An Australian politician called Trump's tariffs a ‘dog act' – but what does it mean and how offensive is it?
Caitlin, this week Australia's industry minister, Ed Husic, called US president Donald Trump's tariffs on aluminium and steel a 'dog act'. I grew up in New Zealand, a country so close to Australia and yet so free from the phrase 'dog act'. Please tell me – what does it mean, and does it have anything to do with dogs?
Your nation has missed out on a truly scathing critique.
Although the phrase features the word 'dog', it has nothing to do with the humble canine. Where dogs are loyal, kind and submissive (yes, I'm a proud labrador owner, what of it), a 'dog act' is treacherous, cowardly and unacceptable.
That's according to Oxford University Press, which named 'dog act' its word of the month for September back in 2018.
Although the phrase is now a common insult in Australian vernacular, it doesn't have a long history, with OUP finding the first evidence of the term being used in a Daily Telegraph article in 2003.
Fascinating. So, if someone told me I'd committed a 'dog act', how offended should I be?
You should be utterly appalled. A 'dog act' isn't simply ruffling someone's feathers or snatching a sandwich from an unsuspecting stranger's hands and eating it in one fast gulp (I refer, here, to said labrador). A 'dog act' questions someone's integrity. It's an act of betrayal.
This is probably why it's often used in sporting or political contexts, where loyalty is akin to godliness. Every other week, AFL or NRL players are accused of 'dog acts', 'dog shots' or 'dog tackles' on the field.
In the words of one Reddit user: 'When I call you a dog, I'm not calling you an animal that walks on all fours and barks. I'm calling you the lowest scum on the Earth.'
Noted. I've heard of 'raw-dogging' and 'dogging'. Does this have anything to do with those?
Thankfully, there is no sexual innuendo to a 'dog act', unless, perhaps, you're betraying your partner.
You aren't being a peeping tom or a voyeur. You aren't having unprotected sex or, in the more modern interpretation of the term 'raw-dogging', drinking caffeine without milk or finishing a nine-hour flight with no entertainment but the flight map.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
In Australian vernacular, calling someone a 'dog' can be highly offensive on its own. Turn it into 'dogging', and it becomes a noun – the act of being a dog by betraying or letting someone down. It all comes down to the delivery.
OK, I think I'm following. In this turgid climate, what other Australianisms do I need to be across?
Strap in. This isn't the first time an Australian politician has whipped out Australian slang to offend their international counterparts.
In 2014, then prime minister Tony Abbott caused chaos (and confusion) when he threatened to 'shirtfront' Vladimir Putin when the Russian president visited Down Under – meaning to perform a front-on chest bump or similar rough handling. The phrase was described as 'quite unusual' by a Russian diplomat.
But there are many more Aussie digs that can be applied, depending on the setting. You've got 'drongo', 'dingbat' or 'dipstick' if someone is being stupid, 'flog' to be really offensive, or 'OK champ' for the belittling factor.
Then there's my personal favourite, delivered deadpan and looking someone square in the eye: 'Yeah, righto, mate.' I look forward to hearing that deployed by an Australian politician in the near future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related
Daily Mirror
5 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
8 things you should worry about in spending review - from schools to pay packets
While there were big wins for the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, experts warn that things are not as rosy for other departments with a row brewing over policing Rachel Reeves today unveiled her long-awaited Spending Review, saying public finances are finally on an even keel. She told MPs that unpopular measures in Labour's first year had cleared up a lot of the mess left by the Tories. It came after Keir Starmer told his top team the review "marks the end of the first phase of this government". But experts have said that although there were big wins for the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, there were "less generous" settlements for other departments. And numbercrunchers warned that despite cash being ploughed into schools, headteachers still face headaches. There are also questions over public sector pay increases, and a row is brewing over funding for police services. Here we look at some of the key points. 1. Alarm over police funding One of the first out the traps to react to the statement was London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan, who voiced his alarm about the impact on police. He said he is concerned the spending review could result in "insufficient funding for the Met and fewer police officers". Ms Reeves announced police spending will rise by 2.3% per year in real times up until 2029. The Lib Dems went further, accusing the Government of "sleight of hand". Numbercrunchers said the review's figures presume council tax will rise by £395 for the average Band D home by 2029. This would see a £14 rise for policing each year. The party's home affairs spokeswoman, Lisa Smart, said: 'The Government is relying on a hidden council tax bombshell to fund their half-hearted rise in police funding as they pass the buck to local families. 'After frontline policing was neglected for years under the Conservatives, local communities deserve better than this sleight of hand." Figures within the spending review reveal that core police spending power will go up by just 1.7% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. 2. Defence spending questions Ms Reeves said that defence spending will go up to up to 2.6% of GDP from 2027 - which we already knew. But she did not go any further on the Government's pledge to get to 3% - which she described as an "ambition". It comes after NATO chief Mark Rutte said member states should be aiming for 5%. And earlier this week he ominously warned that if cash is not committed, people might need to start learning Russian. 