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 independent Michelle Milthorpe are considered the early frontrunners in the fight for Farrer.
The contest, in the seat vacated by former Liberal leader Sussan Ley, comes one year after the re-election of the Albanese government.
With no chance of winning this conservative regional seat in southern New South Wales, Labor is not fielding a candidate.
This week’s podcast comes from Albury, the largest centre in the sprawling electorate, for an early look at the campaign. To get a sense of the issues shaping the race so far, we spoke to:
Matt Canavan, who was campaigning in Albury just two days after becoming the Nationals’ leader, supporting local candidate Brad Robertson
One Nation’s candidate David Farley, an agribusinessman and former Nationals member
high-profile independent candidate Michelle Milthorpe, a high school teacher, who is running a second time after winning 20% of the primary vote in 2025
and Justin Clancy, the Liberal state member for Albury and deputy opposition leader in NSW, shortly before the Liberals selected their candidate.
The Liberals’ candidate has now been announced as lawyer from the Hume Riverina Community Legal Service, Raissa Butkowski, an Albury City councillor. Opposition leader Angus Taylor was in Farrer on Monday to launch her campaign.
The big issues in Farrer
Journalist Anthony Bunn described the vast area covered by Farrer and the key local issues so far.
It’s a big electorate, it spreads from Albury right along to Wentworth in the west and then up to Griffith.
[…] The big issue in Albury [which is just over the Murray from Wodonga] is the hospital. There’s been a promise for an upgraded hospital in Albury [… People] feel that they’ve been short changed by the [NSW and Victorian] governments and had hoped for some Commonwealth intervention to sort of assist them in the campaign to get a greenfield hospital.
Further afield it’s primarily a lot more agricultural and the big issue has been water there and how it’s integrated into the community in relation to water and the environment, and the trade-offs that there are with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Bunn said petrol prices and supplies could also feed into a cost-of-living campaign.
Canavan on ‘tackling a mate’ in Barnaby Joyce
Asked about Farrer voters who might be tempted to defect from a Coalition vote to One Nation, new Nationals leader Matt Canavan said:
I understand why people have been frustrated with our political movement. I have been very frustrated with my Liberal and National Party movement […] And we did lose our way in the last few years. We were perhaps chasing short-term political gains at the long-term cost of focusing on what’s important for Australia. But I’m very confident now, with the elevation of Angus Taylor and myself, that we are back.
On the competition in the seat with One Nation, Canavan opened up about about going up against his former boss and colleague Barnaby Joyce – who he’d just spoken to that morning – despite Joyce “being on a different football team now”.
None of it is personal. It is serious though, because it’s the future of our country. So I’m not going to pull my punches. I will defend our own political movement. I’ll defend why I think Brad Robertson is the best candidate here for Farrer. And I’ll point out why I think a vote for One Nation is not going to deliver the results for the area.
[…] Barnaby will go down as one of the best Nationals leaders in our history. It’s just very sad and a shame, I think, what’s happened. But I don’t agree with his choice. That doesn’t mean we can’t be mates and share a beer. It just means I’m probably going to tackle him harder because he is a mate.
Agreeing to disagree with Pauline Hanson: Farley
One Nation’s David Farley was once a Nationals member, but felt his policy ideas were “totally ignored”. He said a lot of other locals feel “completely disenfranchised with the democracy at the moment and also with the Coalition”, which has always held Farrer.
Farley said he debated with his party’s leader Pauline Hanson when they met recently about various issues – including his support for immigration.
I’ve met Pauline Hanson and I spent last weekend in her company. And we debated a lot of issues. We debated immigration in particular, because I’m trying to win the seat of Farrer, which has historically grown on immigration. And we’ve virtually come to the agreement that what we need is quality policy on immigration that matches the demands and the aspirations of all Australians.
What we finally agreed on, even though we were disagreeing on a number of problems, but Pauline’s ultimate resolve is, ‘is it good for Australia, is good for Australians?’ And if the answer was yes, then it was ‘let’s do it’.
‘I’m not a teal’: Milthorpe
The high-profile independent candidate Michelle Milthorpe was once a Liberal voter, but said she became disillusioned over the years.
On opponents’ attacks calling her a “teal”, because she received funding via Climate 200, Milthorpe called the claim “lazy rhetoric”.
Look I think it’s laughable to be called a teal candidate when you’ve grown up in the country, lived in the country your whole life.
[…] I’m not a teal. I don’t have anything in common with the teal people in terms of upbringing and the people that I would represent.
[…] I think it’s really important that we understand that our farmers’ need to be, and our regional communities’ need to be, looking after the environment. And they do, because that’s where they get their money from […] We can’t rely solely on renewables, because the burden of renewables is mostly felt in regional communities. We need good balance there. So no, I’m not running on climate. I’m running on good policy.
No more Liberal navel-gazing: Clancy
Asked if voters would be annoyed to be facing a by-election now, and whether Sussan Ley’s departure will be a factor working against the Liberals, state MP Justin Clancy said:
I think certainly the timing of it is challenging in that regard. I think that will be a factor.
[…] Obviously new leadership both for the Liberals and the Nationals – Nationals only just the last few days – means that for the community they haven’t got a full sense of what leadership under Matt Canavan and Angus Taylor will look like. So no doubt that will have an impact.
[…] There needs to be clearly demonstration by Liberals, certainly at the federal level, that the time for staring at the navel, the time to be talking about self is well passed. That does not serve the party well, it does not serve the community well. We need to be absolutely focused on the needs of our community.
As the US–Israeli war with Iran enters its third week, reports are emerging that Israel is potentially running out of air defence interceptors due to Iran’s retaliatory attacks.
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and Israeli foreign minister have denied the reports. The government did reportedly approve around US$826 million (A$1.17 billion) for “urgent and essential defence procurement” over the weekend, however.
It’s difficult to gauge just how many interceptors are remaining, as the IDF does not disclose this type of information. But the possibility of this occurring was not entirely unexpected before Israel and the US began bombing Iran more than two weeks ago.
What are these interceptors?
Israel has a sophisticated and layered air defence system, capable of repelling attacks from ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, aircraft, drones and artillery shells at multiple altitudes, both inside and outside the atmosphere.
The famous “Iron Dome” makes up just one of these layers – it intercepts short-range artillery shells and rockets.
While there are technological differences between all of these systems, they are comprised of three basic elements:
the IDF personnel to operate them
the radar systems to detect incoming attacks
the interceptors themselves.
Israel has a new “Iron Beam” laser system that can be used to destroy missiles and drones, but the most common interceptors are surface-to-air missiles.
Ballistic missile defence interceptors, in particular, are incredibly complex and expensive weapons. The more capable they are, the more expensive they are to build. They are also limited in number. A sustained attack can quickly deplete even Israel’s stockpile.
Why might Israel be running low?
The 12-day war that Israel fought with Iran last year significantly depleted both its stockpile of anti-ballistic missiles, as well as that of its ally, the United States.
One Washington-based research centre calculated that Israel and the US intercepted 273 of 322 Iranian missiles they attempted to stop in the war, an 85% success rate.
Given a large number of these interceptors were used so recently, Israel and the US are unlikely to have fully replenished their stockpiles before launching the current war.
Another sign this is the case: the US is reportedly moving parts of its THAAD missile defence system from South Korea to the Middle East. This means the US will need to carry more of the defensive burden in the region, which could quickly deplete its own assets.
Ballistic missiles are also very difficult to intercept due to the speed and altitude they attain. Several interceptors are usually required to ensure each incoming missile is stopped. Iran is also using cluster munitions on some of its ballistic missiles, which further compounds the problem.
Iran has cheap, easy-to-replace drones, which it is using to try to overwhelm Israeli and American air defence systems, as well. These can also be launched from dispersed locations that are difficult to detect, making them harder to destroy on the ground than ballistic missiles.
Jet fighters can help defend against these drone attacks and have done so with great success, but the missiles they fire are also more expensive than the drones themselves. And other weapons platforms (such as the Iron Beam) are currently in limited supply.
The US and Israel are not the only ones reportedly running low on interceptors. The Persian Gulf states have also come under Iranian attack, and are burning through what defensive assets they have.
The Iranians have specifically targeted missile defence radars across the region, with reports they have successfully destroyed or damaged several systems.
All of this, of course, raises the question of why Israel and the US would start another conflict in the first place if their stockpiles were not fully replenished. There could be several potential reasons:
they had managed to rebuild their stockpiles faster than anyone anticipated, though this is unlikely
they were confident they could destroy a sufficient amount of Iran’s offensive weapons before they ran out of defensive munitions
they believed Iran would want to end the war sooner than it has.
How long can Iran keep this up?
There’s no way of knowing what Iran’s strategy is, besides extending the war as long as possible and creating chaos in the region and with global energy markets.
Some have speculated Iran may be deliberately holding back its more advanced missile technologies to use after the US and Israeli interceptors are depleted. But other analysts say there is no evidence this is the case. This would also be a risky strategy on Iran’s part.
One thing is certain, though: the US and Israel do have finite numbers of interceptors at their disposal. Iran, too, will not be able to keep up the same level of attacks indefinitely.
While the economic impacts of the war are placing significant pressure on all parties – and the world more widely – Iran seems to be in a better position for a longer conflict, given the costs involved for the US and Israel and their reluctance to commit to a potentially even more disastrous ground invasion.
Former Nationals’ leader Michael McCormack has been brought back onto the frontbench as the opposition unveiled yet another reshuffle, this one triggered by the elevation of Matt Canavan to become Nationals leader.
McCormack will be shadow minister for water and shadow minister for veterans’ affairs. The water post will give him a leading role in the Farrer byelection, where water is a major issue in the agricultural areas of the electorate.
McCormack is member for the seat of Riverina, which borders Farrer. He held various portfolios in the Coalition government and was deputy prime minister from 2019 to 2021, when he was dislodged in a coup by Barnaby Joyce. The spill was moved by Canavan.
Canavan himself is taking the shadow trade portfolio, while his deputy Darren Chester becomes shadow minister for agriculture.
Under Coalition arrangements the Nationals leader nominates the Nationals frontbenchers. Their number is determined by the proportion of seats the party has in the Coalition. The shadow positions they hold are settled by the two Coalition leaders in conjunction.
Former leader David Littleproud, who suddenly quit his position last week declaring he was “buggered”, will be on the frontbench in junior roles as spokesman for emergency management and for tourism.
The party’s former deputy, Kevin Hogan, with a background in the finance sector, becomes shadow assistant treasurer and spokesman on financial services. He will be in the outer shadow ministry.
Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie stays shadow minister for infrastructure and transport. Susan McDonald remains in resources.
Taylor said: “I have appointed a strong and experienced team from The Nationals who understand the pressure facing families, farmers, small businesses and regional communities”.
Canavan said he was “proud to lead a posse of patriots”.
He said the Nationals’ shadow ministerial team was probably the most experienced ever, with more than 18 years of combined ministerial experience.
He welcomed McCormack to the shadow ministerial line up. “Michael knows the Murray Darling Basin having travelled the length and breadth of it in previous ministerial capacities and representing irrigation areas as a local member. Labor has ignored the benefits of dams and Michael will put them back on the agenda.“
Ross Cadell and Pat Conaghan have lost their positions on the frontbench.
Despite Conan O’Brien joking he was the last human Oscars host, the 2026 edition was exceptionally human – with folly, filler and an f-bomb (ironically during the Best Sound acceptance speech). This 3.5-hour marathon will seem quaint in 2029, when YouTube takes over and every segment feels like 20 seconds.
Many speakers faced the same dilemma: how can we justify celebrating escapism in a war-ravaged world that only agrees on liking animated Korean popstars?
[embedded content]
The world feels harsh in 2026. Even K-Pop Demon Hunters wasn’t immune, with the Golden song team harshly played off the stage – a policy only applied to them.
