Category: Evening Report

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samina Yasmeen, Director of Centre for Muslim States and Societies, The University of Western Australia

When news of the fragile ceasefire between the United States, Israel and Iran first broke, it came via a post on X by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif.

Securing such a big diplomatic win is highly significant for Pakistan, irrespective of how the agreement has since been tested.

Pakistan will remain central to ongoing peace negotiations, with talks between the parties being held in the country on April 10.

So how did Pakistan manage to bring the parties together? It harnessed long-running relationships, shared histories and security agreements to flex its diplomatic muscles.

Pakistan and Iran go back a long way

Pakistan and Iran have a long history as friends and allies. Sharing more than 900 kilometres of border, the countries have been involved in dispute mediation for one another since Pakistan’s creation in 1947.

During Iran’s monarchical period, which ended in 1979, Pakistan relied on Iran’s mediation in its disputes with Afghanistan, and active support in Pakistan’s wars with India in 1965 and 1971.

But the relationship has not been free of challenges. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Z A Bhutto, according to some sources on the ground, resented the Iranian Shah’s overbearing attitude.

The closeness has held since the Islamic regime took over. With nearly 20% of Pakistan’s population being comprised of Shia Muslims, the dominant form of Islam in Iran, there’s long been a close relationship between those Pakistani Muslims and the Iranian regime.

Iran has used these communities to spread their version of Islam and politics, but it has walked a fine line. The regime has ensured tensions do not exceed beyond certain point where the Pakistani government considers it to be a destabilising factor and a threat to Pakistan’s security.

Because of this shared history and the geographic proximity, the Iranian regime is at least willing to listen to Pakistan.

Eyeing regional and national security

This is particularly so because of Pakistan’s own security situation, especially in the event that a weakened or fragmented Iran would result in the emergence of multiple smaller states.

Pakistan’s geographically largest province, Balochistan, has been experiencing renewed militancy spearheaded by separatist group the Baloch Liberation Army. The militants have attacked multiple military targets, law enforcement agencies and public servants, especially those hailing from the Punjab province (the largest in terms of population and resources).

---

Read more: Who are the Baloch Liberation Army? Pakistan train hijacking was fuelled by decades of neglect and violence

---

There has been a growing sense in Pakistan that a weakened or fragmented Iran could further strengthen the appeal of Baloch Liberation Army ideology. The Pakistani government doesn’t want a situation where calls for a greater Balochistan encompass areas on both sides of its border with Iran.

Another consideration is that Pakistan has a nuclear program. The Pakistani government may fear its nuclear arsenal being next in line for targeting by foreign countries, and therefore seek to de-escalate tensions across the region.

[embedded content]

It’s also worth noting the potentially precarious position Pakistan finds itself in geographically. The spectre of being sandwiched between an Israeli-controlled Iran, and close Israel ally India, would be something to be avoided.

It’s likely the Iranian regime is aware of these concerns and appreciates that Pakistan’s mediation is grounded in the latter’s own security concerns. But from an Iranian perspective, that’s hardly a bad thing: it means exploring all possible scenarios to reach a ceasefire and a settlement.

Friends in MAGA places

Pakistan is highly credible with the Trump regime. This is primarily because of the dominant role the Pakistani military has played in shaping the country’s foreign policy. This influence has existed for almost 80 years, but has ramped up recently.

In 2022, General Asim Munir took over as the Chief of Army Staff. He was promoted to the rank of Field Marshal in the wake of Pakistan-Indian “mini-war” in May 2025.

Currently occupying the position of Chief of Defence Forces with a guaranteed command of the military for the next five years with the possibility of extension until 2035, he has emerged as the strongest army general to have ruled Pakistan in decades.

Munir has established a cordial relationship with US President Donald Trump. He visited the administration twice, including a meeting in the Oval Office. This was before Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had secured even a telephone phone call with the president.

Munir has also guided Pakistan’s Gulf policy, particularly the signing of a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement with Saudi Arabia in September 2025. The agreement builds on the decades of a defence relationship between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It includes the clear articulation that any attack on one is considered an attack on both.

Though Pakistan is careful to stress that it does not extend a nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia, the agreement signals regional deterrence and ability of the two states collaborating against opponents.

The agreement was followed by a Strategic Defense Agreement between Saudi Arabia and the US during the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to Washington in November 2025.

Effectively, therefore, a tripartite quasi alliance has emerged between the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

And then there’s China

At the same time, Pakistan also maintains strong military, economic, and political relations with China. Beijing has been keen to de-escalate the situation in the Gulf due to China’s reliance on oil supplies from the region.

This interest was categorically expressed during the visit by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, to China on March 31.

Coming soon after Pakistan’s quadrilateral meetings with Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish foreign ministers, the negotiations established Pakistan’s credentials as a state that has the backing of significant Muslim majority states. Combined with the support of China, Pakistan was in prime position to explore solutions to the conflict, without Trump losing face.

– ref. In mediating the US-Iran peace talks, Pakistan is flexing its geopolitical muscles – https://theconversation.com/in-mediating-the-us-iran-peace-talks-pakistan-is-flexing-its-geopolitical-muscles-280255

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/in-mediating-the-us-iran-peace-talks-pakistan-is-flexing-its-geopolitical-muscles-280255/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kimberley Reid, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Frightening headlines predicting a Super El Niño or even a Godzilla El Niño amp up anxiety levels for farmers and residents of bushfire-prone regions.

But these phrases are not particularly accurate. The phrase “Super El Niño” makes climate scientists like me roll our eyes.

Why? Let’s find out.

What is El Niño?

The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a natural and reoccurring climate pattern in the Pacific Ocean which can influence the chance of different weather affecting Australia.

When sea surface temperatures near the Americas are warmer than usual and the trade winds blowing from east to west across the equator weaken, climatologists call this pattern an El Niño.

El Niño events typically ramp up in winter and spring, and decay towards the end of summer and start of autumn.

During El Niño, we tend to experience warmer than usual temperatures and reduced winter-spring rainfall in Australia’s east.

We pay attention to El Niño and its opposite, La Niña, because this climate pattern has the biggest influence on year-to-year rainfall and temperature differences in eastern Australia. Drought is a key concern for farmers and rural residents, and some of the largest droughts of the past 40 years took place during El Niño years.

But problems can arise if we expect El Niño to be the only factor dictating our weather.

Why call an El Niño ‘super’?

One El Niño can be stronger or weaker than others. Scientists monitor El Niño using the Nino3.4 index, a measure of how much warmer (or cooler) than usual the ocean is in a region in the East Pacific. This region is the best at representing changes in the Pacific which can indicate El Niño.

When ocean temperatures are 0.8°C warmer than usual in that region, and the trade winds have sufficiently weakened, the Bureau of Meteorology can declare an El Niño has arrived. (The United States uses 0.5°C as the figure).

A “Super El Niño” is when the region’s ocean temperatures rise 2°C, roughly two standard deviations above normal (about a 2.5% chance of happening). While scientists first coined the term, the evocative phrase has become a favourite of media commentators.

But Australian forecasters don’t use these terms, as it doesn’t matter that much for our weather if the index goes over 2°C. What matters much more is whether an El Niño is present or not.

Why? When we measure the strength of the El Niño, we are really only referring to ocean temperatures in the eastern Pacific. But this figure is not very well correlated with less rain in eastern Australia. It also only captures ocean changes and doesn’t reflect the El Niño atmospheric changes which influence the weather systems that actually bring rain to Australia.

That’s not all. The Niño3.4 Index is just one of many indications of how Australia’s upcoming weather is likely to look. One index can’t tell the whole story. Relying on it is like looking at the BMI of a bodybuilder and declaring them obese.

Readers may wonder how scientists can define El Niño using an ocean temperature threshold when oceans are getting steadily warmer under climate change. Won’t we end up with constant El Niño?

This is a good question. It’s why the Bureau of Meteorology last year introduced a relative Niño index, to give scientists a way to account for warming due to climate change.

Should we believe winter and spring forecasts?

A Southern Hemisphere autumn in the Pacific Ocean is sort of like January in your average Australian office job. As you slowly ease into the work year, you set a bunch of optimistic goals which may or may not eventuate.

Over autumn, the Pacific Ocean is similarly noncommittal. It can indicate future outcomes that don’t always happen.

Meteorologists have a term for this. It’s called the Autumn Predictability Barrier. What it means is that El Niño forecasts are the least reliable during autumn.

So while forecasts of the Pacific Ocean might be pointing towards an El Niño, history warns us to take forecasts made in autumn for later in the year with a big lump of salt.

At present, the European, US and Australian model forecasts of Niño3.4 indicate a strong El Niño might develop. But this isn’t conclusive.

The forecasts made in March 2017 are worth looking at. Here, models confidently predicted a moderate and long-lasting El Niño, similar to forecasts in March 2026. What happened instead was a short-lived, weak El Niño.

How should we think of El Niño forecasts?

As a scientist who has researched seasonal forecasts of Australian rainfall, my advice is to ignore autumn headlines warning of a potentially catastrophic “Super El Niño”.

These get more clicks than more accurate headlines pointing out long-term forecasts at this time of year are uncertain. It’s worth waiting until the end of autumn or early winter before taking El Niño forecasts too seriously.

The current gold standard for Australian seasonal forecasts are the Bureau of Meteorology’s long-range forecasts. But even here, these forecasts become quite uncertain more than a month in the future. It’s important to regularly check for updated forecasts.

Will we get an El Niño this year? The only scientifically accurate answer as of April 9 2026 is “maybe”. It’s way too early to say anything other than that an El Niño is more likely to form this year than a La Niña.

– ref. Why the phrase “Super El Nino” makes Australian climate scientists roll their eyes – https://theconversation.com/why-the-phrase-super-el-nino-makes-australian-climate-scientists-roll-their-eyes-279758

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/why-the-phrase-super-el-nino-makes-australian-climate-scientists-roll-their-eyes-279758/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Genauer, Academic Director, Public Policy Institute, UNSW Sydney

Just hours after the leaders of the United States, Israel and Iran reached a temporary ceasefire, it was clear that each party had its own version of what had been agreed to.

Hundreds of people in Lebanon have been killed in Israeli airstrikes in the past 24 hours, immediately threatening to undermine the fragile agreement.

Iran had insisted hostilities in Lebanon cease as part of the deal, but Israel argued Lebanon was not included. The result is an ongoing proxy conflict alongside the main war, which has been paused for two weeks.

Given the US seems uninterested in addressing the intractable issues at the heart of tensions in the Middle East, this result was somewhat inevitable. It seems the most likely outcome now is the US will back out while claiming victory, leaving the region’s prewar status quo largely intact.

The importance of Lebanon

Lebanon has not been an official part of the war in the region, and is not a party to the ceasefire. So why is it so central to the conflict?

Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Iranian regime has funded and armed anti-Israel movements in the region including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen.

Throughout its history as a nation, Israel has at times occupied and held security “buffer zones” around its territory.

After the fall of leader Bashar al-Assad in 2024, Israeli forces conducted a military operation in southern Syria, occupying a demilitarised buffer zone in the southwest of the country.

Israel has diplomatic agreements with Egypt and Jordan, leaving the focus on Iran and the proxies it supports. The proxies closest to Israel, and therefore of most concern from the government’s perspective, are Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Since the October 7 attacks, the Israeli government has taken an offensive military approach to dealing with both groups. From the perspective of Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah are just as severe security threats as Iran.

While both proxy groups have been severely degraded since 2023, they are still operating.

Since the onset of the conflict with Iran, the Israeli government has taken the opportunity to extend a security buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Under President Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is very unlikely to give up this ambition.

For Trump’s part, it is unclear whether he could persuade Netanyahu to abandon it, or if he even wants to try.

Will the ceasefire survive?

Unless the US can bring Israel into line and convince Netanyahu to stop its action in Lebanon, the ceasefire will fall apart.

Iran has insisted fighting in Lebanon must end as part of the agreement. This is the regime’s way of protecting and supporting its much-diminished proxies. As negotiations get underway for a more lasting deal, the issue of Lebanon will become a key sticking point.

This is in part because resisting Israel and the US is not just politically expedient for Iran; it is at the core of the Iranian regime’s identity and existence.

