The United Nations in Papua New Guinea has met the leadership of the Media Council of PNG to advance collaboration in support of a strong, independent and responsible media sector, reports UNPNG.
The meeting addressed recent incidents of threats and violence against journalists — especially attacks against women journalists and the growing risks they face while reporting.
Participants identified key priorities to strengthen media freedom and safety. These included:
Improving journalist safety measures;
reinforcing newsroom integrity and professional standards; and
promoting responsible and accurate reporting in the lead up to the national elections.
The UNPNG statement said dialogue reaffirmed the shared commitment of the United Nations and the Media Council to “support a safe and independent media sector and to ensure that everyone in PNG can access reliable information that supports free and informed participation in public life”.
Present at the meeting were Media Council PNG president Neville Choi, secretary Belinda Kora and treasurer Genesis Ketan, UN Resident Coordinator Richard Howard, Human Rights Advisor Marc Cebreros, UNDP Country Representative (OIC) Aadil Mansoor, Chief Technical Adviser on Transparency and Anti-Corruption Alma Sedlar, Peace and Development Advisor Tony Cameron, and UNDP Assistant Resident Representative for Governance, Gender and Peace Zoe Pelter.
MCPNG president Choi thanked UN Resident Coordinator Howard and UNDP for the continued support of media freedom in PNG.
You may have heard of the peculiar quantum effects of superposition and entanglement, which allow mostly very tiny objects to behave very strangely. They could also allow quantum computers to solve problems conventional computers cannot.
One strange feature of the quantum world is what are called “collective effects”. They are what give quantum batteries their unique properties.
Under the right circumstances, the storage units of quantum batteries don’t act individually, but behave collectively. In a counterintuitive twist, this means the units charge faster together than if they were charging alone.
Let’s say your quantum battery has N storage units, and each unit takes one second to charge. Collective effects mean that if all units are charged at once, each unit will take only 1∕√N seconds to charge.
This means that the bigger your quantum battery, the less time it takes to charge. If it doubles in size, charging will take just a little more than half as long.
It is as if each unit somehow knows there are other units around, and their presence makes the unit charge faster. Strange, right?
This is radically different from how conventional batteries work, where bigger batteries typically take longer to charge. That’s why it might take an hour to charge your mobile phone, but your electric car needs all night.
Building a quantum battery
The idea of a quantum battery was just a theoretical curiosity for a long time. But back in 2018, I set out to demonstrate that they could actually be built.
In 2022, working with colleagues in the United Kingdom and Italy, we built a quantum battery prototype using an organic microcavity – a kind of tiny, complicated multi-layer sandwich of several different materials that traps light in a particular way.
And we were able to show for the first time the exotic behaviour where larger quantum batteries really do take less time to charge.
In fact, we were able to demonstrate that the charging time decreases as 1∕√N, where N was the number of molecules in our battery. The more molecules we included, the faster the battery charged — exactly as theory had predicted.
One thing this first prototype didn’t have was a way to extract the energy out of it. To do this, in our latest study, published in the journal Light: Science & Applications, we added extra layers into our device that converted the energy into an electrical current. This marks a major step towards a practical quantum battery.
[embedded content]
Inside the CSIRO lab building quantum battery prototypes.
Progress still to be made
So, why aren’t we seeing quantum batteries in stores? Well, the capacity of quantum batteries is still tiny (a few billion electron-volts), and the time they hold their charge is fleetingly short (a few nanoseconds). This means quantum batteries are too small to power conventional devices such as your mobile phone, at least for now.
But quantum batteries might be perfect for powering quantum devices such as quantum computers. In fact, quantum batteries could be the exact solution quantum computers need to work at bigger scales and become practical.
While we don’t have practical quantum batteries yet, we are currently working on ways to scale up our prototype’s size and extend how long it can hold its charge. We hope to create a hybrid design that combines the exceptional charging speed of the quantum battery with the long storage time of the classical battery.
The progress we’ve made is a testament to the century of theoretical work done by quantum scientists before us.
Our first prototype’s battery charge lasted nanoseconds. The Wright brothers’ first plane flight lasted little longer. Progress takes time – but quantum batteries are certainly on our horizon.
Last year, former Spotify chief economist Will Page compiled a report for the Australia Institute that concluded music streaming algorithms were “killing” Australian music.
The report found that, between 2021 and 2024, there was a 30% drop in Australian artists in the top 10,000 artists streamed in Australia on platforms such as Spotify, YouTube and Amazon.
“The algorithms of streaming services might recognise language, but they ignore geography, which means local music is not typically recommended to Australian audiences,” Page said.
These claims of reduced visibility resonate with Australian musicians, who are concerned their music may be less favoured than the work of more popular global artists.
We fact-checked these claims in new research commissioned by the Victorian Music Development Office, with a focus on Spotify.
While we didn’t find evidence of Australian music being “killed” by AI, we did find algorithms perpetuating conditions that make it difficult for less-established artists to break onto the scene.
How AI shapes streaming
The objective of streaming platforms is to maximise user engagement. Spotify does this by allowing users to discover new music in various ways, including through manual search and exploration, editorial (human-made) playlists, and AI-recommended playlists.
Algorithms have been criticised for amplifying the influence of superstars – and the corporate interests that support them – while also potentially narrowing listeners’ musical preferences.
For many users, AI-recommended playlists are simply convenient. Instead of intentionally searching for new music, they are happy to be recommended tracks they might like.
At the same time, there are concerns algorithmic bias may benefit certain artists over others.
Our findings
Our research, conducted in February 2025, involved analysing 2.27 million music tracks using Chartmetric’s real-time analytics platform.
Our dataset included 12,333 artists and 5,000 editorial and AI-mediated Spotify playlists from seven English-speaking countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland and Jamaica.
Our findings indicate that AI‑generated Australian playlists heavily rely on global listening patterns. They are also less likely than editorial playlists to surface diverse or regionally specific music. This matches the AI recommendations pattern for the UK market.
AI recommendations accentuate US dominance by reproducing US tastes as global “norms”. Our study showed the composition of AI playlists in all countries is very similar to those of the US.
This suggests the US – a much larger market than Australia and the other countries – generates a music footprint that dictates the global trends.
The AI playlists in our sample drew from only a quarter as many unique tracks as the editorial playlists. This further shows how AI playlists, in general, are more concentrated and less likely to recommend local music.
AI’s tendency to recommend “familiar” music also favoured artists from dominant markets such as the US. In our sample, 77% of the US tracks were produced by “established artists”, representing three Chartmetric categories (legendary, superstar and mainstream).
In contrast, only 22% of Australian tracks were being produced by established artists. The artists behind the other 78% of Australian tracks are less likely to be recommended by AI algorithms.
Filter bubbles
Over time, AI playlists – which are more likely to push established US artists – are fed back to users in a loop. This gives more exposure to already popular artists, and further disadvantages less established ones – leading to a “rich get richer” dynamic.
These conditions make it difficult for up and coming acts to break through Spotify’s recommender systems.
One solution might be for Spotify to tailor its AI algorithm to actively boost less-established artists. But for now, the inner workings of the algorithm remain somewhat hidden.
It’s a familiar feeling: You start a text message, and your phone’s auto-complete function suggests several choices for the next word, ranging from banal to hilarious. “I love…” you, or coffee? Or you’re finishing an email, and merely typing the word “Let” prompts your app to suggest “Let me know if you have any questions” in light gray text.
Predictive language technologies have become so routine – baked into smartphones, email services and chatbots – that we barely notice them anymore. But they raise a difficult question: What happens to a writer’s unique voice when AI routinely completes their thoughts – or generates them altogether from scratch?
As the chair of a large English department – and as a scholar who researches the effects of predictive writing – I’ve witnessed firsthand the challenges that generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude pose for individual expression.
This technology has been incorporated into the writing process so fully that it’s almost impossible to imagine encountering a scene from the not-so-distant past: a writer, alone, with a pen and a piece of paper, wrestling with how to best translate their ideas, arguments and stories into something legible and interesting.
Predictive text leads to predictive writing
As many scholars have noted, though, this vision of writing was never fully accurate.
Essays have always incorporated guidance from teachers, professors or writing tutors. A friend might give feedback, or your favorite novelist’s turn of phrase might offer inspiration. The language we use is never fully “ours,” but draws on millions of sources absorbed over the course of our lives.
Just as it’s a myth to imagine that writers compose in a vacuum, there has never been a clear line between genuine human expression versus machine-generated text. As scholars have pointed out, we have been using machines to communicate for a long time. Every technological development – from the quill pen and the typewriter to the word processor – has brought with it changes in how humans express themselves.
Because generative AI composes and suggests text in highly standardized, predictable patterns, its outputs can read as if they’re dressed-up versions of what linguists call “phatic expression.” These are the overly common phrases that function as social glue more than as conveyors of sentiment: “How are you?”, “Have a good day” or “See you soon.”