It was tough to watch Billy Crystal’s tribute to his murdered friends Rob Reiner and Michelle Singer Reiner – a note of real horror. Reality intruded again with the documentary Oscar for Mr Nobody Against Putin, about a teacher who used the Kremlin’s demand for video surveillance of his school to expose that process. Despite Jimmy Kimmel’s Melania gags, it was clear who the bravest guy in the room was.
Even Conan went dark. His Casablanca re-enactment featuring clunky plot-point repetition eviscerated smartphone culture. I loved his random arrival with a leaf-blower, which he should’ve deployed during Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans’ lame banter. Ironically, the flatness of the bit perfectly illustrated the value of scripting – while the pair honoured the nominees for Best Screenplay.
Sinners and One Battle After Another won most major awards, as tipped on an anticlimactic night. In a dour final sketch, Conan was gassed, and replaced by Mr Beast – a pointed end to a ceremony that acknowledged legitimate questions about whether the Oscars even matter any more.
[embedded content]
Autumn Durald Arkapaw brought a rare moment of joy as the first female cinematography winner, while the funniest presenters were the stars of Bridesmaids – who should host next year – especially if Stellan Skarsgård is available as a sight gag.
– Dominic Knight
A good film – not the best film – for Best Film
Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another is a good film. It’s not as good as Anderson’s Boogie Nights or The Master, and can’t hold a candle to this year’s other Best Picture nominee Sentimental Value, but it’s a rollicking romp of a yarn, more comedy than thriller, beautifully shot on 35mm film.
Indeed, several nominees this year used film, proving again what we already know – film looks better than digital.
[embedded content]
The performances are solid. Sean Penn has had a great career, but here, as the buffoon Colonel Lockjaw, he is the weakest link, and shouldn’t have won Best Supporting Actor. But his hammy caricature is offset by the excellence of Leonardo Di Caprio, Benicio del Toro and Chase Infiniti, who effectively balance comedic elements with the kind of dramatic intensity necessary to bring the viewer along for the ride.
2025 was a year for big film scores, either in terms of the size of the orchestra, their length, or their wealth of musical material. Perhaps Hollywood is finally getting over the ascendency of the Hans Zimmer-inspired chugga-chugga of interminably repeated minor thirds over low-pitched synth loops, and is embracing musical complexity again.
The ceremony itself had only a few musical moments of note. The Best Score announcement was hijacked by a Bridesmaids reunion and an overlong comedy routine that had nothing to do with music. At least we were shown the orchestra playing a short suite of the scores.
Sinners, the winner, is one of Ludwig Göransson’s most complex scores, drawing on various musics of the American South in a rich thematic tapestry. I hope its success might spur on more musical risk-taking in large-budget films.
[embedded content]
The In Memoriam segment is always musically tricky. The producers need to find music that doesn’t pull focus from the people being remembered, but is engaging enough to keep the audience interested. The use of the love theme from Rob Reiner’s The Princess Bride was a good choice; the sappy reharmonisation of Amazing Grace was less inspiring; Barbra Streisand ended the sequence with a few croaky phrases from The Way We Were.
The Best Song nominees this year were mostly unmemorable – recognised by only two being performed during the ceremony. Golden (which won the award) brought some necessary KPop energy to the last hour of the show, but needed another verse to make its musical and dramatic point. A good decision in terms of the structure of the broadcast was marred by the structure of the arrangement itself.
This was also true of the chaotic performance of I Lied to You from Sinners. Considering the poor pacing and overlength of some of the comedy segments, this stuck out as especially misjudged.
– Gregory Camp
One extraordinary, and one earnest, performance
How does one assess performance across films of mixed qualities? This question is brought to the fore by this year’s Oscar winners for Best Actor and Actress.
Ryan Coogler’s Sinners is a riot of a film, following blues musicians and gangsters duking it out with vampires and rednecks in 1930s Mississippi. There’s nothing serious about it – it’s an absurd film from an absurd premise that just works from opening to closing images. And the performance by Michael B. Jordan, playing twin gangsters who are similar in temperament – but not the same – is extraordinary.
[embedded content]
His intense and muscular energy drives the film, perfectly complemented by the standout music. Watching him on screen is always pleasurable, but in Sinners he’s finally been matched with a technically masterful film.
Hamnet, in contrast, is a very earnest, very serious film, and it proudly displays its earnestness at every turn. But earnestness in art is not particularly interesting (or, perhaps more accurately, not sufficient to make a film interesting), and the whole thing feels like a self-important Instagram post. The result is a film alternately pretentious, dreary and annoying.
[embedded content]
Now Jessie Buckley is fine (as is Paul Mescal) – they’re both great actors in a big Hollywood movie – and, though Renate Reinsve’s performance in Sentimental Value was, like the film at large, much more compelling, it’s difficult to begrudge Buckley her Oscar.
Then again, film is a collaborative medium, so perhaps actors should also bear some of the brunt of critical wrath …
– Ari Mattes
A whole new award category
The introduction of the Academy Award for Best Casting this year marks the first new Oscar category since Best Animated Feature was introduced in 2001. The creation of this award reflects a long-overdue recognition of casting directors as core creative contributors to filmmaking.
Casting directors help shape performance, cast chemistry and, ultimately, the emotional credibility of a film – often through their identification of actors who can bring something unique to the role. By honouring casting as a distinct craft, the Academy is acknowledging the artistry involved in building ensembles, discovering new talent, and discovering performers who align with a director’s vision.
Cassandra Kulukundis’s win for One Battle After Another is a clear recognition of the importance and complex nature of casting large-scale ensembles. Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson is known for his distinctive tonal and stylistic approach, particularly to performance. Kulukundis has worked with Anderson since 1999’s Magnolia. Her filmography speaks to her ability to balance star power with character actors who enrich the world of the film.
[embedded content]
From my perspective, One Battle After Another’s critical and commercial success lies not only in its narrative scope but also in the authenticity with which its performers inhabit a world that is at times hyperbolic and at other times very relatable to the contemporary moment.
Kulunkundis’s win can also be traced to her ability to identify relative newcomers who can command the screen, such as One Battle’s feature film debutant Chase Infiniti, and Best Supporting Actress nominee Teyana Taylor.
– Adam Daniel
Costume designers who stole the (fashion) show
The Guardian’s fashion editor Morwenna Ferrier summed up this year’s Academy Awards fashion: “A lot of brown. A lot of feathers. A lot of Chanel.”
To this, I would add: a lot of white, a lot of brooches and a lot of red lipstick.
Highlights included Wunmi Mosaku in sparkling emerald Louis Vuitton; Odessa A’zion in louche black Valentino and Autumn Durald Arkapaw in a black Thom Browne suit.EPA/Ryan Sun, Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
Beyond these themes, highlights included Sinners Best Actress in a Supporting Role nominee Wunmi Mosaku in sparkling emerald Louis Vuitton and beautiful baby bump, and Marty Supreme’s Odessa A’zion in louche black Valentino embroidered with glittering embroidery and three long diamond necklaces, including one worn by Pamela Anderson at the 2024 Met Gala.
Both Best Actor winner Michael B. Jordan (Sinners) and Best Actress winner Jessie Buckley (Hamnet) were on my list of best dressed. Unlike most of his compatriots, Jordan eschewed the usual tuxedo, or the trendy brown chosen by his co-star Miles Caton, and opted instead for an all-black custom suit by Louis Vuitton featuring a sharp Nehru collar, shining onyx buttons and double silver chain at his hip.
Jessie Buckley and Michael B. Jordan not only won top acting honours – they were also the best dressed.EPA/Jill Connelly
Buckley, the first Irish winner in the category, exemplified the strength of Matthieu Blazy’s newly reinvigorated Chanel in an off-the-shoulder red and pink gown paired with diamonds and a perfectly matched red lip.
Best Cinematography winner Autumn Durald Arkapaw was the first woman ever to win in this category for Sinners. Wearing a black Thom Browne suit with intricately embroidered long coat, black tie, slicked hair and fine jewellery, Durald Arkapaw struck a cool figure alongside the extravagant feathered Gucci concoction worn by Demi Moore to present the award.
Unsurprisingly, the costume design nominees stole the show: Miyako Bellizzi, Kate Hawley and Malgosia Turzanska.EPA/Ryan Sun, Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP
The Best Costume Design nominees really shone this year. Marty Supreme’s designer Miyako Bellizzi was divine in archival SS99 Dior by John Galliano. Hamnet’s Malgosia Turzanska made a political statement with her ICE OUT pin affixed to her structured dress covered in thousands of safety pins.
Personally, it was wonderful to see Kate Hawley, who won for Frankenstein, wearing a voluminous white gown and black taffeta coat by Aotearoa New Zealand designer Rory William Docherty, adorned with magnificent archival Tiffany jewels. She wore the de rigueur red lippy too.
Dance reflects [a people’s] reaction to environment, for it is every art, and in its quality can be read the characteristics of a nation.
She could have no idea what that would look like in 2026.
Flora, a collaboration between The Australian Ballet and Bangarra Dance Theatre, is an embodiment of our Australian environment. It optimistically and lavishly captures the characteristics and complexities of our contemporary nation. It represents something bold and new in Australian dance.
With choreography by Frances Rings and featuring dancers from both companies, in two acts the ballet unfolds not as a story but as a physical exploration of important botanic elements and botanic moments in Australian history.
Australia’s floral ecosystem
The first act takes us to an ancient world beneath the surface where seeds and plant life begin. The dancers in reds and pinks use sticks to beat the primordial rhythm as they move in circular patterns around the stage.
Long pieces of brown ropy cloth – root systems – descend from the ceiling and with them five golden dancers clumped as sleeping yams. The dancers hang upside down and sprout, extend and connect like a rhizomic network.
The dancers hang upside down and sprout, extend and connect like a rhizomic network.Kate Longley/Bangarra Dance Theatre/The Australian Ballet
This shifts into a fluid and lyrical movement with dancers in green representing the energy plants offer us in keeping us alive through food and breath.
A homage to spinifex comes next. A group of male dancers enters with patches of pale yellow grass. When raised together, they take on the animated character of a furry beast. The grass has come to life, and we hear the dancers’ voices with “tch tch,” “HAH!” and “hoo”.
The grasses become the setting for a group of women weaving baskets. Their long skirts emphasise their hip rolls, arm movements and expressive upper bodies. They weave through each other.
The act ends with the disruptive sound of hooves and pickaxes and the arrival of a man in a red coat and a rabble of anonymous settlers.
Colonisation has upset the Australian floral ecosystem.
Colonisation and cleansing
The second act opens with colonist Joseph Banks’ collection of stolen plants: white netted specimens under flickering fluorescent lights. The dancers are trapped like the plants trying to escape their captivity.
The light dims and excerpts of the Australian constitution are projected onto the backdrop. A voice-over tells us Aboriginal people were still not recognised as citizens into the 1960s. The scene, like the constitution, is in black and white, and a single woman dances energetically in the foreground.
We see Joseph Banks’ stolen plant collection: white netted specimens under flickering fluorescent lights.Kate Longley/Bangarra Dance Theatre/The Australian Ballet
But colonisation is followed by two scenes of repatriation and cleansing. The first, women with baskets of smoking leaves. The second, lines of men in red and black with torches of live fire against a filmic backdrop of a growing bushfire.
These two traditional tools of renewal see new life in the regeneration of spiky grass trees and a finale of flourishing pink, orange, blue, purple and yellow bush flowers.
A new collaborative voice
Flora is the fourth collaboration between the two companies. But it feels different to the others.
William Barton’s rich and diverse score has layers and fascinating twists and turns with distinct voices, bells, chimes, harp and sliding trombone. It perfectly achieves his aim of creating a new musical space that remains true to its Indigenous roots and landscape while positioning itself within the classical canon.
Costumes by Grace Lillian Lee feel resplendent and luxurious with each of the 12 chapters adorned in its own style and with colour palettes from earthy to fiery to kaleidoscopic.
Grace Lillian Lee’s costumes feel resplendent and luxurious.Kate Longley/Bangarra Dance Theatre/The Australian Ballet
In her choreography, Rings has worked closely with the dancers. The movement belongs to them. They wear it like their skin. Despite its chapters, the work never loses its momentum. There is a sense of deep time and continuation.
