Category: Evening Report

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 years.

Known and loved for his warm character and quick-witted “Cometti-isms”, he was a giant of Australian sports broadcasting.

He was 76.

The player

While Cometti is best remembered for his unique commentary style, he was also a talented footballer in his younger years.

He played 38 games for West Perth (1967–71) in the West Australian Football League and also coached the team for three seasons (1982–84).

His best year was as a 19-year-old in 1968, when he kicked 63 goals under the coaching of the legendary Graham “Polly” Farmer.

He made the senior list at Footscray in 1971, but did not play a senior VFL game due to injuries and media commitments.

He returned to Perth and had success as captain-coach of Maddington in the South Suburban Murray Football League, winning a hat-trick of premierships from 1974–76 and being club best and fairest in 1975 and 1976.

He also coached Kelmscott to the premiership in the same competition in 1979.

But it was commentary where Cometti really thrived.

The commentator

Cometti’s media career began as a disc jockey on Perth radio station 6KY in 1968.

He covered a range of sports, including cricket, Australian rules football and swimming across five decades.

Cometti worked for the ABC from 1972 to 1985, calling more than 100 cricket Test matches and working alongside another legendary commentator, Alan McGilvray.

But he was best known for his work as a VFL/AFL commentator.

He moved to the Seven Network in 1986 to cover football. He was chief caller across Seven and Nine for the next three decades.

He called more than 1,000 matches on television and radio, including nearly 500 with his close friend Bruce McAvaney.

Their partnership from 2007 to 2016 became one of the most respected commentary pairings in Australian sport.

Separate to his AFL achievements, Cometti also played a key role in Seven’s broadcast of three Summer Olympic Games: Barcelona 1992, Atlanta 1996 and Sydney 2000.

He is best remembered for his commentary of iconic gold medals from swimmers such as Kieren Perkins, Susie O’Neill and Ian Thorpe.

When he retired from television commentary following the 2016 AFL grand final, he was the only network television commentator to have broadcast every AFL season.

He retired from all broadcasting after calling the the 2021 AFL grand final for Triple M radio.

Outside of the commentary box, Cometti was renowned for being warm, generous with his time, and for his extensive preparation for games.

The preparation, often done while flying from Perth to Melbourne for games, allowed him to be one of the game’s most knowledgeable commentators, even though he did not play the game at the highest level.

‘Cometti-isms’

In addition to his smooth voice and deep knowledge, Cometti was famous for his quick wit and timing, which resulted in many famous pieces of sports commentary.

These included many entertaining one–liners, often called “Commetti-isms”.

Well-known examples include:

Another fan favourite was his description of Bulldogs midfielder Tony Liberatore emerging from a pack with a cut above his eye: “Libba went into the pack optimistically, but came out misty, optically.”

The national treasure

Cometti has been described as a “national treasure”, “without peer”, the “voice of football” and the “benchmark” for all other commentators.

He was the AFL Media Association’s caller of the year a record 11 times.

Cometti was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2019 and was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2019 and the Australian Football Hall of Fame in 2020.

Continuing legacy

Cometti is considered one of Australia’s greatest ever commentators.

His voice was the soundtrack to some of Australia’s greatest triumphs and he will be deeply missed, but not forgotten.

The Media Centre at Optus Stadium in Perth was named in his honour when it opened in 2018.

His quotes have been compiled into several books and a documentary focused on his commentary career will premier later this year.

His iconic description of Heath Shaw coming up “like a librarian” to smother the ball in the 2010 Grand Final replay was featured as a Toyota Legendary Moment in 2025.

Additionally, the “Golden Cometti” award for outstanding commentary is awarded annually on popular AFL focused show “The Front Bar”.

A giant of sport and media

For more than five decades, Cometti shone in the often harshly criticised world of sports commentary with barely a bad word said about him.

His passing sparked an outpouring of grief among countless athletes, teams, leagues, media personalities and the general public.

Brownlow medallist Gerard Healy, a long-time colleague of Cometti’s, summed it up perfectly: “

Cometti was simply one of the best and a joy to work with. He turned good moments into great, and great moments into forever memorable.

He leaves a legacy that is unique and authentic.

– ref. ‘Centimetre perfect’: how commentator Dennis Cometti became footy’s favourite voice – https://theconversation.com/centimetre-perfect-how-commentator-dennis-cometti-became-footys-favourite-voice-277503

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/centimetre-perfect-how-commentator-dennis-cometti-became-footys-favourite-voice-277503/

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 offering new home policies in Westport because of flood risk.

This follows wider concerns about insurers retreating from high-risk areas and more than a decade of rising premiums, with costs increasing three times faster than inflation since 2011.

Consumer NZ recently described the situation as “serious” and called for urgent government action, citing concerns about both affordability and the way the market is functioning.

The affordability and availability of private insurance are important public concerns in their own right. But they also have wider significance.

They reflect shifts in the level and distribution of natural hazard risk – and raise hard questions about whether New Zealand’s longstanding model remains fit for purpose.

The system behind the premiums

New Zealand’s approach to natural hazards protection, dating back to World War II, is built on private property insurance. Homeowners who insure privately automatically receive statutory natural hazards cover.

This link between private and public cover sits at the heart of this model. It assumes most households can obtain and afford private insurance. If that assumption weakens, the scheme’s reach shrinks. Access to insurance is therefore not only a market issue, but a structural one.

Essentially, insurance is a way of pricing and pooling risk. When the expected frequency or severity of loss increases, private insurers tend to raise premiums.

Climate change is contributing to more intense rainfall, flooding and landslides in many parts of the country. Past land-use decisions, allowing development in hazard-prone areas, have also increased exposure.

At the same time, New Zealand relies heavily on offshore reinsurance to manage catastrophic risk. In recent years, global reinsurance markets have tightened after large losses abroad. Higher reinsurance costs are often passed on to domestic premiums, along with higher building costs.

Unlike private insurance, natural hazards cover is not priced according to how risky a property is. Instead, it is funded through a flat levy paid by all insured homeowners – currently 16 cents for every $100 of the building cover cap – regardless of whether they live in a low or high-risk area.

This provides a degree of universal protection and spreads the risk of loss among homeowners nationwide, so those in lower-risk areas subsidise those in higher-risk ones.

An unlimited Crown guarantee means that the costs of extreme losses ultimately sit with the public balance sheet. By international standards, this cover is generous and unusual in extending to certain land damage.

Intervening to address the affordability of private insurance – through price controls or mandated coverage, for instance – could have unintended consequences. If insurers are unable to price risk freely, they may withdraw more broadly from certain areas.

Without private insurance, some homeowners would lose access to natural hazards cover altogether. That, in turn, could create pressure to expand statutory cover or rely more heavily on publicly funded disaster relief, shifting greater costs onto taxpayers.

When the safety net is stretched

The pressures facing private insurance are only part of the picture.

The natural hazards cover itself is also under strain. Treasury projects it will be underfunded by about 34% over its first five years, meaning levy income and investment returns are unlikely to cover expected claims over that period.

In practice, underfunding means either higher levies in future – something already signalled – or greater reliance on the Crown guarantee in major events. As hazards become more frequent or severe, that exposure is likely to grow.

The scheme therefore raises not only affordability concerns, but also questions about long-term fiscal sustainability. The Canterbury earthquake sequence illustrated this clearly, exhausting the statutory fund and requiring recourse to the Crown guarantee.

The Natural Hazards Insurance Act, which came into force in 2024, updated and refined the former Earthquake Commission (EQC) regime. It followed a public inquiry that drew lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes, clarifying definitions, lifting caps and improving claims processes.

Yet it did not revisit the system’s core design or its underlying assumptions about natural hazard risk.

For example, the scheme largely treats earthquake, flood (in respect of land damage) and landslide risks the same for the purposes of levies and cover. But these risks are not alike. Earthquakes are typically low in annual probability but high in severity.

Flood and coastal hazards are often more localised, more frequent and increasingly shaped by climate change. Landslides sit somewhere in between. Providing identical cover for very different risk profiles may no longer make sense.

All this underscores the urgent need for a broader review of New Zealand’s natural hazards insurance model. It should draw together hazard and climate science, economic analysis, land-use planning, fiscal sustainability, social policy and insurance market practice.

Rising premiums may be unsettling, but they are a signal of deeper pressures: growing natural hazard risk and strain on New Zealand’s current system.

The real challenge is to decide whether the model we rely on remains fit for purpose and sustainable in the decades ahead.

– ref. NZ’s rising house insurance premiums warn of a system under strain – https://theconversation.com/nzs-rising-house-insurance-premiums-warn-of-a-system-under-strain-277088

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/nzs-rising-house-insurance-premiums-warn-of-a-system-under-strain-277088/

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 on a grandiose, stratospheric scale.

The Israeli propaganda narrative that Iranians would sprinkle rose petals at the feet of their invaders has not come to pass. It has already been demolished in fact.

Instead of bringing freedom and democracy — “regime change” — we have brought chaos, possibly a world war, and definitely the destruction of the Middle East.

The world economy is being hit hard as we write; oil prices spiralling, energy prices about to soar, and the inexorable spectre of inflation and recession.

And it didn’t have to happen.

This was a war of choice. Even without the “Epstein Coalition” — as the Iranian media so aptly dubs their invaders — murdering 165 Iranian school girls on day one, “peace through strength” was never going to happen.

Quite the contrary. The illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iran has hardened the resolve of Iranians, who are massing in their hundreds of thousands across the country to mourn their dead and chant “Death to America”, to back their regime.

Where was the advice?
The Epstein Coalition killed the Ayatollah, who was actually against nuclear power; he was a moderate.

Did Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong not seek advice from Foreign Affairs that attacking Iran was folly, that the anti-regime protesters were a minority, that the pre-invasion protests were a Mossad and CIA psyop, that Iran might attack US proxy states in the region, that invasion would be a Brobigdadgian mistake?

Or did they ignore the advice in favour of a Washington regime compromised by the Epstein pedophile scandal?

And now, we see the feeble, hypocritical whining by Israel and its supporters about Iran attacking the Gulf states. Is that our only moral defence?

Decades of supporting these regimes: Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — US proxy states all — regimes now unravelling, the oil price is soaring, inflation and recession are beckoning globally.

Images are emerging from Bahrain of locals cheering on the Iranian missiles. Were DFAT and our politicians unaware of popular angst in the Gulf states against American imperialism?

And what did they expect Iran to do in the face of this existential threat? Not blow up American bases and infrastructure while the US attacked them; after the US betrayed them at the very negotiating table when they were offering significant concessions on nuclear enrichment, all to avoid war? This war.

[embedded content]
War drums over Tehran.             Video: The West Report

Australia, the US flunkies
Yet here was Australia, Saturday night, first out of the blocks worldwide to throw its support behind Donald Trump and his preposterous “Operation Epic Fury”, a probable pedophile being blackmailed and led around by the genocidal Benjamin Netanyahu like a pony at the fairground show.

“Operation Epstein Fury”, it was fast labelled. The soaring, craven stupidity is hard to grasp. Both major parties backing it.