While deeper antagonism that drives tensions in the region remains unaddressed, there’s little prospect of lasting peace.

Trump seems set on a US withdrawal from the war with Iran. The US leaves behind a security environment that upholds the existing tensions in the region. Iran and Israel will continue to engage in the tit-for-tat violence that led us here.

A flawed exit strategy

A key issue with Trump’s approach in the Middle East is he has no real interest in resolving the core issue of Israel’s place in the region. He’s shown little grasp of the deeper historical roots at play.

What seems to be front of mind for Trump is the unpopularity of the war within the US. With Trump’s approval ratings at a record low and the conflict already dragging on longer than many expected, the president is looking for a way out.

This might be why Iran’s ten-point plan, which was previously “not good enough”, is now a “workable basis on which to negotiate”.

While there are competing versions of the ten points, they all include conditions the US could never reasonably accept, such as leaving control of the Strait of Hormuz in Iranian hands.

Iran also insists it wants to reserve the right to enrich uranium, something that would be contrary to the stated basis for this war in the first place: Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons.

By declaring the conditions suddenly right for a ceasefire, Trump is stating a reality he’d like to see, rather than describing tangible changes on the ground.

In practice, the US has already ceded ground to Iran, which has indicated it is not willing to compromise on anything. While Iran’s military capability to interfere in the region may be diminished for now, the will remains.

So with the ten points as a basis of negotiation, it is hard to see a path towards lasting peace in the next fortnight. Instead the US is likely to exit, leaving behind a lot of damage, but little materially changed.

– ref. Will the conflict in Lebanon destroy the US-Iran ceasefire? Maybe, but it was already shaky – https://theconversation.com/will-the-conflict-in-lebanon-destroy-the-us-iran-ceasefire-maybe-but-it-was-already-shaky-280259

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/will-the-conflict-in-lebanon-destroy-the-us-iran-ceasefire-maybe-but-it-was-already-shaky-280259/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Howard, Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English and Writing, University of Sydney

Like all true visionaries, the English poet William Blake was light-years ahead of his time: a fierce critic of industrial modernity and a thinker deeply suspicious of any mindset that might turn the world into something to be dominated. His work also treats non-human life as morally significant, with abuse of innocent animals registering as an augur of apocalypse.

We get an inkling of this in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790–93), where, in an aphoristic turn, he insists:

All wholsom food is caught without a net or a trap.

I begin here because Blake’s vision of the natural world is a key to understanding Olga Tokarczuk’s 2009 novel Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead, which takes its title from a line in Blake’s book.

Now, Tokarczuk’s novel has been adapted for the stage by director Eamon Flack, who says the title:

talks about the way we plow the earth for our own means, but that we’re doing it over the bones of the dead and there are many kinds of dead. Part of what the book is about is the way that we live with a whole lot of creatures that are not human.

By the same token, Flack emphasises how the title “belies […] the very wonky, joyful, slightly madcap, gorgeous and eccentric nature of the story”.

Flack’s bravura production seizes on this doubleness. An anarchic energy runs through the show, full of remarkably striking imagery and theatrical invention, in keeping with the novel’s restless blending of modes and moods: the cosmological and the procedural, the comic and the horrific.

‘An ecofeminist fable’

Drive Your Plow is best described as anti-authoritarian ecofeminist fable moonlighting as an Agatha Christie-esque murder mystery.

Published in Polish in 2009 and translated into English by Antonia Lloyd-Jones in 2018, Tokarczuk’s genre-bending book is set in a rural Polish village near the Czech border, a liminal space where the social order feels simultaneously rigid and strangely permeable.

Tokarczuk’s narrator is Janina Duszejko, an opinionated and talkative older woman. A former teacher and keen amateur astrologer, she is at once an outsider and an obsessive interpreter of the world around her, given to discerning patterns where others see only sheer coincidence.

Not long after the novel starts, Duszejko’s equally unconventional friend Oddball arrives at her door with the news that another neighbour, Bigfoot, has been found dead in his home.

It is the first of a series of unexplained deaths in the community, each circling back, in different ways, to questions of patriarchal authority, institutional violence and the human claim to mastery over the natural world.

Disgusted by the unthinking behaviour of the “neurotic egoists” that surround her, Duszejko becomes convinced that the region’s animals are rightfully “taking revenge on people”.

Capturing the novel’s emotions

Flack’s adaptation is faithful, but by no means deferential. Featuring a rotating cast of characters and making excellent use of Belvoir’s revolving stage, it embraces physical movement, metatheatrical gestures and variations in narrative pace. This renders the novel’s oscillating shifts in emotion and genre into something visually arresting and affectively charged.

At the heart of the production stands Pamela Rabe, a mesmeric Duszejko. On stage for pretty much the entire running time, she anchors the production with an exceptional display, by turns acerbic, droll and extremely moving.

It confirms Rabe is one of the finest actors working in Australia today.

But the production’s merits extend well beyond its central performance. One of its most impressive features is its unwavering commitment to the ensemble of 11 actors.

As Rabe told The Australian, Flack remains

committed to putting a large number of performers on stage, and a great diversity of performers, particularly diverse in terms of age. […] It might seem like financial folly, but he’s committed to making sure storytelling and live performance stay alive in this country.

Flack has an equal commitment to duration. He is a director who allows scenes, images and rhythms to unfold at their own pace. This is not a production in a hurry.

As with his 2023 adaptation of Mikhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita, Drive Your Plow stretches towards the outer limits of what contemporary theatre audiences are typically asked to sit with, clocking in at something close to three and a half hours in length.

As The Conversation’s Arts and Culture Editor Jane Howard has recently argued, such run times can be risky:

Three and a half hours is the danger zone: the length of many an unabridged classic. The artists, too often, haven’t thought of the way time sits on our bodies and our minds. This is the play you’re most likely to feel restless in, like it has taken up too much of your day, like it has outstayed its welcome.

To be sure, Flack’s production occasionally brushes up against this threshold. And yet, its expansiveness also feels integral to its internal logic. It asks its audiences to dwell – to sit with its eccentricities and moments of drift – until something truly singular and genuinely memorable comes into view.

Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead is at Belvoir, Sydney, until May 10.

– ref. A stage adaptation of Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead is truly singular, and genuinely memorable – https://theconversation.com/a-stage-adaptation-of-drive-your-plow-over-the-bones-of-the-dead-is-truly-singular-and-genuinely-memorable-278403

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/a-stage-adaptation-of-drive-your-plow-over-the-bones-of-the-dead-is-truly-singular-and-genuinely-memorable-278403/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris James, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Hypersonics, School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland

After successfully completing their mission to the Moon, the Artemis II crew are about to return to Earth.

The four astronauts set a new record for how far humans have travelled from Earth, reaching a maximum distance of 406,771 kilometres from our home planet.

Their journey back will culminate in a high-speed, hypersonic and extremely hot re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere before their spacecraft splashes down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California at roughly 8pm April 10 local time.

The re-entry will be the last challenge the crew will have to endure on their epic ten-day mission. It comes with many dangers – but their spacecraft is equipped with an array of technology to keep them safe.

A speedy re-entry

The Orion capsule carrying the Artemis II astronauts will be travelling at more than 11 km/s (40,000 km/h) when it reaches Earth’s atmosphere. This is 40 times faster than a passenger jet travels.

If we instead consider kinetic energy, which is the energy an object possesses due to its motion, upon re-entry the Orion capsule will have almost 2,000 times as much kinetic energy per kilogram of vehicle as a passenger jet.

Like any spacecraft returning home, it will have to slow down and reduce its kinetic energy to almost zero so parachutes can be deployed and it can land safely on Earth.

Spacecraft reduce their kinetic energy by performing a controlled re-entry through Earth’s upper atmosphere, where they use aerodynamic drag against the atmosphere as a brake to decelerate.

Unlike an aeroplane, which is generally designed to be aerodynamic and minimise drag forces to reduce fuel consumption, re-entering spacecraft do the opposite. They are designed to be as un-aerodynamic as possible to maximise drag and help them slow down.

This deceleration during re-entry can be extremely harsh.

Deceleration and acceleration are generally discussed in g-forces – or “g’s” for short. This is the deceleration or acceleration force divided by the standard acceleration we all feel from Earth’s gravity. A Formula One driver will experience over 5 g’s while cornering, which is close to the maximum g-forces a human can sustain without passing out.

Small, uncrewed re-entry capsules such as NASA’s OSIRIS-REx capsule which brought back samples from asteroid Bennu, just barrel into the atmosphere and rapidly decelerate. These entries occur very quickly, in less than a minute. But g-forces in that case can be upwards of 100 – fine for robotic vehicles, but not for humans.

Crewed vehicles such as NASA’s Orion capsule use lift forces to slow the entry down in time. This lowers the g-forces down to more manageable levels that humans can survive and makes re-entry last for several minutes.

A very hot re-entry

The Orion capsule will re-enter the atmosphere moving at more than 30 times the speed of sound.

A shock wave will envelop the spacecraft, creating air temperatures of 10,000°C or more – about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun.

The extreme heat turns the air that crosses over the shock wave into an electrically charged plasma. This temporarily blocks radio signals, so the astronauts will be unable to communicate during the harshest parts of their descent.

Making sure it’s a safe re-entry

Spacecraft survive the extremely harsh re-entry environment through careful design of their trajectories to minimise heating as much as they can.

The craft also carries a thermal protection system. It’s effectively an insulating blanket which protects the spacecraft and its crew or cargo from the harsh hypersonic flow occurring outside.

The thermal protection system is tailored precisely for the vehicle and its mission. Materials that can take more heat are put on the surfaces where the environment is expected to be harshest, and thicknesses are precisely adjusted too.

These materials are designed to glow red hot and degrade during the entry – but they will survive. The red-hot glow also radiates heat back out to the atmosphere instead of allowing it to be absorbed by the spacecraft.

This precise design is how Artemis is to able to pass through air at 10,000°C while maintaining a maximum heat shield surface temperature of only around 3,000°C.

Most spacecraft are protected by materials called ablatives. These are generally made out of carbon fibre and a type of glue known as phenolic resin.

These ablative heat shields absorb energy and inject a relatively cool gas into the flow along the surface of the vehicle, helping to cool everything down.

The ablative heat shield material used on the Orion capsule is called AVCOAT. It is a version of the material which protected the Apollo capsule when it returned from the Moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

While the Artemis I mission – an uncrewed test flight – was a great success, the heat shield ablation during re-entry was much larger than expected. Large chunks of material separated from the heat shield in some places.

After lengthy inspections and analysis, engineers did decide to go ahead with the same type of heat shield on the Artemis II mission.

They believe Artemis I lost chunks of its heat shield due to a pressure buildup inside the material during the “skip” part of its entry, where the spacecraft exited the atmosphere to cool down before performing a second entry where it landed.

For Artemis II, the engineers have instead decided to modify the trajectory slightly to still use lift, but include a less defined “skip”.

It is amazing to see what NASA and the astronauts have achieved on this mission so far. But like many others, I’ll be more relieved when I see them welcomed safely home on Earth.

– ref. Artemis II crew will endure 3,000°C on re-entry. A hypersonics expert explains how they will survive – https://theconversation.com/artemis-ii-crew-will-endure-3-000-c-on-re-entry-a-hypersonics-expert-explains-how-they-will-survive-280042

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/artemis-ii-crew-will-endure-3-000-c-on-re-entry-a-hypersonics-expert-explains-how-they-will-survive-280042/

COMMENTARY: By Trita Parsi

Yesterday began with Donald Trump issuing genocidal threats against Iran on social media and ended — just ten hours later — with the announcement of a 14-day ceasefire, on Iran’s terms.

Even by the volatile standards of Trump’s presidency, the whiplash is extraordinary. What, then, have the two sides actually agreed to — and what might it mean?

In a subsequent post, Trump asserted that Iran had agreed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open during the two-week pause in hostilities. Negotiations, he added, will proceed over that period on the basis of Iran’s 10-point plan, which he described as a “workable” foundation for talks.