People are starting to catch on to generative AI’s prose, not because it’s clunky or poorly written, but because it all sounds the same. That’s because large language models are trained on gigantic masses of examples of human writing, and they predict text based on probabilities and commonalities.
Those predictive outputs often end up producing a singular, recognizable voice. Or, as Sam Kriss explained in a recent essay for The New York Times Magazine, “Once, there were many writers, and many different styles. Now, increasingly, one uncredited author turns out essentially everything.”
Slouching toward a cultural mean
Generative AI is accelerating the types of cultural convergence and uniform expression that were already happening.
For example, linguists have shown that regional accents in the U.S. are fading and becoming homogenized due to a mix of migration, urbanization, mass media and social media. Meanwhile, American English continues supplanting many other forms internationally due to the global predominance of U.S.-based media, TV, film and more.
Are we all destined to write and speak alike? Generative AI doesn’t know in advance whether you call soft drinks “soda,” “pop” or “coke.” If you let it choose, it will simply select “soda” for you, since that’s the most common term in its training data.
By contrast, what people typically value in a personal essay, novel, poem or message to a grieving friend is the ability of the human author to demonstrate – clearly and distinctly – something powerful and singular.
Making chatbots less appealing
So how can teachers compel students to craft their own voices? How is that task different today than it was even a decade ago?
It helps to think here about where generative AI struggles, and why.
Chatbots are great at creating relatively bland, highly readable prose, since that’s what is omnipresent in their training data. But they struggle to create the kinds of radically unexpected shifts that appear in novels like James Joyce’s “Ulysses” or songs like Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody.”
Several techniques exist to encourage these types of stylistic leaps among student writers.
Teachers can bake unpredictability into the assignment. Creative writing instructors have used techniques for decades to encourage out-of-the-box thinking. They might ask students to draft a poem and then rewrite it while avoiding the letter “E,” or limit themselves to two adjectives at most.
Another tactic involves having students draw from distinctly personal experiences. Teaching students how to explore connections between characters and conflicts in a novel to people and situations in their own lives makes resorting to chatbots less appealing, if not altogether useless. By contrast, impersonal assignments – “Discuss the symbolism of the color green in ‘The Great Gatsby’” – will likely produce generic, predictable results.
Teachers can also ensure the work of their students has a range of readers. If it’s just the professor, students may be less likely to invest time into cultivating their own voice. But if they have to write an essay or story for, say, their friends or their grandparents, they might have more of an incentive to sound like themselves.
Many other strategies exist, from being forced to reverse the argument of an essay to favor the other side, to interviewing strangers for an assignment and including their quotes.
The bottom line: Writers have access to sources – and language – that machines cannot access or generate. Having students wrestle with unconventional modes of composition and revision lies at the heart of ensuring that the technology is more of a helpful thought partner, but not a substitute for their voice.
On Tuesday, the Victorian government announced it is revamping its student reporting for public schools.
As part of a broader push to cut down on teachers’ paperwork, it will simplify the reports that go home to families. This includes a
new approach to reduce the time teachers spend writing reports, while still giving families clear information about their child’s progress.
As The Age reported, the changes will be rolled out over the next 18 months. The overall idea is to cut administrative tasks so teachers will spend less time at their desks and more time with their students.
What do the proposed changes signal for schools and families?
What happens now with reports?
Schools are required to report student achievement and progress to parents at least twice per year.
But education experts and studies have warned parents can find these reports vague, jargony and difficult to understand.
For example, one could argue having a range of criteria such as “fair”, “good”, “very good”, “excellent” and “outstanding”, can create a misleading impression of satisfactory performance.
Similarly, comments such as “demonstrates developing understanding” or “works well towards achieving outcomes” often provide little concrete guidance about a student’s strengths or areas for improvement.
A 2025 review of Victorian teachers’ administration tasks noted more detailed twice-yearly reports to parents “do not always lead to more parental engagement”. Indeed, the review found most schools have a significant number of parents who never open the student reports.
So while preparing reports creates a substantial administrative burden for teachers, there is not necessarily a strong payoff for families.
Are parent-teacher interviews more useful?
The 2025 review also noted spending more time meeting with or calling parents could be a more effective way to engage families about their child’s progress.
Apart from the administrative burden, there are also equity concerns around reports. The use of standardised grading can disadvantage students from diverse linguistic and/or socio-economic backgrounds. Some researchers call this the “standardisation of inequality”.
Teachers have noted how student needs are increasingly complex, with rising mental health challenges and neurodiverse learners requiring extra support.
These factors suggest a simple written document will not always work best or be sufficient to capture a child’s needs and progress.
‘Just let us teach’
Meanwhile, numerous reports and studies have found teachers do not have time for teaching because of data collection and compliance paperwork.
This is not just a Victorian issue. A 2025 NSW Teachers Federation report reached similar conclusions. In 2022, the Grattan Institute found 86% of teachers didn’t have time for high-quality lesson planning.
Our 2022 research also highlighted how Australian teachers struggle to build positive teacher-student relationships amid intense administrative and performance demands.
A growing number of studies suggest Australian teachers are even quitting, or considering it, due to unmanageable workloads. A common message in our ongoing research on the profession is “just let us teach”.
What is needed instead?
We know report processes can vary between schools, but all reports should be clear for families. They should be useful to teachers, students, parents and carers.
They should be nuanced for each student and not overly technical or vague for families – particularly those from diverse backgrounds.
Most importantly, reports need to provide concrete guidance about student performance, development and how they can improve.
Who produces good reports?
Across the world, several education systems have developed streamlined reporting practices designed to be more meaningful for families, informative for governments, and manageable for teachers.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) benchmark for reporting emphasises clear information about student progress, strengths, and areas for improvement, along with specific recommendations for further learning. A major issue – found internationally – is reports often emphasise performance without explaining how students can improve.
The OECD profiles an exemplary approach from France called Livret Scolaire Unique. This emphasises continuous, student-centred reporting. It involves a digital report that follows students across years and includes subject results, descriptive teacher feedback, and competencies (rather than just grades).
This approach attempts to provide a deeper understanding of each learner, focusing on progress over time in a family-friendly way.
Similarly, many schools in Finland use a common digital communication platform. This allows them to share student assignments, grades, teacher feedback, and other administrative information with families.
It is another efficient way to make sure students, families and teachers are all part of the same clear system around reporting.
The US-Israel war on Iran has been described as “the first AI war”. But recent deployments of artificial intelligence are, in fact, the latest in a long history of technological developments that prize a need for speed in the military “kill chain”.
“Sixty seconds – that’s all it took,” claimed a former Israeli Mossad agent of the strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on February 28 2026, the first day of the US-Israel war on Iran.
The speed and scale of war have been significantly enhanced by use of AI systems. But this need for speed brings serious risks for civilians and military combatants alike.
Modern military operations produce and rely on an enormous amount of intelligence. This includes intercepted phone calls and text messages, the mass surveillance of the internet (known as “signals intelligence”), as well as satellite imagery and video feeds from loitering drones. We can think of all this intelligence as data – and the problem is, there’s too much of it.
As early as 2010, the US Air Force was concerned about “swimming in sensors and drowning in data”. Too many hours of footage, and too many analysts manually reviewing this intelligence.
AI systems can dramatically speed up the analysis of military intelligence. Brad Cooper, head of US Central Command (CentCom), recently confirmed the use of AI tools in the war against Iran, saying:
These systems help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds, so our leaders can cut through the noise and make smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react … Advanced AI tools can turn processes that used to take hours and sometimes even days into seconds.
In 2024, an investigation by Georgetown University found that the US Army’s 18th Airborne Corps had employed AI to assist with intelligence processing – reducing a team of 2,000 to just 20.
The allure of speed
In the second world war, the aerial targeting cycle – from collecting images to assembling target packages complete with intelligence reports – could take weeks or even months. But over the ensuing decades, the US military set about what it called “compressing the kill chain” – shortening the time between the identification of a target and use of force against it.
During the first Gulf war of 1991, Iraq’s president Saddam Hussein made use of mobile missile launchers that would roam the desert firing Scud missiles. By the time US radar identified its location, the launcher could be miles away. This “shoot and scoot” tactic required new technology to track these mobile targets.
[embedded content]
Mobile Scud missile launchers proved a new challenge for the US military during the first Gulf war.
A key breakthrough came shortly after the September 11 attacks in the form of an armed Predator drone.
In November 2002, the CIA targeted and killed Al Qaeda’s leader in Yemen, Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harithi. This heralded a new era of warfare in which drones piloted from military bases in the US flew remotely over the skies of Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The drones’ powerful cameras could take high-resolution video and beam it back to the US via satellite in a matter of seconds, enabling the drone operators to track mobile targets. The same drone which had eyes on the target could fire missiles to kill or destroy the target.
With greater speed comes greater risk
Two decades ago, it was easy to dismiss as hyperbole the idea that the coming age of cyberwarfare might bring about “bombing at the speed of thought”, a phrase coined by American historian Nick Cullather in 2003. Yet with the advent of AI warfare, the unthinkable has become almost antiquated.