Albo first, then Angus Taylor rushing to tow the Donald’s line. Then, One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, too, who even congratulated and praised Netanyahu. We are led by fools and sycophants.

The flawed defence of atrocity
To address the empty rhetoric of the pro-war lobby, criticism of this war does not equate to support for the regime in Iran. Defenders of the US-Israel atrocity are busy with their swarms of social media bots peddling the argument that “you are an Islamist terror supporter” if you criticise the invasion.

This is the 2026 version of “You are a Hamas supporter” if you argue against genocide in Gaza.

The cold facts of this debacle are that regime change does not work, that Iran did not want this war, that Iran appears to be exceptionally well prepared, that the Epstein Coalition, which Australia supports, is daily backing war crimes: blowing up hospitals, schools and civilian infrastructure.

This is a war which has already been lost.

The obvious reality is that regime change wars are a demonstrable failure. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Iraq — a million dead, irretrievable regional stability. In Afghanistan, 20 years, trillions of dollars spent, four US presidents, six Australian PMs — all to replace the Taliban . . . with the Taliban.

And here we are, the world’s busybodies, doing it again.

Who would ever negotiate with the US in good faith again, or Israel for that matter? Iran did not want this war. Iran has not attacked another country in 300 years.

The US lured them to the negotiating table, then, without warning, murdered their leadership. This echoes last year’s 12-day war, where Israel and the US lured them in on the premise of good faith talks, then murdered them and now play the victim.

What did they expect Iran to do in the face of this existential threat?

The record speaks for itself. The US is the biggest invader of other countries in history. Israel has, last year alone, attacked Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Palestine, Qatar, Tunisia, Malta, and Greece.

Six illegal attacks of sovereign nations, as well as three illegal attacks in international waters equals nine all up. In one year.

And now they are invading Lebanon again, seizing more territory as their puppets, America, fight their campaign against Iran.

Albo, what are you doing?
We know who the warmongers are. We are the warmongers. Yet, in his bizarre statement of support, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was the fastest out of the blocks of all the allies on the weekend, issuing a false statement.

Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression.

For decades, the Iranian regime has been a destabilising force, through its ballistic missile and nuclear programs, support for armed proxies, and brutal acts of violence and intimidation.

Iran…

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) February 28, 2026

The claim, echoed by the usual warmongers of the Lib-Lab establishment, is that Iran is guilty of attacks on Australian soil, referencing alleged attacks on a deli in Bondi.

Apart from the common sense, why would Iran commit an act of terror on a deli in Bondi? Senior police have conceded that there is no evidence of this.

The nuclear furphy
Then there is the age-old claim that Iran is about to produce nuclear weapons. The US and Israel’s nuclear risk claims have been so roundly discredited it’s a joke.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to instigate a war against Iran for 30 years — claiming Iran is days away, weeks away, months away from nuclear missiles.

And they were at the negotiating table again when the Epstein forces murdered them.

The propaganda
We are now seeing mainstream media decry the “illegal attacks” on Israel and the Gulf states. Yet the ‘victim card” is tapped out.

Around the world, outside the legacy media propaganda, there is little sympathy for Israel having razed Gaza and slaughtered between 72,000 and 700,000 Palestinians while stealing more land in the West Bank daily.

It will continue. The media and political classes have failed so majestically that they can only try to salvage their authority with more propaganda.

The deplorable coverage of the murdered schoolgirls in Iran is a case in point. The “40 beheaded babies” and the “mass rapes” of Hamas filled the headlines in the West on October 8, 2023. Yet real murders — 165 murdered schoolgirls — have hardly rated a mention. Yes, a mention perhaps, but a side story, buried, no headlines of outrage.

Can’t handle the truth?

Is the truth too hard to handle? Is it not evident to everybody except the most brainwashed advocate of the Epstein lobby that Israel — the government, the state — is the problem here?

Netanyahu has won his ambition to drag America into a war against Iran, and if you follow the money, while world stock markets teeter, the stock market in Tel Aviv is surging, replete with weapons companies as it is.

Meanwhile, the ASX is tanking, ergo our savings. Oil prices are surging, ergo higher energy prices and inflation. The Houthis, Iran’s allies, are shooting again in the Red Sea while, on the other side of the Arabian peninsula, Iran has blocked the Straits of Hormuz, choking off a large chunk of the world’s oil supply.

Higher prices in India and China will mean higher prices for imports and inflation around the world.

The lessons of history have not been learnt; in fact, they have been discarded in spectacular fashion.

> 70 years ago, Iran looked just like any Western country.
> Short skirts, rock’n’roll, open universities.
> It’s 1953. Iran elects a secular socialist: Mohammad Mossadegh.
> He nationalizes oil. That pisses off BP.
> Cold War excuse.
> CIA and MI6 stage a coup. Operation Ajax.
>… pic.twitter.com/ZNWaLdBlCN

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddek) March 1, 2026

Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/australia-and-the-epstein-coalition-invasion-of-iran-a-disaster/

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 dice to avert the slide of the Liberals towards electoral oblivion. In others, he was a man with the right stuff to put the party “on track” (that is, to propel it further towards conservative populism).

However, one salient point missing in the tens of thousands of words expended on Taylor’s ascension was that it continued the now 36-year exile of Victorians from the Liberal Party’s helm.

The state has not produced a leader of the party since Andrew Peacock was defeated by John Hewson in April 1990. Over that time, the Liberals have changed leader 11 times, yet none has been from Victoria.

By contrast, of the ten individuals who have had charge of the party during that period, one has been from Queensland (Peter Dutton), one from South Australia (Alexander Downer) and eight from New South Wales. In short, the NSW division has enjoyed a virtual mortgage on the leadership, Taylor the latest instance.

Once the heartland of the Liberal project

The relegation of Victorians from the apex of the Liberal Party since the beginning of the 1990s is a radical departure from the story of the last century. The state’s primacy in the party was evident from its inception during the second world war.

In fact, disproportionate Victorian influence was also a reality of the Liberal Party’s original predecessor and namesake. It formed at the end of the first decade of the Commonwealth under the leadership of the quintessential Victorian and three-time prime minister, Alfred Deakin.

The moving spirit of the creation of the modern Liberal Party in 1944 was, of course, Victoria’s Robert Menzies, and the lion’s share of his influential allies in that foundation were also from his home state. Menzies became the party’s first leader and first prime minister. This began a pattern of predominance — during the second half of the 20th century, four out of six Liberal prime ministers and six out of ten of the party’s federal leaders were Victorians.

This Victorian hegemony effectively ended with John Howard’s resurrection as Liberal leader in January 1995. Howard not only remained leader until his defeat as prime minister at the 2007 election, but his abiding influence over the party ever since has worked to consolidate the ascendancy of NSW and the isolation of Victoria.

In other words, from the 1990s, the power centre of the Liberal Party migrated from its traditional base of Melbourne to Sydney. Moreover, in recent years that shift has stretched further northwards as a consequence of the preponderance of Queenslanders in the federal Liberal parliamentary room. Between 2022 and 2025, Queenslanders constituted nearly 40% of the party’s MPs, a dominance amplified by Dutton’s leadership.

The extraordinary weakening of Victoria’s hold on the federal Liberal Party from its heights of last century has mattered in at least two significant ways. Though frequently overlooked, historically the Australian colonies and states exhibited distinctive political cultures. Victoria’s was of an interventionist, progressive hue, whereas in NSW it was of more a conservative laissez faire flavour.

This distinction was evident in the contrasting philosophical tempers of the non-Labor parties from their early incarnations. Broadly speaking, the NSW Liberal division and its predecessors were ideologically positioned to the right of their Victorian counterparts.

This mostly persisted throughout last century. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude the pre-eminence of the NSW Liberals from Howard’s time (abetting his vast individual influence) is implicated in the party’s rightward pivot nationally. The recent numerical ascendancy of Queensland, a state with a tradition of strong strains of authoritarianism, populism and racial chauvinism in its political makeup, has only exacerbated this.

Second is the residualising effect on the Victorian Liberal Party. This century, it has become a pale imitation of its glory days during the postwar era. There is a chicken-and-egg conundrum to the Victorian Liberals’ electoral fall from grace over the past four decades and their shrinking sway in the federal party. Which of these developments catalysed the other?

Leaving that question aside, the electoral decline of the Liberals in the state can be readily summarised: the Coalition has lost the two-party preferred vote in Victoria in 15 out of 17 federal elections from 1980. The Liberals now hold only one out of 23 metropolitan seats in Melbourne: Tim Wilson’s electorate of Goldstein, which he reclaimed in 2025 by a wafer-thin margin of 175 votes.

The collapsed electoral fortunes of the Victorian Liberal division is also stark at state level. The party has enjoyed a solitary term of government at Spring Street this century. Its abject condition is injecting competitiveness into the state election to be held this November that would otherwise be anticipated as an inevitable defeat for Jacinta Allan’s Labor government.

With Labor seeking an unprecedented 16 years in office and mired in scandal, the Liberals ought to have a virtual lock on winning power. Yet November’s election looms as not merely a referendum on Allan’s tainted government, but also on whether the Liberals can be entrusted with office.

Riven by ideological and personal feuds that routinely explode to the surface, low on talent and led by the young and highly inexperienced Jess Wilson, few are willing to punt on a Liberal victory. Indeed, it appears voters are so repelled by both Labor and the Liberals that we are likely to see a chaotic smorgasbord of swings to minor parties and independents.

---

Read more: The Coalition leads in Victorian DemosAU poll, with One Nation posting 21% support

---

The waning of a Victorian tradition

It is intriguing to note that twice in the era of NSW dominance (and Queensland’s escalating influence) within the Liberal Party, there has been the prospect of the leadership returning to Victoria. The first opportunity followed Howard’s defeat at the 2007 election, when Peter Costello was the assumed heir apparent: he had been blocked from succeeding the older man by Howard’s manic determination to stay prime minister to the bitter end.

However, aggrieved at Howard’s denial of him and unwilling to endure a potentially lengthy stint in opposition, Costello spurned the leadership before leaving parliament. The second time was when Scott Morrison’s government was defeated in May 2022. Morrison’s treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, had been regarded as a leader-in-waiting. However, he lost his formerly blue ribbon seat of Kooyong at that election, a casualty of the Teal insurgency.

It is impossible to say with confidence whether, if either of these Victorians had acquired the Liberal leadership, they would have been willing or able to chart a more moderate course for their party. Costello had displayed signs of less conservative sensibility to Howard on the issues of climate change and Indigenous reconciliation. Frydenberg, too, had moments when he showed a markedly different mindset to Liberal right-wing warriors, such as with his ultimately futile effort when environment minister in Malcolm Turnbull’s government to devise a policy mechanism for curbing carbon emissions.

As it was, the leadership passed to NSW and Queensland in 2007 and 2022, respectively. On the first occasion, it went briefly to Brendan Nelson and then to Turnbull before settling in Tony Abbott’s hands. On the second occasion it went straight to Dutton. Notably, these two, Abbott and Dutton, more than any other leaders of the Liberal Party post-Howard, through a process of imitation and amplification of Howardism, accelerated the party’s journey to conservative populism and an intolerance of progressivism.