3. School budgets 'squeezed by free school meals' School budgets will remain under pressure in spite of today's cash injection - with much of it swallowed up by expanding free school meals, announced last week. Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the NAHT union - which represents school leaders - said "this is not a time for celebration". He added: "In light of ever-increasing costs, we are already seeing signs of schools having to make cutbacks, including to staff numbers. "We also know that some of the increase in funding will be absorbed by the increased free school meal costs schools will be facing after last week's announcement. There is no escaping the fact that despite the funding announced in this statement, schools will be operating in a challenging financial climate for some years to come." Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) director Paul Johnson added: "The schools settlement in England is tight. Strip out the cost of expanding free schools meals, and you get a real-terms freeze in the budget. "With falling pupil numbers, this would in principle allow a rise in spending per pupil. Instead, the Government may have to freeze spending per pupil in order to meet rising demand for special education needs provision." 4. What will the civil service have to stop doing? Cuts to unprotected departments risk having a "genuine impact on the government's ability to deliver on its missions", a union chief warned. Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'The government will need to articulate much better what it wants the civil service to stop doing, given many essential government agencies are already facing recruitment and retention crises, particularly for specialist digital, scientific and technical staff. 'Only by investing in the skills it needs will it be able to achieve its objectives and undo the damage of the last 15 years.' 5. No leeway for public sector pay rises Another thorny issue that Government departments will have to face in future years is how to fund pay rises. The spending review document makes it clear that no more cash will be forthcoming from the Treasury - meaning bosses will have to find savings if their staff get a raise. The document says: "There will be no reserve access for public sector pay, if the PRBs (pay review bodies) recommend pay increases above the level departments have budgeted for, departments will need to carefully consider the justification for these awards.." It went to say bosses would need to "determine whether these additional costs can be borne either through off setting savings or through further productivity gains". 6. Looming questions over tax rises Ms Reeves closed off her speech by claiming the Government has turned a corner after a tricky Budget last autumn. She went as far as to say: "We will never have to complete a Budget like that again." But economists have warned that tax rises will inevitably follow. Stephen Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said: "The Chancellor has yet again said that her fiscal rules are non-negotiable. "But, given the small amount of headroom at the time of the spring statement and the increases in spending announced since then, it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget." Raj Badiani, economics director at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said: "The goal of balancing books is likely to require a series of painful fiscal announcements… This year's autumn budget could be another tough fiscal event, should the UK economy falter amid heightened domestic and external tensions." 7. Fears raised over affordable homes pledge Housing campaigners welcomed the huge £39billion boost to affordable housing over the next decade - but warned that building social homes must be a priority. Currently, various types of housing are classed as 'affordable homes', including shared ownership, affordable rent, social rent, first homes Research by homelessness charity Shelter found that the current Affordable Homes Programme had delivered over 74,000 grant-funded affordable homes by March 2024. Only around 11,000 - just 15% - of these were genuinely affordable social rent homes. Speaking about the £39billion investment in a new Affordable Housing Programme, housing campaigner Kwajo Tweneboa said: "This announcement has potential - but without clear social housing targets, it risks becoming another promise that won't deliver change for the children and families who need it most." Mairi MacRae, director of campaigns & policy at Shelter, said the £39bn investment' is a watershed moment in tackling the housing emergency'. But she added: 'To truly tackle rising homelessness, it must come alongside a clear target for delivering social rent homes. For too long, past governments allowed thousands of social homes to be lost each year, while funnelling public money into so called 'affordable homes' which are priced far out of reach for many.' 8. Asylum hotel spending to continue One of the headline grabbing announcements in Ms Reeves' statement was that the use of asylum hotels will end by 2029. This will save £1billion a year, she told the Commons. But ministers have been urged to move faster, with Enver Solomon, chief at the Refugee Council, stating: "The deadline of 2029 feels far away, and we urge government to make it happen before then." And Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond - a UK network for international development organisations - hit out at the use of aid money to pay for accommodation in the meantime. He said: "While it is welcome that the Chancellor has committed to ending the use of hotels for asylum accommodation by the end of this Parliament, planning very slow reductions and diverting £5.76 billion of UK aid over the next three years to cover these costs is a political choice that comes at the direct expense of the world 's most marginalised people."
