MIL-OSI Export

The Murdoch press runs cover for an illegal war by blaming the wrong man entirely, instead of informing the public of facts. Michael West Media reports.

COMMENTARY: By Andrew Brown

Here is a reliable indicator that you are being managed rather than informed.

When the story gets complicated, when the real cause of your pain points uncomfortably toward power, toward allies, toward the architecture of foreign policy that cannot be questioned, the Murdoch press reaches for a scapegoat.

And so, as Australians watch fuel prices surge by approximately 40 percent, a direct consequence of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, as ABC News has itself reported, the editors and columnists of News Corp’s Australian outlets have a different culprit in mind.

Not Netanyahu. Not Trump. Not the war that has sent energy markets into convulsions and supply chains into chaos. Not the illegal military campaign that blocked one of the world’s most critical shipping arteries and sent insurance premiums for tankers into the stratosphere.

No, their preferred villain is Chris Bowen.

Australia’s Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who did not bomb Iran. Chris Bowen, who does not set the global price of oil. Chris Bowen, whose energy policies, right or wrong, are entirely debatable on their merits, has precisely nothing to do with a US-Israeli military campaign that closed the Strait of Hormuz and triggered the worst fuel price shock in years.

The Bowen beat-up is not journalism. It is misdirection of the most deliberate and dishonest kind. It is the Murdoch press doing what it does most reliably and most effectively — running cover for power, redirecting the public’s legitimate anger toward a safe domestic target, and keeping the real architecture of the crisis, the geopolitical decisions, the alliance commitments, the illegal war, safely out of frame.

Because here is what the Murdoch press will not tell you, and what the mainstream media in general has failed to say with anything like the clarity the situation demands.

Australians are paying more for fuel because a war closed the Strait of Hormuz.

Doh!

That war was launched on February 28 of this year by the United States and Israel against Iran.

It was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. It was not authorised by any provision of international law that serious legal scholars recognise as applicable. It was not preceded by any meaningful consultation with allies, including Australia, whose economies would absorb its consequences.

It was a unilateral act of military aggression by the most powerful country on earth and its primary regional client, conducted because they had the weapons to do it and had calculated, correctly, that nobody with the power to stop them would try.

Puppet on a string
And when it happened, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went on the ABC’s 7:30 programme and told Sarah Ferguson that what Australia supported was the American decision to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons and to address Iran’s role in destabilising the region.

Read that answer carefully. It is not an answer about Australian interests. It contains no reference to Australian sovereignty, Australian economic security, or the fuel price increase already beginning when those words were spoken.

It is a recitation, clean, fluent, almost word for word, of the American and Israeli justification for the strikes, delivered in the Prime Minister’s voice, on Australian public television, as though it represented Australia’s own sovereign and independently arrived at conclusion, which it didn’t.

He later described Australia’s contribution to the conflict as “constructive”. He has since said he wants more certainty about the war’s objectives and acknowledged there needs to be an end point.

This is the man who endorsed the war before its objectives had been defined, now asking what they are.

Managed complicity and Murdoch
This is what managed complicity looks like up close. You sign on. You use the ally’s language. You call it constructive. And then, when the consequences arrive in the form of 40 percent fuel price increases and small businesses collapsing under freight surcharge pressure, you allow the media ecosystem you have never seriously challenged to redirect the public’s fury at your own Energy Minister.

The Murdoch press is doing its job. That job is not to inform Australians.

That job, in this specific context, on this specific story, is to protect the US-Israeli alliance from the accountability it deserves and to ensure that the legitimate rage of a population being economically punished for decisions made in Washington and Jerusalem never finds its proper target.

The proprietor of that press empire has spent decades cultivating proximity to exactly the power centres that prosecuted this war.

Murdoch newspapers in the United States were among the most consistent cheerleaders for the military adventurism that set the conditions for what is now unfolding. His Australian mastheads take their foreign policy cues from a worldview that treats American and Israeli strategic interests as essentially synonymous with the interests of the English-speaking world.

That worldview is not Australia’s sovereign foreign policy. It is an ideology dressed as common sense, distributed at scale through the country’s most-read newspapers, and deployed most aggressively when the connection between geopolitical decisions and domestic pain threatens to become too obvious to ignore.

Chris Bowen did not block the Strait of Hormuz. A war did.

