Category: Evening Report

By Lillian Hanly, RNZ News political reporter

New Zealand has joined Australia, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom in expressing “deep concern” about an Israeli bill expanding the death penalty for Palestinians.

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters posted on social media last night, indicating New Zealand had joined the other nations, and emphasising the country’s opposition “for decades” to the death penalty “in all circumstances”.

It comes as the Green Party tried yesterday to move a motion in Parliament on the issue, but failed to get the support of all parties.

The ACT party told RNZ it did not support the motion being put without notice, and noted the Minister of Foreign Affairs was responsible for expressing New Zealand’s position on international issues.

Earlier this week, the Israeli Parliament finalised a controversial bill that would effectively expand the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of terrorism and nationalistic murders.

The bill stipulated that residents in the West Bank who killed an Israeli “with the intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel” would be sentenced to death.

The Foreign Ministers of Australia, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom released a joint statement expressing their “deep concern” about the bill, saying it would “significantly expand the possibilities to impose the death penalty in Israel”.

‘Discriminatory character’
“We are particularly worried about the de facto discriminatory character of the bill. The adoption of this bill would risk undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.

“The death penalty is an inhumane and degrading form of punishment without any deterring effect. This is why we oppose the death penalty, whatever the circumstances around the world. The rejection of the death penalty is a fundamental value that unites us.”

The statement also urged the Israeli decision makers to “abandon these plans”.

The Green Party wanted to highlight the issue in Parliament, and sought support from across the House to move a motion without notice.

Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick told reporters yesterday afternoon convention stipulated motions without notice needed prior agreement from all parties.

“This stops spurious motions going up and clogging the time of our Parliament.”

The motion read that the “New Zealand House of Representatives expresses deep concern about Israel’s new legislation which extends the use of the death penalty against Palestinians living under unlawful occupation; shares the concerns of Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy about the “de facto discriminatory character’ of the legislation; and calls on the Israeli Government to reverse this legislation”.

Labour, Te Pati Māori supported motion
Opposition Labour and Te Pāti Māori parties both told RNZ they supported the motion.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said his party would firmly support a motion in the House to condemn Israel’s use of the death penalty against Palestianians.

“It clearly discriminates against Palestinians — a point underscored by the fact that the law does not apply to Israeli extremists who commit similar crimes. There are major issues with the process including that it removes the right to an appeal. By condemning Israel, we would stand alongside the United Nations, EU and the UK.”

Te Pāti Māori told RNZ it supported the motion, and queried why other parties had not.

“This law further embeds discrimination into Israel’s justice system by allowing Palestinians to be sentenced to death while others are not subject to the same punishment for similar acts,” a spokesperson for the party said.

“It sits within the context of the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people, and the backdrop of Israel and the United States’ illegal invasion of Iran and Lebanon.”

National and New Zealand First did not respond to queries but the ACT party told RNZ it did not support the motion being put without notice.

‘Symbolic motions’
A spokesperson for the party said it noted the Minister of Foreign Affairs was responsible for expressing New Zealand’s position on international issues, and “ACT supports that approach over symbolic motions in the House”.

“If the House passed a motion every time a country passed a law of concern, we would spend more time talking about other countries’ legislation than our own.

“All MPs have the right to put a motion on notice under Standing Orders.”

In response, Swarbrick said it was “deeply disappointing” and acknowledged the point was “symbolism”.

“I can point to many different examples when the ACT Party, for example, has put forward very similar motions, evidently for the very purpose of that same symbolism, which in turn means something on the international stage.

“It felt particularly pertinent for our country to take a stand against the perpetuation of abuse of human rights with the Israeli Parliament passing the ability to effectively murder, to slaughter Palestinian hostages and prisoners.”

She said a motion on notice did not have the status of being read out in Parliament and having the backing of every single parliamentary party.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/nz-allies-express-deep-concern-about-israeli-death-penalty-bill-for-palestinians/

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on April 2, 2026.

What is Benjamin Netanyahu’s end game in the Iran war?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Kear, Sessional Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney The war between the United States, Israel, and Iran is now into its second month. Despite spectacular early successes, the resilience of Iran’s government and military has meant the US and Israel have lost

Offenders serving community sentences are more likely to keep jobs, earn more – new research
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peer Ebbesen Skov, Associate Professor in Economics, Auckland University of Technology When should offenders be sent to prison and when is it better to keep them in the community under close supervision? New Zealand confronted that choice in 2007 when it introduced home detention, community detention and

As the Iran war disrupts supplies, will it affect access to medicines?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Janetzki, Lecturer in Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Adelaide University As the conflict in the Middle East disrupts fuel, shipping and food supplies, many are starting to ask if they will be still be able to get their medicines if the war drags on. Australia’s medicine supply chain

I hate it when other adults ‘parent’ my kids. What can I do?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christiane Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne Long weekends often bring family and friends together in a mix of generations. Somewhere between the egg hunt and hot cross buns this weekend, there might be a moment where another adult steps in to “parent” your

We can’t implant our brains in robot beavers – but Hoppers gets a lot right about animal science
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Lynne Hendershott, Lecturer in Biological Anthropology, Australian National University Hoppers is a deceptively simple story that opens up complex ethical and scientific questions. Jerry (Jon Hamm), the mayor of Beaverton, has marked a forest glade for destruction, so commuters can save four minutes of drive time.

New Stan film Whale Shark Jack is a kid-focused tribute to WA’s awe-inspiring coastline
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellie McFarlane, PhD Candidate, School of Media & Communication, RMIT University Whale Shark Jack is Stan’s heartfelt, kid-focused addition to the Australian wildlife movie canon. Its brief run time and ambitious mix of genres means some elements are under-cooked. Nonetheless, the film shines as a love letter

Iranian president calls on American public to challenge US war motives
By Ali Hashem in Tehran This is a war of narratives with the United States administration trying to push forward its narrative of “victory” while the Iranian administration or establishment is trying to push its narrative of being suppressed and under attack. The Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, has clearly said in an open letter to

Is free public transport a good idea? It depends on who gets on board
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne Petrol prices in Australia have risen sharply over the past six weeks. In early February, prices in major cities were around 160–180 cents per litre. By mid-March, they had increased to

Want to be a citizen scientist? Here are 5 ways to get involved
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Miki Perkins, Environment & Energy Editor, The Conversation Ever wondered what it might feel like to spot giant spider crabs while you’re snorkelling? Or check plants for the circular holes that indicate native bees are collecting nest materials? Citizen science relies on people like you – more

Selling stolen art is tricky, so why even bother heisting it? An expert explains
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anja Shortland, Reader in Political Economy, King’s College London It took less than three minutes for an organised crime gang to steal a Renoir, Matisse and a Cezanne painting collectively worth around €9 million (£7.8m) from a private museum near Parma, Italy in March 2026. This is

Bigger storms, more often: new study projects likely future rainfall impacts on NZ
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Muhammad Fikri Sigid, Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Science, University of Waikato In the aftermath of the latest bout of extreme rainfall across New Zealand’s upper North Island, there were some familar scenes. Submerged pastures. Silt carried by swollen rivers and piled against bridges. Floodwaters surrounding homes whose

Trump risks falling in to the ‘asymmetric resolve’ trap in Iran − just as presidents before him did elsewhere
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University Little has seemingly gone as Washington planned in the war against Iran. The Iranian people have not risen up, one hard-line leader has been replaced by another, Iranian missiles and drones keep hitting targets across the

A New York Times critic used AI to write his review – but criticism is deeply human
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bec Kavanagh, Senior Tutor in Publishing & Creative Writing, The University of Melbourne An author and freelance journalist has admitted to using AI to help him write a book review for the New York Times. Alex Preston’s review of Jean-Baptiste Andrea’s novel Watching Over Her, published by

As NASA launches a crewed Moon mission, Australia is once again playing a critical role
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristan Moss, Senior Lecturer in History, UNSW Sydney On April 1 2026, NASA is sending astronauts back around the Moon. And Australia will play a critical role in helping them get there. Four astronauts will launch from Florida, bound for the Moon aboard the Orion spacecraft. Similar

Housing construction costs are already rising, increasing risks of builders going bust
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lyndall Bryant, Senior lecturer, QUT Centre for Justice, School of Econmics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology For Australia’s building industry, higher fuel costs since the start of the Middle East war have been just the start of the pain. Countless construction products are made with petroleum-based

Unethical brain rot: why are millions watching AI fruits have affairs on TikTok?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niusha Shafiabady, Professor in Computational Intelligence, Australian Catholic University If you’ve spent much time on TikTok recently, you may have noticed a strange new type of AI brain rot taking over: fruit dramas. These AI-generated short dramas feature odd-looking anthropomorphic fruit characters engaging in a range of

This common antidepressant helps people cut back on methamphetamine – new study
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca McKetin, Associate Professor, National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney Methamphetamine – more commonly known as meth, crystal or ice – is a highly addictive, stimulant drug. An estimated 7.4 million people in the world are dependent on it or “addicted” to it. They face

Toxic blooms and invasive clams are forcing a rethink on the Waikato River
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Hartland, Adjunct Associate Professor in Freshwater Biogeochemistry, Lincoln University, New Zealand The Waikato is New Zealand’s longest river, central to the identity and practices of Waikato River iwi and a source of drinking water for nearly half of the country’s population. It is also becoming a

We have the proof that logging makes Tasmania’s forests more flammable
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Bowman, Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science, University of Tasmania In 1967, catastrophic bushfires in Tasmania killed dozens of people – and very nearly destroyed Hobart. A year later, W.D. Jackson, Professor of Botany at the University of Tasmania, published a short but very influential article

Does AI mean more uni students are plagiarising their work?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy Curtis, Associate professor, The University of Western Australia People using other peoples’ ideas, words and creations without acknowledgement is a widespread problem. Plagiarism occurs everywhere from restaurant menus to political speeches and music. Within academia, plagiarism is seen as a serious breach of integrity for scholars

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/er-report-a-roundup-of-significant-articles-on-eveningreport-nz-for-april-2-2026/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peer Ebbesen Skov, Associate Professor in Economics, Auckland University of Technology

When should offenders be sent to prison and when is it better to keep them in the community under close supervision?

New Zealand confronted that choice in 2007 when it introduced home detention, community detention and intensive supervision as alternatives to short prison terms.

At the time of the reform, New Zealand relied heavily on prison for criminal justice. The prison population stood at 189 per 100,000 people, compared to an OECD average of 136, and prisons were operating above capacity.

Two decades later, these non-custodial sentences are now a substantial part of the justice system.

In the 2024–25 financial year, the courts convicted and sentenced 50,800 people, but only about 15% received imprisonment. About one in five were sentenced to home detention, community detention or intensive supervision for offences ranging from careless or dangerous driving to theft and burglary.

We conducted two studies to examine what followed when sentencing shifted away from short prison terms towards community-based sanctions, focusing on work and reoffending, respectively.

We found offenders are more likely to retain work and earn more if they stay in the community, without raising the risk of new substantive reoffending.

The budget case for community-based sentences is straightforward. A day in prison costs NZ$552, compared with $116 for home detention. But sentencing policy should not be judged purely on fiscal arithmetic.

Keeping offenders in the community may help them hold on to work and family ties, but it also raises concerns about deterrence and public safety. Understanding the trade-offs between short prison terms and community-based sanctions matters in New Zealand because most offenders now remain in the community.

Keeping jobs, earning more

Our research regarding work found the 2007 reform improved offenders’ labour market outcomes.

Comparing first-time offenders sentenced in the year before and after the reform, and adjusting for broader changes over time, monthly earnings over three years were about $107 higher under the post-reform regime. This is about 6% more than they otherwise would have earned, or roughly $3,850 per offender in total.

