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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Genevieve Wilkinson, Lecturer in Intellectual Property and Human Rights, University of Technology Sydney

After a decade of legal challenges by the tobacco lobby, Australia’s pioneering push to eliminate all tobacco advertising finally has clear air.

Its longest stoush, over plain packaging laws introduced in 2012, finally ended last month, when the highest adjudicative body of the Word Trade Organisation affirmed a 2018 ruling the laws did not constitute an effective trade barrier or infringe tobacco companies’ trade mark rights.

This is a signifcant win. But the global war is far from over. While this decision should encourage more countries to introduce plain packaging, the tobacco lobby can still be expected to use legal chicanery to thwart such public health measures.

Read more: Australia’s decisive win on plain packaging paves way for other countries to follow suit

Eliminating tobacco advertising

Australia’s tobacco plain packaging laws were a world first – the final step in a national preventative health strategy to deter smoking by eliminating all avenues for tobacco promotion.

It followed Australia banning cigarette advertising on radio and television in 1976, banning the broadcast or publication of any form of tobacco promotion (such as through sponsorship of sports) in 1993, requirements for text-only health warnings on tobacco products in 1995, and warnings featuring graphic images of smoking health impacts in 2006.

Branding on packaging was seen as the last avenue for tobacco companies to market their products to smokers.

The plain packaging laws banned all distinctive branding elements on packets. All products had to use the same drab brown colour found by research to be the least appealing.

Only “word marks” identifying the source and type of tobacco product, such as Marlboro Gold or Champion Ruby, were permitted.

Legal challenges to Australia’s law

The tobacco lobby sought to thwart the Australian law through a variety of legal challenges.

British American Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International took action in Australia’s High Court. They argued the law was an unconstitutional acquisition of their intellectual property rights in their brands. The High Court conclusively rejected this in October 2012.

Phillip Morris reorganised its legal structure to seek compensation as a Hong Kong company under provisions of the 1993 Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between Australia and Hong Kong. This gambit failed in 2015.

The WTO case was initiated in 2013 by tobacco exporters Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia and the Ukraine, with tobacco industry help. They argued Australia had restricted trade and trade mark use more than needed to protect public health, contravening international trade rules.

The WTO rejected these arguments in 2018. Its Appellate Body affirmed that decision on June 9, rejecting the appeal by Honduras and the Dominican Republic.

Read more: Coronavirus: big tobacco sees an opportunity in the pandemic

Trade mark arguments

The Appellate Body ruled plain packaging was a legitimate part of Australia’s comprehensive range of tobacco control measures and did not amount to a restriction on trade.

It rejected the argument Australia had infringed trade mark rights under the 1995 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (known as TRIPS), binding on all 164 WTO member nations.

It affirmed TRIPS granted a trade mark owner “the exclusive right to preclude unauthorised third parties from using identical or similar signs”. But it said there was no “positive right” to use a trade mark, as the appellants argued.

Nor did plain packaging laws contravene section 20 of the TRIPS rules, which states trade mark use “shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements”. Member nations “enjoy a certain degree of discretion in imposing encumbrances on the use of trademarks”, the Appellate Body said.

It agreed Australia’s policy was supported by the public health objectives and evidence, including a 2016 review showing reduced smoking rates.

Impact of plain packaging on smoking prevalence in Australia

It also noted Australia’s obligations to reduce smoking as a signatory to the World Health Organisation’s 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The convention’s guidelines recommend “measures to restrict or prohibit the use of logos, colours, brand images or promotional information on packaging”.

Global battle will continue

So this is a comprehensive vindication of Australia’s leadership on tobacco packaging. It should encourage other nations to follow suit. More than ten have already done so. The latest is Singapore, where plain packaging laws came into effect on July 1.

But don’t expect Big Tobacco to stop using litigation and other tactics to deter nations following suit.

Defending Phillip Morris’ Hong Kong gambit, for example, cost Australia about A$50 million in legal fees. Researchers have suggested the threat of legal action using trade deals delayed New Zealand’s introduction of tobacco plain packaging laws by years.

For poorer nations such costs are an even greater deterrent. Uruguay, for example, won its six-year plain-packaging battle with Phillip Morris only with aid from US billionaire Michael Bloomberg.

Read more: China’s tobacco industry is building schools and no one is watching

Tobacco companies also have a history of using other means to get their way. In South Africa in 2017, for example, British American Tobacco threatened to close its local cigarette factory if the government pursued plain packaging laws.

Read more: The next battles against tobacco must be fought in the world’s major cities

With about 80% of the world’s 1.3 billion smokers living in low and middle income countries, we can expect tobacco interests to rely on their financial might, if not their legal right, to defend their profits.

Their war against the human right to health will continue.

– ref. Big Tobacco’s decisive defeat on plain packaging laws won’t stop its war against public health – https://theconversation.com/big-tobaccos-decisive-defeat-on-plain-packaging-laws-wont-stop-its-war-against-public-health-140439

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Moore, Director of The Australian National University Institute for Space and the Advanced Instrumentation Technology Centre, Australian National University

With all of the immense challenges we face on Earth this year, space can feel like an afterthought.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the hope of a growing space industry was palpable. Ribbons were cut, buildings were dedicated and Australia’s space industry was going to triple in size in just ten years. But a few weeks into March, Europe and then Australia were slowly grinding to a halt as the reality of COVID-19 set in.

Satellite images from ESA’s Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission in space showed the extent to which the virus lockdown was affecting major cities.

Next came the dramatic global economic downturn that seemed certain to crush Australia’s space ambitions. Consultants began sending a flurry of email surveys to see how everyone in the industry was coping. How would this change the future of our nation’s newest dream?

Read more: Ten essential reads to catch up on Australian Space Agency news

Suddenly, space is everywhere

Work in the space industry has always continued even under the most difficult circumstances. Missions take years to plan and launch. The global space industry has, out of necessity, always embraced uncertainty. Innovation will not stop. International cooperation is still strong. Missions are continuing.

It was just announced that the European Union is signing a billion-euro agreement with French global launch services company Arianespace, with the hope of injecting another 16 billion euros into the European space industry by 2027. This is big news for Australia’s space industry too. Our history with Arianespace goes back to its predecessor, which launched the Europa rocket for the first time ever in South Australia in 1964.

NASA and SpaceX are making headlines for the first trip to the International Space Station in a commercially built and operated American spacecraft with astronauts on board. China’s space program is rapidly developing and an upcoming mission could make it the second country to land and operate a spacecraft on Mars.

Australia’s space capabilities

In this multinational mix, Australia has much to offer. We are currently leaders in advanced and quantum communication that would make deep space communication possible, as well as creating unhackable communications on Earth.

Our government has taken steps to realise these opportunities through its first round of funding to accelerate the industry and galvanise the future of our space agency.

Ten strategic space projects just received government funding to help Australia build relationships with other international space agencies. In defence funding announcements last week, space was highlighted as one of the five defence domains for a strong Australian Defence Force.

A quick recovery

We are now seeing some amazing post-COVID wins for Australia. Planet Innovation, a Melbourne-based company, was the only Australian manufacturer to be chosen by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory to make an innovative COVID ventilator. More than 300 companies around the world applied for the opportunity.

SpaceX chief Elon Musk suggested Hobart-based boat builder, Incat, could help build “floating, superheavy-class space ports for Mars, Moon and hypersonic travel around the Earth.” Fleet Space Technologies and Oz Minerals were just awarded a grant to use space technology in mineral exploration.

A few weeks ago, the Australian National University National Space Test Facility (NSTF) was the first non-COVID research facility at the university to reopen. Its first project was testing a piece of space equipment created by Australian company Gilmour Space Technologies that will fly on an Australian space mission in 2022.

Next, the NSTF team performed testing for Fleet Space Technologies, who drove their components from Adelaide to Canberra as there were no connecting flights. The NSTF has been continuously testing other space components for Australian missions since it reopened.

These are all hard-won successes in the face of COVID, and they speak volumes about the promise of Australia’s space industry.

Read more: SpaceX’s historic launch gives Australia’s booming space industry more room to fly

Space will help Australia recover

Our space industry also enables others. Space technologies are transferrable to Earth-bound sectors such as health and mining, and the industry helps economic recovery because it operates at many scales from small research projects to large multi-disciplinary initiatives.

Our nation is set to give rise to bespoke satellites that are proprietary to Australia. We will have our own satellite constellations to address critical issues like drought, water quality management and bushfires.

Our innovation will protect our sovereignty, and global space industry titans like NASA can see our promise with missions like Artemis: Moon to Mars.

Australia’s space industry began in uncertainty, and – despite bushfires, pandemics and massive change – it will succeed under uncertainty.

– ref. Why outer space matters in a post-pandemic world – https://theconversation.com/why-outer-space-matters-in-a-post-pandemic-world-141977

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya Notley, Senior Lecturer in Digital Media, Western Sydney University

Today we release the findings from our new research into how young Australians consume and think about news media.

Following a summer of bushfires and during the COVID-19 pandemic, young people have told us they consume news regularly. But they also say they can find it frightening and many don’t ask questions about the true source of the information they are getting.

To our surprise, despite widespread concern about “fake news” and a growing body of evidence about the reach and impact of misinformation, many young people are also not getting formal education about news media at school.

Our research

In February and March 2020, we conducted an online survey of young people’s media use and education. We used a nationally representative sample of more than 1,000 young Australians aged between eight and 16 years.

In our results, we refer to two age categories for analysis: children (8 to 12) and teens (13 to 16).

This repeats and extends a similar survey we did in 2017.

Where do young people get their news?

To provide a snapshot of news consumption, we asked young Australians where they got news stories from on the previous day.

We found a clear majority of young people do consume news directly from news sources or they hear about it from people they know and trust.

We found 88% had heard about news events from at least one source, up 8% on 2017. Family were by far the most common source.

For young people, news is social

A striking finding is news consumption has become more social – obtained either through someone they know or social media.

The day before the survey, 70% of young people received news from family, teachers or friends (up 13% from 2017), while 29% got their news from social media (up 7%).

As with 2017, the news consumption practices of children and teenagers are quite different. The greatest difference is in their use of online media, including social media, to get news stories.

Read more: Social media platforms need to do more to stop junk food marketers targeting children

While 43% of teens got news from social media the day before the survey, only 15% of children did this. However, the use of social media to get news stories has increased for both age groups when compared with 2017 (it increased 8% for teens and 5% for children).

Young people’s socially orientated news consumption means they will have different experiences and expectations of news media and this may challenge the expectations of older generations.

For example, socially acquired news may not prioritise impartiality or objectivity in the same way traditional news media does. Trust in a source may be developed using different criteria.

What are young people learning at school?

To understand what young people are learning about news media, we asked about young people’s critical engagement with news and the opportunities they have been given to create their own stories in the classroom.

Just one in five young Australians said they had a lesson during the past year to help them decide whether news stories are true and can be trusted. This result was the same for both children and teens. While this figure increased by 3% for children, there was a 4% drop for teens when compared with 2017.

There was also a drop in the number of young people who said they had had lessons to help them create their own news stories. When it came to teens, 26% had these lessons (down 4% on 2017). For younger children, 29% had these lessons (down 8%).

Information is not being challenged

This lack of news media literacy education in classrooms is troubling.

The number of young people who agree they know how to tell fake news from real new stories increased only marginally from 2017, moving from 34% to 36%.

Read more: Most young Australians can’t identify fake news online

This very small increase is surprising, given the considerable amount of attention given to this issue by politicians and media outlets over the past few years.

Of further concern, our survey finds a large number of young Australians do not challenge the news they consume, even as they get older.

For example, 46% of young people who get news stories from social media, say they give very little or no attention to the source of news stories found online – this result was the same for children and for teens.

Adults need to talk to kids about news

When asked how they feel when they consume news media, the majority of young Australians surveyed reported they often or sometimes feel afraid, angry, sad or upset.

It is possible recent large-scale events such as the summer bushfires and COVID-19 pandemic account for some of these strong responses.

However, they also demonstrate the need for adults to be aware of the impact of news on young people, and to initiate supportive conversations about news.

We also believe these findings suggest media literacy efforts need to take place at home as well as school, with more resources to help parents ensure their children’s news interactions are safe and beneficial.

Why aren’t students learning more about media?

It is not fully clear why Australian students are not receiving widespread critical news literacy education. But our related research finds that while most teachers believe it’s important to support student’s news media literacy, there are many barriers that prevent them from doing this.

These include timetable constraints, an overloaded curriculum, a lack of time for planning and a lack of appropriate training and support.

Read more: How to help kids navigate fake news and misinformation online

These barriers must be addressed if teachers are to equip young Australians with the critical skills they need to engage with news media effectively and to discern trustworthy news from disinformation.