Part of the push to employ AI tools is the sense that human thought is no match for the processing speeds enabled by AI systems. The US Department of Defense’s artificial intelligence strategy states: “Military AI is going to be a race for the foreseeable future, and therefore speed wins … We must accept that the risks of not moving fast enough outweigh the risks of imperfect alignment.”
While the precise uses of AI by US and other military is shrouded in secrecy, information has been made public that highlights the risks of its use on civilian populations.
In Gaza, according to Israeli intelligence sources, the AI systems Lavender and Gospel have been programmed to accept up to 100 civilian casualties (and occasionally even more) for a strike on a single suspected Hamas combatant. More than 75,000 people are estimated to have been killed there since October 7 2023.
In February 2024, a US airstrike killed a 20-year-old student, Abdul-Rahman al-Rawi. At the time, a senior US official admitted the strikes had used AI targeting – although confusingly, the US military now says it has “no way of knowing” whether it used AI in specific airstrikes.
The risk is that AI could lower the threshold or cost of going to war, as people play an increasingly passive role in reviewing and rubber-stamping the work of AI.
The embedding of AI into military kill chains intersects with other alarming developments. After years of inaction, the US military spent more than a decade developing an infrastructure to avoid civilian casualties in war, but it has been almost totally dismantled under the Trump administration.
The lawyers who give advice to the military on targeting operations, including compliance with international law and rules of engagement, have been sidelined and fired.
Meanwhile, since the start of the war in Iran, more than 1,200 civilians have been killed, according to the Iranian Health Ministry. On February 28, the US military struck an elementary school in the south of Iran, killing at least 175 people, most of them children.
The US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, has been clear that the military’s aim in Iran is for “maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct”.
With such an attitude, and by privileging speed over deliberation, civilian casualties become inevitable, and accountability ever more elusive.
For a country that imports every drop of its petrol, diesel and jet fuel, this is not only a problem, it’s a hard reminder New Zealand has failed to mitigate such strategic vulnerability.
Since Marsden Point stopped refining oil in 2022, New Zealand has imported all its refined fuel, mostly from South Korea and Singapore. Those refineries rely on crude oil shipped through the waters now blocked by Iranian drones.
The latest official fuel stocks update suggests roughly 52 days of total cover, with less than 33 days of petrol in the country. This buffer was only designed to smooth over short disruptions, not substitute for a prolonged supply crisis.
Motorists are already starting to hoard supplies, with petrol stations in Auckland already selling out of fuel cans. Some drivers may well be regretting not having bought an electric vehicle earlier.
Yet transport, which consumes nearly 40% of all energy in the country, remains almost entirely chained to imported oil. Electricity provides just 0.5% of domestic transport energy. It didn’t have to be that way.
For all its imperfections, the Clean Car Discount scheme started in 2021 was shifting the needle. Over its life, the scheme put 192,000 rebates into the hands of New Zealanders buying cleaner vehicles.
The scheme cost $634 million, leaned on government grants to stay afloat, and had real affordability gaps. But it was doing one thing very well: bringing in more cars with less petrol dependence.
EV fleet growth exceeded 50% per year while the scheme operated. When the current government killed it at the end of 2023, that growth collapsed to under 10%. The government is now reportedly considering scrapping the Clean Car Standard, the remaining incentive for importing lower fossil fuel-consuming vehicles.
Unaffordable road projects
The reversal of alternatives to petrol goes further. The government withdrew funding for Auckland’s under-25 and children’s fares on public transport. The Transport Choices program, which funded walking, cycling and bus improvements across the country, was frozen and then effectively killed.
Nationally, walking and cycling improvements received roughly $391 million in the current National Land Transport Plan, about 1.7% of the fund, while state highway improvements got $6.18 billion.
Every decade brings an oil shock. Each time, New Zealand could have used the crisis to create policies and plans to wean itself off over-reliance on petrol. Instead, it has waited for prices to settle and gone back to building roads and buying petrol cars.
New Zealand still has a choice, however. It already powers lights, hospitals and factories with renewable electricity. It could have powered a diverse transport system the same way, and it still can.
Every bus electrified, every cycleway built, every train funded is a direct reduction in exposure to the next crisis. The question now is whether New Zealanders begin to treat their car dependence not as a lifestyle choice but as a strategic liability.
As the US and Israel battle to control the narrative of their war against Iran, their messaging gets harder to defend, reports Al Jazeera’s Listening Post.
With the war entering its third week, the upper hand that the United States and Israel hold militarily is being countered asymmetrically by Iran which has been targeting various economic pressure points outside of its borders.
With censorship and propaganda shaping coverage on all sides, news audiences are having to navigate a confused and often misleading maze of information.
Contributors: Vali Nasr – Professor, Johns Hopkins University Michael Omer-Man – Director of research for Israel-Palestine, DAWN Matt Duss – Executive vice-president, Center for International Policy (CIP) Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi – Lecturer, University of St Andrews
On our radar Israeli media outlets published near-simultaneous reports, citing anonymous officials, claiming Gulf states had attacked Iran. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates quickly denied the allegations, forcing corrections.
Critics say that the aim of the coverage was to suggest Gulf support for Israel and pull those states into the conflict. Tariq Nafi looks at how the episode has fuelled anger across the Arab world towards Washington and Tel Aviv.
[embedded content] Out Of Control: An escalating war accompanied by escalating war rhetoric Video: AJ Listening Post
Battlefield AI: An interview with Matt Mahmoudi Since the first attacks on Iran, the White House and Pentagon have been eager to test new military technologies.
As seen previously in Gaza, AI systems appear to be playing a central role in identifying targets and guiding strikes.
This raises serious ethical and accountability questions about how life-and-death decisions are being made on the battlefield.
Amnesty Tech researcher and assistant professor at the University of Cambridge, Matt Mahmoudi joins The Listening Post to discuss AI-assisted warfare.
A Senate inquiry has provided Treasurer Jim Chalmers with ammunition for his plan to pare back the capital gains tax discount in the May 12 budget.
The majority report of the inquiry into the operation of the capital gains tax discount, tabled Tuesday, concluded that while various factors influenced housing markets, there was evidence the discount, combined with negative gearing, had “skewed the ownership of housing away from owner-occupiers and towards investors”.
The committee, chaired by Greens senator Nick McKim, included two Labor senators, two Liberals – one of them the Coalition housing spokesman, Andrew Bragg – and independent senator David Pocock. The majority report was supported by McKim, Labor and Pocock, with the Liberals producing a dissenting report.
The committee said it had consistently heard that the current design of the discount “can distort decision making and incentivise tax planning”.
The tax concession reduces the capital gain for tax purposes on an asset by 50%, provided it has been held for at least a year. It has become widely criticised as first home owners have found it increasingly difficult to compete against investors.
Chalmers, who will deliver a major pre-budget speech on Thursday, is known to be pushing to reduce the discount, among other tax reforms.
He set out his ambitions for the budget at the weekend, indicating he was undeterred by the international uncertainty. “I see developments around the world and pressures on Australians here at home, not as a reason to go slower but a reason to go further.
“I’ll be working up a number of reform packages for this budget, and they’ll be focused on savings, they’ll be focused on productivity. I’ll give my colleagues a whole bunch of options when it comes to tax reform,” he said on Sky.
In its findings, the Senate committee said the design of the discount “has the potential to distort the allocation of investment across the economy”.
There was “evidence that existing housing stock makes up a substantial share of capital gains that benefit from the capital gains tax discount,” the findings said.
“The benefits of the capital gains tax discount are also unequally distributed, with implications for income and wealth inequality and intergenerational inequality”.
In additional comments, McKim recommended the discount on all assets be substantially reined in so “unearned income from owning assets is taxed as closely as possible as earned income from going to work each day”.
The discount should be “abolished entirely on investment property sales,” he said.
“The combination of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount has driven rampant property speculation and inflated house prices over the last 26 years.”
McKim opposed grandfathering changes, saying “to ensure a significant release of housing is made available for renters to buy, hard limits and a phase out of existing arrangements must be part of any negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms”.
In their dissenting report, the Liberal senators said the “idea that Australia’s housing woes could be solved by one tax tweak is as shallow as it is cruel”. Rather, “supply is the key”.
“The supply failure is driving the housing crisis,” they said.
“The analysis in the Chair’s report does not sustain the argument that reducing the CGT discount would deliver more homes or higher levels of home ownership.”
The Labor senators in additional comments said any future tax reforms should be guided by the principles agreed at last year’s economic roundtable. These included delivering a fair go for working people and young people, including in intergenerational equity terms.
The committee’s work and evidence should be considered, with other advice and analysis, in looking at “potential future reforms in the context of future budgets”.
Pocock recommended a reduced CGT discount of 25% be made available only to new homes built from July 1 this year provided they were held longer than three years, with grandfathering of existing ownerships.
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has lifted official interest rates for the second time this year as it struggles to bring inflation under control, saying inflation is “likely to remain above target for some time”.