Part of this gain is pragmatic. Offenders sentenced before the reform were more likely to spend time in prison immediately after sentencing, while those sentenced after the reform remained in the community and able to work. But the earnings effect goes further than this.

Even beyond the first 24 months, when any short prison sentence under the old regime would have ended, earnings remain higher. Across ten years after sentencing, this adds up to a cumulative gain of roughly $7,800 per offender.

The strongest earnings gains appear among offenders who already had a foothold in the labour market before sentencing. This suggests community-based sentences helped offenders hold on to better and more stable jobs, which would have otherwise been disrupted by a short prison term.

Any reoffending stems from breach of conditions

Our study focused on reoffending revealed a more nuanced picture. Recorded recidivism rises under the post-reform regime, by about 8.7% after one year, 9.5% after two years and 9.6% after five years.

However, this increase does not appear to reflect more substantive offending; the increase is driven by convictions for breaching sentence conditions.

In New Zealand, serious breaches are classified as offences against justice, and it is those that are driving the higher recorded recidivism. This suggests the reform increased breaches of sentence conditions, rather than new substantive offending.

New Zealand’s experience is not unique. Internationally, community-based sanctions and electronic monitoring are used both as a substitute for prison and a form of supervision following early release.

These sentences also replace different amounts of custody, ranging from short prison terms to the final months of longer sentences. The institutional settings differ, with some countries offering stronger reintegration support and more active labour market programmes than others.

Even across that variation, the evidence is broadly consistent. Studies from Europe, the UK, Argentina and Australia find no or lower reoffending, while Danish and recent Swedish research also points to better employment and earnings outcomes.

Our findings add to this by showing that the labour market gains seen in Denmark and Sweden can also arise in New Zealand’s leaner welfare-state setting, while the reoffending rates fit the broader international pattern that prison alternatives at least do not lead to clear increases in substantive reoffending.

Taken together, the evidence makes a favourable case for community-based sentencing instead of short periods of imprisonment. Such sentencing delivers fiscal savings alongside stronger labour market outcomes and higher future tax-paying capacity for offenders, without increasing substantive reoffending.

In the New Zealand context, important questions remain about effects on offenders’ families, victims and the public’s sense of safety. Evidence from Danish research nevertheless provides an encouraging lead, suggesting that community-based sentences also benefit offenders’ family members.

– ref. Offenders serving community sentences are more likely to keep jobs, earn more – new research – https://theconversation.com/offenders-serving-community-sentences-are-more-likely-to-keep-jobs-earn-more-new-research-279215

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/offenders-serving-community-sentences-are-more-likely-to-keep-jobs-earn-more-new-research-279215/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Kear, Sessional Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

The war between the United States, Israel, and Iran is now into its second month. Despite spectacular early successes, the resilience of Iran’s government and military has meant the US and Israel have lost the strategic initiative. This means they are being more reactive than proactive in determining the outcome of the war.
One of the main reasons for this: the contradictory strategic objectives of the US and Israel. Since the war began, the Trump administration has struggled to justify its attack on Iran.

One of the reasons it is flailing is that the war runs contrary to the US’ long-held strategy in the Persian Gulf. The strategy is based on the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which was issued in response to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan.

In his 1980 State of the Union Address, then-President Jimmy Carter declared any attempt to gain control of the Persian Gulf was contrary to the US’ vital interests and would be repelled by any means, including the use of military force.

[embedded content]

To this end, the US Fifth Fleet was stationed permanently in the Persian Gulf and economic sanctions were imposed on Iran and the USSR. Since 2001, there has been an exponential growth in US military bases in the Gulf, with approximately 50,000 US military personnel now stationed there.

Despite this military dominance, successive administrations accepted the tentative status quo with Iran. They understood that while it was still considered a threat, any military action to remove that threat would be counter-productive.

This is primarily because it risked the very thing the doctrine sought to prevent – control of the Persian Gulf – in this case through Iran’s denial of access through the Strait of Hormuz.

How Israel’s objectives differ

For Israel, the strategic calculations for war with Iran are vastly different. Iran is a key member of the Axis of Resistance. This is a loosely aligned coalition consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas.

The main objectives of the axis are to resist US regional domination, destroy Israel and support Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation. The axis could not hope to challenge US dominance or destroy Israel. But Iran did provide support to Hezbollah and Hamas to resist Israel and its occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Despite the constant threat to Israeli security posed by the axis, the US had successfully restrained Israel from taking sustained military action against axis members. This maintained the Gulf’s status quo and kept the oil flowing.

But since October 2023, this restraint has been lifted. In retaliation for the Hamas-led attacks on Israel, the Netanyahu government implemented its “mowing the grass” strategy. This is where Israel seeks to manage a conflict with an enemy by trying to eliminate its immediate leadership and destroy or significantly degrade its economic, political and military capabilities to establish a level of deterrence.

Israel is using this strategy against Hamas and Hezbollah with devastating effect. Israeli troops are advancing into southern Lebanon, with the aim of occupying Lebanese territory to act a buffer zone between Lebanon and northern Israel. This would rob Hezbollah of most of its traditional stronghold in Lebanon.

However, this has led to the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians. It has also meant the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Israel is now using the same strategy of destruction against Iran – assassinating key political and military leaders and destroying political and civilian infrastructure throughout the country.

Netanyahu as war leader in an election year

Not only is this war seriously degrading Iran’s military and political power, it also represents a huge boon for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an election year. Hamas’ 2023 attacks on Israel were an enormous embarrassment to the prime minister, who staked his reputation on being seen as the “protector of Israel”.

Now in the lead-up to the next election, due by October 27, Netanyahu can argue his government has crushed Hamas and Hezbollah, and humbled Iran. Netanyahu is desperate to win the election and will likely use the Iran war as a springboard to retaining the prime ministership.

This would place him in a stronger position to have President Isaac Herzog pardon him and cancel his years-long corruption trial. In short, Netanyahu has plenty of incentives to continue attacking both Iran and Hezbollah.

But the problem is there are costs to this apparent political windfall.

First, support for his government wavers, despite overwhelming backing for his war on Iran and Hezbollah. While recent polling indicates Netanyahu’s Likud Party riding high in the polls, it appears contingent on Netanyahu achieving his long-stated goals – the destruction of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the collapse of the current Iranian regime.

Polling in early 2025 also showed Likud’s support plummeting on news of an impending ceasefire with Hamas. This fickleness must surely worry Netanyahu, should the Trump administration negotiate a ceasefire that Iran says needs to include Hezbollah.

Second, support for Israel in the US has plummeted post-2023, with 65% of Democrats and 41% of independents now sympathising with Palestinians. While support for Israel remains strong among Republicans, the poll also noted it is at its lowest levels since 2004.

The same can be said of support for Israel in Europe, with polling taken in 2025 revealing it to be at historic lows.

This does not bode well for Israel because it desperately needs the US$3.8 billion (A$5.5 billion) it receives annually from the US alongside unfettered access to US military hardware and munitions. Without this aid, Israel could no longer act against external threats with impunity, and would face a severe economic recession. Given US President Donald Trump’s historic capriciousness, this support cannot be taken for granted.

[embedded content]

Third, senior ministers in Netanyahu’s government, including Netanyahu himself, are under investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity concerning their conduct during Israel’s war on Gaza. While Netanyahu’s government continues to protest its innocence, any adverse findings would likely further decrease international support for Israel, leaving it more isolated than ever.

Finally, while Israel and the US have seriously weakened Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, simply surviving the onslaught is considered a victory by these actors, given the vast differences in military capability.

It has also led to the installation of a younger, emboldened, and more hardline leadership, especially in Iran, making the revitalisation of a more militant Axis of Resistance intent of exacting revenge more likely.

So instead of enhancing Israel’s security, Netanyahu may have paradoxically made Israel’s future security environment increasingly complicated and hazardous. Such an outcome would leave Israel more vulnerable to attack at a time when backing from traditional supporters is uncertain.

– ref. What is Benjamin Netanyahu’s end game in the Iran war? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-benjamin-netanyahus-end-game-in-the-iran-war-279101

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/what-is-benjamin-netanyahus-end-game-in-the-iran-war-279101/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Janetzki, Lecturer in Pharmacy and Pharmacology, Adelaide University

As the conflict in the Middle East disrupts fuel, shipping and food supplies, many are starting to ask if they will be still be able to get their medicines if the war drags on.

Australia’s medicine supply chain is built to handle short disruptions. So you shouldn’t have problems accessing most common medicines in the short to medium term.

But it isn’t designed for prolonged global instability.

What’s in place to protect our medicine supply?

Since July 2023, Australia has had specific stock-holding requirements for many medicines the government subsidises on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

It means manufacturers must hold at least four or six month’ worth of stock of these medicines, depending on the particular medicine, on Australian soil.

This creates a buffer. If a shortage begins, it gives the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), our national medicines regulator, time to respond and reduce the impact.

These medicines aren’t stored in a single warehouse. They’re spread across wholesalers and pharmacies. This helps ensure access across the country, including in regional areas.

The list of medicines covered is reviewed regularly and another review is due this month. This means regulators can adjust which medicines are prioritised as global conditions change.

However, this protection does not apply to every medicine.

If a medicine is not listed on the PBS, the risk of shortages increases. This includes newer medicines and those only available on private prescription. These medicines often have smaller stock buffers and fewer suppliers so they are more vulnerable when supply chains are disrupted.

What about existing shortages?

Australia has been dealing with medicine shortages for several years. Common causes include manufacturing problems such as difficulty sourcing raw ingredients and sudden increases in demand for medicines.

There have been ongoing shortages of attention-deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) medicines lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate, for example, due to global demand and production limits overseas. Some antibiotics and hormone replacement therapies have also been affected by manufacturing disruptions. High demand for weight-loss medicines has also affected supply.

Where do our medicines come from?

Australia produces some medicines and vaccines locally, but we are not self-sufficient. Even when medicines are made here, the raw ingredients are often imported. Overall, more than 90% of medicines used in Australia come from overseas.

The main sources of medicines are the United States, Europe, India and China. India and China are especially important because they manufacture many of the raw ingredients used to make medicines. Even the US depends on these supply chains, which then affects countries such as Australia.

This is where the system becomes fragile

Medicine supply chains are less like a straight pipeline and more like a spider’s web. Their strength depends on every strand of the web being intact. One strand might be a factory in India. Another could be a shipping route through a conflict zone. Another is a wholesaler in Australia.

If one strand breaks, the system does not collapse immediately, but it weakens. When several strands are disrupted at once, the effects ripple across the network.

War can disrupt this web in multiple ways. Shipping routes may be blocked or delayed. Air transport can be restricted. Access to raw materials may be limited. Manufacturing can slow down. Even in Australia, fuel shortages could affect how medicines are transported between cities and pharmacies.

War is one risk. Natural disasters, pandemics and even panic buying can all place additional pressure on supply. When these pressures happen at the same time, shortages become more likely.

We rely on such a complex system because of costs and efficiencies. Manufacturing medicines in Australia is expensive. Producing them overseas is often cheaper. The system also relies on what’s known as “just-in-time” supply. Stock is replenished regularly rather than stored in larger quantities.

This keeps medicine prices lower, but also means there’s less room for error when disruptions occur.

For now, Australia is managing

In the short term, the current buffer is likely enough. But if disruptions continue for six months or longer, the risk of broader shortages increases, especially for medicines that are made by fewer manufacturers or with single or limited raw ingredients.

There are currently 397 medicines listed as being in shortage. This number fluctuates but is slightly down from what we’ve seen in the past few years. The TGA provides public information on current and anticipated shortages, along with guidance on how they are managed.

---

Read more: Why doesn’t Australia make more medicines? Wouldn’t that fix drug shortages?

---

There are also systems in place to respond when shortages occur. These systems have been shown to work.