Those 10 points are:

1. The US must fundamentally commit to guaranteeing non-aggression.
2. Continuation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz.
3. Acceptance that Iran can enrich uranium for its nuclear programme.
4. Removal of all primary sanctions on Iran.
5. Removal of all secondary sanctions against foreign entities that do business with Iranian institutions.
6. End of all United Nations Security Council resolutions targeting Iran.
7. End of all International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions on Iran’s nuclear programme.
8. Compensation payment to Iran for war damage.
9. Withdrawal of US combat forces from the region.
10. Ceasefire on all fronts, including Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The United States has not, of course, signed on to all 10 points. But the mere fact that Iran’s framework will anchor the negotiations amounts to a significant diplomatic victory for Tehran.

More striking still, according to the Associated Press, Iran will retain control of the Strait during the ceasefire and continue — alongside Oman — to collect transit fees from passing vessels. In effect, Washington appears to have conceded that reopening the waterway comes with tacit recognition of Iran’s authority over it.

The geopolitical consequences could be profound. As Mohammad Eslami and Zeynab Malakouti note in Responsible Statecraft, Tehran is likely to leverage this position to rebuild economic ties with Asian and European partners — countries that once traded extensively with Iran but were driven out of its market over the past 15 years by US sanctions.

Also strategic
Iran’s calculus is not driven solely by solidarity with Palestinians and Lebanese. It is also strategic. Continued Israeli bombardment risks reigniting direct confrontation between Israel and Iran — a cycle that has already flared twice since October 7.

From Tehran’s perspective, a durable halt to its conflict with Israel is inseparable from ending Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. This is not an aspirational add-on; it is a prerequisite.

The forthcoming talks in Islamabad between Washington and Tehran may yet falter. But the terrain has shifted. Trump’s failed use of force has blunted the credibility of American military threats, introducing a new dynamic into US-Iran diplomacy.

Washington can still rattle its sabre. But after a failed war, such threats ring hollow.

The United States is no longer in a position to dictate terms; any agreement will have to rest on genuine compromise. That, in turn, demands real diplomacy — patience, discipline, and a tolerance for ambiguity — qualities not typically associated with Trump.

It may also require the participation of other major powers, particularly China, to help anchor the process and reduce the risk of a relapse into conflict.

Above all, the ceasefire’s durability will hinge on whether Trump can restrain Israel from undermining the diplomatic track.

No illusions
On this point, there should be no illusions. Senior Israeli officials have already denounced the agreement as the greatest “political disaster” in the country’s history — a signal, if any were needed, of how fragile this moment may prove to be.

Even if the talks collapse — and even if Israel resumes its bombardment of Iran — it does not necessarily follow that the United States will return to war. There is little reason to believe a second round would produce a different outcome, or that it would not once again leave Iran in a position to hold the global economy hostage.

In that sense, Tehran has, at least for now, restored a measure of deterrence.

One final point bears emphasis: this elective war was not only a strategic blunder. Rather than precipitating regime change, it has likely granted Iran’s theocracy a renewed lease on life — much as Saddam Hussein did in 1980, when his invasion enabled Ayatollah Khomeini to consolidate power at home.

The magnitude of this miscalculation may well puzzle historians for decades to come.

Dr Trita Parsi is the executive VP of the Quincy Institute and an award-winning author. Washingtonian Magazine has named him one of the 25 most influential voices on foreign policy. Noam Chomsky calls him “one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/what-on-earth-just-happened-trump-iran-and-the-unlikely-ceasefire/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rodrigo Praino, Professor & Director, Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University

Around 153 BCE, Cato the Elder, one of Rome’s most prominent senators, began ending every single one of his speeches with the same words: “Carthago delenda est”, or “Carthage must be destroyed”.

His relentless campaign to destroy Carthage has been described as the first recorded incitement to genocide.

The genocide actually happened: Rome destroyed Carthage and its entire civilisation.

Fast forward to today and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world, the president of the United States, has declared a “whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”, in reference to Iran.

Donald Trump’s words were even stronger than Cato’s. Fortunately, the follow-up was not and the episode ultimately ended in a two-week ceasefire between US-Israel and Iran.

---

Read more: The US-Israel ceasefire with Iran presses pause on a costly war, but can peace last?

---

Is this language unprecedented?

Put simply, yes. Since the beginning of the war with Iran, Trump’s language has been consistently aggressive and extreme.

But the “death of a civilisation” comment crossed a threshold that is striking even measured against his own record.

It came shortly after another expletive-laden social media post.

Trump’s words are unprecedented both in form and in substance.

While US presidents have used plenty of profanities and expletives in private conversations, with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon probably winning any foul-language competition anywhere in the world, Trump is believed to be the only president to have ever deliberately used “fuck” in public.

In substance, no modern US president has ever threatened or incited genocide.

Trump’s infamous “a whole civilisation will die tonight” comment, though, can only be interpreted as an open threat to all 93 million Iranian citizens.

The closest parallel anywhere in the modern world may actually be the Iranian chants “death to America” and “death to Israel”, which have featured prominently in pro-regime rallies since the 1979 revolution.

But even there, the late Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in 2019 the chants weren’t aimed at the US or the American people themselves, but at America’s rulers.

Is this language illegal?

Trump’s language, and that of other members of his administration, is deeply concerning and disturbing.

This includes statements by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that US forces would deny quarter to the enemy and that the US does not fight with “stupid rules of engagement”.

If these words turned into action, they would certainly constitute war crimes.

If Trump really meant he was willing to use the US military against Iran’s civilian population, this action would fall squarely within the definition of genocide provided by Article II of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

In other words, any action taken in the spirit of that post would constitute genocide and blatant violation of international law.

More broadly, the legality of the whole US attack on Iran is deeply contentious: most international and US law experts seem to agree the war violates the UN Charter.

There are also serious questions pertaining US constitutional law. The US Constitution does not grant the president the power to declare war – this power belongs to Congress.

Presidents should therefore seek congressional approval before waging war. At the time of writing, the war has been going on for 41 days and no Congressional approval has been obtained.

What can be done about this?

Probably nothing. The US political system does not include an easy way to remove a sitting president.

In the few hours between the infamous statement and the ceasefire declaration, several US political leaders talked about invoking the 25th Amendment.

Under that provision, the vice president and a majority of the cabinet can remove a president from office when they believe the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”.

It is unlikely JD Vance and most of the cabinet would be willing to make this case.

The only other avenue would be impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by removal by the Senate. Trump was impeached twice during his first term and acquitted by the Republican majority in the Senate both times.

Currently, Republicans control both chambers, making this option also very unlikely.

Will this have lasting consequences?

Definitely. As political scientist Joseph S. Nye Jr – who identified the concept of soft power – famously explained, soft power is “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies”.

The US has enjoyed significant soft power throughout the Cold War and beyond.

Now 93 million Iranians have been threatened with the destruction of their entire civilisation by the president of the US, we must ask how far American soft power can realistically go in Iran and around the world moving forward.

In ancient Rome, Cato the Elder died three years before Rome destroyed Carthage. He never saw his words become action.

Hopefully neither Trump nor anyone else will ever see the destruction of Iranian civilisation. But Trump is definitely overseeing the instantaneous destruction of American soft power.

– ref. ‘A whole civilisation will die tonight’: Trump’s genocide threat against Iran was another new low for America – https://theconversation.com/a-whole-civilisation-will-die-tonight-trumps-genocide-threat-against-iran-was-another-new-low-for-america-280152

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/a-whole-civilisation-will-die-tonight-trumps-genocide-threat-against-iran-was-another-new-low-for-america-280152/

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on April 9, 2026.

Fake QR codes make for easy scams – be careful what you scan out there
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meena Jha, Head Technology and Pedagogy Cluster CML-NET, CQUniversity Australia It’s a simple thing we encounter many times every single week – often while in a hurry. You pull up at a parking spot, scan a QR code and pay within seconds. Or you sit down at

‘Cuddle therapy’ sounds like what we all need right now. But will it actually help?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glen Hosking, Clinical Psychologist and Associate Professor of Psychology, La Trobe University Cuddle therapy is having a moment. The idea for this emerging therapy is for you to book in a specified time with a “professional cuddler”. Websites promote cuddle therapists as specialists in platonic touch, offering

Donald Trump’s US ratings fall to a record low amid Iran war
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne United States President Donald Trump’s net approval has fallen to a record low on the Iran war, while Democrats had a 25-point swing in their favour in

NZ’s latest push to roll out more EV chargers is a good thing – but can it go the distance?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mingyue Selena Sheng, Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau A $50 million plan to expand New Zealand’s public electric vehicle (EV) charging network marks another step toward a lower-emissions transport system. The government will provide interest-free loans to private

Israeli threats to occupy or annex south Lebanon dust off a decades-old playbook
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mireille Rebeiz, Chair of Middle East Studies, Dickinson College A chorus of hawkish Israeli politicians is urging the country’s military to intensify its weekslong ground and air campaign against Hezbollah and pave the way for a more permanent presence in the country’s south. On April 5, 18

When a president is unfit for office, here’s what the Constitution says can happen
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsten Matoy Carlson, Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Wayne State University Bipartisan calls for President Donald Trump’s removal from office increased on April 7, 2026, after he issued threats to destroy “a whole civilization” if Iran refuses to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Was the Hawke government really the ‘gold standard’ for reform?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra Journalism is sometimes called the first draft of history. Near contemporary works, such as the University of Canberra’s long running series of books on Australian governments, going back to the Hawke government (1983-1991), might be viewed as

Middle East conflict: this ceasefire may have made Iran stronger
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bamo Nouri, Honorary Research Fellow, Department of International Politics, City St George’s, University of London Ceasefires are often presented as moments of relief – pauses in violence that open the door to diplomacy. But sometimes they reveal something more consequential: who has actually gained from the war.

Recent outbreaks highlight the risks of bacterial meningitis – and the need to vaccinate
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Una Ren, Senior Scientist in Genomics, New Zealand Institute for Public Health and Forensic Science Outbreaks of bacterial meningococcal disease in England and recent cases in students in New Zealand have raised awareness of this serious and life-threatening disease. The disease is caused by the bacterium Neisseria

Humanity is heading back to the Moon. Australia isn’t even funding telescopes
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Walker, Visiting Fellow, National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University Australian science policy is in a confused place. The government is negotiating with the European Union to join the Horizon Europe program for funding and collaboration. Australian facilities are crucial to NASA’s

Injectable peptides are the new anti-ageing trend. But what evidence do we have they’re safe for humans?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Piatkowski, Senior Research Fellow in Public Health, The University of Queensland Injectable peptides are the new anti-ageing trend sweeping the beauty industry. These compounds are promoted on social media as tools for skin repair, collagen production and “cellular rejuvenation”. They are widely available online from overseas

K-pop without the K: BTS’ English-heavy comeback sparks debate over cultural identity
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Moon, PhD Candidate, Department of Media, Adelaide University BTS is officially back. After a four-year hiatus for mandatory military service, the massively popular K-pop group has returned in full force with their new album Arirang, released March 20. The record debuted at number one on the

How Australia’s mining sector locks women out of high-paying roles
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Gander, Associate Professor, Business, Murdoch University Mining is a critical industry for the Australian economy and has the potential to offer secure, well-paid and meaningful careers. But the evidence from our review of the 29 studies of 40 years of research on women working in the

City animals act in the same brazen ways around the world
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel T. Blumstein, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles The urban monkeys in New Delhi are so bold they’ll steal the lunch right off your plate. If you’ve spent time in New York, you’ve probably seen

How Trump’s White House demands as prerequisites for stopping bombings bit the dust
COMMENTARY: By Yanis Varoufakis Having launched an illegal, destructive war that brutally struck the entire planet’s economy (and confirmed once again Europe’s combination of irrelevance and hypocrisy), and after threatening Iran with genocide and “civilisational annihilation,” President Trump ultimately backed down on everything. Like a Roman Emperor during the Empire’s declining years would declare victory

The US-Israel ceasefire with Iran presses pause on a costly war, but can peace last?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University President Donald Trump’s acceptance of a Pakistani proposal for a two-week ceasefire in the war with Iran brings a sigh of relief to the international community. Just hours before,

Does the Iran ceasefire mean the fuel crisis is over? Not even close
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin Morrison, Industry Fellow, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney It might feel like a lifetime ago, but it was just last week analysts began talking about fuel rationing in Australia. This week, that prospect seems less likely. A temporary ceasefire in the Iran war

Nationals leader Matt Canavan promotes work from home to grow regional areas
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Nationals leader Matt Canavan has urged the embrace of work-from-home opportunities as a way to boost the growth of smaller towns and regions. In a Wednesday speech calling for an “economic revolution”, Canavan told the National Press Club that today

Money’s tight but food prices are up. Here’s how to save on your grocery bill
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland Another interest rate rise and a spike in fuel prices is placing increasing pressure on household budgets. Many households are also seeing the impact of the war in the Middle East on the price of

Should the government encourage people to work from home to save fuel?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dorina Pojani, Associate Professor in Urban Planning, The University of Queensland The current fuel crisis, instigated by the war in the Middle East, has prompted countries to respond in different ways to ensure their fuel supply. One popular measure has been directing people to work from home

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/er-report-a-roundup-of-significant-articles-on-eveningreport-nz-for-april-9-2026/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glen Hosking, Clinical Psychologist and Associate Professor of Psychology, La Trobe University

Cuddle therapy is having a moment. The idea for this emerging therapy is for you to book in a specified time with a “professional cuddler”.