But it was a split decision, with five members of the RBA board voting for a hike against four who preferred to hold steady.
With the lift in the cash rate target by 25 basis points to 4.1%, two of the three cuts made last year have now been reversed.
inflation is likely to remain above target for some time and the risks have tilted further to the upside, including to inflation expectations. It was therefore appropriate to increase the cash rate target.
The RBA is in a difficult position, because the oil price shock following the breakout of war in Iran will push inflation higher, while also dampening economic growth. This combination of high inflation and a stagnant economy is termed “stagflation”.
Asked about the split vote, RBA Governor Michele Bullock told a news conference there had been a “very robust discussion” but the difference “was in the timing”. “The direction (of higher rates) wasn’t the issue,” she said.
For a household that recently took out the average new mortgage loan of around $700,000, repayments will be an extra $100 a month.
The rate rise was not unexpected. Financial markets were implying a greater than 50% chance of a rate rise for the past week, according to economist Isaac Gross’ website. All four major banks tipped a rate rise.
Inflation spike is the biggest concern
Inflation was already elevated before the breakout of war in the Middle East, running at 3.8% in January and forecast to keep rising. This is significantly above the RBA’s 2–3% target range.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers now says inflation will likely peak in the “mid to high 4s”.
The RBA’s preferred measure of underlying inflation rose 3.4% in the December quarter.
But the RBA needs to base its decisions on the outlook for inflation, not historical data. This is because interest rate changes take time to flow through to the economy.
Its inflation forecasts, already uncomfortably high, are likely to be lifted again.
Prior to the oil price spike, the RBA was forecasting “headline” inflation would peak at 4.2%.
Since those forecasts were prepared, the national accounts revealed the economy was growing a little faster than the RBA had expected, and above their estimate of the long-term potential growth rate of 2%.
Now attention turns to the RBA’s next meeting on May 4–5. By then the RBA staff will have prepared a new set of forecasts. What the RBA termed the “highly uncertain” outlook for the Middle East will be a key driver of what the RBA does then.
Oil prices have surged since the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, although they are not as high as after the Russian attack on Ukraine in 2022.
A rule of thumb is that every US$1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates into 1 cent a litre at the bowser for Australian motorists. The oil price has risen from about US$70 a barrel before the attacks on Iran to around US$100 a barrel now. Petrol prices in Australia have risen from around $2 a litre to $2.30, or by about 15%.
As petrol has a weight of around 3% in the consumer price index, this would directly add almost 0.5% to inflation.
There have also been large increases in the prices of airfares, and international travel has the same weight of around 3% in the CPI.
As fuel is a significant cost for many businesses, a sustained price rise will also have second-round effects. Fertiliser prices have also surged.
Slower growth is likely
But on the other hand, the global and Australian economies are experiencing supply-side shocks that will also weaken economic activity.
Low diesel supplies could hurt farmers and transport. Consumers paying more for petrol have less to spend on other goods and services. Weaker economic activity could lower employment and ease inflationary pressures.
The Australian dollar has risen around 10% over recent months. Higher interest rates and higher energy prices could push it higher. This will make imported goods cheaper.
Judging by the yields in the government bond market, investors remain confident that in the longer term, inflation will average within the 2–3% band. Yields on ten-year bonds are 4.8%, only 2.2 percentage points above the 2.6% yield on indexed bonds.
So there are also reasons for the RBA to be cautious about further interest rate increases.
Sally Auld, National Australia Bank’s chief economist, attracted attention with her prediction that inflation could peak at 5% by mid-year.
RBA Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser pointed out that Auld’s forecast was predicated on an oil price of around US$100 a barrel, which he then thought “probably looks a little on the pessimistic side”. It now looks more prescient.
Speaking to The Conversation last week, Hauser also warned, however, about the risks of “toxic” inflation. Markets interpreted this as a harbinger of an interest rate rise, and they were proved correct.
Every week, health prevailing, I march with our Palestinian friends and their supporters in Aotearoa New Zealand. And my country is one which — under Britain — was colonised.
Colonisation perpetrates injustices against indigenous people. This legacy is still felt by Indigenous people today.
All around the world we must dismantle our unfair systems. A fair system ensures that everyone has a flourishing start in life. But our systems are linked to Israel — and Israel demonstrates that colonisation is still practised.
“No peace without justice, no justice without right to return.” Image: SE
Israel headed by megalomaniacs ruling with a muscular thug army is proof that the Empire has not stopped because the Western Empire has supported this.
Far too many Western journalists report from the perspective of the abuser rather than the victims. They need to ask, “what if it was my child, my wife, my mother, my brother, my grandfather, suffering like this? What if I was forced from my home?”
Journalists must report from the perspective of people who are pleading for the right to breathe rather than reporting from the perspective of the landlord killing people when they resist eviction.
They must use their imagination to exercise empathy in reporting. Only then will they report the truth and only then will the real narrative emerge.
Colonisation unchecked Colonisation is not checked, rather it is supported by countries engaged in Empire building.
Like South Africa under apartheid, Indigenous people are oppressed and if they resist they are dispensed with, in other words, exterminated.
But this system is enabled rather than disabled. The rampant megalomania is enabled by the US, Britain, Germany, and other nations.
Tens of thousands of children, women, and men have been robbed of life and the journalists I once worked alongside in conflict zones are complicit if they do not report this as a human rights atrocity.
We — journalists — must report on the evil that is the expansion of empire and we must report on it from the perspective of the victims not the perpetrators.
The extermination of Palestinians and expansion of Israel is clearly supported by the legs of the octopus — the countries that make up this Western Empire.
Standing by and reporting from anything other than the perspective of the victims is akin to standing by and watching slaves being bound, gagged and shipped under the name of empire.
Journalists must stand up and report with the moral courage of abolitionists. They must have the gumption to attack the rotten policies practiced in our own time.
Saige England is an award-winning journalist and author ofThe Seasonwife, a novel exploring the brutal impacts of colonisation. She is also a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.
Afghanistan says at least 400 people have been killed in a Pakistani airstrike on a drug rehabilitation hospital in Kabul on Monday night, with potentially hundreds more wounded.
Pakistan has denied deliberately targeting the health-care facility. In a statement on X, the Pakistani Information and Broadcasting Ministry said the strikes “precisely targeted military installations and terrorist support infrastructure including technical equipment storage and ammunition storage of Afghan Taliban”.
Attacks on health-care facilities are surging worldwide.
On March 14, an Israeli airstrike hit a health-care facility in Lebanon, killing 12 doctors, nurses and paramedics. The strike brought the number of health-care workers killed in Lebanon in recent days to 31.
Since early March, the World Health Organization (WHO) has verified 27 attacks on health-care facilities in Lebanon alone, as Israeli strikes in Lebanon and joint US–Israeli operations in Iran have intensified.
So, what laws protect medical facilities, staff and patients during conflict? And do they lose this protection if facilities are used to shelter combatants?
What the ‘laws of war’ say about protecting hospitals
International humanitarian law contains detailed rules to protect medical personnel, facilities and the sick and wounded during armed conflict.
there are special protection for ambulances and transport used exclusively for medical purposes
these protections extend to the wounded and sick in their care. This includes enemy fighters who require treatment and are no longer taking part in hostilities
impartial humanitarian organisations must be allowed to provide medical assistance. Consent to their work cannot be refused arbitrarily
medical facilities must display the distinctive protective emblems of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal. Medical personnel must carry identification and armlets displaying these emblems
misusing these symbols to shield military operations is prohibited. Doing so may amount to perfidy, a type of deliberate deception which is a war crime under international law
deliberately attacking medical personnel or facilities displaying these emblems can also constitute a war crime.
Damage caused by US and Israeli attacks on Shahid Motahhari Hospital in Tehran.Anadolu/Getty
Where did these rules come from?
The laws protecting medical services in war emerged in response to the enormous suffering witnessed in 19th and 20th-century conflicts.
The first treaty protecting wounded soldiers and medical personnel dates back to 1864, when states adopted the original Geneva Convention.
Today, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, together with a body of customary international law, form a near-universal legal framework binding all parties to conflict. This includes non-state armed groups.
These rules require warring parties to respect and protect medical personnel, facilities and the wounded and sick in all circumstances.
Why are attacks on health care increasing?
In January, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported attacks on medical facilities and personnel had reached unprecedented levels around the world. In 2025 alone, there were 1,348 attacks on health-care facilities, double the number reported in 2024.
The law itself has not changed. But warfare has. Recent conflicts in South Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, Iran and Lebanon are taking place in densely populated urban environments. Armed groups operate within complex civilian settings, often near hospitals and clinics.
This has shifted the narrative used by some warring parties. What were once described as “mistaken attacks” are now frequently justified on grounds of military necessity. States often claim insurgents are exploiting hospitals or ambulances to gain military advantage.
Israel, for example, has accused Hezbollah and Hamas of using medical infrastructure for military purposes.
Can hospitals lose their protection if fighters are hiding inside?
Yes. Hospitals can lose their special protection if they are used, outside their humanitarian role, to harm the enemy.
