Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Van Dijk, Professor, Water and Landscape Dynamics, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

Good rainfall across much of Australia in the past year has kept the vegetation green and rivers flowing. For the fifth year in a row, our national environment scorecard for Australia’s landscapes in 2025 rated them as “above average”.

Queensland had an exceptionally wet year. The Channel Country river systems in southwest Queensland flooded spectacularly, sending water surging toward Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre in South Australia. The biggest floods in at least 15 years, this flush of water triggered fish breeding and the arrival of waterbirds from across the continent.

But underneath the ocean waves, it was a different story. Marine heatwaves and the algal bloom in South Australia were a disaster for Australia’s underwater ecosystems and their unique animals and plants.

How we assess environmental health

To create this scorecard we analysed large amounts of data from satellites, weather stations, river gauges and ecological surveys. For the eleventh year running we gathered information on topics like climate change, oceans and weather, and summarised it with a score between zero and ten.

This score gives a relative measure of how favourable conditions were for nature, agriculture and the Australian quality of life, compared to all years since 2000.

Conditions varied enormously by region this year, so for the first time we have calculated environmental condition scores right down to the suburb and locality level. You can look up your own area at ausenv.tern.org.au.

A good year but uneven on land

The country’s environmental health was split between a wetter, greener north and east, and a dry south and west. Victoria, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory all recorded notable declines in environmental condition.

But beyond the rainfall, there were real signs of progress. New detailed data on native forest loss and gain — a first in this year’s report — showed forest loss has declined for five consecutive years, with tree cover increasing nationally.

The amount of land cleared for grazing and native forest logging continued to fall. Vegetation canopy area and soil surface protection against erosion was at near record levels. And Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by 1.9%, even as the economy grew 2.6% and the population by 1.5% — a sign growth and environmental damage are slowly being decoupled. Emissions per person have fallen 30% since 2000, though Australians still emit around three times the global average.

These improvements didn’t happen by accident. They reflect real improvements in land management and nature conservation and policy changes on emissions reduction, forest logging and land clearing accumulated over years.

Bushfires under the sea

What our scorecard doesn’t capture is what happened in our oceans in 2025 — and there the story was very different.

The Black Summer fires of 2019–20 were a climate-driven catastrophe. More than a prolonged drought, it was an extreme heat event that turned the forest into a tinderbox and caused fires of unprecedented scale. Marine heatwaves are doing the same thing underwater.

Sea surface temperatures around Australia reached their highest-ever level in 2025, breaking the record set just the year before. Our new analysis of heat stress across 24 monitored reef locations found that nearly 80% exceeded their once-in-a-decade heat threshold — more than in any previous year of the 40-year record. A sixth mass bleaching event struck the Great Barrier Reef in early 2025, following the fifth just months earlier.

Read more: Synchronised bleaching: Ningaloo and the Great Barrier Reef are bleaching in unison for the first time

The damage extended well beyond the reef. A toxic algal bloom, fuelled by a marine heatwave that pushed water temperatures well above average, spread across nearly a third of South Australia’s coastline and persisted for most of the year, killing more than 80,000 animals of 500 different species and causing respiratory symptoms in coastal residents. Elsewhere, tropical fish appeared far outside their normal ranges.

Marine heatwaves are the underwater equivalent of bushfires: large-scale, climate-driven mass mortality events that used to be rare and are now happening repeatedly. The difference is that most of us don’t see what’s happening below the ocean surface.

The extinction crisis deepens

According to the federal government’s threatened species list, 2,175 species are now listed as threatened – a 54% increase since 2000. Climate change is identified as a threat to nine in ten of the newly listed species. And the legacy of the Black Summer bushfires continues – more than half of all species listed or uplisted since 2019 were affected by those fires.

The Threatened Species Index, which tracks population trends of listed species, shows threatened species have declined by an average of 59% since 2000. In 2025 we published Australia’s first Threatened Reptile Index. Based on the monitoring data included in the index, reptile populations have declined by an average of 88% since 2000, and frogs by 67%, the steepest long-term declines of any group we have measured.

Reasons for hope

There are some reasons for hope. The index shows that trends for threatened mammal populations have stabilised in recent years. This may reflect both wetter conditions and the impact of conservation management, such as fenced sanctuaries, predator control and habitat restoration. The data show that sustained conservation effort can make a difference.

In many respects, Australia’s environment is in better shape than it was a decade ago, and progress on emissions and land management is real. But global climate change operates on a different scale entirely. Decades of warming are already locked in, and the damage to our oceans and wildlife will worsen until global warming is brought under control.

Reducing our own emissions matters more than ever. This will also make us more resistant to the kind of energy shocks the world is experiencing right now. We cannot reverse all the damage already done, but we can certainly do much better.

– ref. Australia’s forests are finally doing better — but ‘underwater bushfires’ hit oceans hard – https://theconversation.com/australias-forests-are-finally-doing-better-but-underwater-bushfires-hit-oceans-hard-278780

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/australias-forests-are-finally-doing-better-but-underwater-bushfires-hit-oceans-hard-278780/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joseph J. Gonzalez, Associate Professor of Global Studies, Appalachian State University

The U.S. and Cuban governments have been at odds since the conclusion of the Cuban Revolution 67 years ago. Yet despite pressure, embargoes and various CIA plots, the communist government in Havana has resisted the wishes of its very powerful neighbor separated by just 90 miles (145 kilometers) of water.

From my perspective as an expert on Havana-Washington ties, however, this moment seems different.

For the first time since 1959, an American president, Donald Trump, appears on the verge of doing what so many of his predecessors have longed to do: depose a Cuban president and compel the Cuban government to align itself with American economic and strategic interests.

If Trump succeeds – either through military might or negotiation – then Cuba looks set to become something less than a sovereign nation and more akin to an American client state.

A partnership of unequals?

At first glance, the possibility of such a change looks epic, even monumental: an end to the Cuban Revolution as we have known it.

But deep in the annals of U.S.-Cuban history, there are echoes of Trump’s demands.

From 1898 to 1959, the American government essentially ran Cuba as a colony within its empire.

Americans repeatedly decided who would occupy the presidential palace, while Cuban politicians protected U.S. investments and supported U.S. supremacy in the Caribbean. American gangsters ran the hotels and the gambling.