Websites promote cuddle therapists as specialists in platonic touch, offering a service to people who wish to cuddle for friendship, to relax or manage emotional challenges.

The aim is to find connection and improve your mental health and wellbeing.

But does it actually work?

Here’s what you need to think about before booking in.

What is cuddle therapy?

Cuddle therapists offer consensual, non-sexual cuddles in a structured and safe environment, designed to be free from criticism, bias, conflict and any behaviour or conversation that may feel unsafe or threatening.

Cuddle therapists are not official or regulated professionals. There do not appear to be any accredited training programs or professional bodies that oversee and regulate cuddle therapy.

However, there are numerous people who promote themselves as professional cuddlers, and whose services are said to offer a range of psychological and physiological benefits.

These include reductions in depression, anxiety and loneliness, improvements in social skills and immune functioning, lowered blood pressure and a decreased risk of heart disease.

Providers suggest cuddle therapy can also lessen symptoms of post‑traumatic stress disorder, enhance a person’s capacity to recover from experiences of sexual or physical abuse, and reduce cravings associated with substance use.

Comforting claims, sparse science

Despite such claims, there do not appear to be any published peer‑reviewed studies that directly examine the psychological or physiological effects of engaging a professional cuddler.

There is, however, a broader body of research exploring the benefits of non‑sexual physical touch, including hugging and gentle, sustained contact.

Such touch has been associated with reductions in daily stress and improvements in overall wellbeing. Physical touch has also been identified as a way of conveying empathy, social bonding, and care.

Most of this research focuses on touch in close relationships – such as with partners, parents or friends – rather than touch delivered by a practitioner as part of a paid service. So, we don’t know if these findings translate to cuddle therapy.

There are however, known impacts of physical touch, including prompting the release of the hormone oxytocin. Oxytocin interacts with other neurochemicals, most notably dopamine, which supports feelings of comfort and connection.

Together, these neurochemical responses help explain why sustained touch can have a calming and soothing effect.

Professional cuddles need professional boundaries

Because cuddle therapy involves physical touch, emotional vulnerability and power dynamics between therapist and client, it raises a number of important ethical and professional issues.

1. Provide informed consent

If you’re thinking about cuddle therapy, ask what the service does and does not involve. Get a clear explanation about the boundaries of the service, where touch is and is not permitted, and the structure of the session.

You’ll need to provide explicit and informed consent before proceeding, and you can withdraw consent at any time.

2. Professional boundaries must be clear

A cuddle therapy relationship should remain professional at all times.

It is not OK for your cuddle therapist to express personal or romantic interest, or that the connection is becoming “special” or exclusive in ways that go beyond the agreed‑upon service.

Likewise, a practitioner should never pressure you to share personal information or disclose more than you are comfortable with.

Maintaining firm boundaries helps ensure the interaction remains safe, respectful and centred on your wellbeing rather than blurring into a personal relationship.

3. Watch you’re not becoming dependent

You may seek cuddle therapy because you are vulnerable, including but not limited to being lonely, depressed or in emotional pain. It is understandable that a touch‑based session may help you feel cared for, grounded or safe in the moment.

However, you should also watch for signs you are becoming dependent on a practitioner for emotional stability or comfort. This might include believing you can only feel calm, safe or OK after seeing that specific practitioner or wanting increasing contact or more cuddle therapy sessions.

4. It’s no cure for complex issues

Similarly, while cuddle therapy can offer temporary relief and a sense of connection, it is not designed to resolve underlying psychological issues or replace professional mental health care.

So cuddle therapy should be viewed as a supportive experience, but not a cure for broader or more complex emotional challenges.

Key takeaways

Taken together, cuddle therapy is an emerging practice centred on consensual, non‑sexual physical touch delivered in a structured environment. It’s promoted online as a way to reduce distress and enhance emotional wellbeing.

Cuddle therapy remains unregulated, with no formal training pathways or governing bodies overseeing professional standards. So service providers, rather than empirical evidence, largely shape public information about cuddle therapy.

Evidence suggests a range of benefits of physical touch. However, if you do pursue cuddle therapy you should ensure there are clear boundaries, you provide informed consent, and know you can withdraw that consent at any time.

– ref. ‘Cuddle therapy’ sounds like what we all need right now. But will it actually help? – https://theconversation.com/cuddle-therapy-sounds-like-what-we-all-need-right-now-but-will-it-actually-help-276765

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/cuddle-therapy-sounds-like-what-we-all-need-right-now-but-will-it-actually-help-276765/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meena Jha, Head Technology and Pedagogy Cluster CML-NET, CQUniversity Australia

It’s a simple thing we encounter many times every single week – often while in a hurry. You pull up at a parking spot, scan a QR code and pay within seconds. Or you sit down at a cafe, scan a code to view the menu and order your meal.

At the train station, you scan the code on the poster for timetable updates. QR codes are increasingly used in public transport systems worldwide for ticketing, payments and accessing real-time information.

Because QR codes are so widespread, scammers naturally find them appealing too. Here’s what you need to know to stay safe.

What are QR codes?

A QR (quick response) code is a type of barcode that stores information and encoded data in a square pattern of black and white pixels. They were first developed in 1994 by Japanese company Denso Wave for labelling automotive parts.

Today QR codes are widely used because they’re quick to create and easy to scan without needing a specialised scanner – a smartphone camera will do. They’re designed to remove friction: you scan, and something happens instantly.

However, a QR code doesn’t show you where it leads until after it’s scanned. Your device can perform a range of functions after scanning a QR code: open up a web page, check you in to a location, or even connect your device to a wireless network without needing to type anything.

That’s what makes it so useful, but also potentially risky. Malicious QR codes can redirect users to fake websites or prompt them to download harmful content. QR codes are so familiar and widespread, we tend to trust them without question. That’s exactly what scammers rely on.

What to look out for

Phishing – where cyber criminals “fish” for sensitive information – is the most common type of cyber crime, typically sent by email or text. When a QR code is involved, that becomes “quishing” – short for QR phishing.

Scammers now include QR codes in emails or text messages instead of clickable links. When scanned, the code directs users to fake login pages or payment sites. Because there’s no visible link, these messages can seem more trustworthy and can even bypass some email security filters.

Malicious downloads

Some QR codes don’t just take you to a website – they trigger an app or file download, which could contain malware. This can give attackers access to your device, data or accounts. Because the action happens quickly, you may not have time to question whether the download is legitimate.

Fake QR codes in public places

One of the simplest methods to trick people involves placing a sticker with a fake QR code over a legitimate one. For example, scammers have been caught sticking fraudulent QR codes on parking meters. When drivers scan the code, they are taken to a fake payment page and asked to enter their card details. Posters, flyers and other signs in public places may also contain malicious QR codes.

Redirect scams

Even when a QR code looks legitimate, it may redirect you through multiple websites before landing on a fake page. This makes it harder to detect suspicious activity. By the time you see the final page, it may look convincing enough to trust.

How to stay safe

The good news is you don’t need to stop using QR codes. You just need to use them more carefully.

Treat QR codes like unknown links. If you wouldn’t click a random link, don’t scan a random QR code.

Check for signs of tampering. In public places, look closely at the code. Is it a sticker placed over another one? Does anything look out of place?

Look at the web address before proceeding. Many phones now show a preview of the hyperlink retrieved via the QR code before opening it. Don’t just hit “go”, take a moment to check it looks legitimate.

Avoid scanning codes from unsolicited messages. If you receive a QR code via email or text asking you to log in or make a payment, don’t use it. Go directly to the official website instead.

Don’t rush to enter personal details. If a site asks for sensitive information, pause. Double-check you’re on the correct website.

Keep your phone updated. Security updates may sometimes feel like a nuisance, but they do help protect your device against malicious sites and downloads.

QR codes are not dangerous by themselves. They are useful tools that make everyday tasks easier. But they remove a key safety step: the ability to see where you’re going before you get there.

The next time you scan a QR code, take a second to think. In a world where scams are getting smarter, the safest habit is simple – don’t trust the code and verify where it leads.

– ref. Fake QR codes make for easy scams – be careful what you scan out there – https://theconversation.com/fake-qr-codes-make-for-easy-scams-be-careful-what-you-scan-out-there-279333

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/fake-qr-codes-make-for-easy-scams-be-careful-what-you-scan-out-there-279333/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

United States President Donald Trump’s net approval has fallen to a record low on the Iran war, while Democrats had a 25-point swing in their favour in a federal special election. On current polling, Democrats are likely to win the US House but not the Senate at midterm elections this November.

In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump’s net approval has dropped 4.1 points since March 5 to -16.9, with 56.5% disapproving and 39.5% approving.

Trump’s net approval is at a record low, below his previous lows of -15.0 in November 2025 and February. It’s also below what any past president since Harry Truman had at this point in their term, with Trump during his first term the closest at -12.8.

On four issues tracked by Silver, Trump’s net approval is -10.7 on immigration, -21.8 on the economy, -24.2 on trade and -33.6 on inflation. The Iran war has caused a slump for Trump recently on the economy, trade and inflation but not immigration.

Silver also has an aggregate of US support for the Iran war. Net support had fallen to a low of -18.1 on April 4, but has recovered to -15.1 now, with 53.8% opposed to the Iran war while 38.7% support it.

The polls will not have caught up to the ceasefire announcement between the US and Iran on Wednesday AEST. But the benchmark US S&P 500 stock market index was up 2.5% in last night’s trading session. Since a low on March 30, the S&P has surged 6.9% and is now only 2.3% below its peak in the week before the Iran war began.

Trump is likely to recover some ground on the stock market surge, particularly if fuel prices fall back. I believe as long as nothing goes badly wrong with the US stock market or the overall US economy, Trump will not become very unpopular.

Democrats have big swing in Georgia

A special election runoff occurred Wednesday AEST in Georgia’s 14th federal seat, and I covered this for The Poll Bludger.

At the March 10 jungle primary for this seat, a Republican and a Democrat had qualified. At the 2024 presidential election, Trump had defeated Democrat Kamala Harris by 37 points in Georgia 14.

While the Republican won by 55.9–44.1, this 12-point Republican margin was a 25-point drop from Trump’s 2024 margin. I also covered a Wisconsin Supreme Court election which the left-wing judge won by 20 points. Wisconsin voted for Trump by 0.9 points in 2024.

This Poll Bludger post covered the results of recent European elections and the upcoming Hungarian election on Sunday and three Canadian byelections on Monday.

Midterm elections in November

At November midterm elections, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for election. In Silver’s aggregate of the generic ballot polls, Democrats currently lead Republicans by 47.9–42.4, a 5.5-point margin. There has been very little change since January.

If Democrats win the House popular vote by this margin in November, they are very likely to gain control of the House. At 2024 elections, Republicans won the House by 220–215 and the Senate by 53–47.

There will be 35 seats up for election in the Senate in November (33 regular and two special elections). Republicans hold 22 and Democrats 13, but only two Republican seats are thought vulnerable: Maine and North Carolina.

At the 2024 presidential election, Harris won Maine by 6.9 points and Trump only won North Carolina by 2.2 points. Trump won all other states Republicans are defending by at least a double-digit margin. Even if Democrats win nationally by 5.5 points, they would gain only two seats on a uniform swing and Republicans would hold the Senate by 51–49.