The marginalising of Victorian influence has undoubtedly been one factor in the dire place the Liberal Party has arrived at in Australia. Where once the Victorian division could have been relied on to provide a point of resistance to the party’s rightward trajectory, it has been largely reduced to impotence as an ideological balancing force.

Indeed, this sidelining has been so prolonged there is little sign of the division any longer being custodian of an alternative, more centrist philosophical outlook.

The Victorian division has grown virtually unrecognisable from its distinctive historical identity: as a party whose forebears encompass Deakin, Menzies, Rupert Hamer and Malcolm Fraser. The end result is that, unlike during the second world war when the renaissance of non-Labor was led from Victoria, there appears a greatly diminished prospect of the state being a springboard for the party’s national rejuvenation today.

– ref. The Liberal Party’s current woes are many. Sidelining Victoria is one of them – https://theconversation.com/the-liberal-partys-current-woes-are-many-sidelining-victoria-is-one-of-them-262431

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/the-liberal-partys-current-woes-are-many-sidelining-victoria-is-one-of-them-262431/

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, an independent report was released evaluating how well they’re working, based on the first 87 clinics to open. This follows an initial report in March 2025.

The evaluation team surveyed patients and staff and interviewed local and peak body stakeholders, managers and clinical staff. They also blended Medicare, emergency department and other public data to map program performance against the program’s measures of success.

The new evaluation reveals millions of visits since the clinics opened, and a high level of satisfaction about the quality of care.

But it also flags concerns about follow-up care, staff workload, opening hours, and access to X-rays and critical blood tests after hours.

What are the urgent care clinics for?

These walk-in clinics aim to alleviate pressure on hospital emergency departments by offering short-term care for urgent but non-life-threatening conditions. These may include illnesses such as gastroenteritis or chest infections or minor injuries from sport or mishaps at home.

All clinics must bulk-bill and offer easy access to X-rays and critical blood tests.

The clinics can also give prescriptions to patients who have run out of long-term medications – but only enough until the patient sees their usual GP.

Patients are either treated on-site or sent on to emergency departments or their GP for further care. Those without a GP need to be given advice about finding one.

So, are they working?

The clinics are certainly being used. The report says 1.5 million Australians had visited one of the initial 87 clinics by May 2025. According to the government, there have now been more than 2.5 million presentations since they first opened in 2023.

The evaluation found two-thirds (62%) of visits were for acute illness and just over a quarter (27%) for minor injuries. One in five patients needed X-ray or pathology services.

Wait times were impressive: nine in ten patients are seen within an hour, and 95% of surveyed patients rated their care as good or very good.

Analysis of visits to nearby emergency departments suggest a 4–10% reduction in the sort of low intensity visits the clinics are designed to cover. Early cost-effectiveness analysis suggested this could save A$381 in emergency department costs for each clinic visit.

What kind of issues are there?

Some important concerns about the program have emerged:

• the small but steady number of “inappropriate presentations”, where patients actually require longer-term care. This highlights the importance of clear communication about what the clinics can and can’t do

• very few clinics have imaging and/or pathology available after 5–6pm and on weekends. Only 1.1% of all visits were billed in Medicare’s after-hours window (after 8pm, Saturday afternoons, or Sundays and public holidays). Taken together, clinics seem to be operating in the same time window as general practice, leaving after-hours care to locum services or emergency departments

• the government’s own guidelines require the clinics hand over a patient’s care to their usual GP. But the report found one in every three visits lacked subsequent communication with the patient’s GP. This echoes many doctors’ concerns about fragmentation of care

• staff surveys showed clinical staff valued their experience at the clinics and opportunities for professional development. But only half the nurses and doctors thought they had a manageable workload – and this was worse in rural and remote areas.

But there’s still information missing

While the report raises concerns about whether clinics are open long enough to meet demand, there is no direct data on clinics’ actual opening hours. So we don’t know in detail what is available and whether this varies between states and territories, and cities and rural and remote areas.

And while we have a general idea of what people are presenting for, the evaluation doesn’t give a detailed breakdown. More specific information would help us understand what kind of “inappropriate” presentations are still happening, and better tailor what care the clinics offer – and how this is communicated to the public.

What should change?

These early findings show urgent care clinics may be filling a gap in health care, particularly in cities. The challenge now is whether they can effectively complement team-based primary care.

The second evaluation shows how the model has evolved. But its lack of detail on opening hours, clinical presentations, workload and staff experience leave more questions than answers.

What is clear is there needs to be a focus on matching opening hours with need, making it clearer to the community what clinics can and can’t do and working harder to keep the patient’s GP in the loop. The 13% of urgent care clinic patients without a regular GP need help to find one.

We can only hope for a bit more clarity in the final evaluation, which is expected later this year.

– ref. Australia now has 137 urgent care clinics. Are they working? – https://theconversation.com/australia-now-has-137-urgent-care-clinics-are-they-working-276880

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/australia-now-has-137-urgent-care-clinics-are-they-working-276880/

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 being scrambled by the Trump administration’s weaponisation of the trade regime, rising protectionism and efforts to reduce supply chain vulnerabilities. The United States has soured on old alliances, threatened takeovers of neighbours and withdrawn from global institutions.

And it’s just started another war in the Middle East that threatens to engulf the entire region.

In response to US President Donald Trump’s recent actions, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has made a full-throated appeal for middle powers to build a better global order in the face of the current “rupture” of the old ways.

Australia’s leaders, by comparison, have been circumspect – conservative even – about the challenges we face. Wittingly or not, Australia’s words and deeds embody a strategy of cautious incrementalism that is at odds with an era of radical change.

---

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.

---

Hitching our wagon to a diminishing power

It some respects, this should not surprising. Inertia is strong in Australian politics. The electoral incentive for bold foreign policy is not.

And the relationship with the United States was so good for so long.

It is hard to imagine a better partner for Canberra than the US, as it once was. The two shared liberal values, cultures and core interests. Washington provided security backed by its world-leading military, technology and intelligence advantages. The US has long been a top trade and investment partner. And it once underpinned a rules-based and open economic order.

Australian leaders organised their foreign policy on the assumption the US would always remain the region’s dominant power and would always follow the same basic path in its international policy.

We can no longer afford this complacency. Washington has definitively turned its back on a liberal approach to trade. Trump’s White House is contemptuous of rules, and views agreements and alliances as “deals” that can be leveraged or suddenly discarded. The restraint and respect that had been central to its foreign policy has been junked.

The domestic sources of this illiberal turn have deep roots and will remain central to US politics long after Trump has left the stage. Trump is not a short-term problem that can be waited out.

Perhaps less well recognised is the fact the US will soon have fewer advantages than before. Over the coming years, it will be a less dominant power on every conceivable measure. From hard military power and cutting-edge technology to global output and soft power, China (and others) are fast catching up. In some areas, the US has already been surpassed.

By attacking its universities and research institutions and making foreigners unwelcome, the Trump administration is further undercutting its advantage.

Allies and partners will be bound to a diminished, less globally engaged and less interested America. Carney realises this. Australia should, too.

3 steps towards a new path

How should Australia begin to navigate this new world?

Foreign Minister Penny Wong is fond of saying Australia needs to know what it wants in the world and be confident in its abilities.

The country’s core interests remain a stable and favourable balance of power in Asia, the international rule of law overseen by multilateral institutions, and an open and rules-based global economy.

The problem for Australia is the US no longer shares these interests in the same way. We need to think about different ways to achieve these goals.

This begins with an honest recognition of the changing direction of US policy, stated plainly and directly.

This does not mean a provocative belling of the Trumpian cat. Australia has an enduring alliance with the US and it makes no sense to break with that entirely. But it also benefits no one to profess in public the beliefs that everyone knows are not held in private.

Australia needs to develop what I have called a “US plus one” foreign policy. This means we advance our international interests while diversifying the risks of a newly transactional relationship with the US.

There are three immediate priorities for Australia to focus on.

1) Avoid isolationism

The first is to resist the temptations of protectionism and work with others to buttress liberal and rules-based settings for international trade.

When the first Trump administration tried to hobble the World Trade Organization (WTO) by blocking new appointments to its appellate body in 2017, members who valued the benefits of impartial dispute settlement created a new body. It has helped many nations resolve their trading differences.

This an example of the kind of creative diplomacy Australia should lead.

2) Revitalise international institutions

Australia should develop a coalition of multilateral-minded states to reinvigorate the institutions that give the majority of the world’s middle and small powers a voice in setting the rules.

The bulk of the current institutions, such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, have ossified. The current crisis is precisely the kind of catalyst needed to prompt urgent action.

3) Build resilience

Australia also needs to develop greater resilience in its military and economy. This is not a call for protectionism but an emphasis on the need to be able to do more for ourselves and have as much strategic flexibility as possible.

This includes developing a military that is not only more capable, but built from more diverse suppliers. It also entails developing a framework for economic resilience that is shaped by Australia’s vital interests.

This is a generational task, but it must begin immediately.

Being clear about a vision

Australia has become too dependent on the idea of the US as the guarantor of the international order. We failed to recognise that Trump’s rise to power in 2016 was not an accident – the country on which we had pinned our future had changed.

It is time for Canberra to acknowledge this and take confident steps to chart our own course and reduce our dependence on others.

It is important our leaders articulate a clear vision for Australia’s place in the world. The challenge we face is epochal in scale and the public must understand what confronts us.

– ref. Australia can no longer be complacent about Trump’s America. It’s time to chart a new course – https://theconversation.com/australia-can-no-longer-be-complacent-about-trumps-america-its-time-to-chart-a-new-course-276530

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/australia-can-no-longer-be-complacent-about-trumps-america-its-time-to-chart-a-new-course-276530/

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 ancient forerunner of all animals with a skeleton and a backbone alive today – including you and me – and was the world’s oldest known vertebrate apex predator that lived at the top of the food chain in its environment.

In a new paper published in Nature today, we report the discovery of a remarkable new fossil of this strange creature.

This fossil gives us an unprecedented view into the early evolution of bony fishes, and fills a key gap in our understanding of the evolution of vertebrate diversity seen on Earth today.

The dawn of bony fishes

Bony fish are known as osteichthyans. They make up around 98% of all vertebrate species on Earth.

By the end of the Silurian Period (419.2 million years ago) the osteichthyans had branched into two main lineages: the Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes) and Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes and limbed tetrapods, including humans).

Until recently, our knowledge of the very earliest bony fishes (stem-osteichthyans) that branched off before that great split was restricted to tantalising fragments from Silurian and Early Devonian rocks, giving only the briefest glimpse into their bizarre anatomy.

Megamastax: the early discoveries

We first described Megamastax in 2014 based on isolated jaw bones from the Kuanti Formation of Yunnan in southern China.

The largest jaw would have been 17 centimetres long when complete, suggesting an animal roughly one metre long that was – and still is – the largest known jawed fish from the Silurian period. While there were sharp, conventional teeth on the biting margins of the mouth, the inner surface of the lower jaw displayed a row of big semicircular “lumps” unlike anything seen before.

