Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cecelia Cmielewski, Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

To be selected as the artist and curator team to represent Australia at the Venice Biennale is considered the ultimate exhibition for an artistic team. To have your selection rescinded, as has now happened to the 2026 team of Khaled Sabsabi and curator Michael Dagostino, is without precedent.

Australia has presented at the biennale since 1954, and is one of 29 countries to have a permanent pavilion. Last year, Archie Moore was the first Australian to win the Golden Lion for best national pavilion.

The selection of an artist and curator pair is managed by Creative Australia. The arts funding body appoints a committee of visual artists and industry experts to form a shortlist of six teams, and make the final selection.

The announcement on February 7 of Sabsabi and Dagostino was widely celebrated as creatively bold and inclusive.

On Thursday, opposition arts spokesperson, Claire Chandler, questioned Sabsabi’s selection in the Senate. She cited a 2007 work that featured Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and said the artist had made work “promoting” Osama bin Laden.

In a statement released on Thursday night, Creative Australia said Sabsabi and Dagostino would no longer represent Australia at the biennale.

The Creative Australia board, the statement said, “believes a prolonged and divisive debate about the 2026 selection outcome poses an unacceptable risk to public support for Australia’s artistic community”.

On social media, the artistic community was swift in its condemnation. They criticised the paucity of understanding of Sabsabi’s artistic and community practice, and questioned the role of political interference and freedom of artistic expression.

Artists called for the resignation of the Creative Australia board, and for a boycott of the Australian pavilion at the biennale.

‘A remarkable career’

Before moving into visual arts, Sabsabi began his career as a hip-hop artist, known as Peacefender. In a career spanning more than 35 years, he has worked in video, mixed media and installation art, exhibiting around Australia and internationally.

Media artist and academic John Gillies described Sabsabi as “a thoughtful and peaceful person” who has worked as a community arts worker in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.

The former head of the Sydney gallery Artspace, Nicholas Tsoutas, said Sabsabi “has had a remarkable career in contemporary art and his selection was so well deserved”.

He praised the selection of Sabsabi as “an extraordinary opportunity to really advocate for artistic freedom for bringing [people] together”, and added this decision will “do the exact opposite”.

‘A sad day’

Artist Kate Just said the board’s decision “undermines the expertise of the artist, curator, and the selection team. The decision fails to uphold the work of artists to interrogate complex personal and political histories and the urgent issues of our time.”

Fiona Winning, former director of programming at Sydney Opera House, said it was “a shameful call by Creative Australia”. Artist Nigel Helyer expressed his belief this decision was “liable to emphasise cultural divides, rather than placate them”.

Investment banker, art collector and philanthropist Simon Mordant, commented on Instagram he has “resigned as an Ambassador to the now cancelled project and withdrawn my financial support – this situation is unacceptable”.

He suggested “the Pavilion should remain empty in solidarity with Khaled. A very dark day for Australia and the Arts”.

Advocacy body National Association for the Visual Arts (commonly known as NAVA) released a statement saying “government interference in the expert panel’s selection process undermines the very principle of independence”.

The decision, they said, “erodes public trust, alienates artists, and sparks widespread protest from those who stand with Sabsabi and Dagostino as a matter of principle”.

‘Artists reflect the times they live in’

The five artistic teams who were shortlisted to represent Australia at the biennale have released a joint statement in support of Sabsabi.

They called the selection process “rigorous and professionally independent” leading to the selection of a team with “artistic vision and courage”.

Revoking support, they wrote, is “antithetical to the goodwill and hard-fought artistic independence, freedom of speech and moral courage that is at the core of arts in Australia”.

In a statement, Sabsabi and Dagostino said “art should not be censored as artists reflect the times they live in”.

“We intended to present a transformational work in Venice, an experience that would unite all audiences in an open and safe shared space,” they said.

As the artistic community is showing, this decision has raised a debate on what artists are allowed to say in Australia and brings into question the independence of Creative Australia.

Cecelia Cmielewski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘A shameful call by Creative Australia’: the arts community reacts to Khaled Sabsabi being dropped from the Venice Biennale – https://theconversation.com/a-shameful-call-by-creative-australia-the-arts-community-reacts-to-khaled-sabsabi-being-dropped-from-the-venice-biennale-249941

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity Australia

Severe Tropical Cyclone Zelia is bearing down on the northwest coast of Australia and is likely to make landfall early Friday evening.

It’s a monster storm of great concern to Western Australia. Port Hedland is the largest town in the firing line and also our busiest iron ore export port. Strong winds may extend to other areas along the coast, and inland to areas such as Marble Bar, Tom Price and Paraburdoo.

Even if Zelia doesn’t hit towns directly, it’s likely to cause a lot of damage. The Bureau of Meteorology predicts extremely dangerous sustained winds of around 205 kilometers an hour and wind gusts higher still, at 290km/h. That’s strong enough to flatten homes, trees, power lines and other infrastructure.

This is a category five cyclone, which is the most severe possible under the current scale. But as climate change worsens, authorities may need to add another category to the scale.

Do we need a category 6?

Elsewhere in the world, tropical cyclones are called hurricanes or typhoons.

The severity of a tropical cyclone (or hurricane or typhoon) is ranked in categories from 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest).

Category one involves maximum average wind speed of up to 88km/h, and strongest gusts up to 125 km/h. It typically causes negligible damage to homes but may damage crops, trees and caravans.

Category five, the most severe, is defined as “extremely dangerous”, causing widespread destruction of buildings and vegetation. These cyclones bring maximum average wind speeds greater than 200km/h and gusts greater than 279km/h.

However, on a warming planet, cyclones are expected to become more intense. It’s also making tropical cyclones and hurricanes intensify more quickly.

Some scientists have called for a category six for hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones with sustained wind speeds greater than 309km/h. They argue a new category is needed to communicate the risks associated with tropical cyclones fuelled by climate change.

Climate change is feeding storms

It’s too early to say if Cyclone Zelia is directly caused, or fuelled, by climate change. However, research over the last 30 years has found a link between global warming and more intense tropical cyclones.

Globally, 2024 was Earth’s warmest year on record. Ocean heat content is increasing around most tropical seas, and other places where tropical cyclones are forming.
Warmer oceans, and a warmer atmosphere, both feed energy into tropical cyclones, making them more intense and fast-forming when conditions are favourable.

Zelia intensified from a category one into a five in just over 24 hours.

Australia is currently experiencing record-breaking sea surface temperatures. The area off the northwest coast has been up to 4-5°C above normal this summer.

Hurricane Milton, which struck the United States in October last year, also shows how climate change is making tropical cyclones worse. Amid very warm ocean temperatures, it intensified rapidly over the Gulf of Mexico to a category five hurricane.

We can expect more of these severe cyclones in future, if humanity keeps warming up the oceans and the atmosphere.

Slow is not good

Climate change is slowing the forward motion of tropical cyclones over the ocean and land. That means they take longer to cross the coast and pass through an area – inflicting more damage from wind and storm surge, and dumping more rain.

The Bureau of Meteorology says Cyclone Zelia’s “forward speed” is quite slow, at 11km/h. So, heavy rain and the strong winds will persist for quite a few hours before and after it crosses the coast.

The strongest winds of a tropical cyclone are usually near the eye, but can extend for hundreds of kilometres. Sometimes, winds on opposite sides of the eye blow in different directions, causing destruction on the ground which damages buildings, infrastructure, farmland and the environment.

Conditions on the ground

At the moment around Port Hedland, winds are about 70-100km/h and rising. That’s gale force but not too alarming. Conditions will rapidly deteriorate into this afternoon, particularly to the east of Port Hedland.

The storm has already dropped a lot of rain. This has caused local flooding and cut rail lines. But there’s more to come.

The Bureau of Meteorology is also warning of a significant storm tide – when sea levels rise well above a typical high tide. This may lead to flooding and inundate coastal roads and properties.

The cyclone will continue to trek inland over the weekend, gradually weakening as it goes. People in mining and Indigenous communities hundreds of kilometres inland could experience strong winds, heavy rain and flooding.

The bureau is providing regular updates online. For those in the path of the cyclone visit www.emergency.wa.gov.au or download the Emergency WA app for the latest community alerts and warnings.

Steve Turton has received funding from the Australian government.

– ref. Bracing for a monster: Tropical Cyclone Zelia is bearing down on WA. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/bracing-for-a-monster-tropical-cyclone-zelia-is-bearing-down-on-wa-heres-what-to-expect-249947

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Ireland-Piper, Associate Professor, ANU National Security College, Australian National University

A Victorian government decision to allow dingo culling in the state’s east until 2028 has reignited debate over what has been dubbed Australia’s most controversial animal.

Animals Australia, an animal welfare group, has filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the decision. The case is due to be heard this year.

Announcing the legal action, the group said the eradication program targeted a unique native animal at risk of extinction, and ignored pleas from Traditional Owners who “treasure the dingo as a totem species”.

The controversy raises a few thorny questions. Are dingoes an important native species or an agricultural pest? And what is the right balance between protecting the species, and protecting the interests of farmers?

What’s this all about?

Dingoes are listed as vulnerable in Victoria. This means the species faces a high risk of extinction in the wild over the medium term.

Dingoes are also protected under Victoria’s Wildlife Act – unless a special order is made to declare them “unprotected”. To date, these unprotection orders have been made when authorities deem it necessary to prevent dingoes from killing livestock.

An unprotection order means a person can legally kill dingoes in certain areas of private and public land, by trapping, poisoning or shooting.

Since around 2010, a succession of unprotection orders have allowed dingoes to be killed in various parts of Victoria. The unprotection order now being challenged came into effect on October 1 last year and will continue until January 1, 2028.

Announcing the decision, Victoria’s Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos says the government was:

striking the right balance between protecting our vulnerable dingo populations while giving farmers the ability to protect their livestock, and we will regularly engage to ensure settings continue to achieve this balance.

Dingoes are not ‘wild dogs’

DNA studies suggest dingoes have been in Australia for between 4,600 and 18,000 years. Often wrongly described as “wild dogs”, they are [actually descended from south Asian wolves](https://environment.desi.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals/living-with/dingoes#:~:text=The%20dingo—Australia’s%20only%20native,role%20in%20the%20natural%20environment.Sustainable dingo management (and public sympathies either way).