An illegal war. Conducted without Australian consent. Endorsed by an Australian Prime Minister on national television, using the language of the people who started it.

And the newspapers owned by a man whose commercial and ideological interests align entirely with the people who started it are telling you it is the Energy Minister’s fault.

That is not a coincidence; it is the system working exactly as designed.

The question is whether Australians are going to keep letting it work.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/07/this-isnt-journalism-australias-bowen-beat-up-and-the-iran-war/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Iris Lim, Assistant Professor in Biomedical Science, Bond University

You wake up with that familiar urgency to go to the toilet and burning when you pee – and no matter how many times you go, that urgency doesn’t let up. You know exactly what it is: a urinary tract infection, or UTI.

UTIs are common, affecting half of all women at some point. They occur when bacteria enter the urinary tract, causing symptoms such as burning, urgency, frequent urination and lower abdominal pain.

Now many women can go straight to the pharmacy and get antibiotics without having to wait to see a doctor. This will mean faster treatment and fewer delays, as well as less pressure on general practice.

But this approach is designed for simple, or “uncomplicated”, infections in otherwise healthy people. It excludes men, those with recurrent UTIs (usually more than two UTIs in six months), pregnant women, and those with more complex cases or underlying kidney or urinary conditions.

So how does prescribing work for simple UTIs? And what might you need for more complicated infections?

What happens when you see a pharmacist for a UTI?

Pharmacists will ask a series of questions to check it’s safe to treat you, and if it is, they can provide a short course of antibiotics.

These services are limited to women because UTIs are less common in men and more likely to be complicated, often requiring further investigation.

The most common antibiotics used include nitrofurantoin and fosfomycin. These target the bacteria most often responsible, especially Escherichia coli, which causes around 75% of uncomplicated UTIs.

The antibiotics pharmacists give you without a GP prescription can help with straightforward UTIs, but not the ones that keep coming back.

If you have a fever, back pain, or feel unwell, the infection may have spread beyond the bladder – and the pharmacist won’t be able to prescribe to treat this type of infection.

If your symptoms keep coming back, or don’t improve, you need to see a GP.

Why some infections don’t go away

For most people, antibiotics clear the infection and symptoms settle within a few days.

But some bacteria are surprisingly good at surviving. Instead of staying in the urine, they can invade the cells lining the bladder. Here, they are harder to detect and harder to kill, effectively “hiding” from the antibiotics and the body’s immune system.

Other times, the antibiotic simply doesn’t work. This is known as antibiotic resistance. It means the bacteria have adapted in a way that makes the drug less effective.

There are also other factors that increase the risk of repeat infections. Hormonal changes, especially after menopause, can alter the urinary tract and make it easier for bacteria to grow. Sexual activity, certain contraceptives and incomplete bladder emptying can also play a role.

What are your options if it keeps coming back?

If infections keep coming back, a doctor may test your urine to identify the exact bacteria causing the infection. This helps guide treatment, rather than relying on best guess.

Treatment might include a longer course of antibiotics, or a low-dose antibiotic taken over a longer period to prevent recurrence.

For postmenopausal women, vaginal oestrogen can help restore the natural balance of the urinary tract and reduce infections.

Researchers are also exploring vaccines. One example, Uromune, targets common urinary bacteria and aims to train the immune system to respond more effectively.

Read more: Oral vaccines could provide relief for people who suffer regular UTIs. Here’s how they work

Alongside medical treatment, simple strategies can help reduce the risk of a UTI: staying hydrated, urinating after sex, and avoiding harsh soaps or products that may irritate the area. These steps won’t eliminate the chance of getting a UTI, but they can make a small difference.

What happens if it’s not treated properly?

Most UTIs stay in the bladder. But sometimes bacteria travel upwards to the kidneys, resulting in a kidney infection. This is more serious. Symptoms can include fever, lower back or side pain and nausea. It often requires stronger treatment.

Repeated infections can damage kidney tissue over time, affecting how well the kidneys filter waste.

In rare cases, the infection can enter the bloodstream. This can lead to sepsis, a life-threatening condition in which the body’s response to infection damages its own organs.

While uncommon, this shows why ongoing symptoms should not be ignored.

What complicates UTI treatment?

People with recurring symptoms and chronic UTIs often need ongoing, coordinated care. This may involve a GP for ongoing management, urine testing and preventative treatment. Sometimes, you may need a referral to a urologist to investigate underlying causes. Coordinated care can be difficult to access, especially if doctors dismiss symptoms.

