Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Hoek, Professor in Public Health, University of Otago

New Zealand’s smokefree law was hailed around the world for creating a smokefree generation that would have lifelong protection from smoking’s harms.

The smokefree generation would have ended sales of tobacco products to anyone born on or after a specific date, thus gradually phasing out smoking. This new approach goes beyond age restriction policies (such as R18 or R21), which may imply smoking is “safe” once people reach the designated age.

However, the coalition government moved swiftly to repeal the smokefree generation measure. That decision did not reflect attitudes towards the policy from young people and the general public.

In an earlier in-depth study, we found young people strongly supported measures restricting their access to tobacco because they understood this policy would protect them from becoming addicted to smoking. Surveys also showed strong support for the smokefree generation policy from young people, the general public and people who smoke.

NZ falls further behind international best practice

As New Zealand went backwards, other jurisdictions, including the UK and several US towns, have proposed or taken more progressive approaches. Recent policies include vapes and other nicotine products, alongside smoked tobacco, and aim to create a nicotine-free generation.

This approach recognises young people’s right to lead lives free from nicotine addiction and aims to address the growing threat addiction to vaping poses to their wellbeing.

Because many more young people in New Zealand vape than smoke, we were interested in how they viewed a nicotine-free generation policy.

On the one hand, they might support an approach that reduces the shame, stress and stigma nicotine addiction causes. On the other, they might accept arguments tobacco companies have made, claiming birth-year measures remove young people’s freedoms.

What young people who vape think

We talked in-depth with 20 young people who assessed themselves as addicted to vaping. We asked them to imagine a nicotine-free generation policy was in place and applied to them, before probing how they interpreted and rationalised this approach.

Our participants thought a nicotine-free generation policy would bring several wide-ranging benefits. They outlined personal benefits, such as increased fitness, better overall health and fewer financial concerns.

Participants also envisaged societal benefits, including reduced pollution (from littered disposable vapes), fewer disputes among young people (less fighting over vapes) and a less pressured health system.

Nearly all participants wanted to quit vaping. Several had tried to stop but relapsed. Easy access to vaping products and vaping’s ubiquity made many feel that quitting was impossible.

Some felt targeted by marketers and unable to resist the pro-vaping environment that surrounded them. One person said vape shops were designed to attract younger people.

There’s vape stores everywhere. It’s insane […] they’re always bright[ly] colour[ed] so you can see them.

These feelings of powerlessness led several to view government regulation as the only way to protect young people from vaping. Rather than wanting to assert “choices” and “freedoms”, many of the people who talked with us felt they would be better off if this option simply did not exist.

One participant explained:

Although it is a choice […] it’s never going to be a positive choice. I wouldn’t mind it being taken away because I know it would be for my benefit […] it wouldn’t be a negative thing.

Participants wanted a better future where younger generations did not face the challenges they had found overwhelming.

The generation below me […] I don’t want them to go through [negative] health effects [and] experience that kind of thing.

Nonetheless, a very small minority argued that young people should find out about risks themselves. One person argued:

It’s people’s lives and they should be able to pick what they do […] Let them find out for themselves.

Participants noted concerns about how a nicotine-free generation policy would be implemented and questioned whether retailers would respect this measure. Some thought parents or older siblings would supply vapes, as some already did. Others expected an illicit market could evolve.

However, participants suggested several solutions they thought could address these challenges, including not normalising vaping, reducing retail outlet numbers and vape product marketing, increasing compliance monitoring and providing better support to help people quit vaping.

Time for political leadership

Our findings suggest it is time to discuss whether Aotearoa New Zealand should return to more progressive smokefree policies that recognise how the rapidly evolving nicotine market has undermined young people’s wellbeing.

The current political emphasis on individual responsibility ignores young people’s calls for policies that remove harmful “choices”. It does not address earlier evidence that suggests governments have a responsibility to protect young people from harms.

Reducing the ubiquity and appeal of vaping products should be an urgent policy priority for 2025.

We acknowledge the excellent work undertaken by Renee Hosking, a summer scholarship student with the ASPIRE Aotearoa Centre.

Janet Hoek receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, Royal Society Marsden Fund, NZ Cancer Society and NZ Heart Foundation. She is a member of the Health Coalition Aotearoa’s smokefree expert advisory group, a senior editor at Tobacco Control (honorarium paid) and she serves or has served on several government, NGO and community advisory groups.