Adding to the complications, it can be hard to distinguish between a wild dog and a dingo without DNA testing.

Dingoes were once widespread across Victoria but are now extinct across most of the state, save for two populations in the state’s north and east.

Conservationists and scientists fear the extended order in eastern Victoria may push dingoes to local extinction

The experience in north-west Victoria offers a cautionary tale. There, under a dingo unprotection order, the population dropped to as few as 40 individuals. The local dingo population was deemed “critically low and at risk of extinction”, prompting the government to reinstate dingo protections.

In eastern Victoria, the dingo population is estimated at between 2,640 and 8,800.

However in September last year, before the unprotection order in eastern Victoria came into effect, Nationals Member for Gippsland, Tim Bull, claimed 1,500 dingoes were already being killed in the region each year by farmers and others.

If those figures are correct, it suggests extending the unprotection order until 2028 will devastate the dingo population in eastern Victoria.

A decline in dingo populations is not just a concern for the species itself – it will have knock-on effects.

Dingoes are apex predators and research shows they are central to how ecosystems function. They can help control introduced predators such as foxes, feral cats and rabbits. This benefits native animals and plants.

Is the balance right?

Given the risks to dingo populations and the broader environment, it’s pertinent to ask if the government decision swings too far towards protecting agricultural production.

One report suggests within Victoria’s 16 “wild dog management zones” in the 2022–23 financial year, there were more than 1.7 million head of livestock. Of these, 1,455 were confirmed killed by dingoes. While understandably of concern to farmers, this nonetheless represents a tiny proportion of total stock numbers.

The number of sheep killed by dingoes is also only a fraction of the 14.6 million currently farmed in Victoria. Sheep are not at risk of extinction.

These numbers suggest the government has not struck the right balance between protecting livestock and ensuing dingo populations survive.

Considering the rights of Traditional Owners

When weighing up an unprotection order, a minister must consider how it affects the rights of Traditional Owners.

In 2023, when deliberating over whether to make an unprotection order in eastern Victoria, the Victorian government stated that for Aboriginal people:

• dingoes are part of their living cultural heritage

• the loss of a dingo is akin to the loss of a family member

• the dingo helps maintain connection to Country

• some have a totemic and kinship relationship with the dingo.

The government said while the order would limit Aboriginal people’s rights, this was justified when taking other factors into account.

The court will decide

Animal protection group Animals Australia has filed proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria, challenging the lawfulness and validity of the unprotection order. Court documents are not yet publicly available.

Australia does not have a single and consistent animal welfare and protection regime. Instead, protections are fractured between the states. That is why the current challenge to dingo culling is limited to Victoria, even though culling takes place in other states. This illustrates the difficulty in using the law to protect animals at a national level.

This challenge is part of a broader push to redefine the relationship between humans and animals through what’s known as animal law. In recent years, animal advocates have used various aspects of the law to challenge the gassing of pigs before they are slaughtered, and recreational duck shooting.

The current case is an important test for how the law balances the needs of humans and animals – and in particular, how much harm is deemed “necessary” at law to protect commercial profit and livelihood.

Danielle Ireland-Piper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Dingoes are being culled in Victoria. How much harm to the species is needed to protect commercial profits? – https://theconversation.com/dingoes-are-being-culled-in-victoria-how-much-harm-to-the-species-is-needed-to-protect-commercial-profits-245759

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

In Australia, fatal road crashes are climbing again, especially since the pandemic, and despite years of attempts to reduce road trauma, the numbers remain stubbornly high.

Strategies to reduce the road toll have largely focused on speeding, distractions and enforcement gaps, such as roadside drug testing.

But hidden in these statistics is a lesser-known, deeply troubling reality: some of these crashes are not unintentional at all.

A difficult area to explore

A portion of road fatalities each year are deaths by suicide.

For some, cars and trucks are not just modes of transport – they become a means to intentionally end their lives.

The true scale of this issue is difficult to determine, as coroners and crash investigators often struggle to distinguish suicide from accidental death.

The phenomenon is not confined to Australia – it has been studied and documented in several countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, and the United States.

International research suggests driver suicides may account for up to 8–9% of all fatal road crashes. But studies indicate up to half of these cases may go unreported.

So what do we know about these cases? Why are they so difficult to identify and what patterns exist in these incidents?

How bad is the problem?

Between 2001 and 2017, the rate of suicide involving a road vehicle collision in Australia nearly doubled from 0.125 per 100,000 people to 0.25 per 100,000.

These suicides take several forms.

Some involve single-vehicle crashes, where a driver deliberately collides with a tree, pole, or concrete barrier.

Others are multiple-vehicle collisions, where a driver or rider intentionally steers into oncoming traffic, often targeting trucks.

There are also pedestrian suicides, where people step or lie in front of moving vehicles.

Among driver suicides, single-vehicle crashes are the most common, with studies estimating more than half of driver suicides involve collisions with fixed objects (some studies suggest the figure is more than 70%).

For multiple-vehicle collisions, almost 82% of cases involve colliding with an oncoming truck.

More than half of pedestrian deaths by suicide also involve trucks.

While there are variations in research findings, current evidence suggest males make up between 78% and 91% of those who die by road transport suicide.

Certain demographics have been found to be more likely to die in a road suicide in Australia compared to other methods of suicide:

This includes those who are:

• male (15% more likely than females)
• younger than 25 (nearly five times more likely than those older)
• non-Indigenous (three times more likely than First Nations people)
• born overseas (40% more likely than those born in Australia)

The ripple effects

Unlike most other suicide methods, road vehicle collisions pose a significant risk to others.

Intentional crashes can involve unsuspecting drivers, passengers and pedestrians, turning a personal act of self-harm into a broader public safety issue.

Studies show that when a suicide collision involves vehicles with a large weight disparity — such as a car colliding with a truck — nearly 30% result in injury to another person and almost 4% result in the death of another person.

Beyond the immediate loss of life or injury, these incidents leave lasting psychological scars on the drivers involved.

Why is it difficult to establish suicide on the road?

Determining whether a fatal road crash was intentional or unintentional is fraught with challenges. Unlike other suicide methods, there is often no definitive proof of intent.

Coroners and crash investigators rely on a patchwork of evidence: eyewitness accounts, vehicle behaviour before impact, the driver’s psychological history and physical crash characteristics.

Even when red flags are present — such as high-speed impacts with no signs of braking, the driver not wearing a seat belt, collisions with trucks, or cases where drivers abruptly veer into oncoming traffic — these alone are not always enough to confirm intent.

Investigators must also navigate the cultural and social sensitivities surrounding suicide, which can lead to hesitation in formally classifying a death as intentional. Families, religious beliefs and even financial factors such as life insurance claims can influence how these cases are handled.

In many instances, those who use this method do so in a way that obscures their intent, deliberately staging a crash to appear unintentional.

Without conclusive evidence, such as a documented history of suicidality or a suicide note, these cases often remain in statistical limbo — unconfirmed, unclassified, and possibly unreported.

What can be done?

While broader suicide prevention efforts are always relevant, reducing suicide-related road crashes requires targeted, practical interventions that make vehicles less likely to be used for suicide. Some ideas include:

1. Vehicle safety features that reduce lethality, such as automatic emergency braking and collision avoidance systems, can make intentional high-speed crashes less likely to be fatal. As such, they could discourage the use of vehicles as a suicide method. Airbags, in particular, can play a crucial role, as they can make the outcome of a crash less predictable for people attempting suicide.

2. A national standardised process for classifying intentional crashes would improve detection and data accuracy. Incorporating psychological autopsies and mandating coroners consider behavioural indicators (such as lack of evasive action) could help identify cases that currently go unreported.

3. Heavy vehicle drivers and first responders should receive specialised training to recognise potential suicide crash indicators and manage the psychological toll of being involved in such incidents.

Together, these measures can make vehicle-related suicide, as a very complex issue, less likely and more detectable.

If you or someone you know is struggling, help is available. In Australia, you can contact Lifeline at 13 11 14 for confidential support.

Angela J Clapperton receives funding from Suicide Prevention Australia.

Lay San Too receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for a fellowship.

Matthew J. Spittal receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council for an Investigator Grant (GNT2025205).

Milad Haghani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Suicide or accident? The hidden complexities of intentional road crashes in Australia – https://theconversation.com/suicide-or-accident-the-hidden-complexities-of-intentional-road-crashes-in-australia-248673

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

Federal parliament has passed the biggest changes to Australia’s electoral funding laws in decades.

The Albanese government’s Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill 2024 cleared the Senate on Wednesday night after just two hours of debate on amendments agreed to earlier by the Coalition. In blatant disregard for democracy, the government refused to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for proper scrutiny.

The amendments fail to address numerous deficiencies in the original bill that was introduced last November. Transparency has been wound back and hollow contribution caps have been locked in.

In significant respects, however, the package is an improvement on the status quo, which has seen unrestricted donations and spending flourish. So, too, secrecy.

We need to penetrate the sound and fury of partisanship and assess the substance of these laws. This will yield a much more nuanced picture than conveyed by cross bench claims of a major party stitch up.

Some improvement to transparency

The government originally proposed lowering the disclosure threshold for donations from $16,000 to $1,000. The revised bill settles on a new threshold of $5,000.

The amendments fail to plug a loophole that allows a donor to give separately to all of the branches attached to a political party if each individual contribution is just under the threshold. For example, a donor could spread almost $45,000 to the nine state and federal branches of the ALP without being required to declare the amounts.

But the new laws will usher in near-real time disclosure and substantially reduce “dark money”, a seismic shift from the secrecy and lack of timeliness in the regime it replaces.

Hollow donation caps

Under the reforms, a series of contribution caps have been introduced to curb the influence of big money in politics.

In my assessment of the original bill, I highlighted how the caps would prevent multi-million dollar contributions from cashed-up individuals.

The amendments go further by closing a number of sizeable loopholes. Self financing candidates, such as Clive Palmer and Malcolm Turnbull will be subject to the contribution caps. The current exclusions for membership and affiliation fees to associated entities – “disguised donations” – will also be caught by the caps.

