for diverse journalists and storytellers to get into the industry and, once in, to get ahead.

These are some steps media organisations can take, though, to start to change their cultures:

• provide media training for CALD journalists, storytellers and communities to enable them greater ownership and agency to tell their own stories, and greater employment opportunities in the industry

• establish better networks between the media industry and CALD representative bodies to better represent CALD experience and to facilitate opportunities for emerging CALD journalists

• expand support for emerging CALD student journalists with scholarships, mentorships, cadetships, internships and other opportunities to help them get a foot in the door and gain experience

• hold more events to bring CALD students together with media industry practitioners to recruit more of them into the profession and provide pathways into employment

• improve cultural literacy training programs and audits for diversity to better understand the gaps in institutional knowledge and the make-up of staff

• research best practices for amplifying CALD voices, both in Australia and overseas

• actively seek out and hire CALD journalists and storytellers

• and, perhaps most importantly, listen to culturally and linguistically diverse people on what the problems are and take seriously their ideas on how to fix them. Media executives, if you are reading this, you can start here.

– ref. Australia’s media has been too white for too long. This is how to bring more diversity to newsrooms – https://theconversation.com/australias-media-has-been-too-white-for-too-long-this-is-how-to-bring-more-diversity-to-newsrooms-141602

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne) and Director at 360Edge, Curtin University

The “hard lockdown” of nine public housing towers in Melbourne has no doubt brought an array of challenges for the thousands of residents.

For people who regularly use drugs, this period could increase the risk of drug-related harms.

Recognising this, Victorian premier Daniel Andrews yesterday announced a series of support measures, including access to “wraparound mental health and drug and alcohol support”.

While the specifics are not yet entirely clear, it appears these measures will cater to people receiving alcohol and other drug treatment, to allow them to continue with this.

It’s also important these measures recognise that people who use drugs regularly, though not receiving treatment, may also need support during this time.

Read more: Melbourne tower lockdowns unfairly target already vulnerable public housing residents

Why are these supports needed?

There’s a complex relationship between housing stress, financial and social disadvantage, and mental health problems, including alcohol and other drug issues. But there’s very little recent data on alcohol and other drug use among people living in public housing in Australia.

Around 38% of people in public housing experience significant mental health problems or other disability. Some of those will have alcohol and other drug problems.

People who are socially disadvantaged are actually less likely to use alcohol and other drugs (and more likely to be past users). But they may be at greater risk of problems associated with their use.

For example, the rate of risky alcohol and other drug use among people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness is higher than the Australian average.

Ensuring people with alcohol and other drug problems can access support has important benefits: from the individual, to improving public health, to economic returns. For every $1 spent on drug treatment we save $7 in other costs.

What are the concerns?

Most people who use alcohol or other drugs use them occasionally with few problems.

A smaller number who use regularly may become dependent. This means their body has adapted to the drug in their system and they now need it to function.

Read more: Pot, pills and the pandemic: how coronavirus is changing the way we use drugs

In lockdown, people may not have access to their usual drug supply. For people who are dependent, stopping suddenly can result in withdrawal.

As the drug leaves the system, withdrawal symptoms can range from uncomfortable to life-threatening.

How will the government’s measures help?

We know treatment is effective in helping people stop or reduce drug use. It also helps prevent relapse. So it’s important for people already in treatment to be able to continue to access support so they don’t return to problematic use.

Pharmacotherapy (like methadone and buprenorphine) prevents opioid withdrawal symptoms. It works in a similar way to nicotine patches for people trying to quit cigarettes. It also dramatically reduces the risk of death.

A range of measures were put in place in the early stages of the pandemic to ensure access to pharmacotherapy.

These include procedures to allow delivery of these treatments to people in their homes if they are in lockdown or quarantine (normally they would need to visit the pharmacy daily).

It’s important these measures continue to be available to those in the locked down social housing estates.

Read more: Drug use may increase the risk of coronavirus. Here’s how to reduce the harms

Withdrawal from drugs like opioids, benzodiazepines and alcohol can usually be managed safely at home using approved medicines under the care of experienced doctors and nurses.

The government has announced the establishment of two field emergency management units staffed by medical workers, GPs and nurses. A 30-bed urgent care clinic is also being set up in the area.

But people with risk factors, such as previously experiencing seizures during withdrawal, may require transfer to hospital. This must be factored into the government’s measures.

The government’s package also includes pharmacotherapy and medicines available on site. For people who are taking prescribed medicines, making sure they still have access to these prescriptions is essential.

People not currently in treatment

It’s important that people who are not already in treatment, especially those at risk of going into withdrawal, also have access to supports.

These include the option to start pharmacotherapy, access to other medicines they may need, doctors and nurses to support withdrawal, and counselling via telehealth. The government’s announcements so far don’t specifically address these measures.

With potentially less access to alcohol and other drugs during the pandemic, it’s also a good opportunity for people who want to cut back or stop altogether.

There were not enough alcohol and other drug treatment places to meet demand before COVID-19. Broadening access to treatment to meet the anticipated extra demand — both in the public housing towers and beyond — could have significant public health benefits.

After lockdown

When the time comes to leave lockdown, and access to alcohol and other drugs increases, this presents a greater risk of overdose and other harms. For people who have reduced their alcohol or other drug use, their body will have adapted to lower levels of the drug, so what was a normal dose before may now be too much.

When people go back to using opioids after withdrawal, there’s a higher rate of death because their tolerance to opioids has decreased. So we must make sure naloxone, a drug that counters the effects of an opioid overdose, is readily available at the end of the lockdown.

If you resume alcohol or other drug use after a period of reduced use or abstinence, it’s important to use a small amount to start with until you see how you’re affected.

Getting help

If you’d like to talk to someone about your alcohol or other drug use call the National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015. It’s a free call from anywhere in Australia.

If you’re trying to manage your drinking, Hello Sunday Morning offers a free online community of more than 100,000 like-minded people.

You can also chat online with a counsellor at CounsellingOnline. Or talk to your GP about seeing a psychologist or counsellor — many are now offering non-contact telehealth sessions.

Read more: Worried about your drinking during lockdown? These 8 signs might indicate a problem

– ref. People who use drugs face unique challenges under hard lockdown. The government’s support is vital – https://theconversation.com/people-who-use-drugs-face-unique-challenges-under-hard-lockdown-the-governments-support-is-vital-142053

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryan R. Witt, Conjoint Lecturer | School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle

This article is a preview from Flora, Fauna, Fire, a multimedia project launching on Monday July 13. The project tracks the recovery of Australia’s native plants and animals after last summer’s bushfire tragedy. Sign up to The Conversation’s newsletter for updates.

Last summer’s catastrophic bushfires burnt about one quarter of New South Wales’ best koala habitat. On the state’s mid-north coast, an estimated 30% of koalas were killed.

Collecting the most accurate possible information about surviving koala populations, in both burnt and unburnt areas, will help save these precious few.

But at the moment, accurate information can be hard to come by. A NSW parliamentary inquiry into koala populations last week found that the fires, and general population decline, meant the current estimate of 36,000 koalas in the state was “outdated and unreliable”.

The report warned that without government intervention, wild koalas in NSW were on track for extinction by 2050. It recommended exploring the use of drones, among other detection methods, next fire season.

For the last year, we’ve been developing the use of heat-detecting drones to find koalas at night. This efficient method will save on costs. It will also help better assess koala numbers – a key step in saving the species.

Promising results

Koalas camouflage well and are notoriously difficult to detect. Traditional methods such as scat surveys or spotlighting with head torches are often considered either too localised, or too labour intensive and costly to efficiently locate and count koalas.

We tested our new koala-locating technique in Port Stephens, NSW, in the winter of 2019. Fortunately, the bush we visited did not burn in the later summer fires. Our method, to be published as a study in the journal Australian Mammalogy, was more efficient and cost effective than traditional koala population survey techniques.

Read more: Scientists find burnt, starving koalas weeks after the bushfires

How much more efficient? Well, by searching forests at night on foot with spotlights we found, on average, about one koala every seven hours.

Flying the thermal drone at night in the same forests, we found an average of one koala every two hours. And this was in an area with a notoriously dispersed population.

This method could potentially be used to assess koala populations in fire-burnt areas over winter this year.

Drones have big potential

Victorian authorities used drones during the 2020 summer fires – while fires were still active – to assess the damage in remote areas. Scientists also used drones to help detection dogs find starving koalas in the weeks after fire.

Our work takes the use of drones further, by detecting koala heat signatures at night.

On several occasions we flew the drone back to a possible koala detection at first light and confirmed the thermal signatures were indeed koalas.

Read more: Koalas are the face of Australian tourism. What now after the fires?

We travelled to potential koala habitat in the Port Stephens area. Using a drone with a thermal and a colour camera, we flew a lawnmower pattern (meaning back and forth, so no spots are missed) about 70 metres above the ground. We then checked the results in real-time on a handheld tablet.

We flew the drones mostly at night, as initial surveys suggested koalas were more likely to be detected in the early morning before sunrise. Each flight was around 22 minutes long and simultaneously captured thermal and colour video recordings.

During and immediately after each flight, we checked the footage for signs of koalas. If we saw a large infrared “blob” in the tree canopy, we paused the drone to capture GPS data and detailed images.

Real-life checks

To make sure these “blobs” really were koalas, we needed to lay eyes on the animals. We did this at first light in two ways: one, by physically walking to the suspected koala location to check with binoculars and two, by programming the drone to fly back over the potential koala detection during the day.

This allowed us to simultaneously collect thermal and very high-resolution colour images. It also meant we could verify night-time detections, even in difficult to reach places.

We learnt that koalas noticed the drone approaching but were not bothered by it.

The drone also detected wallabies, possums, grey-headed flying foxes and a number of birds, highlighting the future potential applications of the technology.

Our team comprised experts from the University of Newcastle and the NSW Environment, Energy and Science Group of the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. We were helped by several local government and not-for-profit groups such as Port Stephens Koalas, Tilligerry Habitat and FAUNA Research Alliance.

How could this help in future?

Under climate change, increasingly frequent and severe fires are likely to drive animal population declines.

A thermal camera won’t be much help in a recently burned area that’s still hot. But our technique could be used to monitor fire-affected bushland in the weeks, months and years following bushfire – even in isolated refuges or difficult terrain.

In future fire seasons, our method may also be useful for wildlife rescue, localised population monitoring, pre-land use surveys (such as before development, logging or hazard reduction burning), and after rehabilitation to check on released koalas.

Australia has an opportunity to lead the innovative use of emerging technologies such as drones to help find koalas and other hard-to-detect wildlife.

Other species that can be monitored using drones include bears, monkeys, sharks, whales, green sea turtles and albatrosses.

We plan to continue this work in the winter of 2020 in fire-affected areas of NSW to help understand and conserve koala populations.

Read more: Stopping koala extinction is agonisingly simple. But here’s why I’m not optimistic

– ref. Heat-detecting drones are a cheaper, more efficient way to find koalas – https://theconversation.com/heat-detecting-drones-are-a-cheaper-more-efficient-way-to-find-koalas-140332

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Turney, Professor of Earth Science and Climate Change, Director of the Changing Earth Research Centre and the Chronos 14Carbon-Cycle Facility at UNSW, and Node Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, UNSW

Evidence of minute amounts of marine life in an ancient Antarctic ice sheet helps explain a longstanding puzzle of why rising carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels stalled for hundreds of years as Earth warmed from the last ice age.

Our study shows there was an explosion in productivity of marine life at the surface of the Southern Ocean thousands of years ago.

Read more: Ancient Antarctic ice melt caused extreme sea level rise 129,000 years ago – and it could happen again

And surprisingly, this marine life once played a part regulating the climate. Hence, this finding has big implications for future climate change projections.

Walking into the past

Our research took us on a four-hour flight from Chile to the Weddell Sea, at the extreme southern end of the Atlantic Ocean, to land on an ice runway at a frigid latitude of 79° south.

The Weddell Sea is frequently choked with sea ice and has been hazardous to ships since the earliest explorers ventured south.

In 1914, the Anglo-Irish explorer Ernest Shackleton and his men became stuck here for two years, 1,000 kilometres from civilisation. They faced isolation, starvation, freezing temperatures, gangrene, wandering icebergs and the threat of cannibalism.

Surviving here is tough, as is undertaking science.

Read more: What an ocean hidden under Antarctic ice reveals about our planet’s future climate

We spent three weeks in the nearby Patriot Hills, drilling through ice to collect samples.

Normally when scientists collect ice samples, they drill a deep core vertically down through the annual layers of snow and ice. We did something quite different: we went horizontal by drilling a series of shorter cores across the icescape.

That’s because the Patriot Hills is a fiercely wild place strafed by Weddell Sea cyclones that dump large snowfalls, followed by strong frigid winds (called katabatic winds) pouring off the polar plateau.

As the winds blow throughout the year, they remove the surface ice in a process called sublimation. Older, deeper ice is drawn up to the surface. This means walking across the blue ice towards Patriot Hills is effectively like travelling back through time.

The exposed ice reveals what was happening during the transition from the last ice age around 20,000 years ago into our present warmer world, known as the Holocene.

The Antarctic Cold Reversal

As Earth was warming, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were rising rapidly from around 190 to 280 parts per million.

But the warming trend wasn’t all one way.

Starting around 14,600 years ago, there was a 2,000 year-long period of cooling in the Southern Hemisphere. This period is called the Antarctic Cold Reversal, and is where CO₂ levels stalled at around 240 parts per million.

Why that happened was the puzzle, but understanding it could be crucial for improving today’s climate change projections.

Finding life in the ice

Over three weeks we battled the winds and snow to make a detailed collection of ice samples spanning the end of the last ice age.

To our surprise, hidden in our ice samples were organic molecules – remnants of marine life thousands of years ago. They came from the cyclones off the Weddell Sea, which swept up organic molecules from the ocean surface and dumped them onshore to be preserved in the ice.

Antarctic ice, which forms from snowfall, usually only tells scientists about the climate. What’s exciting about finding evidence of lifẻ in ancient Antarctic ice is that, for the first time, we can reconstruct what was happening offshore in the Southern Ocean at the same time, thousands of years ago.

We found an unusual period, displaying high concentrations and a diverse range of marine microplankton. This increased ocean productivity coincided with the Antarctic Cold Reversal.

Melting sea ice in summer sustains marine life

Our climate modelling reveals the Antarctic Cold Reversal was a time of massive change in the amount of sea ice across the Southern Ocean.

As the world lurched out of the last ice age, the summer warmth destroyed large amounts of sea ice that had formed through winter. When the sea ice melts, it releases valuable nutrients into the Southern Ocean, and fuelled the explosion in marine productivity we found in the ice on the continent.

This marine life caused more carbon dioxide to be drawn from the atmosphere as it photosynthesised, similar to the way plants use carbon dioxide. When the marine life die they sink to the floor, locking away the carbon. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed in the ocean was sufficiently large to register around the world.

What this mean for climate change today

Today, the Southern Ocean absorbs some 40% of all carbon put in the atmosphere by human activity, so we urgently need a better understand the drivers of this important part of the carbon cycle.

Read more: The last ice age tells us why we need to care about a 2℃ change in temperature

Marine life in the Southern Ocean still plays an important role in regulating the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

But as the world warms with climate change, less sea ice will be formed in polar regions. This natural carbon sink of marine life will only weaken, increasing global temperatures further.

It’s a timely reminder that while the Antarctic may seem remote, it’s impact on our future climate is closer and more connected than we might think.