Lani Teddy receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. She is affiliated with ASPIRE Aotearoa whose members undertake research to inform tobacco policy.

Anna DeMello 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. We asked young people if they wanted tighter vaping regulation to phase out nicotine – here’s what they said – https://theconversation.com/we-asked-young-people-if-they-wanted-tighter-vaping-regulation-to-phase-out-nicotine-heres-what-they-said-249456

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By George Disney, Research Fellow, Social Epidemiology, The University of Melbourne

When the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was established in 2013, one of its driving aims was to make disability services and support systems fairer.

However, our new research shows significant inequalities remain, with some groups finding it much harder than others to be deemed eligible and access a funding plan.

Recent NDIS reforms in part aim to address inequity, and to manage costs.

So, what can we do to ensure these reforms don’t further embed existing inequalities? Here’s what we found.

Inequalities in scheme access

To receive funding from the NDIS, participants are required to demonstrate their eligibility.

We wanted to explore whether decisions about eligibility were leading to inequalities in who could access and use NDIS funding.

Our study looked at the individual NDIS applications of 485,676 people aged seven or older, made between 2016 and 2022, to see if they were deemed eligible.

We then compared differences in eligibility rates between groups, considering:

• age (applicants 55 or older versus those under 55)
• gender (women and girls versus other applicants)
• socioeconomic disadvantage (those from the poorest 30% of areas versus all other areas).

Who is deemed ineligible?

We found some groups are more likely to be rejected from the scheme than others: women and girls, people aged 55 and over, and those who live in disadvantaged areas.

Within these groups, eligibility rates also vary.

For example, people with intellectual disability, autism, and brain injury or stroke were very likely to be deemed eligible, regardless of their age, gender or socioeconomic disadvantage (900 or more were accepted per 1,000 applicants).

However, people with physical disability and psychosocial disability (disabilities that can arise from a mental health issue, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia) were significantly more likely to be rejected.

This was true across groups, but particularly evident among women and girls.

We compared eligibility rates within every 1,000 applications made by women and girls versus men and boys.

Among those who had physical disability, 145 more women and girls were rejected, compared to men and boys.

Among those with psychosocial disability, 83 more applications were deemed ineligible for every 1,000 applications made by women, compared to men.

Age was also a factor. Older Australians with a physical disability had 235 fewer approvals per 1,000 applications than those with physical disability under 55.

What about once they’re eligible?

Inequalities are more pronounced among those trying to prove eligibility for the scheme.

Once accepted into the NDIS, our research found women and girls, and people living in poorer areas, received similar amounts of funding as men and boys, and those living in better-off areas.

This budget is based on what the participant wants to achieve in everyday life and their support needs relating to their disabilities.

However once people receive and are using plans, we then see some differences in how much these people are able to spend. This relates to factors such as the availability of services in an area or whether culturally safe supports are available.

We found that women with psychosocial disability spent more than men with similar sized budgets.

This result could reflect that women with psychosocial disability on the NDIS have higher support needs than men.

It could be that it is harder for women to get onto the scheme in the first place, so those who are deemed eligible have more significant disability than men.

But we need more research to unpack this further.

Why do we see these inequalities?

In the early days of the NDIS, to help fast-track applications, the National Disability Insurance Agency (which runs the NDIS) specified a list of diagnoses closely related to disability.

Known as list A conditions, people with these diagnoses are automatically eligible for the NDIS.

Disabilities likely to be associated with a list A diagnosis include level 2 or 3 autism (requiring substantial or very substantial support) and intellectual disability.

However some people who could have permanent and significant disability, may have a diagnosis not on list A, such as Down syndrome and motor neurone disease. They must provide a broader range of evidence on the impact of their disability to be eligible.

If they face other challenges – such as socioeconomic disadvantage – it may be harder for them to collect this evidence. For example, they may not be able to afford private health care that would help support their application.

This might explain why people who do not have a list A diagnosis are less likely to prove their eligibility for the scheme.

Where next for the scheme?

Following recommendations from an independent review into the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Agency is currently making changes to how it assesses eligibility.

One of the changes suggested is removing list A classifications altogether.

Instead, the agency will use a suite of functional assessment tools. These are still in the process of being designed, but they are one way to assess a person’s ability to perform everyday tasks and identify the level of support they require.