It’s become increasingly difficult for Democrats to win the Senate, as the two senators per state rule skews Senate elections towards low-population, rural states.

US unemployment rate is low due to people leaving workforce

The March US unemployment rate was 4.3%, down 0.1% from February. Trump’s first full month in office was February 2025, when the unemployment rate was 4.2%. By this measure, there has hardly been any change in the US jobs situation.

However, the employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Americans that are employed) was down 0.1% from February to 59.2% in March. This measure has dropped 0.5% since December and 0.7% since February 2025 (when it was 59.9%). The unemployment rate only remains low because of people leaving the workforce.

In Australia, the February unemployment rate was 4.3%, the same as in the US. But Australia’s employment population ratio is much higher than the US at 64.0%.

– ref. Donald Trump’s US ratings fall to a record low amid Iran war – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-us-ratings-fall-to-a-record-low-amid-iran-war-279965

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/donald-trumps-us-ratings-fall-to-a-record-low-amid-iran-war-279965/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mingyue Selena Sheng, Senior Research Fellow, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

A $50 million plan to expand New Zealand’s public electric vehicle (EV) charging network marks another step toward a lower-emissions transport system.

The government will provide interest-free loans to private operators ChargeNet and Meridian Energy, which will invest a further $60 million to lift the national network to around 4,500 charge points.

The aim is to ease a key constraint on EV uptake: limited public charging infrastructure, particularly outside major urban centres.

It partly reflects what’s been called a chicken-and-egg problem, in which providers are reluctant to invest without enough EVs on the road, while drivers are hesitant to switch without a reliable charging network.

By lowering upfront costs for providers and encouraging rollout in smaller towns and along regional routes – where usage and returns are less certain – the scheme would help bring forward the investment needed to build a functional national network.

That is a positive and timely development. But our research suggests that without deeper shifts in pricing, incentives and driver behaviour, expanding charging infrastructure alone is unlikely to drive EV uptake at the pace New Zealand needs.

What puts the brakes on EV uptake?

The Climate Change Commission sees electrifying New Zealand’s largely ageing and fossil fuel-powered vehicle fleet as among the key steps to meeting national emissions reduction targets.

There is a long way to go. With its 1,800 charge points, New Zealand remains well short of the infrastructure needed to reach a goal of 10,000 public chargers by 2030.

While an expanding range of EV models and policy measures – including some since rolled back – has encouraged more motorists to switch, uptake remains uneven across regions and demographic groups.

Cities might be quickly plugging in, but many rural towns and lower-income areas are being left behind, where high costs and limited access to chargers continue to deter buyers.

In these places especially, “range anxiety” is less about battery capacity and more about confidence in the charging network. Our recent modelling shows EV uptake is higher where charging is visible and reliable, with that sense of convenience often proving just as decisive as the upfront purchase price.

It might seem, then, that simply adding more chargers is the solution. But the reality is more complicated.

Even where chargers exist, drivers worry about whether they will be available, working, or already in use. For those outside major centres, gaps between towns – or along key highways – can make longer trips feel uncertain or impractical.

This reflects the networked nature of charging infrastructure. In a geographically dispersed country like New Zealand, the value of charging infrastructure depends as much on where chargers are located – and how well they connect – as on how many there are.

At the same time, expanding the network brings its own challenges. If large numbers of drivers plug in at the same time – particularly in the early evening – this can place additional strain on local electricity networks and increase system costs.

Why NZ’s EV shift needs a ‘systems’ approach

These factors suggest that, rather than focusing only on building more infrastructure, we need to consider how that infrastructure is used, experienced and integrated into the wider energy system.

It’s also here where we begin to see the limitations of a loan-based policy like the one just announced by the government.

It may be true that lower-cost finance can help bring forward investment. But it does not remove the underlying risks for providers, particularly in areas where demand is low or uncertain.

In regions where returns are structurally low – such as rural or remote communities – loans alone may be insufficient to ensure equitable access. Nor does it address questions about where chargers should go, how they are used, or how drivers respond to them.

As international evidence suggests, concessional finance – such as loans or grants provided at below-market rates – can support infrastructure rollout. But it is rarely enough on its own to deliver rapid, system-wide deployment.

A more effective response would take a system-wide approach – combining infrastructure investment with clearer long-term signals, targeted support in underserved areas, and incentives that influence when and how people charge.

This could include measures such as time-of-use pricing to shift charging away from peak periods, or coordinated planning across central government, councils and network operators to ensure chargers are placed where they are most needed.

New technologies may also play a role. Wireless charging, for example, has the potential to reduce reliance on large batteries and make charging more seamless.

Our research on in-road charging systems – including modelling for Auckland’s electric bus network – suggests this could improve efficiency and reduce infrastructure constraints over time.

Ultimately, the government’s loan scheme should be seen as a good thing. But building a reliable, equitable charging network will require a more coordinated and long-term approach.

– ref. NZ’s latest push to roll out more EV chargers is a good thing – but can it go the distance? – https://theconversation.com/nzs-latest-push-to-roll-out-more-ev-chargers-is-a-good-thing-but-can-it-go-the-distance-279645

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/nzs-latest-push-to-roll-out-more-ev-chargers-is-a-good-thing-but-can-it-go-the-distance-279645/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsten Matoy Carlson, Professor of Law and Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Wayne State University

Bipartisan calls for President Donald Trump’s removal from office increased on April 7, 2026, after he issued threats to destroy “a whole civilization” if Iran refuses to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

These calls have come from across the political spectrum, from Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico to former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and right-wing pundit Alex Jones. Unlikely allies seem to agree that the president has gone too far and needs to be reined in.

Their concerns have emerged as Iran has walked away from talks to end the war and Trump’s language suggests that he plans to escalate it by destroying the country’s power plants and bridges.

Concerns over Trump’s fitness for office have grown in recent weeks as his commentary has become more erratic.

If lawmakers do attempt to remove Trump from office, here’s what would happen:

25th Amendment

The Constitution’s 25th Amendment provides a way for high-level officials to remove a president from office. It was ratified in 1967 in the wake of the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy – who was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, who had already had one heart attack – as well as delayed disclosure of health problems experienced by Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower.

The 25th Amendment provides detailed procedures on what happens if a president resigns, dies in office, has a temporary disability or is no longer fit for office.

It has never been invoked against a president’s will, and has been used only to temporarily transfer power, such as when a president is undergoing a medical procedure requiring anesthesia.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment authorizes high-level officials – either the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet or another body designated by Congress – to remove a president from office without his consent when he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Congress has yet to designate an alternative body, and scholars disagree over the role, if any, of acting Cabinet officials.

The high-level officials simply send a written declaration to the president pro tempore of the Senate – the longest-serving senator from the majority party – and the speaker of the House of Representatives, stating that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. The vice president immediately assumes the powers and duties of the president.

The president, however, can fight back. He or she can seek to resume their powers by informing congressional leadership in writing that they are fit for office and no disability exists. But the president doesn’t get the presidency back just by saying this.

The high-level officials originally questioning the president’s fitness then have four days to decide whether they disagree with the president. If they notify congressional leadership that they disagree, the vice president retains control and Congress has 48 hours to convene to discuss the issue. Congress has 21 days to debate and vote on whether the president is unfit or unable to resume his powers.

The vice president remains the acting president until Congress votes or the 21-day period lapses. A two-thirds majority vote by members of both houses of Congress is required to remove the president from office. If that vote fails or does not happen within the 21-day period, the president resumes his powers immediately.

The case for impeachment

Article II of the Constitution authorizes Congress to impeach and remove the president – and other federal officials – from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The founders included this provision as a tool to punish a president for misconduct and abuses of power. It’s one of the many ways that Congress could keep the president in check, if it chose to.

Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives. A member of the House files a resolution for impeachment. The resolution goes to the House Judiciary Committee, which usually holds a hearing to evaluate the resolution. If the House Judiciary Committee thinks impeachment is proper, its members draft and vote on articles of impeachment. Once the House Judiciary Committee approves articles of impeachment, they go to the full House for a vote.

If the House of Representatives impeaches a president or another official, the action then moves to the Senate. Under the Constitution’s Article I, the Senate has the responsibility for determining whether to remove the person from office. Normally, the Senate holds a trial, but it controls its procedures and can limit the process if it wants.

Ultimately, the Senate votes on whether to remove the president – which requires a two-thirds majority, or 67 senators. To date, the Senate has never voted to remove a president from office, although it almost did in 1868, when President Andrew Johnson escaped removal from office by one vote.

The Senate also has the power to disqualify a public official from holding public office in the future. If the person is convicted and removed from office, only then can senators vote on whether to permanently disqualify that person from ever again holding federal office. Members of Congress proposing the impeachment of Trump have promised to include a provision to do so. A simple majority vote is all that’s required then.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 9, 2021.

– ref. When a president is unfit for office, here’s what the Constitution says can happen – https://theconversation.com/when-a-president-is-unfit-for-office-heres-what-the-constitution-says-can-happen-280120

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/when-a-president-is-unfit-for-office-heres-what-the-constitution-says-can-happen-280120/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mireille Rebeiz, Chair of Middle East Studies, Dickinson College

A chorus of hawkish Israeli politicians is urging the country’s military to intensify its weekslong ground and air campaign against Hezbollah and pave the way for a more permanent presence in the country’s south.

On April 5, 18 Israeli lawmakers pressed the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to occupy and fully control southern Lebanon up to the Litani River and “evacuate” the Lebanese population there. It followed an earlier call from Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Yoel Smotrich, a powerful, extremist voice in the ruling coalition for the outright annexation of southern Lebanon.

Alongside such voices, Israel’s campaign shows no signs of slowing down. That’s despite a two-week ceasefire announced by President Donald Trump on April 7 that paused the U.S. and Israel’s war in Iran and that, according to mediators, was meant to apply to Lebanon as well.

Those calling for an enlarged Israel that includes parts of Lebanon tend to shroud their ideology in religious rhetoric. Yet the view is hardly isolated to the hawkish, religious far-right. It is also nothing new. As a scholar who specializes in Middle East studies, I believe that the policy of occupying and annexing south Lebanon up to the Litani River has long held influence among parts of the Israeli government and dates back to influential Zionist leaders – secular and religious alike – before Israeli independence in 1948.

History suggests were that goal to be pursued in the course of Israel’s military campaign now, however, it would only destabilize Lebanon further, encourage regional turmoil and do little to guarantee Israel’s safety.

Early Zionism and south Lebanon

In 1918, David Ben-Gurion – an early Zionist leader and widely regarded as Israel’s founding father – argued that Israel’s natural borders included parts of modern-day Syria, Egypt, the Arabian Gulf, and should also extend north to the Litani River in southern Lebanon. Lying 20 miles north of Lebanon’s southern border, the river is about 108 miles long and serves as Lebanon’s main source of water.

This position was reaffirmed again in 1919 when a delegation of the Zionist Organization, led by Chaim Weizmann, presented the case of a Jewish homeland in Palestine at the Paris Peace Conference that concluded World War I. The organization argued that such a state should start from the southern city of Saida and include the Litani River.

Instead, Great Britain and France were granted control of administering the formerly Ottoman-ruled land of Greater Syria and Palestine, which were put under an international legal charter called the mandate system.

Lebanon’s current borders date back to Sept. 1, 1920, when the French mandate recognized the nation’s territory stretching south to the cities of Saida and Tyre and below the Litani River to the boundaries of British-administered Mandatory Palestine.

Land borders dispute since 1948

The creation of the state of Israel in 1948, which led to the mass displacement of over 750,000 Palestinians and a subsequent Arab-Israeli war in 1948, led to a further shifting of borders in the region. In Lebanon, Israel occupied and annexed seven southern villages.

In 1949, under the aegis of the United Nations, Israel and Lebanon agreed to an Armistice Demarcation Line based on the 1923 Palestine-Lebanon boundaries set by the French and British colonial powers.

Though not a mutual agreement on statehood, the armistice was nonetheless a recognition of land borders. While never officially revoked, the armistice was, in practice, superseded by a borders shift during the Six Day War in 1967. That’s when Israel stopped recognizing all armistice agreements it had signed in 1949, including with Lebanon, even though the country wasn’t a party to the 1967 war.