That relationship ended with the revolution and Fidel Castro’s assumption of power. But if Trump has his way, the future of the U.S. and Cuba will look very much like it did in the pre-Castro era: a partnership of unequals.

Heightened tensions

During his first term, Trump turned away from President Barack Obama’s “Cuban Thaw,” which had established diplomatic relations, eased travel restrictions and raised hopes of an end to the decades-old U.S. embargo.

In place of engagement with the Cuban government, Trump strengthened the embargo, all but closed the U.S. Embassy in Havana and further restricted travel by American citizens to the island.

Trump also returned Cuba to the State Department’s list of nations that support terrorism, where it resides today.

Now, one year into his second term, Trump is using coercion backed with a tacit military threat to increase pressure on the Cuban government.

On Jan. 3, 2026, U.S. forces, seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, bringing them to New York to stand trial.

During the raid, U.S. forces killed between 75 and 100 Venezuelans and a coterie of Cubans providing security to Maduro.

Venezuela was Cuba’s closest ally, providing the island with oil at vastly reduced prices in exchange for doctors and advisers for Venezuela’s security and intelligence services.

Following Maduro’s arrest, Trump made it clear that the U.S. would no longer permit any country to supply Cuba with oil.

Without oil, Trump predicted that the Cuban government would soon collapse and suggested that Marco Rubio, his Cuban American Secretary of State, could become president of Cuba.

Secret negotiations

Cuba was in severe distress long before Maduro’s arrest.

In the years since the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has found it almost impossible to maintain adequate electricity, water, public health and public transport.

Then came the Trump administration’s oil embargo, which may push Cuba into the worst economic crisis in its history, prompting longer, deeper blackouts and further reductions in public services.

Hunger is now a widespread concern, garbage is piling up and mosquito-borne illnesses are skyrocketing. Dissent is also becoming more public – and more violent.

Publicly, the communist government responded defiantly to the Trump administration’s aggressive actions, pledging to resist American pressure just as it had for the better part of 60 years.

Privately, however, the Cuban government agreed to talks with the Trump administration, hoping to find a way to ease American pressure.

The White House reportedly no longer considers the collapse of the Cuban government desirable, as it would precipitate a migration crisis that threatens the stability of the Caribbean, including to a South Florida that is home to the world’s largest Cuban diaspora community.

The ‘Venezuelan Solution’

Cuba’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, has publicly acknowledged talks with the U.S. But the particulars remain obscure.

The U.S. government reportedly wants Díaz-Canel to leave the country and permit American investment in Cuba, particularly from Cuban Americans, which has long been prohibited.

The Cuban government has already reportedly acceded to this latter demand.

The Trump administration also wants more political prisoners released and a purge of officials who were close to Fidel and Raúl Castro, his successor as president, and remained powerful after the Cuban revolutionary leader’s death in 2016. According to Amnesty International, Cuba has at least 1,000 prisoners of conscience.

In exchange, the White House would be willing to permit members of the Castro family to remain in Cuba and allow for the importation of oil. The rest of the Cuban government would also remain intact.

Cubans I know are calling this deal the “Venezuela Solution.” Much like Maduro’s successors, Cuba’s leaders would remain rulers of Cuba – provided they accept diminished political sovereignty and respect U.S. policy priorities.

Back to the future

Such a deal, if it happens, would return Cuba to the status of an American client state, the status it held long before Castro seized power and allied himself with the Soviet Union.

In 1898, the U.S. intervened in the Cuban War of Independence, the last in a series of wars fought by Cubans against their onetime Spanish colonizers.

The United States kicked out the Spanish, occupied Cuba and proclaimed its desire to turn Cuba into an independent, sovereign nation-state.

But that never happened.

Distrusting the Cubans’ ability to govern themselves, the U.S. retained the legal right to intervene in Cuban politics.

Between 1898 and 1959, the U.S. government, through its ambassador in Havana, determined who would be president of Cuba whenever a dispute arose.

Cuban politicians, eager to preserve their positions, guarded American property, despite Cuban resentments, and supported U.S. foreign policy throughout Latin America and the world.

On the eve of the revolution, Americans owned more than US$800 million in property in Cuba — the equivalent of at least $9 billion today.

Americans dominated not only the sugar industry but also public utilities, mining and tourism, which American organized crime came to control.

What’s next?

For more than 60 years, pre-revolutionary Cuba endured independence without sovereignty as an American client state.

Could such a relationship reemerge? For now, the situation between the U.S. and Cuba remains fluid, and the terms of discussions are shrouded in secrecy.

Trump, publicly, promotes a “friendly takeover of Cuba,” insisting that he could do with Cuba “anything I want.”

But one thing remains certain. While Trump remains in the White House and Rubio heads the State Department, U.S. maximum pressure on Cuba will not cease.

The Trump administration is committed to ending the Cuban government’s resistance to American power and American investment, regardless of the direct humanitarian costs in the form of the oil embargo and other penalties.

Any deal with Trump will be a bitter pill for Cuba’s political elite to swallow.

But absent an oil-rich ally, like Russia or Venezuela, and faced with an implacable enemy, Cuban officials may have no choice but to bring Cuba back into the orbit of American power, at least for now.

– ref. Trump’s ‘Venezuela solution’ to Cuba would see the island nation returned to a client state – https://theconversation.com/trumps-venezuela-solution-to-cuba-would-see-the-island-nation-returned-to-a-client-state-278710

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/trumps-venezuela-solution-to-cuba-would-see-the-island-nation-returned-to-a-client-state-278710/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Costanza Musu, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Since the start of the ongoing United States–Israeli military campaign against Iran, the human toll of the conflict has mounted relentlessly.

Civilian casualties have been reported across the country, and the bombing campaign has caused widespread destruction to infrastructure. Alongside military targets, thousands of civilian buildings have been damaged or destroyed in the first weeks of the war.

Amid this destruction, another dimension of the conflict is increasingly drawing international concern: the damage inflicted on Iran’s cultural heritage.

Several historically significant sites, including UNESCO landmarks, have been affected. Blasts in Tehran have damaged the Golestan Palace, while strikes in Isfahan hit structures around Naqsh-e Jahan Square, including Ali Qapu Palace, Chehel Sotoun and the Masjed-e Jameh.