While some of the solos or smaller group dances highlight the strengths and nuances of the different backgrounds of the dancers, they dance throughout as one deliciously heterogeneous group.
Some chapters draw heavily on traditional Indigenous dance, others are Martha Graham-esque, others more balletic. There are also moments that are contemporary with whispers of Stephanie Lake’s influence on the ballet dancers last year.
Flora both acknowledges the trauma of colonisation and expresses gratitude for an extraordinary botanic heritage. The work expresses honestly and harmoniously a reckoning and a shared sense of responsibility. And this is new.
I hope, in Garling’s words, these are the new characteristics of our Australian nation.
Flora is at the Regent Theatre, Melbourne, until March 21, then the Sydney Opera House from April 7–18.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donovan Castelyn, Senior Industry Fellow – Taxation and Director of the UTAS Tax Clinic, University of Tasmania
Newly elected Nationals leader Matt Canavan has proposed allowing couples with dependent children to split their income for tax purposes.
In simple terms, the total income of a couple could be divided between both parents before calculating tax. Similar structures already exist internationally, such as in France and Germany.
Supporters say the change would make the tax system more “family-friendly”, by recognising that many families share resources and financial responsibilities. They also say the current system can disadvantage households in which one parent temporarily leaves the workforce to care for children.
Critics say it could reinforce an outdated “male breadwinner” model and reduce incentives for women to participate in paid work.
Understanding the debate requires looking at how income splitting works and where it already exists.
What is income splitting?
Income splitting refers to arrangements where income that might otherwise be earned by one person is distributed across multiple taxpayers, typically within a family.
This matters because Australia taxes people using progressive income tax rates. As income rises, the tax rate applied to the upper part of their income increases.
Spreading income across more than one person can therefore reduce the total tax paid by a household.
For example, an Australian resident taxpayer earning A$200,000 a year pays a higher proportion of tax than if that income was split between two people each earning $100,000. That gap is what Canavan’s proposal aims to address.
Some households already use income splitting
Australia does not formally allow couples to split income. But some legal structures can produce similar effects.
One example is a family trust. A trust is a legal arrangement where a trustee, such as the parent(s) or nominated company, manages assets or income for beneficiaries, such as a spouse or children.
Under Australia’s trust tax rules, income is generally taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries who are entitled to it.
Because beneficiaries may include spouses or adult children, trust distributions can sometimes spread income across family members and produce tax savings.
Some commentators, such as independent MP Allegra Spender in her tax white paper, argue this means wealthier households already have access to income-splitting strategies that wage earners do not. This is the case where the main wage earner is engaged in a profession such as law, accounting and most trades, and creates an incentive to be self-employed.
In a family trust, income can be shared with a spouse or children.Vitaly Gariev/Unsplash
Current restrictions and anti-avoidance rules
Australia’s tax system contains rules designed to stop income being shifted simply to reduce tax. These include rules to:
discourage diverting income to children under the age of 18. In these circumstances, the beneficiary is usually subject to a higher tax rate.
restrict certain benefits or entitlements where income mainly comes from someone’s own labour, such as a contractor.
ATO scrutiny
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) recently stepped up scrutiny of some income-splitting arrangements, particularly those that involve trusts or business structures used to distribute income to family members on lower tax rates.
Importantly, the ATO does say ordinary family or business dealings are unlikely to trigger these rules. But where income splitting appears designed to primarily reduce tax, anti-avoidance provisions may apply.
Varying rates of tax
Advocates of income splitting often point out that two households with the same total income can pay very different amounts of tax depending on how the income is earned. Allowing income splitting, they argue, would reduce that difference and make the system more neutral between single-earner and dual-earner families.
Critics raise several concerns.
One is distributional fairness. Because income splitting reduces tax by shifting income from higher tax brackets to lower ones, the largest benefits tend to go to higher-income households.
Another issue is gender equity. In many households women are still more likely to be the second income earner or to take time out of paid work for caring responsibilities.
Household-based taxation would increase the effective tax rate on that second income – thus reducing the incentive for the secondary earner to (re)enter the workforce.
Bigger policy questions
The proposal ultimately raises broader questions: should the tax system treat individuals or households as the main unit of taxation?
Australia has historically taxed individuals rather than families. But other parts of the broader tax and transfer system already consider household income when determining eligibility for benefits or subsidiaries. This includes the family tax benefit and Medicare levy surcharge.
The Nationals’ proposals therefore represent more than a technical tax change. They involve a shift in how the tax system defines fairness between individuals, families and different working arrangements.
Bottom line
Income splitting sits at the intersection of tax policy, family policy and labour market incentives.
Supporters see it as a way to make the tax system fairer for families that share income and care-giving responsibilities. Critics worry it could increase inequality and weaken incentives to workforce participation, particularly for women.
As a result, the debate over income splitting is unlikely to disappear any time soon. It reflects a deeper question about how modern tax systems balance fairness, economic participation and support for families.
However, a small but increasing number of Australians are being diagnosed with a rare tattoo-related eye condition. It’s known as tattoo-associated uveitis and can cause permanent vision loss.
So what is this condition? And what do tattoos have to do with eye health?
How might a tattoo impact my eyes?
Tattoo inks used in Australia and other countries may contain toxic chemicals, which have been linked to the development of certain cancers.
This is a concern from a regulation perspective. That’s because Australia, compared to other jurisdictions, has less strict rules around what ingredients go into tattoo ink. The European Union, for example, bans many of the inks that are allowed in Australia.
From a health perspective, the vast majority of people don’t react to these chemicals. But in some cases, they may trigger a harmful immune response. This happens when a person’s immune system recognises the ink as being dangerous and starts attacking the tattoo site. This can cause inflammation, both of the tattooed skin and other parts of the body.
Inflammatory cells from a tattoo may breach the blood-ocular barrier, which is a wall-like structure designed to protect the inside of the eye. If that happens, inflammation can spread to various parts of the eye.
This includes the uvea, the middle layer of the eye which helps it focus on nearby objects. The uvea also contains the coloured part of the eye, the iris.
If your uvea becomes inflamed, you may develop the rare condition known as tattoo-associated uveitis. Symptoms include sudden pain, red eyes, and increased sensitivity to light. In severe cases, this condition can lead to glaucoma, which refers to several eye diseases caused by damage to the optic nerve, or scarring on your eye. Both complications can cause blindness, if left untreated or if treatment is delayed.
Who’s most at risk?
In a 2025 study, a group of Australian eye health experts examined 40 known cases of tattoo-associated uveitis reported between 2023 and 2025. With these new cases, the number of global cases has doubled since 2010. Tattoo-associated uveitis is still a rare condition. But scientists say it may be more common than we think, with some describing it as a public health issue.
In this 2025 study, researchers found tattoo-associated uveitis consistently caused inflammation at the tattoo site. Patients experienced inflammation anywhere between three months and ten years after getting a tattoo.
A 2026 review of related studies suggests larger tattoos and tattoos made of black ink were more likely to cause tattoo-associated uveitis.
Existing research suggests tattoo-associated uveitis affects men and women equally. But people with over-active immune systems may be more likely to develop uveitis. This is especially true for people with existing medical conditions such as multiple sclerosis and certain kinds of arthritis and bowel disease. And there is evidence to suggest people with sarcoidosis, a condition which mainly causes inflammation in the lungs, may be at greater risk of developing tattoo-associated uveitis.
Can you treat it?
Yes, but treatment may not work for everyone.
We can treat milder cases with steroid eyedrops. These eyedrops work by suppressing the activity of immune cells which cause the inflammation. Steroid eyedrops also help strengthen the blood-ocular barrier, which prevents harmful substances from entering the eye.
But in most cases, ophthalmologists need to inject steroids into the patient’s eyeball. This ensures the steroids go directly to the most inflamed area, where they can act quickly and effectively. Patients may also need to take immunosuppressive medications such as methotrexate or adalimubab over a period of months or even years.
However, treatment doesn’t always work. Even after having treatment, about 75% of patients experience temporary vision loss and 17% experience permanent visual loss. Many also develop cataract and glaucoma, both conditions which can lead to permanent vision loss or blindness.
So if you have a tattoo and notice any swelling at the tattoo site, you should speak to an optometrist as soon as possible. You should do the same if you experience any vision problems, such as sudden pain or redness in your eye. If your optometrist finds you have tattoo-related uveitis, they can refer you for treatment or to see an ophthalmologist.
We still have a lot to learn about tattoo-associated uveitis. And the popularity of tattoos, particularly larger designs made of black ink, means the number of Australian cases may continue to rise.
Under the proposed laws, Victoria Police and regulator Tobacco Licensing Victoria will be able to shut down tobacco shops if they are found to be selling illegal tobacco.
Whether or not these proposed laws have any major impact on Victoria’s “tobacco wars” will only be known in time.
But our research into a different drug in a different state in 2000 may help shed some light on how authorities can diffuse the current tensions.
Fires and violence
Victoria Police’s Taskforce Lunar says it is investigating more than 125 fires across the state (most at businesses involved in selling tobacco) and has arrested more than 100 people in connection with the fires and related serious offending.
The federal government hopes sky-high excise will reduce daily smoking prevalence to 5% or less by 2030.
As legal sales fall, the black market has surged. Illicit packs can sell for as little as $10–$15, a fraction of the legal price, giving organised crime a powerful incentive to supply the market.
The Australian Taxation Office estimates the illegal trade now accounts for about one in five tobacco sales, as syndicates import untaxed tobacco and sell cut-price packets outside the system.
So is Australia’s price-led strategy working?
Our findings from the heroin market suggest the answer depends heavily on what happens to supply, not just price.
Lessons from history
Around Christmas 2000, something remarkable happened in Australia’s heroin market: heroin purity plummeted by more than 75%, prices tripled, and overdose deaths fell by 64% nationwide.
Most evidence points to a genuine “heroin drought”: a major disruption of the supply chain, widely attributed to law enforcement efforts that disrupted supply routes.
We set out to see what that drought did to crime. We used 25 years of data for every postcode in New South Wales and compared postcodes with high historical heroin use with other areas and other crime types.
In the first month of the heroin shortage, crime in high-heroin areas jumped by about 8% as dependent users scrambled to cope with higher prices and weaker drugs.
After that, the pattern flipped: the relative crime rate declined about 1% a year. By the late 2010s, cash-motivated crimes in those areas were roughly 23% lower than the pre-shortage trend would have predicted.
Putting a dollar figure on that long-run drop suggests an annual reduction in crime costs of around A$2.21 billion (2020 dollars).
This is our estimate, based on Australian Institute of Criminology cost-of-crime figures updated for inflation – and it should be treated as a conservative back-of-the-envelope estimate rather than a precise calculation.
What can we learn from this?
The heroin drought produced short-term pain and a large but mostly invisible long-term gain.
It also shows why judging drug crackdowns from the first few headlines is risky: successful and failed crackdowns can look much the same at the start.
The numbers also depend on which data you look at. In our study, if you focused only on court prosecutions, you would have misread the story entirely, because changes in DNA laws pushed up the number of solved and prosecuted robberies even as the robbery rate itself was falling.
Tobacco policy has the same measurement trap. If you look only at legal cigarette sales, you might see a sharp decline and think “mission accomplished”. But those numbers miss the cigarettes coming in car boots and backyard factories, and they miss the violent competition over illicit tobacco.
Some key differences
Heroin and tobacco markets are very different. Heroin is illegal, imported and hard to manufacture. Tobacco is legal, easy to grow and widely accepted in many communities.
The comparison is therefore not between the substances themselves but between the market dynamics.
The heroin drought shows when authorities manage to sharply reduce supply and sustain that reduction, the long-term fall in harm can be large — even if the short-term picture looks messy.
Even with excellent policing we are unlikely to recreate a true heroin-style drought for cigarettes and our research cannot tell us what the “right” level of tobacco tax is.