– ref. Marine life found in ancient Antarctica ice helps solve a carbon dioxide puzzle from the ice age – https://theconversation.com/marine-life-found-in-ancient-antarctica-ice-helps-solve-a-carbon-dioxide-puzzle-from-the-ice-age-141973

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has spent billions trying to save us from recession. The winding down of JobKeeper scheduled for September means he’ll have to spend billions more.

Many of the stimulus measures talked about are focused on the traditional targets of infrastructure and residential construction.

But this recession is different to previous ones. It has wrought most of its damage to restaurants, retail, entertainment and the holiday industry.

These service sector industries employ the lions share of the Australians at risk.

No matter how much traditional stimulus we offer, very few baristas or chefs are going to be able to find work building high-speed rail lines.

The COVID recession requires a different response.

A GST holiday would fight the recession we’ve got

One that would work would be a GST holiday.

Instantly, and for the next six months, all goods and services covered by the 10% tax would become more affordable.

The concession would be timely, targeted and would generate the maximum economic bang for the government’s buck.

Read more: The charts that show coronavirus pushing up to a quarter of the workforce out of work

It would be targeted because the GST doesn’t cover many of the goods people are already buying such as fresh food and medicines.

What it does cover is extra, less essential, spending on things such as clothes, tourism and restaurants – the exact kind of spending we need to stimulate.

Cutting income tax or cash splashes wouldn’t deliver as big a bang for the buck – much of the bonus would be saved, or spent in sectors that don’t require stimulus.

However the only way to get the GST discount would be to buy goods and services, many of them produced by workers who will need support.

It’d be direct money where it is needed

The benefit would also be progressive. Calculations by Peter Varela, an economist at the Australian National University, suggest that the poorest households pay the highest share of their income in GST.

Removing it would eliminate this burden, if temporarily, helping the poorest households the most.

Making it temporary would encourage Australians to spend right now.

A GST holiday that only lasted only six months would force households to consider bringing forward planned future purchases to the present, when they are needed, in the same way as the government’s six month extension of the instant asset write-off is meant to for businesses.

It’s been done elsewhere

The idea was considered by Australia’s treasury during the global financial crisis. Britain’s treasury did it, cutting its GST (called value added tax) from 17.5% to 15% for a year in a measure judged a success.

Britain is reported to be planning to do it again.

Germany has already done it. It has cut its value added tax from m 19% to 16% until the end of the year.

Australia baulked at the idea during the global financial crisis because it was considered too difficult to get the premiers to agree to it.

But it mightn’t be as difficult now. The COVID-19 response has generated a new surge in cooperation between state and federal leaders for the good of the nation.

Read more: Cutting unemployment will require an extra $70 to $90 billion in stimulus. Here’s why

A fly in the ointment would be who paid for it. The six month holiday might cost A$35 billion. While the states traditionally receive the GST revenue, in this instance the bill for the cut should be paid by the federal government.

It’s the federal government that is responsible for managing the national economy. State budgets, already hard hit, shouldn’t be further damaged.

Over to you Treasurer Frydenberg. Your economic statement is due on July 23. The budget is due on October 6. You could do worse than emulate Germany and the United Kingdom.

– ref. Australia needs a six-month GST holiday – https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-a-six-month-gst-holiday-142037

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hassan, Professor, School of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne

Spoiler alert: this story details how The War of the Worlds ends.

The latest screen adaption of H. G. Wells’ 1898 modern masterwork The War of the Worlds will hit our screens this week. Continuously in print since its first publication, the book is a literary gift that keeps on giving for producers and screenwriters. They recognise the story’s unerring capacity to find its mark with each generation.

Wells – who also wrote The Time Machine (1895) and The Invisible Man (1897) – helped pioneer the science fiction genre when he conceived this astonishing book. With an eyewitness narration that reads grippingly still, it tells of a Martian invasion of Earth.

Shock and awe

Set in London, Wells depicts a complacent world; of men “serene in their assurance” of their dominion over the planet. But humans get the shock of another reality when suddenly visited upon by blood-feeding and squid-like creatures possessed of “intellects vast and cool” that are “unsympathetic” to Earthlings whose planet they had long “regarded with envious eyes”.

An advance party arrives inside metal cylinders shot from giant cannons stationed on Mars. From the cylinders come dozens of Martians, each operating a three-legged metal “fighting-machine” that attacks London’s helpless population by means of a “heat ray”. From these “whatever is combustible flashes into flame”, metal liquifies, glass melts and water “explodes into steam”.

Fleeing like rats from a burning ship, panic spreads like a contagion. The narrator describes a breakdown of law and order, and undergoes something of a breakdown himself.

Upper-class women arm themselves as they cross the country, because traditional deference has gone up in smoke. The “social body” of organisation – police, army, government – suffers “swift liquefaction”.

The Martians, however, had become too intelligent for their own good. They had made the Red Planet disease-free but forgotten about germ theory. And so while laying waste to London, they inhale a bug; a simple bacteria “against which their systems were unprepared” and so suffered a “death that must have seemed to them as incomprehensible as any death could be”.

London will rise again. The world has been spared. Humanity gets lucky — this time.

Read more: Science fiction helps us deal with science fact: a lesson from Terminator’s killer robots

A wider war

In the new Anglo-French television series, La Guerre Des Mondes, the action takes place in both London and France. Martian devastation is given wider latitude.

Why does this now-familiar story have such a hold on successive generations? Iterations include the Orson Welles’ radio broadcast of “fake news” bulletins about Martian invasion, to the 1978 contemporary music version with Richard Burton narration, to Steven Spielberg’s film blockbuster starring Tom Cruise. Last year also saw a BBC production set in Edwardian London.

One response is to consider our attraction to sci-fi. It sees the laws of science upended. Technology seems to make anything possible and to minds already accustomed to real technological transformation, sci-fi literature brings the now-thinkable future into the present.

But there’re less obvious elements to think about: themes that were important in 1898 and resonate still.

Invasion and imperialism

Wells’ book touched something existentially British during their Pax Britannica period of relative peace. Across the Channel, Europe seethed with diplomatic intrigue and tensions culminating in the first world war.

The new sci-fi genre connected to an older “invasion literature” genre; a long-standing British apprehension of the Continent, especially its renascent German threat. Wells hints at this when he writes that the arrival of the cylinders (before the Martians emerged from them) “did not [initially] make the sensation that an ultimatum to Germany would have done”.

Then there’s the imperialism angle. Was Wells tapping a source of late-Victorian shame at the true source of British wealth and power? Then, a quarter of the world map was coloured British Empire pink. London was the epicentre of modern imperialism — the coordination point for the suffering of millions and the plunder of their lands.

Moreover, Belgium, Germany, France, and also the USA, were engaged in the “scramble for colonies” in Africa and Asia. Under the veneer of sci-fi, Wells describes what it’s like to be a people facing a powerful invader.

Fear is the contagion

A very different perspective says something about our species and our idealised self-conception. In 1908 the Russian novelist and revolutionary Alexander Bogdanov, drew on WOTW for inspiration. In his novel Red Star protagonist Leonid travels to Mars to learn about communism from Martians who had made their own revolution and now lived in peace. Leonid despairs of the congenitally “unstable and fragile” nature of human relationships and looks to another planet for guidance.

The Earth-bound communist project of the 20th century ended badly, to say the least. But our human vulnerability to invasion, to tyranny, to economic catastrophe, and even to the bacteriological danger from microbes resistant to antibiotics, continues to haunt us.

The latest adaptation is set in our time with smartphones and the internet. Here again our 21st-century complacency is shattered, and our vulnerability laid bare.

Fear is a contagion in WOTW, and its Londoners show little heroism in the face of an alien invader.

Read more: Science fiction builds mental resiliency in young readers

A new battle

Bacteria did in Wells’ Martians and might do for us too – unless drugs to overcome resistance are developed. Through sci-fi, we can explore our fear of the invisible foe.

Global warming might be our other enemy – the red skies of Australia’s last bushfire season fresh in our memory and reminiscent of Well’s novel.

The narrative provides a hugely enjoyable fantasy. But we need to think about what science fiction might be doing to our relationship with science fact, especially if we consume it as a tranquilliser to displace and sublimate our fears of invisible threats.

If we do, then the incomprehensibility felt by Wells’ Martians may add that little bit more to our discord regarding the sources and solutions to global warming. Humans got lucky in The War of the Worlds. They didn’t need to do anything to survive. We can’t count on luck to save us or our planet.

War of the Worlds double episode will premiere July 9 on SBS and continue weekly from July 16. Episodes will be available on SBS On Demand on the same day as broadcast.

– ref. Guide to the classics: The War of the Worlds – https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-the-war-of-the-worlds-128453

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

Scott Morrison has repeatedly and vociferously championed keeping state borders open.

But on Monday, Morrison was forced to change course, agreeing, in a hook up with premiers Daniel Andrews and Gladys Berejiklian that the Victorian-NSW border should be closed.

In a somewhat Jesuitical distinction, Morrison said they had agreed “now is the time for Victoria to isolate itself from the rest of the country. What’s different here [is] this isn’t other states closing their borders to Victoria”.

Deputy Chief Medical Officer Michael Kidd said later “the Commonwealth accepts the need for this action in response to containing spread of the virus”.

But, Kidd said, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee – the federal-state health advisory body so often invoked by Morrison – “was not involved in that decision”.

“The AHPCC does not provide advice on border closures,” Kidd added.

Borders have always been a strictly state matter.

Read more: Here’s how the Victoria-NSW border closure will work – and how residents might be affected

Even during the high stage of the pandemic, NSW and Victoria kept their border open, unlike Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.

Monday’s decision to close the border from Tuesday night underlines that we are staring at a dangerous new phase in the evolution of the COVID crisis.

The latest Victorian tally of 127 new cases was a record for the state. Kidd said: “The situation in Melbourne has come as a jolt, not just for the people of Melbourne but people right across Australia who may have thought that this was all behind us. It is not.

“The outbreak in Victoria is a national issue. We are all at risk from a resurgence of COVID-19.”

If the Victorian situation can’t be brought under control quickly – and conditions in Melbourne are complicated, even chaotic – the country could face a new bleak outlook on the health front, with a substantial risk of the virus ticking up elsewhere, regardless of other states keeping out Victorians, and an even deeper than anticipated recession.

Borders have been a source of division among governments from early on.

In particular Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk – now reopening her state’s borders from this Friday though excluding Victorians – found herself under attack from the federal government and also from NSW.

Read more: Victoria is undeniably in a second wave of COVID-19. It’s time to plan for another statewide lockdown

As well, both Queensland and WA face challenges from Clive Palmer in the High Court over the constitutionality of their border closures. There’s also another case being brought by Queensland tourism operators.

The High Court has sent the three cases to the federal court to look at certain aspects. The WA matter will be before that court on July 13 and 14.

The constitution provides for free trade and intercourse between the states. The key issue is “proportionality” – whether keeping a border closed is reasonable on health grounds at a particular point of time.

The Morrison government, consistent with the Prime Minister’s argument from the get go, is intervening in the cases to argue the borders should have been opened.

WA premier Mark McGowan on Monday was quick to use the Victorian development to call on Morrison to pull out, saying that in light of the Victoria-NSW closure “I’ve asked the Prime Minister to formally withdraw [federal government] support from Clive Palmer’s High Court challenge.

“It does not make sense for the federal government to be supporting a border closure between NSW and Victoria but on the other hand challenging Western Australia’s border in the High Court.

“Quite frankly, the legal challenge, and especially the Commonwealth involvement in it, has now become completely ridiculous.”

But the federal government is refusing to take a step back.

Read more: Nine Melbourne tower blocks put into ‘hard lockdown’ – what does it mean, and will it work?

Attorney-General Christian Porter noted the challenges were not being brought by the Commonwealth, and said it was the right of any citizen to take legal action if they believed “their basic rights of freedom of interstate movement are being disproportionately taken from them”.

“The Commonwealth has intervened to put evidence and views on the situation … the Court would normally expect the Commonwealth to be involved, given the importance of the issues raised.”

Porter said the Commonwealth’s intervention was to provide its view on whether, constitutionally, border closures were permitted in certain circumstances and not others.

“Clearly the courts will be required to consider whether, in determining these specific cases, border restrictions were proportionate to the health crisis at specific points in time as Australia dealt with the immediate and longer-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The Court would expect to hear from the Commonwealth on those types of significant constitutional questions.”

Whatever the legal logic, to be endorsing the Victorian closure but arguing against other states’ abundant caution may be a complicated proposition to defend in the court of public opinion.

– ref. View from The Hill: Morrison government accepts Victorian closure but won’t budge on High Court border challenges – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-government-accepts-victorian-closure-but-wont-budge-on-high-court-border-challenges-142084

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Kettlewell, Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Economics Discipline Group, University of Technology Sydney

We live in a culture that values “experiences”. These are often promoted in the media, and by those selling them, as vital to enhancing our well-being.

We all know big life events like marriage, parenthood, job loss and the death of loved one can affect our well-being. But by how much and for how long?

We set out to measure the effect of major life events – 18 in total – on well-being. To do so we used a sample of about 14,000 Australian adults tracked over 16 years. Some of our results were expected. Others were surprising.

Overall, our results show good events like marriage improved some aspects of well-being, but bad events like health shocks had larger negative effects. For good and bad events, changes in well-being were temporary, usually disappearing by 3-4 years.

Here are some of our most interesting findings.

Happiness versus life satisfaction

Our study distinguished two different aspects of well-being: “happiness” and “life satisfaction”. Researchers often treat these as the same thing, but they are different.

Happiness is the positive aspect of our emotions. People’s self-reported happiness tends to be fairly stable in adulthood. It follows what psychologists call “set point theory” – people have a “normal” level of happiness to which they usually return over the long run.

Read more: Happiness hinges on personality, so initiatives to improve well-being need to be tailor-made

Life satisfaction is driven more by one’s sense of accomplishment in life. A person can be satisfied, for example, because they have a good job and healthy family but still be unhappy.

Life events often affect happiness and life satisfaction in the same direction: things that make you happier tend to also improve your life satisfaction. But not always, and the size of the effects frequently differ.

In the case of having a child, the contrast is stark. Right after the birth, parents are more satisfied but less happy, possibly reflecting the demands of caring for a newborn (eg. sleep deprivation).

Changes are temporary

After almost all events (both good and bad), well-being tends to return to a personal set point. This process is known as the hedonic treadmill – as people adapt to their new circumstances, well-being returns to baseline. This has been found in other studies as well.

The good news is that even after very bad events, most people seem to eventually return to their set-point well-being level. Even after an extremely bad event such as the death of a spouse, people’s well-being generally recovers in two to three years. This doesn’t mean they don’t carry pain from the experience, but it does mean they can feel happy again.

Bad events affect us more

The detrimental effects of bad events on well-being outweigh the positive effect of good events. Negative effects also last longer. This is partly because most people are happy and satisfied in general, so there is more “room” to feel worse than better. In fact, we can’t confidently say there is any positive cumulative effect of good events on happiness at all. However, marriage, retirement, childbirth and financial gains all temporarily improve overall life satisfaction.

Our finding that “losses” hurt more than “gains” mirrors decades of behavioural economics research showing people are generally “loss averse” – going to more effort to avoid losses than to chase gains.

Read more: Explainer: what is loss aversion and is it real?

The bad events that have the largest total effects are death of a spouse or child, financial loss, injury, illness and separation.

Small, fleeting effects

Starting a new job, getting promoted, being fired and moving house are events that people often fixate on as either stressful or to be celebrated. But, on average, these don’t seem to affect well-being that much. Their effects are comparatively very small and generally fleeting.

