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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Allen, Senior Research Fellow, Monash University

It’s hard to remember a time the United States seemed as tense and divided as it does today. That should serve as a stark reminder of just how important it is to monitor the health of our own nation.

Today, our new report card on Australia’s progress will be launched in Canberra. It assesses progress on 80 economic, social and environmental targets and models a range of policy shifts that could boost progress.

We find that progress on more than half of these targets has either stagnated or is going backwards. And growing inequalities threaten the wellbeing of many Australians.

Our report comes on the heels of America’s own State of the Nation report, which puts the US near the bottom of global rankings on inequality, violence, trust and polarisation.

The situation in Australia is not yet as dire. However, our results signal a need to start thinking long-term and take bold action on inequality to avoid a similar fate.

Not an A+ student overall

Our report draws on the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to select a broad and balanced set of 80 economic, social and environmental indicators.

Each of our indicators can be grouped under one of these 17 goals and includes a 2030 target. We use this target to evaluate progress and allocate “traffic lights” that tell us about the direction in which the country is moving.

We also benchmark Australia against peer nations from the OECD, including the US.

The overall outlook for Australia is mixed. We aren’t completely on track to meet any of the 17 SDGs. And on some indicators, Australia is actually going backwards, away from the target.

Many areas of concern centre on increasing inequality. These include:

• a 30% decline in the share of wealth held by the bottom 40% of Australians since 2004
• almost 20% of Australians living in financial stress
• over 40% of lower-income renter households living in housing stress
• household debt levels now exceed Australia’s annual gross domestic product (GDP).

There are also some broader economic concerns. Australia’s level of investment in innovation is nearly 40% below OECD averages. Economic complexity – which measures the sophistication and diversity of what our economy produces – has fallen behind Honduras, Armenia and Uganda.

And there’s been a rapid decline in education outcomes for students from lower socio-economic groups.

Shining in some areas

On the other hand, Australia is on track and actually leading our peers in life expectancy, road fatalities, tertiary education, water efficiency and government debt.

We’re also above average on closing gender gaps in both income and political representation. Australia also has very low homicide rates and high feelings of safety and trust compared to our peers.

In some key areas, Australia is actually trending rapidly towards SDG targets.

The gender gap in superannuation, for example, has fallen from 53% in 2014 to 21% in 2021.

The share of renewable electricity in our national energy grid has climbed to 35% and greenhouse gas emissions are steadily falling.

And rates of unemployment, underemployment and youth unemployment have all declined to within or closer to SDG target levels of below 5-6%.

How does the US compare?

America’s State of the Nation report, which tracks progress on a range of similar measures to our report, paints a bleak picture.

There are only four measures where the US performs in the top 20% of high-income countries – economic output, productivity, years of education and long-term unemployment.

Compared to Australia, the US outperforms us on average per-capita income, investments in research and development and knowledge-based capital, economic complexity, household debt and broadband connection speeds.

But despite their apparent economic success, mental health and life satisfaction have deteriorated. Social connections are fraying with increased social isolation, polarisation and eroding trust.

Tragically, suicide rates, fatal overdoses and shootings have increased.

Far worse on some measures

In areas where Australia is also trending backwards, things in the US are often far worse.

Income and wealth inequality, for example, are much higher in the US. The top 1% of Americans hold around 35% of wealth – compared to 24% for the top 1% of Australians.

US welfare payments are almost 90% below the poverty line and the poverty rate is 30% higher than in Australia. Yet US government debt as a share of GDP is almost double that of Australia.

This stark contrast suggests America’s approach to pursuing material prosperity is undermining social wellbeing, with rising inequalities fuelling social tensions and polarisation.

Bold action needed

For the first time, our new report models two future scenarios for Australia, exploring policies that reverse negative trends and accelerate progress towards SDG targets by 2050.

Our modelling shows that with increased policy ambition, Australia can halve poverty and reduce income inequality by a third. We can also boost health, education and productivity, improve biodiversity, and deliver net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.

To do it, we’d need to increase public investment by around 7% a year over 10 years in key areas such as education and health, disaster resilience, sustainable food, energy and urban systems and the natural environment.

Our modelling shows that with these measures, Australia could achieve 90% of our Sustainable Development Goal targets by 2050.