Our findings are not all bad news

As we noted above, young people reported more engagement with news in 2020 than in 2017, either directly through news media or through friends, family and teachers.

In addition, 49% agree following the news is important to them and 74% say news makes them feel smart or knowledgeable.

Our findings do suggest, however, there is an urgent need for policy makers and education authorities to increase their efforts around young people’s learning about media.

We believe young people should be receiving specific education about the role of news media in our society, bias in the news, disinformation and misinformation, the inclusion of different groups, news media ownership and technology.

Only then will news play a positive role in young people’s lives and continue to do so in the future.

– ref. We live in an age of ‘fake news’. But Australian children are not learning enough about media literacy – https://theconversation.com/we-live-in-an-age-of-fake-news-but-australian-children-are-not-learning-enough-about-media-literacy-141371

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Thwaites, Chair, Monash Sustainable Development Institute & ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University

The global Sustainable Development Report 2020, released this week in New York, ranks Australia third among OECD countries for the effectiveness of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic, beaten by only South Korea and Latvia.

Yet Australia trundled in at 37th in the world on its overall progress in achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, which cover a range of economic, social and environmental challenges – many of which will be crucial considerations as we recover from the pandemic. Australia’s worst results are in climate action and the environment, where we rate well below most other OECD countries.

Read more: 4 ways Australia’s coronavirus response was a triumph, and 4 ways it fell short

South Korea tops the list of effective COVID-19 responses, whereas New Zealand (which declared the coronavirus eliminated on June 8, albeit with a few sporadic cases since) is ranked sixth. Meanwhile, the United States, United Kingdom and several other Western European countries rank at the bottom of the list.

South Korea, Latvia and Australia did well because they not only kept infection and death rates low, but did so with less economic and social disruption than other nations. Rather than having to resort to severe lockdowns, they did this by testing and tracing, encouraging community behaviour change, and quarantining people arriving from overseas.

Using smartphone data from Google, the report shows that during the severe lockdown in Spain and Italy between March and May this year, mobility within the community – including visits to shops and work – declined by 62% and 60%, respectively. This shows how much these countries were struggling to keep the virus at bay. In contrast, mobility declined by less than 25% in Australia and by only 10% in South Korea.

Why has Australia performed well?

There are several reasons why Australia’s COVID-19 response has been strong, although major challenges remain. National and state governments have followed expert scientific advice from early in the pandemic.

The creation of the National Cabinet fostered relatively harmonious decision-making between the Commonwealth and the states. Australia has a strong public health system and the Australian public has a history of successfully embracing behaviour change. We have shown admirable adaptability and innovation, for example in the radical expansion of telehealth.

We should learn from these successes. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a useful framework for planning to “build back better”.

Read more: Business leaders aren’t backing up their promises on sustainable development goals

The Sustainable Development Goals, agreed by all countries in 2015, encompass a set of 17 goals and 169 targets to be met by 2030. Among the central aims are economic prosperity, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. They are arguably even more important than before in considering how best to shape our post-pandemic world.

As the report points out, the fallout from COVID-19 is likely to have a highly negative impact on achievement of many of the goals: increased poverty due to job losses (goal 1), disease, death and mental health risks (goal 3), disproportionate economic impacts on women and domestic violence (goal 5), loss of jobs and business closures (goal 8), growing inequality (goal 10), and reduction in use of public transport (goal 11). The impact on the environmental goals is still unclear: the short-term reduction in global greenhouse emissions is accompanied by pressure to reduce environmental safeguards in the name of economic recovery.

How do we ‘build back better’?

The SDGs already give us a roadmap, so really we just need to keep our sights set firmly on the targets agreed for 2030. Before COVID-19, the world was making progress towards achieving the goals. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty fell from 10% in 2015 to 8.6% in 2018. Access to basic transport infrastructure and broadband have been growing rapidly in most parts of the world.

Australia’s story is less positive, however. On a composite index of performance on 115 indicators covering all 17 goals, the report puts Australia 37th in the world, but well behind most of the countries to which we like to compare ourselves. Sweden, Denmark and Finland top the overall rankings, followed by France and Germany. New Zealand is 16th.

It is not surprising, in light of our performance during the pandemic, that Australia’s strongest performance is on goal 3: good health. The report rates Australia as on track to achieve all health targets.

Read more: 7 lessons for Australia’s health system from the coronavirus upheaval

Australia also performs strongly on education (goal 4), and moderately well on goals relating to water, economic growth, infrastructure and sustainable cities. However, we perform extremely poorly in energy (goal 7), climate change (goal 13) and responsible consumption and production (goal 12), where our reliance on fossil fuels and wasteful business practices puts us near the bottom of the field.

On clean energy (goal 7), the share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (including electricity, transport and industry) is only 6.9%. In Germany it is 14.1%, and in Denmark an impressive 33.4%.

Australia rates poorly on goal 12, responsible consumption and production, with 23.6kg of electronic waste per person and high sulfur dioxide and nitrogen emissions.

Australia’s performance on goal 13, climate action, is a clear fail. Our annual energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are 14.8 tonnes per person – much higher than the 5.5 tonnes for the average Brit, and 4.3 tonnes for the typical Swede.

Read more: Climate action is the key to Australia achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

And whereas in the Nordic countries the indicators for goal 15 — biodiversity and life on land — are generally improving, the Red List measuring species survival is getting worse in Australia.

There are many countries that consider themselves world leaders but now wish they had taken earlier and stronger action against COVID-19. Australia listened to the experts, took prompt action, and can hopefully look back on the pandemic with few regrets.

But on current form, there will be plenty to regret about our reluctance to follow scientific advice on climate change and environmental degradation, and our refusal to show anything like the necessary urgency.

– ref. Global report gives Australia an A for coronavirus response but a D on climate – https://theconversation.com/global-report-gives-australia-an-a-for-coronavirus-response-but-a-d-on-climate-141982

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marina Yue Zhang, Associate Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Swinburne University of Technology

Only 40% of students in China who previously intended to study overseas still plan to, while just under 50% of those who had studied overseas plan to return to their study after the borders reopen.

These are results from our unpublished survey of 1,012 students we conducted in China between June 5 and 15. We asked them whether they would continue with their plan to study abroad post COVID-19.

These findings are not surprising. Due to growing tensions between China and the West – even before COVID-19 – middle-class parents in China had become increasingly concerned about the safety of, and possible discrimination against, their children abroad, including in the US and Australia.

The pandemic seems to have accelerated this trend.

What students say about studying in Australia

Of the 1,012 students we surveyed, 404 had registered to study abroad in the next three years (in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore) and 608 had been studying overseas (including in Australia, US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Japan) before COVID-19 .

In the questionnaire, we presented interviewees with considerations and asked them to nominate which ones would influence their decision about whether to study in Australia after COVID-19, as well as in other countries.

Read more: ‘I love Australia’: 3 things international students want Australians to know

The first group (group A) includes 304 students who had studied in Australia but who were not able to return due to travel restrictions.

Of these, 50% were undergraduates, 42% graduates, 5% doctoral students, and 3% vocational education or high school students.

The second group (group B) includes students who had never studied abroad before but had registered their intention to in the next three years, including in Australia, before COVID-19.

The second group also answered Australia-specific questions.

Not many students in either group considered issues such as more expensive air travel, less freedom in China and online lectures as critical factors influencing their decision to study in Australia.

But the two groups reacted to some factors quite differently. The students who had studied in Australia before considered the following factors as more critical to their decision:

• returnees with Australian degrees are not more competitive in China’s job market compared to graduates from top-tier universities in China

• life is more convenient, safe and easier at home and I don’t want to go abroad to endure the hardship as a foreign student

• improved political stability and economic prospects in China

• less of a chance of landing a good job with an Australian degree in China

• no need to go abroad if lectures are delivered online.

The group of students who hadn’t yet studied in Australia but planned to, considered the following factors as critical:

• media reported cases of Chinese being “discriminated against” or “abused” in Australia

• deterioration in Sino-Australia relations

• not many outstanding returnees from Australia are visible in the media to represent the success of Australian education

• Australian universities lowered the entry standard for foreign students due to COVID-19

• Australian degrees are perceived to be less valuable compared to degrees from other English-speaking countries, especially the US and the UK, by HR personnel in China.

What the students said

Not surprisingly, both groups considered the Chinese government’s warnings against visiting, or studying in, Australia important. A decision to study and live abroad is often made by the whole family in China. Official voices weigh significantly in such decisions.

A student who had done some of her master degree in a Melbourne university said:

After the Chinese New Year, Australian borders were closed to Chinese students due to COVID-19. Direct travel was not allowed. So I travelled to Thailand and spent 14 days in a small hotel in Bangkok before I landed in Melbourne. I had to be self-quarantined for 14 days in my rented room.

Then I found all lectures were moved online and the situation of COVID-19 became serious in Melbourne. The PM urged international students to go home. My parents were so worried. They paid for an over-priced air ticket and a quarantine-hotel in Shanghai for me for 14 days before I could go back to my hometown.

When the [Chinese] government announced the travel and study warnings, I couldn’t convince my parents that things aren’t that bad in Australia. They listened to the government and believed the ‘official voices’ rather than their own daughter.

There have been cases (though isolated ones) of Asians or Chinese people being bullied in Australia due to COVID-19. Unfortunately, social media in China often distorts such cases and amplifies the (mis)perceptions. And the tensions between China and Australia have enhanced these negative perceptions.

Sending their children abroad was once a privilege for elites with intellectual, economic or political power in China. But this is now quite common among middle-class Chinese families.

Chinese families spend a large amount of money on their children’s education. Better opportunities (either in the host country or on returning home) after study abroad is an underlining reason Chinese families invest in their children.

Read more: COVID-19 increases risk to international students’ mental health. Australia urgently needs to step up

Australia has attracted many Chinese students in recent decades. But if Chinese students with Australian degrees are less appreciated or less competitive compared to those who study in other countries or in local universities, families will look for other options.

A Chinese student who had been studying at a Sydney university told us:

We are the clients and the degrees are a commodity; we pay for our degrees. What if the commodity loses its value? The clients will surely walk away.

COVID-19 has had a negative impact on the number of Chinese students likely to study in Australia. But the downward trend started way before the pandemic.

Australian universities need to adjust their strategies for a future that will not only deliver value for Chinese students, but also strengthen a positive perception about this value.

– ref. Students in China heed their government’s warnings against studying in Australia – less than half plan to come back – https://theconversation.com/students-in-china-heed-their-governments-warnings-against-studying-in-australia-less-than-half-plan-to-come-back-141871

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil Warren, Emeritus Professor of Taxation, UNSW

A major report commissioned by the NSW government has proposed lifting and expanding the goods and services tax and replacing stamp duty with a broad-based land tax.

Launched at the National Press Club on July 1 by NSW Treasurer Dominic Perrottet, panel chair David Thodey and panel member Jane Halton, the report said what has been said before – that these particular big bold changes will set Australia up for the future.

But they’ve fallen flat in the past.

Big bold proposals have losers as well as winners. When the losers are identified, it is hard to get traction, even if the winners want them.

NSW residential stamp duty is roughly equivalent to a tax on property of one and a half to twice the current municipal rates. Transitioning from one to the other might take 10 to 20 years.

The losers (people paying higher rates) are more numerous and likely to be more vocal than the winners (people finding it cheaper to move home).

And proposals involving the goods and services tax lead to finger pointing – towards the Commonwealth for waiting for the states, and towards the states for waiting for each other.

Proposing the Commonwealth fix state problems is attractive to everyone but the Commonwealth.

Thodey’s report is an improvement on many past reports, but it too has shot for the big headlines. The states do have genuine problems with tax design and the current federal arrangements, but a more worthy strategy might be to focus on renovating the system they’ve got.

Renovation is slow, but effective

Repairing what states already have is simpler, less contentious and almost certainly just as effective as big bold programs, albeit less exciting.

A recent review I took part in, commissioned by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, found it was best to start small, build each case, and move incrementally.

First, state governments should wind back the current array of tax concessions. Doing so in NSW could increase land tax collections by 27%, payroll tax collections by 19% and conveyancing stamp duty by 9%.

Read more: Cutting out the insurance “free rider” when it comes to funding fire services

Second, in NSW there would be value in revisiting the failed 2017 proposal to replace insurance stamp duties with a property-based fire and emergency services levy applying to all homes needing fire protection, not just those that are insured, a proposal the new NSW review supports.

Most states have already done it. The levy would lay the foundations for property making a greater contribution to state revenue and build the architecture needed for a land tax for stamp duty swap.