But any positives are emphatically outweighed by the “annual gift cap” more than doubling to $50,000. The same “spreading” loophole that applies to the disclosure obligations would allow a donor to to give just shy of this amount to each of a party’s state and federal branches across the country. The major parties could reap up to almost $450,000 per annum from a single donor.

And the “overall gift cap” on total donations made to political parties and candidates is a generous $1.6 million, which means large contributions will still be permissible under the new framework.

The government has also failed to remove the patently unfair provisions relating to “nominated entities”, which are likely to be used by the major parties as investment vehicles.

As the Victorian Electoral Review Expert Panel has rightly noted, such entities:

provide some (parties) with significantly more funds, creating a risk that those (parties) drown out other voices.

Election spending contained and fairer

The spending caps in the new finance laws are fundamentally unaltered by the government’s amendments.

The $800,000 per electorate limit, and $90 million per party nationally, will contain the “arms race” that has necessitated “big money” fundraising and fuelled unfair contests.

However, the limits are set too high and will benefit the established parties due to the narrow scope of the spending caps in individual electorates. This means the major parties will be able to shift funding to must-win seats without being caught by the electorate caps.

This shortcoming has been seized upon as clear evidence that Labor and the Liberals are seeking to kneecap Teal election campaigns. While having some force, these criticisms should be viewed in the context of the current situation where the major parties have an unfettered ability to direct spending to marginal seats, a situation which the Teals are ironically defending with their opposition to spending caps.

The importance of public funding

The new regime includes a substantial jump in public funding from $3.50 to $5 per vote.

Crossbenchers, such as Kate Chaney, are opposed, to the increase, saying it will entrench the might of the majors while making it harder for new independents:

The effect of increasing public funding is that political parties don’t have to fundraise because they’ve got their war chests. But any challengers do have to fundraise.

While there is a clear risk of unfairness, the crossbench position throws the baby out with the bathwater. It romanticises the role of private funding, skating over the risks of corruption and undue influence via large donations.

The public funding of political parties and candidates is warranted. But there should be a conversation about the design and scope of taxpayer support.

The political finance laws could be made considerably fairer by fixing the structural bias that favours incumbents, including teal MPs. And they don’t need to be as generous given the large flows of private funding that will continue under the shallow contribution caps.

Unfinished business

Bad processes tend to make bad laws. The government’s actions have cast a pall of illegitimacy over its political finance regime. The new framework is unfair and ineffectual in significant ways and yet democracy enhancing in others.

We are all trustees of democracy, with an obligation to protect and deepen democratic practices. An urgent task in that continuing struggle is to protect the strengths of these laws while jettisoning the elements that are egregiously bad.

Joo-Cheong Tham has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute, International IDEA, the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Victorian Electoral Commission. He is a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; Expert Network Member of Climate Integrity; a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia; and the Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff) of the National Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. Parliament has passed landmark election donation laws. They may be a ‘stitch up’ but they also improve Australia’s democracy – https://theconversation.com/parliament-has-passed-landmark-election-donation-laws-they-may-be-a-stitch-up-but-they-also-improve-australias-democracy-249588

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ 2023 strategic foreign policy assessment, “Navigating a shifting world”, accurately foresaw a more uncertain and complex time ahead for New Zealand. But already it feels out of date.

The Trump administration’s extreme disruption of the international order (which New Zealand helped construct) is going further and faster than foreseen in the assessment. Were another nation responsible, the government would have been quick to condemn it.

But New Zealand has so far been largely mute while Trump has quit the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accord, attacked foreign assistance programs and withdrawn funding from key United Nations organisations.

Had Russia or China threatened the annexation or acquisition of Canada, Panama and Greenland, New Zealand would have reacted strongly. But it has said nothing substantive.

The United States still belongs to the World Trade Organization and various regional trade agreements. But Trump’s use of tariffs threatens havoc throughout the multilateral trade system.

Similarly, Trump has not quit the International Court of Justice. But his proposal to remove two million Palestinians from Gaza amounts to an unequivocal rejection of the court’s recent ruling on Israeli policies and practices in the Occupied Territories – as well as international law.

On all these fronts, New Zealand has preferred not to make a stand.

The coming Russia-Ukraine test

While other countries have been quick to criticise Trump’s Gaza plan, New Zealand has opted not to comment until greater clarity is available, other than to reiterate its support for a two-state solution for Palestine.

When Trump imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, New Zealand (along with Australia and Japan) failed to join a statement from 79 other countries expressing unwavering support for the court.

The next likely test will be Trump’s attempt to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. While the goal is undoubtedly worthy, the question will be at what cost.

If the price is ignoring the UN Charter, and if European supporters of Ukraine find the illegal annexations of its sovereign territory unpalatable, New Zealand will face a stark choice.

For Australia, with its special trade relationship with the US and membership of the AUKUS security pact, this may be simple politics. For New Zealand, without a special free trade agreement with the US, frozen out of ANZUS and not part of AUKUS, the equation is more complex.

Discord in the Pacific

Last year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand must “stand up for this international rules-based system that has actually served New Zealand incredibly well”. Quietly sitting down will not be an option forever.

Furthermore, all this is happening against the backdrop of New Zealand’s apparently waning influence in its own back yard, the South Pacific.

While China seeks to expand its own influence, cuts and possible retrenchment in New Zealand’s aid budget suggest little appetite for tangible counteraction.

The loss of influence was first apparent with Kiribati, which has steered towards a much closer relationship with China since 2022. More recently, China has made inroads into other Pacific countries, including the Solomons and East Timor, working in an increasingly grey zone with support for civilian and military security.

But the recent fracture with the Cook Islands takes things to a new level.

Struggling to find a voice

While no longer a dependency, the Cooks’ free association agreement with New Zealand gives its people immense benefits, including citizenship and the right to work and live in New Zealand.

In return, the Cooks undertakes to consult over foreign affairs matters, including any policy or initiative that might affect the interests of the other signatory.

But the development of a somewhat opaque “comprehensive strategic partnership” with China blindsided New Zealand, and has strained what is meant to be a good-faith relationship. Again, however, New Zealand has struggled to find its voice.

If it speaks too loudly, it risks further undermining that special Pacific relationship, as well as irritating its largest trade partner, China. If it speaks too softly, the respect and influence the country deserves will fade.

New Zealand’s vaunted independent foreign policy is a fine ideal and has been a workable mechanism to navigate the challenges facing a small trading nation reliant on a rules-based global order.

This has worked well for the past few decades. But as the old world order erodes, losing its voice for fear of offending bigger powers cannot become the country’s default position.

Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. NZ depends on the rules-based world Trump is dismantling – why the silence? – https://theconversation.com/nz-depends-on-the-rules-based-world-trump-is-dismantling-why-the-silence-249857

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Barclay, ARC Future Fellow and Professor, Macquarie University

“1,000 Letters and 15,000 Kisses” screamed the headline in an 1898 edition of the English newspaper, the Halifax Evening Courier.

Harriet Ann McLean, a 32-year-old laundry maid, was suing Francis Charles Matthews, a green grocer, for reneging on the promise of marriage.

Over a decade-long courtship, Harriet had received 1,030 letters containing 15,000 crosses – kisses – from her “loving, precious, future husband Frank”.

By 1898, using a cross for a kiss was commonplace for British letter writers – particularly those of the more “ordinary” variety: the increasingly literate servants, tradesmen and shop workers whose love notes drew laughter when their imploding relationships brought them to court.

The symbol grew in popularity in the following decades, yet its origins have remained obscure.

X marks the spot (of the kiss)

Some three decades after Harriet won her suit, someone wrote a letter to Melbourne’s The Sun News asking if its readers knew the origins of using an X for a kiss.

One correspondent proposed the X resembled the lips of two people kissing. Another thought “the cross marks the spot” where the author had imprinted a kiss for the recipient.

The following year, a more confidently penned and rapidly reprinted piece claimed the origins lay in the centuries-old practice of those with low literacy using an X in place of a signature. The article argued that, after marking a document with X, the signee kissed the page as a pledge of good faith, and so the X came to be associated with a kiss.

This account was to become popular, being rolled out by journalists many times over the following decades. And it may contain some truth. The laundry maids and green grocers who popularised the X as a kiss in their love notes were part of a newly literate community in the 19th century, for whom using an X as a signature was likely familiar.

However, their 17th and 18th century ancestors had not behaved similarly in their iconography of love. Marks of love on convict tokens, tattoos and the scrappy documents that survive tended to take the form of hearts, crossed Cupid’s arrows and interlinking initials. The cross as a kiss was nowhere to be found.

The kiss’s importance throughout history

The kiss had an important role in European culture. The holy kiss, once a mouth kiss shared by congregants in church, allowed for the mingling of spirits and the creation of a uniform Christian body.

Similarly, kisses of fealty (also on the mouth) formed part of a ritual that established a contract between superiors who held land, and their vassals who rented it. This tradition was carried well into the 16th century.

The lovers’ kiss also had many of the above meanings – a kiss of love, loyalty and unity of spirit.

As such, sending kisses in letters had been common among Europeans for centuries, but was usually done in written form. “I send you a thousand kiss’s”, wrote poet Judith Madan to her husband in 1728.

Kisses marked intimacy but could also be delivered to children and friends. As English letter writer Rebecca Cooper dispatched to her sister Catherine Elliott in 1764, “love to all friends not forgetting my sweet boy with fifty kisses”.

Wax dots and ink splots

Using a cross to symbolise a kiss was not unprecedented. Lovers had used ink splots, wax drippings, or drawings to send secret messages to a beloved from at least the 16th century. But at the time these signs were usually personalised and only interpretable by the intended recipient (or especially persistent historians).

Using specific marks to represent kisses became more fashionable and recognisable during the Victorian period, starting from around the mid-19th century.

The detective in an 1850 Charles Dicken’s short story tracked his suspect by a wax dot he left on his envelopes – a kiss for the recipient.

Similarly, in 1862 the jury for the “Hopley v. Hurst” breach of promise of marriage suit heard that the defendant’s letters to his future bride contained “spots of ink” at the bottom, each representing a kiss.

In 1871, William Steward of Montrose, Scotland, used “a number of crosses and small circles” at the bottom of a letter to his lover, according to the trial report in the Western Times.

