The regulation of environmental impacts from agriculture can take place at various scales. In some nations, with federal systems of government, the multiscale nature of regulatory interventions can be confusing for farmers, not to mention costly and time-consuming to navigate. Regulatory overlap contributes to inefficiency and wastage in governance efforts, reduced trust in government action and can preclude positive environmental outcomes across the landscape. In this article, we explore how Australia’s national-level law has been applied to agricultural land use. We canvas the concepts of regulatory complexity and ambiguity, and argue for a more integrated and flexible policy mix that rewards positive behaviour and stewardship of natural capital. This model would provide financial and other personal gains for those who can demonstrate objectives are being met. Further empirical research on fine-tuning that policy mix, again across scale, is warranted.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the subsequent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant global impact. However, COVID-19 is just one of several high-impact infectious diseases that emerged from wildlife and are linked to the human relationship with nature. The rate of emergence of new zoonoses (diseases of animal origin) is increasing, driven by human-induced environmental changes that threaten biodiversity on a global scale. This increase is directly linked to environmental drivers including biodiversity loss, climate change and unsustainable resource extraction. Australia is a biodiversity hotspot and is subject to sustained and significant environmental change, increasing the risk of it being a location for pandemic origin. Moreover, the global integration of markets means that consumption trends in Australia contributes to the risk of disease spill-over in our regional neighbours in Asia-Pacific, and beyond. Despite the clear causal link between anthropogenic pressures on the environment and increasing pandemic risks, Australia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, like most of the world, has centred largely on public health strategies, with a clear focus on reactive management. Yet, the span of expertise and evidence relevant to the governance of pandemic risk management is much wider than public health and epidemiology. It involves animal/wildlife health, biosecurity, conservation sciences, social sciences, behavioural psychology, law, policy and economic analyses to name just a few.The authors are a team of multidisciplinary practitioners and researchers who have worked together to analyse, synthesise, and harmonise the links between pandemic risk management approaches and issues in different disciplines to provide a holistic overview of current practice, and conclude the need for reform in Australia. We discuss the adoption of a comprehensive and interdisciplinary ‘One Health’ approach to pandemic risk management in Australia. A key goal of the One Health approach is to be proactive in countering threats of emerging infectious diseases and zoonoses through a recognition of the interdependence between human, animal, and environmental health. Developing ways to implement a One Health approach to pandemic prevention would not only reduce the risk of future pandemics emerging in or entering Australia, but also provide a model for prevention strategies around the world.

Higher education institutions universally need to maximise student engagement by modifying teaching practices in response to changes caused by globalisation, technological innovation, and community values. To do this, it is necessary to deeply understand the complexity of student needs and identify how to respond. The global shift to wholly online learning during COVID19 presented a unique opportunity to better understand the influences and outcomes of student engagement in practice. We conducted an extended 2-day focus group with students from an Australian university and applied Kahu and Nelson’s educational interface framework to investigate how the shift to online education affected students’ perceptions of learning and engagement. Students reported their primary needs related to digital competencies, flexible learning, and teacher care and enthusiasm. In these contexts, educators must support students to develop self-efficacy and a sense of belonging. However, most significant was the inextricable connection between students’ personal lives, including emotions and wellbeing, and their university lives. Students reported that they consistently prioritised lifeload over learning load, while consciously knowing their choices were at odds with their learning. We provide suggestions for improving future learning models, while also acknowledging more work is needed to better understand student lifeloads and decision-making. These insights are valuable for improving practice in higher education, as institutions internationally and sector wide continue to adapt to the evolving needs of students within global sociocultural contexts.

This article categorizes and evaluates how regulatory regimes conceptualize plastics, and how such conceptualizations affect the production, consumption, and disposal of plastics. Taking a doctrinal and policy-oriented approach, it identifies four ‘frames’ – that is, four distinct and coherent sets of meanings attributed to plastics within transnational regulation – namely, plastics as waste to be managed; a material to be prevented; a good (or waste) to be traded freely; and inputs or outputs in production-consumption systems. Based on this analysis, three significant deficiencies in the transnational regulation of plastics are identified: the failure to frame plastics in terms of environmental justice and human rights issues; insufficient focus on plastics prevention (rather than management); and the role of law in reinforcing its production and consumption.

A shift to a circular economy is essential, and regulation can play a critical role in this transition. In this paper we examine the regulatory frameworks required to promote a circular economy (CE) for textiles through a qualitative analysis of data from Australian and international contexts. Supporting the transition to a CE requires an optimal policy mix that includes direct regulation, selfregulation, voluntary initiatives, education approaches, and economic instruments, such as subsidies and incentives. Using an inductive, interpretive approach to qualitative analysis, we analysed the submissions and Standing Committee sessions of the Commonwealth Government's 2019-20 Inquiry into Australia's Waste Management and Recycling Industries and identified the regulatory approaches for which different stakeholder groups are advocating. Public, industry and recyclers all advocate first for economic instruments, with industry bodies next advocating for self-regulation, while both the public and recycling industry next recommend education initiatives. Alongside, our analysis draws on the regulatory approaches of Australia and other nations, as captured in a sample of international government and NGO reports and working papers. We find that Australia's current regulatory system focuses primarily on normative education and information documents, with fragmented economic and co-regulation on a state-by-state level. Through this analysis, we propose a holistic policy mix that codifies a circular economy approach to textile waste governance and make a series of regulatory recommendations appropriate to the Australian context.