We identified these as an inner row of large blunt teeth, presumably for crushing armoured prey, and so named the new fossil Megamastax amblyodus – the “big mouth with blunt teeth”.

‘Big mouth’ gets a makeover

We hoped to find more fossils of this fish in subsequent field trips to Yunnan. But nothing prepared us for what turned up just few years later: a complete skull and jaws that revealed a creature far weirder than we could have ever imagined.

The skull was long and narrow, with small eyes and a huge mouth with a sharply hooked snout. The anatomy was an odd mosaic of features associated with many different vertebrate groups.

On the one hand, the cheeks and gill covers were typical for an early bony fish. But other features were strikingly similar to the strange Silurian fish [Entelognathus], which was a type of “placoderm” (a group of extinct armoured fish) that lived at the same time. One such feature was the configuration of the bones on the skull roof which are singular instead of paired.

In most bony fishes, the paired bones at the front of the mouth are simple structures that sit flat against the front of the snout. But in Megamastax and Entelognathus, these bones also had broad horizontal shelves that extended into the roof of the mouth.

High-resolution scans revealed internal features which were unusual for a bony fish. The way the braincase extended far backwards was once again similar to Entelognathus, while the major arteries branched at the back of the skull in a manner identical to early shark relatives.

A mouth full of pincushions

Inside the mouth, we learned the truth of those strange lumps on the original lower jaw.

The new skull showed complementary rows of lumps on the roof of the mouth. Also present were odd little circular structures that, in life, would have slotted onto these lumps, each topped with a cluster of sharp fangs.

So those mysterious lumps were not teeth at all, but the mounting points for bony tooth cushions.

Tiny isolated tooth cushions had previously been found with Lophosteus and Andreolepis, two fragmentary bony fish from the Silurian period in Europe. These were originally interpreted as being associated with the gills, but it was also suspected they may have instead been a kind of tooth plate. But how they fit into the mouth was a mystery.

[embedded content]

Megamastax finally answers this and reveals these cushions were widely distributed at the base of the bony fish radiation, but were lost in the common ancestor of the ray-fins and lobe-fins.

So instead of having a few blunt teeth for cracking armour, Megamastax instead had a mouth filled with clusters of piercing fangs for snagging softer-bodied prey. However, it was a vastly larger fish than any other animal in its habitat and could likely devour most of them regardless of armour.

It was likely the earliest vertebrate apex predator in the fossil record.

A complementary find

The new skull of Megamastax is one of two new major Chinese fossil discoveries.

The other is Eosteus chongqingensis (by a different team of authors), a tiny 3cm long bony fish from the famous 435 million year old Huixingshao Formation, Chongqing.

This find complements the outstanding cranial detail of Megamastax in preserving the whole body and fins. At over 10 million years older than Megamastax, this is the earliest osteichthyan in the fossil record.

The great-uncle of all living bony vertebrates

With only jaws, it was hard to pinpoint where Megamastax sat within the osteichthyan family tree.

We previously suggested it could be a primitive lobe-finned fish. But the new skull revealed it to be something else. Our new family tree moves it closer to the great split, but above all the other stem-osteichthyans in the analysis.

If correct, then Megamastax is the closest known form to the common ancestor of the ray-finned and lobe-finned fishes.

This new skull bridges the gap between placoderms and bony fishes. In revealing the anatomical “default settings”, Megamastax provides a template for exploring when and how the osteichthyans acquired key features – a journey that would ultimately lead to their incredible modern diversity.

– ref. New fossil reveals the weird ‘tooth cushions’ of an apex predator from 425 million years ago – https://theconversation.com/new-fossil-reveals-the-weird-tooth-cushions-of-an-apex-predator-from-425-million-years-ago-274122

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/new-fossil-reveals-the-weird-tooth-cushions-of-an-apex-predator-from-425-million-years-ago-274122/

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 tune – and its message – helped shape Australia.

But Slip, Slop, Slap! wasn’t the start of Australian skin cancer messaging. For that, we need to travel back to the 1930s.

What does going back in time tell us about our relationship to the sun? And how can history inform efforts to address the skin cancer conundrum?

[embedded content]

Understanding the sun’s dangers

Although Indigenous Australians can suffer from skin cancers, their ancestors learned to live with the sun’s extremes, seeking shade in the hottest hours. When white woman Eliza Fraser was shipwrecked in 1836, local people treated her sunburn with sand, charcoal and grease.

Medical and popular understandings of skin cancer advanced slowly. In 1895, some thought cancer was contagious. Sydney’s Liverpool council debated whether sufferers should be confined to asylums or allowed freedom of the town.

In 1912, pioneering Melbourne dermatologist Herman Lawrence attributed skin cancer to constant exposure to the sun’s rays under Australia’s particular climatic conditions.

Sydney practitioner Norman Paul’s The Influence of Sunlight in the Production of Cancer of the Skin (1918) and the later Cutaneous Neoplasms (1933) were internationally renowned medical textbooks, furthering the medical argument for better sun protection.

From the 1920s, suntan (sometimes called “sunburn”) switched from a marker of working-class status to a social fad. Beauty parlour sunlamps along with the cosmetics industry played an increasing role as commercial determinants of health by promoting darker skin tones.

Sharing the news

Sporadic anti-tanning messaging in the press became more focused in the 1930s with encouragement from annual Commonwealth Department of Health cancer conferences.

New state-based anti-cancer organisations soon touted warnings to general practitioners, education departments and the general public, via pamphlets, bookmarks, fundraisers and health bulletins.

In the Medical Journal of Australia in 1932, Dr E.H. Molesworth encouraged wearing hats outdoors, confirming that ultraviolet rays in sunlight were a key cause of skin cancer. This message, moreover, was being shared far beyond the medical research community.

In 1930, the Queensland Cancer Trust issued an educational circular on skin cancer directed at hospitals, general practitioners, pharmacists and the broader public.

“The means of preventing Sun Cancer are simple,” it advised:

persons who are exposed to open sunlight should wear wide brimmed hats to protect the face, and should completely cover the rest of the skin.

Similar advice was disseminated during New South Wales Health Week in 1931, and the tendency for Australians to go outside in summer without a hat – dubbed the “no-hat habit” – came under scrutiny in newspapers from Perth to Rockhampton.

In the 1950s, “any change in a wart or a mole” became one of the seven danger signals of cancer, a headline feature in public health campaigns throughout Australia.

Subsequent decades saw skin cancer targeted with a succession of catchy phrases from “Don’t U.V.O.D.”, “Don’t turn your back on a mole” and “Kids cook quick” to “Save your own skin” and “Fry now pay later”.

But tanning continued to be a big part of Australian culture. Behavioural changes around sun protection were counteracted by longstanding messaging about sunlight and health and the postwar boom in beach culture and skimpier swimwear.

Moving forward

Public health campaigns improved skin cancer awareness but could lead to unintended outcomes. Australians turned to artificial means for their golden glow under the mistaken impression this was healthier than the sun’s rays.

In the 1970s, European tanning machines were introduced to Australians. Their importation may seem like bringing coals to Newcastle, but this is a good example of the complicated cultural factors behind behavioural change that belie the simple “bronzed Aussie” stereotype.

City solariums were part of the kit of a new generation of lifestyle centres that fostered clubbish exclusivity. Solarium tans became a marker of social competence and cosmopolitan aspiration, and Australians were slow to heed growing medical concern and cancer council warnings as to their harm.

In 2007, Clare Oliver spoke publicly about the dangers of solariums before her death from melanoma aged 26. Such a moving public example reinforced decades of warnings and gave momentum to stricter industry regulation and the eventual ban on commercial solariums by the mid 2010s.

The Commonwealth Department of Health began rating sunscreen effectiveness in the 1970s. Later studies, however, concluded that increased use could also lead sunbathers to “sunscreen abuse” by spending more rather than less time outdoors.

Slip, Slop, Slap! in 1981 and SunSmart, a skin cancer prevention program launched in 1988 to encourage sunscreen and wearing hats in schools, gained traction because they drew on good science. They were also able to repeat – but more importantly to translate – old messages for new generations.

The facts remain. Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. Two in three Australians will develop some form of skin cancer in their lifetime. Nearly 2,000 Australians die from skin cancer annually. Nearly one in four teens falsely believe a tan protects them against skin cancer.

Skin cancer messaging, now a century old, remains vitally important. Its task is never completed and its challenges are always changing. It will work most effectively when trust in science goes hand-in-hand with historical insight.

– ref. ‘Fry now pay later’: tracing a century of skin cancer messaging in Australia – https://theconversation.com/fry-now-pay-later-tracing-a-century-of-skin-cancer-messaging-in-australia-273003

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/fry-now-pay-later-tracing-a-century-of-skin-cancer-messaging-in-australia-273003/

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 major push to give working Australians the right to an extra week of annual leave.

The peak union body says rising work pressures and long hours of extra unpaid work simply aren’t accounted for in the current minimum entitlement to four weeks – which hasn’t changed in about five decades.

In a statement, ACTU Secretary Sally McManus said Australia’s system was lagging other countries and had fallen out of step with the times:

The majority of European countries have already moved beyond four weeks […] It’s time Australia caught up, our annual leave has been frozen at four weeks since the mid-1970s.

Major business groups, however, quickly voiced their opposition. The Australian Industry Group’s chief executive, Innes Willox, called the proposal “out of touch with reality”, given the nation is in a “productivity crisis that is driving up inflation”.

What are the unions asking for?

The ACTU is calling for full-time employees to have a minimum right to five weeks off, up from the current level of four (pro rata for part-time employees).

For shift worker employees, who currently have a right to five weeks off, they want an increase to six (pro rata for part-time shift workers).

There are some obvious upsides to giving workers an extra week’s leave. These include people having more time to rest and enjoy leisure time – and also to manage other important commitments outside work.

The right to paid annual leave hasn’t been around for as long as you might think in Australia. The printing industry was the first to win the right to a week of paid annual leave in the mid-1930s. In 1941, it became standard across other industries.

Leave entitlements slowly rose over the following decades, reaching four weeks in 1974. But they haven’t changed since.

Why it’s up for debate

It’s not the first time an increase to five weeks has been proposed. But this latest push comes amid a broader examination into whether Australia’s minimum standards for employees are adequate.

Late last year, the federal government launched an inquiry into the National Employment Standards which are part of the Fair Work Act.

Beyond leave entitlements, the inquiry could also examine related provisions such as those defining “reasonable hours”.

Is this the best way to tackle unpaid overtime?

At the centre of the ACTU’s proposal is the need to address unpaid overtime at work.

Here, they have identified a real problem. But it’s important to clarify what we’re talking about. Historical data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows average hours worked by full-time employees have fluctuated, but fallen slightly since the 1990s.

---

---

Instead, we’re talking about unpaid, extra work, which doesn’t get included in official statistics.

Citing recent research by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, the ACTU said workers perform an average of 4.5 weeks of unpaid overtime each year.

The ACTU said the proposal would allow them to “get back” at least one of these weeks, as leave.