Testing is also a challenge. Standard urine tests don’t always pick up hidden infections, leaving some people without clear answers. On top of this, antibiotic resistance complicates treatment.

For people living with recurrent infections, this is not a minor inconvenience. It affects sleep, work, relationships and quality of life. The good news is that, with the right care, many people can get their symptoms under better control.

So if your symptoms don’t improve, or keep coming back, it’s important to see a doctor. And if you feel your concerns are dismissed, find another doctor who listens and takes your symptoms seriously.

You can also ask your doctor about further testing, such as a urine culture to identify the exact bacteria, whether a longer or preventive course of treatment is appropriate, and if referral to a specialist may be needed.

If you have fever, severe back or side pain, or feel very unwell, seek urgent medical care, as this may indicate a more serious infection.

– ref. It’s now easier to get antibiotics for UTIs. But here’s what to do if your symptoms don’t go away – https://theconversation.com/its-now-easier-to-get-antibiotics-for-utis-but-heres-what-to-do-if-your-symptoms-dont-go-away-278993

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/07/its-now-easier-to-get-antibiotics-for-utis-but-heres-what-to-do-if-your-symptoms-dont-go-away-278993/

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

Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith was arrested on Tuesday and will face five charges of the war crime of murder allegedly committed during the war in Afghanistan.

He was arrested by Australian Federal Police at Sydney domestic airport.

Roberts-Smith, a former Special Air Service corporal who was widely feted as one of Australia’s most decorated modern war heroes, has always maintained his innocence.

The AFP did not name Roberts-Smith.

The Office of the Special Investigator and the AFP said in a statement:

A former Australian Defence Force member, 47, has been arrested and is expected to be charged with five counts of war crime – murder under a joint investigation between the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI) and the AFP.

Roberts-Smith is set to be charged under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The charges are:

• the war crime of murder, in that he intentionally caused the death of a person, on or about 12 April, 2009, at Kakarak, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan

• the war crime of murder, in that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured another person to intentionally cause the death of a person, on or about 12 April, 2009, at Kakarak, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan

• the war crime of murder, in that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured another person to intentionally cause the death of a person, on or about 11 September, 2012, at Darwan, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan

• the war crime of murder, with another person, in that they intentionally caused the death of a person, on or about 20 October, 2012, in Syahchow, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan and,

• the war crime of murder, in that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured another person to intentionally cause the death of a person, on or about 20 October, 2012, at Syahchow, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan.

The maximum penalty for the offence of the war crime of murder is life imprisonment.

Roberts-Smith is expected to appear in a New South Wales court later on Tuesday.

The investigation into Roberts-Smith has been undertaken in a joint operation between the AFP and the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI).

“The joint OSI-AFP investigation began in 2021, and inquiries are continuing,” the statement said.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refused to answer any questions about the matter.

One Nation’s Pauline Hanson said she remained “steadfast in my support of Ben Roberts-Smith.

“I will not abandon him like so many other politicians.”

The OSI and AFP are investigating allegations of criminal offences under Australian law related to breaches of armed conflict laws by ADF personnel in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.

The joint OSI-AFP investigation has begun 53 investigations involving allegations of war crimes in the Afghanistan conflict by members of the Australian Defence Force.

Of those, 39 are finalised, unless new evidence emerges. In these cases sufficient evidence of a war crime did not exist to support referring a brief to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Another ten investigations are still underway.

One investigation resulted in a former SAS solider being charged with one count of the war crime of murder. This matter is scheduled for trial in the NSW Supreme Court next February.

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett told a media conference of today’s arrest: “It will be alleged the man was a member of the ADF when he was involved in the death of Afghan nationals between 2009 and 2012 in circumstances that constitute war crimes under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

“It will be alleged the victims were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder in Afghanistan.

“It will be alleged the victims were detained, unarmed and were under the control of ADF members when they were killed.

“It will be alleged the victims were shot by the accused, or shot by subordinate members of the ADF, in the presence of, and acting on the orders of, the accused.”

Barrett said: “We understand these charges will have an impact on several communities in Australia.

“Whenever I give a press conference, I do not just provide the facts in front of me, but I also address those impacted the most.

“So, I want to now directly address the concerns and questions some may have.