Read more: Post-coronavirus, we’ll need a working tax system, not more taxes and not higher rates

Third, and very unexciting, states should renovate their tax administration. One initiative would be a national harmonised payroll tax administered by the Australian Tax Office.

Another would be publishing tax gap estimates. The tax office has found publishing estimates of what is not being collected compared to what could be collected is fundamental to identifying what is not working.

None of these ideas make for big headlines. But on the track record of ideas that attract big headlines so far, they are likely to achieve more than those that do.

– ref. Memo to Australia’s states: try renovating your tax system before asking for a new one – https://theconversation.com/memo-to-australias-states-try-renovating-your-tax-system-before-asking-for-a-new-one-141893

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Baker, Lecturer in Business Strategy, Auckland University of Technology

Like the coronavirus itself, joblessness can act as a pestilence on a society.

People who would have otherwise gone to their local restaurant, hairdresser, café or bar, taken a holiday in Queenstown or Taupo, or chosen to buy New Zealand lamb or beef in the supermarket, will stop spending.

In turn, the owners and employees of those businesses also stop spending. And so it goes on.

In the end, the fallout of mass joblessness will erode the social cohesion that has got New Zealand through the past few months.

Some of this is inevitable, of course. Despite the massive public resources pumped into keeping the economy afloat, some industries – most notably tourism and aviation – are facing severe drops in revenue that will drive joblessness and business closures.

But it has been discouraging to see leaders in other industries trying to prepare their firms for a major recession driven by unemployment by creating yet more unemployment.

Markets are not all-powerful

When this is happening in sectors comparatively unaffected by the COVID-19 crisis it’s clear we urgently need fresh thinking and fast.

Traditional business strategy for many decades has stressed the need to adapt to the external environment. Businesses must be willing to change to meet the demands of the market or respond to external shocks.

Read more: By sacking staff and closing stores, big businesses like The Warehouse could hurt their own long-term interests

But, contrary to received wisdom, markets are not just the product of external forces. Nor are businesses simply at the mercy of what markets dictate.

Our research explores what is called “market-shaping”. Viewed as systems, markets include more than just buyers and sellers, but other actors such as regulators, supporting industries, adjacent markets, and even informal stakeholders like pressure groups.

Market systems are actively created through the actions, assumptions, exchanges and rules within them. You might say a market is in a constant state of “becoming” – it is never static or fixed.

In practice this means managers do not always have to default to adapting to the external environment. Instead, a business – or any other market actor for that matter – can work to adapt the market to its own needs.

Sometimes cooperation trumps competition

An example from the wine industry is instructive. In the early 2000s, the New Zealand Screwcap Wine Seal Initiative convinced one of the world’s most staid, traditional markets to accept that a screw cap could seal a premium wine.

The campaign was driven by the massive financial losses winemakers were suffering due to poor-quality Portuguese corks. It involved changing the closely-held beliefs and practices of critics, restaurateurs, sommeliers, supermarket buyers, winemakers and, most importantly, vast numbers of consumers – in multiple global markets.

Similarly, Swiss-based NGO The Global Fund has been extremely effective at market-shaping by driving production and distribution of basic medicines to the developing world. They’ve done this by encouraging cooperation and collaboration between pharmaceutical manufacturers, funders, distributors and local communities.

Read more: Recession hits Māori and Pasifika harder. They must be part of planning New Zealand’s COVID-19 recovery

Geneva-based private-public partnership GAVI has successfully done much the same with vaccines for children in developing countries.

Market-shaping still preserves the beauty of markets as mechanisms that enable the generation of wealth like no other, and which reward entrepreneurship and innovation. And as long as they are shaped to deliver positive outcomes, markets can avoid the blunt instrument of over-regulation.

By extension, market-shaping is best achieved by multiple actors coming together and collaborating to achieve a shared goal. Much as multi-lateral international cooperation will defeat COVID-19 more effectively than countries going it alone, economic recovery will happen faster with collective action.

And, as those innovative New Zealand winemakers showed, a shared crisis is a great motivator for collaboration.

Governments must take the lead

For this to happen there will need to be bold leadership and a willingness to do things differently.

First, we need a shared platform for coordinating the development of a collaborative market-shaping strategy. It will probably be temporary and would be best developed by the state, extending the excellent work already being undertaken by treasuries in New Zealand and Australia.

After all, governments are one of the most powerful market-shapers in the economy.

Second, this platform would coordinate and encourage shared strategy development on a national scale. This will require diverse stakeholder groups to emerge from their various silos.

Read more: ‘Shovel-ready’ projects ignore important aspects of community resilience

It will involve business leaders coming together with their competitors, supporting industries and supply-chain partners, regulators, shareholder representatives, unions, industry associations, and those calling for a genuine reset of economies around the world.

The plan will focus on minimising economic recession through maximising both employment and sustainable practice.

And third, implementation of the plan will involve a coordinated private sector response coupled with targeted public investment that goes well beyond so-called shovel-ready projects.

Yes, the idea of competitors and their stakeholders coming together to agree on a shared path forward goes against every senior manager’s competitive instincts. And no, it will not be a silver bullet for businesses with immediate solvency concerns.

But it might just give the team of five million a shot at collectively beating the recession in the same way it beat the virus.

– ref. The market is not our master — only state-led business cooperation will drive real economic recovery – https://theconversation.com/the-market-is-not-our-master-only-state-led-business-cooperation-will-drive-real-economic-recovery-141532

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Mailhammer, Associate Dean, Research, Western Sydney University

Remember when Australians paid in shillings and pence? New research suggests the words for these coins and other culturally important items and concepts are the result of close contact between the early Germanic people and the Carthaginian Empire more than 2,000 years ago.

The city of Carthage, in modern-day Tunisia, was founded in the 9th century BCE by the Phoenicians. The Carthaginian Empire took over the Phoenician sphere of influence, with its own sphere of influence from the Mediterranean in the east to the Atlantic in the west and further into Africa in the south. The empire was destroyed in 146 BCE after an epic struggle against the Romans.

The presence of the Carthaginians on the Iberian Peninsula is well documented, and it is commonly assumed they had commercial relations with the British Isles. But it is not generally believed they had a permanent physical presence in northern Europe.

By studying the origin of key Germanic words and other parts of Germanic languages, Theo Vennemann and I have found traces of such a physical presence, giving us a completely new understanding of the influence of this Semitic superpower in northern Europe.

Linguistic history

Language can be a major source of historical knowledge. Words can tell stories about their speakers even if there is no material evidence from archeology or genetics. The many early Latin words in English, such as “street”, “wine” and “wall”, are evidence for the influence of Roman civilisation.

Read more: Uncovering the language of the first Christmas

Punic was the language of the Carthaginians. It is a Semitic language and closely related to Hebrew. Unfortunately, there are few surviving texts in Punic and so we often have to use Biblical Hebrew as a proxy.

Proto-Germanic was spoken in what is now northern Germany and southern Scandinavia more than 2,000 years ago, and is the ancestor of contemporary Germanic languages such as English, German, Norwegian and Dutch.

Identifying traces of Punic in Proto-Germanic languages tell an interesting story.

Take the words “shilling” and “penny”: both words are found in Proto-Germanic. The early Germanic people did not have their own coins, but it is likely they knew coins if they had words for them.

In antiquity, coins were used in the Mediterranean. One major coin minted in Carthage was the shekel, the current name for currency of Israel. We think this is the historical origin of the word “shilling” because of the specific way the Carthaginians pronounced “shekel”, which is different from how it is pronounced in Hebrew.

The pronunciation of Punic can be reasonably inferred from Greek and Latin spellings, as the sounds of Greek and Latin letters are well known. Punic placed a strong emphasis on the second syllable of shekel and had a plain “s” at the beginning, instead of the “esh” sound in Hebrew.

But to speakers of Proto-Germanic – who normally put the emphasis on the first syllable of words – it would have sounded like “skel”. This is exactly how the crucial first part of the word “shilling” is constructed. The second part, “-(l)ing”, is undoubtedly Germanic. It was added to express an individuating meaning, as in Old German silbarling, literally “piece of silver”.

This combining of languages in one word shows early Germanic people must have been familiar with Punic.

Similarly, our word “penny” derives from the Punic word for “face”, panē. Punic coins were minted with the face of the goddess Tanit, so we believe panē would have been a likely name for a Carthaginian coin.

Cultural and social dominance

Sharing names for coins could indicate a trade relationship. Other words suggest the Carthaginians and early Germanic people had a much closer relationship.

By studying loan words between Punic and Proto-Germanic, we can infer the Carthaginians were culturally and socially dominant.

One area of Carthage leadership was agricultural technology. Our work traces the word “plough” back to a Punic verb root meaning “divide”. Importantly, “plough” was used by Proto-Germanic speakers to refer to a more advanced type of plough than the old scratch plough, or ard.

Close contact with the Carthaginians can explain why speakers of Proto-Germanic knew this innovative tool.

The Old Germanic and Old English words for the nobility, for example æþele, are also most likely Punic loanwords. If a word referring to the ruling class of people comes from another language, this is a good indication the people speaking this language were socially dominant.

Intersections of language and culture

We found Punic also strongly influenced the grammar of early Germanic, Germanic mythology and the Runic alphabet used in inscriptions in Germanic languages, until the Middle Ages.

This new evidence suggests many early Germanic people learnt Punic and worked for the Carthaginians, married into their families, and had bilingual and bicultural children.

When Carthage was destroyed this connection was eventually lost. But the traces of this Semitic superpower remain in modern Germanic languages, their culture and their ancient letters.

– ref. Shillings, gods and runes: clues in language suggest a Semitic superpower in ancient northern Europe – https://theconversation.com/shillings-gods-and-runes-clues-in-language-suggest-a-semitic-superpower-in-ancient-northern-europe-139381

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

Developments in Melbourne on Saturday are more important, and certainly of more interest to the public, than what has happened in Eden-Monaro.

Anthony Albanese is set to struggle over the line in the Labor seat, courtesy of preferences including from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers, unlikely bedfellows who, being on the top of the ballot paper, got the “donkey” vote.

If Albanese had lost this highly marginal seat it would have been a different story – a major setback which could have led later to the destabilisation of his leadership. He knew that, campaigning in the seat about 20 times.

But the close outcome is little different from 2019. It is not a great result for Albanese, but it is good enough. He hasn’t scored a distinction in this exam but he’s obtained the pass he desperately needed. As frontbencher Joel Fitzgibbon said, “It’s a bit of an ugly win for us I can see, but it’s a win just the same”.

But while Albanese is deeply relieved, his underlying problems remain. These are incredibly challenging times for both sides of politics.

Labor’s primary vote fell about 3% (on counting so far), which will reinforce concern about what is a wider long-term worry for the party.

Labor’s Kristy McBain received a swing in her area, but mainly the swings were variable.

Many factors fed into the result; it is difficult to assign relative weighting to them at this point.

In normal circumstances Labor would have expected the usual byelection swing of up to 4% but these are anything but standard times.

Helping the Liberals were the loss of the personal vote of former Labor member Mike Kelly and Scott Morrison’s high standing over his handling of the pandemic.

The opposition tapped into Morrison’s poor performance during the bushfires and the difficulties many of those affected still face. It ran hard on sending a message to the government about the people being “left behind”, after the fires and COVID.

Labor put much effort into postal votes and this paid off. Postals and pre-polls were high due to the pandemic with less than half the voters casting their vote on the day.

The Nationals behaved badly, with the antics of their NSW leader John Barilaro, and they performed poorly.

Notably, the Greens’ vote fell, despite an expectation climate change would be significantly on voters’ minds.

Having failed to achieve a second “miracle”, Morrison confined himself to a few tweets on Sunday. Unlike Albanese he hadn’t been with his candidate in the electorate on Saturday night to deal with whatever fortune brought.

The aficionados will probe the entrails of the result, and the Liberals are “spinning”, but the take-out for most voters elsewhere is likely to be “Albanese held the seat – story over”. They won’t be concentrating on the ins-and-outs.

In contrast, all eyes will be on the detail in Melbourne, where there were 108 new COVID cases announced on Saturday (and 74 on Sunday), and 3000 residents in nine social housing towers were put into a hard lockdown for five days, monitored by police.

Victorian health authorities warn of further alarming news. “We are going to see some big days, big numbers in the days ahead,” Premier Dan Andrews said on Sunday. They would partly reflect the high level of testing.

The logistics of trying to deal with the new crisis, even if numbers can be contained, are formidable. It’s an enormous job to get food and other necessities to the residents, many of whom are disadvantaged, in poor health and face language barriers.

The state government is providing hardship payments and rent relief. Despite the help, some people will be upset and confused.