There are other issues to address

It’s fair to ask why we have this problem in the first place.

Under the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act, your employer can ask you to work more hours if it’s “reasonable”. And conversely, employees have a right to refuse to work hours that are unreasonable.

However, this provision doesn’t work very well in practice. For one, it is a very difficult protection to enforce. While it might appear to provide workers with a hard limit, the wide range of exceptions mean, in practice, it tends to be more porous.

There have been very few cases testing its limits in court. Among final rulings we do have, there have been some egregious examples of extreme working expectations.

Problems more leave may not solve

Giving employees the right to an extra week of leave may not address broader cultural issues around overwork.

If the work that is asked of some employees is not reassessed, they may end up simply trying to do the same amount of work across the year – in 47 weeks instead of 48.

Even under the current model of four weeks, many employees struggle to find space in their working lives to access their existing leave entitlements. Employers need to create the space for employees to take leave, without unduly intensifying workloads.

What’s the cost?

Then, there’s the question of cost. Adding an extra week will inevitably create extra costs and administrative burden for businesses.

Writing for The Conversation in 2024, University of Melbourne economist Jeff Borland estimated an extra week of leave would increase labour costs by about 2% – which he pointed out was less than the usual annual growth in full-time weekly earnings.

Whether the union push for more paid annual leave succeeds or not, employers can help themselves and their employees by proactively managing staff access to leave. Employers should also ensure that work expectations are reasonable and achievable within existing work hours.

This will avoid leave accumulating, creating financial liabilities for the employer. And it will help workers, by making sure they’re getting the breaks they’re entitled to.

– ref. Even if Australians won an extra week of leave, we’d need to make sure they could take it – https://theconversation.com/even-if-australians-won-an-extra-week-of-leave-wed-need-to-make-sure-they-could-take-it-277480

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/even-if-australians-won-an-extra-week-of-leave-wed-need-to-make-sure-they-could-take-it-277480/

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” in the Indo-Pacific region.

But there is devil in the detail, with coalition partner NZ First opposing the deal, meaning the government needs Labour’s support – conditional on several demands being met – to get it over the line.

With that political support seemingly still in limbo, it’s important to look beyond the immediate domestic agenda and understand the potential economic and strategic value of the deal.

Some of this is obvious. India is now the world’s fastest-growing major economy, currently valued at US$4.2 trillion in GDP, and poised to contribute 17% of global economic growth in 2026. India and China will soon generate nearly half of the world’s total economic growth.

Unlike traditional “buy and sell” trade pacts, however, the India-New Zealand deal doesn’t focus solely on the exchange of goods. It will be a comprehensive economic partnership.

It leverages India’s massive workforce and scale against New Zealand’s high-value technology and capital, built around cross-border movement of skills, technology and investment.

Strategic realism

The potential economic wins for New Zealand’s primary sectors are substantial. Exporters of wood, sheep meat, wool, coal and hides will see tariffs drop to zero immediately, generating estimated annual savings ranging from NZ$45–$62 million over the next five to ten years.

Exporters of apples, kiwifruit and mānuka honey will benefit from incremental market access each year through tariff-rated quotas. When the FTA takes effect, for example, mānuka honey exports to India can grow from 14 to 200 metric tonnes annually, with tariffs reduced from 66% to 16.5% over five years.

(As an example of the market potential, an entire shipment of Rouge apples from Hawkes Bay sold out in an Indian wholesale market within a day last year.)

More generally, the trade deal is built on “strategic realism”, where both sides balance long-term economic gains while safeguarding their national interests.

New Zealand will share its world-leading farming technology and orchard management skills to help Indian farmers improve quality and yield through new “centres of excellence”. In return, India lets more premium New Zealand products into its shops.

And while India remains cautious about opening its dairy sector to competition, New Zealand now becomes a partner in its dairy supply chain, providing high-value milk proteins for Indian nutrition products.

New rules also cut red tape. Perishable goods exported to India will clear customs within 24 hours, saving New Zealand businesses time and money.

Investment and innovation

A unique component of the agreement is the commitment for New Zealand businesses to invest US$20 billion in India over the next 15 years. Firms can test ideas in India, then sell that technology across Asia.

The deal will allow New Zealand firms to utilise India as a processing base for global sales, improving their competitiveness while bringing home royalties and innovative technical knowledge for future growth.

To facilitate this, India will establish a bespoke “New Zealand desk” for investor guidance. Working groups for economic and technical assistance will be established in key sectors, with investment opportunities in:

• green energy – leveraging New Zealand’s geothermal expertise to help India reach its own net zero goals by 2070, based on its 2025 geothermal energy roadmap

• services – gaining “most favoured nation” access to more than 100 Indian service sectors, including engineering and education

• creative – opening doors for film makers and creating a path for rongoā Māori (traditional health) practitioners to share their skills

• finance and AI – helping New Zealand technology firms learn from India’s evolving digital public infrastructure and payments systems.

By 2048, it’s estimated New Zealand will need 250,000 more workers. The India trade deal can help by allowing temporary employment entry visas for 5,000 Indian professionals, such as doctors and engineers.

These three-year, non-renewable visas are designed to fill specific critical skill shortages in New Zealand, without affecting local wages or housing.

Blueprint for growth

Once the trade agreement is signed, New Zealand exports to India are expected to more than double in value over the next decade.

But the strategic significance of the deal extends beyond bilateral trade. It positions New Zealand as a potential gateway for India into the Pacific.

In turn, that can open opportunities for New Zealand to expand its exports and investments to the Pacific through Indian partners.

To fully realise the trade agreement’s potential, New Zealand will need to support and prioritise direct connections between the countries, including through direct flights and investment in local relationships based on targeted research.

If things go well, India is on track to become one of New Zealand’s top five trading partners. The free trade agreement provides the blueprint for that to happen.

---

The author acknowledges the valuable input of Dr Sadhana Srivastava as part of ongoing research into investment-led trade with India.

– ref. Labour-National standoff aside, the India-NZ trade deal is a blueprint for real growth – https://theconversation.com/labour-national-standoff-aside-the-india-nz-trade-deal-is-a-blueprint-for-real-growth-276389

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/labour-national-standoff-aside-the-india-nz-trade-deal-is-a-blueprint-for-real-growth-276389/

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 2034, lifting student numbers from 83,400 to 119,000.

International education exports – representing the total expenditure by overseas students on tuition and living costs – have climbed to $4.5 billion as enrollment numbers continue their upward trajectory.

Embedded in the new Tertiary Education Strategy, the goals have become a cornerstone of government policy, rather than simply a sector ambition.

Yet, numbers that work on paper don’t necessarily make for prudent policy.

Three risks in particular deserve closer attention: housing pressure in university towns, over-reliance on a narrow band of source countries and uncertain employment outcomes for graduates.

The squeeze on student cities

University towns are already under housing strain, even before accounting for tens of thousands of additional students.

Dunedin offers a telling example. In mid-2025, median weekly rent in the city rose 12%, despite a surge in available listings. When prices rise even as supply increases, demand is clearly outpacing what the market can provide. Wellington, Christchurch and central Auckland are experiencing similar pressures.

The problem is not just availability. New Zealand’s persistent issues with cold, damp and poorly insulated housing affect students disproportionately, as they are more likely to rent the poorest-quality homes.

More international students in an already tight market means more people in substandard accommodation, with consequences for health and academic performance.

The government’s response – allowing students to work 25 hours per week rather than 20 – helps individual budgets but does nothing about the underlying housing constraint.

Recent experience overseas offers a cautionary lesson. Australia and Canada pursued rapid international student growth, before running into housing pressure and rising public frustration. Eventually, both countries imposed emergency caps.

Canada cut study permits by roughly half in 2024–25; Australia capped new enrolments and tightened visa rules. In either case, the rationale was the same: growth had outpaced the infrastructure – housing, services, labour markets – needed to absorb it.

The fallout went beyond policy corrections. Anti-immigration rhetoric intensified, concerns about crime became entangled with debates about student numbers and reputational damage extended to the countries’ education brands – the very asset that had attracted students in the first place.

Too many eggs, too few baskets

The target of 119,000 students is not extreme – it remains below the 2016 peak of 131,800.

What is ambitious is doubling revenue with a moderate increase in numbers. That means more students in expensive programmes such as master’s degrees and a concentration in markets that can pay.

According to international education news and intelligence hub

ICEF Monitor, China accounts for 35% of international enrolments and India 14%. Together, these two countries represent roughly half the total. Master’s enrolments are at 185% of pre-pandemic levels, driven predominantly by Asian markets.

That concentration creates exposure. An RNZ investigation documented the vulnerability before the pandemic, when diplomatic tensions and Chinese government messaging affected student flows overnight.

The India–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, concluded in December 2025, adds a new wrinkle.

Put simply, it prevents New Zealand from imposing caps specifically on Indian student visas – though broader settings like post-study work rights and financial requirements remain adjustable.

That strengthens bilateral ties, but it also locks in one part of the current growth model at the exact moment Australia and Canada are scrambling to regain flexibility.

International education growth also sits awkwardly alongside domestic challenges. Budget 2025 cut approximately $45 million from research funding and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment-administered Endeavour Fund will not award new grants in 2026.

The system is being asked to do more with less for domestic students while relying more heavily on international fees to balance the books.

Economic consultancy Infometrics has raised a specific concern: that expanded post-study work rights could affect employment outcomes for domestic graduates, particularly in fields where both groups compete for the same entry-level roles.

The evidence is not yet conclusive, but the risk is real enough to warrant tracking outcomes by field and visa status – something New Zealand does not yet do systematically.

Growth, but with guardrails

The government’s Going for Growth plan could succeed – but only with safeguards. Rental markets in university towns would need to be systematically monitored, with clear triggers for intervention.

Source markets would need genuine diversification. Graduate employment outcomes should be reported transparently. And central government targets must be aligned with local government capacity to absorb growth.

These mechanisms are cheap compared to the emergency restrictions other countries have been forced to adopt. International education can genuinely contribute to New Zealand’s economy and intellectual life.

But growth targets are the easy part. Protecting the housing system, labour market and public confidence that make such growth sustainable is the real test.

– ref. NZ wants to double foreign student revenue by 2034 – but does it have capacity? – https://theconversation.com/nz-wants-to-double-foreign-student-revenue-by-2034-but-does-it-have-capacity-276736

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/nz-wants-to-double-foreign-student-revenue-by-2034-but-does-it-have-capacity-276736/

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 their opposition to the unlawful military attacks by Israel and the US and their opposition to the Iranian regime, shamefully New Zealand has failed to follow their example.

Instead, the government has issued a statement that condemns only Iran; “acknowledges” the military strikes were “designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security”; and calls for “adherence to international law” — apparently blissfully unaware that the attacks comprise multiple breaches of international law.

In an interview on RNZ, the PM repeatedly responded to the question “Does New Zealand support these attacks or not?” by reading out “We think Iran is evil, we think it’s been repressing its own people.

“We think it’s been arming proxies and terrorist organisations. We think it has been developing its ballistic and nuclear programmes and years of diplomacy hasn’t actually paid any fruits.”