However, the law sets a very high threshold for this.
If the warning is ignored, the attacking party must still comply with the core principles of international humanitarian law:
Proportionality
The expected military advantage must be weighed against the humanitarian consequences of the attack. This includes long-term impacts on health-care services. If the expected civilian harm would be excessive, the attack must be cancelled.
Precautions
All feasible precautions must be taken to minimise harm to patients and medical staff. This may include facilitating evacuations, planning for disruption to medical services, and helping restore health-care capacity after the attack.
Even when a facility loses protection, the wounded and sick must still be respected and protected.
The UN Security Council, WHO, MSF and the OHCHR have expressed concern attacks on medical personnel and facilities – and the lack of accountability for them – are becoming dangerously normalised.
The legal framework protecting hospitals and health-care workers already exists.
States and armed groups must disseminate the law and train their military forces.
National legal systems are expected to investigate and prosecute those perpetrating war crimes against the wounded and sick, medical personnel and their facilities, or misusing protective emblems for military advantage.
In practice, however, investigating attacks during active conflict is extremely challenging. Territorial states are often unwilling or unable to pursue prosecutions.
Can we reverse this trend?
Open-source investigative groups such as Forensic Architecture, Bellingcat, Mnemonics and Airwars now play a growing role in preserving satellite imagery, geo-location data, and videos uploaded to social media. These allow independent fact-finding missions to conduct credible investigations. They may pursue accountability even when territorial states are unwilling or unable to do so.
Without such accountability, places meant to save lives during conflict may increasingly become targets themselves.
For about a year, an algal bloom in South Australian waters has had devastating effects on marine life. At my local beach, walks were a sad parade of dead sea life.
But what of the health effects of these algal blooms on humans? And what do a class of compounds called brevetoxins have to do with it?
I’m a toxicologist. Here’s what the evidence says.
[embedded content]
ABC Four Corners’ Toxic Tide explores the health effects of South Australia’s algal bloom.
What are algal blooms?
Algal blooms are a rapid, explosive growth of algae. These blooms are complex and often contain a variety of algal species, some of which produce toxins. The mix of algal species and amount of toxins produced can vary considerably.
Brevetoxins are part of a large family of fat-soluble toxins. These are similar in structure to ciguatoxins, which cause shellfish poisoning in humans.
Brevetoxins and the related ciguatoxins act by indiscriminately stimulating nerves, causing nerve over-activity. For brevetoxins this results in gut illness, muscle cramps, seizures and paralysis.
This nerve activation also results in the smooth muscle in the trachea (wind pipe) to contract. The processes that lead to inflammation are also stimulated, worsening symptoms in people with asthma.
However, as brevetoxins are fat-soluble, they can accumulate in the food chain. High concentrations have been linked to food poisoning after eating shellfish, but not fish.
How about aerosol droplets?
While the levels of brevetoxins in sea water do not cause direct poisoning, these toxins can still have a significant impact.
Wave action can produce aerosol droplets containing the brevetoxins, which people can inhale. As brevetoxins cause tracheal contraction and inflammation, this can make people’s asthma worse.
We do not have information about brevetoxins from K. cristata and its effect on people with asthma. But we do have related evidence from the United States, specifically the effect of K. brevis blooms in Florida.
People with asthma who spent an hour on a beach during K. brevis blooms there said they had more asthma symptoms (wheezing, chest tightness and shortness of breath).
We also have evidence from exposing animals and humans to known concentrations of aerosolised K. brevis. These studies showed increased levels of asthma symptoms even at levels lower than you’d expect for brevetoxin poisoning.
It’s difficult to compare the US study with the South Australian one that identified K. cristata, as the latter didn’t measure aerosol levels of brevetoxin.
But sea water levels of algae are comparable between the two studies. This makes it likely aerosols containing K. cristata would trigger asthma symptoms.
All sites tested in South Australia by the authors of the study that discovered K. cristata also had substantial levels of K. mikimotoi, which can also exacerbate asthma.
What to do?
Health advice includes avoiding discoloured water and areas of the beach with foam. Try to avoid exposure to aerosolised algae or their fragments.
People with asthma are advised to carry their reliever medication (puffer) with them while on beaches, especially when there is abnormally thick foam or discoloured water. They’re also advised to take their preventive medication as prescribed and check their asthma management plan is up-to-date.
And what about long-term effects?
While exposure to aerosolised brevetoxins can exacerbate asthmatic symptoms during the bloom, there does not appear to be evidence for any long-term effects of exposure to these aerosols when the blooms are over.
A study of asthmatic people exposed to K. brevis blooms over a seven-year period found no chronic respiratory effects. However, further studies would be worthwhile.
When diesel prices jump, most Australians notice it at the bowser.
But in parts of remote Australia, diesel is what keeps the lights on. That makes it indispensable.
That’s why the federal government’s decisions to temporarily relax fuel standards and release some of Australia’s domestic reserves matters beyond transport.
And these measures raise a broader question: how can we protect diesel-dependent communities from future fuel price shocks?
Beyond the bowser
Tighter global oil markets don’t only affect petrol stations. Instead, they impact every link in Australia’s complex fuel supply chain. And people in regional and remote communities are often the first to be hit by fuel shortages and delayed deliveries.
In many remote communities, these global pressures directly impact the electricity supply. About 500,000 people, or 2% of Australians, live off-grid. This means they are not connected to the main electricity grid.
In the Northern Territory, about 25 million litres of diesel are pumped into generators that supply electricity to remote Aboriginal communities. Some of these communities are not protected by consumer laws that aim to keep residents informed about disruptions to the energy supply, such as when electricity is disconnected. Given power is an essential service, that’s simply not good enough.
Fuelling regional communities
However, it’s not just remote communities that rely on diesel. Higher diesel prices have significant ramifications for regional economies more broadly.
In March, the federal government modified Australia’s fuel quality standards. This was primarily to get more fuel to farmers, fishers and regional residents. Agriculture is particularly reliant on diesel, with the National Farmers’ Federation warning of major disruptions to harvest and planting schedules. Diesel also powers key farm machinery including tractors and irrigation pumps. So as diesel prices surge, farmers are paying more to produce food and fibre.
Rising fuel prices also expose the weaknesses in regional electricity systems. This was shown by a government report examining the effects of a catastrophic storm event that swept across Victoria in 2024. It found at the peak of the event, more than 530,000 homes and businesses lost power after six transmission towers collapsed. That outage was not caused by a fuel shortage. But it reinforces the fact we cannot rely on complex electricity systems built on long supply chains.
The good news is Australia is already moving towards a more reliable, and local, energy system.
According to the Australian Energy Market Operator’s 2024 Integrated System Plan, the cheapest way to create a net-zero electricity system is to use renewable energy in combination with gas and battery storage. Under this plan, consumer energy resources such as rooftop solar, batteries and electric vehicles will become a crucial part of how we distribute electricity.
Microgrids often combine solar with other renewable energy technologies.Jim Mone/AP
Embracing microgrids
Microgrids could be another promising option. A microgrid is a small local power system that often combines solar, batteries and smart devices that help monitor energy use. In some cases, microgrids can keep generating power when the main grid is damaged or offline.
Some Australian communities are already experimenting with microgrids. On King Island, off Tasmania’s northeast coast, the local renewable integration project supplies more than 65% of the town’s annual electricity needs. As part of the First Nations Community Microgrids Program, South Australia is installing hybrid systems that combine solar, battery and diesel elements in remote Aboriginal communities. Both projects aim to generate renewable energy in a more affordable and reliable way.
Microgrids have multiple benefits. One is they are modular, meaning they are made of different parts that can be combined in different ways to meet each community’s specific needs. Microgrids are also relatively portable. This means we can put them in communities with the greatest energy needs, such as towns that rely on diesel or are located at the edge of large networks.
However, microgrids are not a silver bullet. Communities should consider several factors before installing a microgrid, including whether they have a suitable place to put it. Each community must also make sure it can afford the upfront costs of installing a microgrid. In some places, it may be more feasible to strengthen existing energy infrastructure.
Overall, microgrids could help us more effectively generate, store and distribute energy. They may be particularly suited to remote communities that rely on finite fuel supplies.
Unfortunately, we are living through a period of international conflict and fuel price shocks. So it’s time we prioritise making and storing power closer to the people who need it most.
The health of global democracy is regressing to Cold War-era levels. For the average global citizen, democracy is now back where it was in 1978, according to new research assessing more than 200 countries.
The 10th edition of the V-Dem report, released today, shows the level of democracy for the average citizen in Western Europe and North America is at its lowest level in more than 50 years, primarily because the United States is becoming more autocratic.
In fact, under the metrics used in this report, the US is no longer considered a liberal democracy. It’s instead been demoted to an “electoral democracy”.
So as other countries backslide, how does Australia stack up?
How do you measure democracy?
The report has been compiled by researchers at the University of Gothenburg’s V-Dem Institute in Sweden.