This approach aims to assess more objectively and fairly how much someone is impacted by their disability.

However, there are longstanding critiques of these tools. These include concerns they are not safe for minority groups, such as those with a culturally or linguistically diverse background, LGBTQIA+ people, and First Nations applicants.

Our new research demonstrates how and why some inequalities arise. We should put this understanding front-and-centre in any changes to the NDIS.

Most importantly, we should make sure reforms are co-designed with a broad range of different groups, to ensure we don’t perpetuate old inequalities or introduce new ones.

George has conducted commissioned work for the Australian Department of Social Services (NDIS service use), the Victorian Department of Families Fairness and Housing (inequalities in NDIS service use), and the Queensland Department of Seniors, Disability Services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (NDIS service use in regional and remote Queensland).

Alexandra Devine receives funding from the NHMRC.

Anne Kavanagh receives funding from the ARC, NHMRC, MRFF, MS Australia and the Australian government.

Helen Dickinson receives funding from ARC, NHMRC and Department of Social Services.

Yi Yang has conducted commissioned work for the Australian Department of Social Services (inequalities in NDIS service use), the Victorian Department of Families Fairness and Housing (inequalities in NDIS service use), and the Queensland Department of Seniors, Disability Services, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships (inequalities in NDIS service use in regional and remote Queensland).

– ref. NDIS reforms aim to make the scheme fairer. But we’ve found the groups struggling to gain access – https://theconversation.com/ndis-reforms-aim-to-make-the-scheme-fairer-but-weve-found-the-groups-struggling-to-gain-access-248562

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Hazel, Associate Professor, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, University of Adelaide

Living with a pet brings many benefits, including constant presence, love and support. Pet ownership is also linked with a lower long-term risk of early death.

Most of us would do anything for our pets if they become unwell. But just as caring for a human loved one can come at great personal cost, a growing body of research shows that’s also true for many pet owners looking after a seriously ill pet.

This stress is often known as “caregiver burden”.

Stress, depression, burnout and anxiety

One 2017 study looked at how people with healthy pets fared compared to those caring for pets with serious diseases.

It found many of those looking after seriously ill animals felt they didn’t have enough time for themselves due to the time they had to spend with their pet.

Compared to owners of healthy pets, those caring for unwell pets experienced:

greater burden, stress and symptoms of depression/anxiety, as well as poorer quality of life.

Our 2023 research into experiences of people looking after older dogs showed similarly concerning results.

We surveyed people with dogs eight years or older. Some of these dogs were living with canine cognitive dysfunction, a form of dementia similar to Alzheimer’s disease in people.

Out of the 637 respondents to our survey, 16% had a high burden of care likely to be associated with negative psychological, physical and financial outcomes.

One respondent told us:

My partner and I cannot leave him home alone for long at all […] I worry about [my pet’s] quality of life. I feel my partner is really struggling with [my pet’s] deterioration and when the time comes for euthanasia I know it will be me forcing the issue. I feel constant anxiety about this decision looming.

A higher burden of care was associated with the dog having more severe canine cognitive dysfunction, pet owners who were aged between 25 and 44 years, and those who lived alone.

This makes sense, because people who live alone don’t have another person to support or help them. The most difficult dog behaviours people reported were night-time disturbances and barking.

Burden of care in other situations

Any significant pet disease or disability is likely to be associated with stress in their caregivers.

Even behavioural problems in dogs, such as aggression or separation-related disorder, have been associated with clinically significant strain in more than 68% of people.

Most of the research has been done in dogs, but owners of ill cats also have a higher burden, although it appears less than owners of an ill dog.

We previously showed that a third of owners of cats with epilepsy are likely to be experiencing high levels of carer stress or strain.

These problems were worse in owners who did not feel supported by their vet. For example, they may feel they’re being rushed through appointments, or that their concerns are being dismissed.

Pet owners more likely to feel this caregiver stress included those who were younger than 55, and those whose cat had uncontrolled seizures.

Strong emotions and complex needs

The burden of caring for an unwell pet is not well recognised, even by vets.

People suffering this kind of carer stress are likely to require more time in consultations at the vet’s office, visit more frequently, and become angry and emotional.

From a vet’s perspective, clients with such strong emotions and complex needs can be challenging.

How can you get help?

If you or somebody you know is struggling with caring for a seriously ill pet, find a vet you trust and feel comfortable with. If you can tell them what you are struggling with, the vet may be able to provide some support.