What it does show is that when you do manage to choke off supply and keep it that way – and back it with treatment – the strategy can deliver large, long-run reductions in harm.
In plain terms: to get the long-term benefits, you need a supply reduction that lasts. A short-lived squeeze just encourages the market to adapt (new routes, new suppliers) while the harms continue.
By contrast, pushing prices very high while leaving supply routes largely intact risks splitting the market: well-off, risk-averse smokers keep buying legal packs, while everyone else is pushed towards untaxed imports sold by organised crime.
The awkward part is what happens in the meantime.
If we want policy that truly reduces harm – whether for nicotine, opioids or whatever drug comes next – we need patience, better numbers and a clear idea of what counts as success.
In the past few months, a wave of tech corporations have announced significant staff cuts and attributed them to efficiency gains driven by artificial intelligence (AI).
Companies such as Atlassian, Block and Amazon have announced they would lay off thousands of employees due to increased reliance on AI.
The narrative these companies offer is consistent: AI is making human labour replaceable, and responsible management demands adjustment.
The evidence, however, tells a more nuanced story.
The automation story is partly true
Genuine disruption is visible in specific corners of the labour market, though the scale of that disruption is commonly overstated. Research from Anthropic published earlier this month shows that although many work tasks are susceptible to automation, the vast majority are still performed primarily by humans rather than AI tools.
Moreover, some occupations are more exposed to displacement than others: computer programmers sit at the top of the list, followed by customer service representatives and data entry workers. Yet even within the most exposed occupations, AI use is still limited.
The aggregate economic data reflects this reality. A 2025 Goldman Sachs report estimated that if AI were used across the economy for all the things it could currently do, roughly 2.5% of US employment would be at risk of job loss.
That’s not a trivial number. However, the report notes that workers in AI-exposed occupations are currently no more likely to lose their jobs, face reduced hours, or earn lower wages than anyone else.
The report does note early signs of strain in specific industries. Goldman Sachs identifies sectors where employment growth has slowed that align with AI-related efficiency gains. Examples include marketing consulting, graphic design, office administration and call centres.
In the tech sector, US workers in their 20s in AI-exposed occupations saw unemployment rise by almost 3% in the first half of 2025. Anthropic’s research also found that job-finding rates (the chance of an unemployed person finding a job in a one-month period) for workers aged 22–25 entering AI-exposed occupations have fallen by around 14% since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022. This is a tentative but telling signal about where the pressure is being felt first.
These are meaningful signals, but they are sector-specific and concentrated – not the evidence of sweeping displacement that corporate announcements often imply. That gap between the evidence and the rhetoric raises an obvious question: what else might be driving these decisions?
What is the motive?
The timing and framing of the layoffs attributed to AI layoffs warrants closer examination. Corporate restructuring, over-hiring during the post-pandemic boom as demand for online services soared, and pressure from investors to demonstrate improved profit margins are all forces operating at the same time as genuine advances in AI.
While these are not mutually exclusive explanations, they are rarely acknowledged alongside one another in corporate communications.
There is a powerful financial incentive for companies to be seen to be embracing AI aggressively. Since the launch of ChatGPT, AI-related stocks have accounted for about 75% of S&P 500 returns.
A workforce reduction framed around AI adoption sends a signal to investors that a straightforward cost-cutting announcement does not. A company making AI-related innovations looks a lot better than one sacking staff due to declining revenues or poor strategic decisions.
It is also worth distinguishing between two kinds of workforce reduction. In the first, AI genuinely increases productivity to the point where fewer workers are needed to produce the same output. In the second, staff reductions are not a consequence of AI, but a way to fund it.
Meta illustrates this distinction. The social media giant is reportedly planning to lay off as much as 20% of its workforce, while simultaneously committing US$600 billion to build data centres and recruit top AI researchers.
In this case, the workers being let go are not being replaced by AI today; they are subsidising the AI bet their employer is making on the future.
The more plausible future
The big picture is likely one of transformation rather than elimination. According to a recent PwC report, employment is still growing in most industries exposed to AI, although growth tends to be slower than in less exposed sectors.
At the same time, wages in AI-exposed industries are rising roughly twice as fast as in those least touched by the technology. Workers with AI skills command an average wage premium of about 56% across the industries analysed.
Together, the data points toward a flattening of the traditional workplace pyramid rather than mass displacement. Firms require fewer junior employees for routine analytical and administrative work, while experienced professionals who deploy AI tools effectively become more productive and command greater value.
AI is a consequential technology and will have a significant impact in the long term. What is in doubt is whether the dramatic, AI-attributed workforce reductions announced by individual companies accurately reflect that trajectory, or whether they conflate genuine technological change with decisions that would have been made regardless.
Making this distinction is not merely an academic exercise. It shapes how policymakers, educators and workers themselves understand the nature of the disruption they are navigating.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on March 16, 2026.
Microbes in Antarctica survive the freezing and dark winter by living on air Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ry Holland, Research Fellow in Microbial Ecology, Monash University Winter in Antarctica is long and dark. Temperatures remain well below freezing. In many places, the Sun sets in April and does not rise above the horizon again until August. Without sunlight, photosynthetic life such as plants, mosses
4 expert tips for family mealtimes without the drama Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fuller, Clinical Trials Director, Department of Endocrinology, RPA Hospital, University of Sydney When you have young children, it can be tempting to feed them early, then sit down to a separate meal once they’re in bed. But setting a routine where you eat as a family,
Vanuatu newspaper faces football coverage ban after ‘lesbianism’ headline By Kaya Selby, RNZ Pacific journalist Vanuatu’s only daily newspaper, the Vanuatu Daily Post, is facing a ban on covering future football league matches after publishing an article with the headline: “Former women’s coach says lesbianism is a reason Vanuatu women’s squad keeps losing”. The outlet ran a story on March 6 featuring an interview
Polls show federal Labor losing support; One Nation looking strong in Farrer seat poll Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne It’s over two weeks since the United States and Israel began their war on Iran. In the federal Resolve and Morgan polls, Labor has lost support to
The Iran crisis is hitting KiwiSaver balances – but market volatility can work for you too Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron Gilbert, Professor of Finance, Auckland University of Technology As well as checking the news for updates on events in the Middle East, many New Zealanders are also nervously checking their KiwiSaver balances. What they see is more than a snapshot of their own savings, it’s a
Why the next escalation in the Iran conflict could be between the US and Turkey Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Seymour, PhD Candidate in International Relations, Nottingham Trent University In the two weeks since the US and Israeli strikes on Iran began, Donald Trump’s war aims have fluctuated between crippling Iranian military capabilities and toppling the regime that has ruled there since 1979. But despite the
As the Oscars approach, Hollywood grapples with AI’s growing influence on filmmaking Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Holly Willis, Professor of Cinematic Arts, University of Southern California I teach a course on AI and filmmaking at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, and lately, rather than planning each session well in advance, I’ve been structuring the class the night before. I’ll browse platforms like X,
Secrets, sexism and hypocrisy: Bonfire of the Murdochs reveals the family’s real succession drama Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University Does the world need another biography of Rupert Murdoch? It depends what it has to say and who has written it. Bonfire of the Murdochs, by journalist Gabriel Sherman, looks promising. He made his name with an exhaustively researched biography
South Australian election is likely to be Labor in a landslide. But who will be the opposition? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clement Macintyre, Professor emeritus in politics, Adelaide University For the past six decades, South Australian politics has been characterised by long periods of Labor domination interrupted by short-lived Liberal governments. Since a record 32 uninterrupted years in office came to an end in 1965, the Liberal Party
Why Donald Trump is losing the war at home Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney No US president in living memory has gone to war with less public support than Donald Trump has for the war in Iran. Even Barack Obama’s much-maligned Libyan intervention began with
Largest ever Parkinson’s study shows how symptoms differ between men and women Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lyndsey Collins-Praino, Associate Professor, School of Biomedicine, Adelaide University Parkinson’s disease is the fastest growing neurological disorder, with over 10 million cases worldwide. Up to 150,000 Australians currently live with the disease and 50 new cases are diagnosed each day. The number of people living with Parkison’s
There’s a new plan to help First Nations students from daycare to uni. What does it need to work? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ren Perkins, Lecturer in Indigenous Education, The University of Queensland The federal government is promising a new policy to guide First Nations students right throughout their education careers. It will cover from the time they are in early childhood education right through to after they leave school.
Despite denials, there are signs the RBA does consider house prices in setting rates Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Duck, Post-Doctoral Research Associate, University of Sydney As households are squeezed by the cost-of-living crisis, central bank governors such as Jerome Powell in the United States and Michele Bullock in Australia are coming under repeated fire from politicians, pundits and households. Before each interest rate decision,
Kitchens are the heart of the home. What do all these bland luxury renovations lose? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caroline Cumberbatch, PhD Candidate, School of Creative Arts and Media, University of Tasmania According to anthropologist Richard Wrangham, cooking fundamentally altered the human species. He claims the control of fire and the advent of cooking sparked significant biological changes (including brain development and digestive efficiency). This shaped
War on Iran: Australia should put trust in its neighbours not a modern Titanic rogue state COMMENTARY: By Kellie Tranter The US-Israeli attack on Iran has unequivocally demonstrated to the world — apart, it seems, from Australia’s government — that being an ally of the US attracts potentially disastrous liabilities but confers few if any benefits. The US was manipulated into starting this illegal and unjustified war simply because Netanyahu planned
Winter in Antarctica is long and dark. Temperatures remain well below freezing. In many places, the Sun sets in April and does not rise above the horizon again until August. Without sunlight, photosynthetic life such as plants, mosses and algae cannot make energy.
But that’s not to say all life stops.
In a new study published in The ISME Journal, my colleagues and I show that Antarctic microbes make energy from the air at temperatures as low as –20°C. This finding improves our understanding of how life survives at temperature extremes in Antarctica – and how climate change will affect this important process.
This process is called “aerotrophy”. By using enzymes that are very finely tuned to “sniff out” the hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, these microbes have found a way to make energy from the air itself – a huge advantage in Antarctica’s nutrient-poor desert soils.
What remained unknown until now was the temperature limits of this process. Could aerotrophy be a way to power the continent’s soil communities through the winter?
Field camp in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica.Braydon Moloney/Northern Pictures
Taking the lab down south
Measuring how quickly these microbes consume such a small amount of fuel can be difficult.
From 2022–24, we collected surface soil samples from different areas across East Antarctica and analysed them in our lab.
We measured how quickly they can use the atmospheric gases. We also extracted all the DNA from the soil microbes and sequenced it. This tells us what microbes are present, what genes they have, and what they are capable of using as energy sources.
We showed aerotrophy happening in the lab at representative summer (4°C) and winter (–20°C) temperatures. This means hydrogen and carbon monoxide are a viable food source not just over the summer months, but year-round. What was even more surprising though, was the upper temperature limit.
Soil temperatures in Antarctica rarely rise above 20°C. Yet we found microbes in these soils that continued to generate energy from hydrogen up to a staggering 75°C. It seems as though microbes in Antarctic soils are well adapted to the continent’s cold temperatures, but not restricted to them. It’s a bit like seeing a penguin thrive in a tropical jungle.
We also wanted to see this process occurring in Antarctica itself, so two years ago we brought the lab down south. We collected fresh soil samples, sealed them in the glass vials, and took gas samples.
For the first time, it was clear that under real-world conditions these soil microbes were still munching their way through hydrogen.
Ry Holland measuring gas consumption of soil microbes.Braydon Moloney/Northern Pictures
The primary producers of Antarctica
DNA sequencing has showed us that the vast majority of microbes in Antarctic soils encode the genes to gain energy from hydrogen. Many of these bacteria also have genes to take carbon from the atmosphere.
These aerotrophs are “primary producers”, generating new biomass from the air itself.
In most land-based ecosystems, photosynthesis is thought to be the bottom of the food chain. Photosynthesis takes energy from sunlight and carbon from the atmosphere and turns it into yummy organic compounds.