Without them, our future prosperity is projected to stagnate and decline by 2050, reaching just 55% progress towards our targets and with GDP around A$300 billion lower than our more ambitious scenario.

There’s a famous aphorism that in the long run, economic productivity is almost everything. The social fissures in the US despite a strong economy would suggest otherwise.

Australia should take note and take action to ensure the long-term sustainable prosperity of our nation.

Cameron Allen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

John Thwaites is Chair of Monash Sustainable Development Institute and Climateworks Centre which receive funding for research, education and action projects from the Commonwealth and state governments as well as from philanthropy and industry. He is a former Deputy Premier of Victoria (1999 – 2007)

– ref. A new report card shows inequality in Australia isn’t as bad as in the US – but we’re headed in the wrong direction – https://theconversation.com/a-new-report-card-shows-inequality-in-australia-isnt-as-bad-as-in-the-us-but-were-headed-in-the-wrong-direction-249579

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Burrow, PhD candidate, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia

Today marks 17 years since the apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples for the forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families between the mid-1800s and 1970s.

Yet, communities and researchers are concerned that child protection systems are creating “another stolen generation” and a “crisis in infant removals”.

Statistics tell us Indigenous children are 11 times more likely to be removed by child protection systems than non-Indigenous children. Indigenous babies aged under one are at greatest risk.

But beyond the data, what do parents tell us about this experience?

Our recent study reviewed all the studies available about child protection processes in the perinatal period (during pregnancy and the year following birth) in Australia and across the world.

We looked at parents’ experiences across the board, with a special interest in whether First Nations families had been included in existing research.

What we already knew

Whistleblowers, including a former Aboriginal family support officer, have reported distressing child protection processes, including the removal of babies immediately following delivery.

Families that interact with child protection systems often already face multiple and complex forms of adversity. This can include poverty, homelessness, racism, intergenerational trauma, family violence, disability, mental illness, substance use and incarceration.

The perinatal period offers a unique window for early intervention and family support to reduce the risk of removal.

This could involve greater help accessing suitable housing and addressing family violence, and enhancing access to health care that is culturally safe and trauma-informed, before and after birth.

What we found

Our systematic review examined 24 studies about child protection services becoming involved with families during pregnancy and the first year after birth. This included research from Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Sweden.

We looked at what parents told researchers about their experiences and found striking similarities, regardless of where they lived.

Globally, there were comparatively few studies including First Nations families. But both Indigenous and non-Indigenous parents reported punitive processes that had an enduring impact on the health and wellbeing of the parent and family.

They also agreed that early, transparent, compassionate and culturally appropriate support was required to address their needs. These included legal support to understand court processes, as well as being able to access health care without fear it could lead to removal.

Four themes emerged from these lived experiences. Here, we’ve included the voices of Aboriginal mothers who participated in a 2023 Australian study to illustrate the importance of these issues to Indigenous families.

1. A lack of support before and after removal

Parents often found the birth of their babies life-changing. However many believed child protection services didn’t adequately understand their experience or inform and support them at this time.

Mothers felt confused and overwhelmed, experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and enduring grief following the removal of their babies.

Bridget*, an Aboriginal mother, told researchers:

There is no support… I think they should help towards improving family and helping family before taking a child away. It should be the absolute last option.

2. Devastating impact on relationships and wellbeing

Mothers often felt isolated and described negative interactions not only with child protection workers but also partners and families.

Fear of removal also prevented mothers from seeking antenatal care or professional support services, further compromising health and wellbeing.

Stacey said:

You have to do what they want; they control everything… who you hang out with, what you do […] There is no fixing the family… What they say goes or they take your kids.

3. Feeling powerless in the system

Many mothers had been in care themselves. They felt unfairly punished, because it was assumed they would not be capable parents due to past and present trauma.

First-time parents felt especially powerless to prove their parenting capacity.

Stacey said removing a baby from a first-time mum causes

a lot of stress and impact on everyone involved… It’s causing a lot of pain… give us the chance to be with our child to build that bond first.

Parents described surveillance framed as support, a lack of professional transparency, and often unexpected and acutely painful removals.

4. Harmful judgements and stereotypes

Insufficient support for poverty and homelessness before removal made it impossible to meet child protection requirements.