“The alleged conduct related to these charges is confined to a very small section of our trusted and respected ADF, which helps keep this country safe.

“The overwhelming majority of our ADF do our country proud. Today’s charges are not reflective of the majority of members who serve under our Australian flag with honour, distinction and with the values of a democratic nation.

“Today, is a day to rally behind the ADF, and be mindful of the families whose loved ones have died while serving our country.”

Roberts-Smith lost a defamation action he brought against the Nine newspapers. His final appeal in the seven year battle was dismissed mid last year.

– ref. Ben Roberts-Smith arrested and facing 5 war crime murder charges – https://theconversation.com/ben-roberts-smith-arrested-and-facing-5-war-crime-murder-charges-279202

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/07/ben-roberts-smith-arrested-and-facing-5-war-crime-murder-charges-279202/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharon McLennan, Senior Research and Teaching Fellow, School of Health, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand’s recent decision to reject the latest amendments to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations (IHR) made news largely due to the lack of a clear explanation from the government rather than what the rules actually say.

Health Minister Simeon Brown and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters made the decision without seeking cabinet approval, but offered different reasons.

Brown’s position was that New Zealand had not completed the necessary domestic processes to be in a position to accept them. This is despite having had two years to review the amendments.

Meanwhile, as leader of NZ First, Peters posted on social media:

We have fought on your behalf for these IHR amendments to be fully rejected, we made a promise to put the national interests of New Zealanders first, to maintain our sovereign decision making, and to push back on globalist bureaucrats …

Technical and administrative or politically motivated? Either way, the confusion obscured what the amendments really involve. And the decision placed New Zealand in a small group of countries that have rejected the amendments, including the United States, which later left the WHO entirely.

Former prime minister Helen Clark warned that New Zealand “will be seen as a somewhat irrelevant and quirky actor with little to contribute”.

If that is true, it may have lasting consequences because WHO regulations are vitally important for the management of global public health emergencies, including pandemics.

What the amendments say

Established in 1969 and extensively revised in 2005 following the SARS outbreak, the IHR defines countries’ rights and obligations in global health events. The regulations are the principal legal framework for preventing and controlling the spread of disease between countries.

They define what a pandemic is, set rules to enable early detection of outbreaks, enable sharing of information, and aim to minimise travel and trade disruption. New Zealand has been a signatory since their establishment.

COVID exposed gaps in the legal framework that contributed to delays in alerting the world to the emerging threat, inconsistent preparedness between countries, vaccine hoarding, and confusing public health messaging.

The WHO committed to two related processes: amendments to the regulations and negotiations on a new global pandemic agreement.

The amendments were negotiated through an international process co-chaired by New Zealand’s former director-general of health Ashley Bloomfield. They include:

• clearer definitions of a pandemic emergency

• stronger expectations that countries invest in preparedness

• improved coordination for vaccines, tests and treatments

• and more structured information‑sharing and communication to enhance the transparency and timeliness of information about important public health events.

New Zealand will still receive information and support from the WHO under the 2005 regulations. But by rejecting the most recent amendments it won’t need to meet new reporting, planning and compliance obligations.

The country must decide for itself what being “prepared” for a pandemic looks like. Cooperation may take more effort and diplomacy, rather than being able to rely on shared and agreed rules.

New Zealand will also have less influence over global decisions, and potentially slower or weaker access to pooled resources.

Sovereignty vs preparedness

By definition, pandemics cross borders. This means international cooperation is essential. Opting out reduces shared standards and expectations, and undercuts foundational principles of equity and solidarity central to the amendments.

This emphasis was a direct response to the “vaccine apartheid” during the pandemic, when rich nations hoarded vaccines while up to a million lives were unnecessarily lost in poorer countries unable to access sufficient stocks.

In the Pacific region, where health security depends on cooperation, New Zealand stepping back from global rules could leave its neighbours more exposed and less supported.

According to Collin Tukuitonga, President of the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine, this is “worse than burying one’s head in the sand – it is positively flipping off the international community, including our partners in the Pacific”.

But concern about national sovereignty was evident early in the coalition government’s term, according to documents released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2024.

Health negotiators were tasked with ensuring New Zealand could opt out of health rules to “preserve domestic flexibility”. And New Zealand’s current position on the WHO’s new pandemic agreement remains subject to a “full national interest test”.