It’s what makes plants grow. Plants are primary producers that are eaten by herbivores, which are then eaten by carnivores.
In Antarctica’s desert soils, photosynthesis is relatively rare. Instead, we hypothesise that aerotrophy fulfils the primary producer role in many places.
This makes sense because, unlike sunlight-dependent photosythesis, we now know that aerotrophy can happen year-round. Another benefit is that it doesn’t require liquid water, whereas photosynthesis does.
Soil samples were incubated in glass vials in Antarctica, to show the microbes consuming atmospheric gasses under real world conditions.Ry Holland
Hydrogen in a heating world
Aerotrophy clearly has an important role in Antarctic ecosystems. So next, we wanted to determine how global warming might affect this process.
Under low-emissions scenarios, we predict a 4% increase in how quickly aerotrophs use atmospheric hydrogen. Under very high-emissions scenarios, this increase rises to 35%. The numbers are similar for carbon monoxide.
Although hydrogen isn’t a greenhouse gas itself, it is important because it affects how long some greenhouse gases, including methane, hang around in the atmosphere.
Soils (including the microbes that live in them) are responsible for 82% of all hydrogen consumed on Earth globally. In other words, they are a hydrogen sink. This is a crucial component in the global hydrogen cycle.
There are a lot of factors that determine how microorganisms will respond to climate change. Temperature is just one of them. This study is an important piece of the puzzle as scientists figure out how resilient Antarctica’s unique microbal ecosystems are.
Vanuatu’s only daily newspaper, the Vanuatu Daily Post, is facing a ban on covering future football league matches after publishing an article with the headline: “Former women’s coach says lesbianism is a reason Vanuatu women’s squad keeps losing”.
The outlet ran a story on March 6 featuring an interview with a former women’s team coach, Emmanuel Vatu, that criticised in-team relationships as an occasional distraction.
While Vatu had not been quoted directly, the Vanuatu Daily Post ran the story with a social media caption that blamed “lesbianism” for poor results by the women’s national team, who lost all three group games in the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2027 Oceania Qualifiers held in Fiji.
“Sexual relationships with teammates would lead to distraction during matches,” the newspaper reported.
“He witnessed his players at the time, more focused on their personal relationships off the field, rather than developing their skills on the field.”
In response, Vanuatu Football Federation (VFF) released a statement, saying that the comments were “defamatory” and denigrating to female players.
“They have every right to pursue the necessary means to address these negative and harmful comments,” a statement read.
‘Committed to equality’ “We will not allow such rhetoric to diminish the achievements and contributions of our women’s team. We remain committed to promoting equality and ensuring football is a welcoming environment for all.”
On March 9, the Vanuatu Daily Post reported that VFF president Lambert Matlock, who is also the president of the Oceania Football Confederation, had threatened to ban their journalists from their games via email.
Lead reporter Mavuku Tokona told RNZ Pacific they are unapologetic.
“In his interview [Vatu] actually emphasised the fact on how many women that are involved [in] sexual relations on the field,” Tokona said.
“He said it’s explosive, or something along those lines.”
Tokoma said the term “lesbian” was used as a catch-all term because there is no word for it in Bislama.
“In order to encapsulate all of that, we had to phrase it that way.”
Ban effectively begun He said the ban has effectively begun, with his reporters missing out on invites as of Wednesday last week.
Tokona said the “lesbian” comments were just an excuse for years of mistreatment by the VFF.
He believes the Vanuatu Daily Post has been given the cold shoulder by sports bodies because they ask tough questions, saying he often relied on his competitors to stay in the loop.
“There was a strategic launch of the National Women’s Team, and they decided not to invite us,” he said.
He said when a “small female” reporter from the newspaper headed along despite not receiving an invitation, she faced “verbal abuse”.
“They usually heckle her while she’s walking in, threaten her, intimidate her . . . I usually force her to go anyway,” Tokona said.
The VFF has been approached for comment.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Fuller, Clinical Trials Director, Department of Endocrinology, RPA Hospital, University of Sydney
When you have young children, it can be tempting to feed them early, then sit down to a separate meal once they’re in bed.
But setting a routine where you eat as a family, for even a couple of nights a week, can lay the foundations for healthy eating habits, positive relationships with food and social skills that extend into adulthood.
Here’s why – and how you can make family mealtimes with young children more manageable.
One reason is children learn through observation. When parents and older siblings eat and enjoy a wide variety of foods, children are more likely to try and accept those foods themselves.
Allowing children to touch, explore and play with food in their first year supports sensory development and confidence with eating. It can be messy – much of the food will end up on faces, hands or the floor – but this exploration is a normal and valuable part of learning to eat.
Family meals provide repeated, low-pressure opportunities for children to become familiar with a variety of foods. Over time, this exposure can increase acceptance of foods that they initially refuse.
Tuning into hunger cues
Regular family meals create predictable eating routines. And eating at the table, rather than in front of screens, helps children pay attention to hunger and fullness cues, reducing the likelihood of overeating.
Children who share family meals at least three times a week are more likely to eat nutrient-dense foods, maintain a healthy weight, and are less likely to have disordered eating.
Learning social skills
A relaxed, supportive mealtime helps children develop positive attitudes to food and encourages exploration without pressure.
Family mealtimes are opportunities to slow down and connect. Studies link regular shared meals with improved communication, greater family closeness and stronger self-esteem in children.
Mealtimes also play an important role in teaching table manners, and self-regulation of their emotions and the amount of food they’re eating. Observational research suggests everyday family meals are a key setting in which children learn how to sit, use cutlery and engage appropriately at the table, helping them learn broader expectations about interaction and self-control that extend beyond eating.
4 ways to make meal times manageable
Having young children at the dinner table can be challenging. Here are four tips to make them more manageable:
1. Be realistic
Modern life’s demands make it unrealistic for everyone to be around the table for every meal. So, set a target that works for your family, such as having three family dinners weekly. If someone works nights, make breakfast your shared meal.
But put devices away so everyone’s focused on eating and connecting.
2. Don’t create separate meals
It’s tempting to make different meals for toddlers, but this creates unnecessary work and can establish fussy eating.
When families eat together, meals are more likely to be home-cooked and nutritionally balanced. They tend to involve planning and preparing one dish for everyone, rather than relying on convenience or “fast” food.
Children are more open to trying new foods when there’s something familiar on their plate. Try tweaking family favourites by swapping ingredients, such as using lentils instead of beef in bolognese or roasting carrots to make “orange chippies”. Grating veggies into sauces also expands kids’ diets without overwhelming them.
3. Abandon rules that have never worked
Many of us remember being required to finish everything on our plate or be denied dessert unless we ate our vegetables. While well-intentioned, these coercive food practices can teach children to eat in response to external pressures rather than internal hunger and fullness cues.
Coercive food practices among parents are associated with poorer self-regulation of eating and emotional overeating in young children.
Over the long term, studies link these experiences in childhood with less intuitive eating and more disordered eating behaviours in adulthood. So these old-school rules can have lasting effects.
Simply offer the family meal and allow them to dictate how much they eat.
4. Involve your child and make food fun
Including children in preparation and serving gets them interested in and used to family mealtime routines. Ask them to pick healthy recipes and complete child-appropriate tasks such as washing veggies. When they’re old enough, ask them to set the table.
Younger children often respond well when healthy foods are presented in playful, engaging ways. Try offering a mix of colours, textures and shapes to keep their interest.
Switching up the setting can help too – even a simple picnic in the backyard or local park can make mealtimes feel fresh, special and fun.
Nick Fuller is the author of Healthy Parents, Healthy Kids – Six Steps to Total Family Wellness. His free, practical recipe ideas can be found at feedingfussykids.com.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
It’s over two weeks since the United States and Israel began their war on Iran. In the federal Resolve and Morgan polls, Labor has lost support to the Greens and Others, although YouGov has Labor’s vote steady. Left-wing voters would like Anthony Albanese to oppose the war.
One Nation is ahead of the Coalition in all three polls, and it appears the switch in Liberal leadership from Sussan Ley to Angus Taylor has had no lasting impact. Last Wednesday Matt Canavan was elected Nationals leader in a party room spill after former leader David Littleproud resigned the previous day.
The total vote for the Coalition and One Nation was 45–46% in these polls, and it appears to have stalled at this level. Labor would win an election comfortably on current polls, against either the Coalition or One Nation.
In the US, Donald Trump’s net approval has scarcely changed since the beginning of the Iran war, but he is now the most unpopular president at this point in presidential terms.
A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted March 9–14 from a sample of 1,803, gave Labor 29% of the primary vote (down three since the February Resolve poll), One Nation 24% (up one), the Coalition 22% (down one), the Greens 12% (up one), independents 8% (up one) and others 5% (steady).
No two-party estimate was provided. By 2025 election preference flows, Labor would lead the Coalition by above 53–47, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.
Albanese’s net approval was up three points to -17 (52% poor, 36% good). Taylor’s initial net approval in this poll was +9 (35% good, 27% poor). Ley had been at -23 in her final Resolve poll as Liberal leader. Albanese led as preferred PM by 35–31 (38–22 against Ley).
On issues, 43% said cost of living was their top priority, with no other issue in the double digits. In February, 10% had said immigration was their top issue. The Liberals led Labor by 28–24 on keeping the cost of living low (24–23 in February). The Liberals led Labor on economic management by 30–28 after it was previously tied at 26–26.
On the national outlook, 51% thought it would get worse in the next year (up nine since July 2025), 20% get better (down five) and 30% stay the same (down three).
YouGov poll: Coalition falls back to record low
A national YouGov poll for Sky News, conducted March 3–10 from a sample of 1,500, gave Labor 30% of the primary vote (up one since the February 17–24 YouGov poll), One Nation 26% (up two), the Coalition 19% (down three), the Greens 13% (steady), independents 5% (down one) and others 7% (up one).
The Coalition’s 19% matched the record low in this poll they recorded in early February before Taylor replaced Ley as Liberal leader. By respondent preferences, Labor led both One Nation and the Coalition by 55–45, a one-point gain for One Nation vs Labor and a two-point gain for Labor vs the Coalition.
Albanese’s net approval was down two points to -16, with 54% dissatisfied and 38% satisfied. Taylor’s net approval was up one point to -4 (38% dissatisfied, 34% satisfied). Albanese led Taylor as better PM by 45–33 (45–34 previously).
On the Iran war, 33% said they were most concerned about increased fuel prices and inflation, 32% major destabilisation in the region and 21% terror attacks in Australia.
By 53–16, respondents thought Jim Chalmers’ handling of cost of living was poor, with 31% neither good nor poor. By 42–8, they said their household finances had become worse rather than better in the past three months.
Morgan poll: Labor down and Greens up
A national Morgan poll, conducted March 2–8 from a sample of 1,532, gave Labor 26.5% of the primary vote (down four since the late February Morgan poll), One Nation 23.5% (up 1.5), the Coalition 22.5% (down one), the Greens 14.5% (up three) and all Others 13% (up 0.5).
By respondent preferences, Labor led the Coalition by 54.5–45.5, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition. By 2025 election preference flows, Labor led by 53–47, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition. No Labor vs One Nation two-party estimate was reported.
Farrer byelection poll has One Nation winning
The byelection for Ley’s former seat of Farrer will occur on May 9. A uComms poll for the left-wing Australia Institute, conducted March 5–6 from a sample of 1,281, gave One Nation 28.7% of the primary vote, independent Michelle Milthorpe 23.3%, the Liberals 19.1%, Labor 9.0%, the Nationals 5.2%, the Greens 3.9%, others 2.2% and 8.6% were undecided.
There were follow-up questions about who Labor voters would support if they didn’t run and who undecided voters had a leaning towards. Using these questions, analyst Kevin Bonham gets primary votes of One Nation 31.4%, Milthorpe 29.4%, Liberal 21.7%, National 7.4%, Green 5.4% and others 2.7%.
Greens preferences would flow strongly to Milthorpe, but Liberal and National preferences would go to One Nation. On these primary votes, One Nation would win Farrer. Seat polls are unreliable.
