Category: Evening Report

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed federal parliament on Thursday his well-crafted speech had one gaping hole. It did not mention the huge issue dominating world attention – the United States-Israeli strikes on Iran and the subsequent ever-widening conflict that has engulfed the region.

Both Carney and Anthony Albanese were quick to back the action at the weekend. But their endorsements would have been given reluctantly. Despite Australia and Canada being close American allies and members, with the US, of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement, neither leader was accorded any prior notice of the attack.

Elaborating after his initial reaction, Carney said: “we took a position because we view the nuclear threat and the export of terrorism of Iran over decades as one of the gravest threats to international peace and security. In that limited sense we supported that aspect. That is not a blank cheque. That is not us participating.”

Albanese has been equally anxious to keep a distance while providing backing. He has refused, for example, to be drawn into the debate about the strikes seeming to flout international law.

Rewind to 2003 and the Iraq war. Labor was in opposition and came out strongly against the action. Albanese said at the time: “we do need regime change in some places of the world – it would certainly be good thing in Iraq – but it should be brought about peacefully”.

We might ask: if Labor were in opposition now, would it be against the American-Israeli action? Quite possibly.

In power, however, Albanese would have judged his government had no viable choice but to back Donald Trump’s action.

Critics argue that, given the nature of the Trump administration, Australia should unwind its alliance with the US. The Albanese government rejects that view as not in Australia’s long term interests – even if it were practical, given the now-advanced integration of our defence forces, to say nothing of AUKUS.

When Albanese finally secured a meeting with the US President last year, he established what seemed a reasonable rapport.

(Of course this can disappear in an instant, as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer found this week. When Starmer didn’t cooperate with Trump’s wishes in the Middle East conflict Trump turned nasty, saying, “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with”.)

In deciding his government’s stand on the US-Israeli action, Albanese would have been mindful of not harming the relationship he has established. An angry Trump could lash out – as he did against Spain. Trump declared “we’re going to cut off all trade with Spain” after that country said it would not allow the US to use jointly-run air bases in Spain for the Iran operation.

Albanese knew quiescent caucus members would suck up any doubts they had about backing the war. Politically, the main issue the government has had to cope with is some criticism of whether it has been doing enough to help stranded Australians get home.

As petrol prices started to rise – a hot button for the average person – Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who received some good news this week with a small uptick in Australia’s growth, quickly turned his attention to the economic implications of the conflict, amid work on the May 12 budget.

“The full consequences of this conflict are uncertain, but they’re likely to be substantial,” Chalmers said. “We already had challenges in our economy with inflation and global economic uncertainty, and what we’re seeing in the Middle East will make those challenges harder rather than easier, and this will be a key focus of the budget.”

Independent economist Chris Richardson’s judgement is that the conflict will be “a small economic negative and a smaller budget positive”.

“Conflict in the Middle East leads to spikes in both uncertainty and energy prices,” Richardson said in a social media post.

“Both of those will lower world growth, though perhaps not much.

“They’ll also drag on the Australian economy, though we do get a couple of offsets. The weaker world will weigh on industrial commodity prices, such as iron ore. But there are boosts underway to both energy commodities such as gas (where we are big producers) and fear commodities such as gold (ditto).

”[In net terms] that leaves the Australian economy feeling some pain (growth and jobs both a tad weaker), while still adding to overall national income (income from gas and gold both higher). The Australian economy is running faster than it can sustain right now, so a mild growth negative isn’t much of a problem.“

The new war has predictably worsened the fraying of social cohesion we’ve seen since 2023.

There was celebration among the local Iranian community, who welcomed the US-Israel strikes and fervently hope the conflict will lead to regime change.

But some mosques held or planned memorials for Iran’s slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. New South Wales premier Chris Minns strongly condemned them. That invited an extraordinary blast from the Liberal mayor of Liverpool Ned Mannoun who accused Minns of having a “fetish with attacking the Islamic community”.

There were calls for funding to be halted to Muslim bodies involved in the memorials. A $670,000 grant to a Melbourne organisation was cancelled.

Weeks before, Minns had cancelled the premier’s Iftar dinner. The state government said this was after consultation with Muslim community leaders. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils this week said the decision “reflects the growing breakdown in the relationship between the Minns Government and the Muslim community” in the state.

“The reality is that the event would likely have faced a significant boycott from community leaders and organisations, which speaks volumes about the depth of frustration within the community,” the federation said.

Minns, questioned about police last month moving on praying Muslims, this week admitted to a “strained” relationship with the Muslim community.

“We want to rebuild the relationship, not just with me personally or the government or the Labor party, but with the civic institutions […] I don’t want to be in a situation where I’m antagonising the Muslim community, particularly during Ramadan.”

The sentiment is right, but overseas and local events have become wrecking balls for social harmony, and there are no obvious answers for repairing the damage.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: would Labor be supporting this war if it were in opposition? – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-would-labor-be-supporting-this-war-if-it-were-in-opposition-277242

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/grattan-on-friday-would-labor-be-supporting-this-war-if-it-were-in-opposition-277242/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

South Australians are heading to the ballot box on March 21. If polls are correct, Peter Malinauskas’s Labor government will win in a landslide.

Polling also indicates One Nation has pulled ahead of the Liberal Party in the state, making it the first test of whether One Nation’s recent surge in national polls can translate into votes – and seats.

To talk about how the campaign is going so far and to explain some distinct features of the South Australian system, we speak to four locals:

• Flinders University’s Associate Professor of Politics and Public Policy, Rob Manwaring
• former federal minister and incoming national Labor president, Kate Ellis
• Opposition Leader Ashton Hurn
• former Liberal Senator turned One Nation’s lead upper house candidate, Cory Bernardi.

A ‘once-in-a-generation premier’: Manwaring

Flinders University’s Rob Manwaring says Labor is not taking the election win for granted and was still “trying to pinch strategic moments”, like poaching the MotoGP from Victoria. Manwaring says the premier’s personal popularity has been a key to Labor’s success.

I just wouldn’t underestimate just the charisma and the political leadership of Peter Malinauskas. He has been described by others as a sort of once-in-a-generation style politician.

[…] Largely he’s been sort of quite untouchable [… although] the debacle over, for example, Adelaide Writers Week and the disinvitation to a particular writer and the fallout from that, that actually proved perhaps there was some overreach by the premier […] But politically, there’s no damage.

As for One Nation, Manwaring predicts the party could win one or two seats in the lower house and “at least two spots” in the upper house, based on current polling. But he says seats alone are not the only way to measure One Nation’s success at this election.

I think that One Nation nationally will be looking at South Australia as a test bed to say they are riding high nationally […] I think they will be looking at the South Australian campaign to see what’s working and what’s not. And it’s a striking development too, because One Nation has had so little […] history in South Australia.

Voters ‘flirting’ with One Nation should think again: Hurn

Ashton Hurn, who took over as Liberal leader with only around 100 days before the election, says she and her team “are working to ensure that everyone knows what we stand for”.

You just have to be focused on speaking with as many people as you possibly can. Something that I’m always mindful of is Winston Churchill. He said that a politician complaining about the media is like a sailor complaining about the sea, or thereabouts. And so I just try and focus on what I can control and that’s my movements on the ground, getting to businesses, getting to every corner of the state as much as I possibly can.

The opposition leader says that while “the polls are pointing in a certain direction […] it’s not over until it’s over”.

I’m focused on […] getting the important things right, like affordability in SA, the healthcare system, which, of course, was such a dominant issue at the last election that the premier went to the election urging people to vote like their life depends on it and now he barely mentions the ramping word. So just getting back to the basics, I feel that’s what people are wanting.

As for the challenge from the Liberals’ right flank from One Nation, Hurn says:

We’re dealing with One Nation in the same way that we would deal with all minor parties. And I say that not because I’m ignorant to what I see in the polls. But it’s one thing to be sending a message to the major parties. It’s another thing to vote for minor parties come election day.

So we’re really clear about what we stand for. We’re the only party that is interested in defeating the ALP. And I just encourage anyone who’s flirting with the idea of voting One Nation to give the Liberals another look.

Aiming for ‘a couple’ of upper house seats: Bernardi

Cory Bernardi, One Nation’s lead upper house candidate, says he and his team are “running to give a voice to a great many South Australians who think the major parties have left them behind”.

They think the Liberal and Labor parties are basically the same, they care more about themselves than they care about outcomes for the electorate, and we’re giving them a strong voice. But we’ve also got a solid policy backing behind us. We know what we want to do, we know what we want to influence.

Bernardi says One Nation’s priorities include opposing “all race-based legislation”, including repealing South Australia’s Voice to Parliament; abandoning “net zero”; and lowering the cost of living, such as by removing state government stamp duty from general insurance contracts.

Bernardi also defends recent comments One Nation leader Pauline Hanson made about no “good” Muslims. He says “I’m 100% supportive about her comments in respect to the cultural integration and immigration mix in this country”.

Bernardi says while “predictions are fraught with error”, he won’t be surprised if a likely Labor government can get their legislation through the next parliament. But he says “I’d like to think we might be able to get a couple [of seats] in the upper house”.

With so many in the race, expect complicated results: Ellis

Incoming national Labor president Kate Ellis says “a huge split in the right and a number of independents and a fracturing of the vote […] makes this a little more unpredictable than other elections”.

Asked about the SA premier’s pro-immigration stance, Ellis says Malinauskas hasn’t been “kowtowing to One Nation”, despite the party’s surging support in the polls.

He’s actually leading an intelligent conversation about the fact that we need immigration, our economy needs immigration. But also everyday families need immigration across a whole range of employment areas, where otherwise we just wouldn’t find the workers.

[…] The rise of One Nation here is really interesting, in that I’m seeing it in metropolitan areas where I see people that were once locked-in Liberal voters wearing One Nation t-shirts and caps when they’re at the local farmers market. Like it’s quite noticeable and quite new and different.

I think the thing we don’t know is we’ve seen the polls, but we also know that it’s going to be really complex here in terms of results. We have a huge number of candidates, I think it’s a record high, the number of candidates running in seats across the state. But we also have a number of independents and some quite strong independents. So we know that disillusioned voters may be looking elsewhere. But I don’t know where those votes are going to land in the end.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: South Australian election special – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-south-australian-election-special-277502

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/politics-with-michelle-grattan-south-australian-election-special-277502/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The byelection for the regional New South Wales seat of Farrer, vacated by former opposition leader Sussan Ley, will be held on May 9.

the date was announced by the Speaker of the House of Representatives on Thursday.

The main contenders for the seat with be the Liberal Party, the Nationals, One Nation and at least one high-profile independent, Michelle Milthorpe. The Labor party is not running.

The byelection, just days before the May 12 budget, is being regarded as a major test for new opposition leader Angus Taylor.

Importantly, it will also indicate whether the surge for One Nation in the opinion polls translates to votes. One Nation will select it’s candidate this weekend, from a shortlist of three.

The Liberal and National parties are yet to select candidates but Milthorpe who polled 20% at the last election, is already campaigning.

The Liberals will hold a rank-and-file pre-selection in about a week. The Nationals’ candidate will be chosen on Sunday.

