Category: Evening Report

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda George, Assistant Professor (Psychology), University of Canberra

Deaths on Australian roads have increased every year since 2020. This is despite the Australian government’s commitment to Vision Zero – having zero deaths or serious injuries on our roads by 2050.

Unfortunately, 1,317 road deaths were recorded in 2025, a 1.9% increase from 2024. Land transport accidents also remain a leading cause of death for children and young adults, and the third leading cause of injury hospitalisations.

To bring these stats down, we need to look at the entire system of road use – including the parts that don’t get benchmarked but perhaps should.

The ‘safe system’ principle

Part of Vision Zero is a stronger commitment to the Safe System approach. This means all parts of the road transport system work together to keep us safe. These include road users, vehicles, road quality and design, planning and speed.

But what exactly are “good roads”, “good vehicles” or “good drivers”? For some parts of the system, there are clear answers.

Vehicle quality and safety is benchmarked via the Australian New Car Assessment Program, ANCAP. Road safety is benchmarked via the Australian Road Assessment Program, AusRAP.

However, there’s no clear mechanism to benchmark human performance as road users. Sure, if we drive or ride a motorcycle, we must demonstrate certain competencies to be granted a licence. But afterwards, we don’t receive objective feedback on our performance as road users.

Our own judgements aren’t good enough. Many of us suffer to some degree from illusory superiority, and we have the general tendency to assess our own competencies on a task as “above average”. In one US study, 673 out of 909 participants (74%) thought they were better-than-average drivers.

Logically, most of us can’t be better than average at driving. This is where an assessment program for road users could come into play.

Towards a road user assessment program

Recent research from the Australasian College of Road Safety examined the novel proposal of a road user assessment program.

They suggested benchmarking – having a standard they can be measured against – should be available for road users as part of a safe system approach, just as it is for vehicles and roads.

Through interviews with road-safety experts (including two of us) and a forum of road safety researchers, professionals and advocates, the authors of the report identified five areas for feedback to road users:

• the road user’s skills and knowledge
• pre-trip preparation
• risk management (such as road positioning, speed, distraction, hazard perception and compliance)
• self-maintenance and monitoring, and
• what happens after an incident (that is, how we learn from crashes or near misses).

Do we need a separate program for this?

As drivers, we do already receive feedback from multiple sources. And several active safety systems exist in modern cars. Some of them, such as lane-keeping assistance, actively manipulate what the car does while we drive.

Such technologies are known as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). These can provide us with warnings on the road, or can automate some aspects of driving. Evidence shows ADAS can reduce the frequency of crashes. Moreover, autonomous emergency braking is now compulsory in new cars sold in Australia.

But many of us drive vehicles without these features. This strengthens the argument for a uniform and easy-to-use feedback mechanism available to all road users, to improve road safety.

However, such a benchmark would be complex to develop and put into place. Who would implement this system? Should modern technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), play a role? If the program was voluntary, how would we encourage people to take part?

For now, these big questions might seem insurmountable, but we have some recommendations.

So what might the program look like?

Guided by the five recommended areas for feedback to road users, we envision a benchmark program for typical car drivers could use advances in AI and telematics.

AI tools which can monitor driver behaviours already exist. Telematics uses information from sensors, GPS and other diagnostics, and can provide information on driving performance, such as speed and braking.

Indeed, the use of telematics is rapidly expanding in Australia for freight vehicles. While more data is needed to evaluate the impact of telematics on driving performance, the potential is there, especially in combination with other sources of feedback.

Using this data could allow for better trip preparation, also incorporating users’ driving history (such as driving skills, habits, knowledge and preferences), as well as traffic information and weather conditions. Telematics is achieved via a device placed in the driver’s vehicle. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here.

Noting the complexity in giving feedback to drivers, we also propose a shift from calling it a road user assessment to a road user “assistant” program. This would reflect that any such system is designed to support the road user. If feasible, it could be potentially adapted to other road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians.

The development of past benchmarking systems for roads and vehicles has increased safety on Australian roads. However, these only go so far.

The missing factor that will benefit from benchmarking is us as road users. Perhaps then we can get closer to the ambition of Vision Zero.

---

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge collaboration with Roderick Katz of the Australasian College of Road Safety.

– ref. More people are dying on Australian roads. This program could make drivers safer – https://theconversation.com/more-people-are-dying-on-australian-roads-this-program-could-make-drivers-safer-276970

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/more-people-are-dying-on-australian-roads-this-program-could-make-drivers-safer-276970/

COMMENTARY: By Kellie Tranter

The actions of the Trump administration and its AIPAC-Israeli donors have reached new levels of immorality, illegality and unprecedented venality.

It is almost universally accepted that the US-Israel attack on Iran had no justification under international law: it was simply a war of aggression and thus the commission of perhaps the most serious crime under international law, precisely what the UN was set up to prevent.

Then we have the conduct of the war by the US and Israel, each pursuing its own agenda but completely lacking any coherent strategy.

From day one of the attack they have committed war crime after war crime, most recently in bombing civilian targets and now civilian infrastructure. The current escalation flowing from the attack near an Iranian nuclear power plant and on Iran’s electrical power grid demonstrates this and demonstrates equally clearly Iran’s current strategic and tactical advantages.

While all this is happening the US Empire is declining rapidly and the rogue state of Israel is experiencing in its own territory a taste of the death, injury and destruction that inevitably follows any war, yet they still both continue to escalate and to widen the war.

Now it emerges in the US that analyses of market activity including especially oil trades demonstrate a very high probability of massive insider trading that can only come from within the Trump White House coterie.

For example, market reaction to Trump’s Monday Truth Social post about having discussions with the Iranians caused the S&P market cap to rise by about two trillion dollars; the later Iranian announcement there were no discussions caused it to drop by about one trillion dollars and those market movements were anticipated by traders who made trades, literally last minute, to the value of about $500 million.

There have been similar shenanigans with the trade in oil, that market being highly sensitive to information about the likely future course of the war. Trump insiders know when a new policy tweet will be issued and what it will say.

And incredibly, the Epstein cabal play these games with human lives without compunction while grasping for unearned riches.

Innocent civilians of all ages are being slaughtered, countries are being physically and financially decimated and the entire world is spiralling into a deepening energy vortex with inevitably disastrous consequences, all while the actually crucial diplomatic and military decisions with profound geopolitical consequences are made by ignorant, incompetent, amoral, avaricious zealots pursuing immediate self-interest at the expense of the future of their countries, of people all over the world and indeed of the entire globe.

Kellie Tranter is a lawyer, researcher, and human rights advocate. This commentary was first published on her X account where she tweets from @KellieTranter

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/epstein-cabal-play-games-with-human-lives-in-iran-while-grasping-for-unearned-riches/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Smith, Honorary Professor of Geography, University of Cambridge

It is impossible to capture seven decades of formidable intellect, wrapped into some 14,000 books and articles, in less than a thousand words. Yet German philosopher Jürgen Habermas staked his career on the power of dialogue and deliberation, so it is worth chiming in.

Habermas, who died on March 14 at the age of 96, was among the greatest thinkers of our time. He was unshakeable in his conviction that people have minds of their own, can hope for a better future, and have the capability, collectively and democratically, to bring that future to life.

Born in Düsseldorf in 1929, he escaped conscription to the Wehrmacht by a whisker. His later realisation that, as a child, he had been enveloped by “a politically criminal system” propelled him into a lifelong scholarly, political and personal campaign to rescue democracy and restore the future.

It was an uphill struggle of breathtaking proportions. If the best was still to come, the journey towards enlightenment would require “nothing less than a comprehensive theory of modern society and its underlying dynamics”.

That was the scholarly project, and few 20th century theorists could tackle it. Habermas led the way with sweeping interdisciplinary reach: historical understanding, geographical imagination, sociological insight, grasp of legal theory, sustained engagement with ethics, aesthetics, psychology, epistemology, theology and more. Any one of these approaches would have moved the dial, but in Habermas they came together with a powerful political message.

Variously described as a socialist, democrat, internationalist, and above all humanitarian, his philosophy – practical, perhaps pragmatic – was his politics. Its centrepiece was the formation, functioning and fragility of a public sphere – Öffentlichkeit – mediating between states and civil societies, promising an alternative to the authoritarian, totalitarian regimes he eschewed.

Bookended by two landmark works, Habermas’s lifelong conviction was that the formation of public opinion through rational, reasoned conversation was vital for the conduct and survival of parliamentary democracy. Both works are cautionary tales concerned equally with the forces stifling deliberative democracy and with the conditions in which it might flourish.

The first, the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962) finds the scope for informed, inclusive, critical debate compromised by the intrusion of calculative, commercial and bureaucratic interests. Six decades later, A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics (2022) takes on the algorithms driving social media. These, he argued – by accident, design or vested interests – fragment the public sphere, undermining the possibility for collective action against environmental change, excessive inequality and more.

Meanwhile, anchored on the two-volume Theory of Communicative Action (1981), Habermas mounted a sustained effort to make the public sphere work.

What scholar in the humanities and social sciences in the last half century is untouched by this project? My own reckoning, for example, was his prequel on Knowledge and Human Interests (1968). Once you realise that knowledge is not a thing to be discovered but a practice constituted by competing interests, there is no going back.

We were all critical theorists then, on a self-reflective pilgrimage to more rational, fairer futures. Habermas stayed with us every step of the way, not least because he did not confine himself to scholarly books and articles. His journalistic output and other public interventions were equally prodigious. Consider, for example, some 12 volumes of talks, speeches and commentary gathered in his Kleine Politische Schriften.

There is, it must be said, a well-developed feminist critique – and re-visioning – of Habermas’ core ideas. Those very public spaces in which deliberative democracy thrives (if it does) have traditionally been occupied by men, and are generally exclusionary in other ways. Not that such challenges fazed Habermas, who regularly exchanged views with a wide range of public intellectuals. These debates were how he expected the future to unfold.

Hope for the future

For Habermas, hope has not always triumphed over experience. Early in his career he underestimated how tame “conversation” might seem to his students. In the middle years, he probably oversold the potential of intellectuals to steer public debate.

More recently, a trend towards democratic decline and strengthening authoritarianism might suggest that he fell into a classic “democracy trap”. Was it futile to hope that the mandate for fully enfranchised populations to choose their governments through regular free and fair elections would spread?

Habermas was, in fact, acutely aware that the capacity for deliberative democracy can never be taken for granted. However, he never gave up on its promise. On this, he wrote actively to the end, sometimes controversially.

Not everyone liked his style: one obituary describes him as “brilliant, influential and stupefyingly tedious”. But the more telling view is that his work “has given us a vocabulary in which the promises of dignity, autonomy, and emancipation are kept alive and true”.

All in all, Habermas’ achievements are a valorisation of everything that populism is not. He held fast to his conviction that deep knowledge and cogent arguments can win the day, that even the smallest gesture towards a better world is worth the effort.

That is why a recent reviewer could describe his final three-volume project – Also a History of Philosophy – as “a work of willed optimism”. And it is why, in his last work, a collection of biographical conversations – Things Needed to Get Better – Habermas still pins his hopes on critical dialogue and reasoned debate.

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. Jürgen Habermas: a philosopher whose hopes for a better future are more important than ever – https://theconversation.com/jurgen-habermas-a-philosopher-whose-hopes-for-a-better-future-are-more-important-than-ever-279020

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/jurgen-habermas-a-philosopher-whose-hopes-for-a-better-future-are-more-important-than-ever-279020/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

The language of power often reveals more than it intends. In a rare moment of candour on March 7, the US president, Donald Trump, described the confrontation with Iran as “a big chess game at a very high level … I’m dealing with very smart players … high-level intellect. High, very high-IQ people.”

If Iran is, by Trump’s own admission, a “high-level” opponent, then the sudden revival of a 15-point plan previously rejected by Iran a year ago suggests a disconnect between how the adversary is understood and how it is being approached. It’s a plan already examined in negotiation by Iran and dismissed as unrealistic and coercive. Despite this, the Trump administration is once again framing the “roadmap” as a pathway to de-escalation. Tehran has once again dismissed the gambit as Washington “negotiating with itself – reinforcing the perception that the US is attempting to impose terms rather than negotiate them.