This perhaps reflects one response to pandemic measures, such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, which were highly disruptive and controversial, and raised genuine concerns about political oversight and accountability.

However, the WHO cannot force lockdowns, vaccines or border closures. The International Health Regulations set expectations, not commands. The latest amendments reaffirm that each country retains “the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies”.

The rejection of those amendments is reversible, and the New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine is urging a rethink before any future public health crisis reveals the consequences of opting out.

– ref. NZ’s rejection of new WHO pandemic rules makes no real sense – https://theconversation.com/nzs-rejection-of-new-who-pandemic-rules-makes-no-real-sense-280029

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/07/nzs-rejection-of-new-who-pandemic-rules-makes-no-real-sense-280029/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amr Saber Algarhi, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Sheffield Hallam University

The whole point of Brexit was to change the UK’s relationship with Europe. And one of the less visible shifts has occurred in the financial markets, affecting pension funds and the cost of borrowing.

Before the referendum, when London’s stock market sneezed, Europe caught a cold. Now though, our research suggests that the financial relationship between the UK and the EU has flipped.

The change came after decades of London being the focus of European finance – and what’s known as a “net transmitter” of financial shocks. This meant that changes in London’s stock exchange had an immediate impact on investors in Paris, Frankfurt and Milan. London’s institutional ties to the European single market served as the foundation for this financial leadership.

To see if this level of influence remained after Brexit, we observed daily movements of the stock markets in nine European countries, comparing two five-year periods: before the Brexit vote (2011–2016) and after the UK left the EU (2020–2025).

Our comparison featured a specialist financial metric called a “net volatility spillover score” which measures the difference between the amount of risk (volatility) a specific market transmits and receives from other markets.

The results were stark. Before Brexit, the UK had a net volatility spillover score of +11.8, meaning it sent far more financial turbulence into Europe than it received. After Brexit, that score fell to –5.5. The UK now absorbs more shocks from Europe than it sends, making it a net recipient of volatility.

This is largely down to the fact that European investors stopped reacting to UK market signals as strongly as they once did. The UK’s financial shocks still happen – they just matter less to the rest of the continent.

Meanwhile, over the same period, Germany’s transmitting influence grew by nearly 50%, and Italy transformed from a shock absorber into the second most influential market in the system.

When London was a financial leader in Europe, its market signals shaped how continental investors valued risk across borders. This gave the City extra influence over capital flows, borrowing costs and investment decisions.

Now that influence has weakened, the consequences go far beyond the offices of City traders.

UK firms seeking to raise capital from European investors may face higher costs, because European markets are now less attuned to British price signals. A UK pension fund invested in European equities, for instance, now finds its returns shaped more by what happens in Frankfurt or Milan than by signals from the London market it sits alongside.

And the UK has less sway over the financial conditions that govern cross-border trade and investment – conditions that ultimately feed into jobs, mortgages and the cost of living.

Trading places

The physical infrastructure tells a similar story. After Brexit, more than 440 financial firms moved at least some of their operations from the UK to the EU, taking with them more than £900 billion in bank assets – such as business loans, investment portfolios and cash reserves – worth around 10% of the UK’s banking system.

As part of this transition, London was not replaced by a single city, but by a range of European centres (including Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin) which all absorbed enough activity to reshape the network. And although London is still a major international financial hub, its cross-border ties with Europe have been weakened.

So can London win back its influence? It’s unlikely. This was not a temporary dip caused by market panic. Overall connectivity across European markets barely changed. The European financial network did not shrink – it just reorganised. Countries such as Germany and Italy simply stepped into the space that the UK had vacated.

The new system, driven by legal changes, relocations and regulatory divergence in financial services now shows no sign of changing.

And although the recent UK-EU summit suggests both sides want closer ties, so far that effort has centred on trade in goods and security rather than financial services. Until the reset reaches the City, London’s diminished role in European markets looks set to stay.

None of this means London is finished as a financial centre. But within the European network, the UK’s role has fundamentally changed.

It has gone from setting the tempo to following the beat from elsewhere. And for a country which built much of its post-industrial economic power around financial services, that’s quite a shift.

– ref. How Brexit reduced the City of London’s financial clout – new research – https://theconversation.com/how-brexit-reduced-the-city-of-londons-financial-clout-new-research-277107

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/07/how-brexit-reduced-the-city-of-londons-financial-clout-new-research-277107/

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

Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith was arrested on Tuesday and will face five charges of the war crime of murder allegedly committed during the war in Afghanistan.