The key dates are:

• Issue of writ Wednesday April 1
• close of rolls Wednesday April 8
• close of nominations Monday April 13
• declaration of nominations Tuesday April 14
• date of polling Saturday May 9
• return of writ on or before Friday July 10

– ref. Farrer byelection will be on May 9 – https://theconversation.com/farrer-byelection-will-be-on-may-9-277621

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/farrer-byelection-will-be-on-may-9-277621/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Transport Technology and Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology

Petrol prices began rising even before the conflict in Iran drove oil prices higher. Australia imports around 80% of its fuel, which means prices can spike when geopolitical shocks ripple through supply chains.

As motorists face long queues in Australian cities, some will wonder whether it’s time to join the increasing numbers going electric to prevent hip-pocket pain.

Avoiding the weekly petrol fill-up is appealing. But the sticking point for many motorists has long been the higher upfront cost of an EV. As competition has increased, EV prices have fallen. Even so, most EVs still cost several thousand dollars more than a comparable conventional car.

Over time, cheaper running costs and less maintenance mean EV owners should recoup some of this money. But how long does it take? To answer this, I helped develop a public EV payback calculator, comparing five popular EVs with closely matched hybrid cars in the Australian market. Here, you can estimate how long it will take to pay back the price difference between EV and a conventional car.

It turns out the biggest factor is how you charge your EV. For drivers who rely on pricier public fast chargers, payback will take much longer. But drivers who charge mostly at home can see payback in a few years.

What makes EVs cheaper to run?

Battery electric vehicles are generally cheaper to run for three main reasons.

1. Electricity is typically cheaper than petrol or diesel per kilometre driven – especially when charging at home using off-peak grid power or rooftop solar. EVs convert energy to motion far more efficiently than internal combustion engines, so less energy is wasted as heat.

2. Maintenance costs are usually lower. EVs have far fewer moving parts, no oil changes, and less wear on brake pads, given regenerative braking does more work to slow the car – and recharges the battery. Over time, this translates into lower servicing bills. Early fears about battery degradation are vanishing, as batteries generally last longer than the lifespan of the car and last longer in the real world than during testing.

3. Running costs are more predictable. Petrol prices change daily, while electricity prices usually change more slowly. EV drivers able to charge at home usually choose to charge cheaply at off-peak times or off home solar.

These advantages are real. But they don’t mean EVs are cheaper for everyone in every situation.

How does the calculator work?

At present, the MG4 Excite electric hatch retails at roughly A$42,000 drive-away, while a Toyota Corolla hybrid costs about $40,000.

The question is how fast the EV’s lower running costs recover this gap (in this case, $1,900).

My EV payback calculator models three annual distances: 10,000km (light use), 15,000km (average) and 20,000km (heavy). It also tests three patterns of charging: mostly home charging, a mix of home and public charging, and mostly public fast charging.

The calculator models five vehicle pairs, reflecting the choice many Australians are weighing up: battery EV or hybrid combustion engine vehicle in the same size class and price bracket. This is a conservative choice, because hybrids tend to have lower running costs than traditional cars.

For each pair, the calculator takes the price difference and annual running costs, and then calculates how long it would take for the lower energy and servicing costs of the battery EV to recover the higher purchase price.

These are not predictions or financial advice. They are indicative comparisons using conservative, transparent assumptions.

What does this look like?

The payback time shows how long it takes an EV to recover its higher upfront price under different driving and charging patterns.

Shorter payback times mean savings accumulate quickly, while longer periods indicate the extra upfront cost lasts a long time or is never recovered.

Payback time is useful, but it helps to see what it means in annual savings. Here, the big takeaway is charging behaviour matters as much as the car itself. Charging mostly at home delivers consistent savings, while relying heavily on public fast charging shrinks or even erases the advantage.

Home charging at off-peak times might cost 20 cents a kilowatt-hour, while the same charge at an ultrafast public charger might cost 60c/kWH. For a car with a 60kWH battery, that means a charge could cost A$12 at home or $36 at the public charger.

This means EV affordability is partly a question of charging access and electricity prices, not just sticker price. The economics are shaped less by the badge on the bonnet than by the charging pattern.

Payback time isn’t the only consideration. Many buyers also consider safety features, performance, convenience and likely resale value. But this shows whether an EV is cheaper to run and whether it repays its premium quickly are not the same question.

Home charging makes the biggest difference

When charged mostly at home, all five EVs save money on running costs when driven the typical 15,000km a year. In some cases, savings are large enough that payback arrives well within the typical ownership period of around ten years.

The clearest EV examples are the MG4 Excite and BYD Atto 3. These two battery EVs have moderate upfront premiums, and energy costs are meaningfully lower than hybrid equivalents. Under baseline assumptions, the MG4 can pay back in 3–5 years and the Atto 3 in 5–8 years. Payback is faster for higher-mileage drivers. This shows a lower upfront premium matters as much as efficiency.

Reliance on fast chargers can wipe out savings

Once charging shifts towards more expensive public fast chargers, the running-cost advantage narrows and payback takes longer. This is particularly visible when EVs are compared against efficient hybrids, which already have lower fuel costs.

That does not mean EVs are “bad”. It means more expensive public charging can eat up much of the running-cost advantage, especially when petrol prices are low. For prospective EV drivers without access to home charging, it’s worth checking the cost of nearby public chargers.

What does this mean for you?

My calculator shows EVs save most money and recoup their premium fastest when charging happens mostly at home, especially for people who drive more. But when motorists rely heavily on public fast charging, payback is less certain.

As Australian drivers consider going electric to save money – and end reliance on imported fuels – the key is not to focus only on the sticker price. It’s more useful to think through where you will charge your EV most of the time and estimate the costs and savings from doing so.

– ref. Petrol prices too high? Here’s how quickly an EV could save you money – https://theconversation.com/petrol-prices-too-high-heres-how-quickly-an-ev-could-save-you-money-272165

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/petrol-prices-too-high-heres-how-quickly-an-ev-could-save-you-money-272165/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania

A US submarine sank the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena off the southern coast of Sri Lanka on Wednesday, killing 87 people.

The submarine struck the ship with a torpedo, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, resulting in “quiet death”.

The event marks the first time a US submarine has launched a torpedo in combat or engaged and destroyed a ship since the second world war.

Why is this old weapon reappearing now? And for that matter, what are torpedoes? Can ships defend against them, or even see them coming?

What are torpedoes, and how do they work?

Torpedoes have changed little over the years in terms of their concept and their operation. Simply put, a torpedo is effectively a small, unmanned submersible – a kind of hybrid of a mini-submarine and a missile, designed to attack both submarines and surface ships.

However, they have been modernised to an extent. Torpedoes today are generally “dual purpose”, designed to attack and destroy both ships and submarines. Single-purpose torpedoes are less commonly seen, but given their specialised nature are often more lethal.

Torpedoes are initially connected to the launching submarine by a wire or fibre-optic cable transmitting targeting data. These wires are designed to be “cut” as the torpedo gets close to its target, with the torpedo then switching on its own active sonar to steer the rest of the way.

Exactly how far torpedoes can be fired is highly classified information, but it may be tens of kilometres. It depends partly on how the torpedo is propelled – either with an electric motor (more common) or a fuel-powered one.

Electric motors are generally preferable, given their ability to accelerate instantly and achieve higher speeds. However, the range is generally considered to be lower than fuel-propelled torpedoes.

Why torpedoes are still in use today

Torpedoes are quite old and in many ways quite simple compared with more modern weaponry. However, they remain the primary armament of attack submarines.

As the name suggests, attack subs are designed to hunt and destroy other submarines, surface combatants (warships) and, if necessary, commercial vessels.

Other types of submarines such as ballistic missile submarines (designed for retaliatory nuclear strikes) and guided missile submarines (designed to fire guided missiles) also generally carry torpedoes for self-defence.

Submarines are by their nature stealthy. They are designed to sneak in close to their target undetected, and launch surprise attacks while remaining submerged.

To fire an air missile, a submarine needs to surface and risk detection. So torpedoes, which can be fired underwater, remain the perfect offensive weapon for submarines.

Torpedoes can also be delivered by aircraft, usually to strike at submarines where airborne missiles can’t reach. Aircraft typically use missiles to strike surface ships, as an aircraft would need to make a risky close approach to get within torpedo range.

How do warships detect and protect themselves from torpedo attack?

Beneath the sea, visibility is low and the radio waves used for radar don’t travel far. The primary tool for detecting submerged objects is sonar.

Sonar systems use sound, which travels faster and further through water than air.

There are two kinds of sonar: passive and active. Passive sonar listens quietly for engine noise, or transient sounds such as a torpedo tube being opened.

Active sonar generates a loud “ping” or series of pings and then listens for echoes. The initial pulses of noise reflects off objects to effectively paint an image, in a process known as echolocation.

The use of active sonar is generally avoided unless absolutely necessary, as it gives away the sonar user’s location. It can also be detected further away than it can itself detect objects such as submarines.

Submarine warfare plays out as a game of cat and mouse. The submarine attempts to sneakily move in close to its target undetected using passive sonar, and attack up close where the target has less chance of evading.

In turn, warships are constantly attempting to listen with passive sonar to avoid sneak attacks. If suspicious of close submarine contact, they will turn to active sonar to more accurately locate and attack first.

Active defences

If they know a torpedo is coming their way, surface ships and submarines have a few options up their sleeves for defence.

The first option is often to immediately accelerate and undertake radical changes of direction. The idea here is to make the torpedo manoeuvre in such a way as to break its guidance wires, or throw off its sonar.

If the guidance wires are cut prematurely, the torpedo’s active sonar may not be able to accurately detect the target (and could even possibly target the submarine that launched it if it were to manoeuvre in such a way as to accidentally cross the torpedo’s path).

Failing this, both warships and submarines are equipped with decoy noise makers, either towed or standalone. These generate bubbles and noise to try and get the torpedo to attack them instead of the target vessel.

As a last resort, warships are generally “compartmentalised” so damaged sections can be sealed off, meaning the vessel can still float even if a large amount of damage occurs.

An old weapon but hard to beat

Given the stealthy nature of submarines, in reality it is unlikely that they will be detected. It is also unlikely a torpedo will be detected until the final stage when it switches to active sonar to reach its target.

As a result, ships and submarines are likely to be first aware they are under attack when the torpedo detonates.

While torpedoes are still an old technology, there is still little in the way of active defences against them. This is quite different to the situation in the air, for example, where missile interceptors can often detonate an incoming missile in flight.

For the foreseeable future, torpedoes will still be the main weapon for submarine and anti-submarine warfare.

– ref. The US just torpedoed an Iranian ship. Here’s why this old tech is hard to defend against – https://theconversation.com/the-us-just-torpedoed-an-iranian-ship-heres-why-this-old-tech-is-hard-to-defend-against-277615

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/the-us-just-torpedoed-an-iranian-ship-heres-why-this-old-tech-is-hard-to-defend-against-277615/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Strating, Director, La Trobe Centre for Global Security, and Professor of International Relations, La Trobe University

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney made an impassioned pitch in the Australian parliament for middle powers like Canada and Australia to build new coalitions in the “ruptured” global order that are less reliant on the United States.

In a post-rupture world, the nations that are trusted and can work together will be quicker to the punch, more effective in their responses, more proactive in shaping outcomes, and ultimately more secure and prosperous.