The TGA can allow temporary importation of medicines approved in other countries, known as Section 19A approvals. In some cases, these medicines can also be subsidised under the PBS.

If the pharmacist can’t swap you to another brand of a product, the TGA can provide special permission for pharmacists to dispense a different formulation of the same medicine without needing to contact the doctor. This helps maintain access without needing a new prescription.

Increasing local manufacturing would improve resilience but it would take time and significant investment.

What should I do in the meantime?

Don’t panic or stockpile medicines. Keep your prescriptions up to date. Plan ahead so you don’t run out.

If you’re concerned, speak to your pharmacist and doctor. If your medicine is in short supply, there may be alternatives or ways to source your medicine from another location.

Australia’s medicine supply chain is designed to manage disruption and it has done so before. While global pressures are increasing, there are safeguards in place and multiple ways health professionals and policy makers can respond to help you if shortages occur.

– ref. As the Iran war disrupts supplies, will it affect access to medicines? – https://theconversation.com/as-the-iran-war-disrupts-supplies-will-it-affect-access-to-medicines-279655

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/as-the-iran-war-disrupts-supplies-will-it-affect-access-to-medicines-279655/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christiane Kehoe, Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne

Long weekends often bring family and friends together in a mix of generations.

Somewhere between the egg hunt and hot cross buns this weekend, there might be a moment where another adult steps in to “parent” your child in ways that don’t sit well with you. Maybe they are too sharp or too bossy. Or it’s just not how you do things.

These situations are often less about those involved “behaving badly” and more about emotions running high. This goes for kids and adults.

What can you do about it?

What’s going on?

It can be uncomfortable when a friend or relative uses a harsh tone, gives orders or disciplines your child in a way that feels too strong.

Often, this taps into something deeper. Many of us were raised with more punitive or directive parenting styles, and we can feel triggered seeing those approaches repeated with our own children.

At the same time, gatherings can lead to sensory overload. Noise, excitement, sugar and disrupted routines can push everyone closer to their limits. This is especially so for children, who are still developing emotional regulation.

What can you do?

If another adult steps in with your child in a way you don’t like, you can gently enter the interaction – rather than directly confront the other adult in the moment.

It can help to move physically closer, make eye contact, and gently touch your child with a warm smile. This allows you to take the lead without escalating tension. You might say to your child:

Hey, it’s getting loud – let’s step outside for a minute.

Later, if needed, you can have a quiet word with the relative. Try to keep it collaborative rather than critical. For example,

We’re trying to help Lily learn to calm down rather than just tell her to stop yelling. So I usually talk it through with her.

Framing it as your approach (rather than their mistake) reduces defensiveness.

When you’re with someone else’s child

Sometimes you might find yourself needing to respond to a child who isn’t yours. Perhaps they’re grabbing toys, yelling or about to knock over the dessert table. The key here is to focus on providing guidance through giving clear direction.

Instead of jumping straight to commands or corrections, aim for calm and descriptive responses without judgement. For example:

Oops! That was close. Let’s move away from the table.

Looks like you’re really excited, let’s keep the noise a bit lower inside.

I can’t let you throw that, it might hurt someone. Let’s find something else to do.

This aligns with the “emotion coaching” approach to parenting. This acknowledges a child’s feeling/s while setting a clear limit. If the child’s parent is nearby, it’s usually best to loop them in rather than take over.

Hey, just letting you know Poppy is climbing on the table.

This keeps boundaries clear and respects the parent’s role. When you do need to step in (for reasons of safety or respect), keep your tone calm and your language simple.

Avoid shaming the child or raising your voice as this can escalate the situation and undermine the child’s sense of safety, especially when they’re already overstimulated.

What to keep in mind

Get-togethers with friends and family are fun but rarely perfect. Children can experience some big emotions. They can feel left out, disappointed, overwhelmed or overexcited. Adults get triggered and parenting styles differ. During these times, try and hold onto a few core ideas.

• Behaviour is communication about children’s underlying emotions, needs and regulatory capacities. This is especially so during high-stimulation events. When children become wild or have meltdowns, it’s a sign they may be overstimulated, emotionally overwhelmed or hungry. So they need a break, a different activity, co-regulation (where the parent uses warmth and empathy to create calm) or food.

• Our own reactions are shaped by our past experiences and current capacity. Being aware of this can help us respond in a more measured way and step in to support our child.

• Calm, respectful guidance is more effective than harsh correction – whether it’s your child or someone else’s.

If things don’t go smoothly, check in with your child afterwards about their feelings. Or smooth things over with the relative. In the end, the goal isn’t perfect parenting over the long weekend – it’s staying connected, even in the messy moments.

– ref. I hate it when other adults ‘parent’ my kids. What can I do? – https://theconversation.com/i-hate-it-when-other-adults-parent-my-kids-what-can-i-do-279658

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/i-hate-it-when-other-adults-parent-my-kids-what-can-i-do-279658/

By Ali Hashem in Tehran

This is a war of narratives with the United States administration trying to push forward its narrative of “victory” while the Iranian administration or establishment is trying to push its narrative of being suppressed and under attack.

The Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian, has clearly said in an open letter to the American people that Iran has never started a war, and that Iran has no hostility towards American citizens.

He invited the people of America to look beyond politics and rhetoric and reconsider the realities of the past and present.

He said that as the Iranian people harboured no enmity towards other nations, including the people of America, Europe, and neighboring countries, attacks on Iran’s infrastructure and the targeting of our people would have consequences beyond the country’s border.

“What we do in response is based on the legitimate right of self-defence, not an act of aggression,” he said.

So, given the fact that the Iranians have already denied that they’ve asked for a ceasefire, now we see the president is trying to present a narrative, a complete different narrative, and at the end, showing and preserving Iran’s right to defend itself.

President Pezeshkian urged a shift away from confrontation with Tehran, questioning both US policy priorities and the “machinery of misinformation” about his country.

“Is ‘America First’ truly among the priorities of the US government today?” Pezeshkian asked.

Judge Iran on experience
He also called on Americans to judge Iran by the experiences of those who had visited the nation of some 90 million people and the achievements of Iranian immigrants.

“Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants — educated in Iran — who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West.

“Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?,” he asked.

President Pezeshkian said “the world stands at crossroads”, and argued that continuing on a path of hostility toward Iran was “more costly and futile than ever before”.

He described the choice between confrontation and engagement as “both real and consequential,” warning that its outcome will “shape the future for generations to come”.

The Iranian president questioned whose interests were being served by US military action against Iran, framing it as costly for both Iranians and Americans.

“Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behaviour?” he asked.

[embedded content]
Iran President’s open letter to the American people          Video: Al Jazeera

“Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country ‘back to the Stone Age’ serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?”

President Pezeshkian also questioned the role of Israel in the war, asking, “Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime?”

“Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar — shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?”

Ali Hashem reports for Al Jazeera.

The full open letter by Iran’s President Pezeshkian to the American people:
To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:

Iran — by this very name, character, and identity — is one of the oldest continuous civilisations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination.

Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers — and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors — Iran has never initiated a war.

Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.

The Iranian people harbour no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness — not a temporary political stance.

For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful — the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran — a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done — and continues to do — is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defence, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’état — an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalisation of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward US policies.

This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression — twice, in the midst of negotiations — against Iran.

Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled — from roughly 30 percent before the Islamic Revolution to over 90 percent today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past.

These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.

At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.

This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behaviour? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?

Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the US government — choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.

Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure — including energy and industrial facilities — directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.

Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians?

Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar — shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?

Is “America First” truly among the priorities of the US government today?

I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation — an integral part of this aggression — and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants — educated in Iran — who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?

Today, the world stands at a crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come.

Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures — resilient, dignified, and proud.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/iranian-president-calls-on-american-public-to-challenge-us-war-motives/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellie McFarlane, PhD Candidate, School of Media & Communication, RMIT University

Whale Shark Jack is Stan’s heartfelt, kid-focused addition to the Australian wildlife movie canon.

Its brief run time and ambitious mix of genres means some elements are under-cooked. Nonetheless, the film shines as a love letter to Western Australia’s coastline and its community.

[embedded content]

Girl meets whale shark

Whale Shark Jack begins on WA’s world-heritage listed Ningaloo Reef. The young Sarah (played by Alyla Browne as a 12-year-old, and by Emmi Williams as a younger child) lives on a boat with her parents, Nita (Abbie Cornish) and Marcus (Michael Dorman) – both of whom research whale sharks.

Sarah and her parents befriend and begin tracking a whale shark they call Jack. When Marcus is killed in a storm, Nita and Sarah return to the coastal town of Exmouth, where Sarah must attend school for the first time.

Sarah struggles to fit in at school, and tracks Jack against her mum’s wishes in the hope they can return to their life on the water. Along the way, she teams up with schoolmates E.J. and Ashleigh (newcomers Luca Miller and Giselle Philogene), and the three work together to find Jack when he might be in trouble.

One story – many genres

The film follows Sarah and Nita as they they move forward and build a community after tragic loss. It’s also a coming-of-age story about a tween girl finding her place in a new environment. It has drama, comedy, adventure and a clear environmental message. While the overall narrative is strong, some of the genre elements and tonal shifts work better than others.

Whale Shark Jack joins a well established canon of Australian wildlife films. With support from the Australian Children’s Television Foundation, it seems to mainly want to attract a younger audience.

In doing so, the film is sometimes overly sentimental and occasionally didactic, particularly in early scenes with the younger Sarah. Moments featuring Luca Miller’s straight-talking E.J. and Karen O’Leary’s quirky coast guard, Rosie, bring some much needed humour – but they are few and far between. The film’s sombre moments are compelling, and Alyla Browne carries its most emotional scenes.

At just 85 minutes, the story is engaging and doesn’t overstay its welcome, but it does miss an opportunity to develop Sarah’s relationship with her father. So viewers might struggle to really mourn his loss, except through Browne and Cornish’s performances.

Showcasing Ningaloo

The film mostly succeeds as a showcase for the landscapes, wildlife and marine life of Ningaloo and Exmouth.

The flat, red earth makes for a striking contrast to the bright, blue ocean. Shots of Sarah swimming with Jack are visually impressive and show off Browne’s diving skills (she trained for two years in preparation for the role). The production team uses spectacular puppetry and effects to create the whale sharks.

Whale sharks are considered endangered, and the filmmakers said they wanted to highlight the “fragile reality” these animals face due to “climate change, habitat loss, marine pollution, and unsustainable fishing practices”. Whale Shark Jack doesn’t dwell much on these threats, but it may still inspire curiosity and care in its audience.

It’s also a thoughtful celebration of the local Baiyungu language and culture. Screenwriter Kathryn Lefroy collaborated with associate producer and Baiyungu Traditional Owner Hazel Walgar to develop the characters of E.J. and his parents.

Walgar and her sister, Gwen Peck, composed a healing song for the film in the Baiyungu language. The piece is important to the film’s exploration of pain, grief and community, and the filmmakers proudly note this is the first time “Baiyungu language and song will be featured on the big screen”.

Whale Shark Jack showcases First Nations design in its costumes, which include Natalie Blacklock’s swimwear featuring First Nations art, and personal items from the cast themselves. These touches add richness and local specificity to the film.

Overall, it is a loving, kid-centred tribute to WA’s coastline and the people and creatures who call it home. What it lacks in depth, it makes up for in heart, spirit and spectacular landscapes.

It won’t leave your cheeks sore, but it might make you dream of Ningaloo’s colourful reef, white sand and awe-inspiring marine life.

Whale Shark Jack is on Stan from today.