The US president is right about one thing – Iran is not an opponent that can be easily dismissed or overwhelmed. Trump’s own description is a tacit acknowledgement that this is a far more capable and complex adversary than those the US has faced in past Middle Eastern wars, such as Iraq. And that is why the odds are increasingly stacked against the United States and Israel.

This conflict reflects a familiar but flawed imperial assumption: that overwhelming military force can compensate for strategic misunderstanding. The US and Israel appear to have misjudged not only Iran’s capabilities, but the political, economic and historical terrain on which this war is being fought.

Unlike Iraq, Iran is a deeply embedded and adaptable regional power. It has resilient institutions, networks of influence, and the capacity to impose asymmetric costs across multiple theatres. It knows how to manage maximum pressure.

The most immediate problem is lack of legitimacy. This war has authorisation from neither the United Nations or, in the case of America, the US Congress. Further, US intelligence assessments indicate Iran was not rebuilding its nuclear programme following earlier strikes – contradicting one of Washington’s justifications for war. The resignation of Joe Kent as head of the National Counterterrorism Center on March 17, was even more revealing. In his resignation letter Kent insisted that Iran posed no imminent threat.

This effectively collapses one of the original narratives underpinning the US decision to start the war – a further blow to legitimacy.

---

Read more: Iran war lacks strategy, goals, legitimacy and support – in the US and around the world

---

A majority of Americans oppose the war, reflecting deep fatigue after Iraq and Afghanistan – hardly ideal conditions for what increasingly looks like another “forever war” in the Middle East. Current polling shows Trump’s Republicans trailing the Democrats ahead of the all-important midterm elections in November.

The war is both militarily uncertain and politically unsustainable. International allied support is also eroding. The United Kingdom — often trumpeted as Washington’s closest partner — has limited itself to defensive coordination, while Germany and France have distanced themselves from offensive operations. European allies also declined a US request to deploy naval forces to secure the strait of Hormuz. This reflects not just disagreement, but a deeper loss of trust in US leadership and strategic judgement.

US influence has long depended on legitimacy as much as force. That reservoir is now rapidly draining. Global confidence is falling, while images of civilian casualties — including over 160 schoolchildren killed in an airstrike on the first day of the war – have shocked international onlookers. Rather than reinforcing leadership, this war is accelerating its erosion.

Israel faces a parallel crisis of legitimacy – one that began in Gaza and has now deepened. The war in Gaza severely damaged its global standing, with sustained civilian casualties and humanitarian devastation drawing unprecedented criticism, even among traditional allies. This confrontation with Iran compounds that decline.

Striking Iran during active negotiations — for the second time — reinforces the perception that escalation is preferred over diplomacy. The issue is no longer just conduct, but credibility.

Strategic failure, narrative defeat

The conduct of the war compounds the problem. The assassinations of Iranian leaders, framed as tactical victories, are strategic failures. They have unified rather than destabilised Iran. Mass pro-regime demonstrations illustrate how external aggression can consolidate internal legitimacy.

The issue is no longer just the conduct of the war, but the credibility of the conflict itself. Regardless of how impressive the US and Israeli military are, it doesn’t compensate for reputational collapse. When building support for a conflict like this – domestically and internationally – legitimacy is a strategic asset. Once eroded across multiple conflicts, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.

Rather than stabilising the system, US actions are fragmenting it. Allies are distancing themselves, adversaries are adapting, and neutral states are hedging.

The most decisive factor may be economic. The war is already destabilising global markets – driving up oil prices, inflation, and volatility at levels that combine the effects of 1970s and Ukraine war oil shocks.

This is a war that cannot be contained geographically nor economically. The deployment of 2,500 US marines to the Middle East (and reports that up to another 3,000 paratroopers will also be sent), reportedly with plans to secure Kharg Island – and with it Iran’s most important oil infrastructure – would be a dangerous escalation.

For Gulf states, the assumption that the US can guarantee security is increasingly questioned. Some states are reportedly now looking to diversify their partnerships and turning toward China and Russia, mirroring post-Iraq shifts, when US failure opened space for alternative powers.

Iran holds the cards

Wars are not won by destroying capabilities alone, but by securing sustainable and legitimate political outcomes. On both counts, the US and Israel are falling short.

Iran, by contrast, does not need military victory. It only needs to endure, impose costs, and outlast its adversaries. This is the logic of asymmetric conflict: the weaker power wins by not losing, while the stronger one loses when the costs of continuing become unsustainable.

This dynamic is already visible. Having escalated rapidly, Trump now appears to be searching for an off-ramp — reviving proposals and signalling openness to negotiation. But he is doing so from a position of diminishing leverage. In contrast, Iran’s ability to threaten energy flows, absorb pressure, and shape the tempo of escalation means it increasingly holds key strategic cards. The longer the war continues, the more that balance tilts.

Empires rarely recognise when they begin to lose. They escalate, double down, and insist victory is near. But by the time the costs become undeniable – economic crisis, political fragmentation, global isolation – it is already too late. The US and Israel may win battles. But they may be losing the war that matters: legitimacy, stability and long-term influence.

And, as history suggests, that loss may not only define the limits of their power, but mark a broader shift in how power itself is judged, constrained, and resisted.

– ref. Donald Trump’s ‘new’ 15-point plan is the biggest sign yet that Washington fears it is losing this war – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-new-15-point-plan-is-the-biggest-sign-yet-that-washington-fears-it-is-losing-this-war-279001

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/donald-trumps-new-15-point-plan-is-the-biggest-sign-yet-that-washington-fears-it-is-losing-this-war-279001/

RNZ Pacific

Tributes are pouring in from across the region for “fearless” and “formidable” Vanuatu journalist Dan McGarry, who died on Wednesday.

McGarry, 62, fell ill after a trip to Papua New Guinea earlier this month, from where he had to be evacuated to Brisbane to undergo a heart bypass.

But he faced complications during his recovery and had remained in critical care for the past few weeks.

McGarry, who was a former editor of Vanuatu’s only national newspaper, the Vanuatu Daily Post, and Pacific editor of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) at the time of his death, has left behind his wife and children.

“It’s with great heartbreak that I have to announce that the legendary Dan McGarry passed away earlier today,” Aubrey Belford, who was a co-editor with McGarry at OCCRP, said in a Facebook post.

“Dan was an absolutely dominating presence in Pacific journalism and in the region more generally.

“Dan was compassionate, sharing, and always motivated by a sense of justice and the common good. He was driven but also understood the importance of patience, friendship, and community.

‘A shell or more of kava’
“When home in Vanuatu he loved nothing more than finishing his day with a shell or more of kava, satisfied in the knowledge he had found his place in the world.”

Belford added McGarry’s loss was devastating not just for his family but for all journalists working in the region.

“He will be missed, and he will never be replaced.”

Another friend and colleague, Andrew Gray, said McGarry was “a good man”.

“After a hard life he finally found happiness in Vanuatu, and he did a lot more for the country than people appreciate. Last time I saw him he was planning his retirement at Lalwori.

“Condolences to Line McGarry Watsivi and their daughters.”

InsidePNG described McGarry as “more than just a colleague, a titan of regional journalism and a tireless advocate for the truth”.

‘Wealth of experience’
“As the former editor of the Vanuatu Daily Post, he brought a wealth of experience and a fearless spirit to every project he touched. Dan was absolutely instrumental in the birth of our investigative centre in Port Moresby.

“He didn’t just help set the foundation, he guided and mentored InsidePNG through our most critical work, building a lasting connection with our team that went far beyond professional duty,” the news outlet said in a social media post.

Kiribati journalist Rimon Rimon, who worked with McGarry, described him as “one of the brilliant minds I had the privilege of working closely with in our OCCRP investigations!”

The University of the South Pacific’s head of journalism associate professor Dr Shailendra Singh said McGarry’s passing is “profoundly felt across the Pacific media community, where his contributions as journalist, trainer and mentor have made a lasting impact”.

“He will be greatly missed. My thoughts are with his loved ones during this difficult time.”

RNZ Pacific manager Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor said McGarry’s presence would be missed.

“Dan McGarry was one of the best – a champion of the truth.”

Asia Pacific Report editor Dr David Robie said: “Vale Dan McGarry A stunning loss to investigative journalism and media courage and integrity in Vanuatu and the Pacific. A friend and mentor to all.

“Farewell Dan and many thanks for your inspiration and mentoring. Deepest condolences to whānau. RIP.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/he-will-never-be-replaced-tributes-flow-for-fearless-vanuatu-journalist-dan-mcgarry/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sue Turnbull, Honorary Professor of Communication and Media Studies, University of Wollongong

Dr Kay Scarpetta, chief medical examiner of the Commonwealth of Virginia, made her fictional debut in Patricia Cornwell’s first crime novel, Postmortem, published in 1990. Cornwell had been both a police reporter and a morgue assistant. And her character was inspired by a real medical examiner she worked with.

Postmortem won a slew of crime fiction awards, including an Edgar and the French Prix du Roman d’Aventure. It was a riveting read – if you surfed the questionable prose style. I applauded the arrival of a female forensic specialist.

Two years after her debut, in 1992, I saw Cornwell in Melbourne where she was promoting the third Scarpetta book, All That Remains. Blonde and blue-eyed, barely over five foot three, she was the spitting image of her protagonist, as described in the books – and just as frosty.

She had stopped over in Los Angeles on her way to Australia, and told us she was being courted by all the major film studios, who wanted to option the books – and being ardently pursued by actors, including Demi Moore, desperate to play Scarpetta. Later, Angelina Jolie would also try to land the role.

Now, more than 35 years (and millions of copies sold) since her debut, Scarpetta is finally on screen, as an Amazon Prime streaming series – and apparently Cornwell is very happy about Nicole Kidman’s central casting as the older Scarpetta.

Not the Scarpetta I imagined

Postmortem, the novel, establishes Scarpetta as a brilliant forensic specialist, hunting a serial killer she nicknames Mr Nobody.

He’s leaving a glittery residue on his victims’ bodies – and a bad smell behind him. With the aid of all the latest technology, from computerised note-taking to DNA testing (then in its infancy), Scarpetta inevitably gets her man, despite being up against a hostile male establishment.

The series is set over two time frames – 1998, which follows the plot of the original (1990) novel, and the present, drawing on elements of her 2020 novel Autopsy. Two sets of characters play younger and older versions of the Scarpetta ensemble.

According to the new series, Scarpetta got the wrong man in the original: this discovery and attempt to fix it is what drives the plot. But I’m puzzled as to why, 29 books later, we have returned to the scene of the original crime, to undermine the initial success that hooked readers.

Given the difference in height between the five-foot-11 Kidman and the short Scarpetta of the books, I find myself sympathising with those readers who were bemused by the casting of her ex-husband Tom Cruise as Lee Child’s six-foot-five man mountain Jack Reacher in 2012.

Kidman is not the Scarpetta I imagined – but that’s the least of the show’s problems. It’s also completely predictable as a crime narrative. I spotted the killer in the first episode.

Serial killer culture

Cornwell has talked about “terrible fear” dominating her childhood – and influencing her interest in writing psychopaths. Aged five, as a neglected child with a mentally unwell single mother, she was abused by a security guard and had to testify in court. Later, she was bullied in the foster system.

In the wake of the #MeToo era and the very real problem of domestic violence, women now know it is not the creepy stranger they need to fear most, but the man in the bed beside them. But the original book, Postmortem, was very much of its time.

It tapped into a burgeoning interest in the figure of the serial killer as the evil we feared the most. In 1991, Jonathan Demme’s film version of Thomas Harris’ thriller Silence of the Lambs acquainted us with Hannibal Lecter, embodied by Anthony Hopkins – who won an Oscar for his performance. On British TV, Helen Mirren starred as detective Jane Tennison in Prime Suspect.