The question for middle powers like us is whether we preserve existing rules, write new rules to determine our security and prosperity, or let the great powers increasingly dictate outcomes.

Carney made a compelling case. So, how exactly would new coalitions of middle powers work, and which countries could Australia work with more closely?

---

The world order has “ruptured”, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has warned – so it’s time for countries like Australia and New Zealand to forge a new, less US-reliant future. In this six-part series, we’ve asked top experts to explain what that future could look like – and the challenges that lie ahead.

---

Why middle powers need to work together

This enthusiasm for middle power coalitions poses some uncomfortable questions for Australia, given it requires a re-examination of our most important ally, the United States.

In defence terms, Australia remains reliant on Washington’s presence and military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region. Much of our own military hardware simply cannot function without the US.

Stepping away from the US alliance completely is not an option. This is why Canberra has expressed support for recent US and Israeli strikes in Tehran, while not participating in them.

Yet, Canberra can – and should – build up other relationships to hedge against dependence on an increasingly unreliable US. We can do this in areas such as trade, conflict prevention and international law.

And with great powers increasingly willing to breach international law, middle powers have a great responsibility. By working together to safeguard international institutions, they can keep the global order functioning and try to restrain the behaviours of great powers when need be.

What would middle power alliances look like?

We need to be careful not to romanticise “middle powers”. The term often refers to countries that are not great powers, but can still exert influence and agency on the global stage through diplomacy or economic and military strength. This can include countries whose values or interests don’t align with Australia’s, such as Iran.

With that in mind, Australia should engage with other middle and smaller powers with a clear understanding of shared priorities:

• avoiding coercion by great powers

• shaping the architecture of international cooperation

• holding great powers to account as “responsible stakeholders” of the international order.

So, how would these arrangements work, practically speaking?

In his speech in Canberra, Carney advocated for a “dense web of connections” with other middle powers. He called it “variable geometry”, or creating different coalitions for different issues, based on common values and interests.

Variable geometry is not a retreat from multilateralism. It is its evolution.

Bilateral ties

Let’s start by looking at Australia’s ties with individual countries.

Of course, Australia has a strong alliance with New Zealand.

Beyond this, Canberra has signed a number of “comprehensive strategic partnerships” in recent years with countries in the region, including the ASEAN bloc of Southeast Asian countries, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, South Korea, and most recently, Vietnam.

These agreements can deepen cooperation in a range of areas of mutual concern, including security.

Australia also signed a new defence agreement with Japan in 2023 that allows for each country’s forces to operate in the other. This is a big deal – it was Japan’s first defence treaty with an international partner since 1960.

More recently, Australia has agreed to bilateral defence agreements with Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Timor-Leste. These pacts appear focused on “strategic denial” – preventing potential adversaries from achieving a foothold in our immediate region.

These bilateral agreements are regionally focused. A key question for Australia is whether it can also cooperate with countries like Canada, the UK, Germany and France in the Indo-Pacific region. This relies in part on their appetite to engage more here.

As Carney mentioned in Canberra, one potential area of cooperation is the Critical Minerals Production Alliance – an initiative launched by Canada to expand critical minerals production and processing capacity and diversify supply chains.

‘Lattice-work’ arrangements

Australia also has small coalitions in the region that allow for more flexible models of security cooperation.

Coalitions, rather than alliances with firm defence commitments, are more likely to flourish in a region as geo-strategically, economically and politically complex as the Indo-Pacific.

Australia’s key “minilateral” partnerships include:

• the Quad (Australia, US, Japan, India) and emerging “Squad” (Australia, Japan, Philippines, US)

• AUKUS (Australia, UK, US)

• the Trilateral Security Dialogue (Australia, Japan, US)

• Five Eyes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, US).

These all centre on US participation for a reason. Strategic minilateralism has long been Canberra’s way of anchoring Washington to the Indo-Pacific to provide a counterweight to China’s regional influence.

It is important to note that many middle powers hedging their bets by not aligning with either the US or China – such as Indonesia – still have strategies that rely on the US not withdrawing from the region.

The challenge now is how to cultivate new small-group arrangements for an uncertain future. Two new groupings that make a lot of sense are:

• Japan, South Korea and Australia These three US allies have been growing closer in recent years. Now, it makes even more sense for them to collaborate in ways that may not involve the US, including in economic security, maritime security and supporting international rules.

• Australia, Japan and the Philippines Like Japan, Australia is increasing its defence cooperation with the Philippines, another US ally. The Philippines is at the coalface of a number of security challenges involving China.

Larger alliances

Australia can also deepen relationships with larger groupings in areas other than security.

In fact, there’s already a successful group of middle and small powers in the region that doesn’t include either the US or China: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (or CPTPP).

This is a free-trade agreement originally for Pacific Rim countries, comprising Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. (Trump pulled the US out in 2017.)

The United Kingdom became the first non-Pacific nation to join in 2024; others like Uruguay, Costa Rica, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia and the Philippines are interested in joining next.

The CPTPP has been successful in eliminating most tariffs among member countries, while also providing a platform for economic cooperation more broadly.

This agreement could expand even further to include the European Union, South Korea, Norway and Switzerland. Carney wants to “broker a bridge” between the EU and the CPTPP to “create a trading bloc of 1.5 billion people, grounded in common standards and shared values”.

The premature death of the global order

We need to avoid simplistic narratives about the state of the international order. Multilateralism isn’t dead. Global institutions still matter.

And people risk misunderstanding Carney’s call if they use it to suggest we need to funnel all of our efforts and resources into military deterrence alone. Middle and small powers play important roles in preserving international norms and creating new ones. This is more pressing in the current security environment.

And though the US is less interested in multilateralism at the moment, there is still a place – and a need – to encourage the great powers to cooperate on a wide range of issues, from trade to climate change to AI governance.

– ref. In a ‘ruptured’ world order, here’s how Australia can forge new middle-power partnerships – https://theconversation.com/in-a-ruptured-world-order-heres-how-australia-can-forge-new-middle-power-partnerships-276367

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/in-a-ruptured-world-order-heres-how-australia-can-forge-new-middle-power-partnerships-276367/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Bray, Senior Lecturer in Science Communication, The University of Western Australia

Last month, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court determined that plant-based drink maker Oatly could not trademark the phrase “Post Milk Generation” – effectively banning the use of the word “milk” on their cartons.

The decision marked the end of a long-running legal battle between the Swedish drink maker and Britain’s dairy industry. Dairy UK, representing the country’s dairy farmers, objected to Oatly trademarking the “post milk” phrase on the basis that the use of the term “milk” was deceptive.

The UK Supreme Court upheld Dairy UK’s case, citing UK regulations that limit “milk” to only being used to describe food derived from “mammalian secretions”. In the UK and European Union, only cow’s milk can be called “milk”.

But what are the rules for plant-based drinks in Australia and New Zealand? And are consumers here confused by the word “milk” on everything from soy to almond and oat drink cartons?

What are other countries’ rules on ‘milk’ labelling?

The UK regulations referred to in the Oatly case were actually based on European Union rules, adopted by the UK before Brexit.

The EU regulations have been in place for more than a decade. The words “milk”, as well as other dairy words such as “cheese”, “butter”, and “cream”, are all banned from being used to describe plant-based products sold in the EU.

Under the EU rules, only cow’s milk can be called just “milk”. Any other species of mammal milk has to be identified – such as “sheep’s milk” or “goat’s milk”.

In contrast, in the United States some plant-based drinks are allowed to be labelled as “soy milk” or “almond milk” as those names have been established by common usage.

But there is a long-running bipartisan campaign to ban the word “milk” being used for anything other than dairy there, too.

Critics argue the US Food and Drug Administration has failed to enforce its own detailed standards, defining milk as “the lacteal secretion […] obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows”.

US Democrat Senator Tammy Baldwin, who’s led a nearly decade-long campaign, says:

calling non-dairy imitation products “milk” or “yogurt” that do not contain dairy and are instead from a plant, nut, or grain, hurts dairy farmers […] and causes consumer confusion about the nutritional value of dairy versus imitation products.

What’s allowed in Australia and NZ?

Demand for plant-based drinks has been growing in both Australia and New Zealand.

Australia and New Zealand have a shared food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). In 2016, the regulator updated the trans-Tasman Food Code to allow plant-based foods and drinks to use terms like milk.

Using soy milk as an example, the regulations say:

The context within which foods such as soy milk or soy ice cream are sold is indicated by use of the name soy; indicating that the product is not a dairy product to which a dairy standard applies.

That’s why you’ll see “almond milk” in Australia and New Zealand sold in supermarkets. Those same products have to be sold as almond “drink” in the EU and UK.

However, that decision has been under review again in recent years.

Consumer research on plant milks

One of the main concerns raised by the dairy industry is that using “milk” for plant-based drinks can mislead consumers. As Australian Dairy Farmers’ President Ben Bennett said last week:

Words matter. When consumers pick up a product labelled ‘milk’, it should come from a cow – not a marketing department.

Responding to those longstanding concerns, the food regulator undertook several studies, including a 2025 consumer research report, involving nearly 3,000 Australians aged 18 to 90 years.

That report found those consumers were generally able to quickly and confidently identify plant-based drinks from their dairy counterparts. It also showed Australians were largely aware of the nutritional value difference between dairy milk and plant-based products.

So ‘oat milk’ is here to stay

On January 30 this year – less than a fortnight before the UK court ruling – Australia’s agriculture minister Julie Collins announced the government would work with the Alternative Proteins Council to “strengthen existing voluntary labelling guidelines” into a new industry code of practice.

Those existing guidelines give examples of how plant-based drinks can be labelled in Australia and New Zealand, such as “oat milk” or “almond milk ice cream”.

So if you’re ever out shopping the UK or Europe, look out for oat “drinks” on the supermarket shelves. But in Australia and New Zealand, expect to see those cartons continuing to say oat milk.

– ref. How Australia and NZ rules on plant milks differ from overseas, where cows make the only ‘milk’ – https://theconversation.com/how-australia-and-nz-rules-on-plant-milks-differ-from-overseas-where-cows-make-the-only-milk-275923

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/how-australia-and-nz-rules-on-plant-milks-differ-from-overseas-where-cows-make-the-only-milk-275923/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Mark Carney has nominated key areas of cooperation between Canada and Australia as part of middle powers building a new international order.

Addressing the federal parliament, with both houses sitting together, Carney once again pressed his now familiar argument for middle power activism as the old world order disintegrated amid rising great power rivalry.

“The question for middle powers like us is whether we establish the conventions and write the new rules that will determine our security and prosperity or let the hegemons increasingly dictate outcomes?”

Carney said that in the new global environment “the ability to form effective coalitions is becoming a central strategic capability.

“Great powers can compel. But compulsion comes with costs – both reputational and financial. Middle powers must convene to matter, but not everyone can.

“In a post-rupture world, the nations that are trusted and can work together will be quicker to the punch, more effective in their responses, more proactive in shaping outcomes, and ultimately more secure and prosperous.

“Middle powers like Australia and Canada hold this rare convening power. Because others know we mean what we say and we will match our values with our actions. Canada and Australia have earned this trust throughout our history. The question now is what we do with it.”