At the very least, this is a serious glitch to the effort to get the economy resuming at a fast clip – and that’s assuming the outbreak doesn’t spread. It will be days before we get an idea of whether Victoria is bringing things under control.

And when restoring confidence is so crucial, the psychological impact risks being greater than the extent of the outbreak.

We couldn’t be living in more uncertain times.

It was perhaps not the most convenient point for one of the government’s very senior ministers, Senate leader Mathias Cormann, to announce he will quit parliament for fresh fields at the end of the year.

Cormann, 49, finance minister since the Coalition was elected in 2013 has been a highly competent, steady hand in the government’s economic team. He’s also been the government’s most effective negotiator with the changing non-Green characters on the Senate’s crossbench, who are vital for the passage of controversial legislation.

The dogs have been barking for a while about the future of Cormann, whose personal reputation was dented by the 2018 leadership coup. His withdrawal of support from Malcolm Turnbull to back Peter Dutton delivered a mortal blow to Turnbull. Cormann strongly defended his actions, and was upset by Turnbull’s furious accusation of treachery.

Cormann hasn’t been quite so “in” with Scott Morrison as he was with Turnbull (despite he and Turnbull being in different pews of the Liberal “broad church”).

He was said to be ready to quit politics if the Coalition had been defeated last year. But his plans were put on hold after Morrison’s unexpected victory.

On Saturday, following new reports, he broke cover. He said he loved his job and “every single day I am giving it my all. I can honestly say that I have left nothing on the field”. But, “Having decided not to recontest the next election, I can confirm that I have advised the Prime Minister that the end of this year would be an appropriate time for an orderly transition in my portfolio”.

He stressed that before he goes he’ll be hard at work on the July 23 economic statement, the October budget and the half-yearly budget update in December.

Morrison and Treasurer John Frydenberg will be relieved to have Cormann in place for the coming months. But prolonged speculation about the reshuffle is less than ideal for Morrison and Cormann departure, when it comes, will be a substantial loss, ahead of another year replete with huge budgetary problems, a demanding Senate and an election bearing down.

– ref. View from The Hill: Eden-Monaro’s status quo result pales next to Victoria’s COVID crisis – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-eden-monaros-status-quo-result-pales-next-to-victorias-covid-crisis-142036

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

The Victorian government’s decision to “close and contain” nine public housing towers in Flemington and North Melbourne represents a significant escalation in the fight against COVID-19. Under the stringent new rules, some 3,000 residents will be placed under “hard lockdown” and banned from leaving their homes for at least five days.

This move, announced by Premier Daniel Andrews on Saturday, also sees the Flemington and North Melbourne postcodes added to the ten already placed on stage 3 lockdown earlier in the week.

The latest response follows the identification of 108 new cases in Victoria on Saturday – the second-highest daily count in Victoria since the pandemic began. Of these new cases, 23 were from 12 households in these housing estates.

Read more: These 10 postcodes are back in Stage 3 coronavirus lockdown. Here’s what that means

There are many questions relating to this decision. But first we must acknowledge, as Housing Minister Richard Wynne already has, that “people living in these public housing towers are some of the most vulnerable people in our community”.

While it is vital for the wider Victorian public that the tower block residents follow the rules, they will also need support during the lockdown. Already there are reports the strong police presence is triggering fear, as well as concern about further employment loss and financial stress.

It is vital close health and welfare supervision is provided, and all standard requirements for normal daily living delivered to their door. The government has waived residents’ rent for the next two weeks, and promised hardship payments of A$1,500 to residents forced to miss work and A$750 to those without employment.

The “close and contain” strategy is fundamental in outbreak control. Restricting residents’ movement aims to prevent further spread of the virus by sealing off known hotspot sites for the duration of the coronavirus’s incubation period.

The strategy is similar to that used in aged care facilities with reasonable success, and Andrews has refused to rule out further hard lockdowns in other sites with significant COVID-19 clusters.

Read more: Victoria locks down 36 Melbourne suburbs to try to control COVID-19 spike

Will the hard lockdown be successful in containing the virus? We know the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which causes COVID-19, is spread via close contact with droplets from an infected person, or by touching contaminated surfaces. Physical distancing, good hygiene, avoiding large gatherings, and isolation are the best defences.

Housing estates are characterised by their close confines and shared community spaces. Furthermore, Victorian Public Tenants Association executive officer Mark Feenane has acknowledged that “overcrowded living conditions” would assist the spread of the virus. Sadly, conditions in these tower blocks are ripe for spreading COVID-19.

Its not hard to do the maths. In an uncontrolled outbreak with a reported reproductive rate (the number of new cases spawned by each known case) of around 2, and cases doubling every four days, it is easy to see how 23 cases in 12 homes could rapidly escalate to hundreds or thousands if no action is taken. So the action to “close and contain” and test all residents is a sensible and necessary move.

The next move will depend on the test results and the number of further cases during the five-day hard lockdown. Unfortunately it is hard to say with confidence how many new cases may be identified.

So what happens next? Today (Sunday) there were 74 newly discovered cases in Victoria. Of these, four are residents of the towers. Across the state there are 543 active cases, and thousands of close contacts of those cases are in isolation while they await the results.

As Andrews has warned, further postcode lockdowns may be inevitable. What is uncertain is how many postcode lockdowns would have to occur before the decision is made to reinstate stage 3 restrictions across the entire state.

Read more: Lockdown returns: how far can coronavirus measures go before they infringe on human rights?

For those Victorians not in lockdown, the message has never been clearer. Stay at home if you are unwell, get tested if you have symptoms, maintain physical distancing, and practise good hand hygiene.

The nine tower blocks are currently the focal point, but all Victorians have a role to play.

– ref. Nine Melbourne tower blocks put into ‘hard lockdown’ – what does it mean, and will it work? – https://theconversation.com/nine-melbourne-tower-blocks-put-into-hard-lockdown-what-does-it-mean-and-will-it-work-142033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

This article was updated July 5.

With 77% of enrolled voters counted at Saturday’s Eden-Monaro byelection, Labor’s Kristy McBain currently leads the Liberals’ Fiona Kotvojs by a 50.8-49.2 projected margin in The Poll Bludger’s Eden-Monaro election page.

This page has all the numbers, including booth by booth results. The projected margin is an estimate of the margin once all votes are counted, not the current margin. McBain is given a 96% win probability. The two party projection would be a zero swing from the 2019 election.

Primary votes are currently 37.8% Liberal (up 0.8%), 36.2% Labor (down 3.0%), 6.6% National (down 0.3%), 5.6% Greens (down 3.2%) and 5.4% Shooters, Fishers and Farmers. Had preference flows at the byelection been similar to the 2019 federal election, the Liberals would have won. But Labor currently has 57% of all preferences, an 8% swing on preference flows to Labor.

While the Greens lost vote share, much of it went to Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP), which won 2.4%. Labor also benefited from the “donkey vote” coming from the Shooters. The Shooters were first on the ballot paper, with Labor ahead of the Liberals.

If Labor holds on in Eden-Monaro, it will be a huge relief for Anthony Albanese. Analyst Peter Brent wrote in Inside Story that, while no government has gained an opposition-held seat at a byelection in almost a century, the lack of a personal vote for the sitting MP in opposition-held seats means they are far more likely to swing to the government at a byelection than in a government-held seat.

In 2014, the Abbott government achieved a 1.2% two party swing in former PM Kevin Rudd’s seat of Griffith at a byelection. Had that swing occurred Saturday, the Liberals would have gained Eden-Monaro. In 90 federal byelections with a Labor vs non-Labor two party count, the average swing to the opposition is 4.7%, but it is just 1.1% in opposition-held seats.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Saturday is crucial for Albanese but July 23 is more important for Morrison

Premiers still have high ratings, but Andrews falls in Victoria

In late April, Newspoll polled the ratings of the six premiers, and this exercise was repeated last week. Samples were 500-550 for the mainland states, and 311 in Tasmania.

Tasmanian Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein had the best ratings in the June premiers’ Newspoll, at 90% satisfied, 8% dissatisfied (net +82). His satisfaction rating overtook WA Labor Premier Mark McGowan in April (89%) as the best ever for a premier or PM in Australian polling history.

Gutwein’s net approval was up nine points from April, while McGowan slid four points to a still very high 88% satisfied, 9% dissatisfied (net +79).

The biggest change in net approval was Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews. His net approval fell 18 points to +40, with 67% satisfied and 27% dissatisfied. Andrews’s fall appears to be related to the recent spike in Victorian coronavirus cases, not the Adem Somyurek branch stacking affair. His net ratings on handling coronavirus fell sharply from +74 to +47.

NSW Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian had a +42 net approval, down from +46, with 68% satisfied and 26% dissatisfied. SA Liberal Premier Steven Marshall had a +52 net approval, up from +47, with 72% satisfied and 20% dissatisfied.

Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk continued to trail with a +24 net approval, though that was up eight points. 59% were satisfied and 35% dissatisfied. The Queensland election will be held in late October.

Scott Morrison had a +41 net approval in last Monday’s federal Newspoll. Palaszczuk trails Morrison, Andrews and Berejiklian are about level, Marshall is above him, and McGowan and Gutwein are far ahead.

A good US jobs report, but there’s a long way to go

The June US jobs report was released Thursday. 4.8 million jobs were created and the unemployment rate dropped 2.2% to 11.1%. While the unemployment rate is far better than the 14.7% in April, it is far worse than during a normal economy.

The employment population ratio – the percentage of eligible Americans that are employed – rose 1.8% in June to 54.6%. But at the lowest point of the recovery from the global financial crisis, the employment ratio was 58.2%.

The surveys used for the jobs report were conducted in mid-June, before the recent spike in US coronavirus cases, which peaked at over 57,000 on Thursday. This new spike may derail an economic recovery.

– ref. Labor set to win Eden-Monaro; Andrews’s ratings fall in Victoria – https://theconversation.com/labor-set-to-win-eden-monaro-andrewss-ratings-fall-in-victoria-141282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne

At Saturday’s Eden-Monaro byelection, Labor’s Kristy McBain currently leads the Liberals’ Fiona Kotvojs by a 50.7-49.3 projected margin in The Poll Bludger’s Eden-Monaro election page. This page has all the numbers, including booth by booth results. The projected margin is an estimate of the margin once all votes are counted, not the current margin. McBain is given a 74% win probability.

Primary vote projections are currently 38.5% Liberal, 35.3% Labor, 6% National, 6% Greens and 14.2% for all Others. Had preference flows at the byelection been similar to the 2019 federal election, the Liberals would have won. But Labor currently has 50% of all preferences, a 10% swing on preference flows to Labor.

While the Greens lost vote share, much of it went to Help End Marijuana Prohibition (HEMP), which won 2.5%. Labor also benefited from the “donkey vote” coming from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers. The Shooters were first on the ballot paper, with Labor ahead of the Liberals.

If Labor holds on in Eden-Monaro, it will be a huge relief for Anthony Albanese. Analyst Peter Brent wrote in Inside Story that, while no government has gained an opposition-held seat at a byelection in almost a century, the lack of a personal vote for the sitting MP in opposition-held seats means they are far more likely to swing to the government at a byelection than in a government-held seat.

In 2013, the Abbott government achieved a 1.2% two party swing in former PM Kevin Rudd’s seat of Griffith at a byelection. Had that swing occurred Saturday, the Liberals would have gained Eden-Monaro.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Saturday is crucial for Albanese but July 23 is more important for Morrison

Premiers still have high ratings, but Andrews falls in Victoria

In late April, Newspoll polled the ratings of the six premiers, and this exercise was repeated last week. Samples were 500-550 for the mainland states, and 311 in Tasmania.

Tasmanian Liberal Premier Peter Gutwein had the best ratings in the June premiers’ Newspoll, at 90% satisfied, 8% dissatisfied (net +82). His satisfaction rating overtook WA Labor Premier Mark McGowan in April (89%) as the best ever for a premier or PM in Australian polling history.

Gutwein’s net approval was up nine points from April, while McGowan slid four points to a still very high 88% satisfied, 9% dissatisfied (net +79).

The biggest change in net approval was Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews. His net approval fell 18 points to +40, with 67% satisfied and 27% dissatisfied. Andrews’s fall appears to be related to the recent spike in Victorian coronavirus cases, not the Adem Somyurek branch stacking affair. His net ratings on handling coronavirus fell sharply from +74 to +47.

NSW Liberal Premier Gladys Berejiklian had a +42 net approval, down from +46, with 68% satisfied and 26% dissatisfied. SA Liberal Premier Steven Marshall had a +52 net approval, up from +47, with 72% satisfied and 20% dissatisfied.

Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk continued to trail with a +24 net approval, though that was up eight points. 59% were satisfied and 35% dissatisfied. The Queensland election will be held in late October.