– ref. New Stan film Whale Shark Jack is a kid-focused tribute to WA’s awe-inspiring coastline – https://theconversation.com/new-stan-film-whale-shark-jack-is-a-kid-focused-tribute-to-was-awe-inspiring-coastline-278892

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/new-stan-film-whale-shark-jack-is-a-kid-focused-tribute-to-was-awe-inspiring-coastline-278892/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Lynne Hendershott, Lecturer in Biological Anthropology, Australian National University

Hoppers is a deceptively simple story that opens up complex ethical and scientific questions.

Jerry (Jon Hamm), the mayor of Beaverton, has marked a forest glade for destruction, so commuters can save four minutes of drive time. The plan is environmentally assessed as feasible given no animals seem to live there.

But Mabel (Piper Curda) fights to save the glade, using the newest technology to put her mind into an animatronic beaver robot. This allows her to communicate with the animals and coordinate their collective action.

In classic Disney fashion, the town is saved, the mayor realises he was wrong, and everyone goes on to live in harmony.

It may seem like standard animated fare. But Hoppers reflects real scientific themes.

[embedded content]

Understanding habitat rights

Infrastructure development can lead to habitat destruction, wildlife population declines, overcrowding and increased human-animal conflict.

Habitat rights can lead to complex debates between people living in close proximity to “pest” animals, conservationists, politicians and philosophers. These debates often expose human-centric biases: the assumption that human lives and concerns are more important than animal lives and concerns.

Some researchers argue animals have the right to their native habitat, akin to property rights – and humans have a responsibility to recognise those rights.

It becomes more complicated when we have to prioritise one species over another in terms of essential needs.

The glade animals accept species may have conflicting goals when it comes to survival. Prey species like beavers and fish must avoid being eaten, while carnivores need to eat. What does that mean for their right to a safe home?

Hoppers’ focus on an infrastructure project with trivial benefits for humans (shorter commutes) avoids diving into the very sticky issue of who has rights to the glade if it comes down to life or death.

Primates are rapidly losing habitat, often to growing demands for agriculture. Primates then raid the food-rich crops of their former home, and are considered pests. Farmers attempt to deter primates by trapping or killing them.

Anthropologists debate the ethics of animals versus human needs, ultimately concluding we need conservation that meets the needs of all species. In this crop-raiding example, human livelihoods are directly in conflict with animal livelihoods. Who deserves to eat?

Hoppers touches on the issue of habitat rights without asking the bigger questions about what would happen to the glade if it came down to human vs animal survival.

Animals and technology

While we can’t communicate directly with animals by placing our brains in animatronic beavers, scientists have used technology to make animal worlds accessible.

Researchers use GPS collars to monitor elephant ranging patterns; eye-tracking of primates to assess social cognition; and artificial intelligence analysis of vocalisations to decipher animal communication.

Scientists have used animatronic robotic animals to interact with other species. An infant gorilla robot was used to gain trust with a gorilla group. This enabled it to record gorillas’ singing and farting while eating for the first time.

Scientists are also exploring human-animal linguistic communication through technology. From recordings of wild dolphins, we have learnt individuals have specific whistles akin to names.

Apes can learn language using touch screens, with analysis revealing semantic and grammatical patterns. Computers can also translate English into the closest equivalent in the apes’ pictorial vocabulary, acting like the human-to-robot-to-animal earpiece in Hoppers.

Animal resistance

Hoppers taps into a trope that reoccurs in popular media: humans create a techno-scientific invention that inadvertently empowers animals to resist or retaliate against humans – often by turning humans’ own technology back on themselves.

Mabel uses the animatronic beaver to bring the animals together for collective action. Torturous ultrasonic sounds are used against the animals. The animals seek revenge by embodying an avatar of the mayor and attempting to turn the ultrasonic sounds on the people of Beaverton. The human-created technology leads to an animal revolution and a real threat to humanity.

In the Planet of the Apes (1968–2024) and Deep Blue Sea (1999), biomedical testing on animals leads to hyperintelligence and desire for revenge. The apes use human weapons against humans, ultimately subjugating them.

In The Zoo (2015–17), mutagenic animal feed leads to animals having a hivemind-level of communication and sense of solidarity – and an awareness of how to manipulate human technology to systematically kill humans.

In Sweet Tooth (2021–24), research into pandemics led to human-animal hybrids, which then raised questions of ethics and rights of these hybrids: can they be caged, hunted and experimented on?

Humans use animals to test pharmaceuticals, animal food is genetically modified, and there have been very real debates about the legal and moral place of animal-human hybrids.

This recurring cinematic trope addresses our anxieties about the role of technology in our interactions with animals. Will the very source of our greatness and species-defining trait – our technology – also be the source of our downfall?

Become a part of something big

Mabel struggles to maintain her motivation in standing up for animals in the face of apathetic and greedy people.

Fortunately, Mabel’s grandmother teaches her that when she feels angry at injustice, she can always retreat to the forest glade to calm herself.

By stopping, looking and listening, Mabel can start to feel a deep sense of connection to the natural world. It is a lesson we can all learn from.

If you – like me – left this film feeling like the world is unjust, might I pass forward Mabel’s lesson: “It’s hard to be mad when you feel like you’re part of something big”.

– ref. We can’t implant our brains in robot beavers – but Hoppers gets a lot right about animal science – https://theconversation.com/we-cant-implant-our-brains-in-robot-beavers-but-hoppers-gets-a-lot-right-about-animal-science-279651

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/we-cant-implant-our-brains-in-robot-beavers-but-hoppers-gets-a-lot-right-about-animal-science-279651/

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

Petrol prices in Australia have risen sharply over the past six weeks. In early February, prices in major cities were around 160–180 cents per litre. By mid-March, they had increased to approximately 230–240 cents per litre.

More recent reports indicate prices have risen further, exceeding $2.50 per litre on average, with some locations approaching $3 per litre. Despite the government cutting fuel excise and prices dropping slightly, petrol is still well above 200 cents a litre.

In response to rising prices , some states have introduced free public transport. From March 31 to April 30, travelling around Victoria will be free. Tasmania has similarly introduced free bus and ferry travel.

Queensland already operates heavily subsidised fares, with a flat 50-cent fare across its network introduced in 2024.

Other states, including New South Wales, have not introduced fare relief measures. NSW Premier Chris Minns has ruled it out, arguing the fiscal cost would be substantial if fuel prices remain elevated for an extended period, and that short-term fare relief is difficult to sustain.

But, to what extent do free or heavily discounted public transport fares change travel behaviour during this time? Do they reduce petrol demand? And how evenly are the cost-of-travel benefits distributed across the population?

Who’s getting on board?

The free public transport measures introduced by Victoria and Tasmania aim to achieve two outcomes.

The first is to reduce the cost of travel. The second is to reduce reliance on car travel and, in turn, demand for petrol during this period. The success of both depends on whether these measures lead to a shift away from driving.

Evidence consistently shows fare reductions increase public transport use. And larger fare reductions and longer periods produce larger increases in patronage.

Since the introduction of the 50-cent flat fare, public transport patronage in Queensland has increased by around 18% in the first six months and over 20% over first year.

But the source of that increase matters.

In Queensland, beyond anecdotal evidence, there is limited evidence on how much of this reflects a shift away from car travel.

Existing empirical evidence from overseas suggests additional demand does not come entirely from car users. A substantial share comes from existing public transport users travelling more often, as well as from shifts away from walking or cycling, with only a modest share coming from car users.

All about access

Free or heavily discounted public transport does not benefit all travellers equally. The ability to use the system depends on access to the network and the nature of the trip.

Those who live within walking distance of public transport, or who can reliably access park-and-ride facilities (car parks with connections to public transport), are best placed to benefit.

This is particularly the case for trips to central business districts, where services are more frequent and direct.

By contrast, travel between suburbs is often less well served, with lower frequencies, indirect routes, and longer travel times. In outer suburban and regional areas, public transport options may be limited.

Household travel patterns can further constrain switching. Trips that involve school drop-offs, childcare, or coordinating multiple destinations are often less compatible with public transport, particularly where timing and flexibility are critical.

Where public transport is not a viable option, travellers face fewer choices. They may reduce or cancel trips where possible, including working from home, or continue to rely on private cars despite higher fuel costs.

Lasting change?

Most of the existing evidence on fare-free or heavily subsidised public transport comes from periods when fuel prices were relatively stable. This limits how directly those findings can be applied to the current situation.

Even so, these measures are likely to reduce some pressure on petrol demand in the short term. The extent of that effect remains uncertain and will depend on how many travellers are able, and willing, to switch away from cars.

What makes the current setting different and unique is the combination of a sharp increase in the cost of driving and a temporary removal of public transport fares. This creates a stronger incentive to reconsider travel choices than price changes on either side alone.

This means there is also a potential for longer-term effects. Exposure to public transport among otherwise car users may reduce perceived barriers, improve familiarity with the system and lead to habit formation.

Behavioural evidence shows exposure can lead to habit formation, where behaviours persist even after the initial incentive is removed.

Evidence shows behaviour change is more likely when people alter their daily travel routines. Such habit disruptions can weaken car dependency and increase openness to alternatives.

Evidence from the London 2012 Olympic Games provides a clear example. A notable share of travellers altered their usual behaviour during the event, and some of these changes are understood to have persisted beyond the Games.

Similar patterns were also observed during the COVID period, where forced shifts to remote work resulted in some lingering changes in behaviour.

This suggests the current measures in Victoria and Tasmania may function as a unique natural experiment, with outcomes that could differ meaningfully from those observed in previous settings.

While past evidence points to modest shifts away from car travel, the present conditions create a stronger basis for behavioural change, at least for some segments of the population. The longer these schemes remain in place, and fuel prices remain elevated, the stronger these effects are likely to be.

– ref. Is free public transport a good idea? It depends on who gets on board – https://theconversation.com/is-free-public-transport-a-good-idea-it-depends-on-who-gets-on-board-279666

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/is-free-public-transport-a-good-idea-it-depends-on-who-gets-on-board-279666/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Miki Perkins, Environment & Energy Editor, The Conversation

Ever wondered what it might feel like to spot giant spider crabs while you’re snorkelling? Or check plants for the circular holes that indicate native bees are collecting nest materials?

Citizen science relies on people like you – more than a million of them in Australia, actually – to collect and analyse valuable data about the world around us.

Here, we introduce five citizen science projects you can take part in. For most of them, all you need to get started is an app on your phone.

Science lives far beyond the lab, and it’s not just done by scientists.

In this series, we spotlight the world of citizen science – its benefits, discoveries and how you can participate.

---

Spider Crab Watch

Elodie Campresse, Honorary Fellow – School of Life and Environmental Sciences – Deakin University

Every winter in Port Phillip Bay in Naarm/Melbourne, tens of thousands of great spider crabs gather in shallow water to moult – shedding their shells and growing new ones that grow to about 16 centimetres. But scientists know surprisingly little about them. The gatherings can be unpredictable and short-lived, making them difficult for scientists to monitor alone.

Spider Crab Watch helps researchers fill these knowledge gaps. By bringing together observations from the public – including divers, snorkellers and fishers – scientists can better understand when and where gatherings occur, how long they last, and what environmental conditions might trigger them.

Citizen scientists have already logged hundreds of observations, helping researchers identify new gathering sites and better understand when aggregations occur. Participants can log when and where they see spider crabs – whether a single crab or a large group, in Port Phillip Bay or elsewhere. Photos are helpful but not essential. Empty shells washed up on beaches can also be logged.

---

NOBURN

Sam Van Holsbeeck, Research Fellow – Forest Research Institute – University of the Sunshine Coast

NOBURN (the National Bushfire Resilience Network) is a citizen science project aimed at improving our understanding of the role of vegetation in bushfire risk. Using an app, people around Australia can log their observations – including site photographs – to support research into fuel dynamics, fuel load and bushfire risk.