Carney said that because governments and businesses had given priority to efficiency over resilience, “we have developed supply chains and trading relationships that mean middle powers depend on great powers, and sometimes even individual corporations, for essential elements of their sovereignty”.

Integration was weaponised, creating fundamental vulnerabilities.

Canada was responding by building sovereign capabilities in critical sectors “by convening coalitions with trusted reliable partners like Australia, to ensure that integration is never again a source of our subordination”.

The five areas Carney named for particular cooperation with Australia were critical minerals, defence, artificial intelligence, trade and capital.

On critical minerals, he said: “In the old world and even to a degree today, the temptation has been to see ourselves as competitors. In this new world, we should be strategic collaborators. To boost investments, accelerate technical cooperation, enhance supply chain resilience, expand our domestic processing abilities, while boosting our strategic autonomy”.

Before his speech the two countries on Thursday signed a series of new agreements on critical minerals.

Carney pointed to existing cooperation in defence, for example both countries “are building up our capabilities, so the next generation of drones, surveillance aircraft, cyber, and AI are created in Adelaide and Alberta”.

Carney said Canada knew it must work with other middle powers to build its AI capabilities “so we are not caught between hyper-scalers and hegemons.

“Which is why Canada is collaborating with like-minded nations in Europe, and why we are partnering with Australia and India in a trilateral AI initiative to bolster our cooperation, and sovereign capacity.”

He said on trade Canada and Australia were “championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans Pacific Partnership and the European Union”.

On capital Carney said: “as we are underinvested in each other’s economies, it is pressing to modernise our bilateral tax and investment treaty to make it easier to invest and grow good jobs in both of our countries. I welcome today’s agreement to do just that”.

Carney said: “These new connections between Australia and Canada are greater than the sum of their parts. This is alliance reaffirmed, a friendship strengthened, and a partnership to build greater prosperity and security in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.”

– ref. Mark Carney highlights areas of Australian-Canadian cooperation as middle powers – https://theconversation.com/mark-carney-highlights-areas-of-australian-canadian-cooperation-as-middle-powers-277240

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/mark-carney-highlights-areas-of-australian-canadian-cooperation-as-middle-powers-277240/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trevor Mazzucchelli, Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology, Curtin University

The ceramic bowl with an uneven glaze. The teacup mended with gold lacquer.

The images are calming and attractive.

They are said to reflect wabi-sabi – a Japanese aesthetic often summarised in the West as valuing imperfection, impermanence and incompleteness.

And wabi-sabi is having a moment on social media. It’s linked to everything from interior design to makeup trends and happiness.

So can wabi-sabi improve your wellbeing? Here’s what the psychological evidence says.

What is wabi-sabi?

At its core, wabi-sabi, as it is commonly understood in the West, rests on three simple ideas: things are flawed, things change, and things are never fully finished.

There isn’t much scientific research on wabi-sabi itself. You won’t find clinical trials testing the effects of “becoming wabi-sabi”.

But the ideas behind wabi-sabi reflect several well-established principles in psychology – responding kindly to imperfection, accepting change, and loosening rigid perfectionism.

---

Read more: What is the Japanese ‘wabi-sabi’ aesthetic actually about? ‘Miserable tea’ and loneliness, for starters

---

Imperfection and self-compassion

Wabi-sabi begins with imperfection. Instead of disguising cracks, it incorporates them. The flaw becomes part of the object’s character, not proof it is worthless.

In psychological terms, this resembles self-compassion – responding to your own mistakes or shortcomings with warmth and care, rather than harsh self-criticism.

Self-compassion does not pretend errors do not exist. It changes how we relate to them.

Research consistently shows people who are more self-compassionate report lower anxiety and depression and greater wellbeing.

When interventions help people develop this skill, their mental health often improves.

Like the repaired bowl, the person is not defined by the crack. The crack is acknowledged and becomes part of their story.

Impermanence and acceptance

Wabi-sabi also reminds us nothing lasts. Everything changes.

Some of our distress comes not only from change itself, but from insisting things should not change. We want relationships to stay the same. We want our bodies not to age. We want plans to unfold exactly as expected.

When reality shifts and we resist it, the struggle intensifies.

In psychology, acceptance means allowing thoughts, emotions and changes to occur without constantly trying to push them away or control them.

Modern therapies, such as “acceptance and commitment therapy”, teach this skill because resisting unavoidable experiences often intensifies distress.

Mindfulness – paying attention to what is happening right now without immediately judging or trying to fix it – is one way people practise acceptance.

Seen this way, wabi-sabi’s focus on impermanence is not passive resignation. It reflects a practical insight. When change is unavoidable, reducing the fight against it can reduce suffering.

Incompleteness and perfectionism

The third idea in wabi-sabi is incompleteness. Nothing is ever fully finished.

This runs counter to a form of perfectionism psychologists call clinical perfectionism. This is not simply wanting to do well. It occurs when people base their self-worth on meeting extremely high standards and respond to falling short with harsh self-criticism.

Research links this form of perfectionism with anxiety and depression.

Self-compassion may offer a similar shift in perspective. When people respond to setbacks with understanding rather than harsh self-criticism, the psychological cost of imperfection is reduced.

Wabi-sabi does not reject effort or aspiration. It questions the belief that you must be flawless before you are acceptable.

Imperfection and meaning

I recently wrote that meaning does not emerge from perfectly executed life plans. It grows from repeated, worthwhile action, often messy, unfinished and imperfect. Wabi-sabi echoes this.

If we wait for flawless conditions before acting, we may wait indefinitely. The project will never feel polished enough. The timing will never seem quite right.

But wellbeing is strongly shaped by what we do repeatedly, especially when those actions align with our values. From this perspective, imperfection is not an obstacle to meaning. It is often the setting in which meaning develops.

The repaired bowl is still used.

The musician keeps playing after a broken string.

The parent apologises and tries again.

---

Read more: Forget grand plans. These small tweaks can add meaning to your life

---

Imperfection and connection

There is also a social dimension.

Research shows vulnerability can strengthen relationships. In other words, when people acknowledge mistakes or limitations, they are often seen as more relatable and trustworthy.

Presenting as flawless can create distance. Allowing cracks to be visible can create connection.

Wabi-sabi offers a simple image for this. The crack is not hidden. It becomes part of the story.

Wabi-sabi has its limits

It is important not to overstate what wabi-sabi offers.

There is no evidence adopting it as a named philosophy guarantees happiness. It is not a treatment for depression. And acceptance does not mean tolerating injustice or giving up on improvement.

But at its heart, wabi-sabi questions whether our expectations have become too polished.

It asks whether some of our expectations – of our bodies, our productivity, our relationships – have become so polished they leave no room for being human.

How can I use it?

Wabi-sabi may not offer something entirely new. But it captures, in a single image, several psychological skills research suggests can help people live well.

It invites us to:

• respond to our flaws with kindness

• accept that change is normal

• loosen rigid standards

• act in line with our values despite imperfection

• connect with others by showing our humanity.

Wabi-sabi is not a shortcut to happiness. But as both an image and a practice, it reflects a grounded psychological idea.

Wellbeing is less about erasing the cracks, and more about continuing to live, act and connect with them visible.

– ref. What is wabi-sabi? Will this Japanese philosophy make me happy? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-wabi-sabi-will-this-japanese-philosophy-make-me-happy-275786

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/what-is-wabi-sabi-will-this-japanese-philosophy-make-me-happy-275786/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

The astonishingly successful Kyle and Jackie O radio show on KIIS FM is dead.

Jackie “O” Henderson resigned and Kyle Sandilands has been suspended for 14 days after he attacked her on air, accusing her of underperforming and being “off with the fairies” in what he said was her fixation with astrology.

The fact their partnership lasted 27 years and was one of the most successful in radio history invites a reflection on the contradiction between the kind of society we say we want and the kind of media we prize.

We live at a time of social divisiveness and say we want respectfulness. We live at a time when women are killed by their intimate partners at the rate of about one every eight days. We say it’s a scourge that must stop.

And yet this program, which showcased disrespect and misogyny, topped the Sydney radio ratings for many years and its presenters were paid eye-watering sums to keep it going.

A multimillion-dollar disaster

It is true it flopped in Melbourne and was primarily a Sydney phenomenon, but the show was intended to become national.

In anticipation of a national rollout, Sandilands and Henderson were reported to have each signed $10 million-a-year contracts through to 2034, a total commitment of $200 million by the station’s owner ARN.

[embedded content]

However, Melbourne radio audiences have never shown an appetite for the kind of vulgar shock-jockery that has been a feature of Sydney radio for decades. Neil Mitchell, who dominated the mornings ratings in Melbourne for many years on 3AW, was a caustic commentator and relentless interviewer, but never descended to outright abuse.

The failure in Melbourne led to the planned national rollout being scrapped at considerable financial cost to the network.

Who was tuning in? Young men

Why was Kyle and Jackie O’s schtick of crudity, sexism and misogyny so popular? A look at the show’s demographics suggests some insights.

The live radio show’s audience was skewed to the 18–39 age bracket but also contained a substantial teenage following.

It also had a large podcast following, and this audience skewed male, although it also contained a substantial female component, and did very well in North America as well as Australia.

Together, these data suggest it answered some need, particularly among younger men, for a means of vicariously unleashing their frustrations, including their frustrations concerning women, as well as indulging a taste for scatological humour.

One consequence was that the Kyle and Jackie O show had a significant and socially damaging impact on Australian radio content standards.

It contributed to the normalisation of tolerance for extreme sexist content on Australian radio, particularly in Sydney. Alan Jones, when he was king of Sydney radio on 2GB, was infamously misogynistic about the then prime minister Julia Gillard, saying she ought to be taken out to sea and dumped in a chaff bag.

John Laws, Jones’s rival in Sydney, was not to be outdone. He told a woman who criticised him to “say something constructive, like you’re going to kill yourself”.

Decades of breaches

So what was the broadcast regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, doing while Sandilands and Henderson were making millions from this vulgarity and misogyny?

In 2009, the show was taken off air after the authority found it breached broadcasting guidelines by attaching a teenage girl to a lie detector and asking her if she had been raped.

Last October, ARN was threatened with action if it did not rein in their “vulgar, sexually explicit and deeply offensive” commentary.

None of this made a blind bit of difference.

In 2025 alone, the show was found to have violated the commercial radio code of practice 12 times. These included two episodes of a guessing game involving recordings of staff members urinating, during which the hosts made graphic remarks about genitals, menstruation and oral sex.

Broadcasters on the slide

Radio industry data suggest FM radio continues to be popular in Australia, especially in the 25–39 age bracket in which the Kyle and Jackie O show rated strongly, with revenue projections through to 2028 being positive.

Its popularity rests not on the provision of news, for which people go elsewhere, but on musical entertainment.

However, the extravagance of the deal ARN made with Sandilands and Henderson seems unlikely to be repeated. It was predicated on what turned out to be a national rollout that never happened after the disastrous foray into Melbourne.

The Kyle and Jacki O show was on the slide. At their peak they had an audience in Sydney of 797,000 and a 16.3% market share. By the end of last year that had dropped to 12.7%.

Even so, they remained radio icons who our most senior politicians couldn’t resist. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and NSW Premier Chris Minns attended Sandilands’ wedding. Minns, when asked about the broadcasting pair’s breakup, said it was “sad”.