The destruction of such sites highlights a frequently overlooked consequence of warfare: when the rules governing the conduct of war are stretched or ignored, cultural heritage, like civilian lives, becomes collateral damage.

Rules of engagement

Warfare is not meant to be unconstrained. It is governed by international humanitarian law, which sets limits on how military force can be used once hostilities begin. These rules are intended to reduce the human and material devastation of armed conflict by protecting civilians and civilian objects.

Read more: Israeli strikes on Tehran oil depot highlight gaps in international law

States implement these legal obligations through rules of engagement, which guide how and when force may be used in compliance with international humanitarian law: what U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has dismissively called “stupid rules of engagement.”

International humanitarian law protects cultural heritage. After the widespread destruction of the Second World War, states adopted the 1954 Hague Convention, recognizing monuments, museums and archeological sites as specially protected cultural property, and requiring warring nations to refrain from attacking them except in cases of imperative military necessity.

Ignoring cultural property protections runs counter to a lesson many military forces, including the United States, have come to recognize: that safeguarding cultural heritage is not only a legal obligation, but also strategically smart.

Over the past two decades, this approach has increasingly been integrated into military doctrine. By protecting monuments and historic sites, military forces signal respect for a society’s identity, build trust with local populations and advance broader political objectives by fostering local civilian support.

Shifting public sentiment

In the current conflict, American officials have argued that the military campaign is aimed not at Iran’s people but at the regime that has ruled the country since the 1979 revolution.

Read more: What happens next in US-Iran relations will be informed by the two countries’ shared history

U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested that the future of Iran now lies in the hands of its citizens, implying that the weakening of the regime could allow Iranians to shape a different political future.

Initially, some voices in the Iranian diaspora and within Iran welcomed the strikes in the hope that they might open the door to political change.

Yet the scale of the destruction inflicted on cities, infrastructure and cultural landmarks appears to be shifting public sentiment, allowing the Iranian leadership to rally the population around a narrative of national unity against foreign aggression.

At the same time, the conflict is threatening cultural heritage beyond Iran. Iranian missiles have struck areas in and around Jerusalem, where its Old Town contains some of the most significant religious and historical sites in the world within barely one square kilometre. These sites are sacred to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

If the stated objective of the military campaign is to weaken the Iranian government and open the possibility for political change, the destruction of cultural heritage will produce the opposite effect. Cultural monuments, historic cities and religious sites are not simply architectural artifacts; they are powerful symbols of collective identity and historical continuity.

When they’re damaged or destroyed by foreign military force, the attack is often perceived not only as a strike against a government but an assault on the nation itself.

Rallying citizens

History offers many examples of how damage to cultural heritage during wars can galvanize nationalist sentiment and strengthen the legitimacy of governments under pressure. Examples include the destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar during the Bosnian War, which became a powerful symbol of national loss and identity, to the levelling of Palmyra’s ancient temples by ISIS, which the Syrian government invoked to reinforce claims of cultural guardianship and political legitimacy.

Rather than weakening the Iranian leadership, widespread destruction, particularly when it affects cultural landmarks, may instead help it mobilize public anger and rally citizens around the defence of the country.

Both international law and historical experience point in the same direction: protecting cultural heritage is not only a humanitarian obligation, but a strategic consideration in conflicts with long-term outcomes that depend on the attitudes of the people affected.

– ref. War in Iran: Why destroying cultural heritage is such a foolish strategic move in any conflict – https://theconversation.com/war-in-iran-why-destroying-cultural-heritage-is-such-a-foolish-strategic-move-in-any-conflict-277922

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/war-in-iran-why-destroying-cultural-heritage-is-such-a-foolish-strategic-move-in-any-conflict-277922/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Waya Quiviger, Professor of Practice of Gobal Governance and Development, IE University

The war in Iran has yet again exposed the tensions between Spain’s Pedro Sánchez and Donald Trump. The two leaders have clashed repeatedly over the last year, including over Spain’s ongoing opposition to Israel’s conduct in Gaza, its refusal to raise Nato spending above 2% of GDP, and now its refusal to support the US war in Iran.

In late February, Spain barred the US from using its joint military bases in Rota and Morón for operations linked to the Iran war. As a result, an incensed Trump stated “We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain.”

Read more: Could the US cut off trade with Spain? Here’s what international law says

Sánchez has since doubled down on his opposition in a nationally televised address, where he emphatically stated the Spanish government’s position: “No a la guerra”, no to war. On social media he also asserted: “NO to violations of international law” and “NO to the illusion that we can solve the world’s problems with bombs.”

Such pointed defiance of the Trump administration could carry political risks for Sánchez. Indeed, reactions to the war from other European states have been a lot more muted. Why, then, has Sánchez adopted such an unusually confrontational stance?

The clash is being presented as a question of geopolitics or international law, but it is better understood as domestic politics shaping foreign policy. Spain’s historical anti-war political culture, the dynamics of Sánchez’s left-leaning governing coalition, and electoral incentives at home all help account for Madrid’s unusually firm position.

The shadow of Iraq

In his recent address, Sánchez made a specific reference to the 2003 war in Iraq: “Twenty-three years ago, another US Administration dragged us into a war in the Middle East,” he said. “A war which, in theory, was said at the time to be waged to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, to bring democracy, and to guarantee global security but… it unleashed the greatest wave of insecurity that our continent had suffered since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

In 2003, Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar joined the US-led coalition to topple Saddam Hussein. The decision triggered massive protests across the country and partly led to Aznar’s defeat in the 2004 elections. His opponent, the Socialist Party’s José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, campaigned on a promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, which he fulfilled immediately after taking office.

The Iraq war fundamentally shaped Spanish public attitudes toward military intervention in the Middle East, and its legacy explains Sánchez’s instinct to distance Spain from the Iran war. His stance is not only ideological – it reflects the memory of how politically damaging it can be for a Spanish government to align itself with US interventions.

Coalition politics and early electoral signals

Sánchez’ position on the war in Iran can also be analysed in the light of current political developments at home. Sánchez governs with support from left-wing parties strongly opposed to US military intervention. Backing Washington, or even facilitating the war through US bases, could risk destabilising that coalition. But the political calculation may go even further.