Guided by the app, participants assess vegetation at a site, noting factors such as shrub density and overall fuel hazard. Observations typically take 10–15 minutes and can be conducted by community members, landholders, students or land managers. To date, we have collected 154 verified site observations and more than 160 registered users.

Observations supplied by citizen scientists help researchers understand the structure, density and dryness of forest fuels. Combined with AI, this data allows for better prediction of the likelihood and severity of fires. While this data is not as detailed as a full expert assessment, they provide useful indicative information, particularly in areas where formal fuel monitoring is limited.

---

FrogID

Jodi Rowley, Curator – Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Biology – Australian Museum – UNSW Sydney

Australia’s frogs are in trouble. At least four species have been lost and dozens more are on the edge of extinction. Yet we lack the information needed to make informed decisions about how to conserve them. Frogs are very sensitive to environmental change. This makes them great indicators of environmental change (they’re often referred to as the “canary in the coal mine”). By monitoring them, we also gain insight into environmental health.

FrogID taps the keen eyes and ears of people across Australia to gather the data needed to help save Australia’s frogs.

Using our free app, people can record frogs wherever they hear them. The best time is after rain and in the first few hours after dark. Once submitted, Australian Museum frog experts listen to the recordings and identify species.

There are more than 100,000 registered users of FrogID who have together gathered almost 1.5 million records of frogs from across Australia. It’s safe to say this dataset has revolutionised our understanding of frogs in Australia – including finding 13 frog species new to science.

---

1 Million Turtles

James Van Dyke, Associate Professor in Biomedical Sciences – La Trobe University

Freshwater turtle numbers have fallen 60–90% across most of the rivers and wetlands of Australia, amid engineered flows and increasingly dry conditions. As turtles disappear, they leave a large gap. Turtles are the “vacuum cleaners” of the waterways, eating decaying organisms and vegetation and improving water quality.

The 1 Million Turtles project aims to increase survival rates of freshwater turtles and turtle nests, and increase Australia’s turtle population by at least one million animals.

People of all ages can download and record any turtles or turtle nests they see in Australia. They can also volunteer for other activities, such as nest protection, via our website.

To date, our citizen scientists have logged nearly 34,000 turtle records across the country. They have also saved more than 2,600 turtles from dangerous road crossings, and protected more than 1,940 turtle nests from invasive foxes and pigs.

Assuming each nest held an average of 15 eggs, and half of the turtles saved on roads were adult females of reproductive age, our program has given 400,000 turtles the chance of a future in just the past five years.

Data from this community conservation program has led to the conservation status of turtle species being upgraded to threatened or endangered. It has also prompted the development of state conservation programs for turtles in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

---

Australian ‘leafcutter’ bees

Kit Prendergast, Research Fellow – School of Science – University of Southern Queensland

Native bee numbers are declining and we have limited information about them. There are more than 2,000 species of native bee, including the Megachile bee. Some species of Megachile bee use plant leaves or even petals to build their nests, giving them the common name of leafcutter bees.

We don’t yet know which plants these bee species rely on. This citizen science project allows the public to use an app to identify which plants the bees are relying on. By noting preferred plants, we’ll have a better idea of how to create habitats for these gorgeous native bees and pollinators.

Most native bees cannot be identified by citizens, due to the specialised skills required, and most diagnostic features being microscopic. But when it comes to plants, these are much better known among the public and can be identified easily by photos.

Members of the public can download the free iNaturalist app and when they see a plant that has distinctive discs cut out, or see a Megachile bee in action, they can take a photo of the leaf “damage”. Once completed, gardeners, land managers and farmers will be able to access an evidence-based list of which nesting plants should accompany food plants.

---

– ref. Want to be a citizen scientist? Here are 5 ways to get involved – https://theconversation.com/want-to-be-a-citizen-scientist-here-are-5-ways-to-get-involved-278096

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/want-to-be-a-citizen-scientist-here-are-5-ways-to-get-involved-278096/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anja Shortland, Reader in Political Economy, King’s College London

It took less than three minutes for an organised crime gang to steal a Renoir, Matisse and a Cezanne painting collectively worth around €9 million (£7.8m) from a private museum near Parma, Italy in March 2026. This is the second high profile art heist in recent months, after the theft of jewellery worth €9.5 million (£8.25m) from Paris’s Louvre in October 2025.

The items stolen are clearly valuable. But, as an expert in the governance of criminal markets, I can tell you acquiring the goods is only the first step. Turning this loot into cash is fraught with risk .

The Italian government takes the protection of its cultural heritage seriously, with a whole department of the Carabinieri (Italian police) devoted to the theft of arts and antiquities. This department scans the global art trade for forged, stolen and illegally exported treasures, demanding their return.

There is little chance of selling the stolen masterpieces on the international art market – even at a knockdown price. Whereas in the past dealers and auction houses might have turned a blind eye to the fishy origins of an outstanding artwork, over the past two decades the norms and procedures of the market have tightened considerably.

Anyone who buys art without checking whether a former owner has registered their interest in the object fails the bona fide (good faith) test. This means that they cannot obtain a good title and so the legal property right remains with the person or institution the artwork was stolen from. Also sales of stolen art where the seller sidestepped due diligence can be voided, meaning the money must be returned.

So reputable dealers and auction houses take their duty of care very seriously. At the very least they check the freely accessible Interpol database of stolen art before the sale. However, private databases – like that of the Art Loss Register – provide greater peace of mind, listing many more lost and stolen objects and limit searching to those with a legitimate interest in an object. When a register finds that someone is trying to bring a stolen artwork into the open market, they collect and pass on all information that could lead the police to its location or the people involved in its sale or storage.

Anything fresh from a museum wall is therefore unsaleable – unless it is jewellery that can be broken up and sold as (expensive) scrap. So, what might be the financial motivation behind this theft?

A Bond-style villain ordering favourite paintings to adorn their lair is an unlikely explanation. Yes, paintings could be stolen to order, but buying art on the open market to launder money is less risky. With high rewards for information or the return of stolen artworks, security and omerta (the code of silence) would have to be completely watertight when displaying stolen treasures.

On the other hand, “rewards for information” could be a motivation for theft in itself. In the middle of the last century, insurers regularly paid “finders” with so little scrutiny that high-value art theft became a profitable low-risk occupation. Institutions like the Art Loss Register broke that cosy coexistence and instead used any leads to help the police conduct recoveries and sting operations.

Nowadays, it is only safe to negotiate a deal over a “finder’s fee” when a stolen object has changed hands so many times that the line to the original thieves is lost in the mist of time. Even so, the ultimate “finder” would be lucky to realise more than 10% of the painting’s value, which they would also likely have to share with the thieves and various shady underworld owners along the way.

However, there is a third reason to steal artworks. Organised crime groups sometimes use stolen artworks as bargaining chips to negotiate more lenient punishment. For example, the Dresden jewellery thieves kept a few pieces of their haul aside to use their recovery to negotiate shorter sentences. Penitentos (“repentant ones”) who want to leave mafia organisations also sometimes provide information on the whereabouts of missing treasures. If there is a perception that stolen artworks can used to reduce a prison sentence or financial compensation package, their underworld value can grow far beyond the finder’s fee.

While it is difficult to verify the assertion that stolen artworks are used as collateral in drug deals, several unique treasures have indeed been retrieved from properties owned by senior mafiosi. These works have not been found in temperature controlled galleries, but rolled up in dank places that make museum curators weep with despair. Let us hope that the beautiful artworks from Parma are treated with respect until we see them again.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

– ref. Selling stolen art is tricky, so why even bother heisting it? An expert explains – https://theconversation.com/selling-stolen-art-is-tricky-so-why-even-bother-heisting-it-an-expert-explains-279700

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/selling-stolen-art-is-tricky-so-why-even-bother-heisting-it-an-expert-explains-279700/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Muhammad Fikri Sigid, Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Science, University of Waikato

In the aftermath of the latest bout of extreme rainfall across New Zealand’s upper North Island, there were some familar scenes.

Submerged pastures. Silt carried by swollen rivers and piled against bridges. Floodwaters surrounding homes whose owners were forced to flee.

As we count the toll of these events, which have wrought billions of dollars in damage over the past few years alone, there are inevitably questions about the hidden hand of climate change.

But just as pressing is another question: just how much worse might they become in a potentially much warmer world, decades from now?

Our newly published research, exploring a range of warming scenarios and drawing on the Ministry for the Environment’s latest climate projections, provides some useful answers.

The results point to a future where extreme rainfall is both more intense and more frequent across much of the country – with some simulated storms bearing the hallmarks of weather disasters from Aotearoa’s past.

Why and where future storms get wetter

It has long been understood that, as global temperatures rise, the atmosphere can hold more water vapour, increasing the likelihood of heavier rainfall during storms.

This broad pattern is borne out in the climate model simulations we examined, which show the most extreme rainfall events are likely to intensify over the coming decades.

But our analysis also enabled us to tease out some finer insights about what may lie ahead.

By the second half of the century, we found the most intense one-day and three-day rainfall events in a typical year – often involving totals of hundreds of millimetres of rain – are projected to increase by around 10% to 20% across much of New Zealand.

The extent of these increases depends on future emissions, with larger shifts under higher greenhouse gas scenarios. Impacts also vary region-by-region.

Some of the largest increases are projected in the central North Island and parts of the South Island’s west coast – regions already prone to some of the country’s most intense rainfall. In contrast, some eastern regions, such as Hawke’s Bay and parts of Canterbury, are expected to see smaller or more variable changes.

Even so, the overall trend is toward more frequent extremes.

We examined changes under a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, in which global greenhouse gas emissions peak around mid-century before gradually declining, while global warming reaches about 2.7C above pre-industrial levels by century’s end.

By that point, about half of the locations we analysed could have experienced at least a 50% increase in impactful rainfall events – which we define as events that historically occurred about once a decade – relative to New Zealand’s recent climate (1985–2014).

Around 30% of places could see a doubling, and roughly 10% could experience three times as many events. In some places, however, the largest events may still fall within threshold of events in the historical record.

The regional differences we observed reflect a mix of local geography, weather patterns and natural climate variability – meaning chance still plays an important role in how extreme rainfall is experienced in any one place.

When history repeats

In May 1923, days of intense rainfall inundated North Canterbury. In what was one of the most statistically extreme rainfall events recorded in New Zealand’s history, towns were swamped, roads were cut off and hundreds of families were forced to evacuate.

One century later, Cyclone Gabrielle left in its wake flooded communities, thousands of landslides and a national damage bill estimated at between NZ$9–14 billion.

In each of these cases, large-scale weather systems transported vast amounts of moisture across the ocean toward New Zealand before dumping it in torrential downpours.

These major storms also bore patterns that closely resembled those in several of the most extreme simulated rainfall events that we examined.

Naturally-driven rain-makers – be they low pressure systems, ex-tropical cyclones or moisture-packed “atmospheric rivers” – will always remain part of New Zealand’s weather mix.

But, while future extremes are likely to stem from same types of storm systems, the consequences will be more severe.

This carries important implications for how Aotearoa prepares for flood risk today and how it adapts to a warmer, wilder future. More than 750,000 New Zealanders already live in areas exposed to 1-in-100-year rainfall flood events.

If tomorrow’s extreme events exceed historic records more often, infrastructure designed for those past conditions may no longer be enough to protect people and property.

– ref. Bigger storms, more often: new study projects likely future rainfall impacts on NZ – https://theconversation.com/bigger-storms-more-often-new-study-projects-likely-future-rainfall-impacts-on-nz-279653

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/bigger-storms-more-often-new-study-projects-likely-future-rainfall-impacts-on-nz-279653/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bec Kavanagh, Senior Tutor in Publishing & Creative Writing, The University of Melbourne

An author and freelance journalist has admitted to using AI to help him write a book review for the New York Times.