US: Trump’s ratings and a special election
In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump’s net approval is -13.8, with 54.7% disapproving and 40.9% approving. His net approval has scarcely changed since the start of the Iran war. Trump’s lowest net approval in this aggregate was -15.0 on both February 15 and November 23.
Compared with past presidents since Harry Truman at this point in their terms, Trump’s net approval is now the lowest – it has even edged below his net approval at this point in his first term.
The benchmark US S&P 500 stock market index is down 4.5% since February 25. If the Strait of Hormuz continues to be blocked, stockmarkets are very likely to fall further. However, the S&P has increased 33% since April 8, 2025, when Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs caused a stock market rout.
If Trump is to become much more unpopular, it’s likely that stock markets will need to fall far more than they have so far.
A federal special election occurred for Georgia’s 14th last Tuesday. In a “jungle primary”, no candidate won a majority, with a Republican and a Democrat advancing to the April 7 runoff. I covered this for The Poll Bludger.
At the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in this seat by 68.2–31.3. There was over an eight-point swing to Democrats from Harris’ vote share, but the Republican should easily win the runoff.
As well as checking the news for updates on events in the Middle East, many New Zealanders are also nervously checking their KiwiSaver balances.
What they see is more than a snapshot of their own savings, it’s a window onto world events – in particular the rough ride stock markets are having as the price of oil spikes because of the US-Israeli attack on Iran.
Oil, for better or worse, is the lifeblood of the global economy, a crucial ingredient in many products and the fuel that moves goods around the planet.
A reduction in supply – or even the expectation of reduction – pushes oil prices up. Since the Iran crisis, it has risen from around US$60 per barrel to more than $100, with some analysts saying it could reach $150.
When transport costs rise, prices rise with them and inflation and interest rates follow. Households spend less, businesses sell fewer goods and services, and potentially cut jobs.
Lower economic activity means lower company profits. Higher interest rates reduce future growth. When geopolitical crises erupt, investors become nervous and demand a higher return for taking risk.
Put those forces together and the result is usually the same: falling share prices. Because KiwiSaver funds are heavily invested in local and global share markets, many New Zealanders are likely seeing their balances fall as well.
Take the long view
So what should KiwiSaver investors do? Nothing – seriously. If watching your balance drop is causing anxiety, the best response might simply be to stop looking. But it’s also important to remember stock markets are resilient beasts.
This is not the first time markets have faced an oil shock. The 1973–74 OPEC oil crisis led to fuel rationing, soaring inflation and economic disruption not seen since the 1920s.
Stock markets around the world – including in New Zealand – felt that pain, with the Dow Jones and the NZ share market both falling by roughly 40%.
But markets recovered. Returns remained weak for much of the 1970s, but over the following decades global share markets went from strength to strength.
The first Gulf War in 1990 had a similar, though smaller, effect: rising oil prices, higher inflation and falling share prices. Once again, markets eventually recovered.
For most of us, KiwiSaver is a long-term investment. Even if you are approaching retirement, most people will live several decades beyond it. Unless you need the money today, what happens in markets this month matters far less than what happens over the next ten or 20 years.
On that timescale, the current crisis will likely be a blip that barely registers. Even the pain of the 1970s barely stands out when you look at a 100-year chart of the S&P 500 index against its long upward climb.
Volatility – like we are seeing now – is the price investors pay for higher expected returns in the long run. It is felt most by investors in “growth” and “aggressive” KiwiSaver funds, which are heavily invested in shares.
But those higher-risk funds have historically produced higher returns. Since KiwiSaver was introduced in 2007, investors have lived through the global financial crisis, COVID, trade wars and a period of very high inflation. Each caused markets to fall and created uncertainty for investors.
Yet the cumulative return on a typical KiwiSaver growth fund since 2007 is around 240% – far higher than could have been earned in safer investments over the same period.
The upside of volatility
Volatility is our friend when it comes to investing. It just doesn’t feel good while we are experiencing it. In fact, falling markets can sometimes help long-term investors.
KiwiSaver contributions are invested regularly – usually every payday. Most funds invest those contributions immediately rather than trying to guess the “best” time to enter the market.
That is probably a good thing, because there is little evidence that fund managers can reliably time the market.
When prices are high, your contributions buy fewer shares. When prices fall, the same contribution buys more.
Consider a KiwiSaver member contributing around $100 a month. If your fund was to invest in a single company with a share price of $10, you can would buy ten shares. If the next month the price falls to $5, that same $100 buys 20 shares.
When prices eventually recover – as they usually do – you benefit from owning more shares than you otherwise would have.
This process is known as “dollar-cost averaging”, and it underpins one of the most reliable sayings in finance: it is not timing the market that matters, but time in the market.
Despite all the gloomy predictions and short-term pain right now, for KiwiSaver investors this is largely background noise.
And let’s face it, if global share markets ever did collapse permanently, leaving KiwiSaver balances worthless, retirement savings would probably be the least of our concerns.
Does the world need another biography of Rupert Murdoch? It depends what it has to say and who has written it.
Bonfire of the Murdochs, by journalist Gabriel Sherman, looks promising. He made his name with an exhaustively researched biography of long-running Fox News head and serial sexual harasser, Roger Ailes. The Loudest Voice in the Room (2014) has 98 pages of endnotes and a team of three fact-checkers. It was made into a series starring Russell Crowe as Ailes. Sherman was also the screenwriter of Donald Trump biopic, The Apprentice, which Trump fought hard to prevent being screened.
Promising credentials, yes, but what does Sherman add to the eight Murdoch biographies already published?
Review: Bonfire of the Murdochs by Gabriel Sherman (Simon & Schuster).
The first was Simon Regan’s business-oriented biography published in 1976. It has been forgotten, but not so George Munster’s A Paper Prince (1985), which laid out Murdoch’s deal-making modus operandi, nor William Shawcross’ 1992 semi-authorised work, which charted Murdoch’s creation of the first global media empire.
Michael Wolff’s The Man Who Owns the News (2008) painted the most vivid portrait of the Australian born media mogul. Flushed with the success of buying The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch agreed to more than 50 hours of interviews with Wolff and opened the doors of his notoriously secretive media empire to the Vanity Fair media columnist.
Wolff did report the Wall Street Journal takeover in detail, but he also retailed a breathtaking amount of industry and family gossip.
One example among many. He writes that Prudence, Murdoch’s daughter from his first marriage, gave him exasperated grooming advice after Murdoch botched a DIY makeover as he tried keeping up with Wendi Deng, his third wife who was the same age as his children.
“Dad, I understand about dyeing the hair and the age thing. Just go somewhere proper. What you need is very light highlights.” But he insists on doing it over the sink because he doesn’t want anybody to know. Well, hello! Look in the mirror. Look at the pictures in the paper. It’s such a hatchet job.
Murdoch’s response? He told her she needed a face lift.
Murdoch’s response to Wolff’s biography was that it needed more than a face lift – it should not have been published with the errors it had. He did not sue for defamation, however. Wolff has since become an even more controversial figure: he is embroiled in suit and counter-suit with Donald and Melania Trump over Wolff’s claims about Trump’s relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Murdoch botched a DIY makeover as he tried keeping up with Wendi Deng, his third wife, who was his children’s age.John Shearer/AAP
The long-running struggle for succession in the Murdoch family famously inspired the brilliantly coruscating fictional television series Succession (2018–2023). Sherman’s is the first biography to deal with its resolution, which happened only last September, when Rupert Murdoch and his eldest son, Lachlan, succeeded in changing the terms of an apparently irrevocable family trust.
The trust had been created when Rupert and his second wife, Anna, separated in 1998. (She died on February 17 this year.) It was her attempt to put a brake on Murdoch’s continual pitting of his children, especially his sons, against each other in the quest to succeed him as head of News Corporation.
Chloe (left) and Grace (right) Murdoch are part of a newly drawn family trust.Justin Lane/AAP
It didn’t work. Rupert’s plan for Lachlan to lead the company, continuing its hard right position led by Fox News, eventually succeeded. To a greater or lesser degree, the other children from his first two marriages – Prudence, Elisabeth and James – loathed what Fox News had become and, reportedly led by James, were prepared to use their votes in the family trust to oust Lachlan after Rupert died.
In the end, though, they agreed to sell their shares in the family trust for US$1.1 billion each. Grace and Chloe, the two children from Murdoch’s third marriage, are part of a newly drawn family trust with their own shares in News.
The machinations behind this episode were reported last year in two extraordinary pieces of journalism, by Jonathan Mahler and Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times, who were leaked 3,000 pages of court documents about the case, and by McKay Coppins in The Atlantic magazine. He secured a long, revealing interview with James Murdoch, who was labelled in Rupert and Lachlan’s legal materials the “troublesome beneficiary”.
For those without subscriptions to these publications, my colleague, Andrew Dodd, and I discussed the case in The Conversation here and here.
An outstanding journalist
Sherman, another outstanding journalist, has been reporting on the Murdochs since 2008. Ailes threatened him with legal action and engineered a smear campaign over The Loudest Voice in the Room, as Sherman calmly detailed in “A Note on Sources” at the end of the book. It was Sherman who in 2016 broke the news about Fox News presenter Gretchen Carlson’s sexual harassment suit against Ailes that led to his ousting from the network.
In 2018, he revealed Murdoch came close to death after a fall on Lachlan’s maxi-yacht while sailing in the Caribbean.
Sherman also had the inside scoop on the end of Murdoch’s fourth marriage in 2022. The then 91-year-old mogul not only broke up by text with his wife, supermodel and actor Jerry Hall, but included in the divorce terms a demand she not give story ideas to the scriptwriters of Succession!
Former Fox News head Roger Ailes threatened journalist Gabriel Sherman with legal action and engineered a smear campaign over his unauthorised biography of him.Jim Cooper/AAP
Hall later realised the marriage had ended, in Murdoch’s eyes, some time before, when he met Ann Lesley Smith, a 65-year-old former dental hygienist turned conservative radio host and follower of QAnon-style conspiracy theories. At a dinner at Murdoch’s ranch in Carmel, Smith gushed that Murdoch and Fox News were the saviours of democracy, and offered to clean his teeth for him.
Murdoch proposed to Smith in early 2023, but he soon called off the wedding after another dinner, where she told then Fox News host Tucker Carlson he was a messenger from God. Hall felt humiliated by Murdoch’s treatment of her but told friends she took satisfaction in making an effigy of him, tying dental floss around its neck and burning it on the barbecue.
All these disclosures, and gossip, are included in Bonfire of the Murdochs. Indeed, Sherman’s reporting, for New York and Vanity Fair magazines, forms a good deal of the book. If you have already read his lengthy articles, there is not much new here. But if you haven’t, or if you are confused by the countless deals and complex financial/political transactions of Murdoch’s seven-decades-plus career in media, this biography is well worth reading.
Fourth wife Jerry Hall told friends she took satisfaction in making an effigy of Murdoch after he broke off their marriage via text.Vianney Le Caer/AAP
‘Destroyed everything he loved’
At 241 pages, it has the virtue, as well as the shortcoming, of being the shortest of the Murdoch biographies. Sherman has a gift for succinctly summarising key themes.
The first is that more than most, Murdoch’s media empire is secretive. Remember, his plan to change the family trust was supposed to be heard behind closed doors. We only know about it because The New York Times was leaked the court records, which revealed Murdoch’s testimony. As Sherman puts it: “Rupert crafted narratives in the shadows, but the courtroom would require him to do it in the open.”
Initially, it did not go well for Murdoch. Under cross-examination, his determination to get his way no matter what and his sexism towards his daughters was revealed.
The second theme is the extent to which Murdoch will ignore the stated mission of his media outlets – report what is happening accurately – if it aligns with his commercial goals. During the global pandemic, while Fox News hosts fulminated about lockdowns and advocated dubious treatments like hydroxychloroquine, Murdoch followed the science and, Sherman reports, was one of the first in the world to be vaccinated, in December 2020.