In 1978, following a series of attacks organized by Palestinian fighters from Lebanese soil, Israel invaded Lebanon and occupied its south in what was known as Operation Litani. Israeli troops withdrew more than two decades later on May 25, 2000.

Thereafter, the U.N. established the Blue Line – a so-called withdrawal line to separate the two countries, absent mutually recognized borders – and put in the buffer zone a U.N. peacekeeping mission.

War for natural resources

But the border question was never settled, and the discovery of the Leviathan field in 2010 – the largest natural gas reservoir in the Mediterranean Sea – added a wrinkle in the form of a potential maritime dispute.

In October 2022, Israel and Lebanon signed a U.S.-brokered maritime border agreement, a move some analysts interpreted as the beginning of normalizing relations between the two countries.

However, the long-running land dispute has never been settled.

For the most part, the vocal far-right in Israel calling for expansion of the country’s border to the Litani River dress their claims in religious language – and what it might mean for security for Israel’s northern residents. But extending to the Litani would also provide a potential new source of water for a country with limited natural water sources and growing demand.

Lebanon’s fragile sovereignty

The lack of resolved borders and Israel’s periodic incursions into southern Lebanon have predictably meant that Lebanon has struggled to assert sovereignty over its own territory.

The 1985 birth of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite militia, following repeated Israeli invasions and amid the Lebanese civil war, only compounded matters.

Since then, Hezbollah has dominated the military scene inside Lebanon and repeatedly battled with Israel.

Tit-for-tat Hezbollah-Israel fighting following the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks escalated into a full-scale war in September 2024 in which over 3,000 Lebanese civilians were killed, 14,000 injured, and more than 1.2 million residents were displaced.

On Nov. 27, 2024, Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire. However, this agreement was beset by mutual violations, including hundreds on the Israeli side.

It was finally derailed by the U.S. and Israeli war in Iran, Hezbollah’s subsequent retaliation, and Israel’s invasion.

Facing the magnitude of the war and the real threat of Israeli occupation, Lebanon banned Hezbollah’s military actions on its soil and expelled the Iranian ambassador from its territory.

But those moves have not satisfied those in Israel intent on full occupation of southern Lebanon.

The security risks of new Lebanon occupation

Including the current operation, Israel has invaded Lebanon seven times in the past 50 years.

Any potential plans for another long-term occupation would face many of the same risks as past endeavors – to both Lebanese and Israeli safety.

For one, Israel’s targeting and displacement of the Shiite community in southern Lebanon is likely to create friction among Lebanon’s various religious sects.

It could also degenerate into another wave of violence outside Lebanon. The internal destabilization of Lebanon has rarely been contained within the country, and in the past it has spread to neighboring countries – something that Israel’s northern residents and security officials are all too aware of.

Second, following yearslong conflict in Gaza, operations in Syria and now war with Iran, Israel’s military may be too stretched to achieve full occupation, even if that were the plan. Addressing the Israeli security cabinet, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said the “IDF is on the verge of collapse.”

There is also a sizable Israeli opposition to war in Lebanon and war fatigue within Israeli society.

Neither of those things may be enough to stop a long-term Israeli presence in south Lebanon, but it may help explain the ongoing narrative shifts from Israeli officials that in recent weeks have gone from creating a buffer zone in south Lebanon to full-scale occupation and control up to the Litani River.

There is no doubt that the fate of Hezbollah depends largely on the longer-term settlement of the Iran war and its effect on the associated operation in Lebanon’s south.

But Israel faces headwinds not favorable to full occupation: dwindling international support, internal tensions, entanglements in war across the region and potential violence inside Lebanon. Moreover, history shows that it is a risky endeavor – with high potential to backfire.

– ref. Israeli threats to occupy or annex south Lebanon dust off a decades-old playbook – https://theconversation.com/israeli-threats-to-occupy-or-annex-south-lebanon-dust-off-a-decades-old-playbook-279704

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/israeli-threats-to-occupy-or-annex-south-lebanon-dust-off-a-decades-old-playbook-279704/

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

Ceasefires are often presented as moments of relief – pauses in violence that open the door to diplomacy. But sometimes they reveal something more consequential: who has actually gained from the war. The emerging ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran may be one of those moments.

On the surface, all sides are claiming success. Donald Trump has declared a “total and complete victory”, presenting the agreement as evidence that US objectives have been met. Meanwhile, Iran’s leadership has framed the ceasefire as a strategic achievement, with its Supreme National Security Council formally endorsing the deal on the condition that attacks stop.

But beneath these competing narratives lies a deeper reality: the content and structure of the ceasefire suggests that Iran may have emerged not weakened, but strengthened. While much of its senior leadership has been assassinated during the conflict, the regime’s ability to rapidly appoint replacements and maintain cohesion points to institutional resilience rather than collapse.

The ceasefire was not imposed by decisive military defeat. It was negotiated – and shaped – around Iranian conditions, delivering gains it previously did not have, with Tehran’s ten-point plan serving as a starting framework for negotiations rather than a finalised agreement being imposed on Iran.

Tehran’s proposals went beyond ending hostilities. They include sanctions relief, access to frozen assets, reconstruction support and continued influence over the Strait of Hormuz. They also include effective US withdrawal from the Middle East – and an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil transits, has been reopened under Iranian oversight, a clear signal of where leverage now lies. Control over Hormuz is not just strategic but economic. Iran has reportedly proposed continuing the charging of transit fees it begin during the conflict – creating a potential revenue stream at precisely the moment reconstruction is needed.

In effect, a war that involved sustained bombing of Iranian infrastructure may now leave Iran with new financial mechanisms to rebuild and potentially expand its regional influence.

The logic is paradoxical but familiar. Military campaigns are designed to degrade an opponent’s capabilities. But when they fail to produce decisive political outcomes, they often create new opportunities for the targeted state. Iran entered this war already adapted to pressure. Years of sanctions had forced it to build resilience by diversifying networks, strengthening institutions and developing asymmetric strategies.

What the war appears to have done is accelerate that process. Rather than collapsing, Iran has demonstrated its ability to disrupt global energy markets, absorb sustained strikes and force negotiations on terms that include economic concessions.

Illusion of victory

This is where the dissonance in US messaging becomes most visible. The US president may have framed the ceasefire as a “complete victory” but, tellingly, while the ceasefire deal will involve the temporary reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been the US president’s main demand in recent days, talks will centre on Iran’s ten-point plan rather than the original US 15-point plan, which centred on dismantling Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities.

The shift suggests an American search for an off-ramp. At the same time, Iran has maintained a consistent position: rejecting temporary arrangements unless they deliver structural outcomes such as sanctions relief and security guarantees.

---

Read more: Iran war: the search for an ‘off ramp’

---

For Washington the ceasefire halts escalation and stabilises markets. For Tehran, it aims to consolidate the leverage offered by its control of the Strait of Hormuz. This asymmetry suggests the ceasefire is not a neutral pause, but a moment that could lock in a shift in regional power.

The most decisive dimension of this shift is economic. The war has destabilised global markets – with oil prices fluctuating sharply in response to disruptions of supply. But the ceasefire introduces a new dynamic. If sanctions are eased, Iran gains access to global markets at a time of sustained energy demand. Combined with potential transit revenues and reconstruction flows, this creates the conditions for a significant economic rebound.

In effect, the war risks producing the opposite of its intended outcome. Rather than weakening Iran economically, it may instead have strengthened it.

A stronger Iran, a weaker order?

This raises a larger question: what does this ceasefire reveal about power itself? For decades, US influence in the Middle East has rested on military dominance and economic pressure. This conflict suggests both are under strain.

Militarily, the US and Israel have demonstrated overwhelming capability, yet without decisive outcomes. Iran has retained its core capacities, maintained cohesion and leveraged its position to shape deescalation.

At the same time, US and Israeli legitimacy has eroded. The war’s contested justification, civilian toll and lack of broad international support have weakened their standing, even among allies. American soft power – long central to its global leadership – is diminished. Trump’s increasingly abusive social media posts have certainly alienated even its closest allies, most of whom stayed silent in face of US threats.

Economically, Iran’s ability to influence – and potentially monetise – global energy flows gives it a form of structural power that force alone cannot neutralise. The result is a paradox: a war intended to contain Iran may have reinforced its strength.

It is still early. Ceasefires can collapse, negotiations can fail, and conflicts can reignite. But if this agreement holds – even temporarily – it may mark a turning point. Not because it ends the war, but because of what it reveals about how wars are now won and lost. Victory is no longer defined by battlefield dominance alone, but by outcomes that are economically sustainable, politically legitimate and strategically durable.

On those measures, Iran appears well positioned. The US and Israel may have demonstrated military superiority. But Iran has demonstrated something different: the ability to endure, adapt and convert pressure into leverage.

That’s why this ceasefire matters; not just as an end to a phase of conflict, but marking the moment when a war intended to weaken Iran instead left it stronger – and exposed the limits of the power that sought to contain it.

– ref. Middle East conflict: this ceasefire may have made Iran stronger – https://theconversation.com/middle-east-conflict-this-ceasefire-may-have-made-iran-stronger-280164

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/middle-east-conflict-this-ceasefire-may-have-made-iran-stronger-280164/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

Journalism is sometimes called the first draft of history. Near contemporary works, such as the University of Canberra’s long running series of books on Australian governments, going back to the Hawke government (1983-1991), might be viewed as the second draft.

Gold Standard? Remembering the Hawke Government differs from both. The book is timely. Edited by eminent academics Frank Bongiorno, Carolyn Holbrook and Joshua Black, it has been produced while it is still possible to have many chapters written by authors who observed the government in action, and some by those who worked in or for it.

But it can also assess the actions of the Hawke government from a distance, knowing its longer term consequences. It can compare the government to its successors, not just its predecessors.

---

Review: Gold Standard? Remembering the Hawke Government – edited by Frank Bongiorno, Carolyn Holbrook and Joshua Black (NewSouth)

---

Gareth Evans, who served as minister for foreign affairs, was the first to apply the term “gold standard” to the Hawke government. The book’s title adds a question mark, but most of the contributors seem to agree that the Hawke government was indeed the “gold standard”. Glyn Davis, in his preface, wonders whether “nostalgia has softened judgement”.

Gold Standard? is certainly less critical than some evaluations, such as those by political historians Graham Maddox and Dean Jaensch, both of whom criticise the government for its alleged betrayal of Labor traditions.

The book is nevertheless a more objective account than Hawke’s 1994 autobiography, which the editors describe as “the product of the overgrown ego of an embittered former leader”.

Hawke, his cabinet and his opponents

Hawke is the Australian Labor Party’s most electorally successful leader. Ian McPhee, a Liberal contemporary, recalls him as “intelligent, practical and charming”. But Hawke was an unusual mix as a person.

His interests were sporting, rather than cultural or intellectual. He could be quick-tempered. He was a womaniser and a heavy drinker (though he abstained while serving as prime minister). And he had a competitive streak. Michelle Grattan relates the story of Hawke signing up Australian cricketing great Rod Marsh as a special advisor, just so Marsh could play in the prime minister’s team in an exhibition match against the press gallery.

Hawke had undoubted strengths as a leader. Grattan, whose time in the press gallery predates the Hawke era, recalls it as a time when television was supreme as the public’s source of information on political events. This was a medium in which Hawke was very much at home.

He was not only popular; he possessed what the 19th century English journalist Walter Bagehot referred to as the desirable attributes of a statesperson: “common opinions and uncommon abilities”.

He was an accomplished chair of cabinet. Journalist Troy Bramston – Hawke biographer and co-editor of an earlier book on the government – explains how Hawke ably managed his government by not micromanaging it. “I allowed ministers their heads,” Hawke is quoted as saying, “not least because they had good heads.”

Hawke learned lessons from observing the unwieldy 27-member cabinet of Gough Whitlam. When Whitlam’s ministers lost an argument in cabinet, they would sometimes try to have the decision overruled by caucus. Hawke had a cabinet of 13 senior ministers, assisted by 14 junior ministers, and they were much more disciplined.