Alex Preston’s review of Jean-Baptiste Andrea’s novel Watching Over Her, published by the New York Times in January 2026, draws phrases and full paragraphs from Christobel Kent’s Guardian review. The “error” was brought to light by a reader, who alerted the New York Times to the similarities.

Preston told the Guardian he is “hugely embarassed” and “made a huge mistake”.

The Times promptly dropped Preston, calling his “reliance on A.I. and his use of unattributed work by another writer” a “clear violation of the Times’s standards”. An editor’s note now precedes the review online, advising readers of the issue and providing a link to the Guardian review.

Preston’s apology to the Guardian raises more questions than it resolves. The portion quoted online seems to speak more to the issue of unattributed work than his use of AI. It reads: “I made a serious mistake in using an AI tool on a draft review I had written, and I failed to identify and remove overlapping language from another review that the AI dropped in.” This implies that if he had removed the “overlapping” language, the issue would have been avoided.

As a literary critic and scholar, I believe the deeper question isn’t whether or not critics should do more to hide their use of AI – but the ethics of using it at all.

Why AI can’t do criticism

The role of the critic isn’t to summarise or repackage art, but to actively participate in a conversation about it. “Good criticism thrives in the complexity of its environment,” writes critic Jane Howard, who is also The Conversation’s Arts + Culture editor. “Each review sits in conversation with every other review of a piece of art, with every other review the critic has written.”

In other words, the critic is in conversation with both the artist and the audience. The critic’s emotional and intellectual engagement with art – and their translation and communication of meaning – is intrinsic to their role as mediator. That role is deeply human.

Perhaps information can be outsourced, but emotional engagement can’t. Nor can an individual perspective, filtered through one human’s reading, viewing, listening and experiences.

Art and AI controversies

There are valid arguments outlining the functional uses of AI, and warning against significant climate repercussions. But there is also an escalating concern around the intrusion of AI into creative expression.

Last month, author Mia Ballard was accused of using AI to write her horror novel, Shy Girl. It was withdrawn from publication in the UK and cancelled from scheduled publication in the US, after “readers on platforms such as Goodreads and Reddit had questioned whether sections of the text bore hallmarks of AI-generated prose”, according to the Guardian.

In 2023, German artist Boris Eldagsen sparked controversy when he revealed that his prize-winning photograph The Electrician was AI generated. In 2025, Tilly Norwood, the first fully AI-generated “actress” ignited debate around whether so-called synthetic actors were a tool for creative expression, or a threat to human creators.

In 2025, writers were “horrified” to discover that their work had been pirated by Meta to train AI systems.

If the question that underlies these examples is “what is the role of art”, this latest debacle adds “and what is the responsibility of the critic”?

Breaking a pact

Art criticism in Australia is what Howard describes as a “niche within a niche”. The sector is unbearably small, so most critics have an additional day job and are in close professional and personal proximity to the artists whose work they review.

Some critics of the critics, such as writer Gideon Haigh, have suggested this has led to a culture of what literary academic Emmett Stinson called “too-nice” criticism.

But I would argue generosity is fundamental to public-facing criticism – and that the critic reviewing in the public sphere has a responsibility to writers and readers.

The writer might safely assume that when we’re publishing a review that surmises their book’s successes and failings against its ambition, we have, at the very least, taken the time to read and carefully consider their work, and our own response to it.

This unspoken pact is broken when the writer begins to use AI – particularly when a professional reviewer like Preston seems to outsource his assessment to it.

Such fiascos point to a disturbing future where readers’ opportunities to build community and develop empathy through engagement with literature is outsourced entirely to AI.

Australian literature academic Julieanne Lamond has said “when we write reviews we have to do it ‘naked’ – as individual readers, with a public to judge our judgements”. In other words, we sit at the middle of a pact between the writer of a book and their potential readers.

Criticism can be literature

Done well, criticism is literature. As Australian author, playwright and critic Leslie Rees argued in 1946, good literary criticism is a “real and creative service to literature”.

Popular criticism, written for the general public and published as journalism, might sit on a different playing field from scholarly criticism. But its obligation to readers – to convey real and honest opinions about books and bring readers into a conversation about literature – is no less significant. There is a shared obligation to be honest, and surely this honesty extends to a transparency about AI use.

French professor and essayist Phillipe Lejeune, best known for his work on autobiography, used the term the “autobiographical pact” to describe the relationship between the writer of a memoir and the reader. That is, the reader accepts what the memoirist says as truth, based on the writer’s acknowledgements of their own biases and subjectivity.

We might transfer a similar pact to the reviewer and their reader. Should the reader not be able to trust that the review they’re reading is the critic’s own?

Hannah Bowman, a literary agent from Liza Dawson Associates, recently described mistrust as the book industry’s greatest peril: “it’s essential for all parties in the publishing process to have transparency and clarity in conversations about how AI tools are being used by any party, especially in the creative process”.

In failing to disclose his use of AI, Preston has not only embarrassed himself, but broken the trust of his readers.

– ref. A New York Times critic used AI to write his review – but criticism is deeply human – https://theconversation.com/a-new-york-times-critic-used-ai-to-write-his-review-but-criticism-is-deeply-human-279742

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/a-new-york-times-critic-used-ai-to-write-his-review-but-criticism-is-deeply-human-279742/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

Little has seemingly gone as Washington planned in the war against Iran.

The Iranian people have not risen up, one hard-line leader has been replaced by another, Iranian missiles and drones keep hitting targets across the Middle East, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, driving oil and gas prices up worldwide, and in sharp contrast to Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender,” Tehran has rejected a 15-point U.S. plan for a ceasefire.

So how did things go so wrong?

As a scholar who researches U.S. forever wars, I believe the answer is simple: Trump, like other U.S. presidents before him, has fallen into what I call the trap of asymmetric resolve. In short, this occurs when a stronger power with less determination to fight starts a military conflict with a far weaker state that has near boundless determination to prevail. Victory for the strong becomes tough, even close to impossible.

When it comes to Iran, the Islamic Republic wants – and needs – victory more than the United States. Unlike the U.S., the Iranian government’s very existence is on the line. And that gives Tehran many more incentives – and in many cases very effective countermeasures – through which to fight on.

The trap of asymmetric resolve

Typically, in asymmetric wars the stronger side does not face the same potential for regime death as the weaker side. In short, it has less on the line. And this can lead to lesser resolve, making it hard to sustain the costs of war required to defeat the weaker, more determined rival.

Such dynamics have played out in conflicts dating back to at least the sixth century B.C., when a massive Persian army under Darius I was checked by a much smaller, determined Scythian military, leading in the end to a humiliating Persian retreat.

For the U.S. in the modern era, wars of asymmetric resolve have likewise not been kind.

In the Vietnam War, an estimated 1.1 million North Vietnamese civilians and Viet Cong fighters died compared to 58,000 U.S. troops. Yet, the U.S. proved no match for the North’s resolve. After eight years of brutal war, the U.S. gave up, cut a deal, withdrew and watched North Vietnam roll to victory over the South.

In 2001, the U.S. unseated the Taliban in Afghanistan, set up a new government and built a large Afghan army supported by U.S. firepower. Over the next 20 years, the remnants of the Taliban lost about 84,000 fighters compared to around 2,400 U.S. troops, yet the U.S. ultimately sued for peace, cut a deal and left. The Taliban immediately returned to power.

Many other great powers have fallen into this same trap – and at times in the same countries. Despite far fewer casualties than the Afghan resistance, the mighty Soviet Union suffered a humiliating defeat in its nine-year war in Afghanistan during the 1980s. The same happened to the French in Vietnam and Algeria after World War II.

Asymmetric resolve in the Iran war

A similar asymmetry is now playing out in Iran.

Unlike 2025’s 12-day war that largely targeted Iranian military installations, including its nuclear sites, Trump and the Israelis are now directly threatening the survival of the Iranian government. Killing the supreme leader, a slew of other powerful figures, and encouraging a popular uprising made this crystal clear.

Tehran is responding as it said it would were its survival to be at stake. Prior to the current war, Iran warned it would retaliate against Israel, Arab Gulf nations and U.S. bases across the region, as well as largely close the Straight of Hormuz to commercial traffic.

In short, it is going all-in to cause as much pain as it can to the U.S. and its interests.

Iran has suffered the disproportionate number of loses in the current war, both in terms of human casualties and depleted weaponry. As of mid-March, there have been upward of 5,000 Iranian military casualties and more than 1,500 Iranian civilian deaths, compared to 13 dead U.S. service members.

Yet, Tehran isn’t backing down, saying on March 10, “We will determine when the war ends.”

Such Iranian resolve seemingly confounds Trump. Before the war, he wondered why Iran wouldn’t cave to his demands, and he has since conceded that regime change – seemingly a major U.S. goal at the war’s onset – is now a “very big hurdle.”

This conflicts with how Iran was being presented to the American public prior to the war. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in January that “Iran is probably weaker than it’s ever been.” It has no ballistic missiles capable of hitting the U.S. homeland, a decimated nuclear program and fewer allies than ever across the Middle East.

No wonder a Marist poll from March 6 found that 55% of Americans viewed Iran as a minor threat or no threat at all.

With Iran proving resilient, American public opinion on the war has been definitively negative. This aspect of war resolve can be especially challenging for democracies, where a disgruntled public can vote leaders out of power.

Fading or low U.S. public support for war was likewise a primary driver in past U.S. asymmetric quagmires.

Indeed, the Iran war is more unpopular than just about any other U.S. war since World War II, with polling consistently finding around 60% of Americans in opposition.

For Iran, as a nondemocracy there are far less reliable figures to compare this to on its side. Before the war, the government faced a major public crisis with widespread protests, but for many reasons – including its brutal crackdown and a potential “rally around the flag” effect – Iranian public opinion has proved far less salient.

What’s next?

The Trump administration is attempting to mitigate the impact that asymmetrical resolve has by saying the length and scope of the operation will remain limited.

To reassure the public and calm financial markets, Trump keeps promising a short war and delaying bigger strikes to give space for negotiations that he, not the Iranians, says are ongoing.

History suggests that once faced with a smaller military power showing greater resolve, the larger power has two trajectories. It can succumb to the hubris of power and escalate, such as was the case in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Or it can wind down the conflict in an attempt to save face.

Often in the past, leaders of a stronger side opt for the first option of escalation. They just can’t escape thinking that a little more force here or there wins the conflict. President Barack Obama wrongly thought a surge of 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Afghanistan would bring the Taliban to their knees.

Despite signs that he wants out of the Iran war, Trump could still fall to the hubris of power. More U.S. troops are on the way to the Gulf, and B-52 bombers have been flying over Iran for the first time.

As Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan show, following hubris into escalation against a determined foe like Iran will probably come at great cost to the U.S.

The other option – that of winding down the war – is still available to Trump.

And Trump has gone down this route before. He signed a deal in 2020 with the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan rather than surge more troops in. And just last year, Trump declared victory and walked away from an air war in Yemen when he realized ground forces would be required to overcome the resolve of the Houthis.

The U.S. president could try the same with Iran – saying the job is done then walking away, or entering real, sustained negotiations to end the war. Either way, he’ll need to give something up, such as unfettered access through Hormuz or sanctions relief.

Trump likely won’t like that. But polling suggests Americans will take it. After all, who wants another Vietnam?

– ref. Trump risks falling in to the ‘asymmetric resolve’ trap in Iran − just as presidents before him did elsewhere – https://theconversation.com/trump-risks-falling-in-to-the-asymmetric-resolve-trap-in-iran-just-as-presidents-before-him-did-elsewhere-279374

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/trump-risks-falling-in-to-the-asymmetric-resolve-trap-in-iran-just-as-presidents-before-him-did-elsewhere-279374/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lyndall Bryant, Senior lecturer, QUT Centre for Justice, School of Econmics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology

For Australia’s building industry, higher fuel costs since the start of the Middle East war have been just the start of the pain.