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Views of the U.S. under Trump dip sharply in many allied countries
Views of the U.S. and confidence in its leader to handle world affairs have taken a dive in more than a dozen countries over the last year, according to a poll from the Pew Research Center released Wednesday and conducted over the first few months of President Donald Trump's second term. These declines are most pronounced among residents in neighboring Mexico and Canada, which have been at the center of high-profile spats with the administration, as well as a handful of NATO countries (like Sweden, Poland and the Netherlands) amid it Russia's war with Ukraine. Public sentiment about the U.S. has gone up in a few countries over the last year, most notably in Israel. But most of the two-dozen countries surveyed saw public opinion about the U.S. dip as Trump began his second term. Overall, the poll shows an international community full of increased skepticism of Trump and his "America First" foreign policies, from his administration's antagonistic relationship with traditional close allies to its focus on tariffs to its friendly posture toward right-wing, populist movements that have been amassing more power in Europe. Yet while the results in many countries are negative, Trump's marks are broadly higher now in these nations than they were during the beginning of his first term eight years ago. Fifteen countries have seen significant drops in their opinion of America over the last year. In Mexico, 61% of respondents had a favorable opinion of the U.S. in 2024, but just 29% feel that way now. In Sweden, which joined NATO in 2024 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine two years prior, a 47% favorable rating of the U.S. last year plummeted to just 19% now, with 79% of Swedish respondents viewing America unfavorably. And in Canada, a 54% favorability mark in 2024 dropped 20 points in 2025, to 34%, amid Trump's repeated threats to make the country America's newest state. On the other end of the spectrum, the share of people in Turkey, Nigeria and Israel who rated the U.S. favorably increased significantly over the last year. When it comes to Trump specifically, a majority of respondents in five countries of the 24 surveyed said they have a lot or some confidence in the president to do the right thing when it comes to world affairs: Hungary, India, Israel, Nigeria and Kenya. Majorities in nine of the 10 European countries tested have either not too much or no confidence in Trump at all, with at least three-quarters of respondents saying so in the Netherlands, France, Spain, Germany and Sweden. Men, younger people and those who view their country's right-wing populist parties favorably are more likely to have more confidence in Trump. For example, 51% of Japanese people between the ages of 18 and 34 have confidence in Trump, according to the poll, while 31% of Japanese people 50 years or older say the same. In the United Kingdom, 45% of men say they have confidence in Trump, compared with 28% of women. Respondents across 13 nations registered a double-digit decline in confidence in the U.S. president on world affairs between 2024 and 2025. While 63% in both Sweden and Germany had confidence in then-President Joe Biden last year, just 15% and 18%, respectively, said they have confidence in Trump. The survey also tested how well respondents felt several different personal characteristics described Trump. At least 60% of adults across 21 of the 24 countries surveyed said the word "arrogant" described Trump well. Majorities in 20 countries said he's "a strong leader," while majorities in 21 countries called him "dangerous." Majorities in three countries (Nigeria, India and Kenya) said Trump was "honest," and majorities in five countries (Greece, Japan, Indonesia, Hungary and Kenya) called him "diplomatic." Compared with his first term, the share of people across most of the surveyed countries who see Trump as a strong leader and qualified has increased. There has also been a dramatic increase in the share of adults who believe America's president is "dangerous" in countries where Pew also tested Biden's first year in office. On confidence in Trump to tackle global economic problems, Trump is underwater in every European country surveyed, though Hungarians are effectively split. The survey was mostly conducted before Trump announced global tariffs on April 2. In Mexico, where the survey was conducted following weeks of changing tariff policies on the country, 83% lack confidence in Trump's economic policies. In Canada, which has faced similar targeting from Trump, 74% lack confidence, and 57% said they have no confidence at all. Majorities in three countries — Kenya (56%) and Nigeria and Israel (62% each) — have confidence in Trump to handle "the conflict between Israel and its neighbors." His numbers among the countries tested are the lowest in Turkey, where 7% are confident in his handling of the issue. Though a majority of Israelis expressed confidence in Trump's ability to handle the ongoing war, the poll found that confidence in Trump among right-wing Israelis is nearly four times higher, at 83%, compared with the 21% of left-wing Israelis who have confidence in Trump on the issue. Adults in most other countries said they were not confident in Trump's ability to handle the conflict. On Trump's handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, majorities in nearly all of the European countries surveyed, with the exception of Greece and Hungary, expressed little or no confidence in Trump. (Adults in Greece were split, and a narrow majority of Hungarians had at least some confidence in Trump to handle that conflict.) In France, Germany, Spain and Sweden, about three-quarters of adults said they had little or no confidence in Trump to handle the war. Pew polled 28,333 adults across 24 countries mostly over the phone or in person (Australia was the only country where people were polled online). The survey was in the field for various times across different countries between Jan. 8 and April 26. Polling in every country except Indonesia began after Trump's inauguration, but was either concluded or close to done by Trump's April 2 announcement of sweeping international tariffs.