But let’s step back for a moment and understand what we mean by democracy. In an era in which even China claims to be a democracy, the term is more contested than ever.
V-Dem stands for Varieties of Democracy, acknowledging the many models of democracy and the need to measure how well the will of the people is represented and protected by a nation’s leadership.
V-Dem combines political science with five democracy-defining principles: electoral, liberal, deliberative, participatory and egalitarian.
These principles are measured across more than 600 different attributes annually by around 4,200 scholars and other country experts for 202 countries and territories from 1789 onwards. The result is the world’s largest dataset of democracies, with more than 32 million data points.
In the report, countries are classified as liberal democracies, electoral democracies, electoral autocracies or closed autocracies.
The global picture
The report shows just 7% of the world’s population live in liberal democracies. These are countries with free and fair multiparty elections and freedom of expression and association. They also have judicial and legislative constraints on the executive, along with protection of civil liberties and equality before the law.
Australians are among the lucky few.
By contrast, 74% of the world’s population, or six billion people, now live under autocracies: a form of government where power is concentrated in the hands of one person. This includes Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, India and China.
The remaining 19% live in a democratic shell in which multiparty elections are still free and fair, but key checks and balances are severely compromised. In these places, there are also limited protections for civil liberties and equality before the law.
Australia’s closest allies are affected by democratic backsliding, also called autocratisation. This includes the aforementioned US, the United Kingdom, Canada and several member states in the European Union.
The report also ranks countries using a measure called the liberal democracy index. The five countries with the best scores are Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Estonia.
Where does Australia sit?
Australia is ranked 12th best overall democracy. This position is unchanged from previous years.
There is no hard evidence showing whether Australia’s success can be attributed to compulsory and preferential voting, as is often argued. It could just as well be the high level of tertiary education of women or the unique composition of the Senate that keeps strongmen out of office.
Either way, remaining in the same rank amid global democratic backsliding is no cause for celebration. Australia is also gradually declining, just not faster or slower than other countries.
Australia is the world’s 12th best democracy overall, but it’s slipping.Richard Wainwright/AAP
It should act as a warning sign that when sorted by egalitarianism, Australia ranks just 26th. The gap between the haves and the have-nots has been growing wider for decades.
Trust in major parties has been declining. Despite compulsory voting, the primary vote for the two main parties has been steadily dropping, creating space for new forces to gain power.
There’s much Australia can learn from higher-ranked countries, especially on addressing inequality.
A third wave of autocracies
The past 25 years of autocratisation are described as the third wave in modern history.
While the first two waves were known for military coups and election fraud, this third wave is unique for its stealth mode. It hides behind a legal facade, and is slowly chipping away at democratic institutions.
The same authors who coined the term “third wave autocratisation” in 2019 and did not see reason for panic back then are now sounding the alarm bells.
In this light, it’s worth remembering what makes democracy so good in the first place.
The data show that democratisation leads to higher, sustained GDP (gross domestic product) per capita growth, better social protection, better health outcomes, lower infant mortality, greater access to safe water and electricity, and greater gender equality.
Also, researchers note democracies “do not wage wars against each other and see much lower risks of conflict and instability than autocracies. Autocratisation leads to more wars and conflicts.”
But the data also show democracy has one major Achilles heel: it does not, in general, lead to lower levels of economic inequality.
Research demonstrates this inequality harms the mental and physical health of citizens in a society and undermines overall social cohesion. It enhances the perception that society is breaking down and that only a strong leader can restore order (even when that leader wants to challenge democratic values).
Notably, most recent strongman leaders were first elected in open and fair elections before they began eroding the very democratic institutions that brought them to power, so as to remain in power.
So managing and actively caring for democracy and democratic values is key to maintaining them. As much of the world goes backwards, Australia has work to do to not just to keep the liberal democracy we have, but to improve it.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University
As the Middle East war enters its third week, there is no sign from either Iran or the United States and Israel that they will stop the fighting any time soon. It is getting more violent and nasty by the day.
The Iranian Islamic regime is fighting for its survival, while the US and Israel want to substantially degrade or destroy it.
The Iranian side lacks the US and Israeli firepower, yet it has proved to be more resilient than its adversaries may have expected. It has resolved to fight for as long as possible and inflict as much economic pain regionally and globally as is necessary.
So where do things go from here? What do the US and Israel want to achieve in the war, and how might it end?
A building damaged by an Iranian ballistic missile in Ramat Gan, Israel, on March 15.Abir Sultan/EPA
Trump’s incoherent objectives
The US and Israel launched this “war of choice” against Iran on February 28. Trump evidently expected the formidable US air and naval power, as well as Israeli air power, would rapidly prevail.
At a minimum, Trump was anticipating the Iranian regime would then accept his demand for a favourable nuclear deal. But he was also suggesting broader aims aligned with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives – to force Iran to forfeit its long-range ballistic missiles and sever its ties with regional proxies.
This would then open the way for Iran’s restless population to resume their protests, aiming to topple the regime and replace it with one acceptable to Washington and Jerusalem.
But this has not happened.
It is now abundantly clear the US and Israel started a war without a clear goal, strategy, timeline, end game or justification. There was also no adherence to international law.
The Trump administrations’s objectives have been confusing and contradictory, with different narratives being spun by the president and his main advisers.
They have included everything from freeing the oppressed Iranian people to removing a direct threat to America and destroying Iran’s nuclear program and missile capability. (Never mind Trump previously claimed he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program in last year’s bombing campaign.)
Trump has also called for regime change, or as he put it, “a little excursion” to get rid of “some evil” leaders.
[embedded content]
Trump attempts to clarify reasons for Iran war.
Trump has further claimed the human and economic cost of the war – including oil and gas shortages worldwide – will be temporary. But when the fighting will stop is anyone’s guess. Trump has insisted the war is already won, then said it will only end when he feels it in his “bones”.
In the meantime, the US has intensified its air bombardment of Iran, claiming to have hit 15,000 targets and destroyed every military site on Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf, the main terminal for exporting 90% of the country’s oil.
Trump is now reportedly considering sending US forces to occupy the island, while inviting US allies, as well as China, to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments.
Inviting China to such a coalition is a fanciful idea – it has good relations with Iran. Most other countries have thus far refused to commit.
Israel’s one clear goal
While Trump’s goals seem to change by the minute, Netanyahu has a more clear war objective. He wants to destroy not only the Islamic regime but also diminish the Iranian state, no matter the consequences for the Iranian people and territorial integrity.
He has also lately been vocal about his ambition for a Biblical notion of “greater Israel”, based on the Book of Genesis, spanning from the Euphrates River to the Nile River. The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, backed him on this in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson.
Although Netanyahu has been widely condemned for voicing these ambitions, he has not backed away from them.
Meanwhile, Israel has also just sent troops into southern Lebanon for what it calls “limited and targeted ground operations” against Hezbollah, though many fear this could lead to a prolonged occupation. Israel’s defence minister says residents will not be permitted to return until the safety of northern Israel is secured.
An Israeli soldier at an undisclosed position near the Israel-Lebanon border on March 15.Atef Safadi/EPA
Iran’s strategy: hold on
Whatever one’s view of the Iranian regime, it has been more goal-oriented and strategic than its adversaries. It has also displayed a remarkable degree of entrenchment and durability.
The regime rapidly replaced the slain supreme leader with his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, though he has not yet been seen in public.
Despite all the internal and external pressure the regime is facing, the members of its heavily armed and well-structured security and bureaucratic apparatus have remained solidly loyal.
And though thousands joined street protests against the regime before they were quashed in January, other Iranians have united behind the regime. Many Iranians have historically been motivated to support the regime against external aggression, due to civilisational pride, a Shia tradition of martyrdom and a strong sense of nationalism.
On the battlefield, the regime is pursuing a strategy of asymmetrical warfare, with the aim of outlasting the US and Israel and inflicting as much damage as possible. This entails turning the war into a regional conflict to pressure the Arab states in the Persian Gulf to push the Trump administration for an end to the war – and perhaps reconsider their reliance on the US as a security provider.
As the situation stands now, the scene is set for a long, bloody and destructive war. Each of the protagonists has painted itself into a corner and doesn’t know how to get out.
There are two possible ways the war could end.
The first is centred on hardware. Whichever side depletes its stocks of missiles and interceptors first could signal a desire to end the fighting.
The second possibility is that Trump claims he has degraded the regime sufficiently and declares a kind of victory. He has hinted at this already given the domestic opposition to the war (including some of his influential MAGA supporters), the growing economic costs of the war, and the impending midterm elections.
If this happens, the Islamic regime will also claim victory, given it has held on and remains intact.
Whatever the outcome, the Iranian and Lebanese civilians would have borne the brunt of this war, and the region will transition to another historical phase of uncertainty and instability in a highly polarised world.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Mclaughlin, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia
The federal government has just released updated physical activity guidelines for adults and older adults (aged 65+) for the first time in more than a decade.
The Australian government first produced guidelines for adults in 1999, building on decades of strong evidence that physical activity delivers tremendous health benefits.