By the turn of the millennium, the brilliant forensic examiner on the trail of the serial killer, not to mention the FBI-trained profiler, were already overworked in fiction and on screen. This was when I bailed on the Scarpetta series, after reading the truly awful Blow Fly (her 12th novel) in 2003.

With Scarpetta largely absent, this book spends a lot time in the head of “wolfman” serial killer Jean-Baptiste Chardonne, even as he squats on a toilet fantasising about biting beautiful women to death. It was slow, it was muddled, it was unremittingly dark – and Cornwell has never been that good with words. Her real strength lies in her ability to grab the reader’s shocked attention.

‘I never really warmed to Scarpetta’

To be fair, I never really warmed to Scarpetta. Cornwell routinely spends much of her time impressing the reader with Scarpetta’s mastery of all things technological, her material possessions and her prowess in the kitchen.

Relatedly, I once owned a copy of Cornwell’s 1998 cookbook, Scarpetta’s Winter Table, disguised as a novella with Christmas recipes and photographs. Its instructions on how to prepare Scarpetta’s Key Lime Pie begin: “Without fresh limes, don’t bother. Scarpetta was a hanging judge on this matter”.

I’ve missed out on about 16 Scarpetta outings since Blow Fly. So I bought the latest, last year’s Sharp Force, which sees Scarpetta on the trail of a serial killer who stalks his victims as a hologram. I wanted to see if her books had improved.

Sadly, they haven’t. Take this set of awkward similes, all in one sentence:

The wind moans round the house like a horror movie, remnants of a bad dream deconstructing like clouds as I reach for my phone vibrating on the nightstand.

And then there’s sex with her husband, former FBI profiler Benton Wesley (played by Simon Baker as permanently pained in the new series) who initiates it by offering her an early Christmas present:

“Depends on what present you’re talking about.” I move closer, feeling him in firelight.

Was that a liver?

There was a public outcry when Mirren’s Tennison confronted the naked, brutalised female victims in Prime Suspect in the 1990s. But in Scarpetta now, the in-your-face crime scenes and autopsies are even more confronting. Nothing is hidden from view, including the pubic hair. We watch Kidman cut into a victim’s rib cage with garden shears. We hear the snap. And was that a liver she just held up?

As Scarpetta remarks of the killer when contemplating the first mutilated body, “he went to great pains to present [his victim] to an audience”. Great pains have also been taken in this adaptation, which has Cornwell’s blessing. But does it work?

Kidman as Scarpetta does a fine job of embodying an unlikeable character, though she is largely overshadowed by Jamie Lee Curtis, chewing up the scenery (which seems to be her thing now) as her equally unlikeable older sister Dorothy. Meanwhile, the excellent younger cast takes us back to the 1990s – the era Postmortem, Scarpetta and the serial killer really belong to.

– ref. Kay Scarpetta led the trend for serial killer hunters. I love crime heroines – but she leaves me cold – https://theconversation.com/kay-scarpetta-led-the-trend-for-serial-killer-hunters-i-love-crime-heroines-but-she-leaves-me-cold-277377

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/kay-scarpetta-led-the-trend-for-serial-killer-hunters-i-love-crime-heroines-but-she-leaves-me-cold-277377/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, Lecturer in Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia

When I was a doctoral candidate at Oxford, I spent much of my time working in the papyrology rooms. Usually, my only company was the curator, a kind and learned Sardinian woman who is now a professor at the University of Milan.

One day, the news was that a famous novelist was coming to visit the Oxyrhynchus Papyri collection. “Have you heard of him?” the curator asked.

I had, but I’d never read his work.

“He has asked to be given a tour of the collection.”

The name of the famous novelist was Yann Martel, author of the Booker Prize winning novel Life of Pi. He said that he was researching a new book, in which Oxford’s papyrus collection would feature prominently.

---

Review: Son of Nobody – Yann Martel (Text Publishing)

---

Several years after Martel’s visit to Oxford, that book has now appeared. Son of Nobody is about a Canadian scholar named Harlow Donne who wins a one-year fellowship to go to Oxford to work on papyri with the eminent scholar Franklin Cubitt.

To take up the “unbelievable opportunity” of the fellowship, Harlow has to leave behind his wife and daughter in Canada. The relationship is already, as he says, “on the rocks”. The news about the fellowship sets off a full couple’s argument:

And so it started, as it always did, with the appearance of a single pinpoint of resentment that called forth another pinpoint, then another and another, tit for tat, until, out of nothing, in the evening quiet of a bedroom, shimmered the complete outline of a domestic dispute, a bright constellation of infinite acrimony.

The argument establishes the main tension in the novel. There is Harlow, the scholar, far away pursuing his interests and career ambitions, and there is his wife and daughter back in Canada, becoming estranged. The whole book is addressed to his daughter, Helen.

The Psoad

At Oxford, Harlow is set to work on a bunch of papyrus fragments given to him by Cubitt. Two weeks after beginning this work, he discovers fragments of an epic poem containing the name Psoas, the “son of nobody”, a character from the Trojan War. He ends up finding 81 more fragments of the “Psoad” (the poem about Psoas).

One of the most interesting aspects of Martel’s novel is its format. Each page is divided in two, with a line dividing the separate parts. At the top, we have Harlow’s translation of the Greek fragments of the Psoad, written as poetry. At the bottom, there is Harlow’s commentary on the text, written in prose. The commentary alternates between the poem and Harlow’s personal reflections on his life.

The format is interesting, but it brings some difficulties. Vladimir Nabokov pulled off the combination of scholarly commentary and personal reflection in his novel Pale Fire. So how does Martel fare?

At the beginning, Harlow’s personal reflections deal mostly with his work at Oxford, but they turn to other aspects of his life as his marriage continues to break down. The reflections are supposedly written for his daughter to read, so it’s awkward that he includes love scenes with his wife as well. Harlow emerges as a twisted and difficult character, not likeable enough to feel pity for.

The poem itself is probably the best part of the book. Even so, it reads as little more than an attempt to imitate the language of epic poetry, and the scholarly commentary on the text tends to be banal. At most, it gives a brief line of explanation, followed by a quotation from the Iliad or the Odyssey as a comparison, or a basic discussion of mythology.

Harlow almost never compares lines from the Psoad with lines from ancient texts other than the Homeric poems, nor does he display much evidence of wide and deep reading in ancient or modern literature. This is surprising for an alleged classical scholar. What we get instead are comments influenced by pop culture. For example, one character in the poem is said be “a Marlon Brando of the ancient world”.

Puzzles and implausibilities

Some of the explanations in the commentary are also oddly misplaced. Martel includes mention of bananas in the epic poem, with Harlow’s comment that bananas were introduced to the Mediterranean “sometime in the fourth century BCE”. In fact, bananas were probably first brought there by Arabs at least a thousand years later, in the seventh century CE, during the period of Islamic conquests.

For a papyrologist, mention of bananas would suggest that the poem on the papyrus is not archaic at all, since bananas were unknown in ancient Greece and no poets of this period refer to bananas. But nothing is made of this in the novel.

There are some puzzling and implausible aspects of Martel’s depiction of other characters. Franklin Cubitt is a clichéd version of an Oxford don. He wears tweed, speaks in a posh accent, confuses Americans with Canadians, and threatens students with a cane.

He is described at the beginning of the novel as “one of the world’s foremost scholars of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri”, but later we are told he is “an economic historian by training, not a classicist”. There is no chance that someone who is not a trained classicist would become a “foremost” scholar of papyri.

Similarly, Harlow is working on a PhD. We are told he is a complete “newbie” to papyrology who has never edited a text before. The odds that such a novice would be given an epic poem in fragments to edit on his own are impossible.

You could say it’s just a novel, so these implausibilities don’t matter. But even if you overlook the mistakes and the clichés about academic life, the main story, in which Harlow describes the breakdown of his marriage for his daughter, is self-involved and contrived.

It is good that Martel wants to draw attention to the world of Oxyrhynchus and the fascinating process of editing and reconstructing ancient texts on papyrus. But I can’t help but conclude that Son of Nobody needed more work before publication. It seems to me like a first draft of an interesting idea, not a polished final product. This is a pity, because there was plenty of potential in the novel’s premises.

– ref. Ancient texts and marital breakdown: Yann Martel’s Son of Nobody descends into implausibility – https://theconversation.com/ancient-texts-and-marital-breakdown-yann-martels-son-of-nobody-descends-into-implausibility-276857

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/ancient-texts-and-marital-breakdown-yann-martels-son-of-nobody-descends-into-implausibility-276857/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

With the global rules-based order collapsing, the United Nations faces an existential crisis as the United States leads other countries in defunding and withdrawing from key agencies such as the World Health Organization.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) may soon join the endangered list.

On March 26, its 166 member states will meet for their 14th Ministerial Conference over three and a half days in Cameroon. Dubbed a “reform ministerial”, this is unlike any since the WTO was established in 1995.

Whether the organisation will survive these “reforms” is uncertain. Whether it should survive will be even more controversial.

This biennial ministerial conference occurs against a backdrop of war, accelerating climate change, geopolitical polarisation, coercive unilateral trade sanctions, fractured supply chains and competition to control critical mineral resources.

But none of that will be addressed.

Instead, reform proposals driven by its more powerful members – carefully curated through an unorthodox process over the past year – are being pushed ahead without a consensus of members and despite repeated objections from a number of developing countries.

The US agenda

Significantly, the Trump administration has not formally withdrawn from the WTO. Instead, the US has demanded reforms that would legitimise the use of tariffs against other countries and shield its actions from challenge via the WTO’s dispute system.

It repeated those demands three days before the meeting, asserting “the current global order in international trade, overseen by the WTO, is untenable and unsustainable”.

Middle powers such as New Zealand, Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom – so-called “friends of the system”, whose economies are premised on the WTO’s free-trade model – are supporting this process.

New Zealand Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay has been reappointed vice-chair. As a minister-facilitator he will be responsible for steering through the reform agenda.

New Zealand’s ambassador to the WTO, Clare Kelly, has been chairing the Dispute Settlement Body, which the US has paralysed by blocking the appointment of new judges.

She will merely “update” members at the meeting, with no discussion of revitalising the appeal process (or the hotly disputed weaponisation of tariffs by the US) on the agenda.

Next year, the ambassador will chair the WTO General Council in charge of implementing the reform agenda.

Changing the rules

Three items dominate the first two days of a packed program. Their titles sound relatively innocuous, but the intent is to rewrite the fundamental tenets of the WTO: multilateralism, most-favoured-nation treatment, consensus decision-making, and development.

“Decision-making” aims to dilute the multilateral model that accords all states an equal voice irrespective of their relative size or wealth.

Article Ten of the Marrakesh Agreement which established the WTO – its constitution – mandates decision-making by consensus. Reformers have proposed an alternative of “responsible consensus” which will make it easier to push through preferred outcomes.

Multilateral negotiations involving all WTO members will give way to deal-making among groups of countries. This plurilateral approach will allow more powerful members to negotiate on their favoured topics and marginalise developing countries’ priorities.

Under “development and industrialisation”, the aim is to limit how countries define their own level of development. “Special and differential treatment” would simply allow them more time to adopt the rules that already apply to (and work for) developed countries.

This would ignore calls by developing countries for genuine reform to support industrialisation in ways that help their own economies.

“Levelling the playing field” is essentially about China, which the US asserts has now gained an unfair advantage since joining the WTO.

The US wants new rules to restrict state support for industry and to limit the application of most-favoured-nation treatment that ensures all WTO members are treated the same.

In practice, these reforms will fall most heavily on state-supported industrialisation in poorer countries, not China. Meanwhile, the unlevel playing field on agriculture, which allows the US and European Union to maintain massive subsidies, remains off the agenda.

Developing countries left out

The meeting agenda is inseparable from the process. Six facilitators from countries aligned to the reform agenda will oversee breakout groups at the meeting that poorer countries will struggle to engage in.

The facilitators’ summary reports will be consolidated into a “single takeaway” document, which ministers are asked to endorse. This will inform the next “facilitated” implementation phase at the WTO headquarters in Geneva.