He was arrested by Australian Federal Police at Sydney domestic airport.

Roberts-Smith, a former Special Air Service corporal who was widely feted as one of Australia’s most decorated modern war heroes, has always maintained his innocence.

The AFP did not name Roberts-Smith.

The Office of the Special Investigator and the AFP said in a statement:

A former Australian Defence Force member, 47, has been arrested and is expected to be charged with five counts of war crime – murder under a joint investigation between the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI) and the AFP.

Roberts-Smith is set to be charged under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The charges are:

• the war crime of murder, in that he intentionally caused the death of a person, on or about 12 April, 2009, at Kakarak, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan

• the war crime of murder, in that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured another person to intentionally cause the death of a person, on or about 12 April, 2009, at Kakarak, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan

• the war crime of murder, in that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured another person to intentionally cause the death of a person, on or about 11 September, 2012, at Darwan, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan

• the war crime of murder, with another person, in that they intentionally caused the death of a person, on or about 20 October, 2012, in Syahchow, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan and,

• the war crime of murder, in that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured another person to intentionally cause the death of a person, on or about 20 October, 2012, at Syahchow, Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan.

The maximum penalty for the offence of the war crime of murder is life imprisonment.

Roberts-Smith is expected to appear in a New South Wales court later on Tuesday.

The investigation into Roberts-Smith has been undertaken in a joint operation between the AFP and the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI).

“The joint OSI-AFP investigation began in 2021, and inquiries are continuing,” the statement said.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese refused to answer any questions about the matter.

One Nation’s Pauline Hanson said she remained “steadfast in my support of Ben Roberts-Smith.

“I will not abandon him like so many other politicians.”

The OSI and AFP are investigating allegations of criminal offences under Australian law related to breaches of armed conflict laws by ADF personnel in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.

The joint OSI-AFP investigation has begun 53 investigations involving allegations of war crimes in the Afghanistan conflict by members of the Australian Defence Force.

Of those, 39 are finalised, unless new evidence emerges. In these cases sufficient evidence of a war crime did not exist to support referring a brief to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Another ten investigations are still underway.

One investigation resulted in a former SAS solider being charged with one count of the war crime of murder. This matter is scheduled for trial in the NSW Supreme Court next February.

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett told a media conference of today’s arrest: “It will be alleged the man was a member of the ADF when he was involved in the death of Afghan nationals between 2009 and 2012 in circumstances that constitute war crimes under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

“It will be alleged the victims were not taking part in hostilities at the time of their alleged murder in Afghanistan.

“It will be alleged the victims were detained, unarmed and were under the control of ADF members when they were killed.

“It will be alleged the victims were shot by the accused, or shot by subordinate members of the ADF, in the presence of, and acting on the orders of, the accused.”

Barrett said: “We understand these charges will have an impact on several communities in Australia.

“Whenever I give a press conference, I do not just provide the facts in front of me, but I also address those impacted the most.

“So, I want to now directly address the concerns and questions some may have.

“The alleged conduct related to these charges is confined to a very small section of our trusted and respected ADF, which helps keep this country safe.

“The overwhelming majority of our ADF do our country proud. Today’s charges are not reflective of the majority of members who serve under our Australian flag with honour, distinction and with the values of a democratic nation.

“Today, is a day to rally behind the ADF, and be mindful of the families whose loved ones have died while serving our country.”

Roberts-Smith lost a defamation action he brought against the Nine newspapers. His final appeal in the seven year battle was dismissed mid last year.

– ref. Ben Roberts-Smith arrested and facing 5 war crimes charges – https://theconversation.com/ben-roberts-smith-arrested-and-facing-5-war-crimes-charges-279202

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/07/ben-roberts-smith-arrested-and-facing-5-war-crimes-charges-279202/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

The Strait of Hormuz crisis has reached a critical juncture. President Donald Trump has demanded Iran reopen the strait or the United States will further intensify its military assault.

While the strait has not been totally closed to shipping, it has been substantially disrupted and transits have effectively slowed to a trickle. The strait is economically and strategically unique due to the access it provides to the Persian Gulf from which there is no exit point. All shipping passes in and out a single waterway.