Scott Morrison had a +41 net approval in last Monday’s federal Newspoll. Palaszczuk trails Morrison, Andrews and Berejiklian are about level, Marshall is above him, and McGowan and Gutwein are far ahead.

A good US jobs report, but there’s a long way to go

The June US jobs report was released Thursday. 4.8 million jobs were created and the unemployment rate dropped 2.2% to 11.1%. While the unemployment rate is far better than the 14.7% in April, it is far worse than during a normal economy.

The employment population ratio – the percentage of eligible Americans that are employed – rose 1.8% in June to 54.6%. But at the lowest point of the recovery from the global financial crisis, the employment ratio was 58.2%.

The surveys used for the jobs report were conducted in mid-June, before the recent spike in US coronavirus cases, which peaked at over 57,000 on Thursday. This new spike may derail an economic recovery.

– ref. Labor likely to win Eden-Monaro; Andrews’s ratings fall in Victoria – https://theconversation.com/labor-likely-to-win-eden-monaro-andrewss-ratings-fall-in-victoria-141282

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, ARC Future Fellow, UNSW

The term “heatwave” is no stranger to Australians. Defined as when conditions are excessively hot for at least three days in a row, these extreme temperature events have always punctuated our climate.

With many of us in the thick of winter dreaming of warmer days, it’s important to remember how damaging heatwaves can be.

In 2009, the heatwave that preceded Black Saturday killed 374 people. The economic impact on Australia’s workforce from heatwaves is US$6.2 billion a year (almost AU$9 billion). And just last summer, extreme temperature records tumbled, contributing to Australia’s unprecedented bushfire season.

Our new study – the first worldwide assessment of heatwaves at the regional scale – found heatwaves have become longer and more frequent since 1950. And worryingly, we found this trend has accelerated.

We also examined a new metric: “cumulative heat”. This measures how much extra heat a heatwave can contribute, and the new perspective is eye-opening.

What is ‘extra heat’?

In southeast Australia’s worst heatwave season in 2009, we endured an extra heat of 80℃. Let’s explore what that means.

For a day to qualify as being part of a heatwave, a recorded temperature should exceed an officially declared “heatwave threshold”.

And cumulative heat is generally when the temperature above that threshold across all heatwave days are added up.

Let’s say, for example, a particular location had a heatwave threshold of around 30℃. The “extra heat” on a day where temperatures reach 35℃ would be 5℃. If the heatwave lasted for three days, and all days reached 35℃, then the cumulative heat for that event would be 15℃.

Another decade, another heatwave day

We found almost every global region has experienced a significant increase in heatwave frequency since 1950. For example, southern Australia has experienced, on average, one extra heatwave day per decade since 1950.

Read more: Anatomy of a heatwave: how Antarctica recorded a 20.75°C day last month

However, other regions have experienced much more rapid increases. The Mediterranean has seen approximately 2.5 more heatwave days per decade, while the Amazon rainforest has seen an extra 5.5 more heatwave days per decade since 1950.

The global average sits at approximately two extra heatwave days per decade.

The last 20 years saw the worst heatwave seasons

Since the 1950s, almost all regions experienced significant increases in the extra heat generated by heatwaves.

Over northern and southern Australia, the excess heat from heatwaves has increased by 2-3℃ per decade. This is similar to other regions, such as western North America, the Amazon and the global average.

Alaska, Brazil and West Asia, however, have cumulative heat trends of a massive 4-5℃ per decade. And, for the vast majority of the world, the worst seasons occurred in the last 20 years.

We also examined whether heatwaves were changing at a constant rate, or were speeding up or slowing down. With the exception of average intensity, we found heatwave trends have not only increased, but have accelerated since the 1950s.

Don’t be fooled by the maths

Interestingly, average heatwave intensity showed little – if any – changes since 1950. But before we all breathe a sigh of relief, this is not because climate change has stopped, or because heatwaves aren’t getting any warmer. It’s the result of a mathematical quirk.

Read more: Climate change: 40°C summer temperatures could be common in UK by 2100

Since we’re seeing more heatwaves – which we found are also generally getting longer – there are more days to underpin the average intensity. While all heatwave days must exceed a relative extreme threshold, some days will exceed this threshold to a lesser extent than others. This brings the overall average down.

When we look at changes in cumulative heat, however, there’s just no denying it. Extra heat – not the average – experienced in almost all regions, is what can have adverse impacts on our health, infrastructure and ecosystems.

Like nothing we’ve experienced before

While the devastating impacts of heatwaves are clear, it has been difficult to consistently measure changes in heatwaves across the globe. Previous studies have assessed regional heatwave trends, but data constraints and the spectrum of different heatwave metrics available have made it hard to compare regional changes in heatwaves.

Our study has closed this gap, and clearly shows heatwaves are on the rise. We are seeing more of them and they are generating more heat at an increasing pace.

Read more: We’ve learned a lot about heatwaves, but we’re still just warming up

While Australia may be no stranger to heatwaves in the past, those we see in the future under these accelerating trends will certainly be foreign.

For example, a 2014 study found that depending on where you are in Australia, anywhere between 15 and 50 extra heatwave days will occur by 2100 compared to the second half of the 20th century.

We can still abate those trends if we work collectively, effectively and urgently to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

– ref. The world endured 2 extra heatwave days per decade since 1950 – but the worst is yet to come – https://theconversation.com/the-world-endured-2-extra-heatwave-days-per-decade-since-1950-but-the-worst-is-yet-to-come-141983

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Barbara Mintzes, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney

To beat the coronavirus pandemic, countries need to collaborate. We need the best possible science to develop vaccines and drugs, and to test, track and contain the virus. If we’ve learned anything from the rapid global spread of this virus, it’s that we’re all in this together.

It was therefore shocking to hear, on June 29, that the US government has bought more than 500,000 treatment courses of the antiviral drug remdesivir, representing manufacturer Gilead’s entire production capacity for the next three months and effectively excluding other countries from accessing this drug.

Read more: Is remdesivir a miracle drug to cure coronavirus? Don’t get your hopes up yet

The purchase raises concerns, not only about access to remdesivir in other countries, but more broadly about how to prevent profiteering from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gilead announced its global price for remdesivir on June 29 as US$390 per vial. The Guardian has reported the cost to the US government will be US$3,200 for a six-day treatment. In contrast, production costs for remdesivir are estimated at 93 US cents for one day’s treatment, or less than US$6 for an entire course.

The profit motive

It was hardly a secret that Gilead was seeking to profit from its product. Earlier this year, it applied for seven years of “orphan drug exclusivity” for remdesivir – a status that extends a drug’s period of patent protection, and is meant to act as a regulatory incentive to develop drugs for rare diseases. If only COVID-19 were rare!

The US Food and Drug Administration granted the exclusivity 12 days after the World Health Organisation declared COVID-19 a pandemic. The move was met with strong criticism and Gilead has since rescinded the orphan drug status.

US consumer group Public Citizen estimates taxpayers in the US, Europe and Asia have contributed US$70.5 million in development costs for remdesivir. The list of US government grants is impressive and begs the question of whether remdesivir should be in the public domain. Instead, Gilead maintains a monopoly on sales, holding patents in many countries, the latest of which lasts until 2036.

Remdesivir’s revenue this year could be US$2.3 billion, which would make the drug a blockbuster.

We might criticise Gilead, but this is how commercial drug companies function – in non-pandemic times, at least. But it does call into question pharma’s lofty promises of ensuring “equitable global access” to COVID-19 treatments.

Read more: Gilead and the billion-dollar odyssey

Is remdesivir worthwhile anyway?

If remdesivir doesn’t work, the US purchase would be a waste of money. The first report of benefit was a small follow-up study of 53 patients with no comparison group. This was followed by a more rigorous randomised controlled trial from China, published in the Lancet, in which remdesivir did not outperform placebo. However, fewer patients were recruited than anticipated.

A third, mainly publicly funded trial by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases found patients given remdesivir recovered four days earlier, on average, than those not treated with the drug. But it also found no statistically significant difference in death rate between the two groups.

That study was also stopped early, which can lead to exaggerated estimates of treatment benefits. A British Medical Journal editorial highlighted the study’s financial links to Gilead as another source of bias.

Read more: Remdesivir explained – what makes this drug work against viruses?

More trials are ongoing, but until more evidence becomes available we really don’t know whether remdesivir significantly helps COVID-19 patients. If it does, it would be needed not only in the US but globally. Now Gilead’s supply is confined to the US, what can other countries do?

As a stopgap measure, Gilead has donated a stockpile of remdesivir to Australia, but it’s unclear whether this is a one-time-only act of generosity, or indeed why Gilead would donate its products to a wealthy country like Australia.

Bypass Gilead’s patents?

Gilead has voluntary licence agreements with manufacturers in Egypt, India and Pakistan to supply remdesivir to 127 lower-income countries. Under these agreements, Gilead allows generic manufacturers to produce remdesivir with specified conditions, such as limits on where it can be sold. A company in Bangladesh, where Gilead holds no patents, also produces generic remdesivir.

Where Gilead holds patents, countries could nevertheless gain access to generic remdesivir by issuing a compulsory licence. This is a recognised measure under both international trade law and the patent laws of many countries, including Australia. A compulsory licence grants the right to produce and sell a patented drug without the permission of the patent holder, both domestically and to other countries that have also issued a compulsory licence.

Boost international solidarity

The remdesivir saga highlights the need for greater international solidarity and a more public health-oriented approach to the development of new treatments. On June 1, 2020, the World Health Organisation addressed this by launching the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), which offers a way to share knowledge and intellectual property in response to COVID-19.

Countries and charities spending billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and drugs should require that technologies developed with public funds are shared with C-TAP.

Unfortunately, Australia has not yet pledged its support to C-TAP. Perhaps the recent experience with remdesivir will help the government realise that an open and collaborative approach is a much-needed alternative to one country hoarding the world’s supply of an overpriced and largely unproven drug.

– ref. The US has bought most of the world’s remdesivir. Here’s what it means for the rest of us – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-bought-most-of-the-worlds-remdesivir-heres-what-it-means-for-the-rest-of-us-141791

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Russell Dean Christopher Bicknell, Post-doctoral researcher in Palaeobiology , University of New England

Let’s turn back the hands of time. Before extinction knocked dinosaurs off their pillar, before the “Great Dying” extinction wiped out 95% of all organisms – we had the Paleozoic Era.

During this age in Earth’s history, between 541 million and 252 million years ago, arthropods (animals with exoskeletons such as insects, crustaceans, scorpions, and horseshoe crabs) were exploring the extremes of size, from tiny to huge.

In fact, some Paleozoic arthropods represent the largest animals on Earth at the time. If you were to take a swim in the Paleozoic oceans, you may have been fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to find one of the most fearsome of these extinct arthropods: the sea scorpions, Eurypterida.

Our new research, published in Gondwana Research, is the most comprehensive collection of information on these fascinating creatures that once roamed Australian waters.

A sight to behold

Although Eurypterida looked broadly like scorpions (with a similar body shape, albeit built for swimming), they were not. They were more like the cousins of modern scorpions.

An exceptional part of the sea scorpion evolutionary story is how they fit into the narrative of Paleozoic gigantism.

Read more: Fossils of huge plankton-eating sea creature shine light on early arthropod evolution

Sea scorpions include the largest marine predators to have ever arisen in the fossil record, including one species thought to have been more than 2.5 metres long, Jaekelopterus rhenaniae. Back then, some of these giants were effectively in the same place in their food web as the modern great white shark.

These likely agile swimmers would have used their large front limbs, armed with claws, to grab their prey, which they would then crush between the teeth-like structures on their legs (called gnathobasic spines).

While we’re not sure exactly what these large animals ate, it’s likely fish and smaller arthropods would have been on the menu. And if humans had been around swimming in the sea, maybe us too!

A fascinating (but murky) history

Australia is famous for its array of curious animals, including unique modern species such as the platypus. And this uniqueness extends far into the fossil record, with sea scorpions being a case in point.

But the scientific record and study of Australian sea scorpions has been patchy. The first documented specimen, published in 1899, consisted of a fragmented exoskeleton section found in Melbourne.

Prior to our new research examining the completeness of the group in Australia, there were about ten records – and only one other attempt to pool everything together. As such, the diversity and spread of these fossils was fairly uncertain.

For us, revisiting these amazing fossils resulted in a few trips to different Australian museums. We also had specimens sent to us at the University of New England to examine in person.

Read more: The mighty dinosaurs were bugged by other critters

This journey of palaeontological discovery uncovered many sea scorpion fossils than hadn’t previously been noted. As a result, we now have evidence of a possible six different groups that existed in Australia.