The agenda provides little time for collective discussion by all members, corrections or alternative reform proposals. Nonetheless, the US has advocated for an even quicker and more streamlined process.

Nor is the US alone in seeking to remake the WTO. Many of the EU’s demands mirror those from Washington, with the middle powers in support. It’s likely the reform agenda will be endorsed at the Cameroon meeting and continue back in Geneva.

Many developing countries fear their own priorities, which have been supported by previous formal mandates, are now effectively gone. With their voices further marginalised, they will need to assess whether they even have a future at the WTO.

– ref. A crucial meeting aims to remake the WTO to fit the new global order – https://theconversation.com/a-crucial-meeting-aims-to-remake-the-wto-to-fit-the-new-global-order-278963

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/a-crucial-meeting-aims-to-remake-the-wto-to-fit-the-new-global-order-278963/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of Westminster

The BBC has appointed former Google executive Matt Brittin as its new director general. Brittin will replace outgoing director general Tim Davie. He resigned last year in the wake of revelations about the editing of a Panorama documentary about Donald Trump and board disagreements over how it should be handled.

Brittin’s appointment comes at a critical moment, as the broadcaster prepares to renew its royal charter. This is the constitutional basis for the BBC’s existence, which sets out its mission and public purposes. It is traditionally renewed once a decade to make sure the BBC keeps up to date with political and technological changes.

Because the renewal process is run by the government of the day, it can involve difficult conversations with ministers who – while acknowledging the BBC’s independence – can insist on major changes. Despite some challenging political environments, each charter renewal has generally resulted in an evolution from previous years. The BBC has moved from radio to TV, from analogue to digital and online.

But this time around feels more existential. In a world dominated by American streamers and online platforms owned by tech billionaires, the government has proposed a range of options for the BBC’s future that raise fundamental questions, in particular about its funding and governance.

The culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, announced the government’s intention to make the charter permanent to avoid the risk of political interference. Following a period of consultation, the government will publish firmer proposals in the autumn, with the new charter signed off by the culture secretary early next year.

This was a significant victory for the BBC, which argued for a permanent charter in its own response to the government consultation. It also called for changes to how appointments are made to the BBC board, to avoid any suggestion of government influence. This was perhaps influenced by the circumstances of Davie’s departure.

---

Read more: The political meddling that led to BBC crisis – and how to stop it in the future

---

There are three key pieces of context that make this review so important.

First, it is quite possible that the broadcast signal will be switched off in the next charter period. The government is now considering options for the distribution of TV, which will require upgrading existing infrastructure if the current terrestrial system is to continue into the 2040s. Given that households are moving to broadband via smart TVs and other devices, broadcasters have expressed a clear preference for an earlier switch-off to avoid the cost of running two distribution systems.

At that point, the BBC ceases to be a broadcaster (except perhaps via radio) and becomes a public service content provider. It will have to compete not just with powerful streamers like Netflix, but with platforms like YouTube. A tech background like Brittin’s will arguably help the BBC in this new competitive environment. But he will need an experienced deputy with the kind of journalistic background required to deal with the (inevitable) editorial controversies that the BBC will face.

Second, the notion of a TV licence fee has become increasingly anachronistic in the digital world. There is greater pressure – especially in a cost-of-living crisis – for a more progressive payment system that takes better account of ability to pay.

The government has ruled out a German-style household tax and funding through general taxation, but not advertising or the idea of top-up subscription (where a “premium” is charged for content beyond a basic tier). It is also considering a reformed licence fee.

Third, the current political environment is more volatile than it has been for decades. Nigel Farage has made his contempt for the BBC abundantly clear, as well as his party’s determination to cut its funding by half. The charter renewal is an opportunity to insulate the BBC from longer term attempts to undermine or dismantle it.

Protecting the BBC

Critics may want to see a downsized BBC. But in a media world dominated by US-based tech billionaires and entertainment behemoths – and where disinformation poses serious risks to democracy – the broadcaster is more necessary than ever.

It is not only the most trusted news brand in the UK, but provides billions in investment to Britain’s creative industries. And, it is a vital element of Britain’s soft power in an unstable geopolitical environment.

The new charter must therefore guarantee the BBC’s independence. No parliament can tie the hands of its successors. But the next charter can ensure there are obstacles to any government determined to inflict damage on the BBC.

Nandy’s announcement of a permanent charter is an important first step, guaranteeing the BBC’s long-term existence. While it would of course be seriously weakened by a major funding cut, the institution itself would survive and could be revived by a subsequent government.

That permanent charter could be accompanied by a much more independent process of appointing a chair and non-executive directors, to insulate the BBC from political influence. A recent report from the British Academy, examining how other countries manage their public broadcasting systems, drew attention to Germany’s model. There, an independent body is charged both with protecting the independence of German public broadcasters and independently setting the level of funding.

A second area of fundamental reform would be a funding system that provides for universal payment, but is not linked specifically to television and makes some allowance for ability to pay. An evolution from the current licence fee – one possibility floated by the government – would provide the BBC with a more secure and sustainable funding base, along with options to provide discounts for struggling households.

The BBC’s future is now in the hands of a government that appears to appreciate its continuing importance to Britain’s cultural and democratic life. We will soon find out whether this government is up to the job of a much-needed radical renewal.

– ref. Matt Brittin: BBC’s new director general appointed at an existential moment for the broadcaster – https://theconversation.com/matt-brittin-bbcs-new-director-general-appointed-at-an-existential-moment-for-the-broadcaster-278453

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/matt-brittin-bbcs-new-director-general-appointed-at-an-existential-moment-for-the-broadcaster-278453/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vidya Mani, Associate Professor of Business Administration, University of Virginia; Cornell University

The disruptions from the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran spread quickly to commercial aircraft, shipping lanes and the world’s energy supply. Those repercussions have already hit fuel costs, including for motorists, truckers and fishermen, and are set to spread even more widely, to packaging, household goods, appliances, medicines and electronics.

I study global supply chains and how they interconnect and depend on each other around the world. There are several ways in which U.S. consumers will begin to feel the pinch of the war. Some of those effects have to do with domestic commerce, and some are a result of the interwoven nature of global trade, where raw materials from one place are shipped somewhere they are manufactured into specific items that are then transported to consumers.

Rising costs in the US

There are three main categories in which costs will begin to rise.

Fuel shortages and freight surcharges: From March 2-16, 2026, the average nationwide price of U.S. regular gasoline rose from US$3.01 to $3.96 per gallon, while diesel fuel rose from $3.89 to $5.37. Diesel prices matter to consumer costs because diesel engines power trucks, farm machines, construction equipment, fishing vessels and many of the vehicles that carry domestic freight. When items become more expensive to harvest, build and ship, diesel costs spread quickly into grocery, household and building material prices.

Chemicals, fertilizer and packaging: QatarEnergy has said Iranian attacks on the world’s largest liquefied natural gas export plant at Ras Laffan and another plant in Mesaieed, both in Qatar, forced the company to stop producing LNG and associated products on March 2. Two days later, the company declared that it could not fulfill its contracts due to extreme external pressures that would require many years to recover from. The affected products included urea, polymers and methanol, used to make fertilizer, plastics, detergents, packaging and other consumer goods. Reduced production and closed transit routes are also affecting supplies of aluminum and helium produced in the Gulf countries.

Factory slowdowns abroad: When shipping slows and energy costs rise, factories abroad face higher operating costs. As a result they ration production, diverting energy supplies to producing a narrow range of high-value products that can absorb these costs. Diversions of shipment traffic and fewer transportation routes lead to delivery delays. Economic research shows that shipping-cost increases also raise import prices, producer costs and consumer inflation.

Air cargo and delivery delays: Early in the conflict, several countries, including Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, closed their airspace to all traffic. Later advisories warned of risks to planes over neighboring countries as well, except for limited corridors. Those closures affected 20% of global air cargo capacity, raising the risk of delays for higher-value cargo such as medicines, aircraft components and electronics.

Global disruptions

About 80% of the oil and 90% of the LNG moving through the Strait of Hormuz, between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, is destined for Asian markets. With strait shipments stopped, consumer electronics and manufacturing hubs in China, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea are drawing on their energy reserves and inventories. But those supplies will run out in a few months. Reduced manufacturing capacity can be expected to cause shortages and higher costs for textiles, chemicals, consumer goods, electronics, appliances, auto parts and fertilizer-intensive industries.

Europe is less directly dependent than Asia on Hormuz shipments, but it is still vulnerable to high LNG prices, increased shipping costs and diesel fuel shortages. Europe has also already faced shortages of heating oil and other fuels as a result of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The strait carried about 7% of Europe’s LNG inflows in 2025, and higher costs for energy, ship fuel, freight and insurance can ripple through global trade. For the U.S., that matters because Europe supplies industrial equipment, precision components, medical technology and specialty chemicals sold to businesses and directly to consumers.

African economies are especially exposed to fuel and fertilizer shocks. Large volumes of fertilizer pass through Hormuz, and higher energy and fertilizer prices threaten crop yields and food systems across most of Africa. As a result, U.S. prices can rise for coffee and chocolate – much of which originates in Africa – as well as critical minerals for electric vehicles, energy storage and high-tech equipment.

Coming home to Americans

This war is not a distant geopolitical shock for U.S. households. It reaches everyday life through fuel, freight, fertilizer, petrochemicals and global supply chains through factories that produce consumer goods.

Some mitigation is possible: 32 nations will be releasing more than 400 million barrels of oil to the global market over the next few months. There are pipelines and alternative ports in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that, if they remain undamaged and uninterrupted, can handle potentially 40% of the 20 billion barrels per day that was passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Combined with a temporary easing of sanctions on Russian oil, limited shipments to India and China through the Strait of Hormuz and the March 23 announcement of a five-day pause on U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, it is possible to head off the worst-case scenario.

But these measures cannot fully replace the strait’s normal oil and LNG shipment volume. And if oil production, refining and shipment locations continue to be targeted, recovery can be expected to stretch into many months. The likely result is broader inflation, prolonged shortages and longer waits for goods of all sorts, including food and packaging as well as electronics and appliances.

– ref. Soaring gas prices and disrupted supply chains will ripple out to increase costs in every store and sector of the economy – https://theconversation.com/soaring-gas-prices-and-disrupted-supply-chains-will-ripple-out-to-increase-costs-in-every-store-and-sector-of-the-economy-278349

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/soaring-gas-prices-and-disrupted-supply-chains-will-ripple-out-to-increase-costs-in-every-store-and-sector-of-the-economy-278349/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rodney Tiffen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

This is the point of absurdity we have reached: on March 15, US President Donald Trump, in a Truth Social post, asserted that American news organisations were running AI-generated Iranian propaganda, and should be charged with treason for the dissemination of false information. One of the instances he cited was coverage of Iranians at a rally to support new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, which he said was totally AI-generated, and the event never took place, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

The most powerful man in the world is making large and important claims, one palpably false, the others without offering any evidence, and it seems few if any people take him seriously. Then he blithely threatens to charge unnamed people with treason, which in the United States is potentially a capital offence, and again it is not clear anyone takes him seriously. Despite the all-but-universal dismissal of his statements, he will probably suffer no political consequences. It is just another drop in an ocean of unaccountability.

[embedded content]

One reason it will pass with negligible consequences is that these accusations have become so commonplace. Republicans have long railed against the “liberal” news media, but the Trump administration has brought such attacks to a new level of intensity.

In 2017, his first year in office, Trump denounced “fake news” and called the media the enemy of the American people. He said he had a “running war” with the media, and described journalists as “among the most dishonest human beings on Earth”.

Trump’s standard response to a question he doesn’t want to answer is to call the reporter (especially female reporters) a nasty person, or to denounce the organisation they work for. Recently his response to a US ABC reporter’s question was that her employer “may be the most corrupt news organisation on the planet. I think they’re terrible.”