So, what’s changed with the new guidelines, and will they produce strong health outcomes?
What’s changed?
The guidelines “illustrate what a healthy 24 hours of movement looks like” and “aim to help people improve their health and wellbeing through movement”.
For the first time, Australia has adopted “24 hour movement guidelines” for adults, now including sleep.
Specifically, they recommend 7-9 hours a night of good quality sleep, with consistent bed and wake-up times.
New “practical guidance” on how to meet the recommendations are provided, for example: “for those who are able and track daily steps, aim for 7,000 or more steps per day”.
We commend the new guidelines – they provide evidence-based information on ways to get healthier.
But it is only information.
Without changes to laws, policies and funding, the guidelines tell people to do more – without more.
What’s missing?
The guidelines frame physical activity as your responsibility: they tell you to move your body and get a good night’s rest, regularly.
But making it our responsibility isn’t working at the population level. Since the first guidelines in 1999, national physical activity levels have remained stubbornly low.
Guidelines haven’t and won’t shift the needle on population levels of physical activity. They provide information, not supportive environments that can eliminate barriers to activity, such as lack of time and cost-of-living pressures.
Decades of research show population activity levels and sleep quality are primarily shaped by our physical and social environment, such as where people live, what is close by, what it costs and how much spare time we have.
Creating active neighbourhoods through supportive laws, funding and policies will shift the needle.
Here are four policy ideas that would actually increase Australians’ physical activity.
1. Redirect road funds to walking and cycling
The vast majority of Australians support redirecting road funds to walking and cycling.
Walking and riding deliver strong population health benefits, which translate into economic benefits. For example, for every one kilometre walked, it is estimated the national economy benefits by A$6.30, while every kilometre cycled benefits the economy by $4.10.
By comparison, we subsidise driving by $8 billion a year. That is, federal, state and local governments spent $44 billion last year on roads, but collected just $36 billion in road-related revenue.
That makes the subsidy for driving 300 times greater than the investment in walking and cycling.
Redirecting this driving subsidy to an investment in walking and cycling would make economic and health sense.
Rather, mass media messaging should highlight the many benefits of physical activity, which in turn may build public acceptance for better physical activity policies.
To boost walking and cycling, streets need to be safe and things people need – such as schools, jobs and shops – need to be close by.
Policies such as congestion charges and removing subsidised parking make it possible to change from car-centric cities to ones that support walking and cycling.
Making streets safer supports more people to move around by foot or bike. One way to do this is through default speed limits in built-up areas.
Currently, the default speed limit in built-up areas, in all jurisdictions, is 50 kilometres per hour. In the 1990s, it used to be 60kmh – and changing it to 50kmh has saved hundreds of lives.
Why are “local” shops so far away for many of us, or not accessible by foot? Because of several planning related laws that ingrain low-density housing without access to local shops.
Rethinking housing density limits, setback requirements, minimum parking requirements and single-use zoning laws will allow cafes and shops back into new residential areas.
This means more people will be able to walk, ride or scoot to where they need to go.
Lessons from overseas
Some 61 countries have shifted the dial and are on track to meet their national physical activity targets. Australia isn’t one of them.
Many of these countries are in Western Europe and Scandinavia, well known for having laws that create highly walkable environments.
Half of countries globally have a standalone national physical activity policy but Australia doesn’t despite calls to action by non-government organisations.
Policy changes must shift beyond individual motivation to move more – instead we must reshape our environment through laws and funding. We need more population approaches if we are to shift the dial on physical activity.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rodrigo Praino, Professor & Director, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University
US President Donald Trump speaks in a way unlike any of his predecessors. His distinctive and highly recognisable style may even play a role in his appeal to his political base. Since the infamous Access Hollywood tapes, he has got away with saying things none of his predecessors would have ever dreamed of saying in public. This is particularly striking in a country that was shocked to learn in the 1970s that Richard Nixon used dirty words in the Oval Office.
Scholars have described Trump’s rhetorical style as “unbalanced vituperation”, stressing his constant use of demeaning language, false equivalences and exclusion.
Even more strikingly, a recent study found Trump’s use of violent vocabulary, especially language linked to war and crime, represents a radical departure from US political tradition.
Since the beginning of the war with Iran, Trump’s rhetoric has become even more combative and outrageous, marking an even sharper shift from the language used by his predecessors in similar occasions.
What effect does this have and what does it tell us about the commander-in-chief’s state of mind?
Demeaning opponents
Trump announced the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by calling him a “wretched and vile man”. Later, in a Truth Social post, he called him “one of the most evil people in history” and referred to “his gang of bloodthirsty thugs”.
A few days later, he continued denigrating leaders of the Iranian regime, describing them as “deranged scumbags” whose killing was for him a “great honor”. He has also insulted Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father as Iran’s Supreme Leader, describing him as “unacceptable” and a “lightweight”. He also stated during an interview that he believes Mojtaba is alive but “damaged”.
Americans are no strangers to their presidents using strong language to describe adversaries. Ronald Reagan famously referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire”, and George W. Bush warned of an “Axis of Evil”.
Yet such rhetoric rarely extended to personal insults against individual foreign leaders. Leaders generally bring a mood to these speeches that recognises their words will be frightening for many people. It also acknowledges that in a war situation, lives will inevitably be lost.
George W. Bush, for example, simply stated that US forces “captured Saddam Hussein alive”. Barack Obama announced to the nation Osama bin Laden’s killing by addressing the mastermind of the worst terrorist attack on US soil simply as “Osama bin Laden, leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist”.
[embedded content]
Constant threats
Trump has also shown little restraint in issuing threats. At the beginning of the conflict he stated in an interview that they had not even started hitting Iran hard and that the “big wave” was coming soon. He later posted on Truth Social that he was ready to hit Iran “twenty times harder” and threatened to “make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again”, adding that “death, fire and fury will reign [sic] upon them”. At one point, he even suggested that he might strike Iran’s Kharg Island oil export hub again “just for fun”.
This language is not only vitriolic. It also is in sharp contrast with the rhetoric of past US presidents who often emphasised restraint in the use of force and showed willingness to de-escalate military conflicts.
Previous presidents have been very clear about the strength of the US military, but they have also tried to focus on diplomacy and negotiation.
Obama, talking about Syria, famously remarked that “the United States military doesn’t do pinpricks”. Yet, moments later, he asked Congress to postpone a vote authorising the use of force while his administration pursued diplomatic options.
Nixon stated during the Vietnam war that “The peace we seek to win is not victory over any other people, but the peace that comes ‘with healing in its wings’; with compassion for those who have suffered; with understanding for those who have opposed us; with the opportunity for all the peoples of this Earth to choose their own destiny”.
Trump’s threats of escalation also raise concerns about the safety of civilians and the protection of critical infrastructure. He recently stated he “didn’t do anything to do with the energy lines, because having to rebuild that would take years”. This remark suggests some awareness of the consequences of such actions.
Even so, earlier presidents often distinguished explicitly between military targets and civilian populations. George H. W. Bush, during the Gulf War, declared “our quarrel is not with the people of Iraq. We do not wish for them to suffer”.
In 2023, George W. Bush warned Iraqi military and civilian personnel: “do not destroy oils wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people”.
Words matter
It is still unclear why Trump’s rhetoric is so violent and so far removed from the language of virtually every US president before him. A 2020 study found Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric often aims to create a sense of crisis to mobilise his domestic base – or distract from political troubles at home.
Some observers argue Trump has used, or even manufactured, national crises as a mechanism to expand executive power through emergency declarations. Whether this is the case in the current war with Iran remains to be seen.
But words certainly matter.
On December 19 1945, US President Harry S. Truman issued a special message to Congress recommending the Department of War and the Department of the Navy be merged into a single “Department of National Defense”. Between 1947 and 1949, Congress and the executive branch implemented this proposal. Many other countries went through a similar process in the postwar period, replacing the language of “war” from the name of their departments and ministries with the more restrained term “defence”.
Seventy-six years later, in 2025, Trump reversed that tradition with an executive order renaming the Department of Defense as the US Department of War.
This same executive order clearly states that the new name demonstrates a willingness to fight wars at a moment’s notice. And the reason is not only to defend, but to “secure what is ours”.
Viewed in light of the current war with Iran, those words provide some insight into the administration’s thinking. They also invite reflection on other words coming out of the administration and its supporters, including the “Gulf of America”, the idea of Canada as the “51st state”, and even the far-fetched “Trump 2028” chant.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on March 17, 2026.