A mother who was homeless at the time her baby was removed said:

We had got secure accommodation with family. […] We weren’t doing any drugs; we were on the methadone… we had a caseworker…

They led us to believe we’re keeping her… [then] they handed me a piece of paper and said, “We’re taking your baby”. I was in shock… I felt like I was ambushed.

Parents with complex health issues also felt judged according to negative stereotypes and traditional, white, middle-class standards.

Some parents lost welfare entitlements and housing because babies had been removed, compounding their difficulties.

Where to from here?

In Australia, current Indigenous-led research and the work of Aboriginal state, territory, and national children’s commissioners is critical to guiding the development of support for families to stay together and thrive.

Parents and researchers are united about the immediate need for child protection systems to:

• provide early and sustained family-centred support during pregnancy and beyond
• address families’ practical and material needs, including poverty and homelessness
• train professionals to reduce power imbalances and build trusted relationships
• offer trauma-informed and culturally matched support services
• provide immediate and ongoing mental health support if babies are removed.

Renna (a co-author on this article and also a proud Walbunja woman from the Yuin Nation, academic and social worker) reflects on the removal of her baby not long before the apology.

Eighteen years later, I know we will never feel whole, left with empty arms, a life stolen, the shadow festers and grows.

Special thanks to our review co-authors Melissa O’Donnell, Lisa Wood, Colleen Fisher and Renée Usher, our expert advisory group, the Stan Perron Charitable Foundation and the original participants and researchers whose primary studies made our review and this article possible.

*Names have been changed for privacy.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. 13YARN is a free and confidential 24/7 national crisis support line for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are feeling overwhelmed or having difficulty coping. Call 13 92 76.

Sam Burrow receives a PhD scholarship from the Stan Perron Charitable Foundation.

Renna Gayde is affiliated with SAFeST start coalition, a stream of the Replanting the Birthing Trees Project.

– ref. Removing babies is still harming First Nations families, almost two decades after the apology to Stolen Generations – https://theconversation.com/removing-babies-is-still-harming-first-nations-families-almost-two-decades-after-the-apology-to-stolen-generations-249353

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaitlin Barham, Wildlife ecology researcher, The University of Queensland

Crocodiles are hardy creatures, capable of adjusting their behaviour to cope with the heat of the tropics. But there’s a limit to their endurance.

Our new research shows the average body temperature of estuarine (saltwater) crocodiles in Far North Queensland has risen steadily over the past 15 years. The peaks align with heatwaves during El Niño events.

We tagged and tracked 203 crocodiles in the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve on Cape York Peninsula, to find out how they respond to rising temperatures. We know from our previous research that crocodiles can change their behaviour to quickly cool down, and might do this by diving deeper, seeking shade or hauling themselves out onto the riverbank at night.

We found hot crocodiles displayed more of these cooling behaviours, but this was not always enough to keep their body temperature under control. Crocodile diving performance decreased at body temperatures above 31–33°C. This could compromise other behaviours necessary for feeding, fleeing or reproducing.

How do crocs keep cool?

Crocodiles, like other reptiles, are “ectotherms”. This means their bodies heat up or cool down depending on the temperature of the surrounding environment.

They can’t control or adjust their own internal thermostat like birds or mammals. Instead, they regulate their body temperature by moving to a more comfortable place.

On hot nights the water stays warm, but the air cools down. So crocodiles will move onto the river bank at night to cool off. We call this “nocturnal basking”.

During the day, they might dive down really deep where it’s a bit cooler. Or they might lie on the bank in the shade with their mouth gaping wide, or sit in a cool freshwater creek.

Last year, we published research using data from thumb-sized temperature loggers implanted under the crocodile’s skin. By tracking when their body temperatures rose or fell rapidly, we were able to record “active cooling” and “active warming” periods during the day and night.

Active warming tended to occur on winter afternoons, and was likely achieved through basking in the sun on riverbanks and sand flats.

Active cooling was more common on hot summer nights. We think the crocodiles were either taking advantage of cool night air through nocturnal basking, or spending time in shady spots along the river.

But there’s a limit to how much warming crocodiles can take. Previous research has shown crocodiles have shorter dives at body temperatures above 32-33°C. This can reduce their ability to hunt for food or seek shelter.

How will crocs cope with climate change?

In our new research, we wanted to find out if crocodiles can reduce their exposure to high temperatures through active cooling behaviour.