As the war with Iran threatened to become more politically contentious, the administration has trained its rhetorical sights on the media. Trump endorsed Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s threat to revoke broadcast licences of “the corrupt and highly unpatriotic media”:

They get billions of Dollars of FREE American airwaves, and use it to perpetuate LIES, both in news and almost all of their shows, including the Late Night Morons, who get gigantic Salaries for horrible Ratings.

Far more than any of his predecessors, Trump concerns himself with individuals and media organisations. For example, he thought Netflix should dismiss one of its board members who had worked for his Democrat predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden: “Netflix should fire, racist, Trump deranged Susan Rice IMMEDIATELY.”

[embedded content]

A history of legal action

Trump has gone beyond rhetorical denunciations, however. He is the first US president, in recent times at least, to sue a news organisation. His targets so far have included the Pulitzer Prize Board, the Des Moines Register and its pollster Ann Selzer, the Wall St Journal, the New York Times, Penguin Random House and the BBC.

Without exception, his writs have no legal merit. (He has already lost suits against the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN). They are a means of harassment or perhaps just a threat: Trump sued CBS in 2024 over the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris. Initially CBS said the case had no merit. However, in July 2025 it agreed to settle for $16 million.

The agreement came amid CBS parent company Paramount’s $8.4 billion merger with Skydance, which received regulatory approval weeks later. Stephen Colbert, host of its top-rating night show, called it “a big fat bribe”. Three days later Colbert’s show was cancelled, which the network said was purely a financial decision.

Trump congratulated himself in a post on his Truth Social site under the headline “President Trump is reshaping the media”. He listed 12 media organisations and individuals who are “gone”, such as CNN reporter Jim Acosta and Colbert. Then he listed a dozen “reforms”, such as CNN having new ownership. He finished the post with the word “Winning”.

Apart from the president, the most enthusiastic member of the cabinet in harassing the media is former Fox News presenter, now secretary of war, Pete Hegseth. Last year he announced that journalists who solicited unauthorised military information would have their access revoked and be deemed a security risk. Fifty-five out of 56 accredited journalists refused to sign the new agreement. In March a judge ruled the policy was unconstitutional but the government has said it will appeal.

Recently, Hegseth thought photos of him were “unflattering”, so photographers were banned from his next two briefings.

So it is not surprising Hegseth has been a vocal critic of media coverage. He finished one recent tirade by saying: “The sooner David Ellison takes over [CNN], the better.”

[embedded content]

Ellison at the wheel

What is new and alarming about this is the reference to Ellison. It follows one of the biggest corporate takeovers in history. Ellison’s company, Paramount Skydance, has just succeeded in taking over Warner Bros Discovery. CNN is part of the package Ellison has acquired.

David is the son of Larry Ellison, the sixth-richest person in the world, who founded Oracle, a wildly successful software company. After Trump became president, the Ellisons moved into media in a big way.

The family first attracted public prominence when it was a central part of Trump choreographing the formation of a US TikTok company. Biden, with the approval of Congress, had sought to ban the popular video-sharing platform because of worries about security with the Chinese company ByteDance. Instead, Trump, on his first day of this second term, started a process to make it US-based, to remove the security risk.

In the end, Ellison’s Oracle, Silver Lake and MGX became the three managing investors, each holding a 15% share in the new company. The Chinese company ByteDance retained 19.9% of the joint venture. Oracle would also handle all the software aspects. All up, a very Trump-friendly outcome.

The Ellisons next attracted attention in July 2025, when their niche media company Skydance merged with Paramount to form Paramount Plus. This made them the owner not only of one of the biggest film studios but also of TV network CBS. The consequences for CBS news have already been far-reaching.

Ellison began by pledging to end the company’s “diversity equity and inclusion” initiatives. He appointed as ombudsman the former head of a conservative think tank and named Bari Weiss, a centre-right advocate, as editor-in-chief of CBS News.

An early controversy hit with a CBS 60 Minutes episode on a notorious prison in El Salvador, where the US government is sending migrant detainees. Although it was cleared through all the normal internal processes, the story was blocked at the last minute in what the reporter called an act of censorship. It was shown four weeks later.

Six out of 20 evening news producers have left CBS, with one, Alicia Hastey, saying the kind of work she came to do was increasingly impossible, as stories were now evaluated not just on their journalistic merit but on whether they conform to a shifting set of ideological expectations.

[embedded content]

In a missive to the newsroom, Weiss declared “we love America” should be the guiding principle for the relaunch of CBS Evening News. Putting this into practice, the new anchor of the evening news, Tony Dokoupil, finished one program by saying “[Secretary of State] Marco Rubio, we salute you”.

Ellison’s early acquisitions were dwarfed by the recent battle between Paramount Plus and Netflix to take over Warner Bros Discovery, which Paramount finally won in February 2026. Paramount’s final, winning offer valued the company at US$111 billion (A$159 billion), paying US$31 (A$44) per share. Months earlier, Netflix’s original offer was US$19 (A$27) per share. Assuming the deal goes through, Paramount will carry an estimated US$90 billion (A$128.6 billion) of debt, but it will also have a conglomerate of media-related holdings like no other company in history.

Despite the size of the takeover, which has several implications for reduced competition, commentators are confident it will achieve regulatory approval. This is principally because in the Trump era there is a strong, shall we say, transactional flavour about when regulation is enforced and when not. Trump has described the Ellisons as “two great people”. “They’re friends of mine. They’re big supporters of mine. And they’ll do the right thing.”

Media monsters

In the 1950s, looking at the way Australian newspaper companies came to control the new commercial radio and television stations, journalist Colin Bednall referred to “media monsters”. Around 1990, British media commentator Anthony Smith wrote a book titled The Age of Behemoths, looking especially at the way large corporations such as News Corp had gone international.

[embedded content]

But both were talking about media pygmies compared with the new mega-corporation owned by the Ellisons. Apart from their software business and extensive real estate holdings, they now have a central player, TikTok, in social media. They own two of the biggest five US movie studios, they have two of the biggest five streaming services, they have large entertainment producing corporations in Discovery, Warner Bros and CBS, and they own two of the most important TV news services – CBS and CNN.

This gives them the usual commercial advantages over smaller newcomers trying to break in. It also means the news services are owned by a conglomerate that has many other interests, including some that demand negotiation with the government.

In trying to understand the moment we are living through, it is often difficult to disentangle what is of momentary significance and what of lasting importance. What are egomaniacal histrionics that will fade into history with Trump? And which signal ongoing threats to the fabric of democratic institutions?

The unprecedented media empire built by the Ellisons will not disappear, no matter who wins the next election.

– ref. Trump is remaking the US media in his own image – and smashing accountability with it – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-remaking-the-us-media-in-his-own-image-and-smashing-accountability-with-it-279107

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/trump-is-remaking-the-us-media-in-his-own-image-and-smashing-accountability-with-it-279107/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zahra Shahhoseini, Research Fellow in Public Health, Monash University

Around the world, communities are battling more extreme weather events. That includes residents in the path of Cyclone Narelle, which is threatening to form again over Western Australia.

But another concerning trend is that natural disasters are increasingly arriving in clusters, not in isolation.

Fires, storms, floods and heatwaves are are no longer neatly separated by season or geography. They are more often occurring together or are affecting different parts of the country at the same time.

Scientists describe these as compound or overlapping hazards. This is where two or more natural disasters happen simultaneously or in close succession. And they often affect the same places.

So how can we prepare for overlapping disasters? And what does it mean for our emergency services?

The danger of multiple disasters

International research suggests people are most at risk when a new disaster strikes and they haven’t yet recovered from an earlier event. To understand risk, it helps to understand these three terms:

• hazard, which is the dangerous event itself
• exposure, which refers to the people and things that could be affected
• vulnerability, which is a measure of how susceptible to harm people and things are.

When disasters overlap, all three components of risk will likely increase.

Overlapping hazards are different from so-called cascading hazards. Cascading hazards refer to when an initial event triggers a series of system failures. These failures often cause infrastructure breakdowns and social disruption, both of which can actually be worse than the original disaster event.

An example of this is the 2011 Tōhoku disaster in Japan. In this case, an earthquake triggered a tsunami which then inundated the Fukushima nuclear plant. These cascading hazards led to a nuclear crisis, mass evacuations, and long-term contamination. So it was the consequences of the earthquake, not the earthquake itself, that caused the most harm.

Overlapping hazards are often harder to manage. One reason is it’s hard to coordinate public warnings when multiple disasters strike. For example, a bushfire warning might instruct people to evacuate immediately, but a simultaneous flash flood may block the very roads needed to escape.

Overlapping hazards also stretch our emergency resources, often across multiple fronts at once. And recovery from one event is frequently interrupted by the next. This is why we can no longer rely on current disaster response frameworks, which tend to be built around isolated events.

A history of overlapping hazards

In Australia, we are fairly used to dealing with overlapping disasters.

In January this year, inland bushfires were burning in Victoria’s west under hot, dry conditions. Meanwhile, an intense coastal storm was brewing in that same region. This saw emergency operations move from fire suppression and evacuation to flood rescue, as flash flooding inundated sections of the Great Ocean Road and washed vehicles into the ocean.

In December 2025, Western Australia was hit by a tropical cyclone that caused flash flooding and widespread power outages. Within days, authorities were issuing fire danger warnings as a heatwave swept across the state’s southeast.

In late 2024, severe hail and flash flooding arrived in the aftermath of a bushfire in New South Wales’ Yass Valley. Residents barely had time to recover from the initial fire.

Research examining more than five decades of insurance losses shows Australia experiences the most overlapping hazards in December, January and February. This is when bushfire, tropical cyclone and severe storm seasons overlap. This makes summer the most high-risk period, particularly for disaster-prone regions.

When disasters converge

In Australia, natural disasters most often come in three combinations:

• heatwaves alongside drought
• heat followed by heavy rain
• strong winds combined with heavy rain.

Heatwaves and drought often occur together because dry soils reduce evaporation and push temperatures higher. This creates persistent hot and dry conditions, increasing the risk of bushfires. These hot conditions also put pressure on the agriculture and health care sectors. Recent Australian research suggests this combination of heatwaves and drought will only become more common and extreme.

In Australia, heavy rainfall is more likely to come after a heatwave. This is because extreme heat alters atmospheric conditions in a way that means subsequent rain often falls in shorter, heavier bursts.

Strong winds and heavy rainfall often occur together, most commonly when tropical cyclones develop. East coast lows, a type of intense weather system that usually forms off Australia’s eastern coast, may also create the right conditions for these overlapping hazards.

The role of climate change

Climate change acts as a “threat multiplier”, increasing the likelihood of extreme events occurring together or in rapid succession. Research shows extreme weather is becoming more frequent and intense.

In Australia, we have already recognised this trend, creating national frameworks to deal with a rising number of simultaneous, and often large-scale, disasters.

But sound policy does not guarantee effective emergency management. As the risk of overlapping hazards increases, we must actively involve communities in disaster planning. Through education programs and clear messaging, we can help them understand how disasters may combine. We can also give them strategies to make decisions when weather conditions change rapidly.

In our changing climate, overlapping hazards will only become more common. So there’s no better time to help our communities and first responders prepare.

– ref. Australia must brace for clusters of natural disasters, not just isolated fires and floods – https://theconversation.com/australia-must-brace-for-clusters-of-natural-disasters-not-just-isolated-fires-and-floods-272333

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/australia-must-brace-for-clusters-of-natural-disasters-not-just-isolated-fires-and-floods-272333/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

New Zealand’s latest quarterly energy report shows electricity production was above 90% renewable and emissions from generation fell to the lowest level on record.

But it also shows New Zealand’s oil consumption, which had fallen markedly after the COVID pandemic, has crept back up to reach its highest quarterly level in five years.

Oil now comprises its highest quarterly share of New Zealand’s overall energy emissions on record.

Of the total carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, 77% were from oil (mostly used for transport), 12% from industrial and domestic gas usage, 6% from coal, and just 5% from electricity generation.

Developing a coordinated energy strategy to reduce oil dependence would not only provide an effective climate response, but also protect New Zealand from recurring oil price and supply shocks.