This could be because of differences in the nature of these events for different people, or that they frequently occur. For example, being fired can be devastating. But for someone close to retirement who receives a large redundancy payment and moves to the coast, it might be a positive experience.

An important caveat to our study is that it reflects the average experiences of people. There are likely to be some people who experience long-lasting improvements in well-being after good events. There will also be people who experience sustained decreased well-being after bad events. In future work we hope to identify these different people and isolate the characteristics that predict what responses to different events will look like.

The things that matter

Our results caution against chasing happiness through positive experiences alone. The impact, if any, seems small and fleeting, as the hedonic treadmill drags us back to our own well-being set point.

Read more: The paradox of happiness: the more you chase it the more elusive it becomes

Instead, we might do better by focusing on the things that protect us against feeling devastated by bad events. The most important factors are strong relationships, good health and managing exposure to financial losses.

In 2020 we might also take consolation from the fact that, although it will take time, our well-being can recover from even the worst circumstances.

We humans are a resilient bunch.

– ref. Marriage and money help but don’t lead to long-lasting happiness – https://theconversation.com/marriage-and-money-help-but-dont-lead-to-long-lasting-happiness-140431

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jon Iredell, Professor, Medicine and Microbiology (conjoint), University of Sydney

The NSW-Victorian border will be closed as of midnight Tuesday this week, the NSW and Victorian premiers have announced, in an effort to limit the spread of COVID-19.

The announcement comes amid a resurgence of COVID-19 cases in Victoria, which has returned several postcodes to Stage 3 Stay-At-Home restrictions and instituted a “hard lockdown” in at least nine Melbourne tower blocks.

In a press conference on Monday morning, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said people seeking an exemption to the temporary border closure will be able to apply through the Service NSW portal.

It’s good exemptions are available – but it’s crucial these options are not abused. The exemption option is there for people who really need it but please don’t treat it as a challenge.

We all have a shared responsibility to do all we can to limit the spread of COVID-19. That means staying home if unwell, practising physical distancing where warranted, washing hands diligently and getting tested if you have any COVID-19 symptoms.

What we know about exemptions to the border closure

In her press conference, Berejiklian said

Tomorrow midnight is when all Victorians will be prevented from coming across the border unless they have a permit […] The next 72 hours will be difficult, for some people who normally travel across the border for their daily lives will be restrained until we get the permit system in place and we hope that will happen in the next two days.

When asked about people who already had flights or train trips booked, Berejiklian said

There will always be exemptions due to hardship cases, people can apply for permits or exemptions. And so, for those reasons, we anticipate there will still be some flights and trains services available. There will also be NSW residents returning home […] we will be relying on them to self-isolate.

In the same press conference, NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said:

it will be difficult, not impossible, but difficult to make that crossing. There will be delays whilst we work through who are essential workers.

Victorians in NSW would be allowed to return to Victoria, the ABC reports. A NSW government press release said “NSW residents returning from a Melbourne hotspot are already required to go into 14 days of self-isolation. This requirement will be extended to anyone returning from Victoria. This will be backed by heavy penalties and fines.”

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said:

There will be a facility for people who live on those border communities to be able to travel to and from for the purposes of work, the purposes of the essential health services they might need… [but holidays would] not be an acceptable reason.

Infectious diseases clinicians and researchers in my field realise this will be frustrating for many people, especially as it comes during school holidays. But the risk of cross border transmission is very real.

Please don’t treat the border closure as a challenge, or seek exemption unless you have a very good reason to do so. Many of us will miss out on much-anticipated family catch-ups and events; it is sad but necessary, unfortunately. Any cross-border movement increases risk and we all have a responsibility to do what we can to minimise it. It’s not even a law enforcement issue; it’s about doing what’s right.

Everyone feels frustrated but moving across the border right now really does magnify risk and we risk losing control.

It’s possible to have trivial or even no symptoms but still be capable of spreading COVID-19.

Don’t dismiss it as ‘just a cough’

Australians have a culture of soldiering on when sick and dismissing symptoms as “just a cough” or “just a runny nose”. We really need to change that mindset and make sure we get tested if we have any symptoms at all, and physically distance from others.

The key messages are to wash hands and if you’re at all unwell, cover your cough and face, stay home, self-isolate and get tested.

Testing in Australia is phenomenally available. We are so lucky to have such great testing facilities so easily accessible and we should avail ourselves of them.

The risk is if we don’t observe the border closures sensibly, minimise spread and test appropriately we will do excessive damage to the economy or lose control of the outbreak – or both.

Read more: Nine Melbourne tower blocks put into ‘hard lockdown’ – what does it mean, and will it work?

– ref. Can I cross the NSW-Victoria border? There are exemptions, but you’ll need a very good reason – https://theconversation.com/can-i-cross-the-nsw-victoria-border-there-are-exemptions-but-youll-need-a-very-good-reason-142052

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Burridge, Lecturer in Human Geography, Macquarie University

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has announced the border between his state and NSW will close after 11:59pm on Tuesday to prevent the coronavirus outbreak in Melbourne from spreading further.

It will be the first border shutdown between the two states since 1919, when the Spanish flu epidemic prompted the NSW government to close its borders with Victoria, Queensland and South Australia to slow the spread of the virus.

What will this new shutdown mean for residents on both sides of the border and what are the potential longer-term consequences of the closure, as well as those between other states?

How will residents be affected?

There are more than 50 land crossings between NSW and Victoria, peppered between the coast and South Australia. Last year, NSW welcomed more than 4.7 million overnight visitors from Victoria.

There are also a number of interconnected communities along the length of the border, most notably Albury-Wodonga along the Murray River. There are some 89,000 people living in those towns, according to the 2016 census. Other large border towns include Echuca, Swan Hill and Mildura.

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

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, many states have announced similar border “closures”. It should be noted, however, that borders rarely, if ever, close completely. They are designed to act as filters, allowing officials to decide who, or what, crosses.

In other states with closed borders, residents in border communities have been given permits or exemptions to cross for specific reasons, such as specialist work or to care for sick relatives.

Permits for the NSW-Victoria border will likely be made available for residents of border communities like Albury-Wodonga and for those who believe they must cross for “exceptional circumstances.”

The permit system will also likely allow people to cross the border for health care. The Albury and Wodonga health system is unique in that it straddles the state line, providing service to 250,000 people in the region. The state of Victoria runs the Albury Hospital, even though it is located in NSW.

Trade is also unlikely to be highly affected. The NSW-Queensland border has been closed since March, but freight trucks have generally been allowed to continue to cross unfettered, though perhaps more slowly than usual.

Constitutionality of border closures

Even though there have been few disruptions, this has not stopped challenges to the High Court over whether such closures are constitutional.

Section 92 of Australia’s constitution says

trade, commerce, and intercourse among the states, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

There are some exceptions to this freedom, though, particularly when it is necessary to protect the people of a state from the risk of injury from inbound goods, animals and people.

COVID-19 has generally been accepted as a reason for imposing border closures.

This has happened in Australia before. In January 1919, during the Spanish flu outbreak, a case of influenza arrived in NSW from Victoria.

NSW unilaterally closed the border between the states, followed by other closures (notably between NSW and Queensland). Some people tried to circumvent the border restrictions by taking to the sea.

Have there been border disputes before?

Victoria officially became an independent colony on July 1, 1851, with the border defined under the Australian Constitutions Act as

a straight line drawn from Cape How (sic) to the nearest source of the River Murray and thence the course of that river to the eastern boundary of the province of South Australia.

A boundary survey was conducted in the 1870s by Alexander Black and Alexander Allan to demarcate the straight line portion of border through the often mountainous terrain between the two colonies.

Disputes over the boundary have persisted since then, with reports noting that fishermen blew up the original cairn at Cape Howe to avoid license fees.

These disputes eventually found their way to the High Court in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in regards to the boundary along the Murray River. The entirety of the river was found to sit within NSW in the 1980 ruling of a case involving bizarre circumstances – the jurisdiction of a murder that took place on the shoreline.

In 1984, the straight-line border between the states was resurveyed by the Department of Surveying, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and renamed the Black-Allan line in honour of the first surveyors. The border was not officially recognised in name until 1998 by the Geographic Place Names Act.

Read more: Nine Melbourne tower blocks put into ‘hard lockdown’ – what does it mean, and will it work?

What do border closures mean long-term?

One point of concern in the states’ response to the pandemic is the way it has changed the way we talk and think about borders. We have begun to separate ourselves from our neighbours.

And while the political rhetoric that goes back and forth between states has been mostly trivial in nature (think of Andrews’ comment about who would want to travel to SA), there is a risk of longer-term damage to relations between states.

Perhaps more importantly, some cross-border residents have been subjected to abuse for legitimately crossing state lines, often identified by their license plates.

Health experts have also disagreed over the need for border closures, with some saying there is a lack of evidence for their effectiveness in curbing disease transmission. However, even these messages have been mixed, and some have been politicised.

How NSW and Victoria proceed in managing their highly crossed and integrated border will throw up previously unforeseen challenges that Black and Allan were unlikely to have considered while navigating the alpine terrain between the colonies 150 years ago.

The boundary marker monument on the NSW-Victoria border in Genoa, an area affected by this summer’s bushfires, reminds us of the need for cross-state cooperation on issues that are not confined neatly within borders.

Read more: Lockdowns, second waves and burn outs. Spanish flu’s clues about how coronavirus might play out in Australia

– ref. Here’s how the Victoria-NSW border closure will work – and how residents might be affected – https://theconversation.com/heres-how-the-victoria-nsw-border-closure-will-work-and-how-residents-might-be-affected-142045

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Salinger, Honorary Associate, Tasmanian Institute for Agriculture, University of Tasmania

A major global update based on data from more than 36,000 weather stations around the world confirms that, as the planet continues to warm, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and heavy rainfall are now more frequent, more intense, and longer.

The research is based on a dataset known as HadEX and analyses 29 indices of weather extremes, including the number of days above 25℃ or below 0℃, and consecutive dry days with less than 1mm of rain. This latest update compares the three decades between 1981 and 2010 to the 30 years prior, between 1951 and 1980.

Globally, the clearest index shows an increase in the number of above-average warm days.

For Australia, the team found a country-wide increase in warm temperature extremes and heatwaves and a decrease in cold temperature extremes such as the coldest nights. Broadly speaking, rainfall extremes have increased in the west and decreased in the east, but trends vary by season.

In New Zealand, temperate regions experience significantly more summer days and northern parts of the country are now frost-free.

Read more: The world endured 2 extra heatwave days per decade since 1950 – but the worst is yet to come

Extreme temperatures

Unusually warm days are becoming more common throughout Australia. When we compare 1981-2010 with 1951-80, the increase is substantial: more than 20 days per year in the far north of Australia, and at least 10 days per year in most areas apart from the south coast. The increase occurs in all seasons but is largest in spring.

This increase in temperature extremes can have devastating impacts for human health, particularly for older people and those with pre-existing medical conditions. Excessive heat is not only an issue for people living in cities but also for rural communities that have already been exposed to days with temperatures above 50℃.

New Zealanders are also experiencing more days with temperatures of 25℃ or more. The climate stations show the frequency of unusually warm days has increased from 8% to 12% from 1950 to 2018, with an average of 19 to 24 days a year above 25℃ across the country. Unusually warm days, defined as days in the top 10% of historic records for the time of year, are also becoming more common in both countries.

During the summers of 2017-18 and 2018-19, marine heatwaves delivered 32 and 26 (respectively) days above 25℃ nationwide in New Zealand, well above the average of 20 days. This led to accelerated glacial melting in the Southern Alps and major disruption to marine ecosystems, with die-offs of bull kelp around the South Island coast and salmon in aquaculture farms in the Marlborough Sounds.

Read more: Farmed fish dying, grape harvest weeks early – just some of the effects of last summer’s heatwave in NZ

More heat, more rain, less frost

In many parts of New Zealand, cold extremes are changing faster than warm extremes.

Between 1950 and 2018, frost days (days below 0℃) have declined across New Zealand, particularly in northern parts of the country which has now become frost-free, enabling farmers to grow subtropical pasture grasses. At the same time, crops that require winter frosts to set fruit are no longer successful, or can only be grown with chemical treatments (currently under review) that simulate winter chilling.

Across New Zealand, the heat available for crop growth during the growing season is increasing, which means wine growers have to shift varieties further south.

In Australia, the situation is more complicated. In many parts of northern and eastern Australia, there has also been a large decrease in the number of cold nights. But in parts of southeast and southwest Australia, frost frequency has stabilised, or even increased in places, since the 1980s.

These areas have seen a large decrease in winter rainfall in recent decades. The higher number of dry, clear nights in winter, favourable for frost formation, has cancelled out the broader warming trend.

Read more: Droughts & flooding rains: what is due to climate change?

In Australia, extreme rainfall has become more frequent in many parts of northern and western Australia, especially the northwest, which has become wetter since the 1960s. In eastern and southern Australia the picture is more mixed, with little change in the number of days with 10mm or more of rain, even in those regions where total rainfall has declined.

In New Zealand, more extremely wet days contribute towards the annual rainfall total in the east of the North Island, with a smaller increase in the west and south of the South Island. For Australia, there are significant drying trends in parts of the southwest and northeast, but little change elsewhere.

Extremes of temperature and precipitation can have dramatic effects, as seen during two marine heatwaves in New Zealand and the hottest, driest year in Australia during 2019.

– ref. Extreme heat and rain: thousands of weather stations show there’s now more of both, for longer – https://theconversation.com/extreme-heat-and-rain-thousands-of-weather-stations-show-theres-now-more-of-both-for-longer-141869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trevor Thornton, Lecturer, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

The federal government today announced A$190 million in funding for new recycling infrastructure, as it seeks to divert more than ten million tonnes of waste from landfill and create 10,000 jobs.

The plan, dubbed the Recycling Modernisation Fund, requires matching funding from the states and territories. The federal government hopes it will attract A$600 million in private investment, bringing the total plan to about A$1 billion.

The policy is a welcome step to addressing Australia’s waste crisis. In 2016-17, Australians generated 67 million tonnes of waste, and the volume is growing.

Australia’s domestic recycling industry cannot sort the types and volumes of materials we generate, and recent waste import bans in other countries mean our waste often has nowhere to go.

But recycling infrastructure alone is not enough to solve Australia’s waste problem. We must also focus on waste avoidance, reducing contamination and creating markets for recycled materials.

A home-grown problem

In early 2018, China began restricting the import of recyclables from many countries, including Australia, arguing it was too contaminated to recycle. Several other countries including India and Taiwan soon followed.

The move sent the Australian waste management industry into a spin. Recyclable material such as plastic, paper, glass and tyres was stockpiled in warehouses or worse, dumped in landfill.

Read more: How recycling is actually sorted, and why Australia is quite bad at it

It was clear Australia needed to start processing more of its waste onshore, and pressure was on governments to find a solution. In 2019, state and federal governments announced a waste export ban.

Then came today’s announcement. In addition to the A$190 million for recycling infrastructure announced, the federal government will:

• spend A$35 million on meeting its commitments under the National Waste Policy Action Plan

• spend A$24.6 million on Commonwealth commitments to improve national waste data and determine if we’re meeting recycling targets

• introduce new federal waste legislation to formalise the waste export ban and encourage companies to take responsibility for the waste they create.

But key questions remain: will the full funding package be delivered, and will it be spent where it’s needed?

Clarity is needed

The Commonwealth says its funding is contingent on contributions from industry, states and territories. It’s not clear what happens to the plan if this co-funding does not eventuate.