Becoming a universal symbol

The cross as a kiss – initially just one of many symbols used for this purpose – grew in use until it became the predominant choice by the 20th century.

During the second world war, the cross was even briefly banned by the military censors in Australia, the United Kingdom and United States, due to worries it could be used to send illicit information.

The cross was found across the United Kingdom, and particularly in Scotland in the early years of its use. It eventually spread to the rest of the Anglophone world, but made less headway on the European continent, where lovers continued to write their kisses out in full.

As the symbol’s popularity grew, so did the mythology and theories around it – its more mundane origin among working-class lovers forgotten.

Katie Barclay receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. X has been used to represent love and kisses for centuries. But how did it start? – https://theconversation.com/x-has-been-used-to-represent-love-and-kisses-for-centuries-but-how-did-it-start-248124

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lena Wang, Associate Professor in Management, RMIT University

The highly anticipated season two of Severance, released in weekly instalments, has continued to draw interest among viewers around the world.

A gripping psychological thriller, this TV series provides an extreme illustration of the compartmentalising of work and personal life.

In the show, “severed” workers agree to a surgical procedure where a device is implanted into the brain to split their memory and experiences in two.

Once severed, “innies” go to work with no knowledge of the lives and families of their “outies”. And “outies” have no recollection of the activities they performed or the relationships they developed while their “innies” were at work.

Back in the real world, the hybrid work revolution has led to a seismic shift in work habits. For some, that’s made it harder to mark where work ends and home starts. But there are still healthy ways to keep our personal and professional lives separate.

A seismic shift in work habits

Severance’s first season in 2022 premiered in the wake of the global pandemic, when lockdowns forced most workers to work from home for an extended period of time.

Now, three years later, many employees are still working in a hybrid mode.

Data from 2024 shows more than one third of Australian still regularly work from home. This arrangement is especially prevalent among knowledge workers. Knowledge-based workers are generally office workers, whose roles can be performed remotely.

At the same time, fully remote work is also increasing, and some workers are exploring a digital nomad lifestyle which allows them to travel and live anywhere in the world while working remotely.

The hybrid work model is clearly the business model of choice for the future from the perspective of workers, although some employers are pushing back.

But hybrid work creates an ongoing challenge for workers who want to create psychological boundaries between work and home domains.

Creating boundaries between work and home

People go to great lengths to construct and manage the psychological boundaries between work and the other activities in their personal lives, such as spending time with family, engaging in the community, or practising self-care.

Examples of these boundaries can include an out-of-office reply to notify others of your set working hours, leaving your laptop at work over the weekend or removing work email apps from your personal phone.

As human beings we crave boundaries that allow us to better focus our attention and be more present in respective life domains.

Severance provides a critical look at how far workers might go to achieve work-life segregation. Take the character Mark S., who underwent the severance procedure to escape the grief of losing his wife and block that part of his personal life from his working life. Or at least, that’s what we’ve been led to believe.

Similar to the confrontational and somewhat thorny style of TV series Black Mirror, Severance challenges the audience by presenting a futuristic and innovative method to reduce the tensions people experience when psychological boundaries are not managed.

Can we sever our identities across domains?

Creating sensible boundaries across life domains is desirable. But Severance helps us examine how we can’t shut off our home selves completely. Towards the end of season one, the show’s “innies” keep attempting to make contact with their “outies” to find out who they truly are outside work.

Indeed, personality research shows that while we can take on somewhat different personas in different life domains, our human need for consistency produces enduring self-concepts and patterns of behaviour.

Consistency is necessary to maintain the integrity of the self, providing the foundation for us to effectively adapt to different social environments and develop positive wellbeing.

Research also shows when workers feel they can be bring their authentic selves to work, they experience a sense of self-actualisation, as well as higher job satisfaction and lower burnout. Without these protective elements, it’s no wonder Helly R. repeatedly tried to escape the severed floor.

Achieving meaning at work

What is also striking about the work lives of those on the severed floor is how meaningless their jobs appear to be. Throughout season one and into season two, we never truly understand the nature and purpose of their jobs at the mysterious corporation Lumon Industries.

We know that meaningless, or “bullshit” jobs in the words of American anthropologist David Graeber, are associated with poor mental health. Unfavourable working conditions such as poor management and toxic culture can aggravate this issue, making meaningful work become meaningless.

In this sense, if we cannot sever our “innies” and “outies” as shown in Severance, negative work experiences would spill over to our family lives, causing a downward spiral.

Restoring the meaning and purpose in our jobs not only improves our work experiences, but also boosts our self-esteem and enriches our personal lives. This can be done by improving work design, leadership and organisational culture.

As season two continues, Severance will continue posing sticky ethical questions for us to ponder about the role of work in our lives. While the answers may not be forthcoming, the mysterious twists are almost guaranteed.

Severance is now streaming on Apple TV+

Lena Wang previously received funding from various organisations on issues concerning mental health (e.g., National Mental Health Commission). She does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Haiying Kang previously received funding from several organisations on issues concerning employment rights, talent attraction and retention (e.g., Telematics Trust, Department of Defence). She does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Melissa Wheeler has engaged in paid and pro-bono consulting and research relating to issues of applied ethics and gender equality (e.g., Our Watch, Queen Victoria Women’s Centre, VicHealth). She has previously worked for research centres that receive funding from several partner organisations in the private and public sector, including from the Victorian Government.

– ref. TV show Severance looks at workplace personalities. There are healthier ways to separate home and office life – https://theconversation.com/tv-show-severance-looks-at-workplace-personalities-there-are-healthier-ways-to-separate-home-and-office-life-249360

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

When parliamentarians left Canberra on Thursday after the fortnight sitting, federal politics had the air of an uneasy waiting game.

Waiting for the election date, although the campaign has been running for months.

Waiting to know whether there will be a budget on March 25.

Waiting for capricious United States President Donald Trump to decide whether to grant Australia that keenly-sought exemption from his new 25% tariff on aluminium and steel imports.

Most immediately, waiting for the Reserve Bank to announce on Tuesday whether interest rates will be cut.

In policy terms, the government could be satisfied with this sitting week. Its Future Made in Australia legislation, with promised tax credits for major projects, passed. So too, did its sweeping new rules to put caps on political donations and spending.

The electoral reform legislation has been an extraordinarily drawn-out saga. Special Minister of State Don Farrell had originally hoped to introduce it by early 2024, with it operating at this election. But the process proved immensely complex, including for constitutional reasons. Finally the bill was introduced late last year, and has passed with virtually no time to spare. The measures won’t operate until the next parliamentary term.

Farrell brought to the task negotiating skills honed in a lifetime as a right wing factional power broker. He always wanted the deal to be done with the Liberals. He knew they would be the easiest dancing partners, because the changes are in the big parties’ mutual interests. But he also believed bipartisanship would reduce the chance of them being unravelled by a subsequent government.

The Coalition came on board – after the government made some concessions on donation and disclosure amounts – in the knowledge the reforms help put a floor under the two-party system. It’s obvious the Liberals want to limit the spread of the teal movement, that Climate 200 has helped finance.

But the potential for the increase in independents is a future danger also for Labor, which at this election is trying to win back Fowler, that fell in 2022 to independent Dai Le.

While the changes will limit the amount of money available to small players, they are a compromise and less unfair than some crossbenchers claim. Of course, judgements on fairness will differ according to where those making them are coming from. But it’s a substantial leap from urging newcomers should be encouraged into the system to believing the system should facilitate a financial auction for a seat.

As he basks in his victory of the electoral legislation Farrell, who is also trade minister, finds himself in a supporting role in a more immediately high-profile issue: the tariff battle with the US. Farrell is anxious to engage as soon as possible with his US counterpart, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, preferably face-to-face. But he can’t officially do so until Lutnick is confirmed.

The tariff issue is being cast by the opposition as a test of Albanese’s ability to deal successfully with the Trump administration.

It’s an easy test to pose, but the government has done all it can to pursue a positive relationship with the administration. Notably, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was in Washington a week ago for talks with new defence secretary Pete Hegseth, armed with a hefty cheque for some A$800 million as part of Australia’s contribution under the AUKUS deal.

The Albanese-Trump call this week, when the PM argued for a tariff exemption, apparently went well. But the outcome is unpredictable, as is the timing of a decision. Trump might have sounded encouraging but, as we’ve been seeing, there’s some strong opposition in the system to giving Australia special treatment.

A win for Australia would be a significant fillip for the PM; a Trump rebuff would be a corresponding blow. Timing is also important: it would not be good for the government if this issue was unresolved through the election campaign (even worse, if there was a bad result then).

The opposition seeks to grab headlines by calling for Albanese to rush to Washington. Even if practical that could be counterproductive; if the mission failed it would be a disaster. Voters wouldn’t give him too many marks for trying.

While Peter Dutton might have thought the arrival of Trump and a more general swing against “wokeism” would be helpful to him at the election, as the US scene becomes more unsettling, the risk for him is that some “soft” voters might decide now is not the time to change.

Though the tariff issue is important, the election contest is mainly on cost of living in all its manifestations.

Trump has the power to inflict a blow on Albanese on the tariffs, but the Reserve Bank is a much bigger player in the government’s thinking.

Expectations remain high of a rate cut next Tuesday. If that didn’t happen, it would be a serious setback for the government. The next chance for a cut would then be April 1.

It’s not that a cut would necessarily directly swing a lot of votes. The electorate’s mood is likely too negative for that. But the absence of the much-anticipated cut would badly mess with the government’s narrative that things are on the right track for people to become better off.

Many political stories have dominated this term. A lot could have been foreseen. One, however, was predicted by no one: the appalling antisemitism crisis that has overtaken us, and reached new lows this week. This crisis is the product of far away events triggering a local malignancy that was lurking largely unrecognised.

A parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism at universities said, in a report tabled this week, that it had found “a disturbing prevalence of antisemitism that has left Jewish students and staff feeling unsafe, hiding their identity on campus and even avoiding campus all together”.

On the same day that report was tabled, a horrifying video emerged of two nurses at a Sydney hospital, in an online discussion with Israeli influencer Max Veifer, spewing vile sentiments about killing Israeli patents. One of the two is an Afghan who became an Australian citizen several years ago. Dutton has seized on the video to call for a discussion “about the way in which the whole migration system works”.