He also said more than once that New Zealand’s position was the same as Australia’s — the Australian PM has said they “support the United States acting to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons”.

Bizarre spectre
Which, aside from ignoring the US’s stated desire for forced regime change in Iran, raises the bizarre spectre of two nuclear-armed states attacking another state in case it might develop nuclear weapons — even though Iran is a state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (#NPT), which Israel is not, and has opened its nuclear facilities to the #IAEA, which Israel has not. Indeed, the only state in the Middle East that does have stockpiles of nuclear weapons (entirely undeclared and unsupervised) is Israel.

New Zealand’s moral failure to condemn these military strikes, but instead to continue describing the Iranian regime as “evil” or “bad actors” as though that somehow makes armed attacks on a sovereign nation to assassinate its leaders to force regime change okay — regardless of civilian casualties — shows how far it has now moved from even the pretence of applying international law to the actions of its military friends and partners.

And what a missed opportunity to point out the urgent necessity for the elimination of ALL #NuclearWeapons — so much for New Zealand’s alleged commitment to a nuclear weapons-free world, and its promotion of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons #TPNW / #NuclearBan and the NPT.

[embedded content]

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/05/new-zealand-shameful-over-iran-stance-says-peace-movement-aotearoa/

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.

Foreign minister Penny Wong said on Wednesday the best way for Australians to get home was via commercial flights.

While Wong said the government was working on a number of contingency arrangements, it has not yet raised the prospect of using military or government-chartered planes for repatriation. But sources said their limited use might be an option for vulnerable people.

She told a news conference: “We are conscious of how distressed many people are. I want to assure you that we will continue to do all that we can to get Australians home and to keep Australians safe.

“The quickest way to get people at scale home is for there to be commercial flights returning. We anticipate that it’s likely to be sporadic, but I’m very pleased to see we do have one commercial flight en-route, as we speak.” This was a Wednesday flight from Dubai to Sydney.

There are an estimated 115,000 Australians in the region and 24,000 in the United Arab Emirates.

Wong said she could not say where the crisis response teams were going or how they were travelling, for security reasons.

The minister has had conversations with her counterpart in the UAE.

The governments of the UAE and Qatar are accommodating and feeding stranded Australians at the expense of those countries.

Wong said that Australian government staff were dealing with an “unprecedented number of registrations” of Australians. “There has to be a process of considering their registration and assessing their eligibility for the purposes of taking further action.”

Shadow foreign minister Ted O’Brien said while there were limitations on air travel there were options, in terms of land travel, that some of our partners were looking at.

Opposition defence spokesman James Paterson told the ABC “the government’s response to this crisis has been a bit flat-footed.

“So far, we have 115,000 Australians stranded in the Middle East, many of whom might have chosen to leave had they been more directly warned by the government last week that this was a possibility, when the foreign minister did not make a single public comment herself in the week leading up to these events.

“We obviously had enough notice to know that we should withdraw family members of DFAT personnel from the region, which the government did on Friday. But on Friday, why didn’t the foreign minister make a public statement?”

– ref. Commercial flights will be your best way out of Middle East, Wong tells stranded Australians – https://theconversation.com/commercial-flights-will-be-your-best-way-out-of-middle-east-wong-tells-stranded-australians-277507

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/04/commercial-flights-will-be-your-best-way-out-of-middle-east-wong-tells-stranded-australians-277507/

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 reports are unconfirmed, video circulating on social media appears to show rockets being destroyed within moments of launching without visible intervention – consistent with the effect of a “directed energy weapon” such as a laser.

It wouldn’t be the first time Israel has used its cutting-edge Iron Beam laser air defence system, but the incident offers a glimpse into a changing landscape where high-tech militaries are scrambling to keep up with barrages of small rockets and cheap, increasingly capable drones.

What is Iron Beam?

Most defensive systems use rocket-propelled missiles against incoming threats. Iron Beam, however, uses a laser – also known as a directed energy weapon.

Where a missile destroys a drone, shell or rocket by crashing into it or exploding near it, Iron Beam destroys targets by burning them with an extremely powerful laser.

Manufactured by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, which “serves as Israel’s High-Energy Laser National Center for Excellence and National Lethality Lab”, a smaller version of Iron Beam was first successfully tested in 2022. The system was first used in practice last year, to shoot down drones launched by Hezbollah.

Using a 100 kilowatt solid state laser mounted on a mobile trailer, Iron Beam can be strategically deployed and moved depending on the current threat vector, and adds an additional layer of defence to Israel’s existing, layered defensive systems.

How is it different to the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow air defences?

The biggest advantage of laser weapons over missiles is cost. A single Iron Dome interceptor missile costs about US$50,000 – which means the costs add up quickly when defending against large or frequent attacks.

Firing the Iron Beam laser costs a lot less. In 2022, Israel’s then prime minister Naftali Bennett said each shot cost around $US3.50, and more recent estimates suggest the cost may now have fallen as low as US$2.50 per shot.

The economics alone present a powerful motivator for militaries to develop and deploy these weapons.

Another significant advantage of Iron Beam and other directed energy weapons is that they don’t run out of ammunition. Whereas a missile battery needs to be reloaded after use, an energy weapons just needs power.

The only limiting factor for the number of shots is overheating due to the huge amounts of energy expended. Eventually a laser weapon needs to stop firing to cool down, or it will be damaged by the heat.

There’s little public information on how many shots these weapons can fire or at what rate before overheating, but it is widely assumed they can still easily outfire most conventional munitions.

Of course, Iron Beam doesn’t operate in isolation: Israel still possesses its other defensive capabilities. The cheaper Iron Beam can be used first, then backed up with other systems if needed.

The other limitation for directed energy weapons is range. They can’t reach as far as missiles such as David’s Sling or Arrow, so they are only useful for countering drones, artillery and short-range missiles.

Directed energy weapons on the ground can’t reach high-flying long-range ballistic missiles. What’s more, they are less effective in rainy, damp or cloudy conditions.

What role is Iron Beam playing in the current conflict?

Iron Beam (and other directed energy weapons being developed and deployed by other countries) are not intended to replace existing defensive systems, but to supplement them. The radically lower cost per shot provides far greater flexibility to counter “low cost” threats such as one-way drones or artillery shells.

In last year’s conflict with Iran, the United States, United Kingdom and Israel rapidly discovered they were expending large numbers of extremely expensive missiles to counter relatively cheap Iranian missiles, rockets and drones.

The US has responded with a crash course program to quickly arm its fighter jets with larger numbers of cheaper anti-drone rockets.

Directed energy weapons offer many of the same (if not greater) benefits for ground and naval-based defences.

Both the US and Israel reportedly expended a large proportion of their defensive missiles during the last conflict with Iran in 2025. Using directed energy weapons can also help preserve stores of these munitions.

Missile stockpiles are not easily replenished quickly. Even then, a large or sustained attack would quickly deplete them again.

An option that provides defence against shorter-range or slower threats allows the more expensive missiles to be held in reserve.

Where to from here?

War lasers may still sound like science fiction. But Israel is far from alone in developing and deploying them.

The US has tested laser drone and missile defences on navy ships. Both China and Japan have also tested naval and ground-based directed energy weapons.

For naval vessels in particular the benefits of directed energy weapons are immense. Reloading defensive missiles at sea is difficult, or often impossible, requiring a return to port.

In a high-intensity conflict (or a lower-intensity but prolonged conflict) this can present a significant challenge. It can also leave vessels vulnerable when they have depleted their missile stores, or are in port to rearm.

Running out of munitions is often a significant concern for defensive systems. Directed energy weapons lessen this worry – so we are likely to see them more and more as technology develops.

– ref. Israel’s ‘Iron Beam’: why laser weapons are no longer science fiction – https://theconversation.com/israels-iron-beam-why-laser-weapons-are-no-longer-science-fiction-277390

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/04/israels-iron-beam-why-laser-weapons-are-no-longer-science-fiction-277390/

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 of the Iranian people to determine their own future.

America and Israel again attacked Iran in mid-negotiation, three days after Iran’s Foreign Minister, Sayed Abbas Araghchi tweeted: “Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon.”

No one has offered the slightest contrary evidence.

This war of aggression violates international and US domestic law. After the Second World War, the Nuremberg Tribunal called aggression “the supreme international crime”.

We see around us the world they were trying to avert: Israel has waged genocidal war on a trapped community and bombed six countries that were not at war.

This morning, Israel is occupying parts of Lebanon. Russia has invaded and pounded Ukraine for four years. Pakistan is bombing the cities of Afghanistan. US President Donald Trump doesn’t know what to grab next.

Imperial ambitions
We regard the attack on Iran as the latest enactment of longstanding imperial ambitions. How many countries has America tried to bomb into submission? How many times did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bomb the blockaded population of Gaza before America gave him the green light and the weapons to commit outright genocide?

This week, benefiting from the distraction of Iran, Israel has yet again sealed Gaza behind a total blockade. Aid agencies are again counting the days until they again run out of food.

Netanyahu boasts on camera that this war is “what I have yearned to do for 40 years”. Beware of men who prefer the risks of war to those of peace. Chaos and civilian misery are their signatures, but we share responsibility for their impunity.

Even after the horror of livestreamed genocide in Gaza, New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon acquiesces to more war and speaks as if Trump and Netanyahu are trustworthy public officials.

Luxon’s appeasement disgraces us. We must not support this unfolding disaster, not materially and not out of the side of the Prime Minister’s mouth. We must say “No” in a bold, principled voice; joining states like Spain and Denmark.

As this fire spreads, we must also peer through the headlines and focus on the people of Iran, Gaza, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Civilians need protection, intervention and an end to the games of these warmongers.

We urge our morally vacuous government to stand with the civilians, the law and our future.

Alternative Jewish Voices – Sh’ma Koleinu is a collective of anti-Zionist Jews from the Far North to Dunedin. It has a liberatory Aotearoa Jewish identity, whether religious or secular or cultural. It is part of a movement for collective liberation, in Aotearoa and in Palestine.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/04/alternative-jewish-voices-stop-this-iran-catastrophe/

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 0.5% in the September quarter, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Both private-sector and government spending contributed to growth.

But the report predates the latest conflict in the Middle East. The economy now faces the challenge of higher petrol prices and geopolitical uncertainty, which could slow future growth.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the numbers were encouraging at a time of “intense global economic volatility”.

The combination of a possible slowing in economic growth and inflation above the Reserve Bank of Australia’s target band makes its next move on interest rates especially tricky.

What areas of the economy are growing most?

Household spending grew by 0.3% in the quarter, and by 2.4% through the year. At the same time, people were saving more of their income. The household saving ratio increased to 6.9%, up from 6.1% in the September quarter. It is now at its highest level since the September quarter 2022.

Government spending grew by 0.9%; 1.0% by state and local governments, 0.8% by the Commonwealth. State spending was the main driver, reflecting electricity rebates, health, education and police.

Claims that inflation is mostly being pushed up by rampant government spending are exaggerated. While it makes a contribution, it is only one of many factors. The private and public sectors each contributed 0.3 percentage points to growth in the latest quarter.