With the help of Australia Zoo’s croc team, we tagged and tracked 203 wild estuarine crocodiles in the Wenlock and Ducie rivers of the Steve Irwin Wildlife Reserve, between 2008 and 2023.

During this time, the average air temperature in Far North Queensland rose by 0.08–0.30°C. Top temperatures peaked during El Niño events (2010 and 2016), whereas minimum temperatures peaked during La Niña events (2020–23).

We collected data on crocodile body temperature, daily distance travelled and diving behaviour. Then we compared it to local air temperatures.

We found body temperatures increased alongside rising air temperatures and peaked during El Niños such as the summer of 2015–16.

Almost all crocodiles spent time cooling during heatwaves. The hottest crocodiles switched almost exclusively to cooling behaviours, rather than warming behaviours. But in many cases their body temperatures still exceeded 32–34°C and their diving performance suffered.

Even when summer air temperatures rocketed to 40°C, crocodiles were able to limit their body temperature to 34°C. This feat demonstrates impressive resilience to heat.

What’s next for Queensland’s crocs?

While most estuarine crocodiles in Queensland are found in the north of the state, the occasional vagrant makes its way south below its natural range into more populated areas.

This includes the crocodile spotted around Inskip Point near K’gari (Fraser Island) on the Sunshine Coast just last week.

The crocodile population has grown since hunting was banned in 1974. So it is reasonable to wonder about the possibility of a southern expansion as warming continues. But there is currently no evidence to suggest Queensland’s crocodile population is moving south, or that this will become a concern in the near future with a warming climate.

Our new research shows crocodiles in the tropics are responding to higher temperatures. However, very little is known about how crocodiles in the southern, cooler part of their range behave in response to these conditions. This information could help to more effectively manage crocodiles and protect the general public.

Crocodiles are remarkably resilient predators that have evolved to survive in tropical conditions. Our research suggests they have the capacity to buffer themselves against the worst of the heat our current climate throws at them, without leaving their local river system.

But the trajectory of future climate change, coupled with the new findings, suggests crocodiles might struggle in a warmer world.

Kaitlin Barham receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment – Equity Trustees Charitable Foundation & the Ecological Society of Australia funded travel to the field site for this research. She is affiliated with The University of Queensland.

Craig E. Franklin receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Wildlife Warriors. He is affiliated with The University of Queensland.

Ross Dwyer has been funded by grants from the Australian Research Council and the Queensland government for crocodile research in wild and captive environments. He is affiliated with The University of the Sunshine Coast.

– ref. Nocturnal basking and deep diving may not be enough to keep crocodiles cool in a warming world – https://theconversation.com/nocturnal-basking-and-deep-diving-may-not-be-enough-to-keep-crocodiles-cool-in-a-warming-world-248655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Damien O’Meara, Lecturer, School of Media and Communication, RMIT University

Stan’s new series Invisible Boys follows four young gay men as they understand and explore their identities while living in Geraldton, a regional town in Western Australia.

Charlie Roth (Joseph Zada), Zeke Calogero (Aydan Clafiore), Kade “Hammer” Hammersmith (Zach Blampied) and Matt Jones (Joe Klocek) represent four very different young men. Yet they share the experience of feeling invisible because of their sexuality.

An adaptation of Holden Sheppard’s novel of the same name, the story challenges linear narratives of progress and typical ideals of queer life. It also shows how such mentalities can lead gay and bisexual men growing up in regional Australia to feel invisible, as they often don’t fit the neat narratives associated with “progress”.

Invisible Boys is an example of what my colleague Whitney Monaghan and I have termed a queer storyworld, which centres LGBTQIA+ stories, communities and issues in complex and nuanced ways.

Read more:
We studied two decades of queer representation on Australian TV, and found some interesting trends

Aussie teen drama is gritty and real

Australian teen drama found international success in the 1990s. Series such as Heartbreak High (1994–99) and Sweat (1996) included underrepresented stories of cultural diversity and diverse sexuality, and were promoted with reference to their “gritty” themes.

The terms “gritty” and “real” have become key markers of the Aussie teen drama. Journalist Grace Back notes how Heartbreak High’s appeal lay in its characters having to “grapple with gritty issues”.