The previous government had committed to a comprehensive strategy to transition to a renewable energy system in New Zealand’s first emissions reduction plan in 2022.

But the current government’s focus has shifted on energy security and it aims to boost energy supply by importing liquefied natural gas.

Missed opportunities to reduce oil dependence

Parts of New Zealand’s economy, particularly inflation and tourism, remain strongly linked to the price of oil.

During two previous periods of high oil prices, New Zealand missed the chance to weaken the country’s dependence on oil.

The 1978 oil shock was a severe hit to the economy; New Zealand’s oil consumption did not recover to its previous level until 1990.

The soaring oil prices hit New Zealand at a time of extensive government control of the economy under the National government of Robert Muldoon, whose “Think Big” strategy included building an experimental plant to produce petrol from natural gas.

This was intended to build energy independence, but unfortunately it proved to be costly and ineffective.

The 2008 financial crisis also involved extreme oil price spikes and a prolonged recession. Oil consumption did not recover until 2015. One planned response was to introduce fuel economy standards for new cars – a form of regulation already in place in most OECD countries.

Had these standards been put in place and gradually strengthened over time, New Zealand would now be in a much better place, with less pollution and less economic dependence on oil.

However, a change in government in late 2008 led to the cancellation of the planned standards. New Zealand now uses nearly twice as much transport oil per capita as the UK, where such standards have been in place since 2001.

New law changed NZ’s trajectory

The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act of 2019 was a turning point. Before that, total fossil fuel emissions were flat or trending up. Afterwards, a wave of investments in renewable electricity, in the decarbonisation of industry and in low-emission transport turned the trend around.

This was perhaps not just due to the specifics of the act, which includes five-yearly carbon budgets, but to strong pro-climate signalling from the government of the day.

A critical mass of society, from car buyers and dealers to New Zealand’s biggest companies, were investing to take steps away from fossil fuels.

Under the current government, both messaging and policy have changed. As Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has repeatedly stressed, New Zealand’s main climate tool is now the emissions trading scheme (ETS). However, this now covers only 35% of net emissions and is not an effective way to reduce oil use.

At the current price of NZ$40 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions, the ETS adds only nine cents per litre to the price of petrol. Given New Zealand’s high car dependency, this has virtually no effect on existing drivers or on car buyers.

How to cut oil use in transport

In New Zealand, 80% of oil goes into air and land transport. An oil transition plan really means a transport plan.

There is a known way to turn off the tap on oil. The “avoid, shift, improve” framework is supported by three decades of experience.

Changing work patterns such as shorter work weeks and working-from-home arrangements can help avoid unnecessary travel. Better infrastructure for walking and cycling and public transport helps to shift transport and dramatically reduce oil use.

The remaining private vehicle travel can be improved through electrification. This requires a combination of incentives and stronger emissions standards, as the International Energy Agency reinforced this week.

At present, New Zealand is still moving in the wrong direction. Over the past decade, the total distance driven by light vehicles increased by 20%, while the distance driven by utility vehicles is up 55%.

Each utility vehicle has 50% higher carbon emissions than a (fossil-fueled) passenger car. These trends have outweighed the improvements from the rise of hybrid and electric vehicles.

There is a limit to how quickly New Zealand’s fleet can realistically be electrified. For a country with the world’s highest rate of car ownership, mass purchasing of new cars is not a good transport solution by itself.

But in any event, phasing out fossil fuels is required for a safe future and should happen in ways that build energy resilience and independence.

– ref. Driving in the wrong direction: why NZ’s oil consumption is at a 5-year high – https://theconversation.com/driving-in-the-wrong-direction-why-nzs-oil-consumption-is-at-a-5-year-high-278524

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/driving-in-the-wrong-direction-why-nzs-oil-consumption-is-at-a-5-year-high-278524/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Rudge, Lecturer in Law, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney

When the Queensland Dolphins ran onto the field in mid-April 2024, the rugby league team’s jerseys bore the logo of Alternaleaf – a “plant medicine” clinic.

Earlier that week, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) had commenced Federal Court proceedings against Alternaleaf’s parent company, alleging 226 other advertising offences.

By the next game, players had taped over the logo.

The law is clear. Advertising prescription medicines directly to consumers in Australia is prohibited – including on football jerseys, websites, social media, and on posters or banners.

Any promotion of medicinal cannabis products to the public – including euphemisms such as “plant medicine” – is also a breach.

But suppliers and prescribers of medicinal cannabis are flouting the rules.

A 2025 study analysed 54 Australian medicinal cannabis provider websites. The authors found nearly half were violating at least two TGA guidelines.

Common violations included using cannabis imagery, unsubstantiated health claims, and patient testimonials.

Researchers also identified self-assessment tools that may “coach” patients on qualifying conditions – with some clinics positioning access as fast and hassle-free.

One company ran more than 170 social media ads in a single month, many reaching users as young as 18.

Take our quiz

Here’s a mock-up of a medicinal cannabis website. It’s fictional, but it highlights the many ways clinics can breach laws or guidelines designed to prohibit direct-to-consumer advertising of medicinal cannabis.

It’s based on the types of issues researchers have documented, past TGA infringement notices and current websites promoting medicinal cannabis.

Some breaches are more obvious than others.

Let’s get started

Click (or touch) the elements of the website below you think breach laws or TGA guidelines about medicinal cannabis promotion.

But to keep you on your toes, we’ve thrown in some red herrings – elements of the website that are actually OK.

Can you spot all ten breaches?

Well done if you found all ten breaches in our fictional website.

But if you can spot them, why are so many medicinal cannabis clinics, social media posts and traditional media accused of breaking the advertising rules?

Since 2023, the TGA has issued more than A$2.3 million in fines for medicinal cannabis advertising breaches. It has commenced three Federal Court proceedings. None have yet resulted in a judgement.

In July 2025, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) said it was concerned about emerging business models that appear to use “aggressive and sometimes misleading advertising” to target vulnerable people.

Some clinics and prescribers churning through scripts

Ahpra told the ABC it had taken action against 57 practitioners and is investigating 60 more. Concerns include consultation times of between “a few seconds and a few minutes”. Some prescribers wrote more than 10,000 scripts in six months.

The agency and the TGA are now sharing prescribing data to identify outliers – even without receiving complaints.

---

Medicinal cannabis prescriptions have skyrocketed in Australia, mostly for legal but unapproved products we don’t even know work or are safe. In this series, experts tease out what’s fuelling the rise of medicinal cannabis, the fallout, and what needs to happen next.

---

Later in 2025, organisations representing GPs, other doctors and pharmacists wrote jointly to the health minister in New South Wales calling for a crackdown on rogue medicinal cannabis prescribing.

Among their concerns were “vertically integrated” cannabis clinics – where the telehealth prescriber sends the script to a dispensary owned by the same company – hasty telehealth consultations, and how medicinal cannabis was promoted.

The organisations cited Ahpra data showing one pharmacist had dispensed 959,000 cannabis products in a single year.

Too easy?

Australia has become one of the world’s largest markets for medicinal cannabis. In the first half of 2024 alone, Australians spent more than $400 million on these products.

But the evidence suggests this boom has been built, at least partly, on marketing that Australian law was designed to prohibit.

Enforcing these laws has proven difficult. The TGA is a small agency that assesses alleged breaches according to the risk they pose. This means first-time or low-level breaches often only attract a warning known as a “regulatory obligations letter”.

In the medicinal cannabis sector, that approach appears to have been exploited. Widespread, repeat breaches suggest some operators have concluded the risk of a warning is worth taking.

– ref. This medicinal cannabis website bends the rules. Take our quiz to see why – https://theconversation.com/this-medicinal-cannabis-website-bends-the-rules-take-our-quiz-to-see-why-270685

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/this-medicinal-cannabis-website-bends-the-rules-take-our-quiz-to-see-why-270685/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By T.J. Thomson, Associate Professor of Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University

Australians are among the most anxious in the world about artificial intelligence (AI).

This anxiety is driven by fears AI is used to spread misinformation and scam people, anxiety over job losses, and the fact AI companies are training their models on others’ expertise and creative works without compensation.

AI companies have used pirated books and articles, and routinely send bots across the web to systematically scrape content for their models to learn from. That content may come from social media platforms such as Reddit, university repositories of academic work, and authoritative publications like news outlets.

In the past, online scraping was subject to a kind of detente. Although scraping may sometimes have been technically illegal, it was needed to make the internet work. For instance, without scraping there would be no Google. Website owners were OK with scraping because it made their content more available, according with the vision of the “open web”.

Under these conditions, scraping was managed through principles such as respect, recognition, and reciprocity. In the context of AI, those are now faltering.

A new online landscape

Many news outlets are now blocking web scrapers. Creators are choosing not to use certain platforms or are posting less.

Barriers are being put in place across the open web. When only some can afford to pay to access news and information, then democracy, scientific innovation and creative communities are all harmed.

Exceptions to copyright infringement, such as fair dealing for research or study, were legislated long before generative AI became publicly available. These exceptions are no longer fit for purpose in an AI age.

The Australian government has ruled out a new copyright exception for text and data mining. This signals a commitment to supporting Australia’s creative industries, but leaves great uncertainty about how creative content can be managed legally and at scale now that AI companies are crawling the web.

In response, the international nonprofit Creative Commons has proposed a new voluntary framework: CC Signals.

Creative Commons licences allow creators to share content and specify how it can be used. All licences require credit to acknowledge the source, but various additional restrictions can be applied. Creators can ask others not to modify their work, or not to use it for commercial purposes. For example, The Conversation’s articles are available for reuse under a CC BY-ND licence, which means they must be credited to the source and must not be remixed, transformed, or built upon.

---

How would CC Signals work?

The proposed CC Signals framework lets creators decide if or how they want their material to be used by machines. It aims to strike a balance between responsible AI use and not stifling innovation, and is based on the principles of consent, compensation, and credit.

Simplistically, CC Signals work by allowing a “declaring party” – such as a news website – to attach machine-readable instructions to a body of content. These instructions specify what combinations of machine uses are permitted, and under what conditions.

CC Signals are standardised, and both humans and machines can understand them.

This proposal arrives at a moment that closely mirrors the early days of the web, when norms around automated access (crawling and scraping) were still being worked out in practice rather than law.

A useful historical parallel is robots.txt, a simple file web hosts use to signal which parts of a site can be accessed by the bots that crawl the web and look for content. It was never enforceable, but it became widely adopted because it provided a clear, standardised way to communicate expectations between content hosts and developers.

CC Signals could operate in much the same spirit. But, as with any system, it has potential benefits as well as drawbacks.

The pros

The framework provides more nuance and flexibility than the current scrape/don’t scrape environment we’re in. It offers creators more control over the use of their content.

It also has the potential to affect how much high-quality content is available for scraping. Without access to high-quality data, AI’s biases are exacerbated and make the technology less useful.

The framework might also benefit smaller players who don’t have the bargaining power to negotiate with big tech companies but who, nonetheless, desire remuneration, credit, or visibility for their work.

The cons

The greatest challenge with CC Signals is likely to be a practical one – how to calculate, and then enforce, the monetary or in-kind support required by some of the signals.

This is also a major sticking point with content industry proposals for collective licensing schemes for AI. Calculating and distributing licence fees for the thousands, if not millions, of internet works that are accessed by generative AI systems around the world is a logistical nightmare.

Creative Commons has said it plans to produce best-practice guides for how to make contributions and give credit under the CC Signals. But this work is still in progress.

Where to from here?

Creative Commons asserts that the CC Signals framework is not so much a legal tool as an attempt to define “manners for machines”. Manners is a good way to look at this.

The legal and practical hurdles to implementing effective copyright management for AI systems are huge. But we should be open to new ideas and frameworks that foreground respect and recognition for creators without shutting down important technological developments.

CC Signals is an imperfect framework, but it is a start. Hopefully there are more to come.