Call on your village! Ask friends and family for help to provide you with respite. We often do it when we first bring a new puppy or kitten home, but don’t think it’s OK to ask for help when they’re sick or ageing and need more care.

Know that it’s OK to sometimes feel frustrated, overwhelmed, or even resentful towards your pet. It doesn’t mean you don’t love them. It means providing this level of care is hard.

Despite the hardships, many caregivers find comfort in their deep connection to their pets. One of our respondents in the senior dog study wrote:

every moment I have with her now is a blessing. She has given me so much over the last ten years; it’s time to pay back now.

Pets also give meaning to our lives. In our study of cats with epilepsy, one person wrote:

I think that most of the people are not aware of the benefits of living with the cat with special needs.

Supporting the human-animal bond means supporting both humans and animals. We’re all better off when we recognise and support people struggling with caring for their pets.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636.

Susan Hazel has received funding from the Waltham Foundation and is affiliated with the Dog and Cat Management Board of South Australia, and the RSPCA South Australia.

Tracey Taylor receives funding from the Waltham Foundation.

– ref. ‘I feel constant anxiety’: how caring for a seriously unwell pet can lead to stress and burnout – https://theconversation.com/i-feel-constant-anxiety-how-caring-for-a-seriously-unwell-pet-can-lead-to-stress-and-burnout-247329

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

With the unembarrassed audacity parties show as an election nears, the government has stolen the opposition’s policy to ban foreign investors buying established homes.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Housing Minister Clare O’Neil have announced foreigners won’t be able to purchase established homes from April 1 for at least two years, with a review to determine whether the ban should be extended.

When the opposition announced its policy last year, Labor was dismissive, pointing out the numbers were minuscule. But the idea is popular with the public and the government is anxious to neutralise it.

The turnabout comes immediately ahead of the Reserve Bank’s’s two-day meeting starting Monday, with expectations high that on Tuesday the bank may finally start moving rates down.

A rate cut would increase speculation Anthony Albanese will opt for an April rather than a May election. That would mean cancelling the March 25 budget.

With the election fast approaching and polls suggesting a high prospect of a minority government, attention has turned to how crossbenchers would react in the event of a hung parliament.

Much conjecture is around the “teals” who occupy former Liberal seats but are more progressive than the current Liberal party.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton said on Sunday: “It would be unusual that if we were able to achieve 72 [a majority is 76] and we were a number of seats ahead of the Labor Party, that there wouldn’t be a guarantee of supply and confidence from the crossbench.

“But some of them will only ever support the Labor Party. I think if they’re into transparency and honesty, they should be transparent and honest with the public before the election about if you vote for Kate Chaney, are you going to get Anthony Albanese or will she support a Coalition government in a minority situation?”

Chaney, one of the teals, holds the Western Australian seat of Curtin, which the Liberals believe is a chance for them.

In their statement about foreign investors, Chalmers and O’Neil said the government would also “crack down” on foreign land banking.

The ministers admitted these latest initiatives were small but said they were an important part of the government’s broad housing policy,

“Until now, foreign investors have generally been barred from buying existing property except in limited circumstances, such as when they come to live here for work or study,” they said.

Under the new arrangements, “foreign investors (including temporary residents and foreign-owned companies) will no longer be able to purchase an established dwelling in Australia while the ban is in place unless an exception applies.”

On landbanking, the ministers said foreign investors are presently subject to developmental conditions requiring they put vacant land to use within a reasonable time.

“The Government is focused on making sure these rules are complied with and identifying any investors who are acquiring vacant land, not developing it while prices rise and then selling it for a profit.”

The Australian Taxation Office and Treasury will be funded for an audit program and to improve compliance.

Dutton hints at action against insurance companies that ‘rip off’ people

While Labor sought to shore up its credentials on housing, Dutton was venturing further down the interventionist road, hinting a Coalition government might use divestiture against recalcitrant insurance companies.

The Coalition has already courted controversy with its threat supermarkets could face divestiture.

Dutton is now looking more widely, after being concerned about how people in areas recently devastated by fires or floods often haven’t insurance because they can’t afford the increasingly high premiums.

Asked on Sky whether the Coalition would reduce the cost of insurance, Dutton said, “We need to make sure that we’re not being ripped off by insurance companies.