Countless construction products are made with petroleum-based products. From bitumen for our roads to plastic pipes, prices are rising, with some supplies already facing delays.

This shock hits an industry still recovering from COVID, while also trying to meet surging demand for new homes and major infrastructure across Australia.

Even before the war, there was fierce competition for tradespeople and materials from big infrastructure projects across Australia. These include the A$3.6 billion Brisbane Olympics stadium, Queensland’s $9 billion Bruce Highway upgrade and Victoria’s $8 billion Big Build for new housing. Meanwhile, governments across Australia have fallen behind on a national target to build 1.2 million new homes by mid-2029

Whether you’re in the market for a new home, or you’re a builder, here’s how the Middle East war could impact your project – and its cost.

Price rises and tighter supplies

Builders need diesel to run heavy machinery and deliver materials to site. Diesel prices have been rising even faster than petrol since the war disrupted global supply routes.

Other price rises affecting building products announced since the Middle East war began include:

Most of Australia’s bitumen for sealing roads – from new subdivisions to highways – is imported from Asia and made from crude oil products from the Middle East.

Last month, industry body the Australian Flexible Pavements Association warned road authorities “bitumen prices are anticipated to rise by more than 50% […] and there is a real risk of stock depletion and stock outs in the near term”.

Last week, the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s Queensland branch shared a members-only alert about “new and rapidly escalating challenges with materials shortages”. This includes longer delays for concrete pipes, needed to connect water to new housing estates.

Now, with plastic pipes also becoming more expensive and harder to source because of the global oil crisis, the institute says:

Industry is now experiencing shortages in concrete pipes and [plastic] pipes with no viable alternatives. This is severely compromising the industry’s ability to provide housing at the rate needed to address the current housing crisis.

The result is price escalation at every stage of the supply chain, including for Australian-made products.

History offers little comfort: house construction prices soared more than 40% between 2020 and 2024. While price increases have slowed since, prices remain elevated from pre-COVID levels.

---

Read more: Australia has plenty of diesel for now. But running out could upend our economy

---

Building is already a higher-risk business

Current conditions echo the COVID period, when sudden and unpredictable cost spikes put intense pressure on construction businesses’ viability.

Home builders working under fixed price contracts can only absorb so much cost pressure before they go bust.

Even before this Middle East war, construction already had more insolvencies than any other industry – more than doubling since COVID.

Despite huge demand for new housing, the 2024-25 financial year saw a record 3,490 construction firms enter insolvency – meaning they couldn’t pay their debts as they fell due.

When builders collapse, the contagion spreads quickly: tradies lose jobs, subcontractors go under, projects stall and consumers face financial and emotional devastation.

For the tradies and subcontractors caught in the middle, the fallout can be overwhelming. Male construction workers are nearly twice as likely to take their own lives as other employed Australian men of the same age.

Small builders face the toughest conditions

Our 2025 report looked into the root causes behind the high rate of builders going bust.

We found that as of 2024, two-thirds (63%) of building company collapses were concentrated among small builders with fewer than five full-time employees. Typically, they’re operating on thin margins, with unsecured debt and limited financial buffers. These conditions leave even experienced directors vulnerable when supply chains are disrupted and costs surge.

But large builders aren’t exempt. During COVID, large home builder Porter Davis collapsed, leaving 1,700 homes unfinished in Victoria and Queensland. Even Australia’s largest home builder, Metricon, teetered on the brink before recovering.

If this oil crisis lingers, more builders are likely to go bust, slowing down housing supply.

Looking ahead

To support the industry, Queensland and New South Wales have both announced a 12-month deferral to the adoption of the National Construction Code 2025, due to start on May 1 this year. At a difficult time, this gives builders more time to adjust to pending changes. It’s unclear if other states will follow.

Longer term, our research recommended a number of reforms, from setting up low-cost independent resolution services to help builders avoid financial disputes with banks or customers, through to strengthening business training for tradies.

For builders, the priority is to be proactive. Spend time identifying high risk areas, looking for lower risk work and keeping financial records current to avoid trading when insolvent.

Stay in close contact with clients, subcontractors, suppliers and – if necessary – your bank about short-term overdraft support. Don’t wait until it’s too late to seek help.

For home buyers, open communication with your builder is essential.

If legitimate cost pressures arise under a fixed price contract, negotiating a fair adjustment may be the best outcome. Working with your builder to negotiate a mutually beneficial solution might cost you more. But that may still be preferable to a builder gone broke and a half-built home.

– ref. Housing construction costs are already rising, increasing risks of builders going bust – https://theconversation.com/housing-construction-costs-are-already-rising-increasing-risks-of-builders-going-bust-279329

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/housing-construction-costs-are-already-rising-increasing-risks-of-builders-going-bust-279329/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristan Moss, Senior Lecturer in History, UNSW Sydney

On April 1 2026, NASA is sending astronauts back around the Moon. And Australia will play a critical role in helping them get there.

Four astronauts will launch from Florida, bound for the Moon aboard the Orion spacecraft. Similar to the 1968 Apollo 8 spaceflight, the Artemis II mission will orbit the Moon without landing, to test the spacecraft and the systems that support it. It paves the way for the next Artemis missions, with an eventual crewed Moon landing slated for early 2028.

Today’s mission will also mark the first time a Black astronaut, a female astronaut and a non-American (a Canadian) will travel to the Moon system.

Throughout the journey, ground stations in Australia will track the spacecraft and maintain communications. This vital support not only underscores Australia’s space strengths, but also encourages us to consider Australia’s own direction in space.

A long history of support

Australia’s support of NASA space exploration has a long history. A series of tracking stations around Australia were essential to US President John F. Kennedy’s goal of landing a person on the Moon by the end of the 1960s.

As part of NASA’s mammoth human spaceflight efforts, facilities were established around Australia – in Western Australia, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

Indeed, Australia hosted more tracking stations than any other country outside the United States, a contribution memorably celebrated in the 2001 film The Dish.

[embedded content]

While much celebrated, even after 60 years there’s still much to learn about Australia’s role in putting the first person on the Moon. Much of the archival record of Australian tracking stations during the Apollo era remains inaccessible in Department of Defence storage, rather than having been transferred to the National Archives.

Australia’s contribution to NASA’s space efforts continued past the Apollo program through the Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex at Tidbinbilla, now managed by CSIRO.

This station has operated continuously since the 1970s as part of NASA’s Deep Space Network, which consists of three stations in the ACT, Spain and California. Combined, these stations have supported all NASA’s deep space exploration missions.

Through it, Australia has played a role in well-known missions such as the Voyager exploration of the outer Solar System and the more recent New Horizons mission to Pluto.

How Australia is helping Artemis

Today, Australia’s role as host to tracking stations makes it vital for all communications with the Artemis II mission.

Mission controllers in Houston, Texas talk to the astronauts; data about the spacecraft (telemetry) and science data are returned to Earth in huge quantities; and video is beamed back to millions.

Two networks enable this communication. First, the Near Space Network handles communication with the spacecraft during launch and low Earth orbit.

Second, the Deep Space Network takes over when the spacecraft is in high Earth orbit and for the voyage to and from the Moon.

At the Canberra station, huge dishes between 34 and 64 metres across are capable of transmitting and receiving the huge quantities of data from Orion. These dishes are particularly important given the ten day mission is expected be the farthest crewed mission from Earth in history.

Even when the Moon and Artemis II are on the other side of Earth relative to Canberra, the system’s global integration means Australian staff remotely operate other facilities when staff there are asleep, or vice versa.

In preparation for this mission, Australian staff at the tracking station outside Canberra have been training for years. Significant upgrades were also completed before the 2022 uncrewed mission, Artemis I.

Further afield, Australians are also involved in developing new methods of communication with far-flung spacecraft. During this mission, the Australian National University will also assist in the mission’s objectives. Scientists will test laser communications with the spacecraft from the Mount Stromlo Observatory outside Canberra.

An upward trajectory for Australia

Australia’s contribution to Artemis II comes at a moment of sustained public interest in space. The prominence of figures such as astronaut Katherine Bennell-Pegg, recently awarded Australian of the Year, has ensured space activity remains in the national spotlight.

The Australian Space Agency has sought to grow Australia’s space efforts in a variety of ways, including through the Artemis Accords. Signed by Australia in 2020, this US-led agreement establishes shared principles for civil space exploration that will return the US and partners to the Moon.

Part of Australia’s contribution will be the development of an A$42 million lunar rover, named Roo-ver. This will launch on a future NASA mission.

All this shows Australia has been gradually moving upward in space for a long time. Where the space efforts go from here will depend on a range of factors, including government policy and the capabilities of local industry and research institutions.

Public opinion is vital, given the cost of space exploration. A recent public opinion survey shows Australians are supportive of space activities, if unsure about the country’s direction.

As the four NASA astronauts travel around the Moon, Australia is also presented with an opportunity to talk about its own important role in space, and the future direction the country might take.

– ref. As NASA launches a crewed Moon mission, Australia is once again playing a critical role – https://theconversation.com/as-nasa-launches-a-crewed-moon-mission-australia-is-once-again-playing-a-critical-role-274981

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/as-nasa-launches-a-crewed-moon-mission-australia-is-once-again-playing-a-critical-role-274981/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy Curtis, Associate professor, The University of Western Australia

People using other peoples’ ideas, words and creations without acknowledgement is a widespread problem. Plagiarism occurs everywhere from restaurant menus to political speeches and music.

Within academia, plagiarism is seen as a serious breach of integrity for scholars and students.

It’s easy to find media articles claiming plagiarism is increasing among university students. These claims have intensified with the rise of generative AI – which can quickly produce large amounts of text that students can copy and paste into their assignments.

But while AI certainly poses a range of challenges for academic integrity, is plagiarism increasing as much as we think it is?

My team’s new research, which has tracked students at one university over 20 years, suggests it may even be falling.

What are we comparing?

Precise rates of plagiarism can be difficult to determine. Pre-AI, many claims about increasing plagiarism among students came from cherry picking results of different surveys from different student groups. So they were not comparing apples with apples.

Since AI, we have have a lot of anecdotal reporting of cheating. But we do not have a lot of robust evidence of whether cheating has increased over time.

In a new journal article, my colleagues and I have used a rare longitudinal study of plagiarism to overcome this problem.

My research

Every five years since 2004, our study carried out the same survey on plagiarism with students at Western Sydney University (WSU). This means we have been able to track the same phenomena in the same environment over time.

In our survey students are presented with scenarios representing different forms of plagiarism. For example, a student copying text from a book without citing the book. Students were asked whether the behaviour is plagiarism, to test their understanding of it, and how often, if ever, they have done a similar thing. In 2024, we also also asked students if they used text generated by AI in their university work, without acknowledging it.

We conducted an anonymous survey of mostly undergraduate students, studying in a range of disciplines. The survey started in 2004 on paper and has been fully online since 2014.

The survey was done in the second half of the academic year to ensure students had the opportunity to both learn about and engage in plagiarism.

In 2024, as well as WSU, we included students from five other Australian universities for additional comparison. This gave us sample of more than 2,100 students in total for the latest round.

Plagiarism isn’t increasing

Over 20 years, the survey has found the percentage of students who engage in any form of plagiarism at least once has fallen every five years, from more than 80% in 2004 to 57% in 2024.

This decline corresponds with various measures, such as the use of text-matching software, which can help detect plagiarism. There has also been more training in referencing and citation rules – this reduces unintentional plagiarism.

AI is not turning all students into plagiarists

Although 14% of students in 2024 indicated they had copied from AI without acknowledgement, most of them also engaged in at least one other form of plagiarism. For example, copying from another student’s assignment.