Collating these specimens together in our most recent publication, we illustrate the Pterygotidae (the family of sea scorpions that reached 2.5 metres long) dominated the group’s Australian fossil record. Although this had been noted before, the abundance of material from different locations and time periods, especially from Victoria, was unexpected.

Back to the source

Besides showcasing the largest number of Australian sea scorpions, our paper also outlines the overall lack of information on these animals.

Despite there being much fragmented material, there is only one (mostly) complete specimen, Adelophthalmus waterstoni, measuring just 5.7cm long.

Future research will involve revisiting the sites where these specimens were originally collected, in the hope of finding more complete specimens. Not only will this help document Australian sea scorpion species better, it will also allow for a more complete understanding of the environments in which they lived.

Ultimately, one thing is clear – there is much left to uncover about these titans that swam through Australia’s prehistoric oceans.

The authors thank Natalie Schroeder of the Commonwealth Palaeontology Collection for her help with this project.

– ref. Giant sea scorpions were the underwater titans of prehistoric Australia – https://theconversation.com/giant-sea-scorpions-were-the-underwater-titans-of-prehistoric-australia-141290

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Williams, Researcher at the Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine (VELiM), University of Sydney

Last week, outgoing chief medical officer Brendan Murphy announced all returned travellers would be tested for COVID-19 before and after quarantine.

Some were surprised testing was not already required. Others were outraged some 30% of returned travellers in hotel quarantine in Victoria had declined to be tested.

This week, Victorian premier Daniel Andrews said more than 900 people in two Melbourne “hotspots” had declined door-to-door testing.

Again, there was outrage. People refusing COVID-19 tests were labelled selfish and rude.

A positive test result, together with contact tracing, gives public health authorities important information about the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, in a community.

So why might people at higher risk of a positive result be reluctant testers? And what can we do to improve testing rates?

The many reasons why

Reluctance to be tested for COVID-19 is not unique to returned travellers in hotel quarantine or people living in “hotspot” suburbs.

In the week ending June 28, FluTracking, a voluntary online surveillance system, reported only 46% of people with a fever and cough had gone for a COVID-19 test.

That can be for a variety of reasons.

A medical test result is not a neutral piece of information. People may refuse medical testing (if they have symptoms) or screening (if no symptoms) of any type because they want to avoid the consequences of a positive result.

Alternatively, they might want to avoid the perceived burden of the test procedure itself.

Reasons may relate to potentially losing money or work

Many reasons for avoiding testing are likely to be structural: a casualised workforce means fewer workers with sick leave and a higher burden associated with having to isolate while waiting for test results. After a COVID-19 test in NSW, for instance, this can take 24-72 hours.

Then there’s the issue of precarious work. If people can’t attend work, either waiting at home for test results or recovering from sickness, they may lose their job altogether.

Read more: If we want workers to stay home when sick, we need paid leave for casuals

In the case of hotel quarantine, a positive result on day ten will mean a longer stay in isolation. Hotel quarantine is not an easy experience for many, particularly if quarantining alone.

An extension of time at a point where the end is in sight may be a very difficult proposition to stomach, such that avoiding testing is a preferable option.

Another structural issue is whether governments have done enough to reach linguistically diverse communities with public health advice, which Victoria’s chief health officer Brett Sutton recently admitted may be an issue.

Through no fault of their own, may people who don’t speak English as a first language, in Victoria or elsewhere, may not be getting COVID-19 health advice about symptoms, isolation or testing many of us take for granted.

Read more: Multilingual Australia is missing out on vital COVID-19 information. No wonder local councils and businesses are stepping in

People might fear the procedure or live with past traumas

Reasons may be personal and include fear of the test procedure itself (or fear it will hurt their children), distrust in government or public health systems, and worry about the extent of public health department scrutiny a positive result will bring.

People may also feel unprepared and cautious in the case of door-knocking testing campaigns.

We can’t dismiss these concerns as paranoid. Fears of invasive procedures are associated with past trauma, such as sexual abuse.

People who have experienced discrimination and marginalisation may also be less likely to trust governments and health systems.

COVID-19 can also lead to social stigma, including blame and ostracism, even after recovery.

As with any health-related decision, people usually consider, consciously or not, whether benefits outweigh harms. If the benefit of a test is assumed to be low, particularly if symptoms are light or absent, the balance may tip to harms related to discomfort, lost income or diminished freedoms.

Should we force people to get tested?

Although federal and state laws can compel certain people to undergo testing under limited circumstances, acting chief medical officer Paul Kelly said it was “a last resort”.

Forcing a person to undergo a test contravenes that person’s right to bodily integrity. This is the right to make decisions about what happens to your own body, without outside coercion.

It also involves medical personnel having to override their professional responsibility to obtain voluntary and informed consent.

Some states have indicated they will introduce punishments for refusing testing. They include an extension of hotel quarantine and the potential for fines for people not willing to participate in community testing.

Read more: Lockdown returns: how far can coronavirus measures go before they infringe on human rights?

Forced testing will backfire

We don’t think forced testing is the way to go. A heavy-handed approach can create an antagonistic and mistrustful relationship with public health institutions.

The current situation is not the only infectious disease emergency we will face. Removing barriers to participating in public health activities, in the immediate and long term, will enable people to comply with and help build trusted institutions. This is likely to create an enduring public good.

Victoria is trying to make testing easier. It is offering a test that takes a saliva sample rather than a nasal swab, which is widely perceived to be unpleasant.

Read more: Explainer: what’s the new coronavirus saliva test, and how does it work?

This may encourage parents to have their children tested. The test is less sensitive, however, so the gains in increased uptake may be lost in a larger number of false negatives (people who have the virus but test negative).

Ultimately, we need to understand why people refuse testing, and to refine public health approaches to testing that support individuals to make decisions in the public interest.

– ref. Why some people don’t want to take a COVID-19 test – https://theconversation.com/why-some-people-dont-want-to-take-a-covid-19-test-141794

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Clift, Teaching Fellow and PhD candidate, University of Melbourne

In recent days, the prime ministers of the UK and Australia each declared they are working toward providing safe haven visas for Hong Kong residents. In the US, lawmakers passed a bill that would impose sanctions on businesses and individuals that support China’s efforts to restrict Hong Kong’s autonomy.

The prospect of a shift from rhetoric to action reveals just how dire the situation in China’s world city has become.

July 1 is usually associated with Hong Kong’s annual pro-democracy march. This year, it saw around 370 arrests as protesters clashed with police under the shadow of a brand new national security law.

Read more: ‘We fear Hong Kong will become just another Chinese city’: an interview with Martin Lee, grandfather of democracy

Hong Kong police have been cracking down hard on demonstrators for over a year – with Beijing’s blessing – and most of this week’s arrests were possible simply because police had banned the gathering.

But ten arrests were made under the national security law for conduct including the possession of banners advocating Hong Kong independence.

Already, a pro-democracy political party has disbanded and activists are fleeing the city.

What’s in the national security law and how it could be applied

The national security law had been unveiled just hours earlier, its details kept secret until this week. It was imposed on Hong Kong in unprecedented circumstances when Chief Executive Carrie Lam, Beijing’s appointed leader in the city, bypassed the local legislature and promulgated it directly.

The law creates four main offences: secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security.

Hong Kong law already contains some offences of this sort, including treason, a disused colonial relic, and terrorism, tightly defined by statute. The new national security offences are different beasts – procedurally unique and alarmingly broad.

Secession, for example, includes the acts of inciting, assisting, supporting, planning, organising or participating in the separation or change of status of any part of China, not necessarily by force. This is calculated to prevent even the discussion of independence or self-determination for Hong Kong.

Collusion includes making requests of or receiving instructions from foreign countries, institutions or organisations to disrupt laws or policies in or impose sanctions against Hong Kong or China.

This is aimed at barring Hong Kongers from lobbying foreign governments or making representations at the United Nations, which many protesters have done in the past year.

The law contains severe penalties: for serious cases, between ten years and life imprisonment. It also overrides other Hong Kong laws. The presumption in favour of bail, for instance, will not apply in national security cases, facilitating indefinite detention of accused persons.

Defendants can be tried in Hong Kong courts, but in a major departure from the city’s long-cherished judicial independence, the chief executive will personally appoint the judges for national security cases.

The chief executive also decides if a trial involves state secrets – a concept defined very broadly in China. In these cases, open justice is abandoned and trials will take place behind closed doors with no jury.

While Hong Kong courts can apply the new national security law, the power to interpret it lies with Beijing alone. And in the most serious cases, mainland Chinese courts can assume jurisdiction.

This raises the prospect of political prisoners being swallowed up by China’s legal system, which features no presumption of innocence and nominal human rights guarantees. China also leads the world in executions.

Much of the national security law’s content contradicts fundamental principles of Hong Kong’s common law legal system and the terms of its mini-constitution, the Basic Law.

Even the territory’s justice minister – another unelected political appointee – has admitted the systems are incompatible.

Read more: Hong Kong: does British offer of citizenship to Hongkongers violate Thatcher’s deal with China?

Why it is deliberately vague

In the typical style of mainland Chinese laws, the national security law is drafted in vague and general terms. This is designed to give maximum flexibility to law enforcement and prosecutors, while provoking maximum fear and compliance among the population.

The government has said calls for independence for Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and even Taiwan are now illegal, as is the popular protest slogan “liberate Hong Kong; revolution of our times”.

A Beijing spokesman has said the charge of collusion to “provoke hatred” against the Hong Kong government could be used against people who spread rumours that police beat protesters to death in a notorious subway station clash last year, echoing the infamous mainland Chinese law against “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.

The law does not appear to be retroactive, but fears that it could be interpreted that way have caused a flurry of online activity as people have deleted social media accounts and posts associating them with past protests.

This is unsurprising given the Hong Kong government’s record of trawling through old social media posts for reasons to bar non-establishment candidates from standing at elections.

Dissent in any form becomes extremely hazardous

Despite the promise of autonomy for Hong Kong, enshrined in a pre-handover treaty with the UK that China claims is now irrelevant, the national security law has escalated the project to “harmonise” the upstart region by coercive means, rather than addressing the root causes of dissatisfaction.

Under the auspices of the new law, the Chinese government will openly establish a security agency, with agents unaccountable under local law, in Hong Kong for the first time. It has also authorised itself in the new law to extend its tendrils further into civil society, with mandates to manage the media, the internet, NGOs and school curricula.

Under the weight of this authoritarian agenda, dissent in any form becomes an extremely hazardous prospect. It is no doubt Beijing’s intention that it will one day be impossible – or better yet, something Hong Kongers would not even contemplate.

Read more: China is taking a risk by getting tough on Hong Kong. Now, the US must decide how to respond

The aim of silencing all opposing voices – including those overseas – is clear from the purported extraterritorial operation of the law.

The international community has condemned Beijing’s actions, but its members have a responsibility to follow words with actions. The least that democratic countries like the US, UK, Australia and others can do is offer a realistic path to safety for the civic-minded Hong Kongers who have stood up to the world’s premier authoritarian power at grave personal risk.

Some 23 years after China achieved its long-held ambition of regaining Hong Kong, it has failed to win hearts and minds and has brought out the big stick. Its promises may have been hollow, but its threats are not.

– ref. Hong Kong activists now face a choice: stay silent, or flee the city. The world must give them a path to safety – https://theconversation.com/hong-kong-activists-now-face-a-choice-stay-silent-or-flee-the-city-the-world-must-give-them-a-path-to-safety-141880

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gerard Fitzgerald, Emeritus Professor, School of Public Health, Queensland University of Technology

The emergence of significant community transmission of COVID-19 in Melbourne over the past week is greatly concerning to the whole of Australia.

Earlier this week, Victoria’s chief health officer Brett Sutton said the state was struggling to cope with the volume of contact tracing required for more than 2,500 people in self-isolation, who must have all their close contacts traced and contacted:

[…] we’re at the limits of managing that number.

Since then, the number of cases in Victoria has risen further still.

What options are available for increasing the pool of contact tracers in Victoria, or any other state that finds itself handling significant rises in COVID-19 cases?

Read more: Victoria is on the precipice of an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak. Will the new measures work?

Remind me, what are contact tracers?

The key strategy to preventing further community transmission is to identify all cases through extensive testing, isolate people who test positive, and then trace their close contacts.

These contacts require initial testing to see if they are also potential spreaders, but more importantly they need to be isolated and closely monitored. Should they develop symptoms, they also need to be tested.

The process of identification of cases, ensuring isolation and monitoring, identifying contacts and following up each of those requires extensive effort.

Read more: Explainer: what is contact tracing and how does it help limit the coronavirus spread?