Another contradiction between what society says and what it does.

– ref. For 27 years, the Kyle and Jackie O Show indulged Australia’s most vulgar, sexist impulses – https://theconversation.com/for-27-years-the-kyle-and-jackie-o-show-indulged-australias-most-vulgar-sexist-impulses-277510

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/for-27-years-the-kyle-and-jackie-o-show-indulged-australias-most-vulgar-sexist-impulses-277510/

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

Why do you see the results you do when you search for information online? It’s a complex mix of what the source is, its relationships to other sources online, and your own past browsing history and device settings.

But this formula is changing. Rather than being passively served content that search engines decide is most relevant (or businesses have paid to have promoted), some big tech platforms have started providing users more control over what they see online.

Earlier this year, Google launched the Preferred Sources feature in Australia and New Zealand. Through it, users can select organisations that are “preferred” and whose content they’d like to see more of in relevant search results.

In response, a raft of organisations, from news outlets to big banks, have started inviting their audiences and customers to choose them, with instructions on how to use this feature. News outlets such as the ABC, News.com.au, RNZ and The Conversation have all done so, among many others.

If you decide to use this new feature, there are potential benefits – but there can be unintended outcomes as well.

Where do you get your news?

In Australia, more adults say they get news from social media (26%) than from online news websites (23%). This means that a feature like “preferred sources” might influence readers who get their news from search engines. But it won’t affect users who primarily get their news from social media apps.

Trading phones with someone and looking at their browsing history or recommended YouTube videos reveals just how much personalisation influences what we see online.

Big tech companies are known to harvest large amounts of data, making money in an attention economy from audience engagement. They also make money from knowing more about their users so they can sell this information to advertisers.

Much of the internet is governed by invisible algorithms – hidden rules dictating who sees what, for which reasons. Algorithms often prioritise content that is engaging and sensational, which is one reason why misinformation can flourish online.

As helpful as it can be to get recommendations of products to buy or Netflix shows to watch, based on your history, when it comes to voting and politics, recommendations become much more fraught.

Our own research has shown people’s online news and information environments are fragmented, complex, opaque, chaotic and polluted, and that users desire more control over what they see. But what are the potential impacts of this?

More control is good

At face value, more control over what we see online is a positive and empowering thing.

This rebalances the equation from the loudest, most popular, or wealthiest voices – or ones that manipulate algorithms the most – to the ones users are actually interested in hearing from.

It potentially also helps with cognitive overload. Rather than having to spend the time and mental energy to decide on a case-by-case basis whether each source you encounter is trustworthy, making this decision once for particular news brands or organisations can make engaging with search results more relevant and efficient.

But a lack of balance is risky

However, the voices people want to hear from aren’t necessarily the ones that are best for them. As with any choice, you need a level of maturity and critical thinking to act responsibly.

As data companies, search engines benefit from knowing ever more information about user behaviour and preferences. Knowing which media outlet you prefer may in some cases indicate your political party preferences. Knowing that you prefer sports news over celebrity news can help companies target you with advertising more effectively.

In addition, more choice could potentially affect the diversity of people’s media diets. Just like with food diets, if people rely too much on low-quality media, over time that may affect their opinions, attitudes and behaviours. This has important implications for democracies that rely on well-informed and engaged citizens to cast votes.

There’s also a risk in conflating news sources with other types of sources. Journalists at news organisations are often held accountable to professional codes of conduct that, for example, aim to prevent reporters from personally benefiting from their reporting.

In theory, this allows audiences to receive independent analysis on important topics with confidence that the source has fact-checked claims and doesn’t have a vested interest in the reporting.

But if you select a business – such as the blog of a hardware store or a bank – as a source, you don’t have those same guarantees around editorial codes of conduct and professional ethics.

Should you use this feature?

Overall, allowing users more control over what they see is a good thing. But appropriate governance and regulation – possibly championed by Australia’s Digital Platform Regulators Forum – is needed to ensure people’s privacy and that their source preferences aren’t unfairly monetised.

Being more involved in your media diet is a positive step, as is thinking about its balance and diversity.

Ensuring a mix of sources across types (think local, regional, national, and international) and varieties (political, social, sports, entertainment news, and so on) can lead to a better balance.

Also think about whether the sources you are relying on are based on opinions or on facts. Doing this and actively creating a high-quality media diet is better for you and for others in your community.

– ref. Are Google’s ‘preferred sources’ a good thing for online news? – https://theconversation.com/are-googles-preferred-sources-a-good-thing-for-online-news-277372

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/are-googles-preferred-sources-a-good-thing-for-online-news-277372/

Asia Pacific Report

A new documentary film on the devastating “ecocide” happening in West Papua will be screened at a weekend solidarity forum in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau this weekend.

The 90m feature film, Pesta Babi (“The Pig Feast”) — Colonialism In Our Time, produced by award-winning Papuan journalist Victor Mambor and directed by Dandhy Dwi Laksono, tells a story about the impact of the Indonesian government and military on the lives of thousands of Papuans trying to protect their rainforests from destruction.

It also relates the plight of thousands of internal refugees in the Melanesian region.

The peaceful resistance of local communities is revealed in the documentary as they face up to 54,000 Indonesian troops and large corporate entities make big profits at the expense of an ancient culture.

Dorthea Wabiser of the environmental and human rights group Pusaka, will speak on the deforestation and displacement of communities in the south-eastern district of Merauke  where Indonesia is destroying 2.5 million ha of rainforest for palm oil, sugar cane, biodiesel, rice and other crops.

Military force is deployed to silence any dissent from communities.

[embedded content]
Pesta Babi (The Pig Feast).                              Trailer: Jubi Media

Solidarity group hosts
The solidarity group West Papua Action Aotearoa with West Papua Action Tāmaki are hosting the two-day public forum on March 7 and 8 with the speakers from West Papua including environmental champions and filmmakers who operate in militarised zones at considerable risk to their personal safety.

Also, a media talanoa featuring Jubi Media founder Victor Mambor and others will be hosted by the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) at the Whānau Community Centre and Hub on March 9.

“The forum is an important event with a number of speakers and filmmakers from West Papua telling the hidden stories of the Indonesian occupation of their country,” said organiser Catherine Delahunty.

The climate impact of their destruction was incredibly serious as was the use of the military to enforce an end to traditional life, food sources, and forests, she said in a statement.

“These people are our Pacific neighbours with a devastating story to tell that our government and others across the world have chosen to ignore,” she said.

“They have a right to come here and to be heard despite the media bans in Indonesia and the desire of successive New Zealand governments to ignore structural genocide in our region.

NZ citizen kidnapped
“Only when a NZ citizen was kidnapped by Papuan soldiers did the government show any interest in West Papua, and this quickly faded once he was safely released thanks especially to West Papuan efforts.”

Other speakers at the forum include veteran activist and writer Maire Leadbeater, Green MP Teanau Tuiono, Hawai’an academic Dr Emalani Case, journalist and author Dr David Robie, Dr Arama Rata of Te Kuaka, and PNG academic Dr Nathan Rew.

• Forum Day One (public sessons), Saturday, March 7:  Old Choral Hall, University of Auckland, 7 Symonds St,  9am–4pm.
• World Premiere of “Pesta Babi” (The Pig Feast) documentary with Q&A – The Academy Cinema, Lorne St, CBD (below the Auckland Public Library), March 7, 6-8.30pm.
• Forum Day Two (solidarity development), Sunday, March 8: The Taro Patch, 9 Dunnotar Rd, Papatoetoe.
• Media Talanoa, Monday, March 9: “Kōrero with Victor Mambor: West Papua: Journalism as Resistance” – Whānau Community Centre and Hub, 165 Stoddard Rd, Mt Roskill (Next to Harvey Norman), 6-8pm.
• Further information: Catherine Delahunty, West Papua Action Tāmaki and West Papua Action Aotearoa. Tel: 021 2421967

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/devastating-new-ecocide-film-to-premiere-at-west-papua-solidarity-forum-weekend/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shalini Arunogiri, Addiction Psychiatrist, Associate Professor, Monash University

A class of medications best known for treating diabetes and obesity may also reduce the risk of addiction – and help people who already have one, a new study shows.

Semaglutide (also known as Ozempic), liraglutide and tirzepatide (Wegovy) belong to a class of drugs called GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) receptor agonists. These mimic a hormone involved in regulating blood sugar and appetite.

Interest in GLP-1s for addiction has grown in the past decade, as some people prescribed them for diabetes or weight loss noticed they were drinking less alcohol or smoking less.

Animal studies suggested these drugs might reduce cravings and lower the risk of relapse. Large studies using health records or administrative data hinted at similar patterns.

This new study, published today in the BMJ, found starting a GLP-1 drug was linked with a 14% overall reduced risk of developing new substance use disorders, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, nicotine and opioids. Among people with an existing substance use disorder, taking a GLP-1 was associated with a 26% reduction in substance-related hospital admissions.

What did the researchers do?

Researchers examined electronic health records from more than 600,000 veterans with diabetes who were treated through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.

Researchers compared those newly prescribed a GLP-1 with those started on a different class of diabetes medication called SGLT2 inhibitors (including empagliflozin and dapagliflozin) – a well-established treatment used as a comparison point.

The study followed participants for up to three years, asking two questions:

• among people with no prior addiction diagnosis, were those on GLP-1 drugs less likely to develop one?

• among people who already had a substance use disorder, were those on GLP-1 drugs less likely to experience serious harms, such as hospitalisation, overdose, emergency department visits, or death?

The researchers used a method called “target trial emulation,” which structures an observational study to resemble a randomised controlled trial as closely as possible.

In a randomised controlled trial, participants are randomly assigned to receive either the drug being tested or a comparison treatment. The two groups should be similar in every way except for the treatment they receive. If one group does better, we can be confident the drug caused it.

Observational studies work differently. No matter how carefully researchers try to account for differences such as weight, age and other health conditions, there is always the possibility that some unmeasured factor explains the results.

The target trial emulation design used here is among the best available approaches for observational data, but it cannot eliminate this problem. It can tell us that something is associated with better outcomes; it cannot prove that the drug caused those outcomes.

What did they find?

With that caveat in mind, the results were notable. Among people without a prior substance use disorder, those on GLP-1 drugs were less likely to develop one across every substance category examined:

• alcohol, an 18% lower risk
• cannabis, 14% lower
• cocaine, 20% lower
• nicotine, 20% lower
• opioids, 25% lower.

This amounted to roughly 1–6 fewer cases per 1,000 people over three years.

For those who already had a substance use disorder, those prescribed GLP-1 drugs had better outcomes across every measure:

• 31% fewer emergency department visits related to their substance use disorder
• 26% fewer hospital admissions
• a 39% reduction in overdoses
• a 25% reduction in suicidal thoughts or attempts
• 50% fewer deaths.

This amounted to around 1–10 fewer events per 1,000 people over three years.

That these patterns held across multiple substances and multiple outcomes makes them harder to dismiss.

But they remain associations, not proof. The ongoing randomised trials will be essential for determining whether GLP-1 drugs genuinely cause these benefits, or whether something else is at work.

But these results might not apply to everyone

The cohort was 90% male with an average age of 65, so findings may not extend to women, younger people, or those without type 2 diabetes.