Figures from the Australian Council of Recyclers shows state governments have not always been willing to spend on waste management. Of about A$2.6 billion in waste levies collected from businesses and households over the past two years, only 16.7% has been spent on waste, recycling and resource recovery.

There’s been a recent increase in the volume and type of materials placed into recycling and waste streams. But a lack of funding to date meant the industry struggled to manage these changes.

Some state government have recently made positive moves towards spending on waste management infrastructure, and it’s not clear what the federal plan means for these commitments. Victoria, for example, has a A$300 million plan to transform the recycling sector. Will it now be asked to spend more?

Recycling infrastructure is not enough

The federal announcement made no mention of the three other pillars in successful waste management: waste avoidance, reducing contamination and creating markets for recycled materials.

The 2018 National Waste Policy says waste “avoidance” is the first principle in waste management, stating:

Prioritise waste avoidance, encourage efficient use, reuse and repair. Design products so waste is minimised, they are made to last and we can more easily recover materials.

Avoiding the generation of waste in the first place reduces the need for recycling. Waste avoidance also means we consume less resources, which is good for the planet and our economy.

Addressing contamination in our recycling streams is also vital. Contaminants include soft plastics, disposable nappies and textiles. If these items end up in this stream, recyclers must remove and dispose of them, adding time and costs to the process.

Addressing the contamination issue would also reduce the amount of new infrastructure required.

Public education and enforcement is urgently needed to reduce recycling contamination and increase waste avoidance, yet government action has been lacking in this area.

Businesses have great potential to reduce costs associated with managing waste. This includes reducing the waste of raw materials as well as improving the segregation of wastes and recyclables. Funding is desperately needed to help businesses implement these changes.

The federal government says the new funding could be used for small, portable waste-sorting facilities. This is a great idea. They could be located in rural and regional areas, and even at large events so materials can be effectively sorted at the source. This would make sorting more efficient and may also reduce the need for waste transport.

Read more: Four bins might help, but to solve our waste crisis we need a strong market for recycled products

And of course, there’s no use producing recycled materials if no-one wants to buy them. Plenty of products could be produced using recycled glass, plastics, textiles and so on, but the practice in Australia is fairly limited. One promising example involves using glass and plastic in road bases.

Governments, business and even consumers can do more to demand that the products they buy contain a proportion of recycled materials, where its possible for a manufacturer to do so.

A sustainable future

The government’s funding to improve waste data is welcome, and will allow improvements to the waste system to be accurately measured. Currently, many waste databases measure measure our recycling rate according to what goes into the recycling bins, rather than what actually ends up being recycled.

Spending to support actions under the National Waste Policy is also positive, as long as it spent primarily on reducing waste from being created in the first place.

Done right, better waste management can stimulate the economy and help improve the environment. Today’s announcement is a good step, but more detail is needed. Clearly though, it’s time for Australians to think more carefully about the materials we dispose of, and put them to better use.

Read more: Recycling plastic bottles is good, but reusing them is better

– ref. Waste not, want not: Morrison government’s $1b recycling plan must include avoiding waste in the first place – https://theconversation.com/waste-not-want-not-morrison-governments-1b-recycling-plan-must-include-avoiding-waste-in-the-first-place-142038

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Graeme Dunk, PhD Candidate, Australian National University

Amid fanfare last week at the start of the new financial year the government promised to invest A$270 billion over a decade to upgrade the defence force.

It said a side benefit would be a stronger local defence industry and “more high-tech Australian jobs”.

The prime minister’s statement hastened to add that it was already strong

Australia’s defence industry is growing with over 4,000 businesses employing approximately 30,000 staff. An additional 11,000 Australian companies directly benefit from Defence investment and, when further downstream suppliers are included, the benefits flow to approximately 70,000 workers.

But the Australian part of Australia’s defence industry is small and getting smaller.

My analysis of contracts listed on the government’s Austender website shows that while the proportion of defence department contracts awarded to Australian operated firms is usually well above 60%, the proportion awarded to firms that are both Australian operated and owned is much lower, presently 11%.

It means that while Australians are being employed on defence department projects, the use of Australian firms that develop and own intellectual property is at a near-record low.

Other analysis of the same data shows that the value of the contracts awarded to Australian owned companies is increasingly lower than for foreign owned companies.

This is backed up by the annual Australian Defence Magazine survey of the top 40 defence contractors.

Despite the fact that in the most recent survey two of the biggest contractors declined to take part – the French-owned Naval Group Australia, which has the contract for the Future Submarine program, and the US-owned Raytheon – it has the advantage of including subcontracting relationships not shown in Austender.

Playing second fiddle matters

The survey finds that while the amount of work done by Australian-controlled companies has held up since 2015, it has been increasingly subcontracted to foreign-owned prime contractors.

This subordinate role has important implications for the health of Australia’s industry and national resilience.

For industry it means that Australia is denied the full economic benefits that would come from designing and running projects and owning the intellectual property.

For national resilience it increases Australia’s exposure to events outside its control.

Read more: Scott Morrison pivots Australian Defence Force to meet more threatening regional outlook

If foreign-controlled firms withdraw, withhold or otherwise redirect assistance (or if they are directed to do so by foreign governments) it is harder for Australia’s industry to pick up the slack.

The supply chain interruptions caused by COVID-19 have highlighted these vulnerabilities.

Brent Clark, the national chief executive of the Australian Industry and Defence Network says he was “shocked to learn how many of our supplies are sourced from overseas and how quickly those supplies became hard to access as soon as overseas countries required them for their own purposes”.

He says the industry is not asking for a free ride, but it does want to be able to compete for contracts in a fair and equitable manner.

Read more: Defence update: in an increasingly dangerous neighbourhood, Australia needs a stronger security system

This isn’t to suggest Australia needs to it do all. Complete self-sufficiency in defence is unrealistic.

But it would deepen Australia’s war fighting capability if Australian firms had the ability to to supply and maintain much of the essential equipment we will need to use.

And it would strengthen our ability to deal with other crises. COVID-19 has shown that industrial capability and resilience are intrinsically linked.

The Government’s rhetoric and policies support home-grown growth. All that is needed now is commitment backed up by accountability.

Louisa Minney, defence consultant, business analyst and company director, contributed to this article.

– ref. It’s one thing to build war fighting capability, it’s another to build industrial capability – https://theconversation.com/its-one-thing-to-build-war-fighting-capability-its-another-to-build-industrial-capability-135640

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sonya Teich, Lecturer in Design, Visual Effects Projects, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

When Star Wars was awarded the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects in 1978 it marked the first time the visual component of effects was differentiated from sound.

Yet, even in this moment when visual effects (VFX) was first recognised by the Academy, it was already being pointed to as the destroyer of the auteur renaissance: an Hollywood era in which directors like Martin Scorcese, Stanley Kubrick and even George Lucas himself enjoyed unprecedented freedom to make the films they wanted to make with full studio backing.

The financial success of films like Star Wars turned studios towards a strategy of event films. These productions didn’t rely on specific directors, but on spectacle and the worldwide distribution only a prominent studio could mount. The high costs of event films ensured studios more tightly controlled production and the tension between director-driven film making and VFX was born.

As technology has progressed, VFX has only become more profitable, complex and difficult for directors to control. 2019’s Avengers: Endgame contains 2,500 VFX shots and is the highest grossing film of all time.

What exactly are VFX?

It is hard to land on an agreed upon definition for VFX and there are several terms to unpack before you get there.

Effects is the catchall term for the visual tricks in film and television.

Practical effects or special effects are solutions accomplished in camera using animatronics like E.T.; miniatures like the flying cars in Blade Runner; prosthetics like the hobbit feet in The Lord of the Rings; and pyrotechnics like the explosions in Mad Max: Fury Road.

Visual effects create the required imagery off-set using computers. VFX might be as simple as compositing one image onto another – like when an actor filmed in front of a green screen is placed into a different environment – or as complicated as creating a completely digital environment, like the world of Pandora in Avatar.

A dozen or more artists with individualised skill sets might touch a complex shot. Different kinds of artists create geometric models of characters or props, create the textures for those models, place those models in the scene, animate the characters, simulate the costumes, and render the final images.

VFX production generally takes place at independent studios, with studios like Disney or Universal acting as clients.

This creates a paradigm in which the client studio serves as an intermediary between the director and the VFX artists. The director rarely talks to or even sees the hundreds of artists producing this critical part of the film.

To further complicate things, the number of VFX shots in a blockbuster is often so large a single vendor cannot take on all of them. It is common practice to spread VFX sequences between multiple vendors in multiple countries.

An invisible job

For directors, VFX become ephemeral and hard to pin down.

These created worlds do not exist until they do, and the processes by which they materialise relies on massive distributed systems of highly specialised and anonymous artists in concert with complex computer processes.

It is no wonder filmmakers go on to speak about this essential aspect of their productions in a way that reflects their alienation.

Popular directors like Chrisopher Nolan and JJ Abrams have extensively used VFX while decrying them as inferior to in-camera effects. While Abrams touted 2015’s Star Wars:The Force Awakens as a return to the practical aesthetic of the original trilogy, roughly 2,100 shots in the film used VFX.

In reference to 2017’s Dunkirk, Nolan said: “The older techniques are working better. With visual effects, after a while the contemporary tricks look cheaper.”

While Dunkirk did use practical effects, the film relied heavily on visual effects to augment and enhance the action.

Influenced by the language from directors, critics often cite bad effects as how Hollywood is ruining movies. Writing for Variety on Avengers and “the age of CGI overkill”, Brian Lowley said:

While the results can be visually astounding, the movies regularly feel as lifeless and mechanized as the technology responsible.

Yet when effects are good, they can be virtually undetectable. When a medium’s success is predicated on its self-erasure, we are left with a discourse which only ever identifies it as a problem – or never acknowledges it at all.

Worth doing well

There is no disputing VFX are often used in the service of what critic Johnathan Romney calls “the permanent apocalypse” of blockbuster films: an unending cycle of computer-generated mayhem.

But if these movies are bad, it’s not because they use VFX. It’s because they didn’t know how to.

While 2019’s Cats was definitely disturbing, “bad VFX” are the not the reason the film bombed, nor were the VFX “bad” because of the skill of the artists who made them. As the Visual Effects Society said: “the best visual effects in the world will not compensate for a story told badly.”

VFX is a powerful medium. It can be used in ways that are predictable, or in ways that expand the boundaries of our collective imagination.

But until VFX production becomes a better integrated part of the creative process, it will rarely be used in the service of a better kind of film.

– ref. Auteur vs computer: the frightening complexity of visual effects – https://theconversation.com/auteur-vs-computer-the-frightening-complexity-of-visual-effects-131458

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Kelly, Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

This week, the Victorian government unilaterally placed the residents of nine public housing towers in inner Melbourne under “hard lockdown” due to the “explosive potential” of increasing COVID-19 cases.

The lockdown requires all residents of these estates to remain inside their homes for at least five days, placing around 3,000 residents under special punitive measures that apply to no one else in Victoria. Residents are “reeling”.

The lockdown is being enforced by a significant police presence on the estates, with officers on every floor, no warning and immediate effect. Other outbreak areas have been given more than 24 hours’ notice for similar numbers of coronavirus cases.

Outbreaks in more affluent areas, such as the Mornington Peninsula, have not been met with the same harsh restrictions.

Emma King, the Victorian Council of Social Service CEO, described the lockdown of the estates as looking “like a crime scene”. A pandemic response should not be a crime scene. It is a collective, public health issue from which no one is immune.

The government’s justification for this action is that residents of public housing are vulnerable and living in high density with many shared spaces. The latter is true of any large apartment building in Melbourne.

Quarantine from Toorak to Broadmeadows should look the same if we are following public health guidelines. If living conditions in public housing are riskier than elsewhere then we need to ask why.

If it is true that communities in housing stress are more susceptible to pandemics, we need to ask how and why this should be true in such a privileged country as Australia.

Read more: Overcrowding and affordability stress: Melbourne’s COVID-19 hotspots are also housing crisis hotspots

Public housing has been suffering for decades

What is unfolding in Melbourne this week is the product of a punitive public housing system whose residents have been neglected for decades. The status of “vulnerable” that governments so blithely apply to public housing tenants does not come from nowhere.

Vulnerability is not an objective condition, but the result of a system geared toward inequality and enabled by policy choices. Public housing in Victoria is the product of decades of neglect, disinvestment and stigmatisation by governments and media.

The amount of public housing in Victoria has been declining in real terms for at least two decades, with fewer dwellings in 2019 (64,428) than in 2009 (65,064). Victoria has the lowest proportion of public housing of all the Australian states.

At the same time, the number of people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity in Victoria has increased to 100,000, according to waiting lists. Repeated inquiries and reports point to inadequate investment, poor maintenance and lack of strategy. Overcrowding is a function of a broken system.

These conditions directly feed a narrative of decline that is used to stigmatise, detain, constrain and displace public housing residents.

It is no coincidence the estates under lockdown are also earmarked for “socially-mixed” redevelopment and privatisation, which will break up the existing communities and provide even fewer places for those on lowest incomes.

There are alternatives to a hard lockdown

The public housing lockdowns are a police-led intervention in an already over-policed community. There is now welcome evidence of social services engagement, but this comes as a secondary consideration.

The residents of the affected towers do not need more policing. They have community-based and grassroots organisations such as RISE that have been actively engaged as members of the community. The spike in cases demands a health care response, not a police response.

Read more: Nine Melbourne tower blocks put into ‘hard lockdown’ – what does it mean, and will it work?

The Victorian government did not have to look far for existing models, such as the Aboriginal-led COVID-19 response across Australia, which demonstrates the effectiveness of community-led initiatives.

The most effective models for delivering public housing at a scale that can address need are also well-known to policy-makers and academics. Yet this government continues to pursue policies that reduce the amount of public housing available.

What Victoria needs is more and better quality public housing and supportive community-building practices that grant everyone the same dignities. Let’s trust those living in public housing.

If the right information, in the right language, with trusting relationships with government and other authorities were enabled, this public health crisis could be worked through in a just and equitable way. As it seems to be in all other sections of Victorian society.

Read more: Victoria is on the precipice of an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak. Will the new measures work?

– ref. Melbourne tower lockdowns unfairly target already vulnerable public housing residents – https://theconversation.com/melbourne-tower-lockdowns-unfairly-target-already-vulnerable-public-housing-residents-142041

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kris Gledhill, Professor of Law, Auckland University of Technology

On the very day New Zealand entered COVID-19 lockdown (March 26), the man arrested for the Christchurch mosque terror attacks admitted he was a murderer and a terrorist.

Despite the lockdown, Justice Mander arranged for media and community representatives to be present when the accused confessed guilt via an audio-visual link from prison. Adjourning the case for sentencing, the judge expressed the hope that those who wished to attend in person would be able to do so.

Last week, Justice Mander directed that sentencing begin on August 24, some 17 months after the atrocity of March 15, 2019.

Why the delay?

This crime was exceptional in its brutality. While the courts have treated it largely as any other case, there have been accommodations. Before the guilty pleas were entered, the trial date had been moved due to Ramadan. And extra steps have been taken to allow more victims to participate in the sentencing.

Read more: Explainer: how a royal commission will investigate Christchurch shootings

Under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, the families of those killed and injured are directly involved in a sentencing hearing. With lockdown lifted, New Zealand’s courts are running again, but many of those who will want to make a victim impact statement are abroad. Those with citizenship or permanent residence will have to be quarantined if they return.

Those not automatically entitled to enter will have to seek an exemption. The judge acknowledged the sentencing date was a compromise. Some who want to attend in person won’t be able to but, at the same time, finality is important. Video links will be arranged for those who can’t attend.