Every patient who tests positive needs to be interviewed to identify where they have been during the potentially infective stage of the disease, and who they may have come into contact with.

In some circumstances, this may be limited to family members, while in others it may involve following up others who may have been in the same locations, such as workplaces, restaurants, shops or public transport.

All these people need to be made aware of the risk and followed up. This is challenging in a free society. It requires cooperation from the community. It also requires understanding that some who may be spreading the disease are not aware they are doing so.

Read more: Lockdown returns: how far can coronavirus measures go before they infringe on human rights?

This task is traditionally the role of public health workers — including doctors, nurses and those with specific public health qualifications — called contact tracers.

They are the real heroes of this effort, doing mundane work below the radar to keep the community protected.

In normal circumstances, these staff monitor diseases that are present in the community and identify and follow up notifiable disease such as measles, HIV, hepatitis or tuberculosis.

These public health workers have been working desperately hard for months and now those in Victoria are being asked to step up to the mark again.

Read more: By persisting with COVIDSafe, Australia risks missing out on globally trusted contact tracing

How can we expand the pool of contact tracers?

The public health workforce needs to be expanded rapidly to handle the increased workload. There are several ways to do this, some of which have already been implemented in Victoria.

We could reallocate people from other public health functions, which could immediately provide a ready and well-trained workforce.

But this will impact other vital public health protections, including surveillance of other disease, health promotion, screening, early diagnosis and intervention. Diverting staff from these efforts may also have long-term health consequences.

Read more: Coronavirus: why did England ignore an army of existing contact tracers?

Staff could be deployed from other agencies, including the Australian Defence Force.

While readily available and well-disciplined for the task, only some of these people have the necessary expertise to identify cases and trace contacts. Others may need to serve in support roles.

Other states and territories could provide support. However, this may require people to relocate to Victoria with the personal disruption implied, as well as the enhanced risk to them and to their families and communities when they return.

This sharing of public health resources across state borders requires significant national cooperation, which has been evident in other parts of Australia’s COVID-19 response.

Finally, people may be recruited from the pool of partly trained people (public health students). While they may lack the practical skills, they will at least bring theoretical knowledge to perform some targeted tasks with specific training. For instance, they could work with experienced personnel to help maintain records or identify contacts.

We have a lot at stake

This new outbreak in Victoria threatens to overwhelm the system’s public health capacity. If that occurs, we can expect large numbers of deaths to follow. We are not there yet, but this outbreak in Victoria is placing the whole country at risk.

So public health workers need all the help and support the Australian community can provide.

– ref. Victoria’s coronavirus contact tracers are already under the pump. What happens next? – https://theconversation.com/victorias-coronavirus-contact-tracers-are-already-under-the-pump-what-happens-next-141792

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Kemish, Former Ambassador and Adjunct Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, The University of Queensland

Chinese activity in Papua New Guinea was not the only factor behind Australia’s Pacific “Step-Up”. As a former high commissioner to PNG, I know it followed serious deliberations about Australia’s overall strategic imperatives in the region.

But China’s engagement with our nearest neighbour was in the minds of many when Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the foreign policy initiative in November 2018, pledging to

take our engagement with the region to a new level.

Chinese President Xi Jinping was about to make a state visit to Port Moresby, before joining other world leaders at the APEC Summit there. China had been busy repairing roads and constructing an international conference centre in the PNG capital ahead of the meeting, along with a six-lane highway leading to the parliament.

A Chinese hospital ship had just conducted a well-publicised “humanitarian mission” to PNG. And Prime Minister Peter O’Neill had recently signed up to the Belt and Road Initiative, fuelling concern that PNG’s growing financial exposure to China might be converted to Beijing’s strategic advantage.

Xi then used the opportunity of his state visit to pledge an additional US$300 million in concessional loans to the country.

Several Papua New Guinean friends commented then that none of this activity would be of lasting benefit to the struggling developing country. But it certainly captured public attention, and suggested a renewed strategic intent on China’s behalf to boost its influence in the region.

Read more: Despite its Pacific ‘step-up’, Australia is still not listening to the region, new research shows

Recent setbacks in China’s outreach

Eighteen months later, China is still looking for ways to engage with PNG, motivated by interest in both its abundant natural resources and key strategic location. But these efforts sometimes seem uncoordinated, and Beijing has suffered some significant setbacks.

China has been surprisingly slow to respond at critical moments. For instance, PNG officials became frustrated with bureaucratic stalling in early 2019 as they sought to follow up on Xi’s promised loan, and Australia ultimately stepped in to supply the required A$440 million.

Canberra also outmanoeuvred Huawei’s bid to lay undersea high-speed internet cables to PNG and the neighbouring Solomon Islands.

And this year, China has not sent any meaningful signal of solidarity to PNG since the onset of COVID-19 – just proforma PPE donations. Western institutions like the IMF are instead stepping in with emergency financial assistance but, so far at least, China has been nowhere to be seen.

Anti-Chinese sentiment flares up

The recent experience of China’s Zijin Mining Group points to another constraint – the anti-Chinese sentiment that sometimes lurks below the surface in PNG.

The PNG cabinet decided in April not to renew the gold mining lease held jointly by Zijin and Canada’s Barrick Gold at Porgera in the Highlands region. Prime Minister James Marape announced Porgera would instead transition to national ownership.

A letter from Zijin Chairman Chen Jinghe to Marape was then leaked. Chen warned if Zijin’s investment was not “properly protected”, he was

afraid there will be significant negative impact on the bilateral relations between China and PNG.

This provoked visceral anti-Chinese sentiment and praise for Marape’s stance on social media in PNG. Speculation last week the government was looking to sell the mine to another Chinese group sparked a further wave of anti-Chinese feeling – this time critical of Marape.

The tone of some of these messages brought to mind the violent attacks against Chinese and other Asian small business owners at past moments of economic hardship and local tensions in PNG.

Zijin is not the first Chinese resource company to face difficulties in PNG. In 2004, China’s Metallurgical
Construction
Company (MCC) secured the agreement of then-Prime Minister Michael Somare to buy the Ramu nickel mine in Madang province.

The company learned quickly that an agreement with the head of government is not enough. MCC did not plan adequately for engagement with landowners, provincial authorities and environmentalists, and inflamed local tensions by using imported Chinese labour.

MCC spent almost two years in court pitted against these groups, to its substantial cost.

Read more: Everything but China is on the table during PNG prime minister’s visit

China is not giving up

PNG can be a hard place to operate. As the Australian government and many businesses and NGOs have found, success requires sustained effort with multiple stakeholders.

Chinese companies are not giving up. China Mobile reportedly looked at taking over domestic mobile carrier Digicel earlier this year, and Shenzhen Energy is persevering with its stalled US$2 billion “Ramu 2” hydro power project, given initial approval by the O’Neill government in 2015.

Industry sources report the current government, eager to announce employment-generating projects, is considering moving to implementation stage after some hesitation.

Read more: In the post-APEC scramble to lavish funds on PNG, here’s what the country really needs

A deal has also recently been signed allowing PNG seafood exports to China.

China has every right to pursue investments in the region, and PNG is entitled to diversify its external links. Beijing will likely make further advances, but on current form these will likely be more opportunistic than strategic.

Australia should engage China positively in PNG, consistent with its bilateral interests in both Port Moresby and Beijing. It should also build confidently on the advantages that flow from geographic proximity and a long, overall positive relationship with its friends across the Torres Strait.

– ref. China’s push into PNG has been surprisingly slow and ineffective. Why has Beijing found the going so tough? – https://theconversation.com/chinas-push-into-png-has-been-surprisingly-slow-and-ineffective-why-has-beijing-found-the-going-so-tough-140073

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Webb, PhD candidate in Astrophysics, Swinburne University of Technology

What does the Sun’s core look like? Sophie, aged 8, Perth

What does the Sun’s core look like? This is a fantastic question Sophie, and one we will need to go on an adventure to answer!

We are about to take a journey to the centre of the Sun. The action begins about 148 million kilometres from our planet when we arrive at the Sun’s surface in our space ship.

It’s hot here at the surface, about 5,700 degrees Celsius, and the light is brilliant and blinding. As we look closer, the surface appears to bubble, just like boiling water. Some of the bubbles look darker than the others. The darker bubbles are slightly cooler than the rest, but every inch of the surface is still blisteringly hot.

Read more: Curious Kids: how are stars made?

From zone to zone

We continue on our journey, diving through one of these giant bubbles on the surface, and head towards our first stop: the convective zone.

Surrounding us is a hot fluid called plasma, filled with bubbles by the constant movement of hot gases rising and cool gases falling. The bubbles are moving, growing and shrinking. Some are even popping as our space ship travels down further, rocking from side to side like a boat in a high sea.

After travelling down for 200,000 kilometres (that’s about 15 times the width of the whole Earth!) the rocking finally stops. We’ve made it to our second stop, the radiative zone.

This part of the Sun is very hot. It is now 2 million degrees outside our space ship. If we could see individual light particles, called photons, we’d see them bouncing between the tiny particles, called atoms, that make up the plasma.

These bounces forwards and backwards and from side to side make up a dance scientists call a “random walk”. It can take one photon hundreds of thousands of years to randomly walk its way out of this layer.

Our spaceship is going full speed ahead, so we move through it much more quickly.

The weight of all the plasma above us pressing down means the plasma around us is denser than gold, and the temperatures are soaring up towards 15 million degrees! We have almost reached the final stop on our tour, the Sun’s core.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do stars twinkle?

Welcome to the core

Before we enter the core, we’re going to have to shrink down to the size of an atom. It is the only way we will get to see what is happening in here, because what we are trying to see in here is atoms, millions of times smaller than a grain of sand!

The core of the Sun is home to billions and billions of atoms of hydrogen, the lightest element in the universe. The immense pressure and heat pushes these atoms so close to one another that they squish together to create new, heavier atoms.

This is called nuclear fusion. The hydrogen atoms that get squished together form an entirely different substance called helium.

So now that we are in the core of the Sun, what does it actually look like? Not only is everything blindingly bright, but it just might have a pretty pink colour!

We can’t be entirely sure what the core would look like to human eyes, but we have seen in labs here on Earth that hydrogen plasma has a pink glow. So we can make an educated guess that hydrogen plasma in the core of the Sun would look about the same.

When atoms merge together, they release large amounts of energy in the form of light. The light works its way up through the core, into the radiative zone where it bounces around, until it finally makes it into the convective zone. Then the light travels up to the surface of the Sun through massive bubbles of plasma, and from the surface it is free to travel uninterrupted through the sky.

It’s time to leave the hottest place in our solar system and head back to Earth. Our journey has taken us 700,000 kilometres deep into the interior of the Sun, past the bubbles of the convective zone, through the billions of the light rays in the radiative zone and into the mysterious atom-fusing core.

As we land back on Earth and look towards the Sun in the sky, it’s almost like looking back in time. We know now the light we are seeing was created hundreds of thousands of years ago, in the hottest place in the Solar system!

– ref. Curious Kids: what does the Sun’s core look like? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-does-the-suns-core-look-like-141785

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Spencer Zifcak, Allan Myers Chair of Law/Professor of Law, Australian Catholic University

After a lengthy delay due to the coronavirus pandemic, the legal case that constitutes the most significant threat to freedom of expression in this country will soon play out in the ACT Supreme Court.

This is the prosecution of Bernard Collaery, the former ACT attorney-general and lawyer for Witness K, the former ASIS officer turned whistleblower.

Both are charged under section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, which deems it a criminal offence for a person to communicate any information that was prepared by the Australian Secret Intelligence Service in pursuit of its functions.

After an ACT Supreme Court ruling last week, significant parts of the trial against Collaery will now be held in secret, but the argument put forward by the attorney-general that certain information in the case must be kept classified is extraordinarily weak.

Collaery’s attorney protested the move, saying

Open justice is an essential part of our legal system, the rights of defendants and of our democracy.

Background of the case

The prosecutions arose from the disclosure of information related to a covert ASIS spying operation – the bugging of the cabinet offices of Timor-Leste. The operation was authorised by Alexander Downer, then-foreign minister, in 2004.

Its purpose was secretly to obtain information about Timor-Leste’s negotiating strategy before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a case seeking to clarify the country’s maritime boundary with Australia. This was crucial to determining the countries’ competing claims to rich oil deposits in the Timor Sea. The case ended because Australia pre-emptively withdrew from the ICJ’s jurisdiction.

In 2013, Timor-Leste took its concerns about the Australian surveillance operation – and the legal and commercial disadvantage it had suffered – to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. It briefed Collaery to represent its interests. Witness K was invited to give evidence.

Read more: After a border dispute and spying scandal, can Australia and Timor-Leste be good neighbours?