“He was scared for himself and was very careful,” a person who spoke to Murdoch at the time recalled for Sherman. Questioned about the disconnect between his network’s coverage and his own behaviour, Murdoch would deflect responsibility for the presenters’ commentary, even though this seeming passivity contrasted sharply with his history of editorial interference.
As Sherman comments: “The hypocrisy revealed something essential about Rupert’s worldview: he had always been able to separate his personal beliefs from his business interests.” He adds that Murdoch thought then president, Donald Trump, grievously mishandled the pandemic but refused to use his position as head of Fox to pressure the president to treat it seriously.
Nor did Murdoch take any responsibility when a friend told him the channel was killing its elderly audience. According to one of Sherman’s sources, he replied: “They’re dying from old age and other illnesses, but COVID was being blamed.”
Murdoch refused to use his position as head of Fox to pressure Trump to treat the pandemic seriously.Evan Vucci/AAP
The biographer quotes other sources who say the quid pro quo was that Murdoch had successfully lobbied Trump in his first term to take action against Facebook and Google, who were winning advertising revenue from News (along with other legacy media companies) and to open up land for fracking, which was to boost the value of Murdoch’s fossil fuel investments.
The third theme is that Murdoch built the world’s first global media empire but has always run his companies as a family business, with him as the first and ultimate decision-maker. Nimbleness is the advantage of this approach. As with any autocratically run organisation, though, there are disadvantages. Among them is that no one has a perfect strike rate for success.
Along the way, talented executives such as Barry Diller, former chief executive at Twentieth Century Fox or Chase Carey, former top executive at 21st Century Fox, knew – or found out – that their path to the top was blocked not only by the company’s head, but by Murdoch’s desire to advance or protect family members. Murdoch once told shareholders complaining about nepotism: “If you don’t like it, sell your shares.”
From the 1950s, when Murdoch was the “boy publisher” of the afternoon newspaper he inherited from his father, the Adelaide News, he behaved, Sherman writes, as though “promises were like inconvenient facts: fungible when they got in the way of profit.” The newspaper’s editor, Rohan Rivett, was the first among several, alongside numerous politicians, who learnt this to their cost.
The fourth theme is that Murdoch has always wanted his children involved in his business, but only on his terms. “Growing up,” Sherman writes, “the children’s relationship to their father was expressed through the business, making them equate paternal love with corporate advancement.”
Where earlier writers have drawn parallels with Shakespeare’s King Lear, Sherman thinks King Midas is a more appropriate comparison.
Like the mythical monarch whose touch turned everything to gold, Rupert built a $17 billion fortune but destroyed everything he loved in the process. His media outlets stoked hatred and division on an industrial scale, and amassing that wealth required him to damage virtually anything he touched: the environment, women’s rights, the Republican Party, truth, decency – even his own family.
Growing up, the Murdoch children equated paternal love with corporate advancement, writes Gabriel Sherman.Peter Carrette Archive/Getty Images
The weakest part
These are potent themes that resonate with those of us living in the country of Murdoch’s origin, which brings us to the book’s shortcoming. Australia features early on, but this is the weakest part of the book. Murdoch’s early years are well covered in Munster and Shawcross’s biographies and more recently have been given detailed attention in Walter Marsh’s Young Rupert (2023).
There are basic errors: The Daily Mirror in Sydney, which Murdoch bought in 1960, is misnamed The Mirror, while the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd., which he bought in 1987, becomes the Herald Times Group. Nor does it help that on the book’s final page, Sherman writes “Rupert was with his fourth wife while his children were scattered across the globe” – when Murdoch had discarded Jerry Hall in 2022 and was now married a fifth time, to Elena Zhukova.
Fourth, fifth? It’s easy to lose count. More seriously, in buying the HWT, Murdoch became the dominant newspaper owner in Australia, but his control did not account for 75% of the market, as Sherman writes. It is more like 60% to 65%, depending on whether you use circulation or number of newspapers as a measure.
Murdoch’s early years in Australia are briskly dealt with in chapter one, before he moves on in his relentless quest to acquire more media properties in the United Kingdom and the US. This is true as far as it goes, but once Murdoch does head north, his biographer loses almost all interest in how Australia is faring – even, or especially actually, after Murdoch acquires the HWT.
The same is true to a lesser extent with Sherman’s treatment of the UK. The phone hacking scandal is covered, of course, but not much else is once Murdoch arrives in New York in the mid-seventies.
What is lost, then, in Sherman’s compression, is context for events. Such as: where did the phone hacking culture come from? What lengths did News go to in denying the practice went beyond two “rogue reporters” or in obstructing official inquiries? Why have they since paid so much money settling with phone hacking victims, rather than going to court?
Missing, too, is any sense of the connections between Murdoch’s media outlets in the three main countries in which News operates. Has the hostile coverage of trans people been imported from Fox News to Sky News Australia? What affect has his media outlets’ campaigning against action on climate change had across these three countries?
These, and others, are relevant questions to ask about a global media empire. Rupert Murdoch may have handed over the company to Lachlan in 2023, but he led it for 70 years, he created its culture and he still wields influence. In case it passed you by, it was Rupert Murdoch – not Lachlan, according to the reports – who in February had a private dinner at the White House with US president Donald Trump.
I teach a course on AI and filmmaking at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, and lately, rather than planning each session well in advance, I’ve been structuring the class the night before. I’ll browse platforms like X, Substack and YouTube, selecting the most provocative articles and video clips to present the following morning.
It’s a testament to how quickly artificial intelligence’s relationship to filmmaking is evolving: Each week brings new – often startling – developments.
The next morning in class, my students and I debate the ethics, aesthetics and the storytelling changes taking place in these collaborations with AI.
And we’re not alone: Throughout Hollywood, everyone – aspiring actors and filmmakers, stars, screenwriters and studio execs – seems to have a take on what’s coming next. But I think three trends in particular are going to be hot topics of conversation at this year’s Oscars parties.
Nothing uncanny about this clip
In February 2026, a 15-second AI-generated video clip of Tom Cruise battling Brad Pitt on a burned-out highway overpass went viral.
Created by Irish filmmaker Ruairi Robinson via a generative-AI tool called Seedance 2.0, the video marked yet another milestone in the propulsive growth of AI tools.
Seedance 2.0 – which was developed by ByteDance, the Chinese company behind TikTok – is now one of the many AI tools available to create short-form video clips. But unlike most AI-generated videos, Pitt and Cruise don’t look creepy, uncanny or animated in the clip, which almost perfectly mimics live-action footage. The appearance of two A-list stars in a fairly realistic scene created by a relatively unknown director using stolen likenesses jolted the industry.
[embedded content]
A brief clip featuring AI-generated avatars of Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise stunned the film industry.
The backlash was swift. Disney sent a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that the video was generated from a dataset that most likely includes Disney’s copyrighted characters. The actors’ union, SAG-AFTRA, pointed to the video’s “blatant infringement” of the actors’ likenesses, as well as their voices.
“SAG-AFTRA stands with the studios in condemning the blatant infringement enabled by Bytedance’s new AI video model Seedance 2.0,” the guild wrote in a statement. This practice, the guild added, “undercuts the ability of human talent to earn a livelihood,” while disregarding “law, ethics, industry standards and basic principles of consent.”
In class, after watching the video, we explored the ethics of using someone’s likeness without permission, the challenges facing actors who build careers based on their unique ability to embody characters, and what the future holds for our understanding of acting.
If filmmakers can prompt fake actors to deliver precise performances, where does that leave human actors?
In with the old
Since 2023, the skyline of the Las Vegas strip has been dominated by an illuminated orb called the Sphere: an entertainment complex featuring a 360-degree LED screen covering 160,000 square feet (14,864 square meters). The Sphere recently surpassed 2 million tickets sold for a reimagining of the classic 1939 film “The Wizard of Oz.”
The film, which premiered in August 2024, was shortened, its color was enhanced, and it was stretched to expand across the interior of the dome. AI was used to transfer the imagery from the film’s original, modest aspect ratio to the giant dome. This required generating new imagery around the edges of the original shots in what’s known as “AI outpainting.” The technology was also deployed to boost the original film’s resolution and to enhance certain scenes.
Some critics fretted that this fairly radical augmentation of the original classic would offend viewers. Instead, it has drawn them in droves to the Sphere, where they’ve been willing to shell out between US$100 and $200 per ticket.
Not bad for a movie about a girl from Kansas made in 1939.
Given the resounding success of “The Wizard of Oz,” experts expect producers to plumb the film archives for other potential hits and enhance them with AI before screening them in venues as varied as IMAX theaters and Cosm, another 360-degree dome with locations in Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta.
Or AI can simply be used to create material that was never completed for a historic film.
In fact, The New Yorker recently profiled AI media entrepreneur Edward Saatchi, who is working to recreate and reincorporate lost footage from Orson Welles’ 1942 feature “The Magnificent Ambersons.” While Welles was in Brazil shooting a documentary, executives at RKO Radio Pictures reedited the film without his approval after a poor preview screening. They cut around 45 minutes, replaced the original ending with a happier one and destroyed most of the footage that had been removed.
Saatchi’s idea is to build a dataset that includes the existing film, as well as scripts, notes, images and even new performances by actors. Then he plans to use his AI platform, Showrunner, to create new scenes from this data.
While Saatchi hopes to honor the director’s creative vision by producing the film he originally intended, his efforts open up some thorny questions.
Is it appropriate to take an existing artwork and revise it without the creator’s input? Isn’t there something sacrosanct about a film, the intentions of the director and the performances of the actors in a film’s original form? To what extent should these questions be overlooked if refashioning old movies will introduce them to new audiences?
Fewer opportunities?
There’s also an undercurrent of anxiety in my classes. What will happen, my students often wonder, once they graduate?
They’re worried that within a year or two, AI will have replaced entry-level film industry jobs, from concept artists to apprentice-level editors, before they’ve even had a chance to enter the workforce.
They have reason to fear.
In 2024, the Animation Guild published a sobering report claiming that by 2026, “creative workers will be facing an era of disruption, defined by the consolidation of some job roles, the replacement of existing job roles with new ones, and the elimination of many jobs entirely.”
Some of those predictions have borne out: 41,000 jobs in film and television have disappeared in Los Angeles County alone over the past three years.
But I’ve tried to counter the hard statistics with some stories of thoughtful practices.
For example, filmmaker Paul Trillo at the AI studio Asteria has talked about how he seeks to keep artists at the center of the process. When he detailed the company’s work on a music video for the singer-songwriter Cuco, he was keen to highlight the number of artists working on the project. Yes, AI tools were used. But they were integrated in a way that replaced the tedious work, not the creative practice.
“Rather than removing [artists] from the process, it actually allowed them to do a lot more so a small team can dream a lot bigger,” Trillo explains at the end of the video.
In January 2026, the management consulting firm McKinsey published a report that largely echoes Trillo’s positive outlook. It forecasts more adoption of AI throughout the industry. But it also points to ways that the technology could lead to different kinds of work and open up new possibilities. For example, as AI-generated scenes become commonplace, studios will need technicians who know how to blend real footage with digitally created worlds. And as AI lowers the cost of producing polished films and shows, it could allow more “micro-studios” and independent filmmakers to create professional-quality content.
At the same time, the report also quotes a studio executive who concedes that AI could represent “a more significant platform shift than we have ever seen before in our industry.”
So it’s no wonder my students, along with varied critics, commentators and industry professionals, are nervous.
However, from where I stand, I’m convinced that the industry will weather this radical disruption. It’s adapted to big changes in the past: the addition of sound in the 1920s, the threat posed by videotape in the 1980s and streaming in the 2000s.
In the end, people will always crave new, artfully told stories. While the filmmaking tools and job market may be in transition, that core need for storytelling is not going away.
In the two weeks since the US and Israeli strikes on Iran began, Donald Trump’s war aims have fluctuated between crippling Iranian military capabilities and toppling the regime that has ruled there since 1979. But despite the success of the initial strikes, which killed the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, many analysts believe that air power alone will not be sufficient to bring about regime change.