Antisemitism has extended beyond being an appalling assault on Jews in our community – it is starting to undermine our institutions and society.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Albanese and Trump put Australia in holding patterns on election timing and tariffs – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-albanese-and-trump-put-australia-in-holding-patterns-on-election-timing-and-tariffs-249843

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

Public transport in Queensland now costs just 50 cents. Yet in the first six months of the trial, it’s been revealed that thousands of commuters were fined for fare evasion.

More than 3,000 people received fines of A$322 each, amounting to more than $1 million in penalties. And more than 21,000 were issued warnings over this period.

Queensland’s 50 cent fares trial was designed to boost ridership and ease cost-of-living pressures. Now it has exposed a paradox: why do people evade fares even when the price is nearly free?

Fare evasion isn’t just a Queensland problem — it’s a nationwide challenge. Queensland’s experience raises bigger questions about enforcement, policy, and the role of public transport funding.

A nationwide challenge

Across the country, fare evasion drains millions from state public transport budgets. In New South Wales, for example, fare evasion costs the state government about $80 million each year.

The latest NSW Fare Compliance Survey inspected 52,152 tickets, including Opal cards, contactless payments, and single-trip tickets, across the NSW public transport network.

It found most non-compliance came down to passengers travelling without a valid ticket. This included not only those customers carrying no ticket at all, but also those who did have an Opal or other payment card but hadn’t tapped on.

Another form of non-compliance was when passengers used concessions for which they weren’t eligible.

The survey also highlighted variations in compliance – across different modes of transport, times of day and days of the week.

Overall, compliance did not significantly differ between weekends and weekdays.

Looking at weekday use, Sydney Metro had the highest compliance rate at 97%. This was followed by Sydney Ferries (95.9%), all trains (93.6%), Sydney Light Rail (91%) and all buses (89.2%).

Who evades fares and why?

Fare evasion isn’t just about people trying to save money. Research shows there are different types of fare evaders, ranging from habitual dodgers to those who evade unintentionally.

An international study on Santiago’s Transantiago system found that evaders could be categorised into four groups:

• radical evaders who view non-payment as a form of protest
• strategic evaders who evade when they believe the risk of being caught is low
• ambivalent evaders who sometimes pay but don’t always see the value in it
• accidental evaders who forget or run into ticketing system barriers.

A separate study in Melbourne also identified a wide spectrum of attitudes on fare evasion, from those who consider it morally wrong to those who take calculated risks based on enforcement patterns.

Does lowering fares reduce evasion?

Queensland’s 50-cent fare trial presents a real-world test of a long-standing question: does cheaper public transport reduce fare evasion?

Our calculations using the state’s early data show a 27% drop in fare evasion fines since the trial began, compared with the same period in the previous year.

This aligns with the idea that fare evasion is, at least partially, a rational economic decision. When the price is lower, the incentive to evade diminishes – though it does not completely disappear.

Modelling evidence from Santiago’s bus system also suggests price sensitivity, but with caveats. A 10% increase in fares led to a two-percentage-point rise in fare evasion.

The role of trust and public perception

A surprising insight from research is that fare evasion isn’t just an economic decision. It’s a social one, too.

When passengers perceive the system as unfair (due to factors such as unreliable service, high fares or lack of investment), fare evasion rises.

Further, if fare dodging behaviour is normalised within a city or demographic, it spreads like contagion.

Studies have suggested that permissive social attitudes toward fare evasion are as strong a predictor as actual financial hardship.

The limits of enforcement

Most transit agencies rely on two standard deterrents: more ticket inspections, and harsher fines for fare evaders.

Does this approach work? Research suggests only to a point.

Empirical evidence suggests that potential evaders are more deterred by the certainty of getting caught than by the size of the fine.

In other words, the visibility of inspectors matters more than the penalty itself. For many, the social stigma of getting caught is a key factor, regardless of how big the penalty is.

A crucial question in the Queensland debate is: if public transport is already nearly free, does fare evasion even matter?

The lost revenue from the unpaid fares by those who were issued a fine over the period in question amounts to just $1,663.

Depending on the level of crackdown, at such low fees, enforcement measures could easily end up costing more than the revenue lost. Security patrols, inspections and fine processing can amount to significant costs.

Why it matters

There are at least two key factors to consider in relation to whether cracking down on evaders is worth it.

First, allowing widespread fare evasion could erode social norms around paying for public services. If the expectation of compliance disappears, what happens if fares rise again?

And second, even when fares are zero or near-zero, requiring passengers to validate a ticket (such as by tapping on and off) allows transport agencies to track demand, plan services, and prevent system abuse.

Even in Tallinn, Estonia — where residents ride for free — tap-ons are still required for data collection and preventing system abuse.

Even at 50 cents a trip, authorities still expect public transport to function within a structured system, with rules that encourage accountability and predictability.

But enforcement alone won’t solve fare evasion. Winning public trust is just as important as enforcing rules. Investing in better service quality, reliability and community engagement can be as effective as increasing inspections.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Here’s why some people still evade public transport fares – even when they’re 50 cents – https://theconversation.com/heres-why-some-people-still-evade-public-transport-fares-even-when-theyre-50-cents-249739

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eliane Deschrijver, Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Sydney

Imagine you are asked to give a small amount of money to a stranger. It’s not your money, so it doesn’t cost you anything. You’re just deciding how much they get.

But first, a pair of coins is flipped – one for you and one for the stranger – and you are told the results.

Would the coin flip change how much money you give? Specifically, would you give them a larger amount if you both got heads or tails than if you got different results?

As we discovered in a series of experiments with more than 1,400 participants, the coin flip – or other seemingly insignificant points of similarity or difference – might well affect your behaviour.

In a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, we show how understanding why even a coin flip can influence behaviour might help us understand what makes people discriminate against others.

‘Us’ versus ‘them’

Historically, many psychological theories that aim to explain discrimination have focused on group processes, rather than on how we respond to individual people.

This focus on group processes followed, in part, from the discovery that people benefit their own group over another group even if the division into groups had happened based on seemingly irrelevant features.

The use of such features has been crucial for explaining the core psychology of discrimination, stripped from any wider societal elements such as race, gender, values or attitudes.

In the seminal “minimal group” experiment, people were assigned to one of two groups based on seemingly irrelevant differences. Some groups were split by a preference for the paintings of Paul Klee versus those of Wassily Kandinsky, others by whether they had over- or underestimated the number of dots in an image. Some were even allocated to groups by a random event like a coin flip.

The result? Klee fans tended to give financial benefits to other Klee fans ahead of Kandinsky enthusiasts. Likewise, people in the “heads” group favoured their own group over those in the “tails” group.

The results could not be explained easily by existing research at the time. Some theories had emphasised that people show favour towards an individual after agreeing on more meaningful topics than painting preferences or dots estimations. The meaningful topics were things like one’s belief system, values or political or religious views.

Small studies had also found that a coin flip – which didn’t lead to explicitly dividing people into groups – was not enough to make people show discriminatory tendencies.

An influential theory called social identity theory thus concluded that social categorisation – thinking in terms of “us” versus “them” – could lead to people discriminating. This was tied to an idea that people elevate their self-image or improve their self-esteem by benefiting their own group over others.

New research emphasises a role for even random similarity versus difference

In our recent research, we set out to reassess whether group division is crucial to understand discriminatory tendencies.

We carried out seven experiments with over 1,400 participants in total (all based in the United Kingdom).

The study analysed data from participants who were asked to either repeatedly choose their preferred painting from two, estimate the number of dots presented in a “cloud”, or take part in a coin toss.

After each choice or coin flip, participants had to assign money to another person (the same person each time).

The only information participants were given about the other individual was their outcome in the same situation. Neither participants nor the other person were assigned to groups. Someone asked to pick between two paintings, for instance, was only told which painting the person they were allocating money to preferred in that instance.

Participants allocated on average 43.1% more money to another person who demonstrated the same judgement – or chance outcome – to their own.

Our research demonstrates that some of our discriminatory tendencies may be driven by individual difference versus sameness even when that difference or sameness is based on random chance, like a coin flip.

The findings raise the possibility that more basic neural processes than thinking about groups may have contributed to these outcomes.

Detecting a difference often comes with a conflict signal in the brain, and may come with negative emotions. Sameness with another person may hence lead to a more favourable treatment. However, this potential explanation will require further research.

Why does this matter?

The findings can help understand our own tendencies for favouring another person.

Previous research had suggested that “incidental similarity” with somebody, such as sharing a birthday or a name, can influence pro-social behaviour or liking because we associate the person with the way we see ourselves.

Our research surprisingly suggests that something similar can happen on the basis of an even less-relevant chance event such as a coin flip.

This may affect how we think about discrimination. We usually understand discrimination as making unfair distinctions between people based on groups or other social categories.

Our research suggests future perspectives on discrimination may incorporate a role for individual-level difference, too.

Does this new understanding suggest ways we can lessen discrimination? At this stage, they would only be speculative.

However, earlier scientific efforts to find ways to reduce prejudice and discrimination have largely been informed by group-based theories of discrimination. For example, some interventions have aimed to influence people’s perceptions of other groups.

In the same way, our new findings may inspire future research into interventions based on individual-level drivers of discrimination.

Eliane Deschrijver receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Richard Ramsey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Heads vs tails? A simple coin flip can be enough to change how we treat others – https://theconversation.com/heads-vs-tails-a-simple-coin-flip-can-be-enough-to-change-how-we-treat-others-249611

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Younger, Lecturer in Southern Ocean Vertebrate Ecology, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

Australia’s Antarctic territory represents the largest sliver of the ice continent. For decades, Australian scientists have headed to one of our three bases – Mawson, Davis and Casey – as well as the base on sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island, to research everything from ecology to climate science.

But despite our role as leaders in Antarctic science, Australian funding and logistics for Antarctic research hasn’t kept pace. Our single icebreaking vessel spends most of its time on resupply missions, restricting its use for actual science. And funding is often piecemeal, which makes it hard to plan the complex, multi-year efforts it takes to do research down on the ice.