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis, however, ordered the confiscation of Witness K’s passport to prevent him giving evidence to the court and ordered ASIO raids on the homes and offices of both K and Collaery.

The raid on Collaery’s premises yielded a copy of the full affidavit he had drafted summarising the case Timor-Leste was to present to the court. From a legal perspective, these raids were scandalous.

Witness K and Collaery were then notified they could be prosecuted for breaches of the Intelligence Services Act. But nothing happened until 2018, when Attorney-General Christian Porter decided the prosecutions should proceed.

Witness K gave notice last year that he would plead guilty, but Collaery decided to contest the charge.

There is a certain Alice in Wonderland quality about all this – everything has been turned upside down.

The two people who acted in the national interest by disclosing alleged unlawful activity by Australia’s intelligence service are the defendants in a criminal case. The government, which initiated the covert operation, has become the prosecutor. Something has gone very wrong.

Possible defences under the law

So, what are the legal issues that are likely to arise? The real problem for Witness K and Collaery is that section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act has no public interest defence, in other words, they can’t argue that disclosing the confidential information was done in the public interest, and hence, not against the law.

There are two other defences available, but neither fits easily with the facts of the case.

One allows information to be disclosed if it has already been communicated or made available to the public with the authority of the Commonwealth. The facts of this case are widely known in the public arena owing in part to interviews Collaery gave to journalists. The Commonwealth, however, did not provide permission for this disclosure.

The second defence allows the disclosure of information to the inspector-general of intelligence and security (IGIS), who monitors and oversees the activities of the intelligence agencies.

Read more: Australia’s quest for national security is undermining the courts and could lead to secretive trials

Witness K requested IGIS permission to disclose information about the ASIS bugging operation for the purpose of giving evidence to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. He received permission, but the government then withdrew his passport to prevent him from travelling to The Hague.

Witness K and Collaery might have argued the disclosures were made in accordance with the Commonwealth Public Interest Disclosure Act, otherwise known as the Whistleblower Act.

Section 41, however, exempts intelligence information from being disclosed under this act.

Has the government acted unlawfully?

At this stage, it is worth reflecting on the illegal activities in which the government may have engaged. It appears likely ASIS undertook an act of criminal trespass in Timor-Leste by planting surveillance devices in its cabinet room. As in every other democratic country, Timor-Leste’s cabinet deliberations are by law secret.

It is customary in international law – and spelled out explicitly in the UN Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunity of States – that nations and their property are immune from the domestic jurisdiction of other countries. So, Australia also transgressed international law by raiding the offices of Witness K and Collaery and confiscating documents that were clearly the property of the Timor-Leste government.

In addition, the law in Australia protects legal professional privilege, which guarantees that communications between a lawyer and client are confidential.

By, in effect, stealing Collaery’s extensive legal advice to the Timor-Leste government, ASIO violated this principle. Brandis, however, has said

No lawyer can invoke the principles of lawyer–client privilege to excuse participation, whether as principal or accessory, in offences against the Commonwealth.

How the High Court could view the case

It is clear nothing permits the government to take actions that are contrary to Australian law or the law of another country.

The defendants could argue, then, that disclosing information for the sole purpose of exposing government illegality should not be prohibited by Section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act.

A conviction in these circumstances would be a travesty, particularly as it carries with it a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. This is the penalty Collaery and K are facing.

Read more: The shaky case for prosecuting Witness K and his lawyer in the Timor-Leste spying scandal

Next, it ought to be remembered the High Court has read into the constitution an implied right to freedom of political communication.

It is quite likely the High Court will find the relevant provisions of the Intelligence Services Act are cast so broadly as to transgress this constitutionally guaranteed freedom. If so, the government’s case will fall apart.

Should these arguments be successful, Witness K and Collaery will emerge as the free speech heroes they are.

Even more importantly, the profoundly chilling effect the imprisonment of individuals of conscience would have on political and journalistic freedom in this country will have been avoided. Australian democracy will have repelled a grievous attack.

– ref. Why Bernard Collaery’s case is one of the gravest threats to freedom of expression – https://theconversation.com/why-bernard-collaerys-case-is-one-of-the-gravest-threats-to-freedom-of-expression-122463

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Williamson, Professor of Microbiology, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity

A cornerstone of containing the COVID-19 pandemic is widespread testing to identify cases and prevent new outbreaks emerging. This strategy is known as “test, trace and isolate”.

The standard test so far has been the swab test, in which a swab goes up your nose and to the back of your throat.

But an alternative method of specimen collection, using saliva, is being evaluated in Victoria and other parts of the world. It may have some benefits, even though it’s not as accurate.

Read more: Victoria is on the precipice of an uncontrolled coronavirus outbreak. Will the new measures work?

Saliva testing can reduce risks for health workers

The gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) is a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This tests for the genetic material of the virus, and is performed most commonly on a swab taken from the nose and throat, or from sputum (mucus from the lungs) in unwell patients.

In Australia, more than 2.5 million of these tests have been carried out since the start of the pandemic, contributing significantly to the control of the virus.

Although a nasal and throat swab is the preferred specimen for detecting the virus, PCR testing on saliva has recently been suggested as an alternative method. Several studies demonstrate the feasibility of this approach, including one conducted at the Doherty Institute (where the lead author of this article works). It used the existing PCR test, but examined saliva instead of nasal samples.

Read more: Keep your nose out of it: why saliva tests could offer a better alternative to nasal COVID-19 swabs

The use of saliva has several advantages:

• it is easier and less uncomfortable to take saliva than a swab

• it may reduce the risk to health-care workers if they do not need to collect the sample

• it reduces the consumption of personal protective equipment (PPE) and swabs. This is particularly important in settings where these might be in short supply.

But it’s not as sensitive

However, a recent meta-analysis (not yet peer-reviewed) has shown detection from saliva is less sensitive than a nasal swab, with a lower concentration of virus in saliva compared to swabs. It’s important to remember, though, this data is preliminary and must be treated with caution.

Nonetheless, this means saliva testing is likely to miss some cases of COVID-19. This was also shown in our recent study, which compared saliva and nasal swabs in more than 600 adults presenting to a COVID-19 screening clinic.

Of 39 people who tested positive via nasal swab, 87% were positive on saliva. The amount of virus was less in saliva than in the nasal swab. This most likely explains why testing saliva missed the virus in the other 13% of cases.

The laboratory test itself is the same as the PCR tests conducted on nasal swabs, just using saliva as an alternative specimen type. However, Australian laboratories operate under strict quality frameworks. To use saliva as a diagnostic specimen, each laboratory must verify saliva specimens are acceptably accurate when compared to swabs. This is done by testing a bank of known positive and negative saliva specimens and comparing the results with swabs taken from the same patients.

When could saliva testing be used?

In theory, there are several settings where saliva testing could play a role in the diagnosis of COVID-19. These may include:

• places with limited staff to collect swabs or where high numbers of tests are required

• settings where swabs and PPE may be in critically short supply

• some children and other people for whom a nasal swab is difficult.

The use of saliva testing at a population level has not been done anywhere in the world. However, a pilot study is under way in the United Kingdom to test 14,000 health workers. The US Food and Drug Administration recently issued an emergency approval for a diagnostic test that involves home-collected saliva samples.

In Australia, the Victorian government is also piloting the collection of saliva in limited circumstances, alongside traditional swabbing approaches. This is to evaluate whether saliva collection is a useful approach to further expanding the considerable swab-based community testing occurring in response to the current outbreaks in Melbourne.

Read more: These 10 postcodes are back in Stage 3 coronavirus lockdown. Here’s what that means

A saliva test may be better than no test at all

Undoubtedly, saliva testing is less sensitive than a nasal swab for COVID-19 detection. But in the midst of a public health crisis, there is a strong argument that, in some instances, a test with moderately reduced sensitivity is better than no test at all.

The use of laboratory testing in these huge volumes as a public health strategy has not been tried for previous infectious diseases outbreaks. This has required a scaling up of laboratory capacity far beyond its usual purpose of diagnosing infection for clinical care. In the current absence of a vaccine, widespread testing for COVID-19 is likely to occur for the foreseeable future, with periods of intense testing required to respond to local outbreaks that will inevitably arise.

In addition to swab-free specimens like saliva, testing innovations include self-collected swabs (which has also been tested in Australia), and the use of batch testing of specimens. These approaches could complement established testing methods and may provide additional back-up for population-level screening to ensure testing is readily available to all who need it.

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

– ref. Explainer: what’s the new coronavirus saliva test, and how does it work? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-whats-the-new-coronavirus-saliva-test-and-how-does-it-work-141877

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Jones, Research Fellow (Food Policy and Law), George Institute for Global Health

As you read this, health officials are busy finalising the government’s review of the health star rating system on packaged foods.

One of the issues the review is looking at is whether the system, which has been voluntary in Australia and New Zealand since its launch in 2014, should become mandatory.

This is something public health and consumer groups have called for, but the food industry has opposed.

Our new research, which looked at health star ratings of 20,000 packaged foods, shows why mandatory health stars on all packaged food is needed.

We found less than half of all eligible foods carried them, and those that did were skewed towards foods with higher ratings.

Read more: Why the Australasian Health Star Rating needs major changes to make it work

Remind me, what is the health star rating?

The health star system rates products from 0.5 to 5.0 stars to help guide consumers toward healthier choices when browsing the supermarket shelves. When comparing similar products, the general idea is the higher the star rating, the healthier the food.

However, the government’s review is meant to address criticism the food industry has “gamed” the system by exploiting loopholes in scoring criteria to allow some products high in sugar and salt to still score relatively highly.

While much attention has been directed towards closing these loopholes, public health and consumer groups would also like to see mandatory labelling.

Here’s what we did and what we found

We looked at health stars on packaged food in Australia between 2014 and 2019. We used the FoodSwitch database, which contains information about the labelling and nutrition of packaged food.

Every year, FoodSwitch is updated by photographing labels of all packaged foods and beverages in four large supermarkets in metropolitan Sydney. That’s a total of about 20,000 unique products.

For each year in this study, we recorded whether a product was displaying a health star rating and its value.

Read more: Essays on health: how food companies can sneak bias into scientific research

Where a product was not showing stars on the pack, we calculated how that product would rate using available nutrition information and applying the government’s calculator.

This gave us an idea of what information manufacturers were not yet providing consumers.

We also looked at the manufacturer of each product, and flagged whether they were represented on the committee overseeing implementation of the health stars system.

Voluntary use remains disappointing

We found uptake of food star ratings has increased steadily over the past five years. But only about 41% of eligible products carried one.

Retailers Coles, Woolworths and Aldi labelled their own private label brands, accounting for about 56% of all health star ratings. Despite this leadership, these retailers were not involved in the implementation committee.

However, members of the industry group the Australian Food and Grocery Council — involved in developing health stars and represented on the implementation committee — were responsible for only 29% of total uptake.

Read more: Fat nation: the rise and fall of obesity on the political agenda

Selective use, on healthier products

Perhaps unsurprisingly with voluntary labelling, health stars were more likely to appear on products with higher ratings. More than three-quarters of all stars were on products rated 3.0 or higher.

With a few exceptions, including McCain Foods, Coles and Woolworths, nearly all companies were more likely to show stars on their higher-scoring products.

We found significant differences between the average rating of products displaying the health star rating, and those made by the same manufacturer not showing a health star rating.

For example, Nestlé showed stars on its Uncle Toby’s breakfast cereals where they scored an average 3.9 stars. But the company did not provide the star logo on its confectionery range, which received an average 1.4 stars.

A voluntary system puts profits before health

Our results illustrate the limits of commercial goodwill in applying health stars voluntarily.

Selective use allows the food industry to market its products as healthy but denies consumers the chance to make meaningful comparisons between products.

In particular, the voluntary system limits consumers’ ability to identify and avoid less healthy foods.

With the government review set to be finalised in mid-July, our work supports arguments for an improved health star rating system to be made mandatory to ensure the system works for consumers, not just food companies.

Read more: Supermarkets put junk food on special twice as often as healthy food, and that’s a problem

Here’s what needs to happen next

Making health stars mandatory will take time. However, health officials must commit now to a concrete and public plan to proceed down this path by a specific date in the likely event that uptake remains patchy.

Over the same period the health stars system has been operating, Australian manufacturers have implemented new requirements for mandatory country of origin labelling.

If we’re willing to use regulation to provide consumers more information about where their food comes from, we should be doing the same to provide more information about how healthy their food is too.

– ref. We looked at the health star rating of 20,000 foods and this is what we found – https://theconversation.com/we-looked-at-the-health-star-rating-of-20-000-foods-and-this-is-what-we-found-141453