The group also had significant health complexity. More than half (57%) were current or former smokers, over 40% had high cholesterol, and many had additional conditions including high blood pressure, heart disease and heart failure.

Mental health conditions were also common – more than 18% had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), over 10% had depression and over 10% had anxiety.

We also don’t know whether participants were receiving any treatment for their substance use disorder, which could itself influence outcomes.

The bigger picture

Perhaps the most important takeaway isn’t about GLP-1 drugs at all. Substance use disorders are highly treatable.

Effective, evidence-based medications already exist – naltrexone and acamprosate for alcohol, methadone and buprenorphine for opioids – alongside a wide range of psychological therapies.

These treatments are safe and effective, yet only a small fraction of people who could benefit from them ever receive them. An estimated 3% of people with alcohol use disorder are ever prescribed effective medication.

The biggest barrier isn’t availability: it’s stigma, shame, fear of judgment and discrimination. Society still views addiction as a moral failing rather than a health condition.

For people living with a substance use disorder, this research on GLP-1s is encouraging but the more immediate message is that effective treatments are already available.

– ref. GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic may lower the risk of addiction: new study – https://theconversation.com/glp-1-drugs-like-ozempic-may-lower-the-risk-of-addiction-new-study-277367

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/glp-1-drugs-like-ozempic-may-lower-the-risk-of-addiction-new-study-277367/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hilary A Smith, Honorary Research Fellow (Linguistics), Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

Debates over language are back in the news in New Zealand, this time with proposed legislation that critics have dismissed as a political distraction.

In practical terms, the English Language Bill now before parliament – which has faced ridicule from the opposition for proposing to make English an official language in Aotearoa – would do little to change how it is used in daily life.

Nevertheless, the bill carries symbolic weight, arriving amid politicised debates over bilingual government department names and other changes to public language.

Moreover, it reminds us that language policy continues to be made reactively and piecemeal in New Zealand.

At a time when more languages than ever are being spoken in Aotearoa, the country remains without a clear and coherent national framework – something that increasingly carries implications for its workforce and migration.

A test too far? The bus driver case

A case in point came in January, when more than 500 bus drivers presented a petition to parliament warning that current immigration language settings risk creating a new driver shortage.

The petition argued the level of English required for residency is set unusually high, particularly when compared with Australia’s rules. According to the petitioners, this could force experienced drivers and their families to leave the country if they fail to meet the threshold.

At the centre of the dispute is the English-speaking world’s most used language test, the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), which tests listening, reading, writing and speaking.

Bus drivers applying for residence in New Zealand must achieve an IELTS score that is comparable to, and in some cases higher than, the level required of students beginning university study.

IELTS is also moving to an online-only format, meaning test-takers will need not only strong English skills but also the ability to type extended written answers under exam conditions.

One of the main arguments for maintaining high language standards is workplace safety.

But international research suggests this issue is more complex than a single test score implies. Studies show high-quality workplace training produces the best outcomes when it is tailored to different language groups.

For example, one 2021 study found that while environmental health and safety training delivered in English produced better results than animated cartoons for Portuguese speakers in Rio de Janeiro, the opposite was true for Chinese speakers in Guangzhou.

In other words, people learn best when they can understand what is being explained.

Reflecting this, US Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards introduced in 2010 require that “an employer must instruct its employees using both a language and vocabulary that the employees can understand”.

When content is well understood, it can also be more easily transferred into another language, including English.

Designed for settlement, not for work

The New Zealand government, for its part, has signalled little appetite to reform language requirements that have remained largely unchanged for more than two decades.

In its formal response to the petition, the government said the higher English standard applies only at the point of residence, not on temporary visas, and is aimed at long-term settlement rather than specific jobs.

In the government’s view, the requirement is about participation in social, economic and civic life, not occupational competence.

But even on its own terms, that distinction is open to challenge. English thresholds vary widely across visa categories: an Accredited Employer Work Visa requires IELTS 4, while from 2025 the Active Investor Plus Visa has no English requirement at all.

By separating “settlement English” from “workplace English”, policy is being asked to do several different jobs at once.

The result is a system that struggles to balance labour market needs, workplace safety and long-term integration, leaving key questions about language, training and productivity to be resolved as each issue arises.

A proper national language policy would align the scattered settings across immigration, education, government, law, public services, media and economic life – replacing ad hoc decisions with a coherent, evidence-based framework.

This is not to say the problem has been ignored.

Some notable pieces of work have included the Ministry of Education’s 1992 report Aoteareo: Speaking for Ourselves, the Human Rights Commission’s 2008 document Te waka reo and Royal Society Te Apārangi’s 2013 paper Languages in Aotearoa New Zealand.

More recently, the Ngā Reo o Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Languages Strategy set out a long-term vision with goals and actions. It also provided a blueprint for the Languages Alliance’s call for a national, evidence-based policy framework.

All of these documents stressed the benefits of bilingualism and multilingualism – for individuals as well as for society as a whole. The benefits are not only educational and social, but economic.

Meanwhile, Aotearoa’s population is becoming ever more diverse, with more people speaking more languages each year. Data from the 2023 Census shows languages spoken by migrant communities are growing fast, with Panjabi up 45%, Tagalog up 38% and Afrikaans up 33% since 2018.

Without a clearly articulated framework with a strong evidence base, New Zealand is missing out on the potential opportunities offered by its growing linguistic diversity.

– ref. The debate NZ should really be having about language policy – https://theconversation.com/the-debate-nz-should-really-be-having-about-language-policy-277074

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/the-debate-nz-should-really-be-having-about-language-policy-277074/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Toye, Professor of Modern History, University of Exeter

When Donald Trump criticised Keir Starmer for failing to sufficiently support American and Israeli operations against Iran, he did so with a historical flourish. “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” he complained.

The implication was clear: Churchill would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Washington in a confrontation with Tehran. The remark invites an obvious question: what would Churchill have made of war with Iran?

The answer is not as straightforward as Trump’s comparison suggests. Churchill’s record shows a mixture of hawkish rhetoric, strategic caution and a constant concern with maintaining Anglo-American unity. Far from embodying a simple instinct for confrontation, he tended to see war and diplomacy as inextricably linked.

Churchill’s famous 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri, is a case in point. During this address, he warned that an “iron curtain” had descended across Europe. But the speech – formally titled The Sinews of Peace – was not simply a call to arms against Soviet expansion. Churchill simultaneously emphasised the need for understanding between adversaries and the importance of strengthening the United Nations. His core message was that peace could best be preserved if the western powers demonstrated sufficient unity and strength to deter aggression.

Iran already featured in the geopolitical crisis surrounding that speech. At the time, Soviet troops had failed to withdraw from northern Iran despite wartime agreements. The episode formed part of the early tensions that would harden into the cold war. Churchill therefore already viewed Iran through the lens of great-power rivalry.

That perspective had deep roots. During the second world war, Churchill had travelled to Tehran in 1943 to meet Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at the first conference of the allied “big three”. The gathering took place in the capital of Iran because the country had become a crucial logistical corridor through which allied supplies flowed to the Soviet Union.

For Churchill, the conference was a sobering experience. Roosevelt increasingly cultivated Stalin’s goodwill, sometimes at Britain’s expense. Afterwards Churchill reflected ruefully that he had sat “between the great Russian bear … and the great American buffalo,” while Britain resembled “the poor little British donkey”. The remark captured his growing awareness that Britain was no longer one of the world’s dominant powers.

That realisation reinforced a central element of Churchill’s postwar strategy: the cultivation of an enduring Anglo-American partnership. His call at Fulton for a “special relationship” between the British Commonwealth and the United States was not a mere rhetorical gesture. It was an attempt to anchor Britain’s future security within the emerging American-led order.

The irony of a Churchill reference

But Churchill’s thinking about Iran did not stop with cold war diplomacy. In 1953, during his second premiership, Britain and the US supported a covert operation that overthrew Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and restored the authority of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The coup was organised largely by the CIA, under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt Jr., but Churchill enthusiastically backed the plan. When Roosevelt later described the operation to him at Downing Street, the ageing prime minister reportedly declared that he would gladly have served under his command in such a venture.

That episode suggests that Churchill could certainly favour forceful action when he believed western interests were threatened. Yet it also highlights a historical irony. The overthrow of Mosaddegh became one of the central grievances invoked by Iran’s revolutionary leaders after the Iranian revolution. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has repeatedly invoked foreign intervention – particularly the Anglo-American coup – to legitimise its rule and to portray itself as the defender of Iranian sovereignty against external domination.

In other words, the legacy of western interference in Iran has become one of the regime’s most powerful political weapons.

Churchill was well aware that wars and interventions could produce unintended consequences. Reflecting on his experiences as a young officer during the Boer war, he later wrote that once the signal for conflict was given, statesmen lost control of events. War became subject to “malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations”. This was not the sentiment of a pacifist. But it was the observation of someone who had seen how quickly political decisions could unleash forces that no government could fully control.

What would Winston do?

How might these instincts translate to the present crisis? Churchill would almost certainly have regarded Iran’s regime with deep suspicion. His cold war mindset inclined him to see international politics in terms of ideological confrontation and strategic balance. He might well have argued that weakness in the face of aggressive regimes invited further challenges.

At the same time, Churchill rarely believed that military action alone could resolve geopolitical disputes. His preferred approach was to combine firmness with diplomacy – to negotiate from strength while maintaining channels of communication with adversaries. Even at the height of the cold war he hoped that a position of western strength might eventually persuade the Soviet leadership to strike a bargain.

[embedded content]

Above all, Churchill believed that Britain’s influence depended on maintaining close alignment with the US. But that alignment, in his mind, was meant to shape American power rather than simply echo it. The “special relationship” was supposed to be a partnership, not a blank cheque.

Trump’s invocation of Churchill therefore rests on a simplified image of the wartime leader as an instinctive advocate of military action. The historical record reveals a more complicated figure: a strategist who believed in strength, certainly, but also in diplomacy, alliances and the careful management of great-power rivalries.

If Churchill were alive today, he might indeed be urging western governments to demonstrate resolve. But he would probably also recognise that Iran’s political system has been forged in the memory of past foreign interventions – and that any new conflict would risk reinforcing the very forces it seeks to weaken.

Churchill once observed that war, once unleashed, rarely follows the tidy paths imagined by those who start it. That warning may be as relevant as any of his more famous phrases.

– ref. What would Winston Churchill make of war with Iran? – https://theconversation.com/what-would-winston-churchill-make-of-war-with-iran-277525

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/what-would-winston-churchill-make-of-war-with-iran-277525/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gokcay Balci, Lecturer in Sustainable Freight Transport and Logistics, University of Leeds

The Iranian regime has announced the closure of the strait of Hormuz and threatened to target ships attempting to transit the narrow waterway. Some have already been damaged. While this could seriously harm global energy supply and raise costs, the consequences actually extend far beyond these markets.

The strait of Hormuz, which sits to the south of Iran and connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea, is one of the most critical chokepoints for international trade. More than 30,000 ships, carrying around 11% of global seaborne trade by volume, transit the strait each year. And around 34% of seaborne oil exports and 19% of seaborne natural gas shipments also pass through it.