The judge did not explicitly mention the defendant’s interest in learning his fate, but this will also be a factor.

How will the gunman be sentenced?

The scale of offending in this case means the hearing will take several days, not least to allow meaningful participation by victims. Before the hearing, the lawyers will file submissions about the appropriate sentence based on the facts, aggravating factors and any mitigation that can be presented. Advice is given by probation officers, and medical reports often feature for serious offending.

A hearing typically opens with the defendant being asked if he or she has anything to say before sentence is passed. This is a cue for the lawyers to make their statements to the court.

Several issues may arise here. Will the defendant wish to speak directly? If so, will it be permitted? Will he be in court or appear via video link?

If he does want to be present for sentencing, the judge may still prevent this by finding it “not contrary to the interests of justice” if the defendant appears only by video link.

Read more: Life in prison looms for Australia’s Christchurch gunman, now NZ’s first convicted terrorist

If facts alleged by the prosecution are disputed by the defendant, and if those disputed facts may make a difference to the sentence, a mini-trial might be required to resolve them.

Who can present victim impact statements could also be disputed. The terrorism in question was aimed at the Muslim community, making it arguably a “person against whom” the offence was committed and so within the definition of a victim.

What sentence can we expect?

The maximum sentence for a terrorist act is life imprisonment, as it is for murder. The defendant has admitted 51 murders. For attempted murder, the maximum sentence is 10 years, and he has admitted 40 such offences.

Unlike some jurisdictions, New Zealand doesn’t allow sentences of several hundred years for multiple offending. The focus therefore will be on the life sentence.

The Sentencing Act requires a life sentence for murder unless that would be manifestly unjust. No one can suggest that exception applies here. The main issue will be the minimum non-parole period the judge should apply.

Parliament requires a minimum term of 17 years for a terrorist murder or one involving more than one victim. But the legislation allows the judge to set no minimum non-parole period – in other words, a life sentence is literally for the defendant’s remaining life.

Read more: Far-right extremists still threaten New Zealand, a year on from the Christchurch attacks

A “whole life” sentence has not yet been imposed in New Zealand but it seems likely the prosecution will call for one.

The defence lawyers’ job is to argue against it. It’s also likely that whatever the judge decides will be appealed – by the prosecution if he does not impose a whole life sentence, and by the defence if he does.

Could the gunman be sent back to Australia?

Whether or not there is a whole life sentence, the defendant will be imprisoned for the foreseeable future, inevitably in a high security facility.

Given he is Australian, might he be transferred to Australia? We have no standing arrangements to transfer serving prisoners, so deportation usually follows release. However, the government is able to negotiate special arrangements if the Australian government is willing.

The August hearing and any appeal will determine the responsibility of the gunman. The focus can then turn to the wider questions of whether the horror could have been prevented and how to guard against it happening again.

– ref. Explainer: will life mean life when the Christchurch mosque killer is sentenced? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-will-life-mean-life-when-the-christchurch-mosque-killer-is-sentenced-141984

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Cross, Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Law, Cybersecurity Cooperative Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology

Last year, Australians reported more than A$634 million lost to fraud, a significant jump from $489.7 million the year before.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has released its latest annual Targeting Scams report.

But despite increased awareness, scam alerts and targeted education campaigns, more Australians are being targeted than ever before.

With all the technological tools we have, why does fraud continue to be so pervasive? And how can the damage be reduced?

Latest key findings

According to the ACCC’s report, “business email compromise” fraud rose to dominance in 2019.

At $132 million, it became the highest category of financial loss reported – the first time this has happened. This usually involves using phishing and hacking to infiltrate company systems and email accounts.

Offenders can intercept payment invoices, or create their own, and funnel victims’ funds into their own accounts. Businesses and individuals make their payments as usual, but unknowingly pay the offender.

Investment and romance schemes also continue to defraud victims. Reports of investment fraud totalled $126 million, up from $80 million in 2018. And romance fraud losses totalled $83 million, up from $60.5 million in 2018.

Overall, men reported higher financial losses ($77.5 million) than women ($63.6 million).

Years of statistics

Reflecting on a decade of the ACCC’s Targeting Scams reports, we can see how fraud has changed with the times.

Since the first report in 2009 (which recorded $69.9 million in losses) Australians have collectively reported more than $2.5 billion in losses.

The number of reports has increased significantly. While this likely reflects a higher percentage of the population being targeted, it also represents more authorities receiving complaints and contributing statistics.

For instance, 2019 marked the first year the big four Australian banks (Westpac, NAB, Commonwealth Bank and ANZ) contributed their data.

The prince of Nigeria needs your help

Today’s offenders have very different approaches to those of ten years ago. There were once many more stories of Nigerian princes (although these still exist).

These days, victims are most often contacted by telephone, although email, text message and social media communications are also common.

Payment methods have advanced, too, with bitcoin and cryptocurrencies becoming popular ways for offenders to receive money.

Why is fraud still so successful?

While technology has long helped scammers, it has also helped improve cyber security options such as antivirus software, and email filters to block spam. So why do we still have fraud?

Essentially, fraud takes a human approach. Criminals seek to capitalise on victims’ weaknesses in a calculated manner. For example, this year Australians looking to buy pets during lockdown lost almost $300,000 to puppy scams.

Offenders have also shifted their focus to counteract fraud prevention messages to the public from police and other agencies. One prime example is the Little Black Book of Scams released by the ACCC in 2008.

It provides comprehensive details of many common fraud schemes and has influenced fraud-prevention messaging across both the United Kingdom and Canada.

To counter prevention messaging, offenders now recruit Australians to launder their funds. Known as “money mules”, they are often victims themselves, asked to receive and transfer money on behalf of offenders.

From a victim’s perspective, there are fewer red flags when asked to send money to a Big Four bank account in Melbourne, compared to sending money to Lagos, Nigeria.

Similarly, since there has been a strong push against sending money to people you don’t know, offenders have embraced the use of romance fraud (which targeted more women than men in 2019).

Read more: From catfish to romance fraud, how to avoid getting caught in any online scam

Offenders develop relationships and build trust to eventually cheat victims. And as last year’s report notes, they are now initiating relationships through channels other than dating apps, such as Instagram and even the online game Words with Friends.

With a focus on building relationships with victims, fraud requests are no longer as outrageous as they once were (although this Nigerian astronaut scam was an exception).

Manipulation and monopolising on emotions

As we gain a better understanding of how offenders operate, we’re starting to learn how effectively victims can be persuaded.

Fraud relies on the use of social engineering techniques such as authority and urgency to gain compliance. Offenders often take on the identity of someone with power and status to persuade victims to send money. They also stress the urgency of the request, to stop victims from thinking too much.

Psychological abuse techniques are also used to isolate and monopolise on victims. In this way, offenders try to remove victims from their support networks and place an air of secrecy around their interactions. And this limits a victims ability to seek support when needed.

There has been a greater recognition of the problem across government and industry. Despite this, there’s still often a sense of shame and embarrassment at being deceived, and victims have difficulty reporting.

Read more: Inside the mind of the online scammer

Defences for the future

The latest Targeting Scams report shows us offenders are still looking to gain a financial advantage, and will do whatever it takes. While you can’t guarantee safety, there are some simple steps that can help reduce the likelihood of fraud:

• recognise your own vulnerability to fraud. Everyone is a potential target.

• talk about fraud-related experiences with family and friends in a non-judgemental way. Offenders want victims to stay silent.

• in an uncertain situation, don’t feel pressured to xfrespond, as offenders rely on people making quick decisions. Hang up the phone, delete the email, or simply step back.

Now, more than ever, we must recognise the prevalence of fraud and the ways it impacts individuals and organisations across society. If we can learn from the past decade, maybe we can improve our defences for the next decade.

– ref. $2.5 billion lost over a decade: Nigerian princes lose their sheen, but scams are on the rise – https://theconversation.com/2-5-billion-lost-over-a-decade-nigerian-princes-lose-their-sheen-but-scams-are-on-the-rise-141289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gabrielle Appleby, Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW

In an open letter to Attorney-General Christian Porter, about 500 women working in the law from across Australia have sought changes to the way judges are disciplined and appointed.

The letter comes after former High Court judge Dyson Heydon was found by an independent investigation to have sexually harassed young female associates of the court, as reported by The Sydney Morning Herald.

The letter was also sent to Susan Kiefel, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, along with another letter to thank her

for her strong, decisive and compassionate responses to the complaints in the Heydon matter, and ask her to work with the government to see these reforms implemented in a way sensitive to the protection of judicial integrity and independence.

The full text of the two letters are below, along with the names of signatories.

Dear Attorney-General

We are writing following the publication of the High Court’s response to the complaints about the conduct of Mr Dyson Heydon AC QC during his time as a judge on the Court. As women working across the legal profession, we have welcomed the Chief Justice’s strong response to the independent inquiry’s recommendations about providing better protections to associates during their time employed at the Court, recognising their particularly vulnerable professional position.

We believe the abuse the allegations raise provides an important opportunity to implement wider reforms to address the high incidence of sexual harassment, assault and misconduct in the legal profession. Deep cultural shifts in how men treat women in the law are required, as well as reforms to prevent the manifestations of what many fear may be institutionalised sexism that has allowed this culture to continue. We must reach a position where all people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, age, race, ethnicity, or disability are treated with equal professional dignity. Of course, no single reform can achieve these shifts, and we understand many different forms of change must be pursued.

We are writing to urge you to implement two types of judicial institution reform – the establishment of an independent complaints body and the introduction of a transparent appointments process. We believe these will prove to be important systemic contributions towards deeper cultural shifts.

To ensure these reforms are introduced and designed with appropriate levels of respect for the independence of the judiciary, we ask you to develop them with the cooperation and input of the judges. We encourage you to work with the Chief Justice of the High Court, to whom we have provided a copy of this letter, and the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand to see them implemented. The Council of Chief Justices also offers an opportunity for these reforms to be considered at a national level to operate not just for the federal judiciary, but potentially across the federation.

First, we encourage the creation of an independent complaints body, with a standing jurisdiction to receive complaints against federal judges, investigate any complaints and provide appropriate responses to them. This institutional reform would ensure there is an established body to which future complainants may turn, whether they be court employees, members of the profession, the judiciary or members of the public. It would provide an independent avenue for individuals to seek redress with some guarantees of privacy and protection against recrimination, such as defamation actions.

An oversight institution such as this must be carefully designed so as to meet expectations of accountability for judicial misconduct, while protecting judges from unfounded allegations and not placing the judiciary in a subordinate position to any other branch of government. We underscore the necessity of any institution to respect judicial independence, and the requirements of Chapter III of the Constitution. If well designed with these considerations in mind, we believe such an institution could enhance public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

In respect of its design, any institution should be informed by best practice and the standards that apply to complaint handling, such as ISO 10002:2004: Quality Management – Customer Satisfaction – Guidelines for Complaint Handling in Organizations. It should also be informed, although not limited, by the design of institutions that are already operating in many jurisdictions, including the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, the Judicial Conduct Commissioner of South Australia, the Judicial Commission Victoria, the ACT Judicial Council and most recently, the Judicial Commission of the Northern Territory.

Informed by such standards and the experience of these jurisdictions, we propose the following principles for the design of a national judicial complaints institution:

1. there must be clear, publicly available standards against which appropriate judicial behaviour is assessed. These standards must be developed by the judiciary to ensure independence from the political branches. The Guide to Judicial Conduct, adopted by the Council of Chief Justices, provides an important starting point as to the types of conduct that are unacceptable in judicial office. However, these standards need to go beyond aspirational statements and set down enforceable standards of appropriate conduct, including examples of behaviour and the consequences that might follow from such behaviour. Further, these standards should specify that workplace harassment and bullying, including sexual harassment, constitute judicial misconduct; conduct which is currently not mentioned in the Guide

2. the body should be a standing body, separate and independent from the political branches of government. It should be appointed by the judiciary, to maintain judicial independence, but it must be separate from the ordinary judicial hierarchy and process

3. the body may include former judicial officers, and there should be diversity in its membership

4. the body must adopt a robust, fair and transparent process. It must have appropriate investigative powers and ensure procedural fairness is accorded to complainants and the respondent. It must also protect the privacy of complainants and provide them with guarantees against recrimination, including defamation proceedings

5. should the body determine that a complaint has been made out, it must have an appropriate suite of avenues for redress available to it. These might include: referral to Parliament for possible removal; referral to prosecutors in relation to possible criminal conduct; as well as intermediate forms of redress, such as public reprimand, orders for compensation, and recommendations for pastoral care and advice (eg mentoring). While there are concerns that such responses might undermine public confidence in the judiciary, we believe the revelation of misconduct without a mechanism for appropriate redress also poses a high risk of such damage.

6. the body must have jurisdiction that extends to the investigation of retired judges and chief justices. Its jurisdiction must include conduct on the bench, notwithstanding that a judge has subsequently resigned. Second, we urge systemic reforms to the process of judicial appointments to increase transparency and promote the independence, quality and diversity of the judiciary. These reforms must be targeted to select candidates that will bring not just excellent legal skills to the office, but also the highest personal integrity, and contribute to greater diversity in the senior ranks of the profession.

In respect of its design, we proposed the following principles:

1. the government should appoint an independent body, composed of a diverse range of members, appointed by the judiciary and the government through a transparent process, to advise the government in its role in judicial appointments

2. the body’s function should be to advertise widely for judicial vacancies, and to shortlist candidates who are suitable for appointment, from whom among the government may select.

3. shortlisting must occur against criteria that are set out in a public statement, and must include legal knowledge, skill and expertise in addition to essential personal qualities (eg integrity and good character). The value of diversity in judicial appointments should also be respected. The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration’s Suggested Criteria for Judicial Appointments provides an example of such a statement

4. the body must consult widely, with relevant professional bodies and officeholders, including those representing women and other minority stakeholders, before shortlisting candidates

5. The body’s processes must be transparent.

We hope government will seize the opportunity these shocking revelations have provided to implement these, and other, reforms that will contribute to making the law a safer profession for women into the future.