The key navigational choke point borders Iran to the north and Oman to the south. It’s only 29 nautical miles wide (53 kilometres) and consists of two-mile-wide (just over three kilometres) navigable channels for inbound and outbound shipping as well as a two-mile-wide buffer zone. This is all in Iranian waters.

In 2025 a total of 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and oil products were estimated to have been shipped through the strait. That’s 25% of the world’s seaborne oil trade to multiple markets in Europe, Asia, and Australia.

So what does the future look like for the Strait of Hormuz, and how might it be reopened? There are three legal, geopolitical and military scenarios.

Read more: Why hasn’t the US military used force to secure the Strait of Hormuz?

1. There’s a ceasefire

A ceasefire could arise from an Iranian capitulation to Trump’s demands to reopen the strait, even on a temporary basis until a permanent ceasefire is reached.

This scenario would leave the strait predominantly in Iranian hands and while hostilities may have ended, there is every prospect that Iran may seek to impose ongoing tolls on any foreign shipping passing through.

Reports have emerged that tolls have been imposed on some ships to escape the strait in recent weeks. These could be viewed as a temporary wartime measure that Iran knew it could extract from desperate shipping companies.

The imposition of tolls on ships passing through an international strait such as Hormuz is prohibited under international law during peacetime, but Iran may give little weight to that constraint following weeks of American and Israeli bombardment.

There is every possibility that under whatever scenario emerges for the strait’s future, Iran will seek to keep in place an ongoing toll regime. The international shipping industry, who would initially bear the burden of paying any such tolls, would most likely reluctantly do so to keep their ships moving.

The cost of any such tolls would then have to be factored into the market resulting in inevitable price rises for all exports from the Gulf region.

This is the most likely scenario given the current diplomatic and military efforts to achieve an end to the conflict, but would depend on Iranian concessions over the future of its nuclear ambitions.

2. The US puts boots on the ground

The second possible scenario is that the US pivots from an air and missile campaign against Iran to a land-based operation involving American boots on the ground.

With a significant build-up of 5,000 additional US troops throughout the Gulf, making an estimated total of 50,000 scattered throughout the region, the US is clearly poised for such an assault.

There has been much speculation as to whether the US would first seize Kharg Island, which handles roughly 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports. The island could provide a launch pad for US ground and sea operations throughout the Gulf.

However, Kharg Island is not located in the Strait of Hormuz and does not offer an immediate military advantage to reopening the waterway. Any US reopening of the strait would eventually require significant naval assets to be deployed to initially secure the strait from all hostile threats, including mines, and then to be able to escort commercial shipping through the strait in both directions.

Recent comments from President Trump suggest he is not inclined to do this alone without the support of US allies. That support has not been forthcoming and in some instances has been directly rejected.

While capable of escalating its current campaign, even Trump may not want to gamble on the military and political risks it would entail. At present, it would appear unlikely the US would pursue this course of action.

3. End the war, but leave the strait closed

The third scenario is the US ends the war but safe passage through the strait is not secured.

There is clearly growing momentum for a coalition of like-minded countries to act to resolve this issue. On March 11 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2817 directly addressing safety and security of navigation in the Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz.

A fresh resolution could be adopted authorising UN member states to take collective action to secure the strait. This would provide a clear legal basis for the strait to be cleared and for freedom of navigation to resume under escort from a UN-mandated naval coalition capable of defending itself from Iranian attacks.

The United Kingdom on April 2 coordinated discussions among partners and allies to explore options for how this could be achieved. Australia was part of those discussions.

The UK, Australia and other European and Asian powers such as China who may contribute to such a UN-mandated Hormuz mission will not wish to do so during a hot armed conflict. They will feel more comfortable acting once the US has withdrawn and hostilities between the main protagonists have ended.

This becomes the fall-back option if the current Iran/US impasse over the strait remains and Trump declares victory and withdraws US forces.

What is clear is that the pre-war status quo will not return in the Strait of Hormuz. If hostilities end and an ongoing peace settlement is reached, Iran will still have the capacity to control the strait. This is a reality of geography that the world will need to live with.

– ref. How might the Strait of Hormuz be reopened? Here are 3 scenarios – https://theconversation.com/how-might-the-strait-of-hormuz-be-reopened-here-are-3-scenarios-279840

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/04/07/how-might-the-strait-of-hormuz-be-reopened-here-are-3-scenarios-279840/