---

Read more: Is federal government spending really to blame for higher inflation? It’s not clear cut

---

GDP per person grew by 0.9% over the course of 2025. This represents a modest improvement in material living standards (one but not the only component of quality of life). It is better than declines in real GDP per person in some recent periods.

Short-term pressures

The Middle East war has led to higher oil prices. This adds to Australia’s inflation; however, we have no way to tell whether this is a short- or long-term effect. The war could be over next week, or last for months.

Moreover, raising interest rates in Australia would not target the underlying cause of the shock. Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock is right to be cautious about predicting the war’s economic impact.

A rule of thumb is that every US$1 rise in the price of a barrel of oil translates into 1 cent a litre at the bowser for Australians. If the oil price stays around $20 a barrel higher than before the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, petrol prices here would rise 20c per litre, or about 10%.

As petrol has a weight of around 3% in the consumer price index, this would add 0.3% to inflation.

---

Read more: Why surging oil prices are a shock for the global economy – but not yet a crisis

---

The other short-term influence on economic conditions will be the federal budget in May. If it helps improve productivity over time, that will ease capacity constraints and allow higher growth without added inflation.

An important step would be to encourage more competition in sectors dominated by a few large firms, such as supermarkets and banking. That would make them likely to invest in better machinery or processes, and use labour more efficiently.

The longer-term view

The 2.6% growth rate in 2025 is above the Reserve Bank’s estimate of the long-term potential growth rate of 2%.

But is 2% really the best we can sustain? Should 2% be the “speed limit” for our economy?

“Speed limit” is merely a metaphor for capacity constraints. If the economy grows faster than available resources such as labour and capital, and improvements in efficiency, can keep up, then firms will compete for resources and drive up prices.

There are differing views on whether this would happen at 2% growth. Treasury thinks the sustainable growth limit is a bit higher, at 2.2%. Former Reserve Bank assistant governor Luci Ellis also thinks 2% is too pessimistic.

Economic growth used to be much higher. Fifteen years ago, former RBA governor Glenn Stevens speculated the “speed limit” was 3% (a pessimistic view then).

The average growth rate of 2.2% in the past decade is well below the average annual growth rate of 3.5% Australia managed in the 1990s and 3% in the 2000s. It compares even less favourably with the growth rate of more than 5% in the 1960s.

There is a risk of 2% growth becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy if the Reserve Bank raises interest rates any time the economy grows significantly faster. The evidence that the economy is currently overheating is limited. Wage growth, for example, has been under 3.5% since late 2024.

What does it mean for interest rates?

The Reserve Bank had forecast real GDP growth of 2.3% in 2025, so today’s number is unlikely to lead to a significant policy revision.

The RBA’s latest forecast is based on the assumption that its key interest rate, the cash rate, would increase further this year. Another interest rate rise is likely.

While Bullock regards the March meeting, and indeed “every meeting”, as “live” – meaning rate changes may be on the table – she also recently referred to a need to be “patient”.

So the Reserve Bank may not move at its next meeting on March 17. Waiting until the May meeting would allow it to see whether inflation in the March quarter remained elevated.

– ref. Australian economy picks up speed, but managing inflation and rates is getting harder – https://theconversation.com/australian-economy-picks-up-speed-but-managing-inflation-and-rates-is-getting-harder-277236

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/04/australian-economy-picks-up-speed-but-managing-inflation-and-rates-is-getting-harder-277236/

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 or poorly insulated ones – become unsafe as heat overwhelms the body’s natural cooling systems.

Wealthier households may be able to retrofit homes to stay cool using passive thermal techniques or air-conditioning more freely, but rising energy costs make this difficult for many people. Extreme heat hits everyone, but the burden falls most heavily on those with the least resources.

As bushfires become more frequent and fire season extends over longer, hotter summers, bushfire smoke adds another layer of risk. Houses relying on natural ventilation draw unsafe air inside, while poorly constructed homes allow smoke to leak indoors. In both cases, people are left without safe shelter – a basic human right

It would take decades to upgrade every home in Australia to protect against heat and smoke, particularly given the return on investment from housing is prioritised in a capitalist system over housing’s social role.

This means many people will increasingly need climate shelters – cool, safe public places such as libraries and communities centres where people can escape heat and smoke.

What is a climate shelter?

Also known as a climate refuge, clean air shelter, heat haven and resilience hub, a climate shelter is a public place providing temporary protection during extreme weather. Typically, these are existing facilities like community centres, libraries or even schools. When needed, they provide free access to air-conditioning, drinking water, power, Wi-Fi and other amenities.

The concept is gaining traction globally. In 2019, Barcelona – a city that has experienced record-breaking temperatures in recent years – established the Climate Shelters Network of shaded outdoor areas and indoor cooled spaces. The city aims for all residents to be within a five-minute walk of a shelter by 2030.

In China, underground air-raid shelters from the second world war have been repurposed as cooling centres. In Chongqing, many now operate as an “underground city” of cooler social spaces for activities such as eating the city’s famous hot-pot.

In the United States, climate disasters have long been linked to the design and management of cities. In Chicago, for example, heat deaths have resulted from power grid failure, prompting the establishment of “climate resilience hubs” to ensure communities have access to power with solar and battery storage.

What happens in Australia?

Necessity has forced Australia to become better at establishing emergency centres such as bushfire bunkers and temporary evacuation centres stocked with slabs of bottled water and rows of camp beds. But more preparation is needed for heat and smoke events that don’t meet the threshold for disasters.

People often turn to shopping centres, cinemas, fast-food restaurants (particularly those with indoor play spaces), or social clubs to escape the heat. But these commercial spaces prioritise consumption, not public health. In the ACT, allowing clubs to function as heat and smoke refuges has generated community concern about the harm from gambling.

In response, non-commercial refuges are stepping up. Libraries, community centres, and even places of worship have served as climate shelters in recent summers.

The Blacktown City Cool Centres program kicks into action when the temperature reaches 36ºC, alerting registered residents with a text message. The City of Melbourne offers a similar Community Cool Places program. In Eurobodalla, on the NSW south coast, seven volunteer-run Heat Havens opened in January this year, retrofitted with solar and backup generators. This keeps them operational during bushfires, a recent experience for residents.

Climate haven challenges

Climate shelters are still a new idea, with many programs in an early or pilot phase. This offers us opportunities to learn and improve. Common challenges include low awareness among vulnerable groups and concerns about their accessibility.

Climate shelters are needed most in low-income urban areas where there are typically fewer trees and therefore shade, which makes even a five-minute walk on an extremely hot and smoky day a challenge. Safe journeys also require accessible public transport.

Accessibility extends beyond physical distance. It must also consider the intersecting issues of social and cultural safety and comfort. This includes the needs of people with medical conditions, mobility issues or disabilities and their carers, those who require private space for religious observance, and people who cannot leave pets behind.

Crucially, the activities available at the centres – especially during long stays – will strongly influence whether people are willing to leave home and use them.

Operational challenges, such as opening hours and appropriate staffing to support people who may be unwell or in distress, all require thought.

In many cases, protection from bushfire smoke potentially requires building improvements and retrofits such as air locks, reliable backup power and high-quality air filtration. More research is needed to develop guidelines and evaluate the effectiveness of these climate shelters.

---

Read more: Keeping the city cool isn’t just about tree cover – it calls for a commons-based climate response

---

Creating climate-ready cities

Our research into Community Resilience Centres will identify best practice in establishing climate shelters to protect vulnerable people from heat and smoke. We will monitor air and temperature and ask communities to help us design guidelines and resources to address accessibility concerns.

Climate shelters will be increasingly crucial in cities which are far from “climate-ready”. But thinking of them as an option of last resort reduces the likelihood they will be used. We need to find ways to create shelters that offer welcoming cool havens that care for all residents.

– ref. In a heatwave, a cool library or shopping centre is a lifeline. Do we need more climate shelters? – https://theconversation.com/in-a-heatwave-a-cool-library-or-shopping-centre-is-a-lifeline-do-we-need-more-climate-shelters-275661

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/04/in-a-heatwave-a-cool-library-or-shopping-centre-is-a-lifeline-do-we-need-more-climate-shelters-275661/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei triggered immediate and sharply polarised reactions, in Iran and around the world.

In some circles, it was openly celebrated as the end of an era associated with repression, theocracy and regional confrontation. In others, it was met with deep grief, prayers and public mourning.

The division was visible far beyond Iran’s borders. In Sydney, Melbourne and New Zealand cities, some diaspora Iranians were celebrating in the streets. But several Shiite mosques and Islamic institutions organised public memorials and prayer sessions to mark his death.

The response quickly became political. New South Wales Premier Chris Minns condemned what he described as the “lionising of this tyrant,” stating:

I think we can call the mourning of this tyrant atrocious […] By any objective measure the ayatollah was evil.

Others, including media commentators such as Amanda Rose, argued that holding a funeral or prayer gathering falls within the bounds of religious freedom, regardless of political disagreement with the figure being mourned.

Inside Iran, the picture was similarly complex. Some citizens expressed relief or celebrated, particularly those who had experienced repression or economic hardship. Many others publicly mourned Khamenei, attending ceremonies or sharing messages of grief.

This raises a deeper question: why does one political and religious figure provoke such radically different emotional responses, not only across societies, but within the same communities?

The legacy of resilience

Khamenei’s legacy cannot be understood through a single lens. For some, he embodied political resistance and religious values. For others, he symbolised authoritarian rule, curtailed freedoms and missed democratic opportunities.

Any serious assessment must begin by recognising that both readings coexist – and that his impact on the Muslim world and the Middle East will remain deeply contested.

For his supporters, Khamenei was not merely an Iranian leader. He was a pillar of regional resistance politics and a religious authority. He transformed political Islam into a force capable of confronting what he framed as global hegemony and modern forms of colonial domination.

Through the formation of the so-called “axis of resistance” and his consistent call for Islamic opposition to the United States and Israel, he became a leading figure for Shiite movements and segments of Sunni political Islam.

Sunni groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood were not created by Iran. Yet they voluntarily aligned themselves with Tehran’s resistance framework, forming close strategic ties.

Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, and the US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 as a result of Iranian-backed resistance, significantly elevated Khamenei’s standing among many Muslims. This reinforced the perception that resistance could produce tangible results.

---

Read more: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s killing plays into Shiite Islam’s reverence for martyrs, but not for all Iranians

---

For Shiites, his legacy carries additional weight. His support for Shiite communities living in Sunni-ruled states – many of whom had experienced long periods of marginalisation – was seen as a historic political shift.

For many Shiite communities in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and beyond, Khameinei’s leadership symbolised political empowerment, the building of political and military institutions, and the creation of a new balance of power.

As guardian of the Islamic Republic, his ability to steer the regime through sanctions, protests, war and internal crises – while expanding Iran’s regional influence – also earned him domestic support.

Some Iranians viewed him as a stabilising, patriotic figure. After eight years of war with Iraq shattered the country, he rebuilt the political, economic and military systems. He also shaped Iran’s doctrine of defiance against pressure from Israel and the West.