However, oil and gas are not the only commodities moving through the strait. The Gulf region serves as a major hub for the transfer of containers carrying consumer goods, particularly between Asia and Europe.

Alongside Jebel Ali in the United Arab Emirates – the world’s ninth-largest container port – the region handles more than 26 million containers annually, around 80% of which are transhipment (cargo containers being transferred between vessels). It is estimated that more than 150 ships, with a combined capacity of about 450,000 containers, are stranded in the region.

Food and agriculture supply is at risk

The strait of Hormuz is central to the global fertiliser trade. More than 30% of urea – the most widely used nitrogen fertiliser produced from natural gas – is exported from Gulf countries by sea.

Urea prices rose by about 14% on March 2 compared with the previous day. Fertilisers account for a significant share of production costs in many agricultural products, just over a third each for both corn and wheat, for example. When increasing fertiliser prices combine with rising energy costs, producing important crops becomes more expensive.

So the availability of agricultural output and food products could also be affected by the crisis. In addition to potential fertiliser shortages, disruptions to shipping may hit supplies. Perishable goods transported in refrigerated containers are already at risk of spoilage as container ships remain stranded near the strait.

Gulf countries face particularly high risks because many depend heavily on imported food. In Qatar, for example, more than 90% of food is imported, with the vast majority arriving by sea. With flights not fully operating across the region, food availability could become a growing concern. Food by road freight from Turkey may provide an emergency alternative, but capacity would be limited and costs significantly higher than maritime transport.

Beyond the region, consumer prices may also rise. Higher energy costs are likely to be a major driver, although the overall impact will depend on how long the crisis lasts and what happens to those energy prices in the meantime. Brent crude oil prices increased from about US$72 (£54) before the strikes began to around US$79 as of March 4 – compared with roughly US$66 one month earlier.

A 2023 analysis by the European Central Bank suggested that inflation in Europe could rise by 0.8 points if a third of oil and gas supplies passing through the strait of Hormuz were disrupted. In the current situation, almost all shipping traffic through the strait has been halted.

The price of consumer goods could also be affected by the disruptions. Shipping costs have already increased for containerised shipments to the region, with major container lines imposing war risk surcharges ranging from US$1,500 to US$4,000 per container. For context, the typical cost of moving a container from Shanghai to Europe is around US$2,700-US$3,600 including freight and port cargo handling charges.

Similar surcharges are also applied to shipments between other regions not using strait of Hormuz, as leading container lines bypass the Suez canal, which links the Red Sea and the eastern Mediterranean. Instead, they reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope off the southern tip of Africa.

---

Read more: How Red Sea attacks on cargo ships could disrupt deliveries and push up prices – a logistics expert explains

---

This strategy was also adopted during the Red Sea crisis in late 2023, when Houthis in Yemen (backed by Iran) began seizing and attacking passing ships. Freight costs increased by 250% in the first few months of the crisis.

Overall freight rates – the price companies pay to transport goods – may once again increase globally as shipping capacity shrinks. Increases could be limited this time though, because the container sector was actually facing an overcapacity issue.

But perhaps surprisingly, higher shipping costs do not necessarily translate into large increases in consumer prices. For many products, maritime transport accounts for as little as 0.35% of the final retail price. But delayed shipments and unreliable transit times may instead create logistical challenges, including higher inventory costs and temporary shortages of essential goods, which can affect consumers more.

A prolonged crisis, combined with vessels rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope, could intensify pressures on consumer prices, logistics and production costs, and the availability of food and other consumer goods. It’s a reminder that regional tensions happening in strategic locations like the strait of Hormuz have global consequences for consumers.

– ref. Strait of Hormuz: Gulf states’ food security is at immediate risk but wider shortages could push up consumer prices globally – https://theconversation.com/strait-of-hormuz-gulf-states-food-security-is-at-immediate-risk-but-wider-shortages-could-push-up-consumer-prices-globally-277214

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/strait-of-hormuz-gulf-states-food-security-is-at-immediate-risk-but-wider-shortages-could-push-up-consumer-prices-globally-277214/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

If Israel and the US hoped their attack on Iran would force the country to capitulate quickly, they were wrong. Despite the death of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and many other senior figures, Iran has managed to continue firing drones and missiles at targets across the Middle East.

This poses a challenge for the US and its allies, including Israel and the Gulf states. The challenge is that they might run out of air defences before Iran runs out of airborne projectiles.

The US and its allies use a number of weapons platforms to knock down incoming missiles and drones. The most important are Thaad interceptors, Patriot systems and SM-family naval missiles, while Israel also uses longer-range Arrow interceptors. However, the supply of these interceptors has been under severe strain in recent years.

Many have been provided to Ukraine, which faces relentless Russian aerial assault. Others have been used in the Red Sea to protect shipping against attacks by the Iran-aligned Houthis. And more still have been stationed in the Indo-Pacific to defend South Korea and Taiwan from possible North Korean and Chinese attacks.

Despite their importance to modern warfare, US stockpiles of these munitions are dangerously low. There are simply too many competing priorities, and production has only recently been increased. The 12-day war the US and Israel fought with Iran in June 2025 is thought to have consumed around a quarter of the entire US inventory of Thaads.

When stocks of these munitions diminish during a war, choices have to be made about which targets to protect – and which not to protect. This usually means focusing on the defence of strategic military installations, allowing some civilian areas to be hit. Israel is widely believed to have made this choice during the 12-day war.

That moment may be approaching again. However, this time it is not just Israel that is at risk, but half a dozen other Middle East countries. The main problem is in the Gulf states, which are in range both of the sort of long-range missile that Iran fires at Israel and its shorter-range projectiles.

These Arab countries can also be hit more easily by Iran’s Shahed exploding drones. The drones are much easier to launch than missiles, require less risk to do so and can reach some targets in the Gulf within minutes. Iran is estimated to have 80,000 of them.

Ukraine has faced this type of attack mix for years and it has developed complex, multi-layered air defences to counter it. This means using expensive interceptors (each Patriot missile costs US$4 million) to take down ballistic missiles and using a combination of other things – even a machine gun will do – to take down drones.

It’s an effective system that has kept Ukraine in the fight and ensures it does not use too many interceptors. The Gulf states have not done this. Instead, they appear to be using Patriot missiles and other extremely expensive and scarce missiles to take down everything from ballistic missiles to US$20,000 (£15,000) drones.

Missile defence systems are designed to launch several interceptors at each incoming projectile, meaning their stocks can run down quickly. Probably within a few days, the Gulf states are going to have to shift their tactics.

Stocks running low

Even if the Gulf states are the most exposed, the situation is not rosy for Israel or US military forces across the region either. Some US forces are in range of Iran’s Shahed drones and short-range missiles. Others are in range of Iran’s long-range missiles.

The exact size of missile defence stocks is classified. But a look at budgetary and procurement data suggests that US forces will become stretched within a matter of days or several weeks at the very most. At that point, the US will have to begin drawing down missile defence stocks from the rest of the world.

According to South Korean media, discussions are already underway about removing Thaads and Patriot systems from South Korea and sending them to the Middle East. Ukraine will get fewer. And US military readiness will be severely degraded around the world, inviting aggression and the possible opening of a second front.

The other side of the equation is Iran’s capabilities, which are something of an unknown. Long-range missiles are the type of munition it has the least of, and they are also the riskiest to launch. The US and its allies can be fairly confident that over time they will significantly degrade Iran’s ability to launch these missiles. Whether it will be fast enough to happen before a critical interceptor shortage is less certain.

But Iran’s short-range missiles and drones are another matter. The drones, especially, can be launched without large, visible weapons platforms, which make an easy target for US and allied air strikes. Particularly if Gulf air defences become very degraded, there are a host of highly damaging targets for them to hit – ranging from US bases to oil and gas infrastructure to shipping.

Ultimately, the answer to how prepared the US and its allies are for a protracted conflict seems to be “not very”. Even if it runs out of long-range missiles, Iran can probably continue its drone attacks for a very long time, causing chaos throughout the region and spiking energy prices by disrupting production and shipping. Stopping them will not be easy.

– ref. How prepared are the US and its allies for a protracted conflict in Iran? – https://theconversation.com/how-prepared-are-the-us-and-its-allies-for-a-protracted-conflict-in-iran-277454

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/how-prepared-are-the-us-and-its-allies-for-a-protracted-conflict-in-iran-277454/

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on March 5, 2026.

What this year’s Tropfest winning film tells us about mothers in the screen industry
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sheree Gregory, Senior Lecturer Human Resource Management, University of Newcastle Lianne Mackessy’s film Crescendo won top prize at this year’s prestigious Tropfest short-film festival – a significant personal and industry milestone. The film’s central figure mirrors Mackessy – a women navigating the imperfect, complicated and often chaotic

Paralympic politics: how Russia, Belarus and Israel sparked opening ceremony boycotts
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Anderson, Professor of Sports Law, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne The opening ceremony of the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Paralympics takes place on Friday but geopolitical tensions have spurred some countries, including the Czech Republic, Finland and Ukraine, to boycott the opening ceremony. The

‘Centimetre perfect’: how commentator Dennis Cometti became footy’s favourite voice
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania On the eve of the 2026 AFL season, players and fans are mourning the loss of legendary commentator Dennis Cometti. Cometti passed away in Perth on Wednesday after battling Alzheimer’s disease and dementia for several

NZ’s rising house insurance premiums warn of a system under strain
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rohan Havelock, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau New Zealand’s Treasury has just launched a review of household insurance affordability – and it could not be timelier. Amid another summer of weather disasters around the country, it emerged one insurer had temporarily stopped

Australia and the ‘Epstein Coalition’ – invasion of Iran a disaster
It’s only Day Five of the war, but surely the epic stupidity of Australia so cravenly backing the US-Israeli invasion of Iran is evident by now. Michael West Media reports. COMMENTARY: By Michael West We are led by fools and sycophants. The illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iran is not just garden-variety stupidity. This is stupidity

The Liberal Party’s current woes are many. Sidelining Victoria is one of them
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Strangio, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University The recent elevation of Angus Taylor to leader of the Liberal Party generated an expected avalanche of commentary. The reactions ranged over most points of the compass. In some, Taylor was depicted as a final leadership throw of the

Australia can no longer be complacent about Trump’s America. It’s time to chart a new course
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Bisley, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of International Relations at La Trobe University., La Trobe University Australia faces a more complex and dangerous world than at any time since the threat of Japanese invasion during the second world war. The global economy is

Australia now has 137 urgent care clinics. Are they working?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Russell, Professor of Primary Care Research, Monash University Since 2023, 137 Urgent Care Clinics have opened across Australia, in all states and territories. They’re usually located within or partnered with a general practice, an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation or a community health centre. Last week,

New fossil reveals the weird ‘tooth cushions’ of an apex predator from 425 million years ago
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brian Choo, Postdoctoral Fellow in Vertebrate Palaeontology, Flinders University Roughly 425 million years ago, in the warm seas over what is now southern China, there lived a metre-long bony fish with jaws full of clusters of spiky teeth. Long extinct, this predatory fish (Megamastax amblyodus) was an

Even if Australians won an extra week of leave, we’d need to make sure they could take it
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shae McCrystal, Professor of Labour Law, University of Sydney Do your holidays always feel too short? Or are you a parent struggling to juggle the demands of school holidays with the leave you’re allowed to take? On Wednesday, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) launched a

‘Fry now pay later’: tracing a century of skin cancer messaging in Australia
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew J. May, Professor of History, The University of Melbourne In 1981, a jingle played out across Australia, encouraging us to “Slip, Slop, Slap!” In 2023, the jingle was added to the National Film & Sound Archive’s Sounds of Australia registry in recognition of the way the

NZ wants to double foreign student revenue by 2034 – but does it have capacity?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cristóbal Castro Barrientos, PhD candidate, NZ Policy Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology On the face of it, New Zealand’s push to expand international education looks like an easy win for economic growth. Government targets, announced last year, aim to nearly double revenue to NZ$7.2 billion by

Labour-National standoff aside, the India-NZ trade deal is a blueprint for real growth
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rahul Sen, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics and Finance, Auckland University of Technology In an increasingly uncertain world, where the global balance of power is tilting toward Asia, a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with India promises access to a booming market and “southern anchor of stability”

New Zealand ‘shameful’ over Iran stance, says Peace Movement Aotearoa
Peace Movement Aotearoa “One can oppose a hateful regime and, at the same time, oppose an unjustified and dangerous military intervention,” says Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. “I once again call for immediate de-escalation, respect for international law, and the urgency of resuming dialogue.” While some governments around the world have easily managed to express

Commercial flights will be your best way out of Middle East, Wong tells stranded Australians
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Australian government has deployed six “crisis response” teams to the Middle East to help deal with the consulate overload caused by the huge number of Australians stranded by the conflict that has spread far and wide in the region.