As Israel keeps bombing Iran, Palestinians face growing violence in West Bank NERMEEN SHAIKH: This is Democracy Now!, I’m Nermeen Shaikh, with Amy Goodman. As we continue to look at the US and Israel war on Iran and Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, we go now to Jerusalem, where we’re joined by Orly Noy. She’s an Iranian Israeli political activist and editor of the Hebrew-language news site Local
South Australians have truth in political advertising laws. Why doesn’t everyone else? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Todd Farrell, Senior Tutor, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of Melbourne With South Australia in its final week of campaigning ahead of the state election, you may have noticed while there’s been a few scandals around mistaken identity of hospital patients and controversial candidates’
The West Gate Bridge disaster looms large over Melbourne. A new play can’t fully capture its grief Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Graffam-O’Meara, PhD Candidate in Theatre, Monash University Every Melburnian knows the West Gate Bridge, crossing the Yarra River north of its exit to Port Phillip Bay. It looms, it hums, it holds memory, it writhes. You know the feeling – that perceptible flex when you’re stopped
Pacific governments warn against panic buying as war on Iran threatens fuel supply RNZ Pacific Pacific Island governments are urging their citizens not to panic about the supply of fuels amid the conflict in the Middle East between Israel, the United States and Iran. The conflict has resulted in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route that carries around 20 percent of the world’s
Should e-bike riders be required to have a driver’s licence? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard J. Buning, Research Lead, UQ Micromobility Research Cluster, The University of Queensland E-bikes have been increasing in popularity – they make cycling more accessible than ever. However, they’ve also been linked to tragic accidents. In response, the Queensland government has conducted a parliamentary inquiry on e-mobility
Babies learn a lot in their first year. But their behaviour doesn’t always tell the full story Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eylem Altuntas, Researcher, Speech & Language Development, The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University Anyone who has spent time with a baby knows how unpredictable the first year can feel. One week a baby suddenly seems to “get” something new. The next week,
Does medicinal cannabis work for depression, anxiety or PTSD? Our study says there’s no evidence Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney The number of Australians using medicinal cannabis has surged over the past five years. Around 700,000 Australians have used cannabis for their health in the past year.
NZ’s 9th COVID-19 wave: why infections are rising – and how booster shots still help Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Plank, Professor in Applied Mathematics, University of Canterbury Six years after COVID-19 first reached New Zealand, the country is experiencing its ninth wave of infections. But the virus we are living with today behaves very differently from the one that caused the global emergency in 2020–22.
What the 2026 Oscars revealed about the current political mood in Hollywood Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luis Freijo, Research Associate in Film Studies, King’s College London The 2026 Academy Awards revealed a striking contradiction. Many of the winning films grapple with urgent contemporary issues, or difficult questions of historical memory. Yet their makers avoided following up on that political character in their acceptance
Saint Patrick’s Day and the mystery of the second Patrick Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Doyle, Lecturer in Ancient and Medieval History, University of Galway Celebrated every year with swathes of green and pints of Guinness, Saint Patrick is the most famous of Ireland’s trio of patron saints (the others are Brigid and Colm Cille, aka Columba). Saint Patrick’s story is
Flesh-eating bacteria spread from possums and mozzies. But Buruli ulcers are preventable and treatable Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor, School of Medical Science & Sydney Infectious Diseases Institute; Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney A number of cases of the flesh-eating Buruli ulcer have now been detected on the New South Wales south coast. There is growing evidence mosquitoes are at
Almost 80% of Australian uni students now use AI. This is creating an ‘illusion of competence’ Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jason M. Lodge, Director of the Learning, Instruction & Technology Lab and Professor of Educational Psychology, School of Education, The University of Queensland In Australia, artificial intelligence is becoming a near-universal feature of education. As of 2025, nearly 80% of university students reported using AI in their
Seabirds struggled to raise chicks in the Hauraki Gulf this summer. What happened? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendon Dunphy, Associate Professor in Marine Biology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau Some seabirds breeding in New Zealand’s largest marine park struggled to raise chicks this summer, most likely because climate change is forcing them to travel too far in search of food. The Hauraki Gulf
Australia claims it is ‘on track’ to save nature. We disagree Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Allan Elton, Doctoral researcher, Australian National University Without fanfare, the Australian government has published the latest snapshot on its progress toward halting and reversing the loss of Australia’s biodiversity – our unique wildlife, plants and nature – by 2030. This report on Australia’s progress under the
Real estate powered Dubai’s rise as a magnet for expats. Can its brand survive this war? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan F. Gholipour, Associate Professor of Property, Western Sydney University Once a small fishing and pearling village, Dubai has grown to become a major financial, commercial and tourism hub in the Middle East. It is the second-largest (behind Abu Dhabi) of the seven emirates that make up
All 5 fundamental units of life’s genetic code were just discovered in an asteroid sample Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kliti Grice, John Curtin Distinguished Professor of Organic and Isotope Geochemistry, Curtin University A new study reveals all five fundamental nucleobases – the molecular “letters” of life – have been detected in samples from the asteroid Ryugu. Asteroid particles offer a glimpse into the chemical ingredients that
US, Fiji intervene for Israel in South Africa’s Gaza genocide case at ICJ Asia Pacific Report The United States and Fiji have filed separate declarations of intervention in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging the country is committing genocide in Gaza. While the US explicitly rejects the allegation that Israel is committing genocide, Fiji raises issues about how the 1948
Regulator slaps restrictions on Kyle and Jackie O if they ever return to radio. Will it make any difference? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne If the ARN radio network’s KIISFM stations want to resurrect Kyle Sandilands or Jackie “O” Henderson, either together, singly or in partnership with someone else, they will face significant new conditions on their broadcasting
Chris Hedges: The world according to Gaza – it’s only the start The new world order is one where the weak are obliterated by the strong, the rule of law does not exist, genocide is an instrument of control and barbarism is triumphant. ANALYSIS: By Chris Hedges The war on Iran and the obliteration of Gaza is the beginning. Welcome to the new world order. The age
Politics with Michelle Grattan: why Farrer is a key test for One Nation vs the Coalition Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Farrer by-election on May 9 will be a major test for new Liberal leader Angus Taylor and new Nationals leader Matt Canavan, as well as a real-time measure of One Nation’s surging poll numbers. One Nation’s David Farley and
NERMEEN SHAIKH: This is Democracy Now!, I’m Nermeen Shaikh, with Amy Goodman.
As we continue to look at the US and Israel war on Iran and Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, we go now to Jerusalem, where we’re joined by Orly Noy. She’s an Iranian Israeli political activist and editor of the Hebrew-language news site Local Call.
She is also the chair of B’Tselem’s executive board. Her new piece for The New York Review of Books is headlined “Longing for My Tehran.”
Orly, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you could talk about this piece you’ve written and why you chose to write it now, “Longing for My Tehran”?
ORLY NOY: Yeah. I mean, as you can imagine, it’s been a very emotional time since the beginning of the war, not just because we are constantly running in and out of shelters, but because this time, the footage of the bombing that I grew accustomed to seeing for over two years from the genocide in Gaza was now coming from my homeland — from my hometown, Tehran, the city where I was born and grew up in.
The cries of people were in Farsi this time, which was — which hit, you know, much closer to my heart. And for me as a writer, as someone whose main tools to understand the world are words, I started writing mainly in order to make some sense of this madness, first of all, to myself.
And then I was asked to publish something, so I sent this. But this was really an attempt to, you know, bring some sense into this chaos that is now our lives here.
[embedded content] Report from Jerusalem. Video: Democracy Now!
AMY GOODMAN: Orly, you have talked about the majority of Israelis supporting the war at the moment. But there is opposition. Can you talk about the Israeli objective, and at the same time this threat to turn Iran into Gaza and this increasing violence against Palestinians in the West Bank?
ORLY NOY: Yeah, so, there is — I mean, like every circle of violence that Israel initiates, mostly against Palestinians, there is always a margin of protest and of objection. It’s not small, but it exists.
This time, any attempt — the very few attempts to protest against the war were brutally crushed and dispersed by the Israeli police, which have now become almost entirely — almost like the private militia of the Minister for Homeland Security, the Kahanist Itamar Ben-Gvir.
It is not against the law. It is not illegal to protest. Still it is not illegal to protest in Israel against the war. But trying to please the Kahanist minister, the police very brutally dispersed these protests almost immediately after they began.
In the West Bank, the situation is beyond — I mean, it’s terrifying beyond anything that words can express. You mentioned in your opening the execution of the four members of the Bani Odeh family, including the two parents and two very young kids, in the village of Tammun.
We published yesterday a heartbreaking, really disturbing, one of the most disturbing pieces I’ve edited in my entire career as a journalist, where in one of the villages in the north of the Jordan Valley, settlers gathered the entire inhabitants of this Palestinian little village in one tent and tormented them brutally, hit them, severely sexually abused one of the Palestinian men, and all the while forcing the children to watch them as they torture the older members of the community.
These things have turned into almost daily events. Palestinians are now really — I mean, you know, up until now, our worry was about the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. Now it is just about executing Palestinians, both by the army and by the settlers.
This is the reality now. They are just executing Palestinians in broad daylight, and nothing is being done about it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I’m afraid, Orly, we’re going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us. Orly Noy is an Iranian Israeli political activist and editor of the Hebrew-language news site Local Call. She’s also the chair of B’Tselem’s executive board. Her new piece, which we’ll link to, in The New York Review of Books is headlined “Longing for My Tehran.”