As a result, his death viewed by supporters as martyrdom may inspire them for long.

The legacy of authoritarianism

On the other hand, Khamenei’s rule was marked by severe restrictions on political freedoms inside Iran and support for dictators such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. This cost him popularity among other Sunni Muslims in the Arab world.

His regime forcefully suppressed reformist movements and successive waves of protest – including the most recent nationwide demonstrations. Journalists, civil society activists and opposition figures faced arrests, bans and systematic pressure.

The central tension of his legacy remains clear: the same system that empowered certain communities beyond Iran’s borders simultaneously constrained political freedoms at home.

Khamenei will remain one of the most consequential Middle Eastern figures of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. His death does not end the debate over political Islam, state sovereignty or resistance politics. If anything, it intensifies it.

Reactions to his death mirror the deeper fault lines within the Muslim world between secularism and religiosity, sovereignty and global integration, resistance and reform.

History will remember him as a defining figure whose impact reshaped the region – for better or worse.

– ref. Mourning, celebration and a divided legacy: why the death of Ali Khamenei reverberates far beyond Iran – https://theconversation.com/mourning-celebration-and-a-divided-legacy-why-the-death-of-ali-khamenei-reverberates-far-beyond-iran-277378

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/04/mourning-celebration-and-a-divided-legacy-why-the-death-of-ali-khamenei-reverberates-far-beyond-iran-277378/

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 country. More than 700 people have reportedly been killed in the attacks so far, including children at a girls’ school.

Iran responded with its own Operation True Promise 4 missile and drone strikes against Israeli and American targets. But it also started bombarding nine other Middle East countries. Iran’s attacks to date have killed six U.S. soldiers, 10 civilians in Israel and about 10 more in Arab countries.

Iran’s allies have joined the fighting. Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Iranian-backed militants in Iraq have launched their own rockets, while Houthi militants in Yemen have threated to enter the fray too.

Iran’s counterattacks might appear strategically reckless. But they’re sowing chaos across the region and revealing the limits of their neighbour’s defences.

Israel’s defences under strain

Israel has sophisticated missile defences and ample operational experience. Its Iron Dome short-range rocket interceptors entered service in 2011. The medium-range David’s Sling and long-range Arrow interceptors followed.

Its newest weapon is a laser system. Iron Beam saw its first combat use last year against drones and small rockets.

But interceptors aren’t foolproof, and they sometimes fail.

Iran’s newest weapons aggravate this problem. Some missiles reportedly carry dozens of small explosives instead of one big one. These little bomblets disperse while falling from the sky to complicate interception.

Israel has warning systems and bomb shelters to protect civilians from nearby explosions, but some residents lack immediate access to shelters. One woman died on Feb. 28 when a missile landed near her building before she could take cover.

Additionally, some older shelters were designed only to withstand smaller rockets. On March 1, a ballistic missile with a 500-kilogram warhead directly hit a shelter, killing nine people inside.

Spillover into Arab states

Iran’s Arab neighbours are accustomed to being bystanders during Israel-Iran conflicts. This time, however, Iran is attacking them too.

Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman have all been assaulted by Iranian weapons. Some 282 missiles and 833 drones attacked those countries over the weekend, and the barrage remains ongoing.

Even a British airbase in Cyprus, far away in the Mediterranean, has been struck.

Iran claims it’s only targeting U.S. forces stationed in those countries. However, airports, hotels, apartment buildings and oil tankers have also been hit. Oman had recently hosted U.S.-Iran peace talks, and last week announced that peace was “within reach.”

Most of the countries have U.S.-made Patriot interceptor systems to defend against such attacks, but they lack Israel’s operational experience. The U.S. also has Patriot and THAAD interceptors in the region.

In one case, three U.S. Patriot air defence missiles failed to intercept an incoming Iranian ballistic missile warhead, which reportedly struck Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. And Kuwaiti air defences accidentally shot down three U.S. fighter jets.

[embedded content]

Costly choices

Economic costs are growing too. With oil and gas refineries closing, and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz halted, global oil prices have jumped.

---

Read more: What is the Strait of Hormuz, and why does its closure matter so much to the global economy?

---

Iran’s attacks beyond Israel have also prompted more countries to oppose it. Qatar shot down two Iranian fighter jets on March 2 and Britain has begun allowing U.S. airstrikes from British airbases. France is sending air defences to Cyprus and Ukraine is sending drone experts to Arab countries.

An uncertain future

It’s difficult to predict how long the attacks will continue. Iran is believed to have around 2,500 ballistic missiles stockpiled, including 1,000 that could strike Israel or perhaps Europe. Its drone supply is likely larger, meaning launches could continue for months.

U.S. and Israeli warplanes are actively hunting Iranian missile launchers, but past conflicts show airstrikes alone have little impact on launch rates. Those drop only if ground invasions occur.

It’s likewise unclear how long the American-Israeli bombing campaign will last. U.S. President Donald Trump has suggested four to five weeks, maybe longer.

However, the U.S. military will likely start running out of interceptor missiles in four weeks. Qatar reportedly has only enough for four days.

Trump’s warplanes will probably run out of high-priority targets even sooner.

Trump’s political end game

The greatest uncertainty right now concerns Trump and his motives, as his war goals appear to keep shifting.

He has called for the Iranian people to “seize control” of their “destiny.” But Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has said the operation is not intended to cause regime change.

Such a regime change is unlikely. Trump’s January attack on Venezuela merely captured the country’s president and left the rest of the regime in place. He showed more interest in Venezuela’s oil than its governance.

America’s previous regime change in Iran also didn’t end well. In 1953, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency incited a coup that removed Iran’s elected government and replaced it with a military regime that was friendly to U.S. but unpopular in Iran. In 1979, a revolt ended the dictatorship and installed the current Islamic Republic.

Trump has often favoured transactional diplomatic deals in the past. Whether this conflict moves toward escalation or negotiation remains unclear, but it’s likely he’ll seek do something similar here.

What is clear is that the longer the conflict continues, the greater the human and economic costs are likely to be.

– ref. Iran’s missile mayhem show the limits of Middle East defences – https://theconversation.com/irans-missile-mayhem-show-the-limits-of-middle-east-defences-277211

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/04/irans-missile-mayhem-show-the-limits-of-middle-east-defences-277211/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jean Spinks, Associate Professor, Centre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland

Aunty Mary stands reluctantly back from the busy counter at her local community pharmacy, not quite sure how to get some help.

She notices a colourful poster on the wall that shows all the language and cultural groups of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia and relaxes a little.

Then the pharmacist in the dispensary catches her eye and smiles. The pharmacist had recently met Aunty Mary at the local Aboriginal Health Service, introduced by an Aboriginal Health Worker who knew she had some worries about her medicines.

The pharmacist comes out of the dispensary and finds a quiet place to chat with Aunty Mary. Together they work through her questions about how to take her new medicine and whether it may be making her feel unwell.

Ideally, culturally appropriate and accessible medicines advice, like in this fictional example, should be easy to access.

Unfortunately, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people face barriers to accessing medicines advice, and this can make them more vulnerable to health issues from using medicines.

But our new research, published today, shows the solution is simple.

Health problems related to medicines

Medicines are the main treatment for many conditions. But issues with how they’re used are common.

These include overuse (using a medicine when it may be harmful), under-use (not using a medicine when it could be beneficial) and inappropriate use (using a medicine in a way that may change its intended effects).

This can cause other serious health problems, make chronic conditions worse, and lead to unplanned hospitalisation and even death.

In OECD countries such as Australia, as many as one in ten hospitalisations are caused by a medication problem.

These high rates show there is currently not enough support for people to use medicines safely and effectively.

A preventable problem

Our 2025 research highlighted the extent of the issue for First Nations people for the first time.

We analysed five years of linked hospital and primary health-care data for 80,232 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Queensland.

We found between 16% and 74% of hospitalisations for cardiovascular issues, including heart attacks and strokes, were linked to preventable medication problems.

Our results showed higher rates of preventable hospitalisations in rural areas compared to remote and urban areas. This may be due to fewer GPs and less access to services in these areas.

There are some limitations to this data, as medicine use is not consistently recorded in remote areas. But as we used linked data across primary care and hospital services, the results are highly representative for Queensland.

How to make medicine use safer

For most people, community pharmacists are a highly accessible source of advice. Not only can they provide information about a medicine when they fill someone’s script, they can also do a comprehensive review of all the medications a person takes and write a report for their doctor.

But pharmacists may not be a culturally safe resource for First Nations people.

Culturally safe care is free from racism and discrimination. It means health-care providers understand that colonisation can still be felt in power imbalances between them and First Nations people. So they work to build trusting relationships to make the person receiving care comfortable.

For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people may not feel comfortable asking for help from a pharmacist wearing a white coat, based on a platform and behind a screen in a dispensary.

So one way to reduce medicine-related problems for First Nations people is to improve access to advice about medicines use in a culturally safe way, where they can build relationships.

The federal government currently funds pharmacist services designed to help people with medication problems. But they don’t do anything to address cultural safety.

What culturally responsive care looks like

Our new research shows what can actually work to reduce Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s medication problems.

We designed and evaluated a culturally responsive medication service for 225 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in urban, rural and remote locations in the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales. They were at risk of health problems from medication use. Participants also had a chronic condition, were pregnant or had given birth within the last two years.

We found the service reduced the number of serious medication problems, and significantly increased the likelihood participants would take medications that were needed, and increased people’s confidence in how to manage their medicines.

Here’s what we found works:

• allowing the person to choose a safe place for a medicines review, such as the Aboriginal Health Service. Currently, the funding rules require services to be provided at home, which is not preferred by many people

• allowing other trusted care providers – not only GPs – to refer someone for a medication review and introduce the pharmacist if needed. These could include Aboriginal Health Workers and nurses

• requiring pharmacists and pharmacy staff to undertake cultural awareness training and use strengths-based motivational interviewing when reviewing medications. This is a way of having yarns that helps identify support people and things that keep you strong, as well as setting goals.

Evidence also shows having pharmacists embedded within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services can improve First Nations people’s health, including lower blood pressure and cholesterol.

One of the people who used the culturally appropriate service designed in our research described their new relationship with the local pharmacist:

Mostly, Aboriginal people are wary of strangers, wary of people with that position [of power] asking questions on a personal level. Well, she made us feel comfortable and able to spill our guts. […] I don’t know how she made us do that but it was unanimous… She’s really affected us in the most positive way possible just with one short visit… We always talk about her.

Simple misunderstandings about medicines can have life-changing consequences.

Our findings show that by funding a tailored medication review program for Indigenous people, the government could help reduce medication harm for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

---

We acknowledge the support of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to undertake our research. We also thank Mike Stephens from NACCHO for his contribution to this article.

– ref. ‘She made us feel comfortable’: how trusting and safe pharmacy services improve First Nations health – https://theconversation.com/she-made-us-feel-comfortable-how-trusting-and-safe-pharmacy-services-improve-first-nations-health-256697

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/04/she-made-us-feel-comfortable-how-trusting-and-safe-pharmacy-services-improve-first-nations-health-256697/