Israel’s ‘Iron Beam’: why laser weapons are no longer science fiction
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Dwyer, Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania As conflict escalates following the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, and Iran’s subsequent retaliatory strikes, reports have emerged that Israel may have used laser weapons to shoot down rockets fired by Hezbollah from Lebanon. While the

Alternative Jewish Voices: Stop this Iran catastrophe!
Alternative Jewish Voices — Sh’ma Koleinu We, Alternative Jewish Voices, deplore Israel and America’s illegal war of aggression against Iran. We also condemned the repression of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but that does not justify this war. International war will only bring — is already bringing — more civilian death and destruction. We support the right

In a heatwave, a cool library or shopping centre is a lifeline. Do we need more climate shelters?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abby Mellick Lopes, Professor, Social Design, Faculty of Design and Society, University of Technology Sydney Many of our homes and workplaces were built for a milder climate that no longer exists. As Australia braces for more days above 40ºC and hot nights, many homes – especially older

Australian economy picks up speed, but managing inflation and rates is getting harder
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra Australia’s economy grew at its fastest annual rate in almost three years in the December quarter, rising 2.6%, although this is still modest growth by historical standards. Gross domestic product (GDP) for the quarter rose 0.8%, picking up from

Iran’s missile mayhem show the limits of Middle East defences
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University The Israeli Operation Roaring Lion and the American Operation Epic Fury started early on Feb. 28 when both countries began attacking Iran. Their airstrikes killed Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while striking military targets and cities across the

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/er-report-a-roundup-of-significant-articles-on-eveningreport-nz-for-march-5-2026/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sheree Gregory, Senior Lecturer Human Resource Management, University of Newcastle

Lianne Mackessy’s film Crescendo won top prize at this year’s prestigious Tropfest short-film festival – a significant personal and industry milestone.

The film’s central figure mirrors Mackessy – a women navigating the imperfect, complicated and often chaotic terrain of raising children while working in a screen industry dominated by men.

Reflecting on the film’s genesis, Mackessy explained feeling pressured after having a baby to “hurry up and get back into things”.

The audience is privy to this pressure as we watch the lead character Viv (Laura Bunting) expressing milk and wrangling a toddler and new baby, while warming up her vocals for an audition callback.

[embedded content]

A male dominated industry

Mackessy’s story reflects the realities of mothers juggling the competing demands of paid work and life. Research has found there exists a perceived incompatibility between mothering and working in film and television – a problem left for individual mothers to solve alone.

The discomfort is palpable and deeply relatable for mothers who have been (and continue to be in) this situation.

As tension mounts over the day in Crescendo, we see how mothering and creative careers are not easily reconciled. With no choice but to take her kids to an audition callback, Viv is seen nervously scrunching her face. As we hear her half of a phone conversation, she says she’s “had a morning” and will be late with her two children in tow.

Viv leans into the tension and messiness of mothering, resisting the perfection of a happily ever after. Policy makers should pay close attention to the tension.

In 2016, media coverage calling out a lack of diversity including no nominations for female directors at the Academy Awards made us look at the sector’s challenges.

Women in Australia’s screen industry find it difficult to juggle their working lives with their caring roles.

According to 2023 figures from Screen Australia, only 28% of new Australian titles were directed by women, and just 20% were written by women only.

Unique challenges

Mothers who are also creators face both similar and unique structural and cultural challenges.

For many women, idealised “good mother” norms pressure women to conform to particular standards. Women are judged against this “good mother” standard, and, indeed, judge themselves.

For mothers who are also artists, these judgements contribute to role conflicts where they struggle to find both space and time for creative work alongside mothering. Some mothers contemplate giving up on their creative identity altogether.

For all mothers, care costs and responsibilities can be privately and individually borne, hidden from view of employers, screen producers, agents and even other family members.

In the creative industries, these complexities are further amplified.

Work often consists of long hours with unpredictable work commitments and a lack of flexibility. This is challenging for individuals with caring responsibilities. And work is often spread over non-standard work hours, incompatible with standard hours of childcare centres.

Employment networks in Australian screen industries – for example, project-driven collaboration networks in camera departments – have been found to be male dominated. Women with caring responsibilities have even more difficulty accessing these networks, and therefore more difficulty accessing jobs.

‘Bring the kids’

Collectives such as Hollywood’s Moms-in-Film are empowering female performers to represent their needs as mothers.

Locally, Women in Film and Television Australia (WIFT) have been advocating for gender equity and promoting women’s role in the screen industries since 1982 as WIFT NSW, and launched as a national body in 2018.

Reflecting on the lessons she has learnt, Moms-in-Film founder Matilde Dratwa encourages creators who are mothers to – literally – “just bring the kids. You’re already crashing a party you weren’t invited to […] So bring the kids”.

The labour necessitating change in both creative and other workplaces is still being pushed back onto women and individual mothers. Any genuine change must be accompanied by policy and practice reforms.

Crescendo shows us mothering in the arts should not be an Achilles heel. Rather, it is a powerful creative force that resonates deeply.

– ref. What this year’s Tropfest winning film tells us about mothers in the screen industry – https://theconversation.com/what-this-years-tropfest-winning-film-tells-us-about-mothers-in-the-screen-industry-276956

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/what-this-years-tropfest-winning-film-tells-us-about-mothers-in-the-screen-industry-276956/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Anderson, Professor of Sports Law, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

The opening ceremony of the 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Paralympics takes place on Friday but geopolitical tensions have spurred some countries, including the Czech Republic, Finland and Ukraine, to boycott the opening ceremony.

The planned boycotts come after a vexed build-up to the summer Olympics in Italy and continuing political uncertainty.

So, why are some countries boycotting the opening ceremony and how may the event be affected?

A tense lead-up

The build-up to the Paralympics, and the Winter Olympics before them, have been tense.

In February, many Italians protested when the United States confirmed it would send security officers from a unit of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the recently completed Winter Olympics. These officers were stationed at the US Consulate in Milan to provide support to the broader US security team.

Then just this week, the Middle East has been rocked by US-Israeli attacks on Iran.

And on Wednesday, it was revealed the Ukrainian team had to change its uniform for the Paralympics because they featured a map of the country’s internationally recognised borders.

Items related to national identity are forbidden by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC). An alternative uniform was provided within 24 hours.

This brings us to the opening ceremony.

Why are some countries boycotting the ceremony?

A number of countries – including Germany, Finland, Latvia, Poland, and the Netherlands – have said they will boycott it outright or substantially reduce the number of team members who attend.

Some countries will be represented by proxy – that is, by local volunteers who will hold that nation’s flag and wave, on its behalf, to the dignitaries in the arena and the millions watching worldwide.

Russia is the reason these countries are rallying.

The IPC, as with most sports globally, banned athletes from Russia and Belarus from competing in major international events following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

While the IPC initially imposed a blanket ban, it subsequently allowed a limited number of Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete as neutrals at the 2024 Paris Paralympics.

But at its General Assembly in September 2025, IPC members voted to fully reinstate the membership rights of both Russia and Belarus.

The votes to rescind both the full and partial bans on Russian and Belarusian athletes competing at Paralympics were comprehensive: 2:1 in favour of reinstatement, as premised, in part, on a:

desire to separate politics from sport to a belief that the treatment of Russia had been inconsistent with that afforded Israel.

Despite the IPC vote, a number of international federations, which decide on the qualifying criteria for Paralympics, wanted to retain the partial suspension.

The matter was appealed to sport’s international court of justice, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which struck down the partial suspension.

This meant a limited number of Russian and Belarusian athletes (six and four respectively) will compete at the Milan Cortina Paralympics, and they will do so under their own flags.

The fallout

All of this sparked outrage from Ukraine, with President Volodymyr Zelensky condemning it as a “dirty decision” at odds with European values.

Ukraine’s condemnation has been forcefully supported by many of its European allies – including Finland, Latvia, Poland and the Netherlands – the European Commission and Canada.

Not wanting to disadvantage its athletes by fully withdrawing from the games, these countries decided to boycott the opening ceremony.

But the IPC’s political troubles with the Winter Paralympics may not end with its opening.

Further concerns

The biggest legal issue at the Winter Olympics was the decision by the IOC to disqualify a Ukrainian athlete who wished to wear a helmet in remembrance of those lost in the war with Russia.

But what happens if, during an event, a Ukrainian para-athlete (or indeed a Russian or Belarusian competitor) makes a political gesture, either in celebration or defiance?

If such a gesture happens on the podium, will that athlete be stripped of their medal for breaching IPC rules on political neutrality?

The IPC is also keeping an eye on current events in the Middle East, but the attack by the US and Israel on Iran is likely to have greater impact on 2026’s biggest sporting event – soccer’s FIFA World Cup.

Attracting attention for the wrong reasons

The opening ceremony for the games will take place at the Verona Arena.

It is one of the best-preserved Roman amphitheatres in Europe. Built in the first century, it hosted gladiatorial games. Now, it hosts municipal events such as opera festivals.

It is a perfect setting for an opening ceremony, yet the Paralympics’ mission may be somewhat overshadowed, at least initially.

For the IPC, the Paralympics are central to its mission to use para-sport as a means to advance the lives of people with disabilities and create an inclusive world.

An opening ceremony is therefore an important means of introducing the world to these athletes – their struggles, stories and successes.

Current geopolitical uncertainty means, however, this opening ceremony is attracting attention for other reasons.

– ref. Paralympic politics: how Russia, Belarus and Israel sparked opening ceremony boycotts – https://theconversation.com/paralympic-politics-how-russia-belarus-and-israel-sparked-opening-ceremony-boycotts-276751

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/paralympic-politics-how-russia-belarus-and-israel-sparked-opening-ceremony-boycotts-276751/