He inherited a strong ministerial team from Bill Hayden, who had picked up 13 seats at the 1980 election, putting Labor within striking distance of government. Hayden’s political and policy contribution has been underestimated.

Hawke was luckier than previous Labor prime ministers in the external environment. Andrew Fisher faced the first world war. James Scullin had to deal with the Great Depression. John Curtin and Ben Chifley governed during the second world war. Whitlam was prime minister during the OPEC oil shock. Hawke benefited from the breaking of a drought and a generally benign global economy.

Like Robert Menzies in the 1950s and Anthony Albanese now, Hawke was also lucky to face an opposition in disarray and riven by leadership rivalry. The Liberal Party had been in government with their coalition partners the Country/National Party from 1949 to 1972, and again from 1975 to 1983. Academic Marija Taflaga shows just how unprepared Hawke’s opponents were for their wilderness years.

Opposition leader Andrew Peacock campaigned well in 1984, but the swing he gained was not enough to bring him to government. The campaign of his rival John Howard in 1987 was derailed by the ludicrous “Joh for PM” campaign by Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. In 1990, Peacock again increased the coalition’s two-party vote to just over 50%, but was thwarted by Labor’s astute preference-attracting strategy.

Holbrook and Bongiorno both suggest that the coalition’s opposition to Medicare contributed to its losses.

Assessing the policy record

Andrew Podger, a former public servant, describes the Hawke government’s reforms to the public service. Most of these were pragmatic and incremental. They made government more responsive, open and efficient. Podger laments, however, that there came to be “unduly high expectations of responsiveness”. With less secure tenure, senior public servants may tell ministers what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear,

Economist Bruce Chapman, with some help from former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty, examines the Hawke government’s macroeconomic record, explaining the role of the accord with the trade union movement. Developed by Hawke’s minister for industrial relations Ralph Willis, this involved wage restraint in exchange for improvements in the social wage. Chapman’s judgement is that it significantly lowered the unemployment rate.

Poltical historian Liam Byrne further discusses the accord. While the unions have influenced subsequent Labor governments, there has been no repeat of the accord. One reason may be that the share of the workforce belonging to a union has dropped from around half in 1983 to only around one in eight now.

This is largely a matter of structural change. The heavily unionised manufacturing sector is now a smaller proportion of the economy. But the reduced role of unions in winning wage rises under the accord may also have contributed.

Chapman was the designer of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), an income-contingent loan scheme by which students contributed to the cost of their university education, without being deterred by upfront fees. This Hawke government policy was internationally influential. But as former Labor leader turned university vice-chancellor Bill Shorten recently commented, “the higher education system has moved from a situation in 1990 where the government would pay 90% of a student’s course to now, on average, below 50%”.

Taflaga calls out the “mythology of bipartisan economic reform”. Evans also describes this as a “fantasy”. Whatever the coalition said later, it opposed many of the Hawke government’s reforms at the time, including the establishment of Medicare, compulsory superannuation and tax reforms, such as the introduction of fringe benefits tax and capital gains tax.

The task of economic reform was, however, made easier by a more serious media. Grattan observes that, during the Hawke era, senior public servants would give the media “background briefings” to explain how policy worked. Treasurer Paul Keating “was able to weave policy into a story”, accompanied by diagrams on a whiteboard.

Many reforms, dramatic at the time, now seem uncontroversial. As the editors comment, “no one today advocates for fixed exchange rates and few support a return to high tariffs”. But in some areas, such as education, corporatisation may have gone too far. The editors voice concern about “the galloping wealth inequality that took off in the 1980s”, which market reforms may have exacerbated: “nobody on the Labor side of politics today – not even Paul Keating himself – would argue as enthusiastically for the role of market forces as Keating did during the mid-1980s heyday of reformist energy”.

Economist Meredith Edwards emphasises that innovative social reforms were implemented in a context of fiscal restraint. Ministers wanting to spend more, or introduce new programs, had to find equivalent savings in others. Edwards regards the government’s child support scheme, like HECS, as world leading. It used the tax office to collect payments from non-custodial parents. She commends the government for its implementation of evidence-based policy. Political scientist Marian Sawer similarly attributes a good record on women’s policy to preparatory work by minister Susan Ryan.

Academic and Yawuru man Peter Yu, on the other hand, assesses that the Hawke government delivered little for First Nations Australians, other than establishing ATSIC.

Omissions

While Gold Standard? covers many areas, there are some lacunae. It surprised me there was no chapter on foreign policy. Hayden and Evans made important contributions as foreign ministers. The foreign affairs department was merged with the trade department. A ban on mining in Antarctica was implemented. Asia Pacific Economic Co-Operation (APEC) – “four adjectives in search of a noun”, as Evans quipped at the time – and the Cairns Group of trading nations were established.

Australia developed closer relations with Asia. Its role as a middle power, something of great contemporary resonance, blossomed.

Gold Standard? also gives less attention to some missteps. Davis refers briefly to the Australia Card as “an idea whose time swiftly came and went”. The 1990s recession and the MX missile crisis are barely mentioned.

The concluding chapter is contributed by Evans. He attributes the government’s success to the leadership and communication skills of Hawke and Keating, and the clear policy direction. The government was, he argues, “very dry in our economic policy, very compassionately moist in our social policy and very liberal internationalist in our foreign policy”.

Evans judges that the subsequent Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard “struggled to recreate anything as compelling”. The government of Anthony Albanese, who has cited Hawke as a role model, is still a work in progress.

– ref. Was the Hawke government really the ‘gold standard’ for reform? – https://theconversation.com/was-the-hawke-government-really-the-gold-standard-for-reform-277505

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/was-the-hawke-government-really-the-gold-standard-for-reform-277505/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Una Ren, Senior Scientist in Genomics, New Zealand Institute for Public Health and Forensic Science

Outbreaks of bacterial meningococcal disease in England and recent cases in students in New Zealand have raised awareness of this serious and life-threatening disease.

The disease is caused by the bacterium Neisseria meningitidis and presents as meningitis or blood poisoning (septicaemia).

Meningitis is an inflammation of the membranes that cover the brain and spinal cord (meninges), while septicaemia affects the whole body through the presence of bacteria in the blood stream.

Both can be also be caused by other infectious agents, but bacterial meningococcal disease is the most severe form.

Infants, children and young adults are at higher risk. While the disease is largely preventable through vaccination, only one vaccine is currently on the national immunisation schedule in Aotearoa New Zealand.

As part of ongoing research to explain the recent cases, we compared the meningococcal strains involved in both countries and explored the significance of people who carry the bacterium but don’t develop symptoms or disease.

There are several strains of Neisseria meningitidis and most belong to six groups (named A, B, C, W, X and Y). All have an extraordinary ability to swap genetic material between them and switch genes on and off through a process known as phase variation.

This can change the surface of the bacterium, enabling it to escape the body’s immune system.

The strains responsible for both the UK and recent Dunedin cases belong to Group B meningococci. However, the similarity ends there. The UK outbreak strain is known as ST485, while the Dunedin cases were caused by different strains. They differ from the UK strain as well as from each other, suggesting more than one chain of transmission was involved.

The Bexsero vaccine is used to protect people against bacterial meningitis caused by group B strains. It was designed to recognise components in the outer membrane and on the surface of the bacteria.

The strain that caused the UK outbreak is likely covered by the Bexero vaccine because it matches exactly one of the protein antigen sequences used in the vaccine.

But genomic sequencing of the bacteria responsible for one of the Dunedin cases is still pending, while the other case did not yield a bacterial culture.

The importance of genome sequencing

Although meningococcal disease can appear as scattered and apparently unrelated cases, these can occasionally build into larger outbreaks.

Strain typing and genome sequencing can help to determine if an apparent outbreak is due to the emergence of a particular strain or a cluster of cases that are genetically unrelated.

Both scenarios can occur if cases share a common risk factor, such as increased close contact and mixing in educational settings such as schools and universities.

Past genomic surveillance in New Zealand has shown the emergence of outbreak strains and helped identify likely resistance to antibiotics. For example, a W group strain variant caused rising numbers of meningococcal disease between 2016 and 2019 in New Zealand and an outbreak in Northland in 2018.

Genome sequencing showed this strain was different from the W strain causing disease in Europe at the time, and the specific 2015 variant also has increased resistance to penicillin.

Healthy people can be carriers

Despite its ability to cause severe disease, the bacterium causing meningococcal disease is often found in people’s throat, without causing symptoms.

About 5% to 30% of the global population are carriers, and most don’t experience any symptoms or disease. We don’t yet fully understand the factors that determine whether disease develops.

Genome sequencing has shown that some highly virulent strains which are associated with outbreaks are rarely identified in samples from healthy carriers. But as yet, attempts to find genomic explanations for differences in bacteria found in outbreaks and healthy carriers remain inconclusive.

The likelihood whether people carry the bacterium is age dependent. It is low in younger children and older people, but high in teenagers and young adults.

The high carriage rate in young adults makes university students a high-risk group for developing the disease. Crowded living conditions also contribute to the high carriage rate, exacerbating the risk.

In New Zealand, both the Bexsero (against group B) and MenQuadfi (against ACWY) vaccines are available to young people moving into boarding school or university halls the first time. In contrast, only one vaccine (against ACWY) is currently funded for university students in England.

Both vaccines are needed to have maximum protection. Conjugate ACWY vaccines may reduce carriage and therefore transmission. Bexsero does not reduce carriage but protects against development of the disease.

Impact of COVID measures on transmission

Lockdowns and border controls introduced during the COVID pandemic reduced transmission of the SARS-CoV2 virus. But they also had a major effect on other diseases, including influenza and other respiratory viruses.

Cases of meningococcal disease were also dramatically reduced during the COVID response, most likely due to reduced contact between individuals and because fewer infected people entered the country.

The rebound in cases following relaxation of these strict measures was expected.

This highlights how important it is to be aware of the risks associated with large gatherings, particularly of young people, and the need to vaccinate with the Bexsero vaccine as part of the immunisation schedule as well as MenQuadfi for high-risk groups.

– ref. Recent outbreaks highlight the risks of bacterial meningitis – and the need to vaccinate – https://theconversation.com/recent-outbreaks-highlight-the-risks-of-bacterial-meningitis-and-the-need-to-vaccinate-279324

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/recent-outbreaks-highlight-the-risks-of-bacterial-meningitis-and-the-need-to-vaccinate-279324/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Moon, PhD Candidate, Department of Media, Adelaide University

BTS is officially back. After a four-year hiatus for mandatory military service, the massively popular K-pop group has returned in full force with their new album Arirang, released March 20. The record debuted at number one on the ARIA Albums and Vinyls chart, and has held its place atop the Billboard 200 for two weeks in a row.

But it hasn’t been a flawless comeback – as Arirang has reignited concerns over the outsized influence Western tastes may be having on mainstream Korean pop music. More than 80% of the album’s lyrics are English, as opposed to the group’s native Korean.

Arirang can be seen as an attempt to balance global accessibility with Korean cultural representation. But striking this balance is hard – especially for the biggest boy band in the world.

Framed as a tribute to Korea

The long-awaited album borrows its name from the Korean folk song Arirang. This song, registered on UNESCO’s list of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, serves as an unofficial anthem in the Korean peninsula.

It is a symbol of unity, resistance, identity and pride for both North and South Koreans – as well as those in the global diaspora.

The decision to name its newest album Arirang appears to be a confident affirmation of BTS’s Korean roots.

This is also evident in several of the group’s creative choices, including a video tribute to the Korean students who made the first known recording of Arirang in 1896 at Howard University, Washington D.C., and the ringing of the Sacred Bell of Great King Seongdeok to break up the album’s two distinct chapters.

Perhaps most notable is the sample of the original Arirang in the opening track, Body to Body.

[embedded content]

‘Play for the world’

However, fans and critics have been quick to point out the overwhelming presence of English lyrics.

Despite Korean cultural references woven throughout the album, the choice to centre English sits in conflict with the group’s message of Korean cultural representation.

The members addressed this in the Netflix documentary BTS: The Return. They expressed frustration over difficulties with English pronunciation, and concern over the lack of Korean lyrics.

In one scene, group leader RM (Kim Nam-joon) says there’s a level of authenticity needed that may not be achieved with “too much English”. In response, a representative of the group’s label, HYBE Corporation, says authenticity can be achieved “while still appealing to the global market”.