Sánchez has earned a reputation for repeatedly surviving political crises. Despite declining poll numbers and ongoing scandals within his party and inner circle, he appears to be betting that Trump’s deep unpopularity in Spain will ultimately work to his advantage, particularly among his left-leaning base.

Recent electoral results suggest the strategy may be resonating with voters. In much anticipated regional elections in Castilla y León held on Sunday, Sánchez’ Socialist Party (PSOE) increased its representation, gaining two additional seats despite polls suggesting the party might lose significant ground.

While one election cannot determine national trends, the result offers an early indication that a firm anti-war stance may not carry the domestic political costs critics predicted. If anything, it may have reinforced Sánchez’s appeal across party lines among voters sceptical of military escalation, critical of Donald Trump, and supportive of a more independent European foreign policy.

If Sánchez is proven right, it would also vindicate the Spanish government’s stance on Nato. In June 2025, Spain refused to raise defence spending toward Trump’s proposed 5% Nato target, prompting harsh criticism from the US president. The dispute reflects a broader political reality: higher defence spending is unpopular among the Spanish electorate.

Seen in this context, the Iran war confrontation is part of a longer pattern in which domestic political considerations shape Spain’s position within the transatlantic alliance.

Read more: NATO has deep divisions – but why is Spain its most openly critical member?

Domestic pressures across Europe

Spain’s stance may appear unusually confrontational, but Europe’s response to the Iran war has been far from unified. Much of the variation reflects different domestic political pressures facing European leaders.

In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz initially avoided direct criticism of the US strikes and has generally emphasised transatlantic unity. Nevertheless, he has warned against a prolonged conflict and stressed that Germany “is not a party to this war” and does not want to become one, highlighting concerns about economic disruption and regional instability.

The UK has taken a similarly careful stance. Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted on clarity about US objectives and legal justification before committing military support, emphasising diplomacy and maritime security rather than direct involvement in the conflict.

Italy’s Giorgia Meloni has raised concerns about the legality of the war, but avoided outright condemnation of Washington. Her government has emphasised respect for existing agreements governing US military bases rather than blocking their use outright, reflecting both Italy’s strong security ties with the United States and Meloni’s own political alignment with transatlantic conservatives.

The overall picture is of a fragmented European response. Across the continent, governments are balancing their own domestic political constraints against broader international strategic calculations.

A litmus test for Europe

Spain’s response to the Iran war may offer the clearest example yet of how domestic politics is shaping Europe’s reaction to the conflict. Time will tell whether Sánchez’s stance proves politically sustainable at home, and whether it makes Spain the champion of a more assertive European approach toward Washington or just an outlier.

If the strategy proves successful, it could encourage other European leaders to push back against Washington. If it backfires, however, Europe’s cautious response will likely become more entrenched.

Either way, the episode illustrates a broader reality of international relations. Foreign policy decisions may be presented as matters of international law or principle, but in democratic systems they are often shaped first and foremost by the pressures of politics at home.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

– ref. Spain-US rift: Pedro Sánchez’ defiance of Trump is dictated by domestic politics – but it’s also a litmus test for Europe – https://theconversation.com/spain-us-rift-pedro-sanchez-defiance-of-trump-is-dictated-by-domestic-politics-but-its-also-a-litmus-test-for-europe-278557

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/spain-us-rift-pedro-sanchez-defiance-of-trump-is-dictated-by-domestic-politics-but-its-also-a-litmus-test-for-europe-278557/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Duyen Vo, Sessional Lecturer and Researcher, Faculty of Education, Monash University

Victorian public school teachers are walking off the job today. Tens of thousands of school staff, including support staff and principals, are expected to strike.

Teachers in Tasmania are also striking this week. Public schools will be closed in the state’s northwest on Tuesday, the north on Wednesday and the south on Thursday.

Public debate has understandably focused on issues around salaries and workloads, including staff shortages and unpaid overtime.

But industrial action of this scale can also signal something deeper – a breakdown of trust between teachers and the systems they work within.

Teachers want a significant pay increase

During nine months of negotiations with the state government, Victorian school staff have asked for a 35% pay increase over four years, alongside measures to improve workloads.

Teachers argue this rise is needed to keep pace with inflation and bring salaries into line with their interstate colleagues.

The Victorian government’s latest offer includes a 17% pay increase over several years, with limited practical changes to working conditions. On Monday, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan described the offer as “strong”.

How does Victoria compare with other states?

Teachers argue the Victorian government offer falls well short of what is needed to retain teachers and stabilise the workforce.

Currently, Victorian teachers are among the lowest paid in Australia, with gaps of A$10,000–15,000 per year compared with some other states.

For example, in 2025, entry-level teachers in Victoria were paid $79,589. Over the border, in New South Wales, their colleagues earned $90,177. Victorian school principals were paid $156,335. In NSW they earned $178,812.

Teacher salaries in Australia are set at the state level. In recent years, Victorian pay scales – which are influenced by earlier industrial agreements and relatively lower school funding overall – have not kept up with larger increases in other states.

Tasmanian teachers are so far rejecting a pay rise offer of less than 9% over three years from their state government.

Concerns around workloads

Victorian teachers are also calling for improvements to work conditions. This includes smaller class sizes and increased support staff and allied health resources for students.

Class sizes in Victoria are generally capped at around 25–26 students, with smaller classes in the early years of schools and flexible arrangements in specialist schools.

Teachers say smaller class sizes are key to both equity and effective student learning, particularly if there are students with extra needs.

Class sizes in Victoria are roughly equivalent to those in NSW. But class size is an issue around the country.

On top of this, teachers are seeking measures to address administrative burden and burnout. A 2025 study found nine out of ten Australian teachers are experiencing severe stress, and nearly 70% say their workload is unmanageable.

Last week, the Allan government announced measures to cut down on teachers’ paperwork, including simpler student reports. But this has not stopped the strike action.

Teacher strikes are rare

Given the disruption strikes cause to student learning, historically, teachers tend to avoid industrial action.

This is the first major statewide strike in Victoria in 13 years, highlighting the seriousness of the current dispute.