This week, we saw a welcome change. The federal parliamentary committee on Australia’s external territories delivered a report calling for a second icebreaking vessel and more reliable funding. It also urged the government to progress work on marine protected areas in east Antarctica as well as resume fishing patrols, due to concern over illegal or exploitative fishing.

These measures are long overdue. For those of us who work and study on the ice continent, logistics and funding have long been a challenge. Illegal fishing in Antarctica must be stamped out, and a second vessel would support our ambitious, world-leading science.

Why is Antarctic science so important?

Antarctica is often out of sight, out of mind for many Australians. But what happens on the ice doesn’t stay there.

For climate science, Antarctica matters a great deal. For decades, much of the concern about melting ice focused on the Arctic and Greenland, while Antarctica stayed relatively stable. But this is now changing. Sea ice is melting more quickly than in the past. Glacial ice is retreating. Increased melting will affect sea level rise and ocean currents.

I study diseases such as the lethal strain of bird flu which has devastated bird and some mammals populations around the world. It recently reached Antarctica, where it killed large numbers of penguins, skuas, crabeater seals and more. I saw the devastation myself on my recent journey there.

If this strain makes it to Australia – the last continent free of it – it could come from the south and devastate both Australian wildlife and poultry.

To study these large and important changes, we need to be down there on the ice. It’s not an easy task. Keeping our bases functional means we need regular resupply missions. Repairs and extensions require tradies. Scientists and other workers need to be brought home.

Antarctic science has long relied on just one vessel, now the RSV Nuniya, which the Australian Antarctic Division describes as the “main lifeline to Australia’s Antarctic and sub-Antarctic research stations and the central platform of our Antarctic and Southern Ocean scientific research”.

The problem is, resupply can trump science. After all, no one wants bases running short of food or fuel. This is, in fact, what the Nuniya is largely doing.

Australia’s role is key

The Australian Antarctic Territory represents about 40% of the ice continent – the largest territory by far.

Territory, here, doesn’t mean exclusive rights. In 1959, 12 nations with a scientific interest in the ice continent signed the Antarctic Treaty. This treaty was an agreement that Antarctica – the only landmass with no indigenous human presence – would be reserved for peaceful, scientific purposes.

But in recent years, this treaty has come under pressure. Nations such as Norway and China have expanded fishing operations for krill. Illegal and unregulated fishing from various nations continues.

The report recommends the Australian government continue efforts to establish a marine protected area off East Antarctica – where fishing would be restricted – as well as reopening fishing patrols. China – which recently opened its fifth Antarctic base – is opposed to the idea of fishing-free zones and is pushing to expand fishing in the Southern Ocean.

Under Antarctica’s ice lie many resources. Mining is banned in Antarctica until 2048. What happens after that is uncertain. The race to tap critical minerals in Greenland signals what may lie ahead for Antarctica.

This is why Australia’s leadership in Antarctic science matters. Australia was an original signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, and has a long history of exploration and science. Hobart has long been the home of Australia’s Antarctic vessels.

As Antarctica changes, Australian scientists must be there to analyse, understand and report back. To do that, improvements are needed, including new vessels and longer-term funding. This report is the first step.

The government is yet to formally respond to the report’s recommendations. Let’s hope it takes heed of the findings.

Jane Younger receives funding from the Australian Research Council, WIRES Australia, the Geoffrey Evans Trust and the National Geographic Society.

– ref. Antarctic research has long been hamstrung by reliance on one icebreaker and sporadic funding. That might be about to change – https://theconversation.com/antarctic-research-has-long-been-hamstrung-by-reliance-on-one-icebreaker-and-sporadic-funding-that-might-be-about-to-change-249714

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meg Parsons, Associate Professor in Historical Geography, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Ciguatera fish poisoning is the world’s most frequently reported seafood-borne illness.

It poses a serious health risk to tropical coastal communities, with some of the highest rates reported in Vanuatu. But now, Indigenous knowledge provides crucial insights for predicting fish poisoning outbreaks.

Our study documents a collaboration between scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders on Vanuatu’s Ambae island. It offers a powerful new model designed to protect people’s health in vulnerable regions.

Ecological indicators and fish poisoning risk

Ciguatera poisoning occurs when people eat fish contaminated with ciguatoxins produced by marine algae that accumulate in reef-feeding fish. Symptoms can range from nausea and muscle pain to severe neurological effects. In some cases, the poisoning can lead to serious illness or even death.

For millennia, Ambae islanders have relied on their knowledge of the local environment to manage their lands and seas in a sustainable manner. They have observed ecological indicators, including environmental changes that precede ciguatera fish poisoning events, to monitor and respond to risks.

For instance, they note how heavy rains wash volcanic sediments into the ocean, triggering algal blooms that produce ciguatoxins. Likewise, jellyfish blooms and shifts in coral growth signal imbalances in the marine ecosystem, often preceding toxic fish contamination.

These ecological indicators, passed down through oral traditions, have guided community decisions about fishing practices and food consumption.

The islanders’ traditional observations are now being woven together with scientific data to create an early-warning system known as the Gigila Framework, named after a local term meaning “risk onset”, to aid public health responses.

Our research documents 14 key environmental indicators used by Ambae island communities. We cross-referenced these indicators with climate, geological and marine data to confirm their accuracy. By comparing Ambae islanders’ observations with scientific data, we identify which Indigenous indicators can be used to assess when and where ciguatera fish poisoning outbreaks take place.

Lessons for other regions

The Gigila framework is a community-driven early-warning system designed to reduce the risk of people eating contaminated fish. It uses visual markers, such as dials, to indicate risk levels.

Village elders appoint local people to act as observers to track environmental changes. They then share their observations (such as jellyfish blooms) with government agencies.

The Gigila model helps local community members make informed decisions about if and where they go fishing. It also strengthens collaborations between Indigenous knowledge holders, scientists and medical professionals.

The approach makes health risk information more accessible and practical. Instead of replacing Indigenous knowledge, it seeks to empower and enhance it. It also helps to ensure that younger generations learn about it.

Challenges of working with different knowledge systems

The weaving together of Indigenous knowledge with scientific knowledge is not without hurdles.

Indigenous knowledge practices are deeply rooted in local culture, passed on through oral traditions and combined with lived experiences. Scientific research, in contrast, relies on standardised testing, numerical data and universal theories.

Unsurprisingly, miscommunication between scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders abounds. Scientists sometimes misinterpret and misunderstand Indigenous knowledge and treat it like data to be extracted and exploited. In doing so, Indigenous peoples’ sacred knowledge systems, cultural identities and ways of life are disrespected and marginalised.

However, the success of the Gigila framework shows that respectful collaborations between scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders are possible. At the heart of this collaboration is respect for Indigenous knowledge holders’ expertise.

Another vital component is that Indigenous communities are active participants in helping to create and maintain the early-warning system designed to protect their health. This approach highlights the strengths of combining different knowledge systems to address local environmental issues, which can be adapted to fit different problems and risks.

Local and global applications

The Gigila framework holds potential beyond Vanuatu. Many small island nations face similar challenges from fish poisoning. Climate change is making these risks worse by creating the environmental conditions that toxic algae favour.

Warmer sea temperatures, ocean acidification, more intense and frequent extreme weather events and changes in the distribution of fish species are all contributing to more frequent fish poisoning outbreaks worldwide, including in areas with no history of it.

This highlights the need for enhanced monitoring and management strategies to reduce the impacts on human health and communities that depend on fisheries.

Other communities could develop their own early-warning systems drawing on the Gigila framework. Globally, Indigenous peoples manage vast ecosystems. Their knowledge and environmental guardianship practices are critical for sustainability and environmental health, but are often sidelined in science and policy.

The Gigila framework highlights the continued relevance and importance of Indigenous knowledge and the need for Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists to work together in a respectful and equitable manner.

As climate change accelerates, partnerships between communities and researchers will be crucial. Governments should support locally led initiatives that promote the deployment of Indigenous knowledge with scientific expertise to produce solutions that are both effective and culturally grounded.

The Gigila framework offers a compelling example of what’s possible when different ways of knowing are woven together. By embracing these approaches, we can build stronger, more resilient and adaptable communities in the face of an uncertain future.

Allan Rarai receives funding from the Association of the Commonwealth Universities through the Ocean Country Partnership Programme research grant.

Meg Parsons does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Indigenous knowledge merges with science to protect people from fish poisoning in Vanuatu – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-knowledge-merges-with-science-to-protect-people-from-fish-poisoning-in-vanuatu-249469

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott Dwyer, Research Director, Energy Futures, University of Technology Sydney

Our cars sit unused most of the time. If you have an electric vehicle, you might leave it charging at home or work after driving it. But there’s another step you could take. If you have a bidirectional charger, you can set it to sell power back to the grid when demand is high.

Fewer than ten people across Australia actually do this, because the technology – known as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) – is very new. To date, it only works with a single car model (Nissan LEAF) and a single charger (Wallbox Quasar 1). We’ve estimated the number of users based on sales of this charger. The chargers are expensive and there’s a thicket of regulations to navigate.

But that could soon change. Last year, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen announced new Australian standards and communications protocols for bidirectional chargers in a bid to make it mainstream. Cheaper EVs and bidirectional chargers will make this more appealing.

If it takes off, V2G could become extremely useful to the power grid as a way to release power as required and stabilise the grid against fluctuations.

This week, Australia’s renewable energy agency released a V2G roadmap, which notes widespread uptake could “materially reduce electricity costs for consumers and accelerate national emissions reduction”.

To understand why people are using the technology and the challenges to do so, we interviewed five early adopters from New South Wales and South Australia. Our findings are released today.

Setting up V2G isn’t easy

Our interviewees reported a long, complex journey to set up V2G. These early adopters had no playbook to follow, so the process was one of trial and error.

Some relied on professional networks or social media groups to gather information. They spent significant time and energy finding electricians, installers and charger manufacturers to set up their systems. Strata approvals were required. They also had to negotiate with power retailers and distributors.

Delays were common, especially when seeking approval from the energy distributor. Some interviewees reported delays of months to years.

Most interviewees had experience in a technical field such as engineering or technology. Some reported a significant learning curve, while others using new software from their retailer reported a smoother “set and forget” process.