They say this objective would be impossible to achieve without combat troops on the ground, a move that most US military and political leaders have long opposed. Instead, one idea that seems to be circulating in Washington is to support an invasion by armed Kurdish groups in Iraq and western Iran to destabilise the Islamic Republic from within.
Trump publicly backed away from this idea on March 6, telling reporters: “I don’t want the Kurds to go into Iran … The war is complicated enough as it is.” But, given Trump’s trademark inconsistency and the unpredictable nature of this conflict, an armed Kurdish uprising remains a distinct possibility. Such a scenario could have consequences that extend far beyond Iran.
The Kurds are an ethnic group with their own language and culture who have lived in a mountainous area of the Middle East for centuries. Nowadays, they number around 30 million and live in a region that spans parts of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. The Kurds are widely considered to be the world’s largest stateless people because they do not have a country of their own.
This situation dates to the end of the first world war, when the Ottoman empire collapsed. Kurdish leaders at that time hoped to establish their own state, having lived for 400 years under Ottoman rule. But instead their homeland was divided between several new countries that emerged from the defeated Ottoman state. This left Kurdish communities split across international borders.
Around 10% of Iran’s population is Kurdish and many live in the country’s north-west near the borders of Iraq and Turkey. The Kurdish region of Iran has long been the least economically developed part of the country and Kurdish political parties are outlawed. Armed Kurdish groups have periodically clashed with the Iranian state, demanding greater autonomy or independence.
The Kurdish question is even more sensitive in Turkey, which is home to the largest population of Kurds in the world. Since 1984, the Turkish state has been locked in conflict with the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK), an armed group that has fought to establish an independent Kurdish state. This conflict has killed more than 40,000 people in the past four decades.
For the Turkish government, the possibility that the US may support Kurdish fighters in neighbouring Iran is therefore not just a foreign policy issue. Turkish leaders worry that strengthening Kurdish armed groups elsewhere in the region could embolden similar movements inside Turkey itself.
In the recent past, Turkey has launched military incursions into the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria. It has also fought a brutal counterinsurgency against PKK fighters inside its own borders. These actions show how strongly Turkish leaders oppose any notion of Kurdish independence anywhere in the region.
American support for Kurdish fighters has caused tension between the US and Turkey in the past. Turkey strongly opposed the partnership between Washington and Syrian Kurdish forces during the fight against the Islamic State militant group in Syria in the late 2010s. It argued that some of these Kurdish groups were linked to the PKK.
Turkey’s relations with Israel have also been strained by the Kurdish question. The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has accused the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of undermining the transitional Syrian government by aiding Kurdish groups there. The Kurdish issue has clearly become a major source of tension between Turkey, a key member of the Nato alliance, and the west.
So far, Turkey has largely remained neutral in the Iran war. Despite their regional rivalry, Turkish and Iranian leaders share concerns about Kurdish separatist movements and have sometimes cooperated to contain them. In the past, security forces from both countries have coordinated efforts against Kurdish militant groups operating along their shared border.
Turkish and Iranian officials have also exchanged intelligence and carried out military operations against Kurdish fighters moving between the two countries. And both governments strongly opposed the 2017 referendum on independence that was held by the Kurds in northern Iraq. Over 92% of votes were cast in favour of independence.
For Turkey, the collapse or fragmentation of the Iranian state would be deeply worrying. It could create exactly the conditions Turkish leaders fear most: armed Kurdish groups operating across a much longer and more unstable border.
Another concern is the possibility of a new refugee crisis. Turkey already hosts nearly 4 million Syrians following the civil war that began there in 2011 – the largest refugee population in the world. This has become a major political issue inside Turkey.
If conflict or state collapse in Iran – a larger and even more politically complex state than Syria – triggers large-scale displacement, many more refugees could head west towards Turkey. Such a scenario would place considerable political and economic pressure on the government.
Washington may see the Kurds as a useful way to confront the Iranian regime without deploying American troops. But such a strategy could create new tensions elsewhere in the region. For Turkey, Kurdish militancy is not simply a foreign policy issue but a core national security concern.
If the Iran war ends up empowering Kurdish armed groups or destabilising Turkey’s border, Erdoğan may yet feel compelled to respond. This could open up another front in an already expanding regional conflict.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney
Trump did not make a public case for the war before it began, because he preferred quick, surprising strikes preceded by theatrical suspense. He presented the vast military buildup in the Persian Gulf as a high-pressure negotiating tactic in the short-lived bargaining sessions over Iran’s nuclear enrichment.
Trump was undoubtedly emboldened by the tactical success of his removal of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, though that too was not very popular with Americans.
Wars are not necessarily better when the US government invests a huge effort in justifying them. The justification for the disastrous Iraq War, after all, was based on misperceptions, distortions and falsehoods. But by completely disregarding US public opinion before the war, Trump now finds himself in all kinds of trouble as he tries to fight it.
Americans don’t like seeing themselves as aggressors
Political scientist Bruce Jentleson argued that public support for war in the United States depends not just on how the war is going, but on the public’s understanding of the war’s aims. The US public is much more likely to support wars aimed at imposing restraints on aggressive powers than wars aimed at bringing political change to other countries.
That theory explains why the Bush administration made such an effort to claim Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to the September 11 terrorist attacks, even though “regime change” was the aim of the Iraq war.
It was only after the bombs started falling on Iran that Trump and his administration began to make the case that Iran was an “imminent threat” to the US. It wasn’t very convincing.
It was left to Secretary of State Marco Rubio to make the convoluted argument that the US was acting in preemptive self-defence, because it knew Israel was going to strike Iran, and that Iran would retaliate against Americans in the Middle East.
That did not play well in a country increasingly wary of Israel. A Gallup poll released just before the war began showed that, for the first time this century, more Americans said their sympathies were with Palestinians than Israelis. Recently, the biggest drop in support for Israel has been among political Independents, whose views have shifted significantly during the Gaza War.
Tucker Carlson, the loudest critic of the Iran war on the right, immediately labelled it “Israel’s war”. Joe Rogan, an influential figure among Trump’s 2024 support base of disillusioned young men, said they felt “betrayed” by the war.
Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has tried to sell the war to Americans by gloating about the death, destruction and fear being inflicted on Iran. Even as investigations show the US military was responsible for the bombing of a school that killed more than a hundred children, he dismisses rules of military engagement as “stupid”. The most recent Quinnipiac Poll showed Hegseth’s approval rating at 37%.
Americans are unprepared for sacrifice
Despite high-profile opponents like Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Trump still has most of the MAGA base with him for now. They were never really opposed to foreign wars. What they hated was losing foreign wars, and Trump is promising them swift victory in Iran.
But Trump has not prepared them or anyone else, including his own cabinet, for the costs this war will incur. Especially the disruption to global oil markets, which the International Energy Agency is calling the largest in history, and which will elevate the cost of everything from travel to food.
Trump’s rhetoric about the price of war has hardly been Churchillian. One night he posted on social media that a short term increase in oil prices is “a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!”
But the next day he was forced to calm markets by claiming the war was nearly over.
[embedded content]
The Iranian regime, whose main goal is survival, is well aware of the political and economic vulnerabilities of the US and its Middle Eastern allies, and these appear to be what it is targeting.
At the beginning of the war, Iran’s seemingly scattered attacks on infrastructure, embassies and hotels in Gulf states were a source of mirth for some American commentators. But these were eventually enough to shut down large swathes of energy production and shipping, and inflict far more pain than Trump or his supporters were expecting.
Trump was already facing the same domestic problem that Joe Biden faced. It doesn’t matter how much you tell Americans about positive GDP, stock market and employment numbers; if they are struggling with the cost of living, their view of both the economy and the President will be bleak.
Few Republicans in Congress have been prepared to stand up to Trump over the war. But as midterm elections approach, many of them will be silently praying he finds an excuse to end it as soon as possible.
For the past six decades, South Australian politics has been characterised by long periods of Labor domination interrupted by short-lived Liberal governments. Since a record 32 uninterrupted years in office came to an end in 1965, the Liberal Party has spent a mere 17.5 years in government. Now, as they go to the election on March 21, the Liberals face yet another term (and probably several more) in opposition.
Led by Peter Malinauskas, Labor enjoys extraordinary levels of popular support. Solid, if unspectacular economic progress, combined with the aggressive pursuit of popular sporting events (AFL Gather Round, LIV golf, MotoGP) has left Labor in a seemingly impregnable position on the eve of the election.
And, as has been the case for much of the past 60 years, the Liberal Party’s ongoing internal divisions provide a sharp contrast with the professionalism of Labor. This in turn has rendered the Liberals an ineffective opposition and made the government’s task easier.
For example, Labor does not seem to be paying any serious political price for its failure to “fix” ambulance ramping at hospital emergency departments, despite this being a key plank in its 2022 election campaign that brought Malinauskas to power. Similarly, the growing level of state debt is apparently not deterring voters.
While the ascent of first-term MP Ashton Hurn to the Liberal leadership in December 2025 was overdue, it has not stemmed the fall in the the party’s polling. Hurn stood out in a very weak shadow cabinet as clearly the Liberals’ best performer. But the legacy of policy shifts and three leadership changes in a single term (one ahead of the prosecution of a former leader on a charge of supplying drugs) remains a continuing drag on the party’s fortunes.
New Liberal leader Ashton Hurn (right) faces a monumental challenge against Labor’s Peter Malinauskas.Matt Turner/AAP
Accordingly, there can be no doubt Labor will win yet another convincing victory. The election-night focus will therefore be less on the size of the majority, and more on how many seats the Liberals will be able to hold. There will also be much interest in whether One Nation can make a breakthrough in the House of Assembly.
Recent polls in SA have mirrored those taken elsewhere in Australia. One Nation now consistently outperforms the Liberals. But whether this will translate into seats in the state’s lower house is less clear.
The Liberals go into the election holding just 13 of the House of Assembly’s 47 seats. Six of these are in the Adelaide metropolitan area, and if any are lost (as several will be), they will be lost to Labor.
In rural SA, which has traditionally been dominated by the Liberals, they face threats not just from One Nation, but from several strong independent candidates who threaten to turn these contests into three-cornered battles. With a record number of candidates nominating, predicting the flow of preferences is difficult.
While polls show support for One Nation at somewhere in the mid-20s across the whole state, it may well be a little higher in rural electorates. Given One Nation received just 2.63% of the vote at the 2022 election (albeit standing in just over half the seats), this is a remarkable rise. It also reflects the growing disaffection with the Liberals seen across the rest of the country. At the same time, it may not be enough to budge rural Liberals from their seats as Labor preferences will probably come to the rescue of some beleaguered Liberals.
At the 2022 election, with one exception where there was significant support for an independent candidate, Labor won at least 20% of the primary vote in SA’s Liberal-held rural seats. With Labor preferencing the Liberals ahead of One Nation, to win a seat One Nation will need to either secure a substantial first preference vote or draw sufficient preferences from the minor parties and independent candidates. It could happen – but as long as the Liberals can stay ahead of Labor in the count, it is unlikely. If it does happen it will only be because the Liberal primary vote has collapsed, and in some seats the election of a high-profile independent is every bit as likely as a One Nation win.
On the other hand, in the state’s upper house, where members are elected under a proportional election system, all the signs are that One Nation will win two, possibly three seats. So, party defections aside, they seem sure to have some presence in the SA parliament for the immediate future.
So what might be the lessons for the rest of Australia? If support for One Nation on March 21 matches or exceeds their standing in the opinion polls, we will know the threat to the coalition is real – at least in the short term.
If One Nation fails to break through in SA, it will be largely a result of the particular circumstances of continuing high levels of support for the premier and the Labor Party.
But, with the exception of Western Australia, this combination of conditions is unlikely to be found across the rest of Australia. After the SA election, all eyes will turn to the byelection in the federal seat of Farrer, which is likely to tell us more about the changing shape of party politics in Australia.