The only recent comparison is a statewide teacher strike in Queensland in 2025. This similarly focused on pay, workload and working conditions.

Beyond pay

Teachers’ dissatisfaction about their working conditions goes beyond salaries.

Amid an ongoing teacher shortage around the country, research tells us teachers are dealing with abuse from students and parents.

Research also tells us teachers’ job satisfaction is hampered by overly prescriptive curriculum demands and administrative tasks that take them away from classrooms. This means they don’t have the time and autonomy to decide how best to teach and engage their students.

Is there an even deeper issue?

Across our studies examining teachers’ work and wellbeing in Australian schools, one theme appears repeatedly: teachers want to feel respected and trusted in their workplaces.

For example, in our 2024 study of 994 Australian teachers, they emphasised the importance of feeling valued and trusted at work as well as supported and safe.

This means teachers want to be recognised as the professionals they are. This means having their teaching judgement and expertise valued and respected by parents, education administrators, the media and the broader community.

Ultimately, teachers want a genuine say when it comes to decisions about their teaching. And they want to know the community supports them and values their work.

– ref. Victorian teachers are on strike for the first time in 13 years – it’s about more than pay – https://theconversation.com/victorian-teachers-are-on-strike-for-the-first-time-in-13-years-its-about-more-than-pay-278977

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/victorian-teachers-are-on-strike-for-the-first-time-in-13-years-its-about-more-than-pay-278977/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Macklin (Downes), Senior Research Fellow, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash University

If you’ve topped up your tank at a petrol station recently, did it feel like you were “panic buying”? Or did it feel more like “I’d better buy some, just in case”?

During the COVID pandemic, our research team wrote about the psychological drivers behind Australians buying up toilet paper: scarcity mindset, anticipated regret and regaining “control”. We also warned that politicians or media coverage rebuking people for buying more at the supermarkets actually risked making it worse.

Over recent weeks, some senior politicians have repeated this mistake, berating people as “un-Australian” for “panic buying” fuel.

But one of the lessons we should have learnt from COVID – when supermarket shelves were cleared and some buying limits had to be introduced – is that most people didn’t perceive themselves as “panic buyers”.

‘Just in case’ shoppers

A 2020 survey asked 450 people in the United States and Australia “to what extent did you engage in panic buying in the first few months of the COVID-19 outbreak?”. On average, both the older US participants and mostly university-aged Australians participants scored themselves as only having “low engagement” in panic buying.

A smaller UK study published in 2022 found similar results, concluding “‘panic buying’ is not a useful concept”.

Instead, Australian and other shoppers during COVID saw buying a bit extra as playing it safe, rather than panicking.

Many Australians have lingering memories of times when supply has struggled to meet demand: from banana prices jumping from A$2 a kilogram to $15 a kilo after Cyclone Larry in 2006, to struggling to find eggs last year due to bird flu.

With little sign of the Strait of Hormuz being safe for oil tankers anytime soon, it’s entirely rational for people to think “I’d better get petrol now, before the price jumps further” – sooner than we might have refilled normally.

But when enough people buy more “just in case”, all those individual choices can collectively overwhelm our fuel and food systems.

Read more: Panic buying just makes shortages worse. Why do people do it anyway?

‘A few extras’ can empty shelves

Australia has spent decades pursuing lean supply chains – what’s known as “just-in-time” supplies, with minimal buffer stock sitting around in warehouses.

It’s a hyper-efficient system that uses sophisticated demand forecasting to keep costs low. But it also assumes that tomorrow will look exactly like today.

Supply chains here and in many other countries are now optimised for predictable demand, rather than surges in demand.

In March 2020, market research group Kantar analysed the shopping habits of more than 100,000 UK consumers. It found only a small minority of people were buying far more than usual. For instance, only 3% of shoppers were stockpiling far more packets of pasta than usual.

But a significant number of consumers were adding just a few extra products and shopping more often than usual. Kantar concluded those “just a few extras” shoppers were inadvertently emptying shelves.

For our supply systems to keep working today, we need to resist the instinct to buy more fuel or other essentials than usual – unless there’s a genuine need, like residents in Queensland and the Northern Territory needing supplies before Cyclone Narelle hit.

Buying just what you need

Our work in behavioural theory suggests two approaches that would help Australia avoid repeating some of the mistakes of the early COVID response.

First, we need to highlight what the majority are doing. Focusing on the minority – those emptying shelves of jerry cans at Bunnings – can accidentally create a powerful, negative social norm that can amplify hoarding behaviour.

Most Australians are still buying petrol and shopping as normal. Highlighting sensible behaviour normalises and stabilises it.

Second, we should appeal to people’s collective responsibility. This means emphasising the need for collective effort to keep supplies available for everyone. Bringing values of shared responsibility to mind can encourage more considered choices.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese appears to have realised this. Talking about surging fuel demand late last week, he put greater emphasis on what “a good Australian” would do:

My message to Australians is please do not take more fuel than you need […] It’s the Australian way to think of others, to think of their neighbours, their community and also to think of the national interest. Only take what you need.

At the same time, we also need to build greater responsiveness into our fuel and food distribution systems, balancing efficiency with resilience.

The real lesson of empty petrol stations or supermarket shelves isn’t that people are irrational. It’s that perfectly rational individual behaviour can overwhelm a fragile system.

Until more resilient systems are in place in future, we can all play our part to keep essentials like petrol and food in stock, by shifting from a “just in case” mentality to “just take what you need”.

Read more: It’s not hoarding: farmers need to buy huge amounts of diesel to keep our food secure

– ref. How reducing ‘just in case’ purchases can help avoid empty shelves and fuel bowsers – https://theconversation.com/how-reducing-just-in-case-purchases-can-help-avoid-empty-shelves-and-fuel-bowsers-278307

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/how-reducing-just-in-case-purchases-can-help-avoid-empty-shelves-and-fuel-bowsers-278307/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Blakers, Professor of Engineering, Australian National University

Oil and gas prices are shooting up as war in the Middle East cuts down the supply of fossil fuels available, in what has been described as “the largest supply disruption in the history of oil markets”.

There have been several major upheavals in energy markets since 2020, including the COVID pandemic, Russia’s ongoing war on Ukraine, and US President Donald Trump’s trade and tariff war with much of the world.