Similarly, Janine Kelly from the Australian Children’s Television Foundation describes More Than This (2022) as a “real, gritty and powerful series [that] reflects the diversity of the suburban Australian public-school environment.”

The trailer for Invisible Boys features a review describing the show as “powerful, topical and all too real”, placing it alongside the bold teen dramas that have come before.

But I’d argue no previous teen drama has been quite as truthful in its representation of some young gay and bisexual men’s experiences.

Sexual desire in the gay teen narrative

Invisible Boys is set in 2017, against the backdrop of the highly visible and divisive same-sex marriage survey.

The show examines how gay teen sex manifests in environments that often aren’t very visible. In the first five minutes, we see 17-year-old Charlie attempting to have sex at a beat – a public space where gay men seek anonymous sexual intimacy.

Later, an inciting incident occurs when Charlie uses an app to arrange a sexual encounter with an older married man in his home, before being caught by his wife.

Invisible Boys examines how the sexual desires of gay and bisexual men do not hibernate in the face of oppression.

Research shows some older gay adolescents (under 18) seek out and have positive experiences of sex with older men. That these experiences exist means they should have a place in teen dramas, to examine and drive important conversations.

Queer as Folk (1999–2000) faced criticism for its underage sex storyline from the broader public and the LGBTQIA+ community alike, wherein the series opens with 15-year-old Nathan (Charlie Hunnam) seeking and finding a sexual partner on the gay scene in Manchester.

However, this story was based in something real: the oppressive Section 28 laws in England that made it illegal for gay and bisexual men under 18 to explore their sexuality. This drove them to spaces where they could remain anonymous.

Invisible Boys tackles the reality of gay and bisexual life in a regional town. Other teen series in other markets, such as Heartstopper (2022–), present a somewhat normative view of queer teen life under banners of “love is love”. And while this story is true for some, it has been told.

Challenging gay respectability politics

Respectability politics is the view that “marginalised groups must demonstrate that they adhere to normative values before they will be accepted or granted rights by dominant groups”. We see this in the dominance of homonormative representation in Australian TV, which sees heterosexual norms being applied to LGBTQIA+ people – as well as in its exclusion of gay sex.

Invisible Boys challenges the dominance of gay respectability politics in the teen drama genre.

While older Australian series such as Dance Academy (2010–13) (admittedly aimed at younger teen audiences) explored queer sexuality through chaste kisses and teen angst, primetime series such as Please Like Me (2013–16) and In Our Blood (2022) made headway by telling complex, intimate stories of gay men.

Similarly, the horny gay teen isn’t hidden away in Invisible Boys – nor are his choices always comfortable.

A sign for streamers and Australian TV

Streaming services have often struggled to nail Australia’s television sensibility. Netflix’s Tidelands (2018) was criticised for not quite capturing what made Australian series appealing, while Stan’s Eden (2021) was met with similar critiques.

More recently, Prime Video’s Deadloch (2023–) and the Netflix reboot of Heartbreak High (2022–24) have signalled a shift to something more suited to local viewers.

Yet the creators of Heartbreak High made certain decisions that stood out to local viewers, such as not including school uniforms (likely to appeal to a global audience). Invisible Boys does not dilute the specificity of regional Aussie experiences.

In the tradition of iconic teen dramas from 1970s and 1990s, such as Class of ‘74 (1974–75), the original Heartbreak High (1994–99), and Sweat (1996), the series is willing to go there by tackling the inconvenient truths of teenage life.

As someone who grew up gay in regional Australia, it feels like an authentic representation of my own experience. There’s something universal about Charlie, Zeke, Kade and Matt’s stories of not fitting in, and of being invisible to be safe.

Most striking is the way the series captures the complicated mix of joy and fear – the clash of opportunity and consequence – that accompanies becoming visibly gay in these environments.

Invisible Boys is streaming on Stan.

Damien O’Meara 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. Stan’s Invisible Boys carries the tradition of real, gritty Aussie teen drama, while smashing it into something new – https://theconversation.com/stans-invisible-boys-carries-the-tradition-of-real-gritty-aussie-teen-drama-while-smashing-it-into-something-new-248126

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Barnes, Lecturer in Physics, Western Sydney University

Three and a half kilometres beneath the Mediterranean Sea, around 80km off the coast of Sicily, lies half of a very unusual telescope called KM3NeT.