Yours faithfully,

Nina Abbey, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Dr Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland Kate Andean, Partner, Banki Haddock Fiora Larissa Andelman, NSW Bar and President of the Women Lawyers Association of NSW Ingrid Antolinez, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Professor Gabrielle Appleby, UNSW Law and Director, the Judiciary Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law Associate Professor Elisa Arcioni, Sydney Law School Amelia Arndt, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Claire Arthur, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Amanda Atkins, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office The Hon Roslyn Atkinson AO Sarah Avery, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Elizabeth Avery, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sara Ayoub, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Irene Baghoomians, Sydney Law School Caitlin Baker, Associate, Slater and Gordon Vanessa Balnaves, Senior Solicitor, Johnston Withers Lawyers Robin Banks, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Diane Banks, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Elise Bant, FAAL, UWA Law School and Melbourne Law School Michelle Barnes, South Australian Bar Professor Katy Barnett, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Jillian Barrett, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Jennifer Barron, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Lorana Bartels, FAAL, Criminology Program Leader, ANU and Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Canberra and University of Tasmania Associate Professor Francesca Bartlett, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland Michaela Bartonkova, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Rachel Bassil, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Vivienne Bath, Sydney Law School Jennifer Batrouney AM QC, Victorian Bar and Convenor of the Women Barristers Association Fiona Batten, Victorian Bar Katherine Bedford, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Narelle Bedford, Faculty of Law, Bond University Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt, University of Technology Sydney Selma Bekric, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Anna Belgiorna-Nettis, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Cassie Bell, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Andrea Bennett, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Lyria Bennett Moses, UNSW Law Dr Laurie Berg, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Rachel Bhatt, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Katherine Biber, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Associate Professor Alysia Blackham, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Madison Blacklock, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Olivia Blakiston, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Laura Blandthorn, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Manisha Blencowe, Practice Group Leader, Slater and Gordon Alex Blennerhassett, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Natalie Blok, Victorian Bar Cynthia Bluett, Partner, PE Family Law Samantha Boardman, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Sophie Bogard, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Associate Professor Tracey Booth, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Associate Professor Catherine Bond, UNSW Law Hilary Bonney, Victorian Bar and writer Grace Borsellino, Lecturer in Law, Western Sydney University Kate Bouffler, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Kate Bowshell, Victorian Bar Clancy Bradshaw, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Margaret Brain, Special Counsel, Maurice Blackburn The Hon. Catherine Branson AC QC, former judge of the Federal Court of Australia (1994-2008) and President of the Australian Human Rights Commission (2008-2012)
Julia Bravis, Associate, Slater and Gordon Dr Elizabeth Brophy, Victorian Bar Louise Buckingham, Knowledge and Innovation Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Lauren Burke, Victorian Bar Alison Burt, Victorian Bar Julie Buxton, Victorian Bar Patricia Cahill SC, WA Bar Milly Cain, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Sophie Callan, NSW Bar Professor Robyn Carroll, University of Western Australia Law School Dr Anne Carter, Deakin University Megan Casey, Victorian Bar Professor Judy Cashmore, The University of Sydney Law School Gina Cass-Gottlieb, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Associate Professor Melissa Castan, Faculty of Law, Monash University Gina Cerasiotis, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Professor Louise Chappell, Director, Australian Human Rights Institute, UNSW Law Tess Chappell, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Sue Chakravarthy, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Laureate Professor, Melbourne Law School; Distinguished Professor and Director of the Centre for International Governance and Justice, Australian National University Rosslyn Chenoweth, Northern Territory Women Lawyers Association; Secretary, Australian Women Lawyers; Director, Crimes Victims Services Unit, Department of the Attorney-General and Justice (NT) Li-Jean Chew, Partner, Addisons Karmilla Chenia, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Grace Chia, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Dr Madelaine Chiam, La Trobe Law School Karen Chibert, Victorian Bar Justine Clark, Principal, Tisher Liner FC Law Kerry Clark, South Australian Bar Alison Clues, Chief Commissioner / Chairperson, Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Tribunal, Asbestos Compensation Tribunal, Health Practitioners Tribunal, Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal, Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (Tas) Dr Helen Cockburn, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Professor Anna Cody, Dean, School of Law, Western Sydney University Michelle Cohen, Principal Solicitor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Paloma Cole, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Christine Collin, General Manager, Maurice Blackburn Catherine Collins, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rebecca Collins, Western Australian Bar Julie Comninos, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Caroline Compton, Research Associate, UNSW Law Celia Conlan, Victorian Bar Madeline Connolly, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Roslyn Cook, Managing Solicitor, Homeless Persons’ Legal Service, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Dr Monique Cormier, University of New England School of Law Rebecca Coulter, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Eloise Cox, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Anne Cregan, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Karen Crawley, Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School Associate Professor Penny Crofts, University of Technology Sydney Associate Professor Melissa Crouch, UNSW Law Kristen Cummings, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Tristan Cutliffe, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Eleanor D’Amrosio Scott, Graduate, Slater and Gordon Linda Dalton, Solicitor, NSW Sarah Damon, Victorian Bar Azadeh Dastyari, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Western Sydney University Ann-Maree David, Director, Australian Women Lawyers and Australian Gender Equality Council Professor Margaret Davies, Flinders University Professor Megan Davis, Pro Vice Chancellor (Indigenous) UNSW, Balnaves Chair in Constitutional Law, UNSW Law Anna Dawson, Senior Solicitor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Jessica Dawson-Field, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Tess Deegan, Solicitor, Kingsford Legal Centre UNSW Dr Sara Dehm, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Sherrilea Discombe, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Professor Rosalind Dixon, Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW Law Amanda Do, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Patricia Dobson, Victorian Bar Moya Dodd, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Lauren Lale Doganay, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Grace Dong, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Heather Douglas, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland Dimitra Dubrow, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Clair Duffy, lawyer, admitted in Queensland and Victoria Professor Andrea Durbach, UNSW Law Josephine Helen Dwan, PhD candidate, UNSW Canberra at ADFA Catherine Eagle, Solicitor, Welfare Rights & Advocacy Service Kate Eastman SC, NSW Bar Dr Lisa Eckstein, Senior Lecturer in Law and Medicine, University of Tasmania Alice Edwards PhD, international lawyer Alina El Jawhari, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Kylie Evans, Victorian Bar Julie Falck, University of Western Australia Law School Emily Fanning, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Associate Professor Bassina Farbenblum, UNSW Law Vanessa Farego-Diener, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rebecca Faugno, University of Western Australia Law School Patricia Femia, Assistant State Counsel, State Solicitor’s Office of Western Australia Kaitlin Ferris, Principal, Slater and Gordon Sarah Findlay, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Diane Fingleton, Chief Magistrate of Queensland (2000-2003) Megan Fitzgerald, Victorian Bar Tyneil Flaherty, South Australian Bar Mary Flanagan, Senior Legal Officer, Transitional Justice Program, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Natalie Fleming, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Janine Foo, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Emily Forbes, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Carolyn Ford, Special Counsel, Maurice Blackburn Catherine Fraser, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Giorgia Fraser, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Juliana Frizziero, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Sarah Gaffney-Smith, Senior Associate, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Associate Professor Kate Galloway, Griffith Law School Catherine Gamble, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Tami Ganemy-Kunoo, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Antonia Garling, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Jane Garnett, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Lauren Gavranich, South Australian Bar Daniela Gavshon, Program Director, Transitional Justice Program, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Professor Beth Gaze, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, Melbourne University Law School Professor Katharine Gelber, University of Queensland Professor Alison Gerard, Head of Canberra Law School, University of Canberra Assistant Professor Anthea Gerrard, Faculty of Law, Bond University Professor Felicity Gerry QC, Crockett Chambers and Deakin University, Melbourne Associate Professor and ARC Future Fellow, Rebecca Giblin, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne. Sue Gilchrist, Partner and Head of Intellectual Property Australia, Herbert Smith Freehills Rebecca Gilsenan, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers Madeline Gleeson, UNSW Law Dr Beth Goldblatt, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Emma Golledge, Director Kingsford Legal Centre UNSW Zoe Gow, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Laura Gowdie, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Emeritus Professor Reg Graycar, Sydney Law School and Barrister, NSW Bar Alex Grayson, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Brooke Greenwood, Senior Solicitor, Indigenous Child Protection Project, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Naty Guerroro-Diaz, Practice Group Leader, Slater and Gordon Alexandra Guild, Victorian Bar Associate Professor Nicole Graham, Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney Associate Professor Genevieve Grant, Director, Australian Centre for Justice Innovation, Faculty of Law, Monash University Mihal Greener, Victorian Bar Brooke Greenwood, Senior Solicitor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Janine Gregory, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Associate Professor Laura Grenfell, Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide Astrid Haban-Beer, Treasurer, Australian Women Lawyers, Victorian Bar Kate Haddock, Partner, Banki Haddock Fiora Simone Hall, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Marita Ham, Victorian Bar Michelle Hamlyn, South Australian Bar Professor Elizabeth Handsley, School of Law, Western Sydney University Michelle Hannon, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Kristine Hanscombe QC, Victorian Bar Christine Harb, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Tess Hardy, Melbourne Law School Syvannah Harper, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Deborah Harris, Victorian Bar Associate Professor Susan Harris Rimmer, Griffith Law School Georgia Harrison, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Kate Harrison, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Emily Hart, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Laura Hartley, Partner, Addisons Simone Hartley-Keane, Head of People & Culture, Maurice Blackburn Karen Hayne, Partner, Addisons Jane Healey, Victorian Bar Kim Heap, Senior Associate, Dobson Mitchell Allport Sally Heidenreich, South Australian Bar Amanda Hempel, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Samantha Hepburn, Deakin University Associate Professor Anne Hewitt, The University of Adelaide Kara Hill, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Professor Lesley Hitchens, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Philippa Hofbrucker, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Pamela Hogan, Victorian Bar Sahrah Hogan, Victorian Bar Dr Robyn Holder, Lecturer, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University Ms Sarah Holloway, lawyer Sarah Hook, School of Law, Western Sydney University Associate Professor Jacqui Horan, Member of the Victorian Bar (Academic), Faculty of Law, Monash University Kathleen Housego, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Azmeena Hussain, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Dr Danielle Ireland-Piper, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University Sofia Isabella-Hopper, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Briana Jackman, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Nicola Jackson, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Nicole Jagger, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Michelle James, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Erin Jardine, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Fleur Johns, UNSW Law Brigida Johnston, UTS Law Graduate Amy Johnstone, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Rachel Jones, Special Counsel, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Sarah Joseph, Griffith Law School Dr Tanya Josev, Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Jennifer Kanis, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Erin Kanygin, Legal Transformation Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Hannah Kay, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Miranda Kaye, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Carita Kazakoff, Principal Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Professor Fiona Kelly, Dean, La Trobe University Law School Heather Kerley, Maurice Blackburn Jessica Kerr, PhD candidate, UWA Law School, formerly Magistrate, Judiciary of Seychelles Nitra Kidson QC, Higgins Chambers, Brisbane Deborah Kilger, Associate, Hicks Oakley Chessell Williams, President of Victorian Women Lawyers Annabel Kirkby, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Lesley Kirkwood, Solicitor Louise Klamka, Special Counsel, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Jessie Klaric, Legal Counsel, BNK Annabelle Klimt, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Fiona Knowles, Victorian Bar Kristyn Knox, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Dr Jane Kotzmann, Lecturer, School of Law, Deakin University Dr Rebecca La Forgia, Adelaide Law School Professor Wendy Lacey FAAL, Executive Dean, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra Corinna Lagerberg, Law Graduate, Maurice Blackburn Belle Lane, Victorian Bar Professor Suzanne Le Mire, University of Adelaide Fiona Leddy, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Michelle Lee, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sunny Lee, Consultant, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Jane Leibowitz, Senior Solicitor, Asylum Seeker Health Rights Project, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Gemma Leigh-Dodds, Senior Associate, Slater and Gordon Lisa Lennon, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Haidee Leung, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Eugenia Levine, Victorian Bar Judith Levine, Independent Arbitrator Claudia Lewis, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Jessica Liang, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Associate Prof Terri Libesman, UTS Law Shari Liby, Principal, Slater and Gordon Monica Liesch, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Ffyona Livingstone Clark, Victorian Bar Nicole Lojszczyk, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Maryanne Loughnan QC, Victorian Bar Dr Trish Luker, Senior Lecturer, UTS Faculty of Law Roisin Lyng, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Therese MacDermott, Professor, Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University Edwina MacDonald, ACOSS Helen MacFarlane, Partner, Addisons Professor Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor of Law, UNSW Law Jessica McAvoy, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Katherine McCallum, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Dr Phillipa McCormack, School of Law, University of Tasmania Holly McCoy, Solicitor, InDIGO Program, Women’s Legal Service (SA) Christiana McCudden, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Jane McCullough, Senior Associate, Slater and Gordon Associate Professor Jani McCutcheon, University of Western Australia Law School Dr Fiona McDonald, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology Professor Jan McDonald, School of Law, University of Tasmania Dr Fiona McGaughey, UWA Law School Emily McGee, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Dr Carolyn McKay, Senior Lecture, The University of Sydney Law School Amelia McKellar, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Kathryn McKenzie, Executive Officer, Women Lawyers Association of NSW Sophie McKenzie, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Fiona McLeod AO SC, Victorian Bar Dr Kcasey McLoughlin, Newcastle Law School The Hon. Margaret McMurdo AC, former President of the Queensland Court of Appeal; Commissioner, Victorian Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants Dr Rebekah McWhirter, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Neeharika Maddula, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sashi Maharaj QC, Victorian Bar Dr Felicity Maher, Senior Lecturer, University of Western Australia Law School; Barrister, Quayside Chambers, Perth Rebecca Mahoney, Knowledge Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Shauna Mainprize, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Claire Mainsbridge, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Leah Marrone, Vice-President, Australian Women Lawyers Shanta Martin, Victorian Bar Professor Gail Mason, Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney Vavaa Mawuli, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Caitlin Meade, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Lauren Meath, Graduate, Slater and Gordon Professor Denise Meyerson FAAL, Professor of Law, Macquarie Law School Heather Millar, Western Australian Bar Audrey Mills, Director, Dobson Mitchell Allport Lawyers and former President Australian Women Lawyers Lucy Minter, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Idil Mohamud, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Jasmine Monastiriotis, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Bethany Moore, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Victoria Moore, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Professor Jenny Morgan, Melbourne Law School, University of Law School Adrienne Morton, President, Australian Women Lawyers Idil Mohamud, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Justine Munsie, Partner, Addisons Nikita Moyle, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Jennifer Mulheron, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Bridie Murphy, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Penny Murray, Partner, Addisons Professor Sarah Murray, University of Western Australia Professor Ngaire Naffine, Adelaide Law School Miranda Nagy, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Ayesha Nathan, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Marcia Neave Jane Needham SC, NSW Bar Dr Wendy Ng, Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Law School Dr Yee-Fui Ng, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University Eileen Nguyen, Principal Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Distinguished Professor Dianne Nicol, Director of the Centre for Law and Genetics, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Associate Professor Jane Nielsen, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Associate Professor Jennifer Nielsen, School of Law and Justice, Southern Cross University
Laura Nigro, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Annabelle Nilsson, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Gisela Nip, Deakin University, Judge’s Associate Kimi Nishimura, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Justine Nolan, UNSW Law Sarah Notarianni, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Madeleine O’Brien, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Anna O’Callaghan, Victorian Bar Professor Ann O’Connell, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Associate Professor Karen O’Connell, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Claire O’Connor SC, South Australian Bar Elizabeth O’Shea, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Dr Maria O’Sullivan, Faculty of Law, Monash University Dr Anna Olijnyk, Senior Lecturer, Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide Associate Professor Bronwyn Olliffe, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Hannah Opperman-Williams, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Emily Ormerod, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Margaret Otlowski, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania and Pro Vice Chancellor (Culture, Wellbeing and Sustainability); Patron, Tasmanian Women’s Lawyers. Associate Professor Juliette Overland, Business Law, The University of Sydney Business School Isabel Owen, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Emerita Professor Rosemary Owens AO, The University of Adelaide Dr Tamsin Paige, Deakin Law School Ivana Pajic, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Kerry Palmer, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Sophia Papadopoulos, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Professor Christine Parker, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne Professor Jeannie Marie Paterson, Co-Director for the Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, The University of Melbourne Suganya Pathanjalimanoharar, Victorian Bar Emma Pelka-Caven, Practice Group Leader, Slater and Gordon Jana Pennington, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Dr Tania Penovic, Senior Lecturer, Deputy Associate Dean (International), Monash University Elly Phelan, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sarah Pickles, Solicitor, Family Violence Legal Service Aboriginal Corporation (SA) Clementine Pickwick, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Sangeetha Pillai, UNSW Law Claire Pirie, Associate, Slater and Gordon Colleen Platford, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rebecca Preston, Victorian Bar Diana Price, Victorian Bar Phoebe Prossor, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Paula Pulitano, Associate, Slater and Gordon Associate Professor Julia Quilter, School of Law, University of Wollongong Genevieve Rahman, Special Counsel, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Sally Antionette Raine, Fremantle Law Pty Ltd Zoe Rathus AM, Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School Jacqueline Reid, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rhiannon Reid, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Professor Catherine Renshaw, School of Law, Western Sydney University Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu FAAS, Flinders University Julie Robb, Partner, Banki Haddock Fiora Dr Hannah Robert, Senior Lecturer, La Trobe Law School Associate Professor Heather Roberts, ANU College of Law, ANU Natasha Roberts, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Carly Robertson, Victorian Bar Becci Robinson, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Jane Robinson, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Sharni Robinson, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Dr Justine Rogers, UNSW Law Carrie Rome-Sievers, Victorian Bar Fiona Roughley, NSW Bar Professor Kim Rubenstein, FAAL, FASSA, Co-Director, 50/50 by 2030 Foundation, Faculty of Business Governance and Law, University of Canberra Professor Kristen Rundle, Melbourne Law School Dr Olivia Rundle, University of Tasmania Law School Erin Rutherford, Victorian Bar Dr Philippa Ryan, NSW Bar and ANU College of Law Gemma Saccasan, Law Graduate, Maurice Blackburn Professor Maree Sainsbury, University of Canberra Liberty Sanger, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Dr Amanda Scardamaglia, Associate Professor and Department Chair, Faculty of Business and Law, Swinburne University of Technology Carolyn Scobie, General Counsel, QBE Insurance Group Associate Professor Kate Seear, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Practising Solicitor Jo Seto, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rheya Shah, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Celeste Shambrook, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Lauren Shave, Senior Associate, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Kim Shaw, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Anne Sheehan, Victorian Bar Dr Kym Sheehan, Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney Emily Shen, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Donna Short, Partner, Addisons Anne Shortall, Special Counsel, Slater and Gordon Dr Ronli Sifris, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University Dr Natalie Silver, Faculty of Law, The University of Sydney Associate Professor Amelia Simpson, ANU Law School Zahra Sitou, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Professor Natalie Skead, Dean of Law, The University of Western Australia Nina Smart, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Verity Smith, Solicitor, Strategic Litigation, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Dr Laura Smith-Khan, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Anna Smyth, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sarah Sorrell, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Professor Tania Sourdin, Dean and Head of School, Newcastle Law School Sarah Snowden, State Practice Group Leader, Slater and Gordon Dr Lisa Spagnolo, Senior Lecturer, Monash Law School Victoria Sparks, Associate, Slater and Gordon Dr Linda Steele, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Molly Stephens, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Natalie Stoianoff, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Nadia Stojanova, Victorian Bar Toni Stokes, Victorian Bar Dr Cait Storr, Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Tanya Straguszi, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Emma Strugnell, Victorian Bar Professor Anita Stuhmcke, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Gabrielle Sumich, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Lexi Sun, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Dr Carolyn Tan, In-House Legal Counsel at Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation Jessie E Taylor, Associate Director, Victoria Legal Aid Chambers. Dr Madeline Taylor, Sydney Law School Amy Teiwes, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Karin Temperley, Victoria Legal Aid Amy Tesoriero, UTS Law Graduate Associate Professor Shih-Ning Then, Law Faculty, Queensland University of Technology Rhea Thomas, Solicitor, Welfare Rights & Advocacy Service Amanda Thompson, President, Tasmanian Women Lawyers, Associate, Wallace Wilkinson & Webster Clare Thompson, Western Australian Bar, President of Women Lawyers of WA Emerita Professor Margaret Thornton, ANU College of Law, Australian National University Associate Professor Amelia Thorpe, UNSW Law Ellen Tilbury, Senior Solicitor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Ltd Eleanor Toohey, Graduate, Slater and Gordon Jenny Tran, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Charmaine Tsang, Director, Australian Women Lawyers; Immediate Past President Women Lawyers of Western Australia Dr Tamara Tulich, UWA Law School Andrea Turner, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Sarah Turner, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Alison Umbers, Barrister and Mediator, Assistant Convenor of the Women Barristers Association Sarah Vallance, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Kirsten Van Der Wal, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Ella van der Schans, Solicitor, Herbert Smith Freehills, Victorian Director of Australian Women Lawyers Dr Kate van Doore, Griffith Law School Sarah Varney, Victorian Bar Holly Veale, South Australian Bar Sarah Vo, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Anthea Vogl, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Alexandra Volk, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Mackenzie Wakefield, Law Graduate, Maurice Blackburn Gayann Walker, Assistant Convenor of the Women’s Barrister Association of the Victorian Bar Gillian Walker, South Australian Bar Samantha Walker, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Brighdin Walsh, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Lorraine Walsh, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Dr Jane Wangmann, Faculty of Law UTS Stacey Ward, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Juliana Warner, Managing Partner, Sydney Office, Herbert Smith Freehills, Dr Helen Watchirs OAM, ACT President and Human Rights Commissioner Nicole Watson, Senior Lecturer, Sydney Law School Tanya Watson, Senior Associate, Julian Johnson Lawyers Dr Kylie Weston-Scheuber, Victorian Bar Professor Sally Wheeler OBE, MRIA, FaCSS, Pro-Vice Chancellor for International Strategy and Dean, Robert Garran Professor of Law, ANU College of Law, Australian National University Jenni Whelan, Clinical Director, School of Law, Western Sydney University Janet Whiting, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Nikki Whiting, Special Counsel, Maurice Blackburn Deborah Wiener, Victorian Bar Marie Wilkening-Le Brun, Victorian Bar Anita Will, Solicitor Kingsford Legal Centre UNSW Kerrie Wood, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Donna Woodleigh, Lawyer Aimee Woods, UTS Law Graduate Alice Woolven, Legal Support Officer, City of Casey Isabelle Wong, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Madeline Wu, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Angelika Yates, Partner, Addisons April Zahra, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Jessica Zarkovic, Senior Associate, Slater and Gordon