What now? The closest historical comparison may be to the oil shock of the 1970s, which prompted significant moves by governments around the world to reduce the demand for fossil fuels.

This time around, things are different: relatively cheap, widely available renewable energy technology means not only governments but also companies and individuals can reduce their own reliance on fossil fuels, permanently.

The traditional case for renewables

Compared to what we get from fossil fuels, renewable energy is clean, cheap and reliable.

Solar and wind can provide virtually unlimited energy without greenhouse emissions. They also eliminate smog, strip mining, gas fracking, oil spills and oil-related warfare – not to mention avoiding the radioactive waste, accidents and weapons proliferation that go hand in hand with nuclear power.

Renewables have low requirements for raw materials, land and water. Waste from solar farms is about 1,000 times smaller than the avoided carbon dioxide from burning equivalent fossil fuels.

These technologies also come out ahead on price. Solar and wind have provided virtually all new power plant capacity in Australia over the past decade.

At a global level, solar and wind are being installed five times faster than everything else combined. This is compelling market-based evidence of their low cost.

The reliability test also favours renewables. In recent years, Australia’s shaky fleet of ageing coal power stations has become a substantial threat to grid stability. In contrast, solar and wind are very predictable, because thousands of collectors spread over a million square kilometres greatly reduces the impact of collector malfunctions and local weather.

Energy from solar and wind can be stored and released on demand via batteries and pumped hydro projects such as Snowy 2.0.

Consumer electric vehicles are also taking off, and heavy transport is not far behind. In China, electric truck sales have reached parity with diesel trucks. In Australia, major companies such as Fortescue are on track to drastically cut their emissions.

The spike in the price of gas following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had a major effect on Australian energy prices because the companies exporting Australian gas charged Australian consumers world parity prices. However, apart from 2022, Australian electricity wholesale market price is unchanged over the past decade, while the renewables fraction increased from 17% to 42%.

Renewables make us more resilient

If we “electrify everything” – transport, heating and industry – clean electricity can replace most gas heating and imports of petroleum products (which cost Australia A$53 billion in 2025). This would double Australia’s electricity demand and reduce greenhouse emissions by three quarters.

At the domestic level, an all-electric home with solar panels can have no bill for gas or petrol, and a low bill for electricity. Energy storage is available via hot water tanks, electric vehicles and home batteries.

Energy from rooftop solar works out costing around 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, a fraction of the retail price.

If grid power fails or fossil fuel prices soar, solar-powered homeowners can carry on indefinitely with nearly normal house operation.

Once an international disruption of oil and gas supply lasts for a month or so, it becomes a big problem for Australia as reserves are depleted and prices spike. In contrast, solar panels, wind turbines, transmission, batteries, pumped hydro, electric vehicles, electric heat pumps and electric furnaces last for decades – so we have much more time to see any disruption coming and work around it

And in a darker possibility, a decentralised energy system based on thousands of solar and wind farms and millions of solar rooftops would be far more resilient against military attacks than a few coal and nuclear power stations.

War, trade war and pandemics

Nobody knows the ramifications of the latest war in the Middle East. In the short term, prices for oil and gas have risen sharply.

The fundamental difference this time round is that individuals, companies and countries have remarkably cheap clean energy alternatives available.

Australia is rapidly decarbonising its electricity grid by replacing coal and gas with solar and wind. The government target is 82% renewable electricity by 2030. Gas heating is being actively discouraged in favour of electric heat pumps, and electric cars and trucks are being encouraged.

Alongside lower emissions, lower cost and greater reliability, a rapid transition to clean energy also means greater resilience in an unpredictable future. In the long run, the most important outcome of the current wars might be an acceleration of the world’s move away from fossil fuels.

– ref. Oil reserves last for weeks. Solar panels last for decades – https://theconversation.com/oil-reserves-last-for-weeks-solar-panels-last-for-decades-278895

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/oil-reserves-last-for-weeks-solar-panels-last-for-decades-278895/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Blamires, Senior Nursing Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

Imagine spending years living on the edge of your family’s story.

You know something is wrong with your brother or sister. You see the hospital visits and medication routines, the quiet worry on your parents’ faces. You piece things together from overheard conversations, wondering whether what you feel is normal and whether anyone notices what you are missing.

This is the lived reality for millions of siblings of children with long-term health conditions worldwide. In the United States, up to 30% of children grow up with a sibling who has a chronic condition such as epilepsy, cystic fibrosis, childhood cancer or cerebral palsy.

In Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia the statistics are comparable. The ASB national health survey 2022 found two in five (45%) Australian children live with at least one chronic condition.

New Zealand doesn’t have a single definitive data set but the 2023 household disability survey identified 98,000 disabled children, with asthma alone affecting 15–20% of children. When the full range of long-term conditions is considered, the number of children growing up alongside an affected sibling is likely similar to that seen in the US and Australia.

Research consistently shows the impact extends well beyond the child who is unwell.

Siblings experience higher anxiety, disrupted schooling, social isolation and major changes to family life. Yet as our work with a sibling advisory group shows, siblings remain largely invisible in clinical settings designed to support families.

They frequently sit on the sidelines while conversations happen around them rather than with them. Doctors speak to parents. Parents speak to the child with the condition. Siblings are watching and worrying but receive little direct information.

Many describe feeling overlooked or ignored during appointments and left to make sense of situations without language to understand them.

Lack of sibling support at children’s hospitals

To find out how well children’s hospitals in New Zealand and Australia support siblings, we looked not at policy documents or mission statements, but at what siblings and families can realistically access.

We audited major children’s hospital websites across both countries. Using the search term “sibling”, we examined whether any material was genuinely written for siblings, rather than for parents or clinicians. The findings were disappointing.

In New Zealand, only Starship Children’s Hospital returned search results. Of 54 results, just two grief booklets were remotely relevant, but both were still written mainly for parents.

Kidz First, Te Wao Nui and Whangārei Hospital provided nothing for siblings.

Across Australia, provision was uneven. Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network and the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne offered sibling‑specific material, while Queensland Children’s Hospital, Monash Children’s Hospital and Perth Children’s Hospital had little.