So why do it? Our interviewees had several reasons, ranging from getting the most out of expensive assets (solar and the EV) to offsetting power bills entirely.

Four out of five interviewees reported making a small profit of about A$1,000 annually instead of a bill. Many wanted to be able to reduce dependence on the grid and reduce their environmental impact.

As one told us:

you originally think of it as a car you can also use to power your house. [But actually] it’s a house battery you can drive around.

Maximising savings

Typically, our interviewees plugged their car in at home during the day to charge from their rooftop solar. In the evenings when power prices peaked, they used an app to sell power back to the grid. This maximised their cost savings for charging the car battery and their earnings from the grid.

For instance, a V2G user was alerted by their energy retailer that power prices had spiked to over $20 per kilowatt hour – far above normal rates of 25–45 cents. They immediately set their car and home battery to sell power back to the grid. In two hours, they sold 28 kilowatt hours of power to the grid and made more than $560. As they told us: “I look forward to more such events.”

Our interviewees often monitored energy prices, solar output and car battery levels to optimise their output. To avoid their EV battery getting too low, they set a lower limit – say 30% of charge – after which their car would stop exporting power.

Is there a downside?

One of the main reasons people are sceptical of V2G is due to concern about accelerated degradation of the battery.

This is a common concern. But to date, there’s no consensus showing V2G shortens the battery life of EVs significantly. One recent study shows it increases degradation by 0.3% a year. But another showed V2G might actually extend battery life in some scenarios.

Last year, we surveyed more than 1,300 members of a motoring organisation about their view of V2G technology. We found battery warranty was a bigger concern than battery life. This is because most EV manufacturers other than Nissan don’t mention V2G in their battery warranties, leading drivers to believe they might void their warranty by using V2G.

Awareness of V2G technology is growing. The survey also found almost 40% of respondents were very or somewhat familiar with V2G, a jump from the 17% who reported familiarity in 2022. Among EV owners, almost 90% reported knowledge of the concept.

Moving beyond early adopters

For V2G to go mainstream, the process must be much simpler, cheaper and easier to set up.

To accelerate uptake, reliable, accessible information is essential.

Expanding government incentive programs to include bidirectional chargers would cut the upfront cost and make it more accessible.

Even within the EV supply chain, knowledge of V2G is limited. Car dealerships will need to know which models work with V2G.

Electricians may need specific training to install and maintain these chargers.

EVs are falling in price as manufacturers vie for market share and cheaper options become available. V2G capabilities might help boost sales for competing car companies.

As more motorists switch to EVs, interest in V2G will increase. While V2G can boost the appeal of EVs, there are others, such as Vehicle-to-Home (using your car to power your home during blackouts or to save money) and Vehicle-to-Load (using your EV to run power tools or appliances).

Each of these can help consumers get more value from the vehicles parked in driveways and garages.

Scott Dwyer receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

Scott Dwyer receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

Kriti Nagrath receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

– ref. ‘A house battery you can drive around’: how a handful of Australians are selling power from their cars back to the grid – https://theconversation.com/a-house-battery-you-can-drive-around-how-a-handful-of-australians-are-selling-power-from-their-cars-back-to-the-grid-249696

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aish Ravi, Lecturer in Curriculum, Teaching and Inclusive Education, Monash University

In October last year, the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) launched Dealing with the Moment: Anti-Racism in Community Sport, a free online course designed to help community coaches, parents, umpires and players respond to racism in sport.

The course equips people with the tools they need to intervene effectively when racism occurs, ensuring everyone feels safe, welcome and respected.

One of the key recommendations from the course is what to do if you hear someone say something racist on the sports field.

Why racist remarks are so damaging

Racist remarks hurt more than just a player’s feelings — they attack their sense of belonging and identity on the field.

I know from my own experiences.

During my years playing various community sports as a young adult, including Australian rules football, soccer and cricket, I was often one of the only people of colour.

In those moments, I wanted my play and skills to be the focus but unfortunately, my appearance often made me stand out, which led to racist comments.

Those remarks were deeply offensive and hurtful. They made me feel like I didn’t belong or shouldn’t be there.

Racism in sport sends a harmful message: that someone doesn’t belong because of their skin colour or background. These incidents leave lasting emotional and psychological scars, even if they don’t result in physical harm.

Why I helped develop the course

I worked on developing the course to address a significant gap in how racism is handled in community sport.

The course aims to ensure all sport participants have a positive and inclusive experience and that everyone understands the importance of addressing racism immediately – in the moment.

It’s not good enough to delay action, even if that’s how it has often been done in the past. Some organisations claim that delaying action allows for thorough investigations and careful consideration.

However, this is often a strategy to protect reputations and minimise backlash rather than address the root causes of the problem.

Such delays can silence victims, perpetuate harm, and show a lack of genuine commitment to tackling systemic racism. Immediate action is necessary to demonstrate accountability and foster meaningful change.

We must do better. We need to see progress, not stagnation.

So, what should you do after a racist comment?

If you don’t have time to dive into the full course, here are the key lessons:

• the first 60 seconds are crucial: intervening immediately sends a strong message that racism won’t be tolerated and shows support for the victim

• understand racism: recognise what racism is and how it affects people. Never dismiss someone’s experience by saying it’s “not racism” or telling them to “get over it”. Just because the harm isn’t physical doesn’t mean it’s not significant

• take action: the course provides clear guidance on how to respond effectively to incidents of racism and support those affected.

Why are the first 60 seconds so cruical?

Acting early allows you to nip the issue in the bud by calling it out and intervening on the spot. It leaves no room for misinterpretation of events or for the narrative to shift.

The longer the delay, the more time it allows for the situation to be downplayed, the narrative to change, or for excuses to be made.

Ultimately, delays often result in the issue being swept under the carpet, with no one taking accountability for the harm caused.

Immediate action demonstrates clarity, conviction, and a genuine commitment to addressing racism.

Strategies for coaches, parents and officials

Everyone — coaches, parents, officials, players and spectators — has a role to play when dealing with racism. Here are some practical strategies:

• acknowledge and act: staying silent is not an option. A simple statement like “that’s not okay” sends a strong message of support and sets a clear standard of behaviour

• use your authority: coaches can address players directly, officials can stop play, and parents can challenge inappropriate behaviour from the sidelines. Everyone has the power to intervene

• educate yourself: take the course or learn more about racism so you feel confident and empowered to act

• don’t minimise the impact: never tell someone to brush it off or suggest it’s not a big deal. Acknowledge their feelings, show empathy, and take the situation seriously

• apply this to all inappropriate behaviour: these strategies aren’t limited to racism. They apply to misogynistic, homophobic, or other harmful remarks as well.

Sport should be for everyone

We live in a multicultural society – a melting pot of diverse cultures that is beautifully reflected on our streets and in our classrooms. It would be wonderful to see this diversity equally represented in community sport.

Greater representation on the field and in the stands would create a sense of belonging and allow all players to thrive, regardless of their background.

This is why addressing racism is so crucial — it paves the way for more inclusive and equitable participation in sport.

The goal is to make sport a space where diversity is celebrated, teamwork is valued, and everyone can thrive without fear of discrimination.

We can all play a part in creating lasting change.

Aish Ravi receives funding from organisations for consulting work on training and education and evaluation work. She is also on various volunteer committees advocating for change.

– ref. You’re playing (or watching) sport and someone blurts out a racial slur. The next 60 seconds are crucial – https://theconversation.com/youre-playing-or-watching-sport-and-someone-blurts-out-a-racial-slur-the-next-60-seconds-are-crucial-248671

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott Dwyer, Research Director, Energy Futures, University of Technology Sydney

Our cars sit unused most of the time. If you have an electric vehicle, you might leave it charging at home or work after driving it. But there’s another step you could take. If you have a bidirectional charger, you can set it to sell power back to the grid when demand is high.

Fewer than ten people across Australia actually do this, because the technology – known as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) – is very new. To date, it only works with a single car model (Nissan LEAF) and a single charger (Wallbox Quasar 1). We’ve estimated the number of users based on sales of this charger. The chargers are expensive and there’s a thicket of regulations to navigate.

But that could soon change. Last year, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen announced new Australian standards and communications protocols for bidirectional chargers in a bid to make it mainstream. Cheaper EVs and bidirectional chargers will make this more appealing.

If it takes off, V2G could become extremely useful to the power grid as a way to release power as required and stabilise the grid against fluctuations.

This week, Australia’s renewable energy agency released a V2G roadmap, which notes widespread uptake could “materially reduce electricity costs for consumers and accelerate national emissions reduction”.

To understand why people are using the technology and the challenges to do so, we interviewed five early adopters from New South Wales and South Australia. Our findings are released today.

Setting up V2G isn’t easy

Our interviewees reported a long, complex journey to set up V2G. These early adopters had no playbook to follow, so the process was one of trial and error.

Some relied on professional networks or social media groups to gather information. They spent significant time and energy finding electricians, installers and charger manufacturers to set up their systems. Strata approvals were required. They also had to negotiate with power retailers and distributors.

Delays were common, especially when seeking approval from the energy distributor. Some interviewees reported delays of months to years.

Most interviewees had experience in a technical field such as engineering or technology. Some reported a significant learning curve, while others using new software from their retailer reported a smoother “set and forget” process.

So why do it? Our interviewees had several reasons, ranging from getting the most out of expensive assets (solar and the EV) to offsetting power bills entirely.

Four out of five interviewees reported making a small profit of about A$1,000 annually instead of a bill. Many wanted to be able to reduce dependence on the grid and reduce their environmental impact.

As one told us:

you originally think of it as a car you can also use to power your house. [But actually] it’s a house battery you can drive around.

Maximising savings

Typically, our interviewees plugged their car in at home during the day to charge from their rooftop solar. In the evenings when power prices peaked, they used an app to sell power back to the grid. This maximised their cost savings for charging the car battery and their earnings from the grid.

For instance, a V2G user was alerted by their energy retailer that power prices had spiked to over $20 per kilowatt hour – far above normal rates of 25–45 cents. They immediately set their car and home battery to sell power back to the grid. In two hours, they sold 28 kilowatt hours of power to the grid and made more than $560. As they told us: “I look forward to more such events.”