Copying from AI was the sole form of plagiarism for only 2% of students.

Most students don’t plagiarise accidentally

Combining students’ answers to whether they understand plagiarism and whether they engaged in it showed most did so knowingly. For example when it came to verbatim copying from AI, 88% of WSU students who engaged in this knew it was plagiarism.

Interestingly, most plagiarism was accidental 20 years ago when education about academic integrity was less thorough. However, the recent results show students have a better understanding of plagiarism and still do it anyway.

AI detectors don’t stop copying

In the survey, two universities used AI detectors (which aim to assess whether a piece of written work has used AI, with mixed results and four did not.

Rates of plagiarism from AI were similar between the universities with and without detectors.

What does this mean?

Our survey largely looked at only one Australian university. But despite this limitation, we can interpret the results in optimistic and pessimistic ways.

Optimistically, plagiarism has fallen over 20 years. This suggests measures to detect plagiarism and teach students about proper referencing can help.

On top of this, AI has not turned all students into plagiarists – at least not yet. What our study suggests is students who have plagiarised in some other way may now plagiarise from AI as well.

Pessimistically, over half of all students still plagiarise at some time in their university studies. And, because these surveys rely on self-reports, it is likely these figures represent the minimum number of students who plagiarise. Even when surveys, like ours, are anonymous and online, students may still be hesitant to admit to breaking rules.

This means educating students and policing academic conduct remains an ongoing battle.

– ref. Does AI mean more uni students are plagiarising their work? – https://theconversation.com/does-ai-mean-more-uni-students-are-plagiarising-their-work-279565

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/does-ai-mean-more-uni-students-are-plagiarising-their-work-279565/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Bowman, Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science, University of Tasmania

In 1967, catastrophic bushfires in Tasmania killed dozens of people – and very nearly destroyed Hobart.

A year later, W.D. Jackson, Professor of Botany at the University of Tasmania, published a short but very influential article on why the fires were so bad. He suggested that after Tasmania’s wet eucalypt forests were burned by severe bushfires, there would be a high-risk period during their regrowth when they are at risk of severely burning again.

This, Jackson theorised, was because regrowing saplings form a very dense canopy, with little distance between living leaves and the leaf litter and understorey plants able to ignite canopy fires. If a second fire sweeps through, he predicted the forests could be replaced with more fire-tolerant scrub.

Was Jackson correct? Is regrowth truly more flammable? It’s very difficult to prove regrowth burns more intensely and accelerates bushfire spread, as it’s not practical to undertake neat, perfectly controlled experiments involving severe bushfires.

But sometimes, scientists get lucky. We took advantage of a natural experiment in 2019, when a severe bushfire burned through a research site spanning old growth wet Tasmanian forests and logged areas of regrowth, giving us access to data before and after the fires.

In our new research, we show Jackson was right. Regrowth does indeed burn more intensely than mature forests.

Why does this matter?

Jackson’s theory has resonated with generations of fire ecologists and fire managers in Australia and internationally, due to how it focuses on the interplay between the age of forests and the risk of bushfires.

Worldwide, vast areas of regrowth forest are recovering from clear-fell forestry and wildfires. In Tasmania alone, remote sensing data suggests a fifth of all tall wet forests are in a regrowth stage younger than 40 years old.

After an old forest is clear-felled, it is regenerated using fire to remove logging debris and then sown with seeds native to the area. This puts it in Jackson’s 30-year danger zone, which begins about 20 years after a fire, when eucalypts begin bearing gumnuts. It ends about 50 years after the fire, when trees are tall enough and moist dense understoreys have developed to lower the risk of devastating fires able to kill mature trees.

If regrowing forests make it through centuries without more fires, they could potentially become temperate rainforests, whose deeply shaded, moist understoreys put them at very low risk of fire.

If another severe fire starts before forests reach this safer period, experts have suggested the flammable regrowth could threaten entire landscapes by making fires more intense.

Some experts suggested forests regrowing from logging were a key factor in the huge area burned during the notorious 2019–20 fire season, though others have disputed this.

This is why Jackson’s theory still matters, almost 60 years after he proposed it.

Hard to test

Testing this theory has long proved difficult.

Forest ecologists have instead typically relied on indirect approaches, such as analysing how severe the fire was using satellite data, or estimating likely fire behaviour based on field measurements of the amount of fuel and how much moisture was present.

These inferential approaches can be scientifically fraught, as they are vulnerable to many assumptions that are hard to test or control for.

A previous attempt to resolve this question by experts, including the renowned Tasmanian ecologist J.B. Kirkpatrick had to be withdrawn due to technical issues. In retracting the paper, the authors noted their results had proven “highly sensitive” to variation in a small number of sites.

A natural experiment

In 2019, a lightning strike ignited a fire in Tasmania’s southwest forests. Known as the Riveaux Road fire, it burned through an area of regrowing forest used for research.

This offered a rare chance of a natural experiment. We had pre-fire data on fuel loads, canopy structure and microclimates (areas where local conditions make climate different from surrounding areas) in both mature forests and adjacent areas logged around 40 years earlier.

After the fire passed, we collected more data so we could compare the fire damage (measured by damage to tree canopy) and the effects on the microclimates in both regrowth and mature, unlogged forests.

This natural experiment was conclusive. The areas of post-logging regrowth burned more severely, due to their hotter, drier microclimates and the fact their canopies were closer to the ground.

Interestingly, we found fires in the regrowth didn’t cause the fires to spread further. This was because the damp understorey of the surrounding mature forests could contain the fires.

That’s not to say this would always be the case. The 2019 fire took place in moderate fire weather conditions, meaning it wasn’t especially hot, dry or windy. If severe fire weather was present, this dampening effect would likely have been overwhelmed.

Lots of regrowth, lots more fire

Proving Jackson’s theory isn’t good news for forests.

Climate change means fire weather will arrive more often and be more extreme. Combined with the large areas of forest regrowth, this means we will have to be ready for more fires.

In North American conifer forests, thinning out regrowth and burning off leaf litter and other fuel have proven effective in reducing the risks of fire-prone regrowth. Eucalypts have fundamentally different fire ecologies, so we can’t directly apply that research to Australia. Local research is limited, meaning we don’t know yet if this will work here.

Recent research has shown commercial thinning of regrowth in Tasmania doesn’t reduce the risk of fire, because bark, limbs and smashed trunks left after logging act as fuel.

This means we urgently need to find an effective way to reduce the risk of fires in regrowth in wet eucalypt forests in Tasmania and elsewhere in Australia.

Since the lethal fires of 1967, many Tasmanian communities – including large areas of Hobart – are now surrounded by forests still in the dangerous period of regrowth after logging or fires.

---

Read more: In 1939, a Royal Commission found burning forests leads to more bushfires. But this cycle of destruction can be stopped

---

– ref. We have the proof that logging makes Tasmania’s forests more flammable – https://theconversation.com/we-have-the-proof-that-logging-makes-tasmanias-forests-more-flammable-279103

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/we-have-the-proof-that-logging-makes-tasmanias-forests-more-flammable-279103/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Hartland, Adjunct Associate Professor in Freshwater Biogeochemistry, Lincoln University, New Zealand

The Waikato is New Zealand’s longest river, central to the identity and practices of Waikato River iwi and a source of drinking water for nearly half of the country’s population.

It is also becoming a case study in what happens when very different environmental pressures hit the same system faster than authorities can respond.

A recent RNZ investigation documented worsening toxic algal blooms in hydro lakes in the upper Waikato. Communities around Lake Ohakuri describe water so green it resembles the “Incredible Hulk”, dogs becoming violently ill and mats of toxic slime covering the surface.

These conditions are a long way from Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato, the legislated vision for a river safe for swimming and gathering food.

The reporting captured genuine community frustration and institutional fragmentation. But to turn concern into effective action, we need to understand why blooms keep forming where they do.

Otherwise, interventions risk missing the mark. The Waikato cannot afford misdirected effort.

The location of the worst blooms is a clue. Lake Ohakuri sits right next to the Ohaaki-Broadlands geothermal field, where decades of extracting hot fluids for power generation have caused the ground to sink by nearly seven metres.

That geothermal activity releases heat, carbon dioxide (CO₂) and mineral-rich fluids into the water, all of which promote the growth of cyanobacteria. This includes iron, a nutrient toxic algae need to thrive.

Whether decades of fluid extraction have altered the rate of influx of CO₂ and iron remains untested, but the proximity to geothermal fields is striking.

Tracking downstream effects

Until now, no one has measured how much of the geothermal CO₂ actually dissolves in the river or how far downstream it travels.

During our recent field campaign, we deployed a mobile sensor along the upper Waikato and a technique known as stable isotope analysis to fingerprint the carbon and start filling this gap.

The results are stark.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the geothermal zone reach ten times the background level and the isotopic signature confirms the source as volcanic, not biological.

Huge quantities of dissolved CO₂ escape into the atmosphere as the river passes through the hydro lake chain. The water does not return to background levels even by the time it reaches Lake Karāpiro more than a hundred kilometres away.

That lingering excess CO₂ could be feeding algal growth well beyond the volcanic zone.

The gold clam factor

The geothermal zone is not the only pressure point. The invasive gold clam (Corbicula fluminea) has rapidly colonised the Waikato since its detection in 2023.

The clams have now been confirmed as far upstream as Lake Maraetai, directly downstream of Ohakuri.

Our research, currently under review, shows the clams are stripping roughly 14 tonnes of calcium carbonate from the river every day, disrupting the water chemistry treatment plants rely on and releasing arsenic in forms that could slip through conventional treatment processes.

As the clams breathe, they pump carbon dioxide into the water and consume oxygen, tipping the river’s balance away from a system driven by plant-like photosynthesis (which produces oxygen) and toward one dominated by respiration (which releases CO₂).

Multiple pressures, compounding risk

In January 2026, our monitoring buoy in Lake Karāpiro recorded oxygen near the lake bed dropping rapidly toward levels that would suffocate aquatic life.

What prevented a crisis was not management action but weather. Severe storms physically overturned the water column and mixed oxygen back in.

This near miss, averted by luck, is a warning, not a reassurance.

Two very different stressors are now converging on the same river. Geothermal CO₂ enriches the water from below, sustaining conditions that help toxic algae grow far downstream.

The clams, spreading upstream into the geothermal reaches, add a second source of CO₂ through their breathing, while depleting oxygen and stripping calcium.

What this double pressure will mean for algal blooms – when they form, how long they last and how severe they become – as clam populations continue to expand, is an open and urgent question.

Current monitoring cannot answer it. Toxic algae are sampled monthly at four hydro lakes, with results taking days to return. This is not a criticism of any single agency; national monitoring protocols now predate the compound pressures the river faces.

The gap between knowing and acting

The local community called for ultrasonic algae-killing buoys, webcams and flushing the lakes. This reflects an understandable desire for visible action, but without understanding the underlying drivers of blooms at these specific locations, we risk treating symptoms rather than causes.

Two million people drink water from the Waikato. Thousands swim in it, fish from it and gather mahinga kai (traditional food gathering) along its length. Iwi have obligations to it that stretch across generations.

The science is telling us, in real-time sensor data, that the system is moving toward thresholds we do not want to cross. The monitoring and governance architecture we have inherited was not designed for the compound pressures now acting on the river.

The question is whether we can build the governance and data-led operational protocols to match the pace of change, before the next bloom or near miss becomes the event we failed to prevent.

– ref. Toxic blooms and invasive clams are forcing a rethink on the Waikato River – https://theconversation.com/toxic-blooms-and-invasive-clams-are-forcing-a-rethink-on-the-waikato-river-279560

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/02/toxic-blooms-and-invasive-clams-are-forcing-a-rethink-on-the-waikato-river-279560/