Even where material existed, siblings were rarely the intended audience. Most information targeted parents or mentioned siblings briefly within family resources. When siblings were acknowledged, it was in the context of grief, not the everyday reality of growing up alongside a brother or sister with a long‑term condition.

Beyond the hospital bed

In contrast, some of the richest and most thoughtful support sat outside the hospital system altogether.

Charities and non-governmental organisations such as Siblings Australia, Canteen Australia, Drenched, Kidshealth and New Zealand’s Parent2Parent offered age-appropriate information, peer support programmes, camps and opportunities for siblings to connect with others like them.

These supports matter deeply but are rarely signposted by healthcare teams and many families are unaware they exist.

For the young people we work with, these findings are unsurprising. Members of our sibling advisory group describe having felt invisible in clinical spaces, excluded from conversations about their sibling’s health, and left to fill in the gaps alone.

Research echoes this experience, showing restricted hospital access and information filtered through parents leave siblings confused and distressed.

What siblings are asking for

Siblings want clear, honest information about their sibling’s condition, shared in ways that match their age and understanding. They want to be included, not managed out of the room.

They want clinicians to recognise that this is their experience, too. Evidence shows when siblings receive accurate and timely information, anxiety decreases and fears about their own health or the future lessen.

Many want opportunities to connect with peers. These are not extraordinary requests. They are the foundations of good child and family care, recognising the whole family, not only the child in the hospital bed.

International reviews from Canada and elsewhere show similar findings to our audit, with sibling‑focused support scarce, poorly integrated and often invisible to families.

Researchers in Sweden, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are now working together to ask siblings aged five to 18 what information they need and how they would prefer to receive it, with the aim of improving sibling‑specific resources.

The message from research, practice and young people is clear. Siblings are an afterthought in systems organised around patients and parents.

For clinicians, change starts by acknowledging siblings and offering age‑appropriate explanations. For hospitals, it means ensuring sibling‑specific resources are visible.

Sibling‑inclusive care is not optional. For every child waiting outside a clinic room, watching their brother or sister disappear through doors they cannot follow, it is the right thing to do.

With thanks to research assistant Jess Gardiner and the young people who make up the New Zealand siblings advisory group.

– ref. Hospital audit finds siblings of children with serious conditions are overlooked, lack support – https://theconversation.com/hospital-audit-finds-siblings-of-children-with-serious-conditions-are-overlooked-lack-support-278889

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/hospital-audit-finds-siblings-of-children-with-serious-conditions-are-overlooked-lack-support-278889/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare O’Toole, Clinical Psychology Phd Candidate, University of Wollongong

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a condition that develops during childhood and affects 6–10% of kids and 2–6% of adults.

People with ADHD have either mainly inattentive symptoms (such as lacking concentration), mainly hyperactive and impulsive symptoms (such as speaking or acting without thinking), or a combination of the two.

Two people with ADHD can have very different symptoms and experiences. So it’s important for clinicians who diagnose the condition to have the right knowledge and expertise.

But our new research found half of psychologists who assess for ADHD don’t follow the diagnostic guidelines or criteria.

This means less-typical presentations of ADHD – such as in women and girls, quiet inattentive adults and high-achieving students – could be overlooked.

How is ADHD diagnosed?

ADHD is currently diagnosed by a psychologist, psychiatrist, or paediatrician. Queensland GPs can also diagnose ADHD, with more states and territories to follow.

ADHD can’t be diagnosed with a blood test or other single measure. It requires the consideration of multiple factors and information sources, along with clinical judgement.

Australia’s evidence-based practice guideline for ADHD, released in 2022, provides a clear standard for assessment and treatment. It recommends ADHD assessments include a full developmental, mental health and medical history.

Medical assessments should be used to rule out other factors which could look like ADHD, such as sensory impairment, thyroid disease, anaemia, or medication side effects.

The clinician must also consider the social, psychological and clinical context of a person’s symptoms. This requires input from more than one setting and person such as a teacher or family member. The assessment shouldn’t rely solely on questionnaires or looking at the person.

The diagnosis of ADHD should be made in line with diagnostic criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the DSM 5) or the International Classification of Disease (the ICD). These require impairments that are out of step with the person’s age, that began before they were 12, and that have impacts across multiple settings, such as home and school or work.

In practice, a comprehensive ADHD assessment could include:

• interviews with a person and a family member covering their history and current situation
• review of school reports
• completion of questionnaires to assist in clarifying the diagnosis
• investigation of any medical issues which may be causing ADHD-like symptoms.

Our study

Our recent study used an online questionnaire of 322 Australian psychologists involved in diagnosing and treating ADHD. We wanted to see how they were assessing for it, if that matched the Australian guidelines, and how well they knew the diagnostic criteria.

The study was limited to psychologists due to the low number of responses from psychiatrists and paediatricians, and because there are many more psychologists than other specialists.

The study relies on anonymous self-reported data. This reduced the likelihood that only the most confident people would participate, or that clinicians would be focused on looking good.

But there’s a chance the psychologists might not remember their assessments accurately, or apply as much effort to the questionnaire as they would to a client.

What we found

Three in four psychologists said they always followed guidelines, with more saying they followed them some of the time. But overall, fewer than half reported assessment practices that actually followed the guidelines.

This suggests people seeking an assessment can’t rely on a clinician’s assurance they’re following the guidelines and need to ask specifically what’s involved.

Almost all psychologists used client interviews and gathered a developmental history. However, only three in four completed a mental health assessment. Less than one in three assessed for other illnesses. None reported performing a sensory assessment.

This makes it much more difficult to instead diagnose a different condition or rule out other potential causes for symptoms.

Next, we gave psychologists in the study a list of the ADHD criteria, and another item from the specific learning disorder criteria (difficulties with learning and using academic skills).

While ADHD is associated with lower grades at school, it’s not a requirement for diagnosis. Someone may meet the criteria for ADHD without experiencing difficulties learning. Kids with a specific learning disorder can also have ADHD, and it’s important these learning difficulties are also detected.

But fewer than one in three psychologists surveyed correctly identified all the ADHD criteria and also rejected the non-ADHD item. This means people who do well in school but struggle in other areas of their life might miss out on a diagnosis.