This message is also reflected in one of the album’s promotional slogans, “born in Korea, play for the world”, which captures a broader shift toward global-facing production.

In Arirang, we see this not only in the lack of Korean lyrics, but in the list of Western collaborators – including Diplo, Ryan Tedder, Flume, Kevin Parker (Tame Impala) and JPEGMAFIA – and the casting of American actor Lilli Reinhart in the music video for the lead single SWIM (a song that is entirely in English).

Does K-pop need English to do well?

The amount of English in Arirang isn’t unprecedented. After all, BTS’s most successful song to-date is the entirely English 2020 track Dynamite.

Nonetheless, some are concerned the K in K-pop is being increasingly downplayed in an effort to achieve international success. The chairman of HYBE Corporation, Bang Sihyuk, seems to think this sacrifice is necessary:

I often say that we need to remove the “K” from K-pop these days […] K-pop now needs to reach a wider consumer base in a wider market. I think we need to create as many exits and entrances as possible to access universal values globally.

However, feedback from fans, and the success of earlier Korean-language songs such as On and Boy with Luv suggest English isn’t necessary for K-pop’s success.

Findings from my doctoral research also suggest the positive impact of English on chart success is negligible in both Australian and US contexts. In other words, there’s no clear link between the proportion of English used in a K-pop song and its chart performance.

I also found Australian fans have a deep appreciation for Korean cultural elements, and often express a desire to learn the language.

So why use English at all?

Part of the answer lies in the structural conditions of the global music industry, where English remains the default language of commercially successful pop music.

English enhances K-pop’s ability to gain access to Western playlists, algorithms and media coverage. So while English does not guarantee commercial success, it does make it easier for groups such as BTS to reach a global audience.

This raises another question: does K-pop need to be sung in Korean to authentically represent Korea? As Jiye Kim writes for Teen Vogue:

A Korean artist does not have to be limited to using their country’s traditional instruments and speaking in their own language to be a Korean artist, just as much as I do not have to eat certain foods and wear certain clothes on a certain day of the year to be Korean.

Although language plays a key role in shaping how culture is expressed, it isn’t the only factor. As BTS demonstrates with Arirang, other elements such as visuals, themes and performance style also play an important role in representing culture.

At the same time, as English becomes more prominent in K-pop, we need to at least consider what may be lost in the process. BTS is a leader within the K-pop industry. Their choices carry particular weight, and will shape not only the group’s own trajectory, but the overall direction of K-pop.

– ref. K-pop without the K: BTS’ English-heavy comeback sparks debate over cultural identity – https://theconversation.com/k-pop-without-the-k-bts-english-heavy-comeback-sparks-debate-over-cultural-identity-279765

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/k-pop-without-the-k-bts-english-heavy-comeback-sparks-debate-over-cultural-identity-279765/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Piatkowski, Senior Research Fellow in Public Health, The University of Queensland

Injectable peptides are the new anti-ageing trend sweeping the beauty industry.

These compounds are promoted on social media as tools for skin repair, collagen production and “cellular rejuvenation”. They are widely available online from overseas sellers, despite many peptides being unregulated in Australia.

But what’s in them? And are they safe?

Earlier this year, three people in the United States were fined thousands of dollars for their role in providing peptide injections, at an anti-ageing festival in Las Vegas, to two women who later became critically ill. The pharmacy board was unable to determine why they got sick, and what precisely the serums contained.

Our work with colleagues at Steroid QNECT, a hotline where people can seek confidential advice about enhancement drugs, tell us people are already injecting peptides in Australia.

But regulation is not keeping up. And there are still major gaps in the evidence about whether peptides’ anti-ageing claims stack up, and whether they are safe for humans.

What are injectable peptides, and why are they trending?

Peptides are short chains of amino acids – the building blocks of proteins. They act as chemical messengers in the body and play a key role in many processes. These include helping repair skin and calming inflammation.

The body naturally produces peptides. Synthetic peptides are manufactured to mimic or enhance these natural functions.

Certain peptides have clear medical uses. For example, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs, such as semaglutide, are approved for diabetes and weight management – sold as Ozempic and Wegovy. This is based on strong clinical trial evidence they are effective.

But a growing number of peptides are being marketed for cosmetic and anti-ageing purposes, without approval from Australia’s therapeutic goods regulator.

Peptides such as GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 are sold online with claims they can enhance collagen production, accelerate skin repair, reduce wrinkles, and even reverse aspects of biological ageing.

Are these products legal in Australia?

Currently, regulated injectable peptides fall under prescription-only medicine categories. This means they should only be accessed through a qualified health professional for a legitimate medical indication.

Australian regulators have already issued fines to companies for illegally promoting weight-loss injections directly to consumers.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) lists other synthetic peptides not yet approved for human consumption, such as BPC-157, as Schedule 4 poisons.

To get around this, many products circulating online are sold as “research chemicals” labelled “not for human consumption”.

Yet in practice, they are packaged, dosed and marketed in ways that clearly anticipate human use. Online sellers typically require minimal verification of age or identity, and promise rapid shipping and high purity (for example, “99%+ tested”).

This creates a parallel market operating outside clinical oversight and regulatory safeguards. While importing or possessing prescription-only peptides without authority can lead to fines or legal penalties, enforcement is challenging in global, digital markets.

At the same time, injecting appears to be becoming less taboo, particularly in the cosmetic and wellness industry. Most cosmetic injectables (including anti-wrinkle injections and dermal fillers) also involve prescription-only substances. Yet there are many clinics that offer injections with very little oversight from prescribing doctors.

This broader “injectable culture”, with simulataneous increases in steroid use, may be lowering barriers to more experimental practices, including peptide use.

---

Read more: Thinking of getting botox or filler? These are the laws for cosmetic injectables

---

What does the evidence actually say?

For many peptides promoted for anti-ageing and skin health, high-quality human evidence remains limited.

Claims peptides such as GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 can help regenerate and repair tissue and calm inflammation are based on a handful of laboratory studies – in cells or animals, not humans.

For example, there is some limited evidence GHK-Cu could play a role in collagen production, and wound healing in mice. But these findings have not been confirmed in humans.

Similarly, some research suggests BPC-157 can promote new blood cell growth, reduce inflammation and heal tissue in rats.

But human evidence is extremely limited. Only three small studies have looked at BPC-157 and these were not well designed, and lacked a control group to compare the reported effects (such as improvement in knee pain). No large clinical trials exist. So its safety and effectiveness in humans remain uncertain.

A consistent pattern emerges:

• evidence is mostly limited to animal studies

• human studies, where they exist, are small and short-term

• there are no high-quality trials reflecting real-world use, including combinations, higher doses or long-term administration.

So currently, we don’t have enough quality evidence to support the many anti-ageing claims made for peptides.

And there are risks

First, there is the issue of unknown product quality. Unregulated peptides may be mislabelled, contaminated or incorrectly dosed – a problem already documented in adjacent markets, such as counterfeit steroids.

Second, there are biological risks. Peptides that influence growth, repair or hormonal pathways may also stimulate unintended processes. In theory, this could include promoting the growth of existing tumours or disrupting normal endocrine function. This cancer risk is amplified by the high presence of heavy metals in illicit enhancement drug markets.

Third, injecting carries its own risks — including infections, abscesses and tissue damage, particularly when products are self-administered without sterile technique.

At Steroid QNECT, we are already seeing people seeking advice after using peptides they bought online – often unsure what they have taken, how much, or what to expect.

In some cases, dosing far exceeds anything studied in clinical trials.

What needs to change?

We need clearer, more consistent regulation of peptide supply and marketing. But this is unlikely to be enough on its own, given the global and digital reach of peptide supply chains.

A more effective response would also include clear, accessible public health information on the potential benefits and risks of peptide use.

Importantly, responses need to reflect reality: people are already using these substances.

– ref. Injectable peptides are the new anti-ageing trend. But what evidence do we have they’re safe for humans? – https://theconversation.com/injectable-peptides-are-the-new-anti-ageing-trend-but-what-evidence-do-we-have-theyre-safe-for-humans-278878

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/injectable-peptides-are-the-new-anti-ageing-trend-but-what-evidence-do-we-have-theyre-safe-for-humans-278878/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kylie Walker, Visiting Fellow, National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University

Australian science policy is in a confused place. The government is negotiating with the European Union to join the Horizon Europe program for funding and collaboration. Australian facilities are crucial to NASA’s Artemis II mission around the Moon.

At the same time, a decision announced over the weekend highlights a lack of vision. A longstanding membership with the European Southern Observatory (ESO) will not be renewed. This will cut Australian astronomers and engineers off from a vital source of data and experience.

Australia is playing a key role in a historic NASA mission right now. The 2026 Australian of the Year is an astronaut and space engineer – Katherine Bennell-Pegg. This year, we finally have a comprehensive report on research and development in Australia, and what needs to improve.

But instead of building a shared scientific vision, the federal government is still focused on funding a patchwork of siloed projects, while pulling out of other initiatives entirely, as the ESO decision shows.

What’s lacking is a bold vision not only for Australian astronomy, but science and research and development more broadly. With the right unifying vision – and investment to back it up – Australia can be ambitious. We can be driven by the vision that space gives us: that we are all in it together on a tiny planet nestled amid the stars.

Losing a window to the universe

As a member of the ESO since 2018, Australian researchers have had access to some of the largest optical telescopes in the world, including the eight-metre Very Large Telescope in Chile.

A 2023 evaluation of Australia’s ESO participation showed it had boosted Australian astronomical skills and knowledge, and enabled millions of dollars in industry collaborations.

Australian astronomers will soon lose this access to some of the world’s most advanced technology. They will also lose access to the complex pathways that scientific collaboration affords Australia. It diminishes our scientific global diplomacy pathway to Europe and globally.

When an established research superhighway like this is closed, it can’t easily be reopened.

The sky is not the limit

The ESO decision arrived while astronauts on NASA’s Artemis II mission make their way around the Moon, travelling further into space than humans ever have before.

One of Australia’s contributions to the mission comes via a team of engineers, technologists and astronomers who designed a laser-based communication system. During the mission, the Quantum Optical Ground Station at the Australian National University has been receiving high-definition video and imagery for distribution around the world.

This team’s existence is deeply connected to Australia’s astronomical instrumentation program, which from 2018 has been centred around the ESO.

Australia has played a role in many historic human ventures into space, right back to the first Moon landing when Neil Armstrong took his historic “small step”.

Australian scientists, engineers and innovators produce excellent research and development. But fundamental scientific research is a non-negotiable foundation for all kinds of innovation.

In the past year, Australian science has seen cuts to critical national infrastructure and research and development agencies. History has shown such research investments are highly productive for the nation.

However, federal budgets increasingly see research in narrowed, siloed terms that miss the big picture. Unless this changes, Australia’s prospects of innovation, economic diversification, enviable lifestyles and health will dwindle.

Australia’s global role

Australian astronomy and engineering stretch back millennia to First Nations peoples. Australia played an important role in the Apollo missions. Research done in Australia led to the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, for which one of us (Brian) was awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics.

But Australia’s national investment in research and development is falling each year. We’re now well behind our international counterparts. A long, slow erosion in investment has seen Australia slide down the Global Innovation Index rankings, from 12th in 2017 to 22nd today.

Our economic complexity rating – a marker that shows how resilient an economy is overall – is also plummeting. We currently sit in 105th place out of 145 nations, down from 86th in 2019 and 64th in 2003.

Creating an innovation vision

In an unsettled world, it can seem prudent to scrimp and save. It’s sacrificing the future to prop up today’s budget bottom line. But Australia’s productivity is growing at a glacial pace. Recent world events have thrown a spotlight on our lack of resilience to geopolitical shocks.

We can’t counter these forces by shuttering our efforts at the frontiers of science and technology. The only hope is to think big, be bold, and reach for the stars.

– ref. Humanity is heading back to the Moon. Australia isn’t even funding telescopes – https://theconversation.com/humanity-is-heading-back-to-the-moon-australia-isnt-even-funding-telescopes-280136

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/09/humanity-is-heading-back-to-the-moon-australia-isnt-even-funding-telescopes-280136/