“As we’ve done with the supermarkets, where we have threatened divestment if consumers are being ripped off, similarly, in the insurance market, we will intervene to make sure that consumers get a fair go because at the moment people are paying too much for their insurance and what’s resulting is that people aren’t taking out insurance. […] People just simply can’t afford to insure the car or their home at the moment.”

In a wideranging interview, Dutton cast doubt on whether the opposition would support any extension of government relief on power bills.

“If it’s going to be inflationary and it’s going to keep interest rates higher for longer and it’s going to keep grocery prices higher for longer and it’s going to keep electricity prices higher for longer, then no.”

(The relief the government has already provided put downward pressure on inflation.)

The opposition leader criticised the government for not putting enough effort into its handling of the Trump administration.

“Every minister should have been cycling through Washington. I’m not aware that other ministers have been to Washington since Penny Wong was there for the inauguration,” he said.

“If they have, that’s great. But the prime minister probably should have been on a plane to the US, as we’ve seen with other world leaders and there should have been greater engagement with the president earlier on.”

Dutton apparently forgot the visit made by Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who was the first defence minister to meet new defence secretary Pete Hegseth.

Reminded of the Marles visit, he immediately criticised him. “Richard Marles is a nice guy, but he’s batting fairly significantly down the list in terms of the government’s key hitters.”

Dutton said Trump had to be seen in a different light to other presidents.

“Donald Trump is different to any of his predecessors, certainly in the modern age. If you look at his background, he’s a businessman, he does deals, he brings parties together, he swaps contracts. That’s been his background, and it’s not a background, probably, that’s been shared by too many of his predecessors. So, I don’t think you’re taking everything he says literally.”

Dutton left his options open when asked whether he would replace Kevin Rudd as ambassador to the United States.

“We have to have an ambassador who is in our country’s best interests. Kevin, obviously, is an accomplished person as prime minister of our country and if he’s the best person for the job, then he should stay in the job.

“If it turns out that he’s had no access to the White House and no real influence in relation to this [tariff] issue or whatever the next issue might be, then you would have to reassess his position. But at the moment, we’re being told that he’s effective in his advocacy in the administration. I suppose time will tell.

“My instinct would be to leave him in the job. But […] if there are insurmountable problems that he has, or that the administration has with him, then that would make it very difficult.”

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. View from The Hill: government nabs Coalition policy on foreigners buying houses, Dutton eyes action on insurance companies – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-government-nabs-coalition-policy-on-foreigners-buying-houses-dutton-eyes-action-on-insurance-companies-250023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A remarkable career’

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

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

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

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

‘A sad day’

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Artists reflect the times they live in’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we need a category 6?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate change is feeding storms

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slow is not good

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

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

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

Conditions on the ground

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Turton has received funding from the Australian government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s this all about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dingoes are not ‘wild dogs’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the balance right?

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

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

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

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

Considering the rights of Traditional Owners

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

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

• dingoes are part of their living cultural heritage

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

• the dingo helps maintain connection to Country

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

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

The court will decide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A difficult area to explore

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

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

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

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

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

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

How bad is the problem?

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

These suicides take several forms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This includes those who are:

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

The ripple effects

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

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

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

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

Why is it difficult to establish suicide on the road?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can be done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angela J Clapperton receives funding from Suicide Prevention Australia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some improvement to transparency

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

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

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

Hollow donation caps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election spending contained and fairer

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

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

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

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

The importance of public funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfinished business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The coming Russia-Ukraine test

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

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

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

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

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

Discord in the Pacific

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

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

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

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

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

Struggling to find a voice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X marks the spot (of the kiss)

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

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

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

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

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

The kiss’s importance throughout history

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

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

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

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

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

Wax dots and ink splots

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

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

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

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

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

Becoming a universal symbol

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

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

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

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

Katie Barclay receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A seismic shift in work habits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating boundaries between work and home

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

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

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

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

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

Can we sever our identities across domains?

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

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

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

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

Achieving meaning at work

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

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

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

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

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

Severance is now streaming on Apple TV+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A nationwide challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who evades fares and why?

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

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

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

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

Does lowering fares reduce evasion?

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

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

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

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

The role of trust and public perception

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

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

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

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

The limits of enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why it matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Us’ versus ‘them’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New research emphasises a role for even random similarity versus difference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why does this matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eliane Deschrijver receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

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