Dear Chief Justice,

We are writing following the publication of the High Court’s response to the complaints about the conduct of Mr Dyson Heydon AC QC during his time as a judge on the Court. We thank you and the Court’s Principal Registrar, Ms Philippa Lynch, in particular for the decisive action taken to ensure the complaints were thoroughly investigated by an independent process. We are grateful that you took this matter so seriously and treated the complainants with dignity, compassion and respect. We welcome your response to the inquiry’s recommendations as to how to provide better protections to associates during their time employed at the Court, recognising their particularly vulnerable professional position.

Today, we have sent a letter to the Commonwealth Attorney-General urging him to seize this moment as an opportunity to implement reforms to address the high incidence of sexual harassment, assault and misconduct in the law. We have asked that he take action to implement two types of institutional reforms – an independent complaints body and a transparent judicial appointments process. While no single reform will achieve the necessary cultural shifts in how women are treated in the law, we believe, if properly designed, these will prove to be important systemic contributions towards deeper change.

We are very conscious that these reforms must be developed through close cooperation between the government, through the Attorney-General’s portfolio, and the judiciary. In particular, the creation of an independent complaint-handling body with a standing jurisdiction to receive complaints against federal judges, investigate any complaints and provide appropriate responses to them, must be designed with care. It must meet expectations of accountability for judicial misconduct while protecting judges from unfounded allegations and not compromising judicial independence by placing the judiciary in a subordinate position to any other branch of government.

With these considerations in mind, we have asked the Attorney-General to work with you and the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand as an important forum for input from the Australian judiciary into the design of these reforms. We applaud your initial response to this issue. The changes you and Ms Lynch have made will form a significant legacy and will make the law a safer profession for women.