– ref. ‘Manners for machines’: how new rules could stop AI scrapers destroying the internet – https://theconversation.com/manners-for-machines-how-new-rules-could-stop-ai-scrapers-destroying-the-internet-278669

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/manners-for-machines-how-new-rules-could-stop-ai-scrapers-destroying-the-internet-278669/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roger S. Seymour, Professor Emeritus of Physiology, Adelaide University

Insects first took to the skies about 350 million years ago, some 200 million years before birds first flapped their wings.

By the end of the Carboniferous period, 300 million years ago, some flying insects had become gigantic. Huge dragonfly-like insects called griffinflies had wingspans of 70cm – five times the size of the largest modern dragonflies.

These giant insects lived in a time when Earth’s atmosphere contained more oxygen than it does today: around 30%, compared with the modern 21%.

Because large flying insects lived in a time of high oxygen levels, scientists have proposed that they required these high external oxygen levels to power the rapid burn of energy during flight.

In new research published today in Nature, we studied the muscles of dozens of modern flying insects and made a surprising discovery: there is no reason the griffinfly could not survive in today’s atmosphere.

The structure of the insect flight respiratory system

Flying takes more energy than running or swimming, because a flapping flier must constantly work against gravity to remain in the air.

Consequently, the flight muscles use a lot of oxygen, and the rate of oxygen consumption increases roughly in proportion to the weight of the flier. The highest rate of oxygen consumption per gram by any known tissue occurs in a flying bee.

Oxygen is supplied to insect flight muscles through the “tracheal system”, a tree-like branching system of air-filled tubes that lead to the smallest branches, called “tracheoles”, where oxygen moves into the muscle tissue.

Each tracheole is a dead end, which means oxygen delivered to the muscle travels primarily by diffusion. First it diffuses through the air inside each tracheole, and then through the muscle tissue itself.

The old hypothesis

In modern insects, oxygen levels near the oxygen-consuming mitochondria that power the flight muscle are very close to zero. This implies that the structure of the tracheal system was just adequate to supply sufficient oxygen.

A larger insect would need a greater supply of oxygen, which would mean a greater driving force for diffusion, which in turn means more oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere.

The idea that the structure and function of the insect tracheal system limits body size has prevailed for the past 30 years and appears in educational textbooks.

Our interest in the theory arose 15 years ago, when we looked at thin slices of the flight muscle of locusts. The tracheoles appearing between and within the muscle fibres were few and took up only about 1% of the area, compared with the mitochondria that were occupying about 20%.

New evidence

We initially thought all an insect had to do to increase its oxygen delivery would be to increase the number of tracheoles. After all, this is where oxygen is supplied to the mitochondria.

To be sure the locust was not exceptional and to properly understand the effect of body size, we measured 44 species of flying insects of different body masses and metabolic rates. The project required five years and 1,320 transmission electron micrographs.

But the results were essentially the same: the tracheoles occupied only about 1% of the cross-sectional area of the flight muscles regardless of body size. In contrast, the blood-filled capillaries in the flight and cardiac tissue of some birds and mammals occupy about 10% of the area.

This shows there is plenty of scope to increase the number and volume of tracheoles without weakening the muscle. So the structure of the tracheal system is not an important constraint on body size.

Evidence from developing insects shows insects can grow more tracheoles in flight muscle in lower oxygen levels, and they pass this trait to their offspring. The conclusion is that the body size of flying insects has never been limited by the structure or function of their tracheal systems.

There is no physiological reason why insects the size of griffinflies could not fly in today’s atmosphere. And yet they don’t exist today.

The simpler reasons may be that larger animal species are more prone to extinction than smaller ones – and 300 million years ago, the griffinfly had no bird or mammal predators to watch out for.

– ref. Giant dragonflies once roamed Earth’s skies. New research upends the textbook theory of why they went extinct – https://theconversation.com/giant-dragonflies-once-roamed-earths-skies-new-research-upends-the-textbook-theory-of-why-they-went-extinct-278997

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/giant-dragonflies-once-roamed-earths-skies-new-research-upends-the-textbook-theory-of-why-they-went-extinct-278997/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zainab Darbas, PhD Candidate, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

In 2004, a largely anonymous team of Australian video game developers released a prototype video game titled Escape from Woomera.

In this 3D adventure, the player takes on the role of Mustafa, an Iranian refugee fleeing violent repression who is being held in a virtual re-creation of the (now-shut) Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre.

Mustafa is facing deportation back to Iran – which will mean almost certain death. He and the player must escape.

Escape from Woomera was one of the first Australian video games ever to receive government funding to support its development. In 2003, the creators received a A$25,000 grant from the national arts body, the Australia Council for the Arts (now Creative Australia).

The game itself, and the fact it was awarded public funding, were highly controversial. They sparked conversations about what kind of art the government should fund, and why. Should the goal be to nurture new artistic talent? Or to preserve Australian-made content? Or build profitable industries?

More than two decades on, Australia has a robust ecosystem of video game development supported by grant programs across the country. My research looked at the scope and structure of these programs and examined how they affect game developers.

My findings reveal that the structures of funding programs emphasise generating profit and growing the video game industry. This is at odds with the approach taken by many game developers, who view themselves as artists, and their games as a cultural form.

This fundamental mismatch is a source of tension for game developers who rely on public funding to support their work.

Competing priorities of public funding

I read through more than 50 annual reports, strategic documents and other materials from Australian arts funding bodies to analyse funding policies for Australian video games.

The documents emphasised the economic potential of the video game industry, frequently citing growth rates, expenditure figures and returns on investment as justification for continuing to fund game development. However, they also promoted Australian video games as complex, experimental and culturally valuable.

This shows how funding agencies juggle competing priorities. While they value games with artistic merit that contribute to the cultural landscape, agencies must also demonstrate that their public funding programs generate financial returns.

These agencies’ economic priorities heavily influence how public funding programs are structured – which can make them seem highly formal and business-like.

Company or community?

This formality creates difficulties for game developers, whose work practices are often artistic, informal and adaptive. I interviewed 11 game developers to understand their experiences with public funding.

They generally held positive sentiment towards the funding available to them, describing it as a “lifeline”, “fantastic” and “awesome”. Several developers spoke highly of the range of funding programs available for projects of various scope.

At the same time, they had criticisms. They found the application processes for public funding overly formal, forcing them to adapt their artistic practices to a rigid, business-like structure. As one interviewee explained:

If you want to go for funding, you’re talking about needing to start a company. You need to get a lawyer. People don’t know that.

Tensions were particularly acute around providing diversity information. Most funding applications ask applicants to submit information about diversity, equity and inclusion in a highly formalised format.

The developers I spoke to felt “icky”, “gross”, “weird” and “uncomfortable” while completing these forms, describing them as “tokenising”, “dehumanising” and “impersonal”. As one interviewee said:

The language it asks you to use is so corporate, you know, and it’s like, who is this talking to? Who is this for? And the answer is always a company. I’m not a company, I’m a person.

More than just products

The interviewees recommended several changes funding agencies could make to improve their application processes. They could, for instance:

• provide example funding applications and information sessions to help guide applicants

• provide more feedback on both successful and unsuccessful applications

• allow more flexible formats for submitting the required documentation, especially for diversity information

• provide venue space and smaller, more accessible funding options for developers to run events for skill-sharing and community support.

These changes would signal to game developers and the wider public that our public institutions value video games as more than just money-making products.

Australian-made games such as Untitled Goose Game and Cult of the Lamb – which have achieved international critical success in recent years – wouldn’t exist without public funding.

[embedded content]

Yet many video game developers struggle to find options for secure public funding. And when it isn’t available, they are forced to take a chance on over-saturated crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter.

It’s important that public funding programs work to support game developers on their own terms, so they can keep creating excellent games that enrich our cultural landscape.

– ref. Are video games art or products? This tension lies at the heart of Australia’s gaming industry – https://theconversation.com/are-video-games-art-or-products-this-tension-lies-at-the-heart-of-australias-gaming-industry-275314

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/are-video-games-art-or-products-this-tension-lies-at-the-heart-of-australias-gaming-industry-275314/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Panza, Associate Professor, Economic History, The University of Melbourne

On October 6 1973, the Yom Kippur War – mainly involving Egypt, Syria and Israel –triggered one of the biggest energy crises of the 20th century. Eleven days later, several Arab members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced they would stop selling oil to countries supporting Israel and would cut production.

The effect was immediate. Within a few months, global oil prices quadrupled.

After decades of price stability, the world faced a severe shortage. Petrol stations ran dry, with some displaying a red flag to signal empty pumps; drivers queued for hours.

In parts of the US, fuel was rationed by licence plate number. By March 1974, time spent waiting in line had raised the cost of petrol by around 50%, because drivers were also “paying” through lost time — hours that could otherwise have been spent working.

Across Europe, governments imposed fuel-saving measures. The Netherlands and West Germany introduced car-free Sundays, while Britain cut speed limits to reduce petrol consumption.

Today, as the United States and Israel continue a widening war against Iran, energy markets have again reacted: disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil, have pushed prices above US$100 per barrel, echoing the supply shocks of the 1970s.

These pressures make it timely to revisit 1973 and why its effects were so economically severe.

When OPEC gained influence

The scale and persistence of the 1973 oil shock reflected not just the embargo itself, but how it interacted with the economic system at the time.

One important shift was that the US stopped being the world’s main “backup supplier” of oil. For decades, American production had been large enough that output could increase when global supply tightened, but production peaked around 1972.

Without this buffer, markets became far more sensitive to disruptions. At the same time, oil-producing countries in the Middle East gained political leverage by coordinating production through OPEC, strengthening their influence over prices.

Moreover, the international monetary system that had kept postwar inflation under control had collapsed in 1971. This agreement, known as Bretton Woods, had tied currencies to the US dollar. The result was that oil prices, like most commodity prices, were already rising before the embargo began.

Inflation surged, and so did wages

Higher oil prices pushed up the cost of almost everything. Transport became more expensive. Electricity bills increased. Businesses faced higher production costs and passed these costs onto consumers.

Inflation surged across many advanced economies. Workers tried to protect their living standards by asking for higher pay. In many countries, strong labour unions negotiated big wage increases to keep up with rising prices.

Expectations made the shock worse: fearing shortages, firms and households stocked up, reducing available supply and pushing prices even higher.

At the same time, economic growth slowed sharply. Factories produced less, unemployment rose and investments fell.

The economic consequence of this shock was a decade of stagflation: high inflation amid stagnating growth.

Governments tried several ways to respond. Some countries, such as the US, introduced price controls to limit how much petrol companies could charge. Others, such as the UK and France, imposed rationing rules to manage shortages.

Trouble for central banks

Central banks also faced difficult choices: raising interest rates could reduce inflation by slowing borrowing and spending. But higher rates also risked pushing the economy deeper into recession.

During the 1970s, many central banks including the US Federal Reserve struggled to strike the right balance. The Fed kept cutting interest rates to support the economy, but this only added to inflation.

The result was an “inflationary psychology” where expectations of higher prices become self-fulfilling.

The world today has stronger defences against an oil shock. Central banks now have clear mandates to keep inflation low and the credibility to act quickly. Research suggests the economic impact of oil price shocks has declined over time because wages adjust faster, central banks act decisively to keep inflation in check, and oil now makes up a smaller share of the economy.

Recent shocks confirm this transformation: the Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed up energy prices and inflation, but did not trigger a deep recession.

There is another difference as well. Today, high oil prices may encourage investment in renewable energy, and have the potential to accelerate the shift toward cleaner energy sources.

Modern economies are better prepared

The events of 1973 still offer an important lesson.

The damage caused by an energy shock depends not only on the size of the disruption but also on the economic environment in which it occurs. In the 1970s, heavy dependence on oil, rigid wage systems and uncertain economic policy amplified the crisis.

Modern economies are better prepared. Constraints on energy supply, however, remain real and the disruption to the Strait of Hormuz highlights this uncertainty. The duration and objectives of the current conflict remain unclear, and uncertainty itself is costly to businesses and the economy.

History is therefore less useful for prediction than for perspective. The size of a supply shock is only one piece of the puzzle; what matters is the system it hits, how long the shock persists and how it affects expectations.