The enormous device is still under construction, but today the telescope’s scientific team announced they have already detected a particle from outer space with a staggering amount of energy.

In fact, as the team report in Nature, they found the most energetic neutrino anyone has ever seen – and it represents a tremendous leap forward in exploring the uncharted waters of the extreme universe.

To explain why it’s such a remarkable discovery, we need to understand what KM3NeT is, what it’s looking for, and what it saw.

What is KM3NeT?

KM3NeT is a gigantic deep sea telescope being built by an international collaboration of more than 300 scientists and engineers from 21 countries.

At the site off Sicily, and another off the coast of Provence in France, KM3NeT will be made up of more than 6,000 light detectors hanging in the pitch-black depths. When the telescope is complete, it will cover about a cubic kilometre of sea.

Down deep, KM3NeT is shielded from ordinary sources of light, such as the Sun. It is also shielded from other particles like electrons and protons, which are absorbed by the water long before they reach the detectors. So what does it see?

What is KM3NeT looking for?

Of all the particles that physicists have discovered, only the elusive neutrino can reach all the way down to KM3NeT.

The neutrino is an elementary particle with no electric charge and only a very tiny mass. It interacts with matter so weakly that it can pass through kilometres of ocean – and even thousands of kilometres of Earth itself – to reach the detector. That’s why KM3NeT is at the bottom of the sea: to see neutrinos, and only neutrinos.

But won’t the neutrinos pass through the detector, too? Yes, almost all of them.

But very rarely, a neutrino will crash right into a water molecule. When it does, it can pack an enormous punch.

The energy of the neutrino can create many more particles. As these particles blast through the water, they create a bluish glow. That’s what KM3NeT detectors see.

By analysing this bluish light, and by timing each flash, scientists can reconstruct the original energy of the neutrino, and the direction from which it came. (Either that, or they’ve just clocked one of those deep-sea glowing fish travelling at nearly the speed of light.)

The most energetic neutrino ever detected

On February 13 2023, KM3NeT detected a neutrino travelling so fast it had 30 times more energy than any previously detected.

The amount of energy is 220 petaelectronvolts, but that doesn’t mean much to a non-particle physicist. It’s hard to imagine, but let’s try.

The neutrino had 100 trillion times more energy than a typical particle at the centre of the Sun. It’s a trillion times more energy than medical X-rays, and ten billion times more than the most dangerous radioactive particles. Earth’s biggest particle accelerators can’t produce a particle with even one ten thousandth of this energy.

Short story: it’s a lot of energy for one particle.

Making neutrinos in space

Neutrinos interact with matter very weakly, so how could a single neutrino have been given so much energy? What sort of cosmic event could create such a particle?

That’s the exciting part: we don’t know.

We know there are colossal explosions in the universe, such as supernovas: when a star exhausts its fuel and collapses. And there are gamma ray bursts, which are even more energetic explosions of supermassive stars, or collisions of neutron stars. These create extremely energetic neutrinos.

But there are other candidates. Supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies have millions to billions of times as much mass as the Sun.

As matter is swallowed by these black holes, it is accelerated to extreme speeds, and becomes wrapped around intense magnetic fields. The particles that aren’t swallowed can be shot out at extreme speeds. These “active galactic nuclei” are another way that the universe could create extreme neutrinos.

Third, the neutrinos could be created more locally (cosmically speaking). Explosions and active galactic nuclei also create cosmic rays: extremely energetic protons and electrons.

These could stream across the universe towards us, before colliding with a particle of light along the way. That collision can create an energetic neutrino.

How can we find the source?

Here’s where the Australian connection comes in. KM3NeT tells us this neutrino came from a particular spot in the southern sky.

If it came from an extreme explosion or an active galactic nucleus, we might hope to spot the source with other telescopes. In particular, both supernova remnants and active galactic nuclei can be spotted using radio waves.

Australia has the biggest radio telescopes in the southern hemisphere. The Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) has mapped a lot of the southern sky, and found many supernova remnants and active galactic nuclei.

My colleagues and I at Western Sydney University are using ASKAP to follow up on KM3NeT detections like this one. For this particular neutrino, there are no obvious candidates in the radio sky that it came from.

However, KM3NeT doesn’t provide a very accurate position, so we can’t be completely sure. We’ll keep looking.