Our interviewees often monitored energy prices, solar output and car battery levels to optimise their output. To avoid their EV battery getting too low, they set a lower limit – say 30% of charge – after which their car would stop exporting power.

Is there a downside?

One of the main reasons people are sceptical of V2G is due to concern about accelerated degradation of the battery.

This is a common concern. But to date, there’s no consensus showing V2G shortens the battery life of EVs significantly. One recent study shows it increases degradation by 0.3% a year. But another showed V2G might actually extend battery life in some scenarios.

Last year, we surveyed more than 1,300 members of a motoring organisation about their view of V2G technology. We found battery warranty was a bigger concern than battery life. This is because most EV manufacturers other than Nissan don’t mention V2G in their battery warranties, leading drivers to believe they might void their warranty by using V2G.

Awareness of V2G technology is growing. The survey also found almost 40% of respondents were very or somewhat familiar with V2G, a jump from the 17% who reported familiarity in 2022. Among EV owners, almost 90% reported knowledge of the concept.

Moving beyond early adopters

For V2G to go mainstream, the process must be much simpler, cheaper and easier to set up.

To accelerate uptake, reliable, accessible information is essential.

Expanding government incentive programs to include bidirectional chargers would cut the upfront cost and make it more accessible.

Even within the EV supply chain, knowledge of V2G is limited. Car dealerships will need to know which models work with V2G.

Electricians may need specific training to install and maintain these chargers.

EVs are falling in price as manufacturers vie for market share and cheaper options become available. V2G capabilities might help boost sales for competing car companies.

As more motorists switch to EVs, interest in V2G will increase. While V2G can boost the appeal of EVs, there are others, such as Vehicle-to-Home (using your car to power your home during blackouts or to save money) and Vehicle-to-Load (using your EV to run power tools or appliances).

Each of these can help consumers get more value from the vehicles parked in driveways and garages.

Scott Dwyer receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

Scott Dwyer receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

Kriti Nagrath receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre and the NRMA for this project.

– ref. ‘It’s a house battery you can drive around’ – how a handful of Australians are selling power back to the grid from their cars – https://theconversation.com/its-a-house-battery-you-can-drive-around-how-a-handful-of-australians-are-selling-power-back-to-the-grid-from-their-cars-249696

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ajay Narendra, Associate Professor of Insect Neuroethology, Macquarie University

Jumping spiders – one of the largest spider families – get their name from the extraordinary jumps they make to hunt prey, to navigate and also to evade predators.

Male jumping spiders also jump to escape from cannibalistic females and competing males. So they are under tremendous pressure to jump efficiently and rapidly.

We studied the jumping abilities of miniature male and female Australian peacock spiders. We found that the males – incredibly light creatures, weighing just 2 milligrams – have the highest acceleration among any known jumping spider.

Our study is the first to explore and identify differences in how male and female jumping spiders undertake their impressive jumps. It’s now published in the Journal of Experimental Biology.

Unique hydraulics

Jumping is an energetically “expensive” movement strategy. To perform it, animals have to launch themselves from a surface by coordinating the movement of numerous body parts.

Some invertebrates, like ants, jump with the help of their muscles. Others, like fleas, use energy stored in internal structures that are rapidly released to trigger a leap.

Jumping spiders are different – they use a unique semi-hydraulic system. They don’t have muscles to extend their legs and power the jumps. Instead, they extend their legs by increasing the pressure of the haemolymph (fluid analogous to blood in invertebrates) in their legs, which triggers the jump.

Peacock spiders are well known for the elaborate courtship display males carry out to court females. It has captured the attention of biologists and non-scientific audiences alike. The display includes extending and waving their third pair of legs and opening the colourful flap-like extensions on the abdomen.

The quantitative description of jumping movements, known as jump kinematics, has only been conducted for four of the 6,000+ jumping spider species known worldwide. On top of this, scientists have never investigated differences in jump dynamics in male and female spiders.

Because male and female peacock spiders differ strongly in size from each other, they present a unique opportunity to identify sex-specific differences in jump kinematics.

Spiders on campus

We studied the Australian splendid peacock spider (Maratus splendens) found both on the Macquarie University campus in Sydney and in the surrounding area.

The females weighed more than twice as much as males, and the heaviest female was 6.6 times heavier than the lightest male. We scanned male and female specimens using micro-computed tomography and carried out a 3D reconstruction to determine the centre of mass of each sex.

We then filmed the jumps of male and female spiders using a high-speed camera, and tracked the animals’ centre of mass during each jump. From this, we measured a suite of kinematic measures, including jump take-off angle, acceleration, and g-force.

We found that these lighter male peacock spiders have a distinct jump choreography and kinematics compared to the heavier females.

High, fast and steep

We discovered that the splendid peacock spiders accelerated at 127.8 m/s² – more than twice as fast as the previous highest known acceleration in jumping spiders.

This rapid acceleration may have evolved to escape from predators or to track and capture fast-moving prey in their natural environments.

Though the lighter males accelerated faster, after controlling for body mass we found that acceleration in males was slower compared to females. Males and females experienced accelerations equivalent to 13.03 times and 12.5 times the force of gravity, respectively.

Interestingly, the jumps of males were at a steeper angle than those of females, which is likely an adaptation to rapidly escape from females and other males.

A question that remained was which of the four pairs of legs powered this rapid jump. To figure this out, we tracked multiple joints on all of the spiders’ legs throughout the jump.

We found that the joint on the third pair of legs had an extremely acute angle before jumping, and rapidly changed to something like a straight angle after attaining maximum acceleration. Our results show that it’s the third pair of legs that propels the splendid peacock spider into its impressive jumps.

Ajay Narendra receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Tiny splendid peacock spiders have the fastest known jump among their kin – new study – https://theconversation.com/tiny-splendid-peacock-spiders-have-the-fastest-known-jump-among-their-kin-new-study-247241

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Sheedy, Professor – Risk governance, culture, remuneration, Macquarie University

This week the corporate regulator is taking on executives and directors of Star Entertainment in the Federal Court, in a landmark case for Australian corporate governance.

ASIC will allege that despite multiple red flags that should have prompted internal investigation, directors at Star sat on their hands while accepting the considerable perks of the office.

Historically, ASIC has not been willing to go after apparently lax directors and executives and there are questions about its effectiveness as a regulator. Will this time be different?

What is Star accused of?

The case against Star Entertainment, like so many others, boils down to “acting with reasonable care and diligence” in respect of risk management. Did Star’s board and executives sufficiently focus on the well-known risks of money-laundering and criminal association in the operation of its casinos in Sydney and Queensland?

ASIC will seek to show that they did not. It is suing several former directors and executives, including the former chief executive, in a case expected to last six weeks. The defendants deny they breached their duties.

Warnings were ‘ignored’

In the first days of hearings, ASIC told the court the board had been given evidence of money-laundering risks from high-rollers with ties to criminal organisations, but that those warnings were ignored.

The court was told the board and executives were “incurious and complacent” about alleged criminal activity and money-laundering, with wads of cash delivered in a blue Esky and in paper bags to a private gambling room.

If the allegations are proven, it won’t be just the shareholders who have suffered. Anti-money-laundering laws exist because criminals need to clean their ill-gotten gains, or make them appear legitimate. While not alleged in this instance, in general, money-laundering enables crimes such as scams, fraud, child exploitation and drug/sex trafficking. There are many victims throughout society.

The issues at Star were uncovered by journalists in 2021. This was the catalyst for the NSW Independent Casino Commission to set up a review by Adam Bell SC. On August 31 2022, Bell handed down his findings into The Star casino’s suitability to hold a casino licence in NSW in a 946-page report.

Two months later, the NSW commission announced it had suspended Star’s licence indefinitely, fined the casino $100 million, and appointed an independent manager.

Share price tanked

Since 2021, the share price for Star Entertainment Group has collapsed from $3.76 to 13 cents today, wiping billions in market value.

It is true that Star Entertainment has been hurt by factors other than the financial allegations identified by Bell. But the collapse in revenue suggests the casino operator’s business model was inherently reliant on money-laundering. Strip that out, and what remains is a business that will likely not survive without a white knight.

To what extent can the directors be blamed for these failures? Based on the defences used during the Bell inquiry, they may claim they were not involved in the complex, day-to-day management of operations. Executives failed to inform them of risk-management issues. But are these adequate excuses?

According to the Australian Institute of Company Directors, of which the Star Entertainment directors were all alumni, directors must “apply an enquiring mind […] test information put before them by management and proactively consider what other information they require”. Bear in mind the handsome remuneration received by the directors to perform their oversight duties. The former chairman, John O’Neill, received a total of $484,500 in financial year 2021.

For this sort of money, shareholders might reasonably expect some tough questions would be asked, especially given the red flags that came to light. The internal audit team or external independent advisers could have been charged with further investigating issues of concern.

Putting directors on notice

Unfortunately, the scandal at Star Entertainment is not an isolated case of risk-governance failure. A royal commission found the directors of Crown Casino also failed properly to manage the risks of money-laundering.

The financial crime regulator, Austrac, has identified similar failures at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Westpac and Adelaide’s Sky City casino. Turning to cyber risk, it is clear that firms such as Medibank and Latitude Financial have failed to protect sensitive customer data.

While most of the above listed companies have been fined by regulators, the consequences for individual directors have been limited or non-existent. And herein lies the problem – lack of accountability breeds inattention, indolence and recklessness.

Where is the incentive for directors to ask those tough questions of the executive, to rock the boat on a nice cosy board? The reputation of ASIC as an ineffective corporate regulator has not served either shareholders or the Australian public well.

That is why the outcome of this case is so important. A win would put directors on notice that risk governance is a serious matter and they need to do more to earn their substantial fees.

Elizabeth Sheedy is on the advisory board of the Financial Integrity Hub and was previously on the board of the Australian Compliance Institute. In the past she has received research funding from financial institutions that have been accused of money-laundering, and from the Australian Compliance Institute.

– ref. ‘Multiple red flags’: ASIC’s court case against Star executives shows the risks of complacency – https://theconversation.com/multiple-red-flags-asics-court-case-against-star-executives-shows-the-risks-of-complacency-249599