– ref. This is how the 1970s oil shock played out. There are lessons for the economy today – https://theconversation.com/this-is-how-the-1970s-oil-shock-played-out-there-are-lessons-for-the-economy-today-278876

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/this-is-how-the-1970s-oil-shock-played-out-there-are-lessons-for-the-economy-today-278876/

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

Described by analysts as a suicide mission, there are nonetheless rumours the US President has his eye on securing for the long-term the Iranian oil facilities on Kharg Island.

“Just take the oil” has long been his motto. But I am beginning to wonder if a desperate Donald Trump is preparing to deliberately throw US Marines into a meat grinder in Iran.

The attack on Iran has so far garnered little support from key parts of the MAGA base. Dead servicemen have traditionally helped to mobilise the American public into a war frenzy.

Could the sacrifice of a Marine expeditionary force be a price the 47th President thinks is worth paying? Would such a ploy work and revive his fortunes with the public?

Or will he have to pay the butcher’s bill in the US mid-terms?

The God of War
Money changer of dead bodies
Held the balance of his spear in the fighting
And from the corpse fires of Troy
Sent to their dearest the dust
Heavy and bitter with tears shed
Packing smooth the urns with ashes
Of what once were men.
They praise them through their tears
How this one went down splendid in the slaughter
How this one knew well the craft of war.
There by the walls of Troy
The young men in their beauty keep
Graves deep in the alien soil
They hated and they conquered.”

— Aeschylus 480 BCE

Aeschylus, the father of Western drama, a Greek who fought at the Battle of Marathon, knew a lot about wars, resistance to imperial armies, and the cruelty of wars of aggression launched by leaders with little consideration for the young men who are sent on missions of conquest — or the other young men, like him, who stood their ground and fought them.

I have read those lines so many times over the years that I know them by heart. They may even have informed the spirits of later war poets like Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon.

Aeschylus’s fine observations should give the Americans pause before, as we fear, they send boots and bodies into the valley of death on Kharg Island, the home to the oil so essential to Iran’s long-term survival as a viable state.

Another poet, Shakespeare, cautioned leaders like Trump and Macbeth against their “violent loves” which out-run “the pauser, reason”. Before he did the bloody deed Macbeth had enough insight to know that his actions would lead to uncontrollable consequences.

He understood that his actions were motivated not by love of kin or country but by vulgar self-interest.  He also realised that he stood “upon this bank and shoal of time” where “We still have judgement here”, meaning that there was still time to pause, to reconsider before the gates of hell opened and the dogs of war came rushing out.

I fear we are at such a moment — that a missile war will turn into a ground war and more. I also fear that like many presidents before him, Trump has neither the brains nor the humanity to step back.

Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf — or some other target the Americans choose to fling thousands of Marines at — may be the moment when we see a huge increase in servicemen dying for the US-Israeli Empire.  Throwing a first wave of Marines onto the sacrificial altar of Iran’s shores may be a deliberate act by Trump to dupe a gullible and patriotic US population into believing that more war, more killing is now justified.

US elites desperate
I hope not.  But the US elites are so dark and desperate that piles of Marine body bags may seem a good investment to swing the popular mood towards war. Again, I hope not. How long can people fall for this stuff?

Like the Greeks at Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis, the Iranians know the Empire will not turn back home unless compelled to do so.  Iranians, for their part, will fight with tremendous skill and courage to defeat the invaders. Nationalism – the love of one’s country — is such a powerful thing that, in the words of a compatriot of mine, “it banishes fear with the speed of a flame and makes us all part of the patriot game”.

But enough poetry, here are a few hard facts. Iran has a well-trained army of over 600,000 men. They have hundreds of thousands of militia members, many of them combat veterans of theatres like Syria and Iraq. They have 350,000 reservists. Yes, they have 1500 battle tanks, but likely more deadly to American forces are the thousands of artillery systems that are the centrepiece of Iran’s land defences and have yet to see action.

Wherever the Americans and Israeli invaders attack, hundreds of artillery pieces will be trained on them, thousands of drones will, as in the Russia-Ukraine war, make progress slow and bloody.

Every day the US President and Secretary of War tell us that Iran’s military potential has been, to use Trump’s favourite word, “obliterated”.  Every day the Iranians hit sites across the Middle East and have yet to deploy a single of their cruise missiles which US analysts say they hold in large numbers.

How, everyone is asking, could the Americans get to Kharg Island near the bottom of the pocket of the Persian Gulf?  If it is a seaborne assault, they might charge through the Strait of Hormuz, traveling 1000km along the Iranian coast in vessels under a blizzard of fire.

Or they could dispense with consent (geopolitical Epsteinism) and force an Arab country to submit to an expeditionary force moving through their territory.  Assembling the troops and the landing craft would be a huge, highly visible operation that would invite Iranian short-range missile and drone attacks that could wreak havoc before they even get near Iran.

Frightening way to land
Choppers and parachutes would be a frightening way to make land.

The Iranians have made clear, if the Americans come for Kharg Island, they will turn the region’s energy facilities into ashes. They showed their potential after the Israelis attacked the Pars gas field last week, striking back within a couple of hours and taking out 20 percent of the world’s biggest LNG production trains at Ras Laffan.

Hours after the US-Israelis attacked the Natanz nuclear facility (I thought that had been “obliterated” last year?), Iran pierced Israel’s missile defence shield and dropped a warning note — a massive missile — a few kilometres from Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant.  World energy will be in turmoil for years if the Americans attack and Iran makes good on their threats.

Alternatively, the US-Israeli invasion force might hit the beaches near the Pakistani-Iranian border — or somewhere entirely different.  There has been recent noise about smaller islands closer to the Strait of Hormuz. Wherever they choose, they will be met by Iranians who will be fighting on home territory and for their homeland.

Another consideration is the civilians. Kharg Island, for example, is home to 10,000 of them. As we have learnt over the decades – from Korea and Vietnam through to the genocide in Gaza – the US and Israelis have utter contempt for civilians’ lives.

For example, in the Russia-Ukraine war, child deaths represent somewhere between 1 percent and 3.6 pecent of the total killed in Ukraine in 2025, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNICEF.

The UN says about 43 civilians are killed per week in Ukraine. In Gaza, the UN Human Rights Office found that children and women accounted for nearly 70 percent of the total deaths, evenly split between women and children.

Nothing makes sense about the US attack on Iran. Nor do we really know what Trump has in mind for Kharg Island. If he succeeds in seizing it, will he ever willingly give it back?

There are clues. I will give the last word to Donald J Trump. In a televised address at CIA headquarters in 2017 Trump lamented that the US let the Iraqis hold on to their oil after the Gulf War.

“We should have kept the oil. But OK, maybe we’ll have another chance.”

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington, New Zealand. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region, and is a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This article was first published on his Solidarity blog.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/26/eugene-doyle-kharg-island-into-the-valley-of-death/

OBITUARY: By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

Political leaders and institutions have paid tributes for Lionel Jospin, the “father” of the 1998 Nouméa Accord, who died at the weekend aged 88.

Jospin was a socialist prime minister who played a significant role in supervising the signature of the 1998 Accord, which paved the way for increased autonomy for the French Pacific territory.

Ten years after the signing of the 1988 Matignon-Oudinot agreements which contributed to restoring civil peace after half a decade of quasi civil war, the Nouméa agreement was more focused on furthering the process.

Its emphasis was to ensure a gradual transfer of more powers from Paris to Nouméa, the creation of a local “collegial” government, the setting up of three provinces (North, South and Loyalty islands) and the notion of “re-balancing” resources between the North of New Caledonia (mostly populated by the indigenous Kanak population) and the South of the main island, Grande Terre, where most of the economic power and population are based.

There was also the embryonic concept of a New Caledonia “citizenship”. One of the cornerstones of this re-balancing was the construction of the Koniambo nickel processing factory, in the North of the main island.

But the project is now dormant after its key financier, Glencore, decided to mothball the plant due to a mix of structural cost issues and the rise of other global nickel players, especially in Indonesia.

In 1988, the Matignon Accord was negotiated and signed by then French Socialist PM Michel Rocard.

Agreement signed
A decade later, it was under Jospin that the Nouméa agreement was signed between pro-France leader Jacques Lafleur and pro-independence umbrella leaders, including Roch Wamytan (Union Calédonienne).

The Nouméa Accord also designed a pathway and envisaged that a series of three referendums should be held to consult the local population on whether they wished for New Caledonia to become independent.

The three referendums were held between 2018 and 2021.

Although the pro-independence FLNKS called for a boycott of the third referendum in December 2021, the three results were deemed to have resulted in three refusals of the independence.

Since then, under the Accord, political stakeholders have attempted to meet in order to decide what to do under the new situation.

Since July 2025 and later in January 2026, negotiations took place and produced a series of the texts since referred to as “Bougival” and “Elysée-Oudinot”.

But the FLNKS has rejected the proposed agreements, saying this was a “lure” of independence and only purported to make New Caledonia a “State” within the French realm, with an associated “nationality” for people who were already French citizens.

Celebrated accord preamble
One of the most celebrated passages of the Nouméa Accord is its preamble, which officially recognises the “lights” and “shadows” of French colonisation.

The approval of the 1998 text came as a result of tense negotiations between the pro-independence FLNKS and, at the time, the pro-France RPCR was the only force defending the notion of New Caledonia remaining part of France.

RPCR has since split into several breakaway parties.

FLNKS has also split since the riots that broke out in May 2024, materialising a divide between the largest party Union Calédonienne (now regarded as more radical) and the moderate PALIKA and UPM pro-independence parties.

In 1998, some of Jospin’s key advisers were Christian Lataste and Alain Christnacht, who later served as High Commissioners of France in New Caledonia.

“He was someone who was negotiating, was discussing and who respected his interlocutors and the Kanak civilisation,” Nouméa Accord signatory Roch Wamytan told local public broadcaster NC la 1ère.

‘Obtaining solutions’
“He also had this method for obtaining solutions and a consensus, out of a contradictory debate”.

PALIKA party (still represented by one signatory, Paul Néaoutyine) also paid homage to Jospin, saying they would remember the late French leader as a “statesman”, a “man of his word” who managed to foster a “historic compromise”.

“Through the Nouméa Accord, he managed to see the realities of colonial history and open the way for emancipation,” the party stated in a release.

“The historic (Nouméa) accord was a major step in (New Caledonia’s) decolonisation and re-balancing process,” New Caledonia’s government said in an official release on Tuesday.

“It allowed to set the foundations of a common destiny between (New Caledonia’s communities, founded on the recognition of the Kanak identity and the sharing of skills”, the release went on, stressing the importance of a “climate of dialogue, respect and responsibility, which are essential for New Caledonia’s institutional and political construction”.

‘One of its greatest’ — Macron
In mainland France, tributes have also poured from all sides of the political spectrum.

French President Emmanuel Macron hailed “a great French destiny”.

“France is aware it has lost one of its greatest leaders,” former French President François Hollande wrote on social networks.

Manuel Valls, who was Overseas State Minister between December 2024 and late 2025, said as a young adviser in the late 1980s and later on, he had been inspired by both PMs Michel Rocard and Lionel Jospin when he was fostering negotiations and the resumption of talks between New Caledonia’s antagonist politicians in 2025.

The Nouméa Accord is still deemed valid until a new document is officially enshrined in the French Constitution.

Attempts to translate the Bougival-Elysée-Oudinot into a constitutional amendment are still underway in the coming days, this time through debates at the French National Assembly (Lower House), with a backdrop of parliamentary divisions and the notable absence of any conclusive majority.

In February 2026, the French Senate endorsed a Constitutional amendment bill to enshrine the project into the French Constitution.

But the text now required another endorsement from the Lower House, the National Assembly, and later another green light, this time from the National Assembly, then both Houses of the French Parliament (the Senate and the National Assembly, in a joint sitting of the French “Congress”.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/25/tributes-pour-in-for-lionel-jospin-father-of-the-noumea-accord/