KM3NeT is still under construction, and ASKAP continues to survey the sky. Our window on the extreme universe is just opening up.

Luke Barnes 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. 3.5 kilometres underwater, scientists found a staggeringly energetic particle from outer space – https://theconversation.com/3-5-kilometres-underwater-scientists-found-a-staggeringly-energetic-particle-from-outer-space-249590

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Jensen, Associate professor, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra, University of Canberra

Hate speech on X was consistently 50% higher for at least eight months after tech billionaire Elon Musk bought the social media platform, new research has found.

The research looked at the prevalence of overt hate speech including a wide range of racist, homophobic and transphobic slurs.

The study, published today in PLOS ONE, was conducted by a team of researchers led by Daniel Hickney from the University of California, Berkeley.

It clearly demonstrates how a platform initially invented to help friends and family stay in touch has now metamorphosed into a place where hate speech is prolific. This is especially concerning given hate speech online has been linked to violent hate crimes offline.

A long list of promises

On October 27 2022, Musk officially purchased X (then known as Twitter) for US$44 billion and became its CEO. His takeover was accompanied by promises to reduce hate speech on the platform and tackle bots and other inauthentic accounts.

But after he bought X, Musk made several changes to the platform to reduce content moderation. For example, in November 2022 he fired much of the company’s full time workforce. He also fired outsourced content moderators who tracked abuse on X, despite research showing social medial platforms with high levels of content moderation contain less hate speech.

The following month, Musk also disbanded the platform’s Trust and Safety Council – a volunteer advisory group of independent human rights leaders and academics formed in 2016 to fight hate speech and other problems on the platform.

Previous research has shown hate speech increased on X immediately after Musk took over. So too did the prevalence of most types of bots.

This new study is the first to show that this wasn’t an anomaly.

More than 4 million posts

The study examined 4.7 million English language posts on X from the beginning of 2022 through to June 9 2023. This period includes the ten months before Musk bought X and the eight months afterwards.

The study measured overt hate speech, the meaning of which was clear to anyone who saw it – speech attacking identity groups or using toxic language. It did not measure covert types of hate speech, such as coded language used by some extremist groups to spread hate but plausibly deny doing so.

As well as measuring the amount of hate speech on X, the study also measured how much other users engaged with this material by liking it.

The researchers’ access to X data was cut off during the study due to a policy change by the platform, replacing free access to approved academic researchers with payment options which are generally unaffordable. This significantly hampered their ability to collect sample posts. But they don’t mention whether it affected their results.

A clear increase in hate

The study found “a clear increase” in the average number of posts containing hate speech following Musk’s purchase of X. Specifically, the volume of posts containing hate speech was “consistently” 50% higher after Musk took over X compared to beforehand – a jump from an estimated average of 2,179 to 3,246 posts containing hate speech per week.

Transphobic slurs saw the highest increase, rising from an average of roughly 115 posts per week before Musk’s acquisition to an average of 418 afterwards.

The level of user engagement with posts containing hate speech also increased under Musk’s watch. For example, the weekly rate at which hate speech content was liked by users jumped by 70%.

The researchers say these results suggest either hate speech wasn’t taken down, hateful users became more active, the platform’s algorithm unintentionally promoted hate speech to users who like such content – or a combination of these possibilities.

The study also detected no decrease in the activity of inauthentic accounts on X. In fact, it found a “potential increase” in the number of bot accounts partly based on a large upswing in posts promoting cryptocurrency, which are typically associated with bots.

An important data-driving deep dive

There were a number of limitations to the study. For example, it only measured hate speech posts in English, which accounts for only 31% of posts on the platform.

Even so, the study is an important, data-driven deep dive into the state of X. It shows it is a platform where hate speech is prolific. It also shows Musk has failed to fulfil his earlier promises to address problems on X such as hate speech and bot activity.

As Musk himself said at the White House earlier this week: “Some of the things I say will be incorrect and should be corrected”.

Michael Jensen receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Bayer, and the Australian Department of Defence Science and Technology Group.

– ref. Hate speech on X surged for at least 8 months after Elon Musk takeover – new research – https://theconversation.com/hate-speech-on-x-surged-for-at-least-8-months-after-elon-musk-takeover-new-research-249603