Yours faithfully,

Nina Abbey, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Dr Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland Kate Andean, Partner, Banki Haddock Fiora Larissa Andelman, NSW Bar and President of the Women Lawyers Association of NSW Ingrid Antolinez, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Professor Gabrielle Appleby, UNSW Law and Director, the Judiciary Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law Associate Professor Elisa Arcioni, Sydney Law School Amelia Arndt, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Claire Arthur, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Amanda Atkins, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office The Hon Roslyn Atkinson AO Sarah Avery, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Elizabeth Avery, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sara Ayoub, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Irene Baghoomians, Sydney Law School Caitlin Baker, Associate, Slater and Gordon Vanessa Balnaves, Senior Solicitor, Johnston Withers Lawyers Robin Banks, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Diane Banks, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Elise Bant, FAAL, UWA Law School and Melbourne Law School Michelle Barnes, South Australian Bar Professor Katy Barnett, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Jillian Barrett, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Jennifer Barron, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Lorana Bartels, FAAL, Criminology Program Leader, ANU and Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Canberra and University of Tasmania Associate Professor Francesca Bartlett, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland Michaela Bartonkova, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Rachel Bassil, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Vivienne Bath, Sydney Law School Jennifer Batrouney AM QC, Victorian Bar and Convenor of the Women Barristers Association Fiona Batten, Victorian Bar Katherine Bedford, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Narelle Bedford, Faculty of Law, Bond University Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt, University of Technology Sydney Selma Bekric, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Anna Belgiorna-Nettis, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Cassie Bell, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Andrea Bennett, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Lyria Bennett Moses, UNSW Law Dr Laurie Berg, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Rachel Bhatt, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Katherine Biber, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Associate Professor Alysia Blackham, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Madison Blacklock, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Olivia Blakiston, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Laura Blandthorn, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Manisha Blencowe, Practice Group Leader, Slater and Gordon Alex Blennerhassett, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Natalie Blok, Victorian Bar Cynthia Bluett, Partner, PE Family Law Samantha Boardman, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Sophie Bogard, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Associate Professor Tracey Booth, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Associate Professor Catherine Bond, UNSW Law Hilary Bonney, Victorian Bar and writer Grace Borsellino, Lecturer in Law, Western Sydney University Kate Bouffler, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Kate Bowshell, Victorian Bar Clancy Bradshaw, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Margaret Brain, Special Counsel, Maurice Blackburn The Hon. Catherine Branson AC QC, former judge of the Federal Court of Australia (1994-2008) and President of the Australian Human Rights Commission (2008-2012)
Julia Bravis, Associate, Slater and Gordon Dr Elizabeth Brophy, Victorian Bar Louise Buckingham, Knowledge and Innovation Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Lauren Burke, Victorian Bar Alison Burt, Victorian Bar Julie Buxton, Victorian Bar Patricia Cahill SC, WA Bar Milly Cain, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Sophie Callan, NSW Bar Professor Robyn Carroll, University of Western Australia Law School Dr Anne Carter, Deakin University Megan Casey, Victorian Bar Professor Judy Cashmore, The University of Sydney Law School Gina Cass-Gottlieb, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Associate Professor Melissa Castan, Faculty of Law, Monash University Gina Cerasiotis, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Professor Louise Chappell, Director, Australian Human Rights Institute, UNSW Law Tess Chappell, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Sue Chakravarthy, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Laureate Professor, Melbourne Law School; Distinguished Professor and Director of the Centre for International Governance and Justice, Australian National University Rosslyn Chenoweth, Northern Territory Women Lawyers Association; Secretary, Australian Women Lawyers; Director, Crimes Victims Services Unit, Department of the Attorney-General and Justice (NT) Li-Jean Chew, Partner, Addisons Karmilla Chenia, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Grace Chia, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Dr Madelaine Chiam, La Trobe Law School Karen Chibert, Victorian Bar Justine Clark, Principal, Tisher Liner FC Law Kerry Clark, South Australian Bar Alison Clues, Chief Commissioner / Chairperson, Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Tribunal, Asbestos Compensation Tribunal, Health Practitioners Tribunal, Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal, Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (Tas) Dr Helen Cockburn, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Professor Anna Cody, Dean, School of Law, Western Sydney University Michelle Cohen, Principal Solicitor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Paloma Cole, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Christine Collin, General Manager, Maurice Blackburn Catherine Collins, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rebecca Collins, Western Australian Bar Julie Comninos, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Caroline Compton, Research Associate, UNSW Law Celia Conlan, Victorian Bar Madeline Connolly, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Roslyn Cook, Managing Solicitor, Homeless Persons’ Legal Service, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Dr Monique Cormier, University of New England School of Law Rebecca Coulter, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Eloise Cox, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Anne Cregan, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Karen Crawley, Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School Associate Professor Penny Crofts, University of Technology Sydney Associate Professor Melissa Crouch, UNSW Law Kristen Cummings, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Tristan Cutliffe, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Eleanor D’Amrosio Scott, Graduate, Slater and Gordon Linda Dalton, Solicitor, NSW Sarah Damon, Victorian Bar Azadeh Dastyari, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Western Sydney University Ann-Maree David, Director, Australian Women Lawyers and Australian Gender Equality Council Professor Margaret Davies, Flinders University Professor Megan Davis, Pro Vice Chancellor (Indigenous) UNSW, Balnaves Chair in Constitutional Law, UNSW Law Anna Dawson, Senior Solicitor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Jessica Dawson-Field, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Tess Deegan, Solicitor, Kingsford Legal Centre UNSW Dr Sara Dehm, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Sherrilea Discombe, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Professor Rosalind Dixon, Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW Law Amanda Do, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Patricia Dobson, Victorian Bar Moya Dodd, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Lauren Lale Doganay, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Grace Dong, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Heather Douglas, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland Dimitra Dubrow, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Clair Duffy, lawyer, admitted in Queensland and Victoria Professor Andrea Durbach, UNSW Law Josephine Helen Dwan, PhD candidate, UNSW Canberra at ADFA Catherine Eagle, Solicitor, Welfare Rights & Advocacy Service Kate Eastman SC, NSW Bar Dr Lisa Eckstein, Senior Lecturer in Law and Medicine, University of Tasmania Alice Edwards PhD, international lawyer Alina El Jawhari, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Kylie Evans, Victorian Bar Julie Falck, University of Western Australia Law School Emily Fanning, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Associate Professor Bassina Farbenblum, UNSW Law Vanessa Farego-Diener, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rebecca Faugno, University of Western Australia Law School Patricia Femia, Assistant State Counsel, State Solicitor’s Office of Western Australia Kaitlin Ferris, Principal, Slater and Gordon Sarah Findlay, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Diane Fingleton, Chief Magistrate of Queensland (2000-2003) Megan Fitzgerald, Victorian Bar Tyneil Flaherty, South Australian Bar Mary Flanagan, Senior Legal Officer, Transitional Justice Program, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Natalie Fleming, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Janine Foo, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Emily Forbes, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Carolyn Ford, Special Counsel, Maurice Blackburn Catherine Fraser, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Giorgia Fraser, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Juliana Frizziero, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Sarah Gaffney-Smith, Senior Associate, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Associate Professor Kate Galloway, Griffith Law School Catherine Gamble, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Tami Ganemy-Kunoo, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Antonia Garling, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Jane Garnett, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Lauren Gavranich, South Australian Bar Daniela Gavshon, Program Director, Transitional Justice Program, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Professor Beth Gaze, Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law, Melbourne University Law School Professor Katharine Gelber, University of Queensland Professor Alison Gerard, Head of Canberra Law School, University of Canberra Assistant Professor Anthea Gerrard, Faculty of Law, Bond University Professor Felicity Gerry QC, Crockett Chambers and Deakin University, Melbourne Associate Professor and ARC Future Fellow, Rebecca Giblin, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne. Sue Gilchrist, Partner and Head of Intellectual Property Australia, Herbert Smith Freehills Rebecca Gilsenan, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers Madeline Gleeson, UNSW Law Dr Beth Goldblatt, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Emma Golledge, Director Kingsford Legal Centre UNSW Zoe Gow, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Laura Gowdie, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Emeritus Professor Reg Graycar, Sydney Law School and Barrister, NSW Bar Alex Grayson, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Brooke Greenwood, Senior Solicitor, Indigenous Child Protection Project, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Naty Guerroro-Diaz, Practice Group Leader, Slater and Gordon Alexandra Guild, Victorian Bar Associate Professor Nicole Graham, Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney Associate Professor Genevieve Grant, Director, Australian Centre for Justice Innovation, Faculty of Law, Monash University Mihal Greener, Victorian Bar Brooke Greenwood, Senior Solicitor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Janine Gregory, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Associate Professor Laura Grenfell, Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide Astrid Haban-Beer, Treasurer, Australian Women Lawyers, Victorian Bar Kate Haddock, Partner, Banki Haddock Fiora Simone Hall, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Marita Ham, Victorian Bar Michelle Hamlyn, South Australian Bar Professor Elizabeth Handsley, School of Law, Western Sydney University Michelle Hannon, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Kristine Hanscombe QC, Victorian Bar Christine Harb, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Tess Hardy, Melbourne Law School Syvannah Harper, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Deborah Harris, Victorian Bar Associate Professor Susan Harris Rimmer, Griffith Law School Georgia Harrison, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Kate Harrison, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Emily Hart, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Laura Hartley, Partner, Addisons Simone Hartley-Keane, Head of People & Culture, Maurice Blackburn Karen Hayne, Partner, Addisons Jane Healey, Victorian Bar Kim Heap, Senior Associate, Dobson Mitchell Allport Sally Heidenreich, South Australian Bar Amanda Hempel, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Samantha Hepburn, Deakin University Associate Professor Anne Hewitt, The University of Adelaide Kara Hill, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Professor Lesley Hitchens, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Philippa Hofbrucker, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Pamela Hogan, Victorian Bar Sahrah Hogan, Victorian Bar Dr Robyn Holder, Lecturer, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University Ms Sarah Holloway, lawyer Sarah Hook, School of Law, Western Sydney University Associate Professor Jacqui Horan, Member of the Victorian Bar (Academic), Faculty of Law, Monash University Kathleen Housego, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Azmeena Hussain, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Dr Danielle Ireland-Piper, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University Sofia Isabella-Hopper, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Briana Jackman, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Nicola Jackson, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Nicole Jagger, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Michelle James, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Erin Jardine, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Fleur Johns, UNSW Law Brigida Johnston, UTS Law Graduate Amy Johnstone, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Rachel Jones, Special Counsel, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Professor Sarah Joseph, Griffith Law School Dr Tanya Josev, Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Jennifer Kanis, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Erin Kanygin, Legal Transformation Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Hannah Kay, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Miranda Kaye, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Carita Kazakoff, Principal Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Professor Fiona Kelly, Dean, La Trobe University Law School Heather Kerley, Maurice Blackburn Jessica Kerr, PhD candidate, UWA Law School, formerly Magistrate, Judiciary of Seychelles Nitra Kidson QC, Higgins Chambers, Brisbane Deborah Kilger, Associate, Hicks Oakley Chessell Williams, President of Victorian Women Lawyers Annabel Kirkby, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Lesley Kirkwood, Solicitor Louise Klamka, Special Counsel, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Jessie Klaric, Legal Counsel, BNK Annabelle Klimt, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Fiona Knowles, Victorian Bar Kristyn Knox, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Dr Jane Kotzmann, Lecturer, School of Law, Deakin University Dr Rebecca La Forgia, Adelaide Law School Professor Wendy Lacey FAAL, Executive Dean, Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra Corinna Lagerberg, Law Graduate, Maurice Blackburn Belle Lane, Victorian Bar Professor Suzanne Le Mire, University of Adelaide Fiona Leddy, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Michelle Lee, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sunny Lee, Consultant, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Jane Leibowitz, Senior Solicitor, Asylum Seeker Health Rights Project, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Gemma Leigh-Dodds, Senior Associate, Slater and Gordon Lisa Lennon, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Haidee Leung, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Eugenia Levine, Victorian Bar Judith Levine, Independent Arbitrator Claudia Lewis, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Jessica Liang, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Associate Prof Terri Libesman, UTS Law Shari Liby, Principal, Slater and Gordon Monica Liesch, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Ffyona Livingstone Clark, Victorian Bar Nicole Lojszczyk, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Maryanne Loughnan QC, Victorian Bar Dr Trish Luker, Senior Lecturer, UTS Faculty of Law Roisin Lyng, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Therese MacDermott, Professor, Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University Edwina MacDonald, ACOSS Helen MacFarlane, Partner, Addisons Professor Jane McAdam, Scientia Professor of Law, UNSW Law Jessica McAvoy, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Katherine McCallum, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Dr Phillipa McCormack, School of Law, University of Tasmania Holly McCoy, Solicitor, InDIGO Program, Women’s Legal Service (SA) Christiana McCudden, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Jane McCullough, Senior Associate, Slater and Gordon Associate Professor Jani McCutcheon, University of Western Australia Law School Dr Fiona McDonald, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology Professor Jan McDonald, School of Law, University of Tasmania Dr Fiona McGaughey, UWA Law School Emily McGee, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Dr Carolyn McKay, Senior Lecture, The University of Sydney Law School Amelia McKellar, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Kathryn McKenzie, Executive Officer, Women Lawyers Association of NSW Sophie McKenzie, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Fiona McLeod AO SC, Victorian Bar Dr Kcasey McLoughlin, Newcastle Law School The Hon. Margaret McMurdo AC, former President of the Queensland Court of Appeal; Commissioner, Victorian Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants Dr Rebekah McWhirter, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Neeharika Maddula, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sashi Maharaj QC, Victorian Bar Dr Felicity Maher, Senior Lecturer, University of Western Australia Law School; Barrister, Quayside Chambers, Perth Rebecca Mahoney, Knowledge Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Shauna Mainprize, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Claire Mainsbridge, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Leah Marrone, Vice-President, Australian Women Lawyers Shanta Martin, Victorian Bar Professor Gail Mason, Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney Vavaa Mawuli, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Caitlin Meade, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Lauren Meath, Graduate, Slater and Gordon Professor Denise Meyerson FAAL, Professor of Law, Macquarie Law School Heather Millar, Western Australian Bar Audrey Mills, Director, Dobson Mitchell Allport Lawyers and former President Australian Women Lawyers Lucy Minter, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Idil Mohamud, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Jasmine Monastiriotis, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Bethany Moore, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Victoria Moore, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Professor Jenny Morgan, Melbourne Law School, University of Law School Adrienne Morton, President, Australian Women Lawyers Idil Mohamud, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Justine Munsie, Partner, Addisons Nikita Moyle, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Jennifer Mulheron, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Bridie Murphy, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Penny Murray, Partner, Addisons Professor Sarah Murray, University of Western Australia Professor Ngaire Naffine, Adelaide Law School Miranda Nagy, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Ayesha Nathan, Law Clerk, Maurice Blackburn Marcia Neave Jane Needham SC, NSW Bar Dr Wendy Ng, Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Law School Dr Yee-Fui Ng, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University Eileen Nguyen, Principal Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Distinguished Professor Dianne Nicol, Director of the Centre for Law and Genetics, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Associate Professor Jane Nielsen, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania Associate Professor Jennifer Nielsen, School of Law and Justice, Southern Cross University
Laura Nigro, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Annabelle Nilsson, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Gisela Nip, Deakin University, Judge’s Associate Kimi Nishimura, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Justine Nolan, UNSW Law Sarah Notarianni, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Madeleine O’Brien, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Anna O’Callaghan, Victorian Bar Professor Ann O’Connell, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne Associate Professor Karen O’Connell, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Claire O’Connor SC, South Australian Bar Elizabeth O’Shea, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Dr Maria O’Sullivan, Faculty of Law, Monash University Dr Anna Olijnyk, Senior Lecturer, Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide Associate Professor Bronwyn Olliffe, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Hannah Opperman-Williams, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Emily Ormerod, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Margaret Otlowski, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania and Pro Vice Chancellor (Culture, Wellbeing and Sustainability); Patron, Tasmanian Women’s Lawyers. Associate Professor Juliette Overland, Business Law, The University of Sydney Business School Isabel Owen, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Emerita Professor Rosemary Owens AO, The University of Adelaide Dr Tamsin Paige, Deakin Law School Ivana Pajic, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Kerry Palmer, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Sophia Papadopoulos, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Professor Christine Parker, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne Professor Jeannie Marie Paterson, Co-Director for the Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, The University of Melbourne Suganya Pathanjalimanoharar, Victorian Bar Emma Pelka-Caven, Practice Group Leader, Slater and Gordon Jana Pennington, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Dr Tania Penovic, Senior Lecturer, Deputy Associate Dean (International), Monash University Elly Phelan, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sarah Pickles, Solicitor, Family Violence Legal Service Aboriginal Corporation (SA) Clementine Pickwick, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Sangeetha Pillai, UNSW Law Claire Pirie, Associate, Slater and Gordon Colleen Platford, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rebecca Preston, Victorian Bar Diana Price, Victorian Bar Phoebe Prossor, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Paula Pulitano, Associate, Slater and Gordon Associate Professor Julia Quilter, School of Law, University of Wollongong Genevieve Rahman, Special Counsel, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Sally Antionette Raine, Fremantle Law Pty Ltd Zoe Rathus AM, Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School Jacqueline Reid, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rhiannon Reid, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Professor Catherine Renshaw, School of Law, Western Sydney University Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu FAAS, Flinders University Julie Robb, Partner, Banki Haddock Fiora Dr Hannah Robert, Senior Lecturer, La Trobe Law School Associate Professor Heather Roberts, ANU College of Law, ANU Natasha Roberts, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Carly Robertson, Victorian Bar Becci Robinson, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Jane Robinson, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Sharni Robinson, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Dr Justine Rogers, UNSW Law Carrie Rome-Sievers, Victorian Bar Fiona Roughley, NSW Bar Professor Kim Rubenstein, FAAL, FASSA, Co-Director, 50/50 by 2030 Foundation, Faculty of Business Governance and Law, University of Canberra Professor Kristen Rundle, Melbourne Law School Dr Olivia Rundle, University of Tasmania Law School Erin Rutherford, Victorian Bar Dr Philippa Ryan, NSW Bar and ANU College of Law Gemma Saccasan, Law Graduate, Maurice Blackburn Professor Maree Sainsbury, University of Canberra Liberty Sanger, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Dr Amanda Scardamaglia, Associate Professor and Department Chair, Faculty of Business and Law, Swinburne University of Technology Carolyn Scobie, General Counsel, QBE Insurance Group Associate Professor Kate Seear, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Practising Solicitor Jo Seto, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Rheya Shah, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Celeste Shambrook, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Lauren Shave, Senior Associate, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Kim Shaw, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Anne Sheehan, Victorian Bar Dr Kym Sheehan, Sydney Law School, The University of Sydney Emily Shen, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Donna Short, Partner, Addisons Anne Shortall, Special Counsel, Slater and Gordon Dr Ronli Sifris, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University Dr Natalie Silver, Faculty of Law, The University of Sydney Associate Professor Amelia Simpson, ANU Law School Zahra Sitou, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Professor Natalie Skead, Dean of Law, The University of Western Australia Nina Smart, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Verity Smith, Solicitor, Strategic Litigation, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Dr Laura Smith-Khan, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Anna Smyth, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Sarah Sorrell, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Professor Tania Sourdin, Dean and Head of School, Newcastle Law School Sarah Snowden, State Practice Group Leader, Slater and Gordon Dr Lisa Spagnolo, Senior Lecturer, Monash Law School Victoria Sparks, Associate, Slater and Gordon Dr Linda Steele, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Molly Stephens, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Professor Natalie Stoianoff, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Nadia Stojanova, Victorian Bar Toni Stokes, Victorian Bar Dr Cait Storr, Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Tanya Straguszi, Principal Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Emma Strugnell, Victorian Bar Professor Anita Stuhmcke, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Gabrielle Sumich, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Lexi Sun, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Dr Carolyn Tan, In-House Legal Counsel at Yamatji Marlpa Aboriginal Corporation Jessie E Taylor, Associate Director, Victoria Legal Aid Chambers. Dr Madeline Taylor, Sydney Law School Amy Teiwes, Paralegal, Maurice Blackburn Karin Temperley, Victoria Legal Aid Amy Tesoriero, UTS Law Graduate Associate Professor Shih-Ning Then, Law Faculty, Queensland University of Technology Rhea Thomas, Solicitor, Welfare Rights & Advocacy Service Amanda Thompson, President, Tasmanian Women Lawyers, Associate, Wallace Wilkinson & Webster Clare Thompson, Western Australian Bar, President of Women Lawyers of WA Emerita Professor Margaret Thornton, ANU College of Law, Australian National University Associate Professor Amelia Thorpe, UNSW Law Ellen Tilbury, Senior Solicitor, Public Interest Advocacy Centre Ltd Eleanor Toohey, Graduate, Slater and Gordon Jenny Tran, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Charmaine Tsang, Director, Australian Women Lawyers; Immediate Past President Women Lawyers of Western Australia Dr Tamara Tulich, UWA Law School Andrea Turner, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Sarah Turner, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Perth Office Alison Umbers, Barrister and Mediator, Assistant Convenor of the Women Barristers Association Sarah Vallance, Senior Associate, Maurice Blackburn Kirsten Van Der Wal, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Ella van der Schans, Solicitor, Herbert Smith Freehills, Victorian Director of Australian Women Lawyers Dr Kate van Doore, Griffith Law School Sarah Varney, Victorian Bar Holly Veale, South Australian Bar Sarah Vo, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Dr Anthea Vogl, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney Alexandra Volk, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Mackenzie Wakefield, Law Graduate, Maurice Blackburn Gayann Walker, Assistant Convenor of the Women’s Barrister Association of the Victorian Bar Gillian Walker, South Australian Bar Samantha Walker, Associate, Maurice Blackburn Brighdin Walsh, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Lorraine Walsh, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Dr Jane Wangmann, Faculty of Law UTS Stacey Ward, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Juliana Warner, Managing Partner, Sydney Office, Herbert Smith Freehills, Dr Helen Watchirs OAM, ACT President and Human Rights Commissioner Nicole Watson, Senior Lecturer, Sydney Law School Tanya Watson, Senior Associate, Julian Johnson Lawyers Dr Kylie Weston-Scheuber, Victorian Bar Professor Sally Wheeler OBE, MRIA, FaCSS, Pro-Vice Chancellor for International Strategy and Dean, Robert Garran Professor of Law, ANU College of Law, Australian National University Jenni Whelan, Clinical Director, School of Law, Western Sydney University Janet Whiting, Partner, Gilbert + Tobin, Melbourne Office Nikki Whiting, Special Counsel, Maurice Blackburn Deborah Wiener, Victorian Bar Marie Wilkening-Le Brun, Victorian Bar Anita Will, Solicitor Kingsford Legal Centre UNSW Kerrie Wood, Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn Donna Woodleigh, Lawyer Aimee Woods, UTS Law Graduate Alice Woolven, Legal Support Officer, City of Casey Isabelle Wong, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Madeline Wu, Lawyer, Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney Office Angelika Yates, Partner, Addisons April Zahra, Lawyer, Slater and Gordon Jessica Zarkovic, Senior Associate, Slater and Gordon

– ref. Deep cultural shifts required: open letter from 500 legal women calls for reform of way judges are appointed and disciplined – https://theconversation.com/deep-cultural-shifts-required-open-letter-from-500-legal-women-calls-for-reform-of-way-judges-are-appointed-and-disciplined-142042