Likewise, four in ten clinicians did not recognise that symptoms needed to be out of step for the person’s age and stage of development for a diagnosis. This could mean people are diagnosed when they don’t actually fit the criteria.

Overall, these inconsistencies mean people whose symptoms overlap with anxiety, depression, trauma, sleep problems, thyroid problems, hearing or vision issues, or learning disorders are at greater risk of being misdiagnosed or missing out on helpful support.

What should I look for if I’m seeking an assessment?

If you’re concerned about ADHD symptoms for yourself or your child, discuss your concerns with your GP and find out what services are available in your area.

The wait times and costs for assessments can vary widely, so compare your options before committing to an assessment.

If you’re interested in exploring medications, you will need to visit a paediatrician, psychiatrist or, in some states and territories, a GP, as psychologists aren’t able to prescribe medications.

To make sure you or your child is being properly assessed, look at the guidelines and ask before booking what’s involved in the assessment.

– ref. Half of psychologists assessing for ADHD don’t follow the diagnostic guidelines, new study shows – https://theconversation.com/half-of-psychologists-assessing-for-adhd-dont-follow-the-diagnostic-guidelines-new-study-shows-277957

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/half-of-psychologists-assessing-for-adhd-dont-follow-the-diagnostic-guidelines-new-study-shows-277957/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Wilkes, PhD Candidate, School of Humanities, The University of Western Australia

Ostensibly, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s second film, The Bride! offers a reimagining of the 1936 film The Bride of Frankenstein, in which the bride appears only briefly and does not say a single word.

This is undoubtedly rectified in Gyllenhaal’s version.

From the afterlife, Mary Shelley (Jessie Buckley) seeks a body through which to insert herself. She chooses the body of Ida (also Buckley), an escort entangled in the seedy world of crime boss Mr Lupino (Zlatko Burić) in 1930s Chicago.

After Mary forces Ida to perform a shouting outburst in front of Lupino, she is sent careening down the stairs, breaking her neck. Shortly thereafter, she is dug up from her pauper’s grave by Frankenstein (Christian Bale) and Dr Euphronious (Annette Bening).

Euphronious reanimates Ida and Mary, too, reappears.

This film offers less a story about the bride of Frankenstein, and more a commentary on the lesser-known sad second life of Mary Shelley – and all she might have said if she had the chance to rewrite Frankenstein, and her life.

Who was Mary Shelley?

Shelley is generally remembered as a kind of wunderkind.

Born in 1797 to esteemed writers William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, married to the esteemed poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, she is famed for writing the first science fiction novel when she was just a teenager.

Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus was published in 1818 when she was 20, just two years after she began writing the story on a fateful night in Geneva. It tells the story of an ambitious young scientist, Victor Frankenstein, who plays God with devastating consequences. He succeeds in making a man from the remnants of corpses, only to abandon his creation when he sees how monstrous it is.

The novel went on to become one of the most famous works of English literature.

This is not a simple story of a teenage girl turned creative genius. Shelley, aged just 18, had already eloped with a married man, suffered the death of a daughter, and given birth to a son.

Frankenstein was not born from a girlish wondering at the world, but rather was clawed from her grief and rage.

Within a year of Frankenstein’s publication, Shelley had buried three children and given birth to a fourth. She was just 21 years old.

Shelley’s later works were largely ignored. But at various points in the 200-plus years since Frankenstein’s publication, Shelly has been called a radical, a feminist and the mother of science fiction. She has also been called a heretic, an adulterer and “as mad as her hero”.

Mary in The Bride! is haggard, lit in a way that highlights undereye circles and the few lines Buckley has on her face. Her mouth is often downturned into a scowl, except when she releases a humourless laugh. There is nothing funny about this Mary. This is a Mary who has lived a hard life.

Depictions of Mary Shelley

This is not the Mary Shelley we know from other film versions.

The 1931 film The Bride of Frankenstein is introduced by Mary Shelley (Elsa Lanchester), when she tells Lord Byron and Percy Shelley the tale she first told them in the 1931 film, Frankenstein, has a second part.

The film is actually startling removed from its source material, and here, Mary is prim and dressed all in white. Byron commands the room; Percy writes – Mary embroiders. When she is asked to look at the storm raging outside the room, she declines, saying “You know how lightning alarms me.”

Mary, in this version, is sweet, mild-mannered and moral.

Mary Shelley (2017) saw a fresh-faced Elle Fanning playing the author from girlhood to grief-stricken motherhood.

For the majority of the film, Mary is youthful and energetic, endlessly inspired and writing at all hours of the day. Her love affair with Percy is a key plot point. Much of the film is spent dealing with the low expectations of her by the men she is surrounded by in Geneva.

Neither film offers a particularly flattering representation. In both, Shelley is at the mercy of her husband.

In The Bride of Frankenstein, Mary cannot so much as light a candle without the aid of “Shelley, darling”. The 2017 film suggests Mary wrote Frankenstein as a way of pointing out Percy’s flaws to him through the character of Victor Frankenstein.

But The Bride! asks viewers not only to reconsider what they know of Frankenstein, his monster, and his monster’s bride, but the woman we remember through them.

This Mary is a possessor, a demon. She says during her lifetime, she couldn’t say all she wanted to – in life and in her work. Now, she will take the chance, by any means necessary.

Ida refuses to be silenced. She is often seen screaming and thrashing about. Her mouth is dyed black by an inky substance, highlighting how often it is open.

Through Ida, Mary gets to call out the bad behaviour of the men who want girls like Ida, and, by extension, Mary, to be quiet. To be a good girl. To be placid and sweet and unable to light their own candles. Mary uses Ida to – literally – hold a gun to their heads and make them apologise for their behaviour, paving the way for a wave of women to fight back against the patriarchal structures that have bound both Ida and Mary.

Here, finally, we have the Mary who could stitch together literature’s favourite monster, rather than a pretty sampler.

– ref. Mary Shelley is often underestimated on screen – does The Bride! finally get her right? – https://theconversation.com/mary-shelley-is-often-underestimated-on-screen-does-the-bride-finally-get-her-right-278547

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/24/mary-shelley-is-often-underestimated-on-screen-does-the-bride-